Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX

[montestewart]

Continued from here

[pcbothwel]

100 mill salary.
115 mill cap.
You wont get mle unles you are already over 115.

Im not sure what you are not picking up about this.
1) Salary: We are at 103M, not 100M. And that is for 11 player and the Min cap hold. And the cap is not 115M, that was the original projection before COVID/bubble ball. It is now assumed a flat rate of 109M, maybe 110M for this year.

2) MLE: Im well aware of the MLE and its rules. Bertans Cap hold/salary + 9th pick puts at 121M. Which is about 11-12M over the cap, but under the Luxury Tax. We will therefore be able to use the Full MLE & BAE, along with our 2nd round pick to fill out the roster with 15 players and be just under the Lux tax.

So again, we get older, more expensive, less athletic, more top heavy, more injury prone... all while not being better. Pass.

[payitforward]

Marginally related...

1. $103m for 11 including Pasecniks @$1.5m -- will we pick up his option?
2. Using both exceptions adds $12.9m > $116m/13 players
3. #9 pick + #37 pick = $5.5m > $121.5m for 15 w/o Bertans. But we want to keep Bertans.
4. Back out BAE @ $3.6m > $118m for 14 w/o Bertans.
5. Bertans @ $14m, & we slide in under the tax.

nate/pcbothwei: Is this approximately correct?

[pcbothwel]

Marginally related...

1. $103m for 11 including Pasecniks @$1.5m -- will we pick up his option?
2. Using both exceptions adds $12.9m > $116m/13 players
3. #9 pick + #37 pick = $5.5m > $121.5m for 15 w/o Bertans. But we want to keep Bertans.
4. Back out BAE @ $3.6m > $118m for 14 w/o Bertans.
5. Bertans @ $14m, & we slide in under the tax.

nate/pcbothwei: Is this approximately correct?

Yes. My calcs show us being slightly above the tax if we use/sign both picks, use both exceptions, and sign Bertans for 15M/year (Starting salary is 14M).
I think we can save a bit by:
1) Using Ish & Robinson in trade to lower cost
2) Using less than full MLE (i.e. 3/20M contract)
3) Dont use BAE

I think Philly could be a good match as they need guard help and we could save a little money and get a late 2nd.
Ish + Robinson for Scott, Smith, #49 = Philly gets better fit/immediate help while we take a rehab project in Smith, save 1.5M, and get a late 2nd.

[payitforward]

I don't think Philly does that trade, which takes them even further over the tax while providing little real benefit. Most people will view both Robinson & Smith as no more than dead weight.

They might do Ish for Scott. Then again, we do need someone to back up John Wall!

As well, there'd be no motivation to include the #49 pick (a minor point, since we could buy it if we wanted -- & of course I do want to but make it one of their 34/36 picks).

[payitforward]

Whether & how to use the MLE/BAE or both (or neither) must depend on who's available & can be snagged, obviously -- as discussed in the FA thread.

[doclinkin]

I wonder in this COVID year which teams may be looking for corners to cut to make up for shortfalls in income. The Athletic had an article on which teams may feel the bite this year. I'd wonder which ones have surplus draft picks to sell, or teams with topped out rosters, contenders looking for vets, or with too many young players already, or capped out with stars they need to re-sign, or simply teams with cashflow issues looking to cut costs. Here were the teams cited who may be feeling squeezed right now (excerpts) :

Warriors: ...The Warriors spent lavishly to build an arena... ... stuck on a TV contract... locking them out of proceeds that could have been netted from their miraculous rise. Now the Warriors claim a very expensive roster, having committed roughly a combined $130 million to their four best-paid players next season

... Whenever this pandemic ends, the Warriors can go right back to printing money at Chase. For that reason, it’s likely easier for the Warriors to get a loan than for other franchises.... If they build another championship-tier team, fans will return in droves and pay top dollar. Not every franchise can expect the level of revenue the Warriors can reach at their peak. The future can be bright in San Francisco, but one wonders about ownership’s financial pain tolerance in the short term.

