Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX

[nate33]

Goes without saying that my "quick rebuild" included a number of fantasy elements. What is life without fantasy?

With all that Bertans brings as a floor spacer, we went 25-47 last year. Part of the reason for that record was the level of Davis Bertans' NBA game.

Bertans shot the 3 extremely well. But, if you combine all of what he did on the floor last year, we would have been a bit better team if an average NBA PF played his minutes. Maybe 1 or 2 games better.

Let me put it another way. Every 40 minutes, Davis scored 4 more points than average for an NBA PF. & it only took him 1.4 extra possessions to do it. That's great.

Of course, if someone else had used those extra 1.4 possessions we would have gotten something out of them! Not 4 points, obviously, but something. We can estimate how much by calculting based on the team's overall efg%. On that basis 1.4 possessions yields 1.5 points.

So Davis' scoring prowess over our team average scoring prowess gained us 2.5 extra points every 40 minutes. That's a good thing.

Unfortunately, in exactly the same way, there were also aspects of his play during those same 40 minutes that lost us other things -- again, as compared to the NBA-average PF -- especially 2.25 defensive rebounds & 1.75 offensive rebounds. Those extra possessions from Mr. Average would supply in excess of the extra 2.5 points Davis accounted for.

I would expect to hear back that none of this really means anything, basketball being such a dynamic & inter-dependent game -- (& this despite the fact that a few minutes earlier or later one can also write that it would be good to draft a guy who rebounds a lot -- in that case, it does seem to matter! ).

It's true in a way. Only one number matters -- we added Davis & went 25-47.

As to pleasing Brad -- he seems a smart guy; I don't think he would have any trouble understanding that you don't pay $15m for Davis Bertans level of output. Moreover, when making the right choices lead to a team that is getting better pretty fast, he'll notice that as well.

Basketball is a team sport. The type of individual box score = team point production analysis you always do has even less relevance with Bertans than with most players because Bertans' effect on the team's production has much to do with things that aren't measured in the box score.

Bertans has best biggest on/off differential on the team. That's not an accident. He had the best on/off differential for San Antonio last year too... by a lot (+11.1). He was the 8th ranked small forward in the league by ESPN's real plus minus.

The Davis Bertans of last year was a very good player, definitely better than an average PF. The guy helps his team outscore the opposition a great deal. My issue with resigning him to a big deal is that I'm worried he'll have a modest dropoff in production.

[payitforward]

...what Bertans brings as a floor spacer at 6-10 is not easy to replace....

But you don't just get what he "brings as a floor spacer." You get everything he brings & doesn't bring. So what you have to replace is his overall productivity -- replace, I mean, with MORE overall productivity.

...He's a perfect fit for the modern game.

When the buzzer sounds, the refs don't get together & figure out which team provided a better "fit for the modern game." All they do is look at the scoreboard & give the victory to the team with more points than the other team.

Thus, to value Davis accurately, you have to figure out what his contribution is to what's on the scoreboard. Then you have to compare it to the contribution of other players.

If you think that rebounds, for example, don't contribute to what's on the scoreboard, then you can ignore them. If you do think so, then you cannot simply say that someone "fits the modern game" as if it meant anything.

The modern game, like the ancient game, features winners & losers. We went 25-47 last year.

...Obviously he has weaknesses which is why you want a good defensive/rebounding C beside him.

Mythology. One guy's good numbers don't make up for another guy's bad numbers.

Look, there are only 2 ways to have more points than the opponent when the game ends. 2 ways & no other ways! Either you shoot a higher TS% than your opponent or, if you shoot a lower TS% you are able to take more shots/FTAs.

That's it, dat. No other way exists. Get more scoring opportunities & convert them at a higher TS% & it is impossible -- totally, mathematically impossible -- to lose the game. Get fewer & post a lower TS% & it is impossible -- totally, mathematically impossible -- to win the game. Do one or the other, & you have a chance to win the game. The modern game, the ancient game -- basketball. Period.

This is not baking a cake, the baking soda doesn't help the eggs to rise. A good rebounding & defensive Center is a good thing. He'll make a lot more difference, however, if the PF is also at least an adequate rebounding & defensive player. You can't say that C "makes things better" unless you're also willing to say that PF "makes things worse."

