Official Trade Thread Part XLV

[payitforward]

These are all good points; I don't question them. & when KP is "on," he's a lot of fun to watch that's for sure.

If you compare his numbers to the average for a 4 (i.e. rather than a 5), they look absolutely great (including from the POV of Wins Produce/48, btw).

Maybe best just to compare his numbers to an appropriate other guy -- say a known really good player like Domantas Sabonis.

Per 36 minutes, KP produces 5.6 more points than DS. But he uses @5.4 more possessions to do so. 4.7 more shots & 1.7 more trips to the line. Meaning that those extra points are produced at a .514 TS% -- well below the team's average. That's a problem (I remind you to take a look at our record).

Sabonis is a substantially better rebounder -- 35% more boards (including 50% more offensive boards -- which no doubt contribute to his substantially more efficient scoring).

OTOH, Sabonis turns the ball over somewhat more, & gets just slightly fewer steals than KP. Which narrows that large positive difference in offensive efficiency a bit. & he fouls a little bit more too. While KP blocks 1.1 more shots in the same 36 minutes.

Of course, there are factors that aren't in those numbers: maybe the way KP plays makes other players more efficient on offense? Best way to judge that, I'd say, would be to see whether those "other players" are having atypically efficient seasons on offense. But... I don't see that in the numbers.

Plus, I've left something out: to my complete shock, I see that Domantas Sabonis delivers 7.3 assists per 36 minutes! Seems amazing -- that's good for a point guard let alone a big!

I guess Damontas Sabonis is a big reason why the Kings have a 39-26 record.

To put it another way, based on all the above, & especially considering the substantial difference in the two guys' TS% (.673 vs .633), no one but a loyal Wizards fan could think that Kristaps Porziņģis was within miles of being as effective a player as Sabonis. It ain't close.

But... this forum is populated by "loyal Wizards fans," so that conclusion will not be tolerated I am sure!

[DCZards]

I don’t recall this being a KP vs. Sabonis debate. IIRC, the initial statement was that KP is having “a heck of a year.” I agree with that.

KP is having a very good season, regardless of how he compares with any single player or the Zards record. And, given his injury history, the fact that he's played in 56 of the Zards 66 games is a win for KP and the Zards.

[payitforward]

I agree entirely, Zards. But, there is unstated context here -- in most of the posts today in fact -- which is to say the pointless claim that we lose games b/c of WUJ rather than because (& exclusively because) of what our players do on the floor.

In particular the 2-point loss to the Hawks: we had a truly extraordinary night offensively, a great night, & lost the game 100% because our players committed a zillion turnovers.

Whereupon someone comes in & posts that the loss was because WUJ didn't call "the right plays," whatever they are.

Thus, when I come in here & point out that we win & lose because of how our players perform, it seems worth taking an actual look at the level of that performance.

Like you, I'm delighted that KP is healthy.
But if he were having the kind of season people seem to want to think he's having, our record would be a lot better than 31-35. & if we are talking about who we are supposed to rely on as our core players going forward, it seems useful to point out the facts.

Rinse & repeat for Kyle Kuzma.

[nate33]

Sabonis has a notable offensive advantage of Porzingis due to his playmaking. But Porzingis is definitely a better defender. We will see if Sabonis' lack of rim protection gets exploited in the playoffs.

Overall, I'd rank the two pretty close, with Sabonis getting a small edge.

[payitforward]

...Wins Produced/48... a joke of a metric that produces insane results like Robert Williams being the 2nd best player in the league, Brandon Clarke ranking 4th, and Chris freaking Boucher ranking 9th. It has Kevin Durant ranked 38th on a per minute basis, lol. Jayson Tatum is 52nd.)

I'd be happy to have a conversation about this subject -- not an argument, however.

I used to be a convinced devotee of WP48. I'm not any more, even though it does seem to be by far the most accurate of the roll-ups based on box score stats. I'll describe what I mean by "accurate" in a minute.

I stopped being a "devotee," because the whole enterprise of this kind of roll up seemed... let's just say "limited." Also "boring."

That said, how about spending a moment looking at what this metric actually is.

