Official Trade Thread - Part XXIX

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I don't even think we'd be a better team -- win more games -- if we swapped Cousins for Gortat straight up.

Basketball is not football. It's not a game of specialists, strict coordination, and discrete/complex plays. It doesn't have separate "teams" for its various functions. In basketball, a team is basically as productive as the sum of its individual players' productivity. This can be shown using stat software -- and it has been shown.

Every 40 minutes, with Cousins instead of Gortat, we'd get 3 more rebounds & 1 more steal. That's good. Ball possession is important. Unfortunately, we'd also get 3 more turnovers. Which great narrows the rebounding advantage he brings.

Every 40 minutes, Cousins takes 8.7 more shots than Gortat. Unfortunately, he only makes 2.8 of them. In other words, his FG% on those extra shots (which are shots that right now our other players would take) is 35%. That's not good. That makes us worse, not better.

Now, Cousins gets to the line at an extremely high rate and shoots a good percentage there, esp. for a big man. So that narrows the scoring efficiency gap between him and Gortat. But, Gortat still recorded a .59 TS% last year -- as against Cousins' .54 -- so, the extra points Cousins scores are scored at low efficiency. Scoring a lot of points doesn't make you a good NBA player, despite what people seem to think. Games are close; both teams score a lot of points. By and large, the team that scores more efficiently wins the game.

Cousins also commits 50% more fouls than Gortat every 40 minutes. That helps the other team's efficiency by putting them on the line more.

Demarcus Cousins is a tremendous basketball talent. He is not a great basketball player. Very good -- you bet. Better than Gortat? Not really, no.

He's not a superstar but I do think he's great.

If you polled every GM and asked who's better it won't be unanimous but very few would say Gortat.

This board was wrong on draft day and still refuses to accept the poll and the thread on who is better between Wall and Cousins. Wall is a great basketball player but Cousins got MORE votes.

And you think Gortat is better than DeMarcus?

You are incorrect.

http://nbcbayarea.csnbayarea.com/kings/gms-rank-kings-cousins-second-best-center-nba

The annual GM Survey is out and Kings center DeMarcus Cousins has a little bit more motivation coming into the season. After being left out of the Top 5 a season ago, Cousins is ranked as the second best center in the league behind Memphis’ Marc Gasol.

While second place isn’t bad, Cousins is likely to take exception to the margin of victory for the Grizzlies big. Gasol garnered 65.5 percent of the vote, with Cousins grabbing just 13.8 percent. Anthony Davis, Tim Duncan and DeAndre Jordan finished in a three-way tie for third place with 6.9 percent.

[TheSecretWeapon]

If you polled every GM and asked who's better it won't be unanimous but very few would say Gortat.

This board was wrong on draft day and still refuses to accept the poll and the thread on who is better between Wall and Cousins. Wall is a great basketball player but Cousins got MORE votes.

This is really unconvincing for me. GMs get sooooooo much wrong and they're judgement on something like this just doesn't move me one way or the other.

And you think Gortat is better than DeMarcus?

You are incorrect.

http://nbcbayarea.csnbayarea.com/kings/gms-rank-kings-cousins-second-best-center-nba

The annual GM Survey is out and Kings center DeMarcus Cousins has a little bit more motivation coming into the season. After being left out of the Top 5 a season ago, Cousins is ranked as the second best center in the league behind Memphis’ Marc Gasol.

While second place isn’t bad, Cousins is likely to take exception to the margin of victory for the Grizzlies big. Gasol garnered 65.5 percent of the vote, with Cousins grabbing just 13.8 percent. Anthony Davis, Tim Duncan and DeAndre Jordan finished in a three-way tie for third place with 6.9 percent.

The key question is what does "better" mean? If we're taking about "talent" (meaning the physical tools, skills, etc. used to play the game), then I'd agree with the assessment that Cousins is a better talent than Gortat. He might be the top center talent in the league. If we're talking "production" (meaning: carrying out the activities on the floor that help a team win) then (at least in my view) the comparison gets MUCH closer. So close, in fact, that Gortat and Cousins last season had identical scores in PPA.

To echo pif's comparison: Gortat was 13 points per 100 possessions more efficient on offense. Gortat shot better from the floor, worse from the line, grabbed about one fewer offensive rebound per 100 team possessions, and committed far fewer turnovers (Cousins' turnovers per 100 team possessions were triple Gortat's).

Cousins made up a lot of ground with good FT shooting, LOTS of trips to the FT line, assists, and steals. He gave a bit back by fouling more often.