Again, if you don't like logic & facts, how about results: we went 25-47 last year.

[pcbothwel]

PIF... I agree to some extent, but having a guy who can shoot like that under any circumstance is essential. Especially when our guards/wings (Wall, Beal, Brown, Bonga) have not shown to be nearly that consistent.

And as I mentioned above, whats the alternative? Sure, a trade for Delon Wright and 18 would be savvy... but if you let him walk for nothing then Brad would, and should, be pissed.

We arent over the tax, we dont have cap room, and we dont have a player like Bertans. There is no excuse to not resign him unless NYK or Atlanta go crazy and offer a 4/70M deal, but I just dont see it with the current financial landscape and a great 2021 FA class.

[Ruzious]

PIF... I agree to some extent, but having a guy who can shoot like that under any circumstance is essential. Especially when our guards/wings (Wall, Beal, Brown, Bonga) have not shown to be nearly that consistent.

And as I mentioned above, whats the alternative? Sure, a trade for Delon Wright and 18 would be savvy... but if you let him walk for nothing then Brad would, and should, be pissed.

We arent over the tax, we dont have cap room, and we dont have a player like Bertans. There is no excuse to not resign him unless NYK or Atlanta go crazy and offer a 4/70M deal, but I just dont see it with the current financial landscape and a great 2021 FA class.

That's the thing that stands out to me - we don't want to lose him for nothing. Presumably his value won't fall off a cliff next season, so there could very well be a point where a smart trade opportunity comes up. We'll have to see how things go next season. That's prably a better plan than letting him walk and getting nothing.

[payitforward]

Basketball is a team sport....

So it is. & teams are groups of individuals. If one team puts 4 guys on the floor & the other has 5, will the team with 5 individuals have a better chance to win than if the other team also has 5? How about if it's 5 on 5 but a guy on one of the teams doesn't play defense? At all -- doesn't participate. Make a difference?

How about this: two teams play a series of games with whatever result -- enough to establish roughly how much better one team is than the other. Now we take the player with the worst individual box score stats off the lesser team & put him on the better team, & we replace him with the best player off the other team (measured the same way). Does that lesser team get better? Does the other team get worse? You can't say? There's no way to know? How about if we make it two individuals rather than one (same criteria)? No way to know, because after all basketball is a team sport?

Should we bother tracking who scores points? It's a team game -- that "who" information has no effect on which team wins. Only the points themselves do.

Or, to put it slightly differently: like everyone here you often describe one player as better than another, or not as good as a third guy, or about as good as some 4th player. How can you possibly do that -- it's a team game.

For that matter, how can you possibly assess a single prospect in the draft? I assume you don't look at their individual box score stats. Those stats don't play a role in determining how good Onyeka Okongwu is -- as opposed to Axel Okongwu, for example?

If we can't use box score stats, there is no way to do any of these things. We can't say one guy is better than another. We can't assess draft prrospects. Etc.

You know what means? It means that we can use individual box score stats to assess a player! & we do use them. I do. & you do as well.

In particular... you use individual box score stats to assess Davis Bertans! -- you have just been expressing your conceern about a potential "modest dropoff" in one of those individual box score stats, & that this dropoff will make him less valuable -- i.e. a less good player. That concern was the subject of your original post in this exchange.

Obviously, you think that individual box score stat is a measure of "better." Better results over time means a better player -- i.e. someone worth paying more to sign (or, in this case, re-sign). & you are correct, nate. It does. Which means that when you write

"...individual box score... analysis... has even less relevance with Bertans than with most players because Bertans' effect on the team's production has much to do with things that aren't measured in the box score..."

...you're leaving out his 3 point %. That box score stat you think is relevant -- in fact, you think is absolutely key to Bertans' value. You think it's key to his "effect on the team's production." In your mind, how much we should pay for his services hinges entirely on that individual box score stat.

It's only the other box score stats that are irrelevant -- not that one. But, nate, if that individual box score stat -- 3 point % (& the associated box score stat #of 3pt FGAs) -- matters, so do the others. & for the same reason.

Bertans has best biggest on/off differential on the team.

