doclinkin wrote:payitforward wrote:Ok, I just plain don't get this:
doclinkin wrote:...With Bryant in place we had one of the worst defenses in history. ...a defensive liability at 5 is very difficult to overcome. And he can't be played with Bertans since then BOTH of your bigs are a problem....
In that case, how come it isn't Bertans who's the problem? Why is Bryant the problem?
Last year, Thomas Bryant played in 46 games. Last year, Davis Bertans played in 54 games. He played 436 more minutes than Bryant. Davis Bertans hurt our defense last year at least as much as Thomas Bryant did maybe more.
Yet, somehow, we can't do without Bertans, while Thomas Bryant is expendable? Is that because of Davis Bertans' offensive prowess?
Read back to where I said we need an upgrade or substitute for Bertans. Where I suggested we trade back to take both Petrusev (4/5 athletic multi tool big with developing range) and Queta (filling the Lopez role, but adding passing, steals, blocks). Then shop Bryant for a SF or SG....
You're missing my point, or else I didn't make it clearly enough. I'm not questioning anything about the draft thinking. Or suggesting that you are particularly a fan/supporter of Davis.
For that matter, my point isn't to criticize Davis Bertans. My point is that a completely difference critical stance is applied to Bryant than to Bertans. Every player operates within limits; every player has strengths & weaknesses. The weaknesses used to come to judgement on Thomas Bryant, if they were employed on Davis Bertans, would result in the same judgement.
This is not about whether such judgements are warranted, or adequate, or complete, or conclusive. It's about the fact that they are employed in one case but not in the other.
doclinkin wrote:...Still, the reasoning: you can hide a defensive liability on the wing....
Not really. Or, if you can, then he's not a defensive liability. But, Davis is a defensive liability -- he was one of the sources of our lousy defense last year in exactly the way Bryant was. Except more than Bryant, since Bryant only played 1146 minutes.
1146 minutes -- that's slightly over 1/2 of 1% of a team's player-minutes in an 82-game season. Of course, only about 1/2 of that is spent playing defense. I'm pretty sure that the other 99.5% of minutes contributed enough to our lousy defense that neither you nor anyone else can pull the threads from the fabric to isolate Bryant's role. Or Bertans' role for that matter.
Moreover, I often hear that basketball is a dynamic game full of interdependencies between players -- this is usually voiced to make individual stats seem less important. Well, if that's true anywhere, it's most true on defense. It's a team effort.
Bertans plays the 4; he doesn't play defense on the wing. But, actually, I don't think you can "hide a defensive liability" anywhere.
doclinkin wrote:...Even in an era of 'positionless basketball' the teams that are winning have useful defensive bigs up front....
Better teams have better players at more positions than do teams that aren't as good. Period. Is it good to have
doclinkin wrote:...a Big who can defend the outside and the interior alike....
Of course it is!
doclinkin wrote:...Bryant puts up nice counting stats, looks efficient, and he is a liability on defense. Bertans doesn't put up assists because he doesn't hold the ball, he shoots as soon as he has it. We have been through his +/- effect on the team. Whatever his flaws, he is the player who has the biggest positive effect on team success in the minutes he does play....
This is billshut, sorry. Bertans doesn't have the biggest positive effect on team success in the minutes he plays.
If you want to use a metric to prove something in the real world, first you have to be able to prove that the metric itself correlates to real world results -- independent of what you want it to show in the case at hand.
Otherwise you're just telling me that it has to be true, because the Pope is infallible. Sorry, I'm pretty sure he's not.
Or, let me put it another way: if I get to define what it means to "make America great again," then when I say "Donald Trump made America great again," you don't get to disagree with me.
This is not about "is Thomas Bryant a great NBA player?" He isn't. But, last season he was better than Davis Bertans. & this season his 271 minutes, before he went down, were better than Davis's season has been overall. & in 2018-19 he was better with the Wizards than Davis was with the Spurs.
doclinkin wrote:...winning teams need mobile bigs on defense....
For sure. But, you can't prove anything with nostrums, doc. It's good to be mobile, you bet. Yet, with Jarrett Allen, Cleveland has 21 wins. On the other hand, how mobile were you saying Nikola Jokic is?
Winning teams need many things. & if they have them all, they win it all. In exactly the same way, if Bryant could do well the things he can't do well, he'd be a star. Rinse & repeat for Davis Bertans.
