OKC Thunder Offseason 2015

[Podirk]

Right.
And as i stated, you are not even beginning to apply the things they are and its why you're coming to this "i just dont know if it is wise" outcome.

The reality of the situation is that there are no more additions possible. You can choose Kanter, or you can choose Augustin/PJ3/Novak.

Kanter may be the better option, but it is still a bitter pill to swallow. Don't dress it up all fancy and you won't be let down.

Augustin is a 1...payne is a 1 (obviously unproven)
PJ3 is a 3...KD is a 3...Singler is a 3...Dion is a 3 (before PJ at least)
Novak is a 4...Ibaka is a 4...Collison is a 4...Mitch is a 4...KD plays 4

Kanter is a 5...Adams is a 5

Seems the way the current roster is constructed dictates who/what position is important

[Podirk]

And all three were probably still better players, we currently don't have any evidence that Kanter is more than a backup quality big man.

I don't care if he is a backup or starter...in the NBA you pay heavy for offense...you pay heavy for big men...and in the increased cap era everything looks heavy right now. We have all 3 right here.

Default "we need this sized contract for the future is a huge reason to do this" addition to the post.

Or, you don't and have cap space next year for a possibly much better player. They'd have a bunch of it even with KD's cap hold (I wanna say like 15 mil ballpark).

Again...what % of players are FA in a given year?
What % of those players play a position in need for the Thunder?
What % of that number would consider OKC.

Do the same thing for non FA players...except omit the third line and replace with What % of that number would their team consider a trade.

I'd bet the later is higher.

[Bravenewworld]

So what exactly do you think you're demonstrating here?
It seems to me that this list is just showing what we already know. Not every player is effective in every system.

I don't want to be condescending and say things like "This is an ultra basic even before ultra basic concept" but...

You keep saying that it is a team game and a single players deficiencies can be masked by the teams strengths. I've provided you with examples where a single players deficiencies could not be masked by their teams strengths, and the teams only excelled when they stopped playing those players.

And the irony is youre not addressing the fact that most of those examples, have another side of the coin.
Again, all you've seem to show to me at least, is that not every player works in every system.

You want to point out Rondo on the Mavs, while ignoring the very different system he came from, where before rebuilding he was part of a big 4 and easily a top 5 PG in the league. And IMO the Kings are going to slip into the playoffs above Pelicans this upcoming season. But this shows us (again, at least me) that Rondo on a team that is focused on an offense that runs mostly through the point, is worth every penny you want to pay him. Where-as if youre working with a spread offense (as the Mavs did or as Van Gundy would) he's an issue.

Or JSmooth who after being traded to the Rockets and being out of a Van Gundy system (that everyone questioned him being in), was the second most effective player on that Rockets team, even above DHoward and only behind Harden. A guy who was also very effective in Atlanta.
Again, like with Rondo, this shows us that if you can convince him to take a back seat, being at the four and limiting his distance shooting, we end up with a guy who is far more effective then most on the team. But if you cant do this, it wont work out.

Im willing to bet we could say the same thing about David Lee if we placed him in the proper scenario.

We could also add to this list.. DWilliams. Under Sloan was a top 3 PG. Outside of Sloan was a right above mediocre?

It seems to be backing up what ive been saying, in that Kanter is going to be (most likely, given what we've seen) far more effective in our system. That's just how many players work, especially young players who are still trying to fit into the NBA.

And all three were probably still better players, we currently don't have any evidence that Kanter is more than a backup quality big man.

I mean... except for those pesky numbers he put up.
But by the standards you're putting forward (which im not sure exactly what it is) apparently i have no idea what a starting quality big man is.

[bondom34]

I don't care if he is a backup or starter...in the NBA you pay heavy for offense...you pay heavy for big men...and in the increased cap era everything looks heavy right now. We have all 3 right here.

Default "we need this sized contract for the future is a huge reason to do this" addition to the post.

Or, you don't and have cap space next year for a possibly much better player. They'd have a bunch of it even with KD's cap hold (I wanna say like 15 mil ballpark).

Again...what % of players are FA in a given year?
What % of those players play a position in need for the Thunder?
What % of that number would consider OKC.

Do the same thing for non FA players...except omit the third line and replace with What % of that number would their team consider a trade.

I'd bet the later is higher.

Well 2 of Billy D's guys, Noah and Beal. Both in positions of need, both may consider.

[Andre Roberstan]

I don't care if he is a backup or starter...in the NBA you pay heavy for offense...you pay heavy for big men...and in the increased cap era everything looks heavy right now. We have all 3 right here.