Why, nate! I'm shocked! Basketball is a team game. It's perfectly possible that some other players on the team are actually causing Bertans to have that outstanding differential. For example, by the way they play when he's on the floor. Not to mention that we went 25-47 this year. How good can he be?

[payitforward]

PIF... I agree to some extent, but having a guy who can shoot like that under any circumstance is essential. Especially when our guards/wings (Wall, Beal, Brown, Bonga) have not shown to be nearly that consistent...

What you are saying is that having a guy who posts who posts a TS% of almost 63% on above average usage is better than having someone who isn't capable of doing that.

You bet. This is non-controversial.

...if you let him walk for nothing then Brad would, and should, be pissed....

Please take this in the simple way it's meant: neither you nor I have the faintest idea of how any move by the Wizards will make Bradley Beal feel. Period. None.

...We aren't over the tax, we don't have cap room, and we don't have a player like Bertans. There is no excuse to not resign him unless NYK or Atlanta go crazy and offer a 4/70M deal, but I just don't see it with the current financial landscape and a great 2021 FA class.

Because I'm a whacko pedant, I put apostrophes in all your conjunctions.... Your "go" & "offer" should be singular -- "goes" & "offers" -- b/c of the "or" between the teams you mention.

If the goal is to contend for an NBA title -- or at least for the EC title -- then there is every reason not to sign Bertans, at least not if we're going to pay him big $$ for 3 years.

Davis Bertans -- whom I've been following since he was in Europe before the 2011 draft -- is a journeyman. He's never started in his years in the league. He didn't start for us. He has one skill -- just one, no others! -- he shoots the 3 ball in high volume & at a high rate of efficiency. That's it. No... he also shoots FTs extremely well -- but he doesn't get to the line enough for that to matter.

Aside from the positive effect of his 3-point shooting on team results, it also happens to be extremely entertaining to watch. Since basketball is not only competition but also TV entertainment, that contributes to justify paying him. His role in our 25-47 season does not.

[doclinkin]

Fortunately we can see both who was on the floor with Bertans and how Bertans played against his opposition by checking the stats at 82games.com. Here.

And in analyzing how a player does as a teammate we can even see the regression analysis of his production alongside teammates at Basketball reference here.

Stats say, on average, when we played Bertans at PF we got 5 more points of production from that position. He was most productive when playing in the starting line in an Ish-Beal-Brown-Bertans-Bryant line up. WIth that combination we were dead even with the opponent in rebounding with the opposition. But were +6.3 net points per 100 possessions.

If we drop Brown and just look at 4 man combos, with that same crew, we were +8.8 pts. Though we lost the rebounding battle then. This tends to make Nate's & Dat's point. That despite the importance of rebounding, the spacing with Bertans on court allowed room for players like Ish (drive and dish) and Beal (who lived at the FT line this year) and Bryant (needs space under the basket to receive the pass to produce his highly efficient scoring) to do what they do best. Synergy matters. Players stats are not simply plug and play. Box scores are archaeology. Forensics of wolf hunts. They are not themselves the composition of a wolf pack, where each unit has a role. Coursers, drivers, alpha and beta.

All of which suggests we could really use a SF who can both hit an outside shot AND rebound. Hmm. Who is that guy. Back to the research for me!

[doclinkin]

All of which suggests we could really use a SF who can both hit an outside shot AND rebound. Hmm. Who is that guy. Back to the research for me!

Forwards. Sort by defensive rebound percentage, then look for 3FG upwards of 35% on good volume.

Kaleb Wesson? Gets better every year, on increasing usage. Plays with no drop off against the toughest competition. Eye test says he's a slow footed PF or undersized Center, and will need to get big league trainers to work his body.

I think we will get too many PF/C wannabes with that sort. Sort for Guards instead. Good rebounding guards translate as SF's in the NBA.

Ok there we go. Hello again Nate Hinton. Damn. I think this kid keeps sneaking into the first round on my constantly fluctuating coveted players list.

But catch Nick Sherod as an undrafted FA? Though I guess he went back for a redshirt senior season. I'll watch for him next year.

[pcbothwel]

PIF... I agree to some extent, but having a guy who can shoot like that under any circumstance is essential. Especially when our guards/wings (Wall, Beal, Brown, Bonga) have not shown to be nearly that consistent...

