Seismic Shift in the East: Thomas Bryant a Wizard

[gtn130]

Veteran contracts with AAV of $8-9m:

[payitforward]

PIF, is 3 years / $25 million fair market value for Bryant or not?

If it's not, explain why the entire league missed on him. If it is fair value, then we agree that he's a low-end rotation player with *some* upside but not a ton.

Little point in this: where is your example of another 21-year-old R2 Center (or any position) who got 3 years at $25m after 1500 minutes.

Who Thomas Bryant is as a player is in the numbers he puts up as a player. Period. Nowhere else. That's also true of LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, Brad Beal, etc. It's all numbers. The years that Brad has put up better numbers are the years we call his best years.

Why is that? Because the score of the game is a number, that's why. Duh. &, if your players put up better numbers than the opponent's players, you win the game. Period.

I assume you don't question whether Thomas Bryant's numbers were good -- a lot better than "good," actually -- do you? If so, please demonstrate your point.

For example, whose numbers were better -- Brook Lopez or Thomas Bryant? Was there a big difference or a small one between their numbers?

Now... you may want to argue that Brook Lopez's lousy numbers were because he is such a good player that he's guarded closely. Making that argument will be torturous, but... hey, that's your problem.

But lets start with you admitting that Bryant's numbers -- for whatever reason -- were much much better than Lopez's numbers. Or proving that they weren't (please don't try to do that; it's just too dumb...).

[gtn130]

In his entire career, Brook Lopez has never had a season as good as Thomas Bryant's rookie year. Including last season.

I mean this is just obviously and objectively wrong, man.

[gtn130]

PIF we've had some variant of this argument for years now. You want to sort by TS% and ignore all context, but that really doesn't work in basketball and you should rethink your approach.

[gtn130]

PIF, is 3 years / $25 million fair market value for Bryant or not?

If it's not, explain why the entire league missed on him. If it is fair value, then we agree that he's a low-end rotation player with *some* upside but not a ton.

Little point in this: where is your example of another 21-year-old R2 Center (or any position) who got 3 years at $25m after 1500 minutes.

Who Thomas Bryant is as a player is in the numbers he puts up as a player. Period. Nowhere else. That's also true of LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, Brad Beal, etc. It's all numbers. The years that Brad has put up better numbers are the years we call his best years.

Why is that? Because the score of the game is a number, that's why. Duh. &, if your players put up better numbers than the opponent's players, you win the game. Period.

I assume you don't question whether Thomas Bryant's numbers were good -- a lot better than "good," actually -- do you? If so, please demonstrate your point.

For example, whose numbers were better -- Brook Lopez or Thomas Bryant? Was there a big difference or a small one between their numbers?

Now... you may want to argue that Brook Lopez's lousy numbers were because he is such a good player that he's guarded closely. Making that argument will be torturous, but... hey, that's your problem.

But lets start with you admitting that Bryant's numbers -- for whatever reason -- were much much better than Lopez's numbers. Or proving that they weren't (please don't try to do that; it's just too dumb...).

This didn't even come close to addressing my question.

I understand that you can read bref and see that Thomas Bryant had good efficiency numbers last season. That shouldn't be the totality of your argument because it leads you in the wrong direction quite frequently.

[gtn130]

It's been illuminating having this back-and-forth and learning that Wizards fans are so enamored with Thomas Bryant that they've concluded that Brook Lopez has never had a season as good as Thomas Bryant's worst.

I feel pretty comfortable sticking with my original take that Wizards fans are delusional vis-a-vis Thomas Bryant. Really not feeling too bad about it right now, I gotta say.

[gtn130]

Little point in this: where is your example of another 21-year-old R2 Center (or any position) who got 3 years at $25m after 1500 minutes.

You're gonna lose it when you find out there are rookies who have played zero career NBA minutes and are making significantly more money.

Do you think teams have more information on Zion Williamson than Thomas Bryant?

[Illmatic12]

Bryant’s salary is a function of the Wizards limiting his minutes to artificially depress his value on the market. Next season as the full time starter I expect him to average around 17/10 in 30+mpg

Idk what exactly the point of the argument is here , but I will disagree with the contention I read that Bryant is an “outdated” center of whatever . That’s nonsense . As a rim-running big he’s probably in the top 5 of the entire league , but he’s not just a rim runner because he can space the floor and even has some burgeoning ability to attack close outs.

