Seismic Shift in the East: Thomas Bryant a Wizard

[DCZards]

But these things hurt his value as a player...

Which player is better?

A) Someone who can efficiently create his own shot at high volume
B) Someone who can efficiently score only when playing with an elite point guard

Like I get that Bryant's role is limited to what he's capable of doing, and he benefited from playing with Beal. That's also why he's only making 3 / $25m and Brook Lopez is making 4 / $50m.

This is the part of your argument that I don't get. Since when does a player's salary determine how good they are or how they'll perform in the upcoming season? We all know that they are players who are overpaid and many who are underpaid. So comparing salaries is the weakest of arguments.

Bryant is 21 years old and going into his third season and Lopez is 31 years and going into his 11th season. Which player do you believe has more upside? Which one would you prefer to have on this year's Zards team?

Salary is imperfect but it's a decent proxy for how players are valued across the leagues, and both TB and Lopez were free agents this past summer with Lopez being ten years older and likely entering the twilight of his career.

More importantly, if we look at player salaries (via free agency) as a rough proxy for how they're valued by GMs, then everyone arguing TB > Lopez is making a fundamentally contrarian argument that cuts against conventional wisdom. My position is unquestionably in line with conventional wisdom, and Wizards fans on this board are the ones firing off hot takes.

There are countless examples of overpaid and underpaid players. So how players are "valued across the league" means very little.

Kelly Oubre got 2/$30 mil from the Suns. Bryant signed for 3/$25m. Do you think KO is better than TB or worth that much more?

[gtn130]

This is the part of your argument that I don't get. Since when does a player's salary determine how good they are or how they'll perform in the upcoming season? We all know that they are players who are overpaid and many who are underpaid. So comparing salaries is the weakest of arguments.

Bryant is 21 years old and going into his third season and Lopez is 31 years and going into his 11th season. Which player do you believe has more upside? Which one would you prefer to have on this year's Zards team?

Salary is imperfect but it's a decent proxy for how players are valued across the leagues, and both TB and Lopez were free agents this past summer with Lopez being ten years older and likely entering the twilight of his career.

More importantly, if we look at player salaries (via free agency) as a rough proxy for how they're valued by GMs, then everyone arguing TB > Lopez is making a fundamentally contrarian argument that cuts against conventional wisdom. My position is unquestionably in line with conventional wisdom, and Wizards fans on this board are the ones firing off hot takes.

There are countless examples of overpaid and underpaid players. So how players are "valued across the league" means very little.

Kelly Oubre got 2/$30 mil from the Suns. Bryant signed for 3/$25m. Do you think KO is better than TB or worth that much more?

I would take consensus NBA GM opinion over RealGM poster opinion. I think that's a fairly reasonable approach, and I've seen no evidence compelling me to rethink it.

[nate33]

The idea that big men are obsolete only applies when facing one team: the Golden State Warriors. They have a unicorn big man in Draymond Green, a guy who is essentially a moving fire hydrant with a 7-2 wingspan. He is a poor man's Magic Johnson on offense while still being an all time great help defender and elite rebounder. Draymond Green renders big men obsolete, but nobody else does. And now that the Warriors are no longer a superteam, teams no longer have to prioritize personnel specifically to beat them.

Would the Jazz be better without Gobert? Would Boston have done as well as they have without Horford? What about Toronto and Gasol? Big men are still valuable because 7-foot-tall people tend to be better rebounders and rim protectors than 6-8 people. Do we really want to try and get through Philly and Embiid by playing some 6-9 PF at center just because he is more switchable?

[gtn130]

The idea that big men are obsolete only applies when facing one team: the Golden State Warriors. They have a unicorn big man in Draymond Green, a guy who is essentially a moving fire hydrant with a 7-2 wingspan. He is a poor man's Magic Johnson on offense while still being an all time great help defender and elite rebounder. Draymond Green renders big men obsolete, but nobody else does. And now that the Warriors are no longer a superteam, teams no longer have to prioritize personnel specifically to beat them.

Would the Jazz be better without Gobert? Would Boston have done as well as they have without Horford? What about Toronto and Gasol? Big men are still valuable because 7-foot-tall people tend to be better rebounders and rim protectors than 6-8 people. Do we really want to try and get through Philly and Embiid by playing some 6-9 PF at center just because he is more switchable?