Default "we need this sized contract for the future is a huge reason to do this" addition to the post.

Or, you don't and have cap space next year for a possibly much better player. They'd have a bunch of it even with KD's cap hold (I wanna say like 15 mil ballpark).

Again...what % of players are FA in a given year?
What % of those players play a position in need for the Thunder?
What % of that number would consider OKC.

Do the same thing for non FA players...except omit the third line and replace with What % of that number would their team consider a trade.

I'd bet the later is higher.

HORFORD TRAIN CHOO CHOO

[bondom34]

So what exactly do you think you're demonstrating here?
It seems to me that this list is just showing what we already know. Not every player is effective in every system.

I don't want to be condescending and say things like "This is an ultra basic even before ultra basic concept" but...

You keep saying that it is a team game and a single players deficiencies can be masked by the teams strengths. I've provided you with examples where a single players deficiencies could not be masked by their teams strengths, and the teams only excelled when they stopped playing those players.

And the irony is youre not addressing the fact that most of those examples, have another side of the coin.
Again, all you've seem to show to me at least, is that not every player works in every system.

You want to point out Rondo on the Mavs, while ignoring the very different system he came from, where before rebuilding he was part of a big 4 and easily a top 5 PG in the league. And IMO the Kings are going to slip into the playoffs above Pelicans this upcoming season. But this shows us (again, at least me) that Rondo on a team that is focused on an offense that runs mostly through the point, is worth every penny you want to pay him. Where-as if youre working with a spread offense (as the Mavs did or as Van Gundy would) he's an issue.

Or JSmooth who after being traded to the Rockets and being out of a Van Gundy system (that everyone questioned him being in), was the second most effective player on that Rockets team, even above DHoward and only behind Harden. A guy who was also very effective in Atlanta.
Again, like with Rondo, this shows us that if you can convince him to take a back seat, being at the four and limiting his distance shooting, we end up with a guy who is far more effective then most on the team. But if you cant do this, it wont work out.

Im willing to bet we could say the same thing about David Lee if we placed him in the proper scenario.

We could also add to this list.. DWilliams. Under Sloan was a top 3 PG. Outside of Sloan was a right above mediocre?

It seems to be backing up what ive been saying, in that Kanter is going to be (most likely, given what we've seen) far more effective in our system. That's just how many players work, especially young players who are still trying to fit into the NBA.

And all three were probably still better players, we currently don't have any evidence that Kanter is more than a backup quality big man.

I mean... except for those pesky numbers he put up.
But by the standards you're putting forward (which im not sure exactly what it is) apparently i have no idea what a starting quality big man is.

Rondo rode the coat tails of 3 guys, Smith was the same player as always but playing clearly the wrong position, and D Will basically quit. Kanter has a chance to be very good, but an equal chance to blow up in the face of whoever signs him.

[Soonerule]

There is a very simple explanation why Kanter's defense.... or total lack of defense is very relevant. He is a center and listed solely as a center. I have seen the excuse used that Utah misused him by playing him at power forward instead of his natural position on this very board. There is nothing behind a bad defensive center but pay-dirt for opposing teams.

Zach Randolph and Chris Bosh are listed as center/PF, ZBo spends the vast majority of his time on the floor primarily playing the 4 with an elite defensive center behind him. I'm not entirely sure why Bosh is even mentioned because he has a career BPM of 1.4 that is well below what his BPM average was at Toronto which negates the argument that Kanter's numbers will improve when KD returns. Defensively, Bosh is no Marc Gasol, but he is better than Kanter and his career -3.1 BPM. When Bosh went from being the man in Toronto to #3 in the pecking order in Miami, his numbers went down, not up. Doesn't exactly strengthen the argument that Kanter's numbers will be better with all the kids back together.

I literally watched Kanter play PF last year...so I really don't care what he is listed solely as...

I seem to remember when he played PF, they did quite well and Adams at the low post defender, ended up not being an issue at all.
Its not something they can run for longer than....12 minutes a game but whatever.

Well, if -1.4 net per 100 possessions is your definition of a good pairing then so be it.

[Waynearchetype]

Well, if -1.4 net per 100 possessions is your definition of a good pairing then so be it.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think advanced stats will help you with him. The dude is a brickwall of ignorance and lives in the 90's in regards to statistics.

[slick_watts]

This discussion is being muddled up unnecessarily.

Almost every title team in NBA history had a Top 10 defense. Only two exceptions, and one was the Shaq Lakers team that had all the injuries during the regular season. The other was 1995 Rockets. Every other team was Top 10. The average defense ranking for a title team is Top 5.