What you are saying is that having a guy who posts who posts a TS% of almost 63% on above average usage is better than having someone who isn't capable of doing that.

You bet. This is non-controversial.

...if you let him walk for nothing then Brad would, and should, be pissed....

Please take this in the simple way it's meant: neither you nor I have the faintest idea of how any move by the Wizards will make Bradley Beal feel. Period. None.

...We aren't over the tax, we don't have cap room, and we don't have a player like Bertans. There is no excuse to not resign him unless NYK or Atlanta go crazy and offer a 4/70M deal, but I just don't see it with the current financial landscape and a great 2021 FA class.

Because I'm a whacko pedant, I put apostrophes in all your conjunctions.... Your "go" & "offer" should be singular -- "goes" & "offers" -- b/c of the "or" between the teams you mention.

If the goal is to contend for an NBA title -- or at least for the EC title -- then there is every reason not to sign Bertans, at least not if we're going to pay him big $$ for 3 years.

Davis Bertans -- whom I've been following since he was in Europe before the 2011 draft -- is a journeyman. He's never started in his years in the league. He didn't start for us. He has one skill -- just one, no others! -- he shoots the 3 ball in high volume & at a high rate of efficiency. That's it. No... he also shoots FTs extremely well -- but he doesn't get to the line enough for that to matter.

Aside from the positive effect of his 3-point shooting on team results, it also happens to be extremely entertaining to watch. Since basketball is not only competition but also TV entertainment, that contributes to justify paying him. His role in our 25-47 season does not.

Beal: You're right, we dont know how he feels, so we go by what he says, context clues, and precedent. He is an All Star in his Prime and VERY competitive that has played the last decade for an underachieving/bad team with a poor FO. He, and TS, openly stated how they would allow Brad to lead the young kids last year with the intent to jump right back into the playoff contention. You cant honestly sit here and say your litany of 2nd round gems helps him do that.

Competing: The problem you make is you are sure this team with Wall & Beal cannot compete. You may be right, but every argument about a move we make on this board comes back to that central belief. Again, I hate to point to Miami, but if you look at them objectively you would say the trade for Butler and the Iggy extension were misguided as they spent a lot of money and picks,
were capped out, just won 39 games, and had no elite prospects (Bam didnt blow up until this year).

With Whiteside and Richardson moved as part of the trade, their best player was Goran Dragic. He was 33 and just missed the entire last half of the season with a Calf injury and had a knee injury before that. Butler is great, but why spend the money and assets for a 30 y/o that will make you just good enough to get to a 5th/6th seed if things break right. Its not like they were close to competing.

You have to also take into account Bertans value to us off the court. With the Soft cap, it really helps to have solid players making 10-12% of the cap so that they can be included for financial reasons.
Im not sure what you suggest we do. If Bertans wants a 3/45M deal, do you let him walk to ATL? Then What? Im generally curious about your strategy other than a rebuild given our financial structure.

[nate33]

Basketball is a team sport....

So it is. & teams are groups of individuals. If one team puts 4 guys on the floor & the other has 5, will the team with 5 individuals have a better chance to win than if the other team also has 5? How about if it's 5 on 5 but a guy on one of the teams doesn't play defense? At all -- doesn't participate. Make a difference?

How about this: two teams play a series of games with whatever result -- enough to establish roughly how much better one team is than the other. Now we take the player with the worst individual box score stats off the lesser team & put him on the better team, & we replace him with the best player off the other team (measured the same way). Does that lesser team get better? Does the other team get worse? You can't say? There's no way to know? How about if we make it two individuals rather than one (same criteria)? No way to know, because after all basketball is a team sport?

Should we bother tracking who scores points? It's a team game -- that "who" information has no effect on which team wins. Only the points themselves do.

Or, to put it slightly differently: like everyone here you often describe one player as better than another, or not as good as a third guy, or about as good as some 4th player. How can you possibly do that -- it's a team game.

For that matter, how can you possibly assess a single prospect in the draft? I assume you don't look at their individual box score stats. Those stats don't play a role in determining how good Onyeka Okongwu is -- as opposed to Axel Okongwu, for example?

If we can't use box score stats, there is no way to do any of these things. We can't say one guy is better than another. We can't assess draft prrospects. Etc.

