LOL, true that.payitforward wrote:Hey! We don't see WallToWall all that often -- don't give him a hard time the minute he shows up!
What do you think the value for a 31 y.o Harden would be?
Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
LOL, true that.payitforward wrote:Hey! We don't see WallToWall all that often -- don't give him a hard time the minute he shows up!
WallToWall wrote:Surprisingly, the salaries match as it is. Houston would probably want a bunch of first round picks. However, Harden is 31 y.o. now, and he probably can keep going at a high level for a couple more years before father time catches up. Now that Morey is out, their new GM may want to go young.nate33 wrote:wall_glizzy wrote:This would, uh, be a pretty good trade for the zards. We could follow it up with flipping Bonga for Giannis and the Bucks first - who says no?
C'mon now. Be realistic. We would have to at least include Bertans and Bryant to make the salaries match.
Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
WallToWall wrote:LOL, true that.payitforward wrote:Hey! We don't see WallToWall all that often -- don't give him a hard time the minute he shows up!
What do you think the value for a 31 y.o Harden would be?
Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
DCZards wrote:payitforward wrote:
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.
Bertans is a specialist. The NBA is full of players like him. Some NBA players are great rebounders others are great passers, others are great defenders and others are great shooters. What you hope to have is a team full of players who are above-average at all of those things. That’s difficult—if not impossible—to achieve.
Bertans' rebounding, passing and D are no doubt negatives. His speciality is long-range, 3 pt shooting, which he does very, very well. Davis’s speciality creates headaches for defenses and opportunities for teammates.
Will Bertans be overpaid at 15 mil per year? Probably. Is he an important piece in helping the Zards win games and get better? Absolutely.
Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.
doclinkin wrote:Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.
For all intensive purposes this is my favorite eggcorn ever. It definitely passes mustard.
Dat2U wrote:doclinkin wrote:Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.
For all intensive purposes this is my favorite eggcorn ever. It definitely passes mustard.
Dat2U wrote:doclinkin wrote:Dat2U wrote: I've argued this with pif but it falls on death ears.
For all intensive purposes this is my favorite eggcorn ever. It definitely passes mustard.
Dat2U wrote:...The game of basketball is about making shots....
Dat2U wrote:...Bertans does that (i.e. "make shots") at a high level and efficiently....
Dat2U wrote:...You shore up Bertans weaknesses by putting a C next to him that can rebound/defend at a high level.
Dat2U wrote:...He'll bring out the best in Wall & Beal because he's ideal offensive fit and spacing & fit absolutely matters....
WizarDynasty wrote:...Wizards need a tough build--thick builded, high iq, pick setter, that can hit the open shot and defend on the perimeter in the starting lineup... JImmy Butler type player without the attitude problems.
...You need a 6'8 230 well built, above average athlete with high bball iq. ...Obviously ideal candidates would be k leonard, or Jimmy Butler, but we need cheaper alternatives. Maybe there is a high iq tough long three in draft that i am missing. A draymond green type in the draft?
payitforward wrote:Dat2U wrote:...The game of basketball is about making shots....
If an NBA game worked by giving both teams an equal number of chances to score, you would be right -- although even in that case the game would still be about 2 thing not one: it would be about making shots & preventing the other team from making shots.
But, as you may have noticed, an NBA game does not work that way. You can only make shots you have an opportunity to take -- & you have to earn the opportunity to take those shots.
In one way or another, though probably not in exactly those terms, I've been trying to explain this to you -- but not only to you -- for some time. Yet, oddly, it seems hard for people to absorb. Even though it is utterly true -- & equally obvious as well.Dat2U wrote:...Bertans does that (i.e. "make shots") at a high level and efficiently....
About this there is no question. Nor have you or anyone had to do any convincing. Nor does anyone need to convince me now. Davis Bertans is an elite shooter in the NBA.
But, just as he is exceptionally good at that, so too he is quite a bit less than good -- in fact, he is BAD -- at the other half of basketball's essence -- doing the things that earn your team (& you) the opportunity to take & make shots. & this...Dat2U wrote:...You shore up Bertans weaknesses by putting a C next to him that can rebound/defend at a high level.
...makes no more sense than saying it in the opposite direction, i.e. saying "you shore up" the weakness of someone's inability to shoot by putting a good shooter next to him.
If you put a guy who shoots 60% next to a guy who shoots 40%, you might have the equivalent of 2 average shooters. Similarly, if you put a good rebounder next to a bad rebounder, you might wind up with 2 average rebounders.
If we are talking about the same two guys in both cases, it shouldn't take a genius to see that what you have is 2 average players. Duh.Dat2U wrote:...He'll bring out the best in Wall & Beal because he's ideal offensive fit and spacing & fit absolutely matters....
Really? He will?
Here are 4 2-pt. % figures: 54.8%, 50.7%, 53.8%, 51.5%. Each of these is Brad's 2pt. % in one of the last 4 years -- but I've scrambled them. Here, also scrambled, are his 3pt %s in those years: 35.1%, 37.5%, 35.3%, 40.2%.
The averages of those 2 sets are 52.7% & 37%.
Without looking up the information, please pick the 2pt & 3pt %s that are for the year Brad & Davis were teammates.
