Official Trade Thread - Part XXXI

[JAR69]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/5

^ This list gets cited a lot as a reason why, along with the good ORTG and efficiency.

And when you sort it this way - http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/WINS/position/5 - you get Otto, Dudley, and Ariza at 11, 12, 13.

Doesn't mean anything, but just noticing.

And this is the brutal chart, putting Beal at 45: http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/WINS/position/2

[Dark Faze]

Funny how we had numerous guys in the top 20 in RPM last year and yet weren't good at all

[montestewart]

Funny how we had numerous guys in the top 20 in RPM last year and yet weren't good at all

Some players are better and some are worse on an average team.
--Jack Handey

[Illmatic12]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

Not just Melo. Any above average wing had their way with him offensively. The Wizards were one of the teams that allowed SFs to post the highest production above their average, and Porter individually allowed opponents to shoot ~7% above their average.

I was impressed with his defense against D Derozan in the playoffs.. but then DD averaged 30ppg against WAS this year, so it kind of looks like that series may have been just a one-off.

Porter is not one of the better defensive SFs in the league, that's for sure. His utility comes from his steals + relatively efficient scoring, but then again his scoring is low usage. Not being a particularly gifted defender, ballhandler, scorer, or 3pt shooter relative to his competition, there's only so much impact Otto can have - unless he proves that he can be more of a featured scorer/playmaker on the team.

[payitforward]

I think we're in 8-10 seed territory until proven otherwise PIF.

Then we're not far apart. I don't see us at #8, however. That's a reach.

But really, I haven't seen an argument from you that explains why we couldn't compete with Toronto/Boston if we were able to swap roleplayers and a pick for an all-star like LMA. Are we forgetting Boston only lost Avery Bradley and ended up losing to an Atlanta team on the decline last year? So they gained Horford--great, but why does Boston gaining Horford make them such a monster while us adding a player of LMA's stature makes us still not able to be competitive as a 2nd or 3rd seed? Toronto very easily could have lost to the Hornets last year in the first round as well.

Sigh.... Boston won 48 games last year. That's the team Horford joined. Not our 41-win team. And they gave nothing up for him - that's important. If we'd signed Horford, it would have been great. I'd sign Aldridge too, as a free agent. But you're talking about giving away a whole lot to bring him in.

Plus, you kind of make my point for me: Boston won 48 games, got the #3 pick in the draft, and signed Al Horford. Plus, their young guys are still getting better as they begin to head into their primes. We aren't in a tier with Boston!

And we aren't in a tier with Toronto either. That's a team that won 56 games last year. They won't repeat that without Biyombo, but they are likely to knock on the door of 50.

Along with Cleveland, that means that even if we added Aldridge at no resource cost whatever, our ceiling would be the 4th spot. Except that Detroit will be better this year as well. So make that #5 as our ceiling. And to get there we'd still have some teams it'd be tough to climb over.

On top of which, we might well be a less good than we were last season. We've brought in a bunch of players that have never been good -- not even at the level of last year's guys they replace. And we've brought in a few question marks as well. Mahinmi is certainly the most productive addition, and his minutes will be limited because Gortat will start.

That said, of course we could still be as good or better than last year -- but every speculative question about our players would have to turn out great for that to happen. Porter has to keep improving (seems pretty likely), Satoransky has to be an above average NBA guard in productivity on the overall season (seems a long shot -- even though he's very talented), Oubre has to take a very big jump (roll of the dice on that one), Beal has to take a big jump in his 5th year in the league (kind of late for that), Burke has to become an altogether different level of player (which would happen... why?), etc.

Hope so on all fronts. But "hope" is not something you use to predict results.

[AFM]

You are right - and anyway I am a moron sometimes. Like most of us.

I was thinking just a minute ago about why I got exercised about something as speculative as this anyway -- hey DarkFaze, sorry about that man! You have just as much right as the rest to not know what you're talking about!

But... the EC isn't wide open any more. Boston has improved, the Hawks are unlikely to have slipped much, Toronto won 50 games last year and will have their C back, Detroit will improve. Etc. We got no chance.

It isn't wide open, but IMO there isn't a huge second tier after Cleveland. There's cleveland and then...everyone else who is decent.
The difference between 3rd seed and 8th seed could be 4 wins.

We'll get a chance to find out.

Just so you don't quote me 6 months from now, laughing maniacally, I was defended DF's POV. I predicted 39 wins, 9th seed. But I can't help playing devils advocate sometimes.

I like that this board has eternal pessimist AHoles such as yourself, AND sweet optimistic boys like dark fazey. It's actually part of the reason I miss hands11. Guy was fiercely positive.