1. First thing to say about this or any other such roll up metric is that it's intended to be maximally correlated with wins & losses. I.e. if you add up the metric for every player on each team (factoring in minutes played, obviously), you will get an overall number for each team. The order of those team numbers, from large to small, should mirror the order of the teams' records from most wins to least.

2. The more accurately the order for WP48 or any other such metric mirrors the order of teams by their records, the more accurate the metric is. The WP48 guy (an academic economist btw) claims that WP48 is 93% accurate. & that no other metric is equally close to 100%.

3. Note that this does not claim to judge who is the "best player" or the 2d best, 4th best or the 9th freaking "best" . Not about "best," this is about "most." IOW, the claim is that the guy w/ the highest WP48 contributes the most to wins (per 48 minutes on the court). & the proof is in the correlation.

4. One more point -- b/c WP48 aims at producing a single quantitative number for every player, yet players at different positions produce different kinds of combinations of numbers, there is a position adjustment involved in getting from a player's raw numbers to his WP48.

Now, let me repeat: I don't think this is all that interesting (any more interesting, I mean, than PER or Win Shares, etc.). It's a tool; leave it at that.

Think of it as a hammer not a piece of furniture -- which you build using a number of tools including a hammer. Unfortunately, like any other so-called secret road to the truth, its adherents treat it like a religion.

One point worth making, nate, is that we don't reject a conclusion b/c it doesn't meet our expectations. That's an occasion to look more deeply into what that claim might mean. Hence the fact that WP48 (or any such tool) tells you a guy is contributing a lot to team wins, when you don't think much of that guy as a player, doesn't give you grounds to mock the tool. Instead, it gives you an occasion to investigate a subject from a different angle. (Sorry to sound like a college professor -- I come by it naturally, as I was one for several years!)

*

There is, btw, a rough, non position-adjusted metric which the WP48 gang calls Win Score. They wouldn't compare players across different positions using Win Score, but they'd compare two Centers or two PGs, etc.

You can calculate it per 36 minutes or 40 minutes or 48 minutes, it doesn't matter -- as long as you calculated the same way for two players you want to compare.

Win Score = PTS plus REB plus STL plus ½*BLK plus ½*AST minus FGAs minus ½*FTA minus TO minus ½*PF

Now, intuitively that tool seems fairly commonsensical. Look at the 3/8 Atlanta game, for example:

Kuzma's win score in 35 minutes was 18.5
KP's win score in 38 minutes was 23.5

A couple of very good games. Do a little math to equalize the minutes played, & Kuz's productivity per minute climbs a little closer to KP's. Do the math for position adjustment, & they're probably about equally good performances.

just a tool is all.

[gambitx777]

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[Frichuela]

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I truly wish for that but I doubt it. He is probably content “being the man” here, regardless of the record

[FAH1223]

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I truly wish for that but I doubt it. He is probably content “being the man” here, regardless of the record

Boston doesn't reach the NBA Finals.

Beal and Tatum talk. Tatum asks Stevens to trade for Brad. Brad requests out.

Wizards get Brogdon, White, and a pick with another pick to be swapped.

That's how this ends.

[Frichuela]

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I truly wish for that but I doubt it. He is probably content “being the man” here, regardless of the record

Boston doesn't reach the NBA Finals.

Beal and Tatum talk. Tatum asks Stevens to trade for Brad. Brad requests out.

Wizards get Brogdon, White, and a pick with another pick to be swapped.

That's how this ends.

Yep, plausible scenario for a mediocre front office that could have gotten much more for Brad when he was at his peak…

[gambitx777]

Honestly I wonder if Miami would have paid for him at the dead line?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

That said, how about spending a moment looking at what this metric actually is.

1. First thing to say about this or any other such roll up metric is that it's intended to be maximally correlated with wins & losses. I.e. if you add up the metric for every player on each team (factoring in minutes played, obviously), you will get an overall number for each team. The order of those team numbers, from large to small, should mirror the order of the teams' records from most wins to least.