I acknowledged that this exact scenario was possible, and I don't disagree with any of this.

[doclinkin]

More importantly, if we look at player salaries (via free agency) as a rough proxy for how they're valued by GMs, then everyone arguing TB > Lopez is making a fundamentally contrarian argument that cuts against conventional wisdom. My position is unquestionably in line with conventional wisdom, and Wizards fans on this board are the ones firing off hot takes.

Cool. Conventional wisdom. The barber shop test. Are you going to get laughed out of the bar if you try to argue TB13 is better than x-player. Fair. He has no track record yet and hasn’t earned the respect. Literally ‘earned’ when it comes to his contract.

You can hold that position until he proves himself instead of projecting into the future. Reasonable to do. I will say though if you’re in a fantasy league, you’d be Smart to snatch him up late, since he is undervalued right now, and will probably produce at a high rate compared to his fantasy draft position.

[DCZards]

me: Thomas Bryant isn't that good and is paid relative to his skill level. He just entered free agency and the market has spoken.

Wizards fans on RealGM: Thomas Bryant is actually better than Brook Lopez has ever been in his career.

Ok guys lol

It’s disingenuous to use this to sum up this debate or the position of those of us who disagree with you about TB. This isn’t about whether Lopez or Bryant is better…or their respective salaries.

It’s about whether a tall, long, hard-working, hard-playing, mobile 21 year old, who performed very well last season, can continue to get better on both ends of the court. I think he will get better…and prove that he’s a great bargain at 3/$25 mil.

[wall_glizzy]

I'm very excited about Thomas Bryant, but you all desperately need to chill. comparing young Brook Lopez and young Thomas Bryant, who played in vastly different strategic environments, is asinine (as is the idea that Thomas Bryant is currently better than Lopez has ever been lmao).

The criticism that Bryant's utility, at this very moment, would be limited in a playoff environment where he could be repeatedly targeted in the pick and roll is valid; the response that he's only 21 and is in no way physically incapable of developing as a rim protector is also valid.

I think 3/$25m is a quite good deal for the zards, with pretty low downside given Bryant's current level of production and the contracts that some similar centers have gotten in the last few years. That said, it's absolutely a reflection of the current market for rim-running centers (33% from 3 on 1.5 attempts per game isn't meaningful enough to shed the "rim-runner" tag imo); they're seen as easy pickups in the draft, and guys who serve distinct offensive/defensive purposes with obvious downsides (relative inability to space the floor in the former case; the inability to move out to the perimeter and defend in space in the latter). For the guys who are truly able to mitigate one or the other of those (e.g. Brook Lopez on offense or Mitchell Robinson on defense), the market is considerably more active.

[gtn130]

More importantly, if we look at player salaries (via free agency) as a rough proxy for how they're valued by GMs, then everyone arguing TB > Lopez is making a fundamentally contrarian argument that cuts against conventional wisdom. My position is unquestionably in line with conventional wisdom, and Wizards fans on this board are the ones firing off hot takes.

Cool. Conventional wisdom. The barber shop test. Are you going to get laughed out of the bar if you try to argue TB13 is better than x-player. Fair. He has no track record yet and hasn’t earned the respect. Literally ‘earned’ when it comes to his contract.

You can hold that position until he proves himself instead of projecting into the future. Reasonable to do. I will say though if you’re in a fantasy league, you’d be Smart to snatch him up late, since he is undervalued right now, and will probably produce at a high rate compared to his fantasy draft position.

Yes but my actual opinion of Thomas Bryant happens to align with conventional wisdom here.

[gtn130]

me: Thomas Bryant isn't that good and is paid relative to his skill level. He just entered free agency and the market has spoken.

Wizards fans on RealGM: Thomas Bryant is actually better than Brook Lopez has ever been in his career.

Ok guys lol

It’s disingenuous to use this to sum up this debate or the position of those of us who disagree with you about TB. This isn’t about whether Lopez or Bryant is better…or their respective salaries.

It’s about whether a tall, long, hard-working, hard-playing, mobile 21 year old, who performed very well last season, can continue to get better on both ends of the court. I think he will get better…and prove that he’s a great bargain at 3/$25 mil.