You know what means? It means that we can use individual box score stats to assess a player! & we do use them. I do. & you do as well.

In particular... you use individual box score stats to assess Davis Bertans! -- you have just been expressing your conceern about a potential "modest dropoff" in one of those individual box score stats, & that this dropoff will make him less valuable -- i.e. a less good player. That concern was the subject of your original post in this exchange.

Obviously, you think that individual box score stat is a measure of "better." Better results over time means a better player -- i.e. someone worth paying more to sign (or, in this case, re-sign). & you are correct, nate. It does. Which means that when you write

"...individual box score... analysis... has even less relevance with Bertans than with most players because Bertans' effect on the team's production has much to do with things that aren't measured in the box score..."

...you're leaving out his 3 point %. That box score stat you think is relevant -- in fact, you think is absolutely key to Bertans' value. You think it's key to his "effect on the team's production." In your mind, how much we should pay for his services hinges entirely on that individual box score stat.

It's only the other box score stats that are irrelevant -- not that one. But, nate, if that individual box score stat -- 3 point % (& the associated box score stat #of 3pt FGAs) -- matters, so do the others. & for the same reason.

Bertans has best biggest on/off differential on the team.

Why, nate! I'm shocked! Basketball is a team game. It's perfectly possible that some other players on the team are actually causing Bertans to have that outstanding differential. For example, by the way they play when he's on the floor. Not to mention that we went 25-47 this year. How good can he be?

PIF, you are way too smart to make such a bad analysis.

I'm tired of having the same argument with you so I'll be brief. Your critical mistake is to assume that box score stats capture everything about basketball. A guy with really bad box score stats, like PJ Tucker, can be a much better player than a guy with great box score stats, like Hassan Whiteside. That's because PJ Tucker does lots of really good stuff that doesn't show itself as points, rebounds or steals. I guarantee you every coach in the league would rather have PJ Tucker than Whiteside even though Whiteside blows Tucker away in wins produced per 48. I'm sure you are convinced that every coach in the league is therefore an idiot because you have the box score stats to show them how wrong they are. But if you find yourself disagreeing with every coach in the league, perhaps you are the one that ought to reconsider your position.

Bertans isn't just good because of his 3P%. It's because of his 3P% coupled with his extreme range and extreme quick release. He helps his teammates a great deal on every offensive possession, even when he doesn't touch the ball. Guys are double teaming him on off-ball screens, which really stretches a defense. Ish Smith might make the assist to Thomas Bryant, but there's a good chance that Bertans was every bit as responsible for the made basket as those two guys because there was no help defender on the pick-and-roll.

And if Bertans' teammates were responsible for his on/off differential, then they would also have a good on/off differential with him off the floor, and they don't. On/off can be noisy in small sample sizes, or they can be conflated when an individual only plays alongside other specific individuals, but that's not the case with Bertans. As a bench player who plays extended minutes with the starters, his on/off numbers are probably more accurate than anyone else on the team because he plays a lot of minutes alongside both starters and bench players. And as I mentioned, Bertans excellent on/off numbers carried over to his time in San Antonio as well.

[payitforward]

PIF, you are way too smart to make such a bad analysis. I'm tired of having the same argument with you ...

Well, one thing is sure; I'm tired of trying to make these points. & I do appreciate your not beginning your post by arguing. Thank you for the praise as well.

...I'll be brief. Your critical mistake is to assume that box score stats capture everything about basketball. A guy with really bad box score stats, like PJ Tucker, can be a much better player than a guy with great box score stats....

Good on being brief. Better yet, you've made it possible for me to be brief. & conclusive too!

You are right that P.J. Tucker has had an excellent NBA career. But, his box score stats are not "really bad," as you write. In fact they are very, very good!

Let's take 2015-16 as an example. That year, Tyson Chandler, Alex Len, Mirza Teletovic, Jon Leuer, Markieff Morris, Kris Humphries, Alan Williams & Cory Jefferson combined to play just over 7800 minutes -- basically all the available minutes at 4 & 5 (96x82=7872). None of those guys played the 1, 2 or 3, as I'm sure you will grant.