But, of course Davis wouldn't just "bring out the best" in Beal's shooting, right? It would be in the rest of the team as well. So, especially given Davis' own extremely high eFG%, surely he would improve the whole team's shooting -- right? Yet, oddly, the team's eFG% went down this year.
Of course there were a bunch of different players this year. How about restricting it to guys who were Wizards last year w/o Davis & again this year with him? Well, other than Beal it was just Thomas Bryant, Jordan McRae & Ian Mahinmi.
With the benefit of Davis Bertans presence, Bryant's efg% went... down. How can that be? Well, at least Jordan McRae... also went down. So unfair when facts get in the way of an obviously perfect theory, isn't it? But, wait... Ian Mahinmi actually shot better this year than last -- as I'm sure you all noticed!
Didn't I tell you that Davis' great spacing makes everyone a better shooter? I mean... isn't it obvious? All you have to do is look at Ian Mahinmi! (Oh... don't look at anyone else, btw)
The theory behind Washington’s strategy is that Wall, Beal and Bertans will produce an elite offense. There’s evidence to support the theory. This season, with Beal and Bertans on the floor, the Wizards had an offensive rating of 121.5 points per 100 possessions. Adding Thomas Bryant to the lineup boosted the ortg to 122.7. Mix in Rui Hachimura and it was 123.8.
His shooting creates spacing, which helps his teammates. Two seasons ago, the Spurs were +9.5 per 100 possessions on offense when he was on the floor. This season in Washington, the Wizards were +7.4. The defense was basically unchanged.
doclinkin wrote:nate33 wrote:Just skimming draft picks in 2016 and 2017, and Tony Bradley looks interesting. He's the backup center for Utah and has monstrous per minute numbers (15.5 points, 14.5 boards, 1.8 blocks per 36 on a TS% of .681) while playing just 685 total minutes behind Gobert. He's till got one year left on his rookie deal though, so a trade would be necessary.
There you go. That's the guy. He showed up in one of my various screens for productive defensive freshmen if I recall correctly.
payitforward wrote:Kevin's analysis is about right, I'd say. With the slight problem that the numbers don't really demonstrate that Davis was better with us than in his last year in SA.
(Aside from scoring & Turnovers, the rest of Davis' numbers didn't change overall. His TS% went down just slightly -- but on significantly increased usage. But, if you factor in the increase in turnovers, it's a slightly greater drop in his true scoring efficiency -- not a big deal but enough that I think it's an exaggeration to say there's any real positive difference overall from last year to this.)
IOW, he is a slightly below average NBA 4.
If you want to say, "no, Kevin says he's a slightly above average NBA 4, & Kevin right" -- no problem: all you have to do is tell me how Kevin calculates his metric, PPA. If you can't do that, if you don't know how he calculates PPA, what does it mean to point to his article? Nothing.
Keep in mind that my assessment of Davis Bertans is not negative, ok? I'm not criticizing him. I don't think he's "bad." The world doesn't divide into angels & devils, heroes & villains. Neither does the NBA divide into "good players" & "bad players."
There's a spectrum, a bell-shaped curve. There are only a few really really good 4s, & there are only a few really really bad 4s. There are a whole lot clustered close to the middle.
payitforward wrote:Wait - you answer this question in the season comparison thread. Drop it here....
Or are you saying that if John comes back & plays at a high level we might go from a 31-win team to winning, say, 40 games?
IOW, what do you actually mean by these claims about Davis Bertans working perfectly w/ Brad & John ?
Dat2U wrote:payitforward wrote:Kevin's analysis is about right, I'd say. With the slight problem that the numbers don't really demonstrate that Davis was better with us than in his last year in SA.
(Aside from scoring & Turnovers, the rest of Davis' numbers didn't change overall. His TS% went down just slightly -- but on significantly increased usage. But, if you factor in the increase in turnovers, it's a slightly greater drop in his true scoring efficiency -- not a big deal but enough that I think it's an exaggeration to say there's any real positive difference overall from last year to this.)
IOW, he is a slightly below average NBA 4.
If you want to say, "no, Kevin says he's a slightly above average NBA 4, & Kevin right" -- no problem: all you have to do is tell me how Kevin calculates his metric, PPA. If you can't do that, if you don't know how he calculates PPA, what does it mean to point to his article? Nothing.
Keep in mind that my assessment of Davis Bertans is not negative, ok? I'm not criticizing him. I don't think he's "bad." The world doesn't divide into angels & devils, heroes & villains. Neither does the NBA divide into "good players" & "bad players."
There's a spectrum, a bell-shaped curve. There are only a few really really good 4s, & there are only a few really really bad 4s. There are a whole lot clustered close to the middle.
PPA is a measure of productivity on the court. Measuring productivity is fine and must be considered but it paints an incomplete picture. I prefer at least two years of on/off data the get an idea a player's true value to a team. Its more than just looking at collective totals in rebounds & points, assists, blocks, turnovers etc. I want to see on-court impact. Defense; blocking out; floor spacing; playing within the flow of an offense. The stuff raw stats or production measurements can't capture. The little things that are the difference between winning and losing.
Dat2U wrote:Measuring productivity is fine and must be considered but it paints an incomplete picture.
Dat2U wrote:I prefer at least two years of on/off data to get an idea a player's true value to a team.
Dat2U wrote:...little things... are the difference between winning and losing.