Precisely zero (0) people other than me have challenged the idea that Thomas Bryant is better than Brook Lopez.

[gtn130]

I'm very excited about Thomas Bryant, but you all desperately need to chill. comparing young Brook Lopez and young Thomas Bryant, who played in vastly different strategic environments, is asinine (as is the idea that Thomas Bryant is currently better than Lopez has ever been lmao).

The criticism that Bryant's utility, at this very moment, would be limited in a playoff environment where he could be repeatedly targeted in the pick and roll is valid; the response that he's only 21 and is in no way physically incapable of developing as a rim protector is also valid.

I think 3/$25m is a quite good deal for the zards, with pretty low downside given Bryant's current level of production and the contracts that some similar centers have gotten in the last few years. That said, it's absolutely a reflection of the current market for rim-running centers (33% from 3 on 1.5 attempts per game isn't meaningful enough to shed the "rim-runner" tag imo); they're seen as easy pickups in the draft, and guys who serve distinct offensive/defensive purposes with obvious downsides (relative inability to space the floor in the former case; the inability to move out to the perimeter and defend in space in the latter). For the guys who are truly able to mitigate one or the other of those (e.g. Brook Lopez on offense or Mitchell Robinson on defense), the market is considerably more active.

Good and reasonable post right here

[trast66]

me: Thomas Bryant isn't that good and is paid relative to his skill level. He just entered free agency and the market has spoken.

Wizards fans on RealGM: Thomas Bryant is actually better than Brook Lopez has ever been in his career.

Ok guys lol

It’s disingenuous to use this to sum up this debate or the position of those of us who disagree with you about TB. This isn’t about whether Lopez or Bryant is better…or their respective salaries.

It’s about whether a tall, long, hard-working, hard-playing, mobile 21 year old, who performed very well last season, can continue to get better on both ends of the court. I think he will get better…and prove that he’s a great bargain at 3/$25 mil.

Precisely zero (0) people other than me have challenged the idea that Thomas Bryant is better than Brook Lopez.

I don’t know what Brook Lopez has to do with Thomas Bryant. In the Wiz current situation Bryant is “better”. If a team wanted to contend for a championship Lopez is obviously better as Bryant would be largely unplayable in the playoffs currently. If your point is the board view of Bryant’s performance last year is too high and that some of these people seemingly just read BRef and don’t watch games, then I’m with you. Bryant exceeded any reasonable expectations, some people here (not me) called it that this guy could play, and he’s on a good contract; thus he is rightly beloved on a Wiz fan forum.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

What are folks even talking about on this thread? Some obviously are not getting the the realistic comparison, rifting aspect concept of a forum. By and large, I haven't seen anyone saying Bryant is a guaranteed stud or even replacement level at that, just that he blew most first season expectations out of the water and that he has an interesting set of physical tools to, maybe, be a good player.

[gtn130]

It’s disingenuous to use this to sum up this debate or the position of those of us who disagree with you about TB. This isn’t about whether Lopez or Bryant is better…or their respective salaries.

It’s about whether a tall, long, hard-working, hard-playing, mobile 21 year old, who performed very well last season, can continue to get better on both ends of the court. I think he will get better…and prove that he’s a great bargain at 3/$25 mil.

Precisely zero (0) people other than me have challenged the idea that Thomas Bryant is better than Brook Lopez.

I don’t know what Brook Lopez has to do with Thomas Bryant. In the Wiz current situation Bryant is “better”. If a team wanted to contend for a championship Lopez is obviously better as Bryant would be largely unplayable in the playoffs currently. If your point is the board view of Bryant’s performance last year is too high and that some of these people seemingly just read BRef and don’t watch games, then I’m with you. Bryant exceeded any reasonable expectations, some people here (not me) called it that this guy could play, and he’s on a good contract; thus he is rightly beloved on a Wiz fan forum.

Brook Lopez was mentioned as a comp, which I disagreed with, and then PIF said that Bryant is definitively better than Lopez and always has been, which is insane and wrong, but most posters itt agree with him somehow, so that's why he's being mentioned.

My broader point is that people have gone overboard with Bryant. He's on a good contract and was a good pickup. He's still *highly likely* to be no better than a rotation player, and may be unplayable on a winning team if he doesn't improve defensively.