Tucker played 2540 minutes; he led the Suns in minutes. T.J. Warren played @1100 minutes -- both those guys played the 3. Tucker had an excellent year -- as indicated -- precisely & clearly -- by those dreaded box score stats. Let's look at a little detail.

Now... P.J. has never been much of a scorer -- not many points & not particularly efficient either. That year was no different. But, he had more defensive boards than an average 3 -- & two and a half times as many offensive rebounds! He also had 33% more steals than an average 3. & @14% fewer turnovers.

The result, overall, was an outstanding year. He was terrific. Not quite as good as either of the two preceding years, & not quite as good as either of the two years that followed -- but very good all the same. & it's right there in the box score stats (note: I've written "box office stats" about 10 times today & had to correct it! ).

Now, what does this show? It shows that you can be an extremely effective NBA player with a big & genuine effect on wins -- even if he doesn't score a lot of points & has a low TS%.

As I'm sure you will agree.

So too, a guy can be a relatively ineffective NBA player -- even if he scores a lot of points & has a high TS%.

& that is Davis Bertans. Thus...

Bertans isn't just good because of his 3P%. It's because of his 3P% coupled with his extreme range and extreme quick release....

All of which "goodness" is captured by his TS% & the volume usage at which he can achieve that efficiency. Both of those are remarkable.

...Ish Smith might make the assist to Thomas Bryant, but there's a good chance that Bertans was every bit as responsible for the made basket as those two guys because there was no help defender on the pick-and-roll....

Which would mean that we should see Ish Smith with more assists than his career average, so that we could give some of the benefit of that to Davis instead of Ish. & we should see Bryant with an improved 2pt. % (using your example), so that, again, we could give some of the benefit of that to Davis instead of Bryant.

Only thing is... Bryant's 2 pt.% went down not up this year -- despite how much easier your little sketch above should have made things for him. & Ish's assists were below his career average rather than above as your sketch would have suggested they should be.

TBH, nate -- & I bet you will understand this -- in these kinds of exchanges, people get pushed into hardening their positions. Whether right or wrong, it's not much fun. I'm kinda tired of it.

Basketball is a numbers game; that much is obvious -- however the numbers are produced. Different analytical methods based on number are not to be compared or judged on whether they match anyone's image of reality. They are only judged on one thing: how well do they correlate to wins & losses.

What that does mean, however, is that if such a method correlated well with wins & losses, then players who perform "better" as that method sees them are the kinds of players you want, because... well, because of the above: doing better in that numbers-based analytical method leads to more wins. Duh.

Is that all there is to basketball? Of course not! It's a beautiful game. But... it's pretty much all there is to wins and losses. That's why we went 25-47.

Still friends, I hope?

[TGW]

Random hypothetical: would you trade Beal for Rudy Gobert, Jarrett Culver, and #17 overall?

[nate33]

Random hypothetical: would you trade Beal for Rudy Gobert, Jarrett Culver, and #17 overall?

No. The only rationale for acquiring Gobert would be to pair him with Beal in an attempt to win-now.

Gobert would be a great fit and I'd be interested in seeing some type of Bryant + picks for Gobert trade, but even then, I suspect the price would still be too high. I'd rather aim a bit lower for a guy like Jarrett Allen who is 90% the player that Gobert is for half the cost.

[pcbothwel]

Random hypothetical: would you trade Beal for Rudy Gobert, Jarrett Culver, and #17 overall?

No. Beal is the more valuable player due to contract, positional value, and upside (Beal keeps getting better, and as good as Gobert is, he has not improved in 3-4 years). Culver is trash and simply filler with his salary... and 17 isnt enough to close the gap.

Again, no need to get into "Who is better" with Beal vs Gobert. The Usage difference is vast and leaves a vacuum that will be assumed by Wall, Brown, and Rui... and they simply arent good enough to use that many possessions. We get worse.

[pcbothwel]

PIF... I know you're digging the Bertans SnT lately, so I got 2 others to add to the Mavs one already discussed.

GSW: Bertans for the TPE, 48, 2021 Pick swap (I think we will be better than TWolves)
- Getting a 15M TPE could be very valuable at the deadline should we prove to be formidable. A top 8-10 pick in 2021 is Gold. However, it does reduce our talent base.