Bryant would be a run of the mill player if he was say, 75% worse at the things he’s good at. But his ability to run the floor, to catch and finish on the roll is literally a statistical outlier among all 400+ players who play in the NBA , he is THAT good.

[nate33]

Veteran contracts with AAV of $8-9m:

It looks to me that the Thomas Bryant signing was perhaps the best value signing of the past few years. The only guy on that list who is arguably better is Lou Williams.

[nate33]

Bryant averaged 24 points and 14.4 boards per 100 possessions in 1496 minutes.

Here's a list of all players in the past 20 years who have averaged 22 or more points and 12 or more boards per 100 possessions at an age of 21 or less, sorted by WS/48 (1400 minutes played minimum).



That's some pretty damn good company. Of the top 30 names, only Greg Monroe and Dejuan Blair did not pan out to be above-average starters or better. Most of them are All Stars.

[gtn130]

Idk what exactly the point of the argument is here , but I will disagree with the contention I read that Bryant is an “outdated” center of whatever,

Nobody said this

[gtn130]

It looks to me that the Thomas Bryant signing was perhaps the best value signing of the past few years. The only guy on that list who is arguably better is Lou Williams.

I mean, maybe, but the point stands that the market decided Bryant isn't worth all that much. Milwaukee could have offered Thomas Bryant 3/30 instead of 4/50 for Brook Lopez at 31 years old.


Lou Williams is obviously way underpaid and his agent should be fired considering Lou Williams opted into a paycut this offseason. Tangential, but Lou Williams' contract negotiations have been mystifying.

[Ruzious]

It looks to me that the Thomas Bryant signing was perhaps the best value signing of the past few years. The only guy on that list who is arguably better is Lou Williams.

I mean, maybe, but the point stands that the market decided Bryant isn't worth all that much. Milwaukee could have offered Thomas Bryant 3/30 instead of 4/50 for Brook Lopez at 31 years old.

There's some validity in your comment, but maybe the market just got it wrong this time. Also, Milwaukee paid for Lopez, because they won more regular season games than anyone else - with him as their starting center. His 3 point shooting was vital to their offense - did I mention that before?

[DCZards]

It looks to me that the Thomas Bryant signing was perhaps the best value signing of the past few years. The only guy on that list who is arguably better is Lou Williams.

I mean, maybe, but the point stands that the market decided Bryant isn't worth all that much. Milwaukee could have offered Thomas Bryant 3/30 instead of 4/50 for Brook Lopez at 31 years old.


Lou Williams is obviously way underpaid and his agent should be fired considering Lou Williams opted into a paycut this offseason. Tangential, but Lou Williams' contract negotiations have been mystifying.

As a Zards fan I'm happy nobody made Bryant an offer that the Zards couldn't or wouldn't match. In a couple of years we'll be calling TB underpaid just like you labeled Lou Will.

[nate33]

It looks to me that the Thomas Bryant signing was perhaps the best value signing of the past few years. The only guy on that list who is arguably better is Lou Williams.

I mean, maybe, but the point stands that the market decided Bryant isn't worth all that much. Milwaukee could have offered Thomas Bryant 3/30 instead of 4/50 for Brook Lopez at 31 years old.


Lou Williams is obviously way underpaid and his agent should be fired considering Lou Williams opted into a paycut this offseason. Tangential, but Lou Williams' contract negotiations have been mystifying.

It was an unusually suppressed market for big men with lots of supply and minimal demand. The teams with cap room already had a center - except New York who spent their money on Julius Randle. (Which was a mistake. Bryant is going to be a better player than Randle.) Also, Bryant was a RFA and teams didn't want to tie up money on an offer sheet.

[Illmatic12]

It looks to me that the Thomas Bryant signing was perhaps the best value signing of the past few years. The only guy on that list who is arguably better is Lou Williams.

I mean, maybe, but the point stands that the market decided Bryant isn't worth all that much. Milwaukee could have offered Thomas Bryant 3/30 instead of 4/50 for Brook Lopez at 31 years old.


Lou Williams is obviously way underpaid and his agent should be fired considering Lou Williams opted into a paycut this offseason. Tangential, but Lou Williams' contract negotiations have been mystifying.