Rockets: This one is obvious. Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta is invested heavily in restaurants, hotels, amusement parks, casinos and, really, any property you can name that might have been devastated by COVID-19. ...

Thunder: ...No team has prepared better for the disaster. Sam Presti has ... net the Thunder as many as 15 first-round picks between now and the 2026 season. It’s a genius play because the Thunder might not be able to do much in the immediate future. The energy sector, on which Oklahoma City and much of the Thunder ownership rely, has been crushed of late. ... In the near term, the Thunder likely can’t do much, save for stockpiling, and man are they doing a great job of that.

Heat: Two words: Carnival Cruises. Still, I’ve heard some league insiders say that Heat owner and Carnival Corporation chairman Micky Arison has a bit less exposure to the losses than you might think...

Kings: This is the little brother of the Warriors’ situation. The Kings have a new-ish arena, which means they have new costs. Vivek Ranadivé is not among the wealthier owners and Sacramento is a smaller market. The Kings have a lot to sort out financially. Hopefully, they can get better stewardship on that front than they’ve gotten in the recent past.

Pacers: Owner Herb Simon boasts billions, but he’s in a small market and his Simon Property Group is heavily leveraged into malls. Yes, malls. This was a troublesome business to be in before the pandemic struck. Today’s Motley Fool update on the Simon Property Group begins with the statement, “There’s really no way to put a positive spin on 2020 for Simon Property Group (NYSE:SPG) or its shareholders.”...

Knicks: To quote Knicks great Patrick Ewing, yes the Knicks make a lot of money, but they spend a lot of money, too. The Madison Square Garden Company is heavily invested in entertainment ventures that have been hard hit, such as basketball and hockey. Due to that, its stock price cratered in the spring and has yet to really recover. The Knicks have traditionally squandered their financial advantage over other teams. Perhaps even that edge is eroding.

Raptors: It’s a very similar situation to the Knicks, save for the on-court product. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment presides over multiple sports franchises and the high costs associated with them. This pandemic represents a haircut on many fronts.

Of the above the Kings have four draft picks and a mess of a roster, but their picks are late. They are small market like Charlotte and New Orleans and the Timberwolves. All teams with 3 or more picks.

Knicks roster is a mess. They don't need to sell picks but would probably be happy to consolidate picks in a trade. That said they will likely jump higher into the lotto to get a PG, flipping picks with GSW with some incentive. People suggest they want LaMelo, though for my money I think Halliburton is a better player for them. So maybe they'd be smarter to wait and see which one falls. Except that Halliburton seems to be a draft target for GSW as well, so they may flip with someone before the Knix.

Aside from the above, Philadelphia has a swarm of picks and championship delusions. Not small market and probably not squeezed, but still they likely want to consolidate on a trade up or swap for a veteran.

The configurations don't line up for anything ideal from what I can see. But maybe we can buy late picks, the way Ernie used to sell them. Or squeeze in on multi-team trades and see what we can land from it. I don't expect Ted or Ms Powell-Jobs have been hurt by the pandemic the way others have. Most billionaires have significantly profited off of this administration.

[nate33]

Unfortunately, we don't have any trade exceptions of any size to take advantage of this. At best, we can trade a 2021 contract (Ish, Robinson) for a longer bad contract. Teams looking to get into the 2021 free agency sweepstakes might be interested.

[payitforward]

GMs aren't fools by and large, so most trades exchange equal value. If you are a really good team with lots and lots of good players, then a trade can help you by balancing you positionally. If you are the Washington Wizards & just went 25-47 you don't have that kind of roster.

Thus, if we want more draft picks we will either trade down or buy picks or both. That's it.

[pcbothwel]

Unfortunately, we don't have any trade exceptions of any size to take advantage of this. At best, we can trade a 2021 contract (Ish, Robinson) for a longer bad contract. Teams looking to get into the 2021 free agency sweepstakes might be interested.