LAL: Bertans + Ish for Green, #28, 2023 2nd
- Bertans allows them to move Kuzma for another asset (Could be 3-way if necessary).
- We get a 3 & D wing to be the Ying to TBJ's Yang...lol. 28 is also a nice sweet spot for Bey, Carey, Tillman, etc.

[doclinkin]

Quote PIF

Aside from the positive effect of his 3-point shooting on team results, it also happens to be extremely entertaining to watch. Since basketball is not only competition but also TV entertainment, that contributes to justify paying him. His role in our 25-47 season does not.

Quote doc

Fortunately we can see both who was on the floor with Bertans and how Bertans played against his opposition by checking the stats at 82games.com. Here.

And in analyzing how a player does as a teammate we can even see the regression analysis of his production alongside teammates at Basketball reference here.

Stats say, on average, when we played Bertans at PF we got 5 more points of production from that position. He was most productive when playing in the starting line in an Ish-Beal-Brown-Bertans-Bryant line up. WIth that combination we were dead even with the opponent in rebounding with the opposition. But were +6.3 net points per 100 possessions.

If we drop Brown and just look at 4 man combos, with that same crew, we were +8.8 pts. Though we lost the rebounding battle then. This tends to make Nate's & Dat's point. That despite the importance of rebounding, the spacing with Bertans on court allowed room for players like Ish (drive and dish) and Beal (who lived at the FT line this year) and Bryant (needs space under the basket to receive the pass to produce his highly efficient scoring) to do what they do best. Synergy matters. Players stats are not simply plug and play. Box scores are archaeology. Forensics of wolf hunts. They are not themselves the composition of a wolf pack, where each unit has a role. Coursers, drivers, alpha and beta.

All of which suggests we could really use a SF who can both hit an outside shot AND rebound. Hmm. Who is that guy. Back to the research for me!

We need talent, we need talent that improves our team. In Bertans we have a guy who does in fact improve our team. You can guess at what his value might be if he were a different guy who rebounded better, but stats show that he improved our team by 5 points per 100 possessions against that average PF he was up against. And against opposing teams in a line up with our starters we were +6.5 points better in the box score.

Players like Bradley Beal and Thomas Bryant find that 'extremely entertaining'. That is they score more easily when Bertans is on the floor. That data is quantifiable. Has been quantified. I just pointed to you where two sources --you know-- quant it. You don't have to guess how many points we may or may be losing by Bertans' anemic assist or rebound totals. The one thing he does extremely well helps other players on our team do what they do extremely well. You have to figure the team knows this. On court the players know it, and in the video room the analytics team knows it.

The Wizards have been using tracking cameras to give a layer to their data for years, the NBA caught up and used Sportrac for a few years and has switched to Second Spectrum to do the same. Teams analyze court balance and situational statistics in ways for which we fans lack the numbers (briefly the NBA offered sporttrac data to fans, but I haven't found the info since they switched to second spectrum. I think the Clippers make those analytics cameras available to fans, but not us). I think we as fans would have a different read on the game if we could see those views, and would have new stats to argue about beyond the box score forensics.

Still even with the data we have, I'm not sure how you can credit Bertans for our 25-47 season. Not when he was part of the squad that actually won against our match-ups. He played his role and improved the team consistently, measurably, significantly. As demonstrated above: He won his match-up, the team won when he was on court.

Yes we started Rui in a losing year, playing Bertans behind him. This was a developmental year, with a ton of young players getting run. Bertans is a known quality. Showcasing him as a starter would only serve to drive up his re-sign price. We made small moves to ensure he felt comfortable here (signing countryman Pasecniks for instance) so maybe we can get a discount on his re-sign price or if it is an 'all-things-being-equal' situation he may choose this team over similar offers. But we also started IT, playing hero ball, and Wagner and and and and.

Bertans was not the problem. We need guys who play their role. His role is significant. He stretches defenses and adds a catch and shoot player to take pressure off ball handlers and bail them out. His defensive skill set is better than his rebounding totals suggest (and steals, and blocks, etc --as far as positional defense and team defense he plays with solid principles, even if a step slow).

Yes we need an upgrade on the court next to him. We need upgrades at every position. Sure. There is a price at which Bertans is not helpful in building that. But as far as team success, this year, stats say he was not the problem.