Think about this: last season, Cousins was responsible for 18.4 zero point possessions per 100 team possessions. When Cousins was in the game, nearly 1-in-5 of his team's possessions ended without a score because Cousins missed a shot or committed a turnover. For Gortat, it was 7.8.

I LOVE Cousins' talent, and I think he can become a great player. Even with the offensive inefficiency, he's good. But there's still lots of room for improvement.

[barelyawake]

1) Thankfully, regular season stats always directly relate to playoff success, and there have never been any examples to the contrary. This is because the pace, game planning and desire to win don't change between the regular season and the playoffs, and the refs call regular season games and playoff games exactly the same.

2) GMs' opinion of players = refs' opinion of players = who gets calls in the playoffs against star players. Gortat will never get evenly called against a guy like Cousins in a seven game playoff series (because of draft position, reputation, marketability, perceived value, etc). Again, NBA = star calls, not money ball.

3) We have seen players have career years because Wall's passes set them up for success. Why wouldn't the same be true of a Cousins with whom Wall has built in history?

Wall plus Cousins means the chances of Durant signing here skyrocket. Same cannot be said of Gortat.

I'll take my answers off the air...

[LyricalRico]

Wall plus Cousins means the chances of Durant signing here skyrocket. Same cannot be said of Gortat.

Depends on what KD wants. He might have the same concerns that some here have.

[TheSecretWeapon]

1) Thankfully, regular season stats always directly relate to playoff success, and there have never been any examples to the contrary. This is because the pace, game planning and desire to win don't change between the regular season and the playoffs, and the refs call regular season games and playoff games exactly the same.

2) GMs' opinion of players = refs' opinion of players = who gets calls in the playoffs against star players. Gortat will never get evenly called against a guy like Cousins in a seven game playoff series (because of draft position, reputation, marketability, perceived value, etc). Again, NBA = star calls, not money ball.

3) We have seen players have career years because Wall's passes set them up for success. Why wouldn't the same be true of a Cousins with whom Wall has built in history?

Wall plus Cousins means the chances of Durant signing here skyrocket. Same cannot be said of Gortat.

I'll take my answers off the air...

Re: 1) Gortat was outstanding in the playoffs last season. He was very good in playoffs the previous year too. But, I guess his performance in the playoffs couldn't outshine the monster games Cousins has posted in the playoffs...

Re: 2) Fair points. Although...in their head-to-head matchups, that hasn't played out -- at least so far. Gortat's team won 7 of the 11 (no shock there). Cousins outscored Gortat by 7 points per game, but used 9 additional possessions to do it. Basically, their head-to-head numbers are echoes of their overall numbers, except that Cousins' rebounding advantage was down to about a rebound per game. Considering Cousins' foul rate, perhaps the refs don't deem him a star yet.

Re: 3) The Wall Effect, which I've looked at over the past few years, is equivocal. Some guys seem to do better when on the floor with Wall; others seem to do worse; others about the same. I do think it's very possible Cousins could benefit from playing with Wall -- especially if he improved his shot selection, reduced his turnovers and stopped fouling so much.

If it was on the table, I'd swap Gortat for Cousins because Cousins produces about as well as Gortat now, even with the bad shot selection, rampant turnovers and fouling. He's 25 years old, and I fully expect him to improve. Gortat's past 30, and is more likely to begin declining than to improve.

[barelyawake]

1) Touché. Though Love didn't make the playoffs either. And I would agrue Gortat was raped several (key) times by refs in our playoff runs, and probably will continue to be so (because of the factors I mentioned).

2) Yet. A better team + more success + less techs will equal better calls (because of factors I mentioned).

3) Getting the ball in a better position would probably improve all three of those.

[LyricalRico]

If it was on the table, I'd swap Gortat for Cousins because Cousins produces about as well as Gortat now, even with the bad shot selection, rampant turnovers and fouling. He's 25 years old, and I fully expect him to improve. Gortat's past 30, and is more likely to begin declining than to improve.

Pretty sure everyone would do Gortat for Cousins straight up. The issue for me is (and maybe you're making the same point) it's not just comparing Gortat and Cousins - it's comparing Gortat+Beal+firsts with Cousins since that's what we'd be giving up.

So yeah, Cousins > Gortat is obvious in a vacuum. But is Cousins > Gortat+Beal and multiple firsts? That's the question, and for me the answer will be "no" until he gets his personality issues under control.

