gtn130 wrote: DCZards wrote:
gtn130 wrote: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.
Pay no attention to the remarks above. Or, per Ruzious: "PIF, ...the best part of your posts is your tagline."