[payitforward]

Agree 100%. But... how can I be the "pessimist AHole" when you predicted the same number of wins I did and a higher seed!

Btw, I'm really not a pessimist at all. I just look at the teams Ernie comes up with year after year as he attaches bandaids to the roster while wearing his blindfolds. Then I call 'em as I see 'em.

[penbeast0]

...
Yes, we beat Toronto -- now just think about the fact that the most wonderful thing that's happened to this team in about a decade is that we won a series in the first round of the playoffs. Gee, wow....

mmm, not a decade, 35+ years and counting. There's a reason why we BullWiz fans are pessimists.

[montestewart]

Agree 100%. But... how can I be the "pessimist AHole" when you predicted the same number of wins I did and a higher seed!

Btw, I'm really not a pessimist at all. I just look at the teams Ernie comes up with year after year as he attaches bandaids to the roster while wearing his blindfolds. Then I call 'em as I see 'em.

It is funny that there often is not that much difference between the win predictions of some of the optimists and those of some of the pessimists. I guess it's the glass half empty ("Barely above .500 and bounced in the first round, ho hum") vs. glass half full ("we've got a winning team and we're going to the playoffs!")

[payitforward]

Funny how we had numerous guys in the top 20 in RPM last year and yet weren't good at all

How many minutes, overall, were played by guys in the top 20 in RPM? W/o that info, it's not possible to gauge any correlation or failure of correlation.

[payitforward]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

Not just Melo. Any above average wing had their way with him offensively. The Wizards were one of the teams that allowed SFs to post the highest production above their average, and Porter individually allowed opponents to shoot ~7% above their average.

I was impressed with his defense against D Derozan in the playoffs.. but then DD averaged 30ppg against WAS this year, so it kind of looks like that series may have been just a one-off.

Porter is not one of the better defensive SFs in the league, that's for sure. His utility comes from his steals + relatively efficient scoring, but then again his scoring is low usage. Not being a particularly gifted defender, ballhandler, scorer, or 3pt shooter relative to his competition, there's only so much impact Otto can have - unless he proves that he can be more of a featured scorer/playmaker on the team.

If someone believes anything, that person will find a way to support the belief. Whether that's a memory of a single bad performance, or a single number cherry-picked because it seems to say something critical, or it's a narrative story meant to be convincing.

If 3s shot a high % vs. the Wizards, maybe that says something about the team's defensive scheme. That may explain the 7% delta. Or, maybe it would be better to look at a better number -- e.g. TS% vs. Otto. And "any... had their way with him...." is the usual BS. If you look at Defensive RPM, Otto was 11th best in the league. The 3 above him were Aminu, Sefolosha & Paul George. If it's wrong about Otto, it's also wrong about those guys I suppose?

[payitforward]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

Basketball games are won/lost by way of numbers, right? Nothing but numbers counts in determining who won a game. Hence, a player's impact on a game (any game, or all games, he plays in) can be measured by looking at his numbers. Anyone who doesn't accept that as fact has no need to read further.

Lets compare Otto's numbers last season to those of a 3 everyone will agree is "one of the best" -- Nicolas Batum. We'll use numbers per 36 minutes. I'll do scoring last. First the other stuff --

Rebounding
Almost exactly the same. Batum was a little higher in defensive boards; Porter a little higher in offensive boards. If there had to be an edge it'd go to Porter, but it's not worth calling it.

Steals
Otto got @ .7 more steals

Turnovers
Otto had @ 1.9 fewer turnovers (I'll come back to TOs when we discuss shooting efficiency)

Fouls
Otto committed .9 more fouls

Assists
Advantage Batum with 4+ more assists

Blocks
Almost exactly the same. If there had to be an edge it'd go to Batum, but it's not worth calling it.

So, in all the above stuff, overall, it's pretty close. Most analyses rank fouls at half the negative value of turnovers, and assists at half the positive value of steals. Look at it that way, and the players are close -- with a slight edge to Porter but not enough to make anything of. Ok, now scoring.

Points
Batum scored 1.5+ more points than Otto per 36 minutes. Advantage Batum. But... a team has only so many possessions in a game. That's where efficiency comes in. If you score more points than another guy on the same number of shots & FTAs as he takes, no question you are better. So, lets look at %s.