It was an unusually suppressed market for big men with lots of supply and minimal demand. The teams with cap room already had a center - except New York who spent their money on Julius Randle. (Which was a mistake. Bryant is going to be a better player than Randle.) Also, Bryant was a RFA and teams didn't want to tie up money on an offer sheet.

Furthermore there are CBA limits on the type of offer sheet Bryant could receive (not sure if this has been mentioned)

Since he was a 2nd round pick he’d be in the same situation as Jeremy Lin a few years back , in order to pay him more than ~$9M AAV a team would have had to offer him a 4yr poison pill contract that is backloaded. It wouldn’t have been an easy task for another team to construct an offer sheet that would make the Wizards think twice about matching.

If he was an unrestricted FA we can assume his market would have been much different.

[closg00]

Bryant get us ranked 23rd on the young core rating while kicking Ernie one last time.

23. Washington Wizards
WAR: 16.5 | Best Under-25 Player: Thomas Bryant (7.1)

The results of Washington’s five first-round draft selections after picking Bradley Beal no. 3 overall in 2012:

2013: Used on Otto Porter Jr., who was traded last trade deadline for two expiring contracts and a future second-round pick

2014: Traded for Marcin Gortat

2015: Used on Jerian Grant, who was traded on draft night for Kelly Oubre Jr., who was traded last season for half a season of Trevor Ariza

2016: Traded for Markieff Morris

2017: Traded for Bojan Bogdanovic

And that’s how a team turns half a decade of first-round picks into precisely zero players on a present-day roster in dire need of some young talent.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/7/23/20703286/nba-young-core-rankings

[payitforward]

In his entire career, Brook Lopez has never had a season as good as Thomas Bryant's rookie year. Including last season.

I mean this is just obviously and objectively wrong, man.

No, it's just obviously & objectively right.

Are more points better? Or are fewer points better?

Are more points gotten by taking fewer shots/free throws better? Or is it better to take more shots/fts to produce fewer points?

So far, on those numbers, Thomas Bryant has run a circle around Brook Lopez.

Are more defensive boards better than fewer defensive boards? How about offensive boards? Are more of them better than fewer of them?

How about assists? Are fewer assists better than more assists?

On all those numbers as well, Bryant simply trashes Brook Lopez.

Now... Lopez also did a few things better than Bryant -- only a few & usually not much better, but still. Just as Bryant receives a gold star for getting five offensive rebounds for every one offensive rebound Brook Lopez got, so too Lopez gets a star for only turning the ball over 1.8 times for every 2 times Bryant turned it over. It's not much, but it's valid in the same way the offensive boards, defensive boards, 2pt. %, eFG%, TS%, etc. etc. etc. are valid in favor of Lopez.

& if you want to tell me that Lopez shooting all those 3s (even though his shots produce fewer points than Bryant's shots) helps his team because he opens up the floor for other players, then I'm going to tell you that without Antetekounmpo on the floor with him Lopez wouldn't get those open shots.

Basketball's not a beauty contest; & it's not a gymnastics floor routine. How good a player is has nothing to do with someone making a judgment, holding up a sign that reads "10." The numbers are there already; no one decides on them. But, you don't even look at them, that's obvious.

[doclinkin]

I will say this again since it doesn't appear to have hit home yet, but 3pt shooting centers are wildly overrated in a league that doesn't punish anyone for lack of size.

The alternative to a 3pt shooting center is a 3pt shooting wing who is far more versatile on both ends of the court. I can see an argument that the meta will change with Golden State no longer being a juggernaut, and a massive team like Philly ascending through the pecking order, but that hasn't actually happened yet, and it's not clear that Philly will dominate anyone offensively *because* of their size.

Teams are all running four-out spread PNR. There is no Shaq in this league, and the dominant team of this era features a "center" who is 6'7.

I guess this is the crux of my point. It’s under the radar but the meta game is changing. With the notable exception of Golden State and Houston, all of the top post season contenders relied on lynchpin Bigs in key roles.

Teams pitched all hell of three point shots this year. None more than those two. But the Championship was won by a ball control defensive team that relied on a superior mid-range jumpshooter as their alpha and omega options.

The successful teams are starting to trend Big. And teams that don’t lock up an option at this spot are going to have to scramble and overpay if they want to contend in the post season.

One team has a Curry and Klay. Only Houston is commiting to full on statball. Everyone else who matters is recognizing that you still need bigs.

