Rerisen wrote:Certainly he is a great defender. But is it ideal that your backup PF is likely going to be a better player than 2 of your starting wing players?
Ideal in terms of what? What does "ideal" even mean? Again, if I can get a player who makes a similar impact per possession a different position, sure that would be better, but such players are on a short supply. But having the backup PF/C being better than your wing players can still be MUCH better for a team than dealing him for worse wing players. That is the point. It is a team game, and there about 242/3 min per game to fill with players. Getting the most out of that is the important thing. Ideally, each one is a great player, just that there are 29 other teams also want that "ideal situation" and the ability to sign such players is limited by the CBA.
Rerisen wrote:You say the Magic have found the best role for him. If he's a big negative in it, how is that his best role.
He is a big negative, because of defense, not because of offense. Overall his offensive impact is average; he himself produces at an above average efficiency, but the fact that a team has to run the plays for him in order to get that efficiency out of him, while then putting everyone else into worse positions, makes the end result 0 (as in average). He had the same 0 impact over average on offense on the Nuggets with limited shots and an even higher efficiency.
The Magic now used him in a fashion to maximize his individual value, not the overall team value, because they are only interested in the former not the latter at that point. They also wouldn't per se have the means to do something incredible different, thus they can let the average offensive player get his, but such a player in such a role will put a limit on the overall team result.
Rerisen wrote:That's exactly the things we need more of.
But not from a player hurting the defense in the process, making the overall team play worse. We saw that with Boozer (and please, check out Boozer's numbers in Utah and say again, that he would be inefficient). What you just want to believe is that Afflalo would somehow solve the problem, because you aren't taking the overall effects into account. You simply see the good coming out of him, while ignoring the reality. You see potential, where I simply look at the facts. We saw Afflalo in that lesser role, we saw him in the bigger role, both times 0 impact over an average player on offense while clearly a negative impact on the defensive end.
Players aren't going to change as much as you believe; they are pretty constant (showing an improvement early in their career, then a plateau level, than a decline, the differences in quality are usually just seen in the amount of years in that plateau level and that a better quality player can actually stay longer during his decline). You want to believe that a player, all of the sudden, becomes someone different or makes a different impact in a different situation. While the latter can be true, it is hardly some groundbreaking shift; usually the players are already used a very good way, because the guys responsible for putting the players into such position are living basketball 24/7, even more than any of us are doing. And that's likely the difference here between you and me; I don't believe that I can do a better job than the Magic and Nuggets coaching staff; I'm rather sure that they are pretty good at what they are doing and trying to find the best solutions for the respective players. Afflalo played on a really good team in Denver, he played on a worse team in Orlando, he shifted efficiency for a higher usage (and that at a below average rate, I might say, talking about overall efficiency here, not just scoring). He would do a similar thing on the Bulls, and would overall not help the team play better basketball, while the fans will point out his scoring and efficiency, as if that would be all that matters at the end, and not the game result achieved as a team.
Rerisen wrote:His team played worse with him on the floor, but does that just mean he is a bad player forever, in any team context?
Again, the guy is an average impact player offensively, he was that in different situation. His "more versatility" is seen in his on-ball play, not his off-ball play, and yet, it still adding value to the team overall results over an average offensive player.
Rerisen wrote:That player analysis is nothing more than this one number, we should never look at anything else? Would you also not have wanted Kevin Durant after his first couple years, because of bad team impact numbers, despite all his positive skills?
Again, you let yourself get away with a belief; the belief that you would judge a player on more than I would do, while in fact, given our discussion, the major difference between you and me is actually based on the fact that I look at the overall context and overall impact on the game, while you look at some potential boxscore numbers and that those are supposed to help. What else are you looking at? Shooting numbers, that's all you want to use here, because you feel that those would be the key element now. You even shifted the focus, because before that you put your focus on "2nd ball handler". Always, a specific part, where you believe a solution would be there and it would be easy. While I look at the effect of a player on the overall game, knowing that you can't just raise the "attack level" of a player and expect that nothing else will change and then the team will win. That is not how basketball works.
At no point did I say anything close to be as foolish as Winston said about Durant. Let alone that Durant had a better value in my metric than in pure APM anyway, the fact was that Durant was young and showed a steady improvement of his numbers through his first two years. Sure, I did not expect him to take off like he did in season 3, but I back in 2009 I would have taken him over Blake Griffin, if Durant would have been available in the draft (I wasn't particular high on Griffin, and I have to admit that I was wrong about him as a draft prospect, I underestimated his improvements from 2008 to 2009).
But yeah, you are back to believing that I would simply use +/- numbers and then would run with those as my judgement. I explained multiple times to you that I'm not doing such foolish thing, but you can't restrain yourself, I guess.
Rerisen wrote:The overburden on offense also might be sapping some of his defensive energy.