[payitforward]

Random hypothetical: would you trade Beal for Rudy Gobert, Jarrett Culver, and #17 overall?

No. The only rationale for acquiring Gobert would be to pair him with Beal in an attempt to win-now.

Gobert would be a great fit and I'd be interested in seeing some type of Bryant + picks for Gobert trade, but even then, I suspect the price would still be too high. I'd rather aim a bit lower for a guy like Jarrett Allen who is 90% the player that Gobert is for half the cost.

Agree with nate & would only add that Gobert is expiring & will command an enormous amount of $$ going forward, which would make a "Bryant + picks" trade impractical.

Moreover, since Gobert plays for Utah, while Culver & the #17 pick belong to Minny, I wonder just how this might work!

[payitforward]

PIF... I know you're digging the Bertans SnT lately, so I got 2 others to add to the Mavs one already discussed.

GSW: Bertans for the TPE, 48, 2021 Pick swap (I think we will be better than TWolves)
- Getting a 15M TPE could be very valuable at the deadline should we prove to be formidable. A top 8-10 pick in 2021 is Gold. However, it does reduce our talent base. ...

You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo! As evidenced in your notion that we might "prove to be formidable."

I guess that if otherwise Bertans would simply sign somewhere else, there would be advantage to this. Make it the right to swap picks, obviously.

LAL: Bertans + Ish for Green, #28, 2023 2nd
- Bertans allows them to move Kuzma for another asset (Could be 3-way if necessary).
- We get a 3 & D wing to be the Ying to TBJ's Yang...lol. 28 is also a nice sweet spot for Bey, Carey, Tillman, etc.

In this case, I guess we'd also re-sign Napier? He's at least as good as Ish & would cost less if anything. For that reason, losing Ish wouldn't cost us anything.

In essence, therefore, the trade is Bertans for Green & the 2 picks. At 33, Danny Green is not part of our future. But, he's expiring this year anyway -- so, really, this is Davis Bertans for the #28 pick & a low R2 pick in 3 years. Plus whatever trade value Green has at the deadline.

I would do this, sure. But, the Wizards have already turned down a R1 pick for Bertans (might have been this very pick). Now, this deal adds something, but it still seems unlikely we'd do it -- unless Bertans wanted it, of course. It'd give him a shot at a ring.

[payitforward]

Looks like Minny wants to trade out of the #1 pick for "a win-now player."

Any thoughts?

Here's one: would they think of John Wall in that way? If so, would there be a way to move his contract to Minny, & would we then pick Lamelo Ball (dat's top player in this draft) in that #1 slot?

This would re-set our timeline: if Ball is as good as dat & many others think, if we went on to score Okongwu @#9 (& he too is good as people think), we'd have moved closer to contending for a title. Close enough that Beal is still right at the center of that team.

Just an idea....

[pcbothwel]

Looks like Minny wants to trade out of the #1 pick for "a win-now player."

Any thoughts?

Here's one: would they think of John Wall in that way? If so, would there be a way to move his contract to Minny, & would we then pick Lamelo Ball (dat's top player in this draft) in that #1 slot?

This would re-set our timeline: if Ball is as good as dat & many others think, if we went on to score Okongwu @#9 (& he too is good as people think), we'd have moved closer to contending for a title. Close enough that Beal is still right at the center of that team.

Just an idea....

1) No. Minny has really screwed themselves with DLO & KAT. Neither play defense and both need the ball. So most of the top prospects (Wiseman, Ball, Edwards, Toppin) and the easiest trade targets (Wall, Griffin, Love) dont fit with them. Also, they happened to get the #1 pick in one of the least talented drafts with respect to the lotto talent in YEARS...
Oh, and the team with the 2nd pick is also looking for a Win-Now player while having a Giant 17.1M TPE and the TWolves 2021 pick... lol. String of bad choices and luck.

2) Ball is trash. I dont care about his vision or rebounding. He plays high and tight which allows him to get pushed around, He cant shoot or defend to save his life, he is delusional about his own ability, terrible body language, etc. This PG/Combo guard class is loaded and I see a number of better prospects. I think Maxey, Lewis, and Cole Anthony are better prospects. Hell, I like Mannion, Pritchard, and Winston too.