So why go through the trouble to produce a league average defense or better by accommodating Kanter? It makes no sense. We need a good defense to realistically contend. What data-driven rationale is there that this could be produced with Kanter?

You know what we do know? We can have a league leading, elite offense with Westbrook, Durant, and Ibaka. What's Kanter for? Why take the risk?

[slick_watts]

Pretty much everyone has said the same thing. The Jazz defense was fantastic. After Kanter. And nobody else offered him. The Knicks didn't, the Mavs didn't, the Bucks didn't, nobody.

And again.
WTF does that have to do with us?
Are we the Jazz?
Are our rosters the same?
Do we run the same system?
Are Quinn and Donovan actually the same person?
Are our teams even remotely similar?

You're missing the point of comparative analysis. The point of referencing Kanter's minutes on the Jazz is not to prove a point, but to supplement the data we have for his time in OKC. The fact that the Jazz showed similar issues with Enes Kanter that the Thunder did strengthens both sets of data.

Your argument here can be used to call into question all data. It's reductive and doesn't serve to further the discussion other than to muddle it up. You can present me with any argument and I can use your methods to throw away the data.

Example: Russell Westbrook was an MVP candidate last year so he should have a good season next year.
Argument: Billy Donovan is the coach now, in a different system. Kevin Durant is healthy. The teammates are different. Westbrook is a year older. What does Westbrook's MVP caliber season last year have to do with this year?

I'm wary of people like you in arguments who toss data aside willy-nilly. There's plenty of data available on Kanter and his defense and it's practically all in agreement on the same conclusion. If you have some data or non-reductive thoughts to share that call this conclusion into question I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.

[slick_watts]

It seems to be backing up what ive been saying, in that Kanter is going to be (most likely, given what we've seen) far more effective in our system. That's just how many players work, especially young players who are still trying to fit into the NBA.

I'd like an explanation for why you feel this way.

[bondom34]

It seems to be backing up what ive been saying, in that Kanter is going to be (most likely, given what we've seen) far more effective in our system. That's just how many players work, especially young players who are still trying to fit into the NBA.

I'd like an explanation for why you feel this way.

Wouldn't we all...

[Soonerule]

This discussion is being muddled up unnecessarily.

Almost every title team in NBA history had a Top 10 defense. Only two exceptions, and one was the Shaq Lakers team that had all the injuries during the regular season. The other was 1995 Rockets. Every other team was Top 10. The average defense ranking for a title team is Top 5.

So why go through the trouble to produce a league average defense or better by accommodating Kanter? It makes no sense. We need a good defense to realistically contend. What data-driven rationale is there that this could be produced with Kanter?

You know what we do know? We can have a league leading, elite offense with Westbrook, Durant, and Ibaka. What's Kanter for? Why take the risk?

Yes it is, completely muddled, and the most successful NBA organization of this century agrees.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

the Spurs have never won the championship with a defense ranked below 4th.

[slick_watts]

This discussion is being muddled up unnecessarily.

Almost every title team in NBA history had a Top 10 defense. Only two exceptions, and one was the Shaq Lakers team that had all the injuries during the regular season. The other was 1995 Rockets. Every other team was Top 10. The average defense ranking for a title team is Top 5.

So why go through the trouble to produce a league average defense or better by accommodating Kanter? It makes no sense. We need a good defense to realistically contend. What data-driven rationale is there that this could be produced with Kanter?

You know what we do know? We can have a league leading, elite offense with Westbrook, Durant, and Ibaka. What's Kanter for? Why take the risk?

Yes it is, completely muddled, and the most successful NBA organization of this century agrees.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

the Spurs have never won the championship with a defense ranked below 4th.

Top 5-10 defenses can win. Last Mavs team wasn't elite on defense -- but they were okay, and most importantly they had a highly productive defensive center anchoring it and no poor defensive big men in their rotation.

Everyone laughed at the prospect of D'Antonio Suns ever winning a title with elite, #1 offense and 10th ranked defenses or worse. Seems if Kanter is playing starter's minutes that's what we will get. The only counter-argument seems to be that Kanter won't be that bad defensively here next year and beyond. But, while that is possible, I haven't seen any data-driven or even sensible anecdotal evidence that supports this position.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and while Bravenewworld does a lot of verbal tap dancing I haven't seen any evidence given by him to support any of his claims.

[bondom34]

I feel dirty, but I agree with Tramel:

http://newsok.com/tramel-why-the-thunder-should-let-enes-kanter-go-to-portland/article/5432962?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Soonerule]

This discussion is being muddled up unnecessarily.

