nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:Some of you will recollect a game against Toronto on April 5. You'll remember that Brad didn't play because of a hip contusion. & of course, we lost the game.
I'm sure you also recall that Russ didn't shoot well: 9 for 25. Rui was out too that night. So no surprise that we lost, right?
But, to put the icing on the cake: Neto went 2-11, Gill shot 1-5, Smith was 5-12, & Chandler Hutchison missed all of his 6 shots. Let's see that... 8-34 to go along with with Russ's 9-25 night.
Yet, somehow we only lost by 2 points! How come?
Because Bertans turned 8 shots & 2 FTs into 17 points -- kind of amazing.
Oh, & there was another guy too, a player named Mathews who also scored 17 points. But it only took him 7 shots & 3FTs -- just slightly more amazing than Davis Bertans' outing.
So the game was close. In fact, we went into the 4th quarter up by 11 points.
Over the next few games, Davis's minutes stayed steady or went up. Mathews' minutes went down. More time passed, & his minutes continued to go down.
Why is that, I wonder? Is it because Davis is a better 