[payitforward]

...2) GMs' opinion of players = refs' opinion of players = who gets calls in the playoffs against star players. Gortat will never get evenly called against a guy like Cousins in a seven game playoff series (because of draft position, reputation, marketability, perceived value, etc). Again, NBA = star calls, not money ball.

So... Cousins has never been in a playoff series, has he?

"money ball" -- actually, play *precedes* statistical analysis. The statistical analysis aims to understand what factors lead to successful play (i.e. wins). Has someone shown that "star calls" influence wins? Nah. It's fact, however, not speculation, that the teams with the best productivity stats have the most wins. Big surprise, huh, given that productivity stats are reflected in the score of games. Duh

3) We have seen players have career years because Wall's passes set them up for success. Why wouldn't the same be true of a Cousins with whom Wall has built in history?

I keep hearing this. Thing is, it's not true. The poster child example is always Ariza, but in fact his best combined 2 years were w/ the Lakers not with us. Otherwise, no examples.

Wall's quite a good player, certainly one of the top ten, maybe even top five, NBA point guards. That's it. He doesn't transform other players. It's a silly idea.

Wall plus Cousins means the chances of Durant signing here skyrocket.

Wow.... In short, that's a completely imaginary claim that you just made up out of whole cloth. Has Durant ever even mentioned Cousins?

[payitforward]

...If it was on the table, I'd swap Gortat for Cousins because Cousins produces about as well as Gortat now, even with the bad shot selection, rampant turnovers and fouling. He's 25 years old, and I fully expect him to improve. Gortat's past 30, and is more likely to begin declining than to improve.

This is a reasonable argument in favor of a straight swap. But, of course, the real point is that trade would be impossible to make. What you'd have to give to get Cousins wouldn't be worth it -- or anywhere near worth it.

[payitforward]

If it was on the table, I'd swap Gortat for Cousins because Cousins produces about as well as Gortat now, even with the bad shot selection, rampant turnovers and fouling. He's 25 years old, and I fully expect him to improve. Gortat's past 30, and is more likely to begin declining than to improve.

Pretty sure everyone would do Gortat for Cousins straight up. The issue for me is (and maybe you're making the same point) it's not just comparing Gortat and Cousins - it's comparing Gortat+Beal+firsts with Cousins since that's what we'd be giving up.

So yeah, Cousins > Gortat is obvious in a vacuum. But is Cousins > Gortat+Beal and multiple firsts? That's the question, and for me the answer will be "no" until he gets his personality issues under control.

Rico and I don't agree all that often, but we are in total accord on this issue. Except I would say that it's not a matter of his "personality issues," but very simply his actual productivity.

If his turnovers were under control, his jump shot frequency, his fouling, etc. his productivity would soar -- in which case I might think about living with his personality issues -- anyway, I don't see why they're any big deal in the first place. The turnovers etc are a big deal.

[barelyawake]

lol at the idea that star calls don't exist and what a team has to do is build the "statistically most efficient" team to win. So, that's why every championship was won by a top three player except what? Twice?

The team is "most efficient" BECAUSE their stars get the calls. If you are attempting to use regular season stats to explain that if you get a collection of efficient, non-star players together, why they will win the NBA championship, I'll say your reality is severely warped by your want to over inflate the meaning of stats.

Stars win NBA championships. Period.

[penbeast0]

lol at the idea that star calls don't exist and what a team has to do is build the "statistically most efficient" team to win. So, that's why every championship was won by a top three player except what? Twice?

The team is "most efficient" BECAUSE their stars get the calls. If you are attempting to use regular season stats to explain that if you get a collection of efficient, non-star players together, why they will win the NBA championship, I'll say your reality is severely warped by your want to over inflate the meaning of stats.

Stars win NBA championships. Period.

Maybe because the "statistically most efficient players" tend to be the stars when you take volume into account with everything else?

[barelyawake]

lol at the idea that star calls don't exist and what a team has to do is build the "statistically most efficient" team to win. So, that's why every championship was won by a top three player except what? Twice?

The team is "most efficient" BECAUSE their stars get the calls. If you are attempting to use regular season stats to explain that if you get a collection of efficient, non-star players together, why they will win the NBA championship, I'll say your reality is severely warped by your want to over inflate the meaning of stats.

Stars win NBA championships. Period.

Maybe because the "statistically most efficient players" tend to be the stars when you take volume into account with everything else?