Almost every title team in NBA history had a Top 10 defense. Only two exceptions, and one was the Shaq Lakers team that had all the injuries during the regular season. The other was 1995 Rockets. Every other team was Top 10. The average defense ranking for a title team is Top 5.

So why go through the trouble to produce a league average defense or better by accommodating Kanter? It makes no sense. We need a good defense to realistically contend. What data-driven rationale is there that this could be produced with Kanter?

You know what we do know? We can have a league leading, elite offense with Westbrook, Durant, and Ibaka. What's Kanter for? Why take the risk?

Yes it is, completely muddled, and the most successful NBA organization of this century agrees.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

the Spurs have never won the championship with a defense ranked below 4th.

Top 5-10 defenses can win. Last Mavs team wasn't elite on defense -- but they were okay, and most importantly they had a highly productive defensive center anchoring it and no poor defensive big men in their rotation.

Everyone laughed at the prospect of D'Antonio Suns ever winning a title with elite, #1 offense and 10th ranked defenses or worse. Seems if Kanter is playing starter's minutes that's what we will get. The only counter-argument seems to be that Kanter won't be that bad defensively here next year and beyond. But, while that is possible, I haven't seen any data-driven or even sensible anecdotal evidence that supports this position.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and while Bravenewworld does a lot of verbal tap dancing I haven't seen any evidence given by him to support any of his claims.

When the Heat beat the Spurs in 2013, their defense was ranked 7th to the Spurs 3rd and the Heat won in 6, the next season the Spurs defense dropped to 4th but the Heat dropped to 11th and the Spurs crushed them. The 2000-01 Lakers struggled with injuries and finished outside the top ten, but got healthy in the playoffs and Shaq cranked it up defensively and they had the best defense in that playoff.

Ignoring defense is like ignoring a freight train coming right at you, your gonna lose.

[Soonerule]

I feel dirty, but I agree with Tramel:

http://newsok.com/tramel-why-the-thunder-should-let-enes-kanter-go-to-portland/article/5432962?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

don't worry, he'll do something to wash it off....

[spearsy23]

Can you explain this to us? Why is his defense not an issue? We all get that he's superb offensively, but if he is so bad defensively that it hurts more than his offense helps why is that not an issue? Was Perk's offense not an issue? Is Robes offense an issue? Flashy numbers don't mean a lot if the other team gets them too.

Because its not a 1 on 1 game?
Because having one guy with bad defense on a team that is centered around strong defense is not going to be a determent?

The numbers are stupid to pay attention to. No one takes any value from a 20 game split with a team that was 7 players different then it was at the start of the season and a quarter injured. That is not showing you anything of value for the next season, so you really need to stop thinking it shows anything. Or, at least stop bringing it because it seems you and one or two other people here are the only ones who put any value on this sad, sad, sad, measurement.

All i can do is point to Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies. A similarly defensive Grizz team who added a similarly bad defensive Zach and his lack of defense ended up not being an issue because the team was a good defensive team. You can easily subsidize bad defense, again, as seen when we had KMart. Who sits right next to ZBo and Kanter on the bad defenders list.

Then why are you enamored with his offense and rebounding?

[kd 35]

I've been so on the fence with this that I'll be okay with whatever happens. There are strengths and weaknesses to both scenarios. It is an insane amount of money for this guy and would have to agree that he isn't worth the price tag. My only true concern about him leaving is that I don't want this to affect the impending Durant/Westbrook free agency decisions. We really could use his scoring punch down low and I loved watching him work the pick and roll with Russ. If he stays, I hope Billy, Monty, and the rest of the coaches can get some defensive effort and intensity out of him. "Enes, if you don't want to play defense, you can sit on the bench for most of the game." (If only it were that easy.) It's just a shame because he has the size, strength, and athleticism to lock his man down and create havoc defensively.

I do find it a little odd that Presti seems so high on him despite being such a heavy analytics junkie. I mean he has to be seeing the same historically poor numbers y'all are posting on here. I know he liked Perkins too but at least Perk provided intangible leadership qualities that meant a lot to the team. If the guy is consistently giving up more points than he's scoring, then it kind of defeats the purpose of having him on the floor. And then what's the point of paying a guy a max contract if he doesn't see the floor?

If he does walk, I'm hoping McGary is the guy that steps up and becomes that go-to low-post player for us. I mean the guy can rebound, defend, pass, handle, set screens, and score. I am still riding high on the McGOATy bandwagon.

[Soonerule]

I wonder how many here are old enough to catch this reference:

It's 7:25 pm, Sam Presti, do you know where your free agents are?

The Thunder may still match Portland's offer, but it is becoming apparent it was not the done deal we were led to believe.....