Hell yes you need defensive bigs who can show and recover in the P&R game. And ideally hedge or trap the outside shot. But that defense alone is not enough anymore for Bigs. The best interior defender in the league may be Gobert, and he’s had to sit out long minutes because his game was not versatile enough.

No one thinks Bryant is a finished product. But his early production in limited minutes is hopeful. A smart coach will use that. Does he need to improve on defense? Hell yes. But is it unlikely that a 21 year old cat with excellent size and good work ethic will improve? You’re comparing him to a guy with 10 years in the league, and ok with limited sample size, Bryant’s early stats compare well to Brook’s. Hell they compare well to a long list of young players.

The part where I’d agree with you is that a guy like Brook for instance was better able to create for himself. And despite having more skills and moves against a set defense, it’s going to be a lower percentage shot than when you are being spoon fed when you’re open.

But. There’s a rack of players who cannot finish half as well as Bryant when the ball is gotten to them. And despite a limited repertoire of moves,his hands and size are already good enough that he still finishes in traffic. Too, he works hard to get loose, is smart enough to make himself a good target for the passes that lead to those open shots. Crashes the lane at the right time. Runs end to end on the break. Plays with energy. Catches putback attempts and keeps the ball high to finish without having to regather.

It’s also a nice tool and is precociously skilled for a Big that he hits that standalone 3. Playing with other outside shooting Bigs he will get more attempts this year to develop the confidence to let it fly quickly. It’s clearly something the team wants to emphasize. You suggest he will hit them at a worse clip if he takes more. Maybe. But the trend in young players who work on their game is they tend to get better not worse.

He’s not Hakeem. He’s not Nowitski. He’s not Kareem. Or Duncan or Unibrow. But he’s a reliable finisher and a smart coach and point guard can use that to make him look good and punish opponents for similarly overlooking him — just because he has no neck and no moves and looks more awkward than his results suggest.

The fact that we have him cheap and he’s got room to improve (but attitude and aptitude to do so) are good things.

I’d say this though. Don’t get stuck on today’s Metagame. Look for the trends that suggest what will happen in the next set of adjustments. My belief is it’s in loading up on rebounding with high percentage scoring at the other end. That’s what gave the Bucks the leagues best regular season record. That and a three point pitching Big who was throwing it up there like he was out of his mind.

We’ve got a candidate for that role. Now we need, right, perimeter defenders, and more rebounding from every position 1-5. Show me how we get that for 8 million a year and I’ll cede your point that we should be less happy we locked in Bryant to his first real contract.

[Ruzious]

In his entire career, Brook Lopez has never had a season as good as Thomas Bryant's rookie year. Including last season.

I mean this is just obviously and objectively wrong, man.

No, it's just obviously & objectively right.

Are more points better? Or are fewer points better?

Are more points gotten by taking fewer shots/free throws better? Or is it better to take more shots/fts to produce fewer points?

So far, on those numbers, Thomas Bryant has run a circle around Brook Lopez.

Are more defensive boards better than fewer defensive boards? How about offensive boards? Are more of them better than fewer of them?

How about assists? Are fewer assists better than more assists?

On all those numbers as well, Bryant simply trashes Brook Lopez.

Now... Lopez also did a few things better than Bryant -- only a few & usually not much better, but still. Just as Bryant receives a gold star for getting five offensive rebounds for every one offensive rebound Brook Lopez got, so too Lopez gets a star for only turning the ball over 1.8 times for every 2 times Bryant turned it over. It's not much, but it's valid in the same way the offensive boards, defensive boards, 2pt. %, eFG%, TS%, etc. etc. etc. are valid in favor of Lopez.

& if you want to tell me that Lopez shooting all those 3s (even though his shots produce fewer points than Bryant's shots) helps his team because he opens up the floor for other players, then I'm going to tell you that without Antetekounmpo on the floor with him Lopez wouldn't get those open shots.

Basketball's not a beauty contest; & it's not a gymnastics floor routine. How good a player is has nothing to do with someone making a judgment, holding up a sign that reads "10." The numbers are there already; no one decides on them. But, you don't even look at them, that's obvious.

Lopez' rebounding stats are very mis-leading. Not saying he's a good rebounder, but he's nowhere near as ineffective as they would lead you to believe. What he does very well is box out and provide rebounding opportunities for his teammates. Notice Giannis' rebounding numbers dramatically improved last season - a lot of that is because of Lopez' efforts.