... Because they get the "star calls." I'm unsure why this is a debatable subject for anyone who has seen more than five seasons of the NBA, Of course, that is the case.

[penbeast0]

I don't deny they get star calls; I'm a Wiz fan. We had to endure years of LeBron and his "crab dribble" nonsense. I just don't think that star calls are the main reason teams win championships. Stars, yes, but they get star calls because they have proved to be great players, not the other way around.

[Sluggerface]

Re: 3) The Wall Effect, which I've looked at over the past few years, is equivocal. Some guys seem to do better when on the floor with Wall; others seem to do worse; others about the same. I do think it's very possible Cousins could benefit from playing with Wall -- especially if he improved his shot selection, reduced his turnovers and stopped fouling so much.

Personally, I'd have to see Wall really cut down on his OWN turnovers before I considered going after Cousins. Can you imagine Cousins and Wall on the same team posting the same TOV rates? It would be a nightmare.

[TheSecretWeapon]

The significance of "star calls" is probably being preposterously overstated. I say "probably" because it's a squishy enough concept that any attempt to analyze them would fall apart because there'd never be agreement on what actually constitutes a "star call." I think penbeast states it properly.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

I don't deny they get star calls; I'm a Wiz fan. We had to endure years of LeBron and his "crab dribble" nonsense. I just don't think that star calls are the main reason teams win championships. Stars, yes, but they get star calls because they have proved to be great players, not the other way around.

I mostly agree with this. And one of the prime reasons I dislike LeBron so much is that, contrary to tradition, he got those calls BEFORE he became a great player.

And for many years, he developed bad habits - weak fundamentals - as a result.

You still see elements of that in his game... The bolling over of defenders, the extra step.

Don't get me wrong. He's be become a legit generational player.... But some of the nonsense he's been allowed to get away with, especially in the wake of the Tim Donahy (sp?) scandal, erodes some of the league's credibility.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Re: 3) The Wall Effect, which I've looked at over the past few years, is equivocal. Some guys seem to do better when on the floor with Wall; others seem to do worse; others about the same. I do think it's very possible Cousins could benefit from playing with Wall -- especially if he improved his shot selection, reduced his turnovers and stopped fouling so much.

Personally, I'd have to see Wall really cut down on his OWN turnovers before I considered going after Cousins. Can you imagine Cousins and Wall on the same team posting the same TOV rates? It would be a nightmare.

One of the positive effects of ball-dominant PGs is that their teammates often commit fewer turnovers when he's on the floor. I sorta recollect seeing this in the numbers when I looked at "Wall Effect" earlier this summer, but I was focused more on shooting percentages since that's what people mean when they say "Wall Effect." No one (that I've heard anyway) has said something like: Wow, Martell Webster and Trevor Ariza are sooooo much better because their turnovers are down when Wall is out there. Last season, the Wizards turnover rate was a bit lower when Wall was out there -- probably because teammate turnovers were down. So, one possible effect of teaming Wall and Cousins would be that Cousins' turnovers could go down.

Worth studying in greater detail.

After I get projections done.

[payitforward]

lol at the idea that star calls don't exist and what a team has to do is build the "statistically most efficient" team to win. So, that's why every championship was won by a top three player except what? Twice?

The team is "most efficient" BECAUSE their stars get the calls. If you are attempting to use regular season stats to explain that if you get a collection of efficient, non-star players together, why they will win the NBA championship, I'll say your reality is severely warped by your want to over inflate the meaning of stats.

Stars win NBA championships. Period.

Maybe because the "statistically most efficient players" tend to be the stars when you take volume into account with everything else?

... Because they get the "star calls." I'm unsure why this is a debatable subject for anyone who has seen more than five seasons of the NBA, Of course, that is the case.

When someone's claim has been questioned, and the person simply repeats the claim, this time adding that its truth is "obvious," there's little reason to pay attention to the person or the claim.

No one doubts that stars sometimes get calls that another player might not get. Is that frequent? Is it occasional? Try providing some numbers.

What makes a player become a "star?" The fact that the player is extremely effective (i.e. efficient). So... do those players also tend to be called for fewer fouls than players who aren't stars? That's something you can actually investigate.

It's not a matter of saying that all you have to do is watch for a few seasons, or a matter of putting your claim in CAPS. It's about analyzing the situation you make claims about. Maybe if you do that, you'll actually find out something you can rely on as true.

[payitforward]

Oh h#ll, I'm on the opposite of a roll: sorry for the grade school principal tone of my post just above, barely. My bad.