Agreed. Bertans (13-14M), both draft picks, and the Full MLE puts us right near the Lux tax (~130M) with 15 players.
On a chaotic schedule and a draft class with middling high end talent, I just prefer to take my chances with that squad and just enjoy competitive basketball.
We are about to have 5 guys that rotation caliber players and are 23 or under (Brown, Bryant, Rui, Bonga, #9), so lets just take it in stride.

[payitforward]

...We are about to have 5 guys that are rotation caliber players and are 23 or under (Brown, Bryant, Rui, Bonga, #9), so lets just take it in stride.

I'm not sure what you mean by "let's just take it in stride," but if you mean let's not try to make some "significant" trade to get a "proven" vet, then of course I agree totally. That's along the lines of a simple fact: you cannot rush a team rebuild.

But, I'm not sure what "rotation-worthy" means. If it means "worthy of 20 minutes a night on an average NBA team," then I'd certainly agree that Brown, Bryant & Bonga have shown themselves to be that. But, I don't think we can assume that our #9 pick will come into the league at that level. & I think it's pretty optimistic to describe Rui as at that level. Yet, perhaps he will get there in his second year.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't make one or more trades. The move we've discussed that brings us Jarrett Allen & the #19 in return for Thomas Bryant & the #9 strikes me as a good one. At the same time, the potential that Okongwu might drop to us at #9 would make it hard to execute.

[pcbothwel]

...We are about to have 5 guys that are rotation caliber players and are 23 or under (Brown, Bryant, Rui, Bonga, #9), so lets just take it in stride.

I'm not sure what you mean by "let's just take it in stride," but if you mean let's not try to make some "significant" trade to get a "proven" vet, then of course I agree totally. That's along the lines of a simple fact: you cannot rush a team rebuild.

But, I'm not sure what "rotation-worthy" means. If it means "worthy of 20 minutes a night on an average NBA team," then I'd certainly agree that Brown, Bryant & Bonga have shown themselves to be that. But, I don't think we can assume that our #9 pick will come into the league at that level. & I think it's pretty optimistic to describe Rui as at that level. Yet, perhaps he will get there in his second year.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't make one or more trades. The move we've discussed that brings us Jarrett Allen & the #19 in return for Thomas Bryant & the #9 strikes me as a good one. At the same time, the potential that Okongwu might drop to us at #9 would make it hard to execute.

1) Yes, Taking in stride means continuing to build with young guys to compliment Wall/Beal. This leads to a better team, which leads to more wins. Now, those wins may still not be enough, in which case we can look to rebuild further by trading for assets.

2) Also yes. The players I listed are worthy of 20 MPG of at least 20-25 teams in the league.

3) Someone needs to clarify what in the hell is so good about Jarrett Allen. I firmly believe Bryant will be the better player long term while also have a more favorable contract. Allen is the better defender, but I dont think the gap is nearly as big as portrayed.
And Allens offense is extremely overrated. I dont want anybody citing ORtg and TS for a Center that takes 76% of their shots at the rim, and 96% within 10 feet... while having a usage under 15%. Solid player, but a narrow lane.

Ian Mahinmi looked good offensively with those metrics.

That doesnt mean I wouldnt trade Bryant for Allen, but I have no interest in adding a mid 1st round pick for an ambiguous upgrade.

[Ruzious]

...We are about to have 5 guys that are rotation caliber players and are 23 or under (Brown, Bryant, Rui, Bonga, #9), so lets just take it in stride.

I'm not sure what you mean by "let's just take it in stride," but if you mean let's not try to make some "significant" trade to get a "proven" vet, then of course I agree totally. That's along the lines of a simple fact: you cannot rush a team rebuild.

But, I'm not sure what "rotation-worthy" means. If it means "worthy of 20 minutes a night on an average NBA team," then I'd certainly agree that Brown, Bryant & Bonga have shown themselves to be that. But, I don't think we can assume that our #9 pick will come into the league at that level. & I think it's pretty optimistic to describe Rui as at that level. Yet, perhaps he will get there in his second year.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't make one or more trades. The move we've discussed that brings us Jarrett Allen & the #19 in return for Thomas Bryant & the #9 strikes me as a good one. At the same time, the potential that Okongwu might drop to us at #9 would make it hard to execute.