My point about a 31-year-old center in the twilight of his career getting a longer and bigger contract in the same free agency class is important and correct even if it makes people mad

[nate33]

I'm very excited about Thomas Bryant, but you all desperately need to chill. comparing young Brook Lopez and young Thomas Bryant, who played in vastly different strategic environments, is asinine (as is the idea that Thomas Bryant is currently better than Lopez has ever been lmao).

The criticism that Bryant's utility, at this very moment, would be limited in a playoff environment where he could be repeatedly targeted in the pick and roll is valid; the response that he's only 21 and is in no way physically incapable of developing as a rim protector is also valid.

I think 3/$25m is a quite good deal for the zards, with pretty low downside given Bryant's current level of production and the contracts that some similar centers have gotten in the last few years. That said, it's absolutely a reflection of the current market for rim-running centers (33% from 3 on 1.5 attempts per game isn't meaningful enough to shed the "rim-runner" tag imo); they're seen as easy pickups in the draft, and guys who serve distinct offensive/defensive purposes with obvious downsides (relative inability to space the floor in the former case; the inability to move out to the perimeter and defend in space in the latter). For the guys who are truly able to mitigate one or the other of those (e.g. Brook Lopez on offense or Mitchell Robinson on defense), the market is considerably more active.

I think it's true that Thomas Bryant last year was merely a rim runner. As rim runners go, he was actually a very good one, but his offense was limited nevertheless. But Thomas Bryant did show some signs of being more than a rim runner. That 33% shooting on 3-point range is not to be scoffed at. That's pretty good for a 21-year-old 7-footer.

Watching the scrimmage video from UCLA this summer featuring Bryant and Isaiah Thomas playing together, it really looks like Bryant's jumper is legit and will be a weapon much more heavily utilized this year. Going forward, I'm pretty confident that Bryant is going to be an effective pick-and-pop threat in addition to a pick-and-roll threat and a stand-in-the-corner-and-hit-3's threat.

The one thing he'll probably never be great at is switching onto perimeter defenders. He just doesn't have the body type to do it effectively. That's going to limit the defensive strategy a bit, but it's not insurmountable. We're just going to have to play more drop coverage in the pick-and-roll rather than switching everything. Milwaukee and Utah play drop coverage and somehow manage to have the top two defenses in the league, so it can work.

[Mojo Amok]

The one thing he'll probably never be great at is switching onto perimeter defenders. He just doesn't have the body type to do it effectively. That's going to limit the defensive strategy a bit, but it's not insurmountable. We're just going to have to play more drop coverage in the pick-and-roll rather than switching everything. Milwaukee and Utah play drop coverage and somehow manage to have the top two defenses in the league, so it can work.

There weren't a lot of switchable centers getting big minutes for the top defenses last year:



It's just Horford and Bam in the top 10, but Bam split time with a traditional drop center. Otherwise, the starters are mostly classic Goliath types who might be described as 'agile for their size' but make more impact the closer you get to the basket.

[nate33]

The one thing he'll probably never be great at is switching onto perimeter defenders. He just doesn't have the body type to do it effectively. That's going to limit the defensive strategy a bit, but it's not insurmountable. We're just going to have to play more drop coverage in the pick-and-roll rather than switching everything. Milwaukee and Utah play drop coverage and somehow manage to have the top two defenses in the league, so it can work.

There weren't a lot of switchable centers getting big minutes for the top defenses last year:



It's just Horford and Bam in the top 10, but Bam split time with a traditional drop center. Otherwise, the starters are mostly classic Goliath types who might be described as 'agile for their size' but make more impact the closer you get to the basket.

Ibaka does some switching for Orlando, and Adams is freakishly agile for a guy his size, but your point is well taken. There's a lot of good defensive teams that get it done with tall plodders rather glorified power forwards manning the paint.

[Illmatic12]

Size is still an advantage in basketball . Let’s not overreact to the few years of GSW dominance , the NBA works in cycles

Skilled bigs are every bit as relevant as they always were , and Thomas Bryant is a skilled big.