2. The more accurately the order for WP48 or any other such metric mirrors the order of teams by their records, the more accurate the metric is. The WP48 guy (an academic economist btw) claims that WP48 is 93% accurate. & that no other metric is equally close to 100%.

I'd very much like to know if that accuracy is backward looking or predictive. I suspect it's merely a back-tested accuracy.

And, as we've discussed before, I think that by leaning heavily on rebounds, it is not valuing the spacing that teammates provide to permit a team's rebounder to get those rebounds. Not to pick on Clarke, but Clarke basically gets to surround himself with floor spacers so he can crash the glass, but he is being compared to other power forwards who generally have a duty to space the floor so they can't crash the glass. Clarke gets the rebounds and looks good on the stat sheet, but it's really JJJ that deserves a lot of the credit for freeing Clarke up to crash the glass.

3. Note that this does not claim to judge who is the "best player" or the 2d best, 4th best or the 9th freaking "best" . Not about "best," this is about "most." IOW, the claim is that the guy w/ the highest WP48 contributes the most to wins (per 48 minutes on the court). & the proof is in the correlation.

You've made this argument before, but it really comes across as patronizing. The best player IS the player who helps a team win the most. By what other metric are we calling a guy a good player?

Basically, you are saying, "yeah the guy I like because of his high WP score is factually more effective player than the guy you like, but you go on deluding your self that your player is "the best" if it makes you happy." And then you pat me on the head and tell me to go outside and play.

One point worth making, nate, is that we don't reject a conclusion b/c it doesn't meet our expectations. That's an occasion to look more deeply into what that claim might mean. Hence the fact that WP48 (or any such tool) tells you a guy is contributing a lot to team wins, when you don't think much of that guy as a player, doesn't give you grounds to mock the tool. Instead, it gives you an occasion to investigate a subject from a different angle. (Sorry to sound like a college professor -- I come by it naturally, as I was one for several years!)

I'd argue that it's you who are being rigid and inflexible in your evaluations. For a decade or so, you have used WP as a hammer to bash others in their player assessments even though the results of WP are WILDLY out of sync with the assessments of people a lot smarter than you or I about basketball. You never seem to stop and ponder why NBA coaches and GMs play WP champions like Brandon Clarke and Bobby Portis sparingly, while giving mediocre WP performers like Jaren Jackson Jr. and Brook Lopez a ton of playing time. Perhaps this WP tool isn't meeting anyone's expectations because it's not very accurate.

[nate33]

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I truly wish for that but I doubt it. He is probably content “being the man” here, regardless of the record

Boston doesn't reach the NBA Finals.

Beal and Tatum talk. Tatum asks Stevens to trade for Brad. Brad requests out.

Wizards get Brogdon, White, and a pick with another pick to be swapped.

That's how this ends.

Yeah, that does seem like a believable scenario. Of course Ted would favor reliable, quality vets in return rather than picks/prospects with actual star upside. Gotta keep getting that 10th seed.

[Frichuela]

If we miss the play in.... Does Beal request a trade?


Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

I truly wish for that but I doubt it. He is probably content “being the man” here, regardless of the record

Boston doesn't reach the NBA Finals.

Beal and Tatum talk. Tatum asks Stevens to trade for Brad. Brad requests out.

Wizards get Brogdon, White, and a pick with another pick to be swapped.

That's how this ends.

Yeah, that does seem like a believable scenario. Of course Ted would favor reliable, quality vets in return rather than picks/prospects with actual star upside. Gotta keep getting that 10th seed.

In such scenario I wonder if Brogdon could be shipped to the Nets and get Cam Johnson in a sign and trade for a say $80mn/4-year contract.

And then ship Morris somewhere for some draft capital (couple of seconds?).

Assuming we draft a guard, either Black/Wallace with a 6th-9th pick or Scoot/Amen if we get lucky in the lottery, this could be next year’s post-Beal Wizards Roster:

White/Wright/Goodwin
Rookie/Davis
Johnson/Kispert
Deni/Cooks
Porzinga/Gafford

[payitforward]

That said, how about spending a moment looking at what this metric actually is.