It was the same when he had a lower usage on the Nuggets. And it is really funny to see that you see all the potential in Afflalo to have a bigger impact on the Bulls. May it be possible that you rather want to see that instead of having done a proper analysis WHY Afflalo did not have that impact in Denver or Orlando as you believe he should have based on his scoring numbers? I give you a hint: It is a team game! Go from there and look how Afflalo's teammates are producing worse numbers with him on the court. And then shift your focus to he defensive end and see WHY they are playing worse defensively too. Can you imagine that there was a reason the Nuggets traded Afflalo for Iguodala and added a 1st to that as well? Try to understand why someone like Iguodala is worth more than Afflalo despite his unsexy scoring numbers, that might be the first step to understand basketball better and understand why I would advocate Iguodala over Afflalo pretty easily.
Rerisen wrote:Mike Dunleavy comes to the Bulls (only older) and the advanced numbers suddenly say he is a plus defender, when he was a negative in Milwaukee. Hmm, maybe a great scheme/teammates is good for hiding defensive liabilities. If it can hide Mike, it can surely hide AA.
Actually, Dunleavy was a plus defender before, just not in that season before coming to the Bulls. We have evidence for Dunleavy that he can be that "plus defender", we don't have that for Afflalo. And when we look at the overall value, it is pretty constant for Dunleavy, only the off/def split makes that seem inconstant. For the last 7 years Dunleavy ranges between 0.6 and +1.8 in my metric for an average of +1.0, while having +1.1 in this season and having +0.8 last season. He presents a typical variance for a player. Afflalo since 2009 has in average -1.1, ranging between -0.5 and -1.6, with -1.1 this season, and -1.0 last season. He had in average -1.0 from 2009 to 2012 on the Nuggets, he is about the same on the Magic. Dunleavy on the Pacers was about the same as he was on the Bucks as he was now on the Bulls in terms of overall value. So, the player values aren't exactly the same from year to year, but they are close. In my metric I see very rarely shifts from year-to-year which are bigger than 1.5 in either direction, most times those are related to young players making a jump or players getting injured. The average is about +/-0.3 from yr-to-yr. So, when you see that, you might understand why I have so much confidence in those numbers, because the amount of players making a bigger shift is small. And the probability that a "soon-to-be" 29yr old will make a jump like that in the positive direction isn't particular big.
Rerisen wrote:On offense he is going to space the floor at 42% 3PT greatly.
Floor spacing does NOT happen by simply making 3pt shots at a higher percentage. A player with a league average value there may even make a bigger impact with that. It depends on the movement and overall location of ALL players on the court, and that 42% shooter might make it tougher to have the necessary separation between players on the court to have in fact a better floor spacing among the players.
Rerisen wrote:Then coach this out of him
He will be 29yr olds start next season, and that's your solution? Really? He couldn't learn that for the bigger part of his life as well as in 7 years in the NBA; and your solution is "coach this out of him"? Brilliant, I bet nobody else thought of that before ...
Rerisen wrote:Put him at the end of the playmaking chain, where his job is to score on already created opportunities by Rose and Love, or whoever.
Sounds good, he did that on the Nuggets. Had a similar effect overall on the team result ... Really, when you believe there is a simple solution, you should consider the possibility that the people doing that as their job (in the best basketball league on Earth, I might add), will likely have already thought about that as well.
Rerisen wrote:But my view on players is more than that, especially when they have plus skills.
See, you simply dismiss the facts, because you not only believe you can judge a player better than me, but also have the impression that you have simple solutions for supposed problems at your disposal which the NBA coaches never have thought about ... Yeah, players change, some situations are better for them and the team overall than others; there is variation in their performances based on circumstances, that is clear. But in almost no cases a shift of circumstances for a 29yr old will make a big dent on the overall performance level we already saw from him. We are not talking about a rookie here, we are talking about a player being in the league for 7 years. And the only realistic way of him making an improvement in terms of overall impact on the game will be him in a much lesser role, where he can used in specific matchups which are favourable for him. But that will not happen in 30+ mpg, but 15 to 20 mpg. In that case you can make use of the "plus skills", while avoiding exposing the "minus skills".
Rerisen wrote:Boozer is certainly bad, but if Dunleavy was only bad with Boozer, how much of his good without him was because of being with Noah and Taj? Mike's matchup was Ariza and he got outplayed.
Basketball isn't 1on1, it is TEAM game. Looking at a player and decide his value based on "he got outplayed", is missing the point of the game.
Rerisen wrote:It's a nice luxury, just not sure how much he would need to play in a playoff series where we are trying to maximize our best players minutes.
Maximizing the TEAM overall result, while using the better players in better situations for them. And you believe a 3rd quality big is not helping with that?
Rerisen wrote:More concernedly, I think its a question if Jerry is going to pay for such a team going forward.
APRON will be at $81m next season. Try to get that roster to that payroll. ;) And if that team is successful, the Bulls ownership will pay those below $4m in luxury tax happily. Then Butler needs an extension, but it is also expected that the salary cap raises in a similar fashion, which means we can expect an APRON level at $86m. I think the Bulls can fit that in.
Rerisen wrote:But rather a fear we won't keep that salary slot at all.
Anthony makes it less likely than Love, which is one of the main reason I want to see Love on the Bulls over Anthony.