1) Yes, Taking in stride means continuing to build with young guys to compliment Wall/Beal. This leads to a better team, which leads to more wins. Now, those wins may still not be enough, in which case we can look to rebuild further by trading for assets.

2) Also yes. The players I listed are worthy of 20 MPG of at least 20-25 teams in the league.

3) Someone needs to clarify what in the hell is so good about Jarrett Allen. I firmly believe Bryant will be the better player long term while also have a more favorable contract. Allen is the better defender, but I dont think the gap is nearly as big as portrayed.
And Allens offense is extremely overrated. I dont want anybody citing ORtg and TS for a Center that takes 76% of their shots at the rim, and 96% within 10 feet... while having a usage under 15%. Solid player, but a narrow lane.

Ian Mahinmi looked good offensively with those metrics.

That doesnt mean I wouldnt trade Bryant for Allen, but I have no interest in adding a mid 1st round pick for an ambiguous upgrade.

Allens' good, but dollars-wise it probably doesn't make sense - with Allen being a free agent after this season. I'm looking forward to seeing if a Bryant/Adebayo combo works.

[payitforward]

...We are about to have 5 guys that are rotation caliber players and are 23 or under (Brown, Bryant, Rui, Bonga, #9), so lets just take it in stride.

I'm not sure what you mean by "let's just take it in stride," but if you mean let's not try to make some "significant" trade to get a "proven" vet, then of course I agree totally. That's along the lines of a simple fact: you cannot rush a team rebuild.

But, I'm not sure what "rotation-worthy" means. If it means "worthy of 20 minutes a night on an average NBA team," then I'd certainly agree that Brown, Bryant & Bonga have shown themselves to be that. But, I don't think we can assume that our #9 pick will come into the league at that level. & I think it's pretty optimistic to describe Rui as at that level. Yet, perhaps he will get there in his second year.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't make one or more trades. The move we've discussed that brings us Jarrett Allen & the #19 in return for Thomas Bryant & the #9 strikes me as a good one. At the same time, the potential that Okongwu might drop to us at #9 would make it hard to execute.

1) Yes, Taking in stride means continuing to build with young guys to compliement Wall/Beal. This leads to a better team, which leads to more wins. Now, those wins may still not be enough, in which case we can look to rebuild further by trading for assets....

So, basically we agree -- central thing to do is add more young guys through the draft.

As to "still not... enough" -- enough to do what? & on what schedule.

As to "trading for assets" -- you have to give to get. We don't have anything to give except those "young guys" we "build with," so trades can't really be a way to "rebuild further." Of course, we could use the well-tested strategy of Ernie Grunfeld & trade future picks for players now. Since future assets are always sold at a discount, this is guaranteed to fail as a strategy. Of course, if the short-term gain is more critical than the long-term loss (i.e. "I can win a title this year if I make this move) then that's a time when it may be worth it to lose long-term on a trade.

2) Also yes. The players I listed -- (Brown, Bryant, Rui, Bonga, #9) -- are worthy of 20 MPG of at least 20-25 teams in the league. ...

22 of those 25 teams are better than the Washington Wizards if you are going by record. But maybe you are going by per-game point differentials against the rest of the league? In that case, 24 were better than the Wizards.

All the same, Bryant, Brown & Bonga all performed at a level that justifies your claim. Rui didn't. Not close. &, obviously, neither you nor I can possibly claim that the guy we pick #9 in the draft will. Still... hope he does!

3) Someone needs to clarify what in the hell is so good about Jarrett Allen....

That's easy. Just look at his numbers. But... once someone is convinced that the numbers don't matter, that he somehow "knows" how good or bad a player is, there's no point in trying to change that person's mind. In his mind, he thinks that...

...I firmly believe Bryant will be the better player long term.... Allen is the better defender, but I dont think the gap is nearly as big as portrayed.

...is a meaningful answer. & that enables the rest of the illogic -- Bryant will be better, but he'll also have "a more favorable contract" -- presumably b/c NBA teams can't see what this person can see, so they'll over-pay Allen & under-pay Bryant. Yet another reason why this person cannot fail to be right. Especially once we insert what he thinks of the defensive difference between them. His firm belief & his opinion are all we need....