1. First thing to say about this or any other such roll up metric is that it's intended to be maximally correlated with wins & losses. I.e. if you add up the metric for every player on each team (factoring in minutes played, obviously), you will get an overall number for each team. The order of those team numbers, from large to small, should mirror the order of the teams' records from most wins to least.

2. The more accurately the order for WP48 or any other such metric mirrors the order of teams by their records, the more accurate the metric is. The WP48 guy (an academic economist btw) claims that WP48 is 93% accurate. & that no other metric is equally close to 100%.

I'd very much like to know if that accuracy is backward looking or predictive. I suspect it's merely a back-tested accuracy.

And, as we've discussed before, I think that by leaning heavily on rebounds, it is not valuing the spacing that teammates provide to permit a team's rebounder to get those rebounds. Not to pick on Clarke, but Clarke basically gets to surround himself with floor spacers so he can crash the glass, but he is being compared to other power forwards who generally have a duty to space the floor so they can't crash the glass. Clarke gets the rebounds and looks good on the stat sheet, but it's really JJJ that deserves a lot of the credit for freeing Clarke up to crash the glass.

3. Note that this does not claim to judge who is the "best player" or the 2d best, 4th best or the 9th freaking "best" . Not about "best," this is about "most." IOW, the claim is that the guy w/ the highest WP48 contributes the most to wins (per 48 minutes on the court). & the proof is in the correlation.

You've made this argument before, but it really comes across as patronizing. The best player IS the player who helps a team win the most. By what other metric are we calling a guy a good player?

Basically, you are saying, "yeah the guy I like because of his high WP score is factually more effective player than the guy you like, but you go on deluding your self that your player is "the best" if it makes you happy." And then you pat me on the head and tell me to go outside and play.

One point worth making, nate, is that we don't reject a conclusion b/c it doesn't meet our expectations. That's an occasion to look more deeply into what that claim might mean. Hence the fact that WP48 (or any such tool) tells you a guy is contributing a lot to team wins, when you don't think much of that guy as a player, doesn't give you grounds to mock the tool. Instead, it gives you an occasion to investigate a subject from a different angle. (Sorry to sound like a college professor -- I come by it naturally, as I was one for several years!)

I'd argue that it's you who are being rigid and inflexible in your evaluations. For a decade or so, you have used WP as a hammer to bash others in their player assessments even though the results of WP are WILDLY out of sync with the assessments of people a lot smarter than you or I about basketball. You never seem to stop and ponder why NBA coaches and GMs play WP champions like Brandon Clarke and Bobby Portis sparingly, while giving mediocre WP performers like Jaren Jackson Jr. and Brook Lopez a ton of playing time. Perhaps this WP tool isn't meeting anyone's expectations because it's not very accurate.

First off -- & please read this carefully, as it's not something I say very often! -- I think your criticism of me has considerable validity! (surprised...? )

Above all, the part of the critique that is directed at... let's call it my "tone." But, I hope you also recognize that these days I'm seeking to avoid arguments here.

Partly that's because this team has been such a burdensome disappointment to every single one of us. & partly it's because, I recalled what one of my great teachers (Hannah Arendt) said to me long ago when I was running my mouth about something back in grad school, she said, "PIF, 'knowing better' is not a kind of 'knowing.'"

Not to mention that bit you wrote a couple of weeks ago characterizing us as a bunch of "old men yelling at clouds" -- which I loved! They had some smart writers on the Simpsons, that's for sure.

That said, the assessments of WP48 aren't as out of sync as you claim. They definitely capture a lot more guys who don't score as much as some others, but still have a tremendous influence on wins. But, I'd say that's a virtue.

&, in fact, if you look at who WP48 says were the dozen best players in any random year, let's say 2018-19, the list included Giannis, Gobert, Simmons, AD, Kawhi, Harden, & LeBron (I'm only looking at guys who played over 1400 minute -- to make sure it's not grabbing outliers). Hard to argue with those names.