2 point FG%
Porter: 53.6%
Batum: 49.2%

3 point FG%
Porter: 36.7%
Batum: 34.8%

FT%
Porter: 75.4%
Batum: 84.9%

We can roll all those up into a single figure: Total Shooting %

TS%
Porter: 56.4%
Batum: 54.6%

Because Batum has an almost 2% lower TS%, to get his extra points, he has to take up more of his team's chances to score. In fact, combining the extra shots he takes and the extra FTAs Nicolas Batum takes 2 more possessions than Otto Porter to garner 1.5 more points than Otto: thats a .375% on the delta. Not good. It'd be better for other guys on the team to use those possessions. And, there's one more point worth making. In order to get his 1.5 extra points, Batum also has to have the ball enough that he commits almost 2 more turnovers than Otto -- as noted above.

In short, Otto Porter is a more effective scorer than Nicolas Batum -- almost as many points but leaves his team almost 4 extra chances to score.

Nicolas Batum is a very good NBA wing. His numbers as I give them above are better than most NBA SFs. But, they aren't as good as Otto Porter's numbers. Pure and simple, Otto is a better player than Batum. He's also only 23 and improving at a rapid rate. He's already one of the best SFs in the league, and it seems likely he'll keep rising in those ranks.

[Dark Faze]

Funny how we had numerous guys in the top 20 in RPM last year and yet weren't good at all

How many minutes, overall, were played by guys in the top 20 in RPM? W/o that info, it's not possible to gauge any correlation or failure of correlation.

Wall 7
Temple 25
Dudley 9
Porter 14
Nene 14
Gortat 19

Other than Nene all those guys got 24 + minutes per game. Kieff and Sessions were top 50 as well. That's a significant chunk of the roster.

I haven't really given any thought to if this is supportive of RPM or not. Just found it interesting.

[Illmatic12]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

Not just Melo. Any above average wing had their way with him offensively. The Wizards were one of the teams that allowed SFs to post the highest production above their average, and Porter individually allowed opponents to shoot ~7% above their average.

I was impressed with his defense against D Derozan in the playoffs.. but then DD averaged 30ppg against WAS this year, so it kind of looks like that series may have been just a one-off.

Porter is not one of the better defensive SFs in the league, that's for sure. His utility comes from his steals + relatively efficient scoring, but then again his scoring is low usage. Not being a particularly gifted defender, ballhandler, scorer, or 3pt shooter relative to his competition, there's only so much impact Otto can have - unless he proves that he can be more of a featured scorer/playmaker on the team.

If someone believes anything, that person will find a way to support the belief. Whether that's a memory of a single bad performance, or a single number cherry-picked because it seems to say something critical, or it's a narrative story meant to be convincing.

If 3s shot a high % vs. the Wizards, maybe that says something about the team's defensive scheme. That may explain the 7% delta. Or, maybe it would be better to look at a better number -- e.g. TS% vs. Otto. And "any... had their way with him...." is the usual BS. If you look at Defensive RPM, Otto was 11th best in the league. The 3 above him were Aminu, Sefolosha & Paul George. If it's wrong about Otto, it's also wrong about those guys I suppose?

Let's see here.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2016/sort/DRPM/position/5

According to the DRPM rankings of SFs, among the most impactful defensive SFs were Otto Porter #11, right behind Paul George #10 (3x time All-Defensive team performer, but he's barely 80th percentile among starters according to this), the great Tony Snell at #6, and Robert Covington at #3 right behind Lebron James.. and you're asking me if I think it's wrong??

[Dark Faze]

I didn't want to be the one to say it lol
im tryna keep the peace nowadays

[Dark Faze]

Bad news: Beal is now projected to be an Up and Comer by 538's CARMELO metric, along with Andrew Wiggins for an example of another young player

Good news: Otto Porter currently projected as future all-star!

[popper]

I want to believe PIF's favorable judgement regarding Porter being one of the better SF in the league. Do others here agree and PIF, I'd be interested to know how you come to that conclusion. I wanna believe but the thing that makes me hesitate is that game last year when Melo chewed him up and we had to go with MM to stop the bleeding. Maybe that's a one-off game for Porter or unfair in the sense that Melo's made a lot of guys look silly. Just curious.

Basketball games are won/lost by way of numbers, right? Nothing but numbers counts in determining who won a game. Hence, a player's impact on a game (any game, or all games, he plays in) can be measured by looking at his numbers. Anyone who doesn't accept that as fact has no need to read further.

Lets compare Otto's numbers last season to those of a 3 everyone will agree is "one of the best" -- Nicolas Batum. We'll use numbers per 36 minutes. I'll do scoring last. First the other stuff --

Rebounding
Almost exactly the same. Batum was a little higher in defensive boards; Porter a little higher in offensive boards. If there had to be an edge it'd go to Porter, but it's not worth calling it.