Don't mean to be negative -- we all do this kind of thing! &, as you know, I like Bryant a lot. & it is certainly possible that he winds up as good as Allen. Or better. Why not? Thomas Bryant is a terrific young player. Acquiring him (esp. for nothing!) was one of the best moves this franchise has made in the last half dozen years or more. Moreover, if he gets back to producing at the level of 2018-19, it'll be close between them -- & he may get back there.

But, as it stants right now, Allen -- despite being most of a year younger than Bryant -- has proven much much more. So, no team would trade Allen straight up for Bryant. & that's why the pick exchange was suggested: to even the deal & make it possible.

Even so, I wouldn't say it's a trade we need to make. In fact, I'd prefer to use the #9 pick in a trade down (unless Okongwu is on the board -- or some other guy expected to go higher happens to fall).

So, overall, I don't see much here by way of a difference between us.

[Ruzious]

Just wondering if we make a trade down with Boston, should we try to get Robert Williams. He's only played 671 career regular season minutes, but his stats are startlingly good in those minutes - much like Mitchell Robinson's - though even Robinson has played a lot more minutes. It doesn't seem like Boston considers Williams as part of their present - don't know if they consider him part of their future. Would you do the 9th pick and Wagner for Williams and 26 and 30? I probably wouldn't, but I could see it. There's a lot similarities between Williams and Ben Wallace, but Williams has had character issues that would have to be investigated.

[pcbothwel]

So, basically we agree -- central thing to do is add more young guys through the draft.

As to "still not... enough" -- enough to do what? & on what schedule.

As to "trading for assets" -- you have to give to get. We don't have anything to give except those "young guys" we "build with," so trades can't really be a way to "rebuild further." Of course, we could use the well-tested strategy of Ernie Grunfeld & trade future picks for players now. Since future assets are always sold at a discount, this is guaranteed to fail as a strategy. Of course, if the short-term gain is more critical than the long-term loss (i.e. "I can win a title this year if I make this move) then that's a time when it may be worth it to lose long-term on a trade.

2) Also yes. The players I listed -- (Brown, Bryant, Rui, Bonga, #9) -- are worthy of 20 MPG of at least 20-25 teams in the league. ...

22 of those 25 teams are better than the Washington Wizards if you are going by record. But maybe you are going by per-game point differentials against the rest of the league? In that case, 24 were better than the Wizards.

All the same, Bryant, Brown & Bonga all performed at a level that justifies your claim. Rui didn't. Not close. &, obviously, neither you nor I can possibly claim that the guy we pick #9 in the draft will. Still... hope he does!

3) Someone needs to clarify what in the hell is so good about Jarrett Allen....

That's easy. Just look at his numbers. But... once someone is convinced that the numbers don't matter, that he somehow "knows" how good or bad a player is, there's no point in trying to change that person's mind. In his mind, he thinks that...

...I firmly believe Bryant will be the better player long term.... Allen is the better defender, but I dont think the gap is nearly as big as portrayed.

...is a meaningful answer. & that enables the rest of the illogic -- Bryant will be better, but he'll also have "a more favorable contract" -- presumably b/c NBA teams can't see what this person can see, so they'll over-pay Allen & under-pay Bryant. Yet another reason why this person cannot fail to be right. Especially once we insert what he thinks of the defensive difference between them. His firm belief & his opinion are all we need....

Don't mean to be negative -- we all do this kind of thing! &, as you know, I like Bryant a lot. & it is certainly possible that he winds up as good as Allen. Or better. Why not? Thomas Bryant is a terrific young player. Acquiring him (esp. for nothing!) was one of the best moves this franchise has made in the last half dozen years or more. Moreover, if he gets back to producing at the level of 2018-19, it'll be close between them -- & he may get back there.

But, as it stants right now, Allen -- despite being most of a year younger than Bryant -- has proven much much more. So, no team would trade Allen straight up for Bryant. & that's why the pick exchange was suggested: to even the deal & make it possible.