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Already, that’s a significant portion of the league seemingly preparing to devote non-trivial minutes to two-big lineups. Not even mentioned are four of the seven squads that used two-big units at least 10 percent of the time last season, and could conceivably do so again. (They are the Minnesota Timberwolves, Cleveland Cavaliers, San Antonio Spurs and Denver Nuggets, in addition to the Trail Blazers, Jazz and Pacers.) With multiple contenders in the East and West seemingly planning to use two-big lineups more often, it doesn’t appear as necessary for teams to ensure that they are well-equipped to go small against the very best opponents. Much of the league appears to have reacted by returning to the comfort of using size as an advantage.

[payitforward]

Salary is imperfect but it's a decent proxy for how players are valued across the leagues, and both TB and Lopez were free agents this past summer with Lopez being ten years older and likely entering the twilight of his career.

More importantly, if we look at player salaries (via free agency) as a rough proxy for how they're valued by GMs, then everyone arguing TB > Lopez is making a fundamentally contrarian argument that cuts against conventional wisdom. My position is unquestionably in line with conventional wisdom, and Wizards fans on this board are the ones firing off hot takes.

There are countless examples of overpaid and underpaid players. So how players are "valued across the league" means very little.

Kelly Oubre got 2/$30 mil from the Suns. Bryant signed for 3/$25m. Do you think KO is better than TB or worth that much more?

I would take consensus NBA GM opinion over RealGM poster opinion. I think that's a fairly reasonable approach, and I've seen no evidence compelling me to rethink it.

Try thinking a little harder the first time through, & you're likely to come up with a different conclusion.

You are using salary as a proxy for how players are valued, & (apparently) you are using "how players are valued" as a proxy for how good they are. Just for starters, a moment's consideration tells you that you can't use a proxy for a proxy of X in place of X & expect to get accurate results.

To display the first skewed conclusion, lets hear your answer to Zards question: is Kelly Oubre a better player than Thomas Bryant? Not "apparently GMs think..." but either yes or no. That's the way you addressed Thomas Bryant. You didn't need to check his salary to declare him "marginal" (your foolish word). You had a lot of other silly arguments.

Even on its own terms, your argument has no standing. Yes, the market as a whole determines value as a whole, so that statistically one would see a reasonable correlation between quality of players & their salaries. But no one would or should think that you could, therefore, automatically take any single pair of players & argue their value based on that overall statistical correlation.

In fact, all that is required to overturn the argument is a single counter-instance. So I guess you'll want to argue that Hasheem Thabeet was the second best player picked in 2008. Jimmy Butler was the 30th best player picked in 2011 (while Jimmer Fredette was a way better player taken #11, if I recall correctly).

Another simple way to topple your silly house of cards argument is to ask how high the correlation is between pick position & salary 10 years later. If your position is to be defended, I fear they must be lock-step.

Of course you could point out that sometimes GMs make mistakes. Unfortunately, in that case -- pouf! -- there goes pretty much every point you've tried to make, huh? So, I guess you'd better not admit that....

Here's the thing, Thomas Bryant is a tremendous player. His season last year was off the charts amazing -- all the more so for a guy taken where he was taken, but even without that, just for any 21 year old NBA player. &, since that's a) obvious from the numbers, b) numbers can't be eliminated by means of rhetoric, and c) you seem to have no ability to read numbers (since you will neither deny nor affirm them), the truth is it really doesn't matter what you think, does it?

I mean... nate posted a chart that demonstrates my point. All the more so in that you had no response to that chart.

[payitforward]

I'm very excited about Thomas Bryant, but you all desperately need to chill. comparing young Brook Lopez and young Thomas Bryant, who played in vastly different strategic environments, is asinine (as is the idea that Thomas Bryant is currently better than Lopez has ever been lmao).

The criticism that Bryant's utility, at this very moment, would be limited in a playoff environment where he could be repeatedly targeted in the pick and roll is valid; the response that he's only 21 and is in no way physically incapable of developing as a rim protector is also valid.

I think 3/$25m is a quite good deal for the zards, with pretty low downside given Bryant's current level of production and the contracts that some similar centers have gotten in the last few years. That said, it's absolutely a reflection of the current market for rim-running centers (33% from 3 on 1.5 attempts per game isn't meaningful enough to shed the "rim-runner" tag imo); they're seen as easy pickups in the draft, and guys who serve distinct offensive/defensive purposes with obvious downsides (relative inability to space the floor in the former case; the inability to move out to the perimeter and defend in space in the latter). For the guys who are truly able to mitigate one or the other of those (e.g. Brook Lopez on offense or Mitchell Robinson on defense), the market is considerably more active.