Steals
Otto got @ .7 more steals

Turnovers
Otto had @ 1.9 fewer turnovers (I'll come back to TOs when we discuss shooting efficiency)

Fouls
Otto committed .9 more fouls

Assists
Advantage Batum with 4+ more assists

Blocks
Almost exactly the same. If there had to be an edge it'd go to Batum, but it's not worth calling it.

So, in all the above stuff, overall, it's pretty close. Most analyses rank fouls at half the negative value of turnovers, and assists at half the positive value of steals. Look at it that way, and the players are close -- with a slight edge to Porter but not enough to make anything of. Ok, now scoring.

Points
Batum scored 1.5+ more points than Otto per 36 minutes. Advantage Batum. But... a team has only so many possessions in a game. That's where efficiency comes in. If you score more points than another guy on the same number of shots & FTAs as he takes, no question you are better. So, lets look at %s.

2 point FG%
Porter: 53.6%
Batum: 49.2%

3 point FG%
Porter: 36.7%
Batum: 34.8%

FT%
Porter: 75.4%
Batum: 84.9%

We can roll all those up into a single figure: Total Shooting %

TS%
Porter: 56.4%
Batum: 54.6%

Because Batum has an almost 2% lower TS%, to get his extra points, he has to take up more of his team's chances to score. In fact, combining the extra shots he takes and the extra FTAs Nicolas Batum takes 2 more possessions than Otto Porter to garner 1.5 more points than Otto: thats a .375% on the delta. Not good. It'd be better for other guys on the team to use those possessions. And, there's one more point worth making. In order to get his 1.5 extra points, Batum also has to have the ball enough that he commits almost 2 more turnovers than Otto -- as noted above.

In short, Otto Porter is a more effective scorer than Nicolas Batum -- almost as many points but leaves his team almost 4 extra chances to score.

Nicolas Batum is a very good NBA wing. His numbers as I give them above are better than most NBA SFs. But, they aren't as good as Otto Porter's numbers. Pure and simple, Otto is a better player than Batum. He's also only 23 and improving at a rapid rate. He's already one of the best SFs in the league, and it seems likely he'll keep rising in those ranks.

Great explanation. Thanks. Does that mean we're going to have to max him out as well?

[payitforward]

I didn't want to be the one to say it lol
im tryna keep the peace nowadays

Nah Dark... the season starts in a couple of days. We can keep the peace when there's something to watch that counts. In the meantime -- for the next 48 hours have at it!

[Dat2U]

Funny how we had numerous guys in the top 20 in RPM last year and yet weren't good at all

How many minutes, overall, were played by guys in the top 20 in RPM? W/o that info, it's not possible to gauge any correlation or failure of correlation.

Wall 7
Temple 25
Dudley 9
Porter 14
Nene 14
Gortat 19

Other than Nene all those guys got 24 + minutes per game. Kieff and Sessions were top 50 as well. That's a significant chunk of the roster.

I haven't really given any thought to if this is supportive of RPM or not. Just found it interesting.

Keep in mind the rest of the roster

Neal was one of the 10 worst players in the entire league.
Oubre, Eddie, Gooden, Humphries, Blair & Hollins all were poor performing backups.
Beal & Morris were near the very bottom of their respective positions among starters.
Sessions was a middle of the road backup. So were Anderson & Thornton although they barely played.

Hence we were a .500 team with an equal balance of quality players and guys who didn't play well or didn't belong at all.

[payitforward]

Let's see here.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2016/sort/DRPM/position/5

According to the DRPM rankings of SFs, among the most impactful defensive SFs were Otto Porter #11, right behind Paul George #10 (3x time All-Defensive team performer, but he's barely 80th percentile among starters according to this), the great Tony Snell at #6, and Robert Covington at #3 right behind Lebron James.. and you're asking me if I think it's wrong??

I'm not usually a defender of drpm, and to tell the truth I don't care much whether it's a good metric or not -- largely because there's no way to judge it. The data used, the procedures used to arrive at it are a secret.

That said, you do agree that Kawhi Leonard and LeBron ought to rate right at or near the top, right? And if you do, then the numbers used to create that list are right in at least some sense, right?

So, why exactly is it inconceivable that Robert Covington is "right behind Lebron?" The same numbers were used to calculate his rating, weren't they? Is it inconceivable because he isn't a star? Ditto Snell? It just can't be? Why? Because it isn't the common view?

I believe the goal of analysis is to discover something you don't already know. I'm pretty sure it's not to confirm whatever it is you already think for whatever reason.