Even so, I wouldn't say it's a trade we need to make. In fact, I'd prefer to use the #9 pick in a trade down (unless Okongwu is on the board -- or some other guy expected to go higher happens to fall).

So, overall, I don't see much here by way of a difference between us.

PIF,
1) "Still not enough" was in reference to our ability/timeline to allow us to use this core along with the draft pick and Full MLE to play the best basketball possible and look for a playoff run. That then allows us to consider another run the following year depending on how talks with Beal go.
If after all that it is "Still not enough" Then we can look to rebuild by traing Wall & Beal. Im not sure why you feel the need to breakdown something so simple.

We don't have anything to give except those "young guys" we "build with," so trades can't really be a way to "rebuild further."

Again... what in the hell do you think Beal is. He would be the one traded along with Bertans in a deeper rebuild. Not that complicated.

2) Rui would indeed play 20MPG for most of the teams given his age and skill set. Here are some players that played 20MPG last year:
Boston - Grant Williams
Heat - Nunn
Bucks - Wes Matthews
Nuggets - Gary Harris
Lakers - Kuzma & Bradley
LAC - Shamet
Houston - Rivers and Gordon
Mavs - Jackson
OKC - Ferguson & Bazley

Again, Im not seeing how or why this is contentious. You could make an argument for 3-5 teams... but thats it

3) Every year there is always a low usage, rim running big that blocks a few shots and gets put backs, which leads to them being a "Efficient Scorer and good defender".... so sorry im not that impressed. Mason Plumlee, Ekpe Udoh, Whiteside, Khem Birch. Hell, I throw away soon to be 35 y/o Dwight Howard just put up similar stats to Allen.
Allen was good at the things he was told to do. Defend the rim and score easy buckets. That doesnt make him a good defender, nor does it make him an offensive threat. Its the same reason that Otto never caught Brad. All the analytics at face value favored Otto, but that was because most of these metrics answer the question of "How good/efficient was Player X at doing the things he did/is asked to do?"

Once that player is asked to do more, the men are separated from the boys. This should not be understated. Shots taken/expected to be taken, defensive assignments, and usage are sometimes not taken into account as much as they should.
Bryant has an offensive arsenal that Allen will NEVER contend with, and his efficiency in those shots lead me to believe there is more there. Bryant also is also the better passer... and lets not let the fact that he played 400+ Minutes with Isaiah Thomas (Statistically his worse teammate by Net +-) and Brooks as a coach.

As for the contract, I see both players getting similar amounts... but Allen will get his a year sooner... hence the better contract status for Bryant.

[payitforward]

Your...
1. I misunderstood you, sorry. Essentially, you're saying if adding through youth doesn't suffice, then the rebuild becomes more radical: Wall/Beal are in the picture. Makes perfect sense.

2. 20 minutes a game -- I only looked up minutes for the first guy on your list -- Grant Williams. He played 15 minutes a game. Then again, the Celtics are a much better team than the Wizards. I don't think your other comparison players tell me anything, but it doesn't matter, because I agree without question that any team drafting a guy at #9 is almost certain to play him 20 minutes a game unless he shows immediately as a complete bust (which, obviously, Rui did not!). Thus, it goes for this year's #9 as well.

My problem came from the fact that I looked at your statement differently -- in a way with which you may disagree. Here's what I mean -- as a rookie, Rui did not play (& should not have been expected to play) at an average level for an NBA 4. And, on an average NBA team, I would expect a 20-minute-a-game substitute to come closer to average productivity at his position than Rui did. Thus, from a productivity point of view, Rui still has to show that he's "worth" playing 20 minutes a game.

I don't doubt he will. How good will he as an NBA player at his peak? I have no idea. But he'll certainly gain more skills & abilities than he shows now. I don't doubt he'll be a solid NBA player.

3. You're not describing Jarrett Allen. Your point about Dwight Howard is meaningless -- the problem w/ Dwight is not that he fails to perform. At his peak he was unbelievable. Even last year he put up good numbers. He was a throwaway b/c he's as they say "a cancer in the locker room."