Good and reasonable post right here

Well at least it's an attempt to be reasonable. Yet, 1) of course you can compare the young Thomas Bryant & the young Brook Lopez! For the comparison to have deep meaning or predictability, you'd have to do it carefully, but of course you can compare players; 2) last year, across the board, in every meaningful measurement, Thomas Bryant had a better season than Brook Lopez has ever had, period; 3) how do you or anyone know what Thomas Bryant's utility would or wouldn't be in the playoffs, I wonder? I mean... it's impossible, according to you, to compare two players when they were young -- even though we have complete information about how they played -- but your crystal ball enables you to say what Thomas Bryant would or wouldn't do in a playoff game. BS.

You are certainly right that Bryant's salary is a bargain for the Wizards. The idea that someone who plays as well as he did last year is an "easy pickup in the draft" is absolutely ridiculous. Plus, if that were true, why oh why would we be guaranteeing hi $25m I wonder?

When Thomas Bryant becomes established as one of the outstanding players in the NBA, I can't wait for you to forget entirely the nonsensical crapola you're putting out now.

[doclinkin]

Precisely zero (0) people other than me have challenged the idea that Thomas Bryant is better than Brook Lopez.

I don’t know what Brook Lopez has to do with Thomas Bryant. In the Wiz current situation Bryant is “better”. If a team wanted to contend for a championship Lopez is obviously better as Bryant would be largely unplayable in the playoffs currently. If your point is the board view of Bryant’s performance last year is too high and that some of these people seemingly just read BRef and don’t watch games, then I’m with you. Bryant exceeded any reasonable expectations, some people here (not me) called it that this guy could play, and he’s on a good contract; thus he is rightly beloved on a Wiz fan forum.

Brook Lopez was mentioned as a comp, which I disagreed with, and then PIF said that Bryant is definitively better than Lopez and always has been, which is insane and wrong, but most posters itt agree with him somehow, so that's why he's being mentioned.

My broader point is that people have gone overboard with Bryant. He's on a good contract and was a good pickup. He's still *highly likely* to be no better than a rotation player, and may be unplayable on a winning team if he doesn't improve defensively.

My point about a 31-year-old center in the twilight of his career getting a longer and bigger contract in the same free agency class is important and correct even if it makes people mad

Brook was mentioned as a comp of a player that changes the floor by being a ranged shooting Big. Bryant’s early stats suggest he has this in his game.

Pif goes loopy with his efficiency fetish, irrespective of small sample size or usage. So yes in his mind Bryant is better than Brook Lopez ever was simply by taking fewer shots and hitting them with greater efficiency.

There are a handful of studies that clearly demonstrate regression to the mean when high-efficient low-usage players are forcefed possessions. Yeah Bryant doesn’t look like one of the curve breaking all stars who can be both high usage and highly efficient. And if he is it’s because someone has been damn good at feeding him the ball.

Fortunately we will see this year if Bryant maintains a high averages. I expect given what he does well, he will. If not, we need better guard play. Passers. I expect his three point shot skill may fluctuate, and drag down his stellar averages.

Early on it may look good until teams guard him on the catch. He will take more shots from here. We may see a dip in accuracy while he learns when to take that shot. I’d be more concerned to see how he passes from the key when teams do commit to guarding him. He can’t shoot over everybody. But if he’s not able to rid of the ball then the spacing provided by his range doesn’t help as much.

For the rest. His hands are good and are unlikely to get worse. He’s still tall and quick to attack. Keeps the ball out of reach and makes smart moves to get in position to score. He looks awkward and his skill set is limited. But what he does is something the team needs. As he gets stronger and more experienced I expect he will be a better defender. But he’s already an 18/10 guy per 36 minutes. And he’s likely to get those minutes since we have no one behind him.

Granted. It’s per 36 on a losing team. We will see how it shakes out. It’ll be interesting to watch.

He’s going to get stronger though. I mean if Brendan Haywood had an outside shot and could catch finish in traffic and in motion then he’d have been an all star at least once in his career. If we give this young cat a big man coach and defensive homework who knows how good he will get at this end.