Now, you might be likely to argue about some of the other names on the list -- Mitchell Robinson, Larry Nance, Jr., DeAndre Jordan, Clint Capela, DeAndre Jordan, & Derrick Favors. Usually, seeing names like those make people say that WP48 over-values rebounding. OTOH, it would be equally fair to say that most fans over-value scoring (w/o reference to TS%). It's kind of easy to see why.

Yet, isn't rebounding equally key? You don't win games by taking the ball out under the opponent's basket after they've scored! Compare Houston's record w/ Capela to the year after they traded him. Now compare the Hawks' record the year before they acquired him with their record his first year there). Not the only factor, of course, but... come on.

Just to pick one nit: Bobby Portis, on his career, is a below average player (according to WP48 -- &, seems likely, any other metric as well). His only really good full season so far was 2 years ago. He's having another good one this year. But, given that he's playing 26 minutes a game, btw -- not "sparingly" (Lopez is at 30 mpg) -- you can't be said to make much of a point by bringing him up!

[payitforward]

..The more accurately the order for WP48 or any other such metric mirrors the order of teams by their records, the more accurate the metric is. The WP48 guy (an academic economist btw) claims that WP48 is 93% accurate. & that no other metric is equally close to 100%.

I'd very much like to know if that accuracy is backward looking or predictive. I suspect it's merely a back-tested accuracy.....

Unless the formula changed from year to year, which it doesn't, there's no difference.

On the other hand, if, over time, regression-based analysis showed the accuracy changing -- which could certainly happen -- then you'd have a less useful tool. Or, to put it another way, you'd have to remake it.

In fact, you'd expect that to happen if the game changed significantly:

1. Significant changes in how the game is played would affect the accuracy of any metric based on a roll up of box score score data (i.e. not just WP48 but PER Win Shares, you name it). E.g. if teams started making 75% of all their shots, it would make rebounding less significant.

2. Changes to rules & refereeing would have similar effects: suppose referees started calling 25% more fouls. Obviously, that would benefit the WP48 level of guys who shoot FTs with a high degree of accuracy.

[dckingsfan]

White/Wright/Goodwin
Kispert/Davis
Johnson/Deni
Porzingis/Cooks
Wembanyama/Gafford

Just helping

[Frichuela]

White/Wright/Goodwin
Kispert/Davis
Johnson/Deni
Porzingis/Cooks
Wembanyama/Gafford

Just helping

What can I say!

[payitforward]

Here's a thought for discussion...-- Mitchell Robinson is unhappy about his role on the Knicks -- no involvement in the offense.

How about Daniel Gafford to the Knicks for Mitchell Robinson?

[nate33]

Here's a thought for discussion...-- Mitchell Robinson is unhappy about his role on the Knicks -- no involvement in the offense.

How about Daniel Gafford to the Knicks for Mitchell Robinson?

For trades to work, both sides must think it is to their advantage - usually because they are trading a positional surplus for a position of need, or they are trading the future for now (or vice versa). I don't see how that happens here. Gafford and Robinson are roughly the same age and play roughly the same role with roughly the same effectiveness at roughly the same cost. Robinson gets a few more boards and Gafford scores a bit more (at a cost of higher turnovers). If Gafford and Robinson are identical in value, why trade them? And if one is better than the other, then what is the motivation for the team with the better player to trade him for the lesser player?

[Frichuela]

Here's a thought for discussion...-- Mitchell Robinson is unhappy about his role on the Knicks -- no involvement in the offense.

How about Daniel Gafford to the Knicks for Mitchell Robinson?

For trades to work, both sides must think it is to their advantage - usually because they are trading a positional surplus for a position of need, or they are trading the future for now (or vice versa). I don't see how that happens here. Gafford and Robinson are roughly the same age and play roughly the same role with roughly the same effectiveness at roughly the same cost. Robinson gets a few more boards and Gafford scores a bit more (at a cost of higher turnovers). If Gafford and Robinson are identical in value, why trade them? And if one is better than the other, then what is the motivation for the team with the better player to trade him for the lesser player?

I think Gafford is a better player this year, or at least equivalent to Robinson...

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=robinmi01&p1yrfrom=2023&player_id2=gaffoda01&p2yrfrom=2023#stats-per_minute