Anyway, analogy is not an analytical tool. Let's look at it differently as we compare Bryant & Allen (not that I'm insisting on the comparison -- I like them both. But, you "firmly believe" something, & that firm belief is what calls for the comparison).

A big's numbers fall into 3 rough chunks a) scoring -- # of points & level of efficiency both matter, b) rebounding -- routinely under-valued by fans but of equal significance to scoring (for reasons I've detailed a dozen times & won't bother to detail here), & the rest of the stuff (blocks, fouls, assists, etc.).

On "the rest of the stuff" (including shot-blocking, btw), Allen & Bryant are virtually the same; we can ignore that.

Bryant, one of my favorite players, was a better scorer than Allen this year -- but not by as much as it may seem at first glance. Yes, he scored 4.5 more points per 40 minutes, but it took him @ 4.5 more possessions to those extra 4.5 points -- meaning that he got the extra points at about the efficiency of the rest of the team's scoring. A little thinking will allow you to see that his better scoring (4.5 more points on, in effect, 4.5 more shots) didn't actually provide any great advantage.

Not a criticism of him, not at all -- the numbers & the efficiency were both extremely good. Here's the thing with Bryant, however; his '18-19 scoring was actually significantly better than this year -- even though, this year he added the 3-pointer to his arsenal in an effective way (again, number of points & level of efficiency). That is extremely promising! If he stays around that 3pt % but also gets his FT% & 2-point % back to where they were in his first year with us -- look out!

In the case of Allen, I speculate that you aren't really taking much of a dive into his numbers; otherwise you could not compare him to guys like Mason Plumlee & Ekpe Udoh (?). His overall numbers are tremendous -- & they have improved each year. Kid's a tremendous player already, & he's still only 22.

Next, rebounding -- & if a person undervalues rebounding he will undervalue the edge Allen has over Bryant in that department.

Games are won by the team with more points than the other team. You can get more points only 2 ways -- either you record a higher TS% than the opponent or you have more scoring opportunities than the opponent (in which case you can have a lower TS% but still score more points). If you do one or the other you have a chance to win. If you do both, you cannot lose. If you do neither, you cannot win. Period.

More rebounds gives you more scoring opportunities -- especially offensive rebounds. (No, this does not mean you should prioritize offensive rebounds at the expense of transition defense). Per 40 minutes, Allen got 1.25 more offensive boards than Bryant. He got 1.7 more defensive boards than Bryant.

Have you studied business economics? Think of shooting a higher TS% as lowering cost of production. Think of getting more rebounds as increasing your profit margin. Both good things, & a little calculation gives you ways to compare the benefits of rates of improvement in both things.

In the end, all this kind of thing can be brought down to simple numbers. Why? Because wins & losses are entirely determined by numbers. Game over, the refs don't meet & decide who played better: it's not a gymnastics floor routine. The winner is already up on the scoreboard.

Thomas Bryant is both a terrific player & a terrific prospect going forward. So is Jarrett Allen. A bit better now (numbers) & at least as good a prospect going forward (youth).

I'm sorry to write at such length; I hope at least that you see that I'm not seeking argument. I'm thinking -- & with some care & intensity. I don't "firmly believe" a f#%king thing; I just look at what facts & numbers tell me.

[pcbothwel]

PIF,
I appreciate the thoughtful response... but my main sticking point that I dont hear you address is the the qualitative aspect of things such as TS.
We have had this issue before, but you cannot find all of the most efficient scorers (Highest TS/eFg) players at each position and get the best team. This is because you would be full of low usage players that are able to utilize other players creative abilities to garner easier shots.
We've seen this song and dance before with Otto. We've seen it with Covington, and Gerald Green.
Rudy Gobert is the best defensive player in the league, while also putting up monster rebounding numbers on a TS of about 70%

But you would never argue that Gobert is the best offensive player in the league...why? Because his usage is 16% and he takes 84% of his shots at the rim... But if you just do strict math on what the outcome is based on possessions.. Gobert is in a league of his own. Explain.

I feel your analysis misses the point. If a basketball game was a fixed skill, like a 3-point shooting contest or bowling, where the goal/skill is very narrow and repeatable then you would be correct.

But what if the 3 point contest were to be amended to be a "Scoring" contest. whereby teams of two players start from under the hoop and have one cross court pass (With some miscellaneous objects in the way) to their teammate who has to take a shot from where they catch it. They do this 10 times with the winner having the highest score.

You wouldnt simply focus on the guy taking the shot, but the player who is passing them the ball and where they are able to catch it. Im sure the player with Lebron throwing it to them instead of Whiteside would probably win, but that doesnt mean that player is the better scorer.

This might seem confusing, but the problem is you seem to understate the variability each player and team experience. Is Javale McGee all of a sudden a good player, or is he simply cutting down on bad shots and benefiting from player with GSW and Lebron over the last 4 year?
Did Pascal Siakim get worse this year? Or did the team ask more from him when Kawhi left and therefore his efficiency number dropped as he took more shots, and tougher shots?
What about Draymond's precipitous fall over the last 3 years?

Again, I dont think we are that far apart... but when you simply boil everything down to how many possessions a player used and his efficiency in using those, it gives you a quick overview of their ability. However, it does not answer the question about how a player would do if asked to do something different. Its like a few years ago when Win Shares & WS/48 become some go-to stat for some reason, and then people used it to compare players on different teams...

Remember the point of this discussion. It IS NOT, "What player was better based on what we saw"... the point was what player will be better given the same roles... And I believe Thomas Bryant is/will be better than Allen given the same set of circumstances.

[Ruzious]

Agreed with pcb. It's the DeAndre Jordan factor - Yes, he scores efficiently, but he doesn't score more because he's a very limited offensive player. If he shot more, it would dramatically lower his scoring efficiency. That's why he is only used in a very limited role on offense.

[payitforward]

PIF,
I appreciate the thoughtful response...

& I yours. Especially, I appreciate the recognition that this is a subject to think about -- not fight about.

...you cannot find all of the most efficient scorers (Highest TS/eFg) players at each position and get the best team....

Of course not! TS% measures one thing. Basketball requires many things. & your point is valid even though, overall, teams with better records do have higher team TS%.

...This is because you would be full of low usage players that are able to utilize other players creative abilities to garner easier shots....

Actually, you can even just leave out the last clauses. It's simply easier to have a high TS% on low usage than on high usage, so you'd have a lot of low-usage players.

...We've seen this song and dance before with Otto. We've seen... Rudy Gobert ... putting up ...a TS of about 70% ...But you would never argue that Gobert is the best offensive player in the league...why? Because his usage is 16% and he takes 84% of his shots at the rim... But if you just do strict math on what the outcome is based on possessions.. Gobert is in a league of his own. Explain....

Easy. You're right. His usage is 16%

Note: I left Otto in, because your implied criticism of him is both unfair & similar to what I read from others. Otto was tremendous in '16-17 & '17-18. He wasn't low usage, & he wasn't a one-dimensional player (good rebounder, defender, etc.). But, Otto's body gave out. Period. His body wasn't up to the stress of playing in the NBA.

What would make you think that I view TS% as the sole or master or even single best metric for how good a player is? I don't. Never said I did. For which reason, all of the following, tho true, is irrelevant:

...If a basketball game was a fixed skill, like a 3-point shooting contest or bowling, where the goal/skill is very narrow and repeatable then you would be correct.

But what if the 3 point contest were to be amended to be a "Scoring" contest. whereby teams of two players start from under the hoop and have one cross court pass (With some miscellaneous objects in the way) to their teammate who has to take a shot from where they catch it. They do this 10 times with the winner having the highest score.

You wouldnt simply focus on the guy taking the shot, but the player who is passing them the ball and where they are able to catch it. Im sure the player with Lebron throwing it to them instead of Whiteside would probably win, but that doesnt mean that player is the better scorer....

That's enough for one post. I'll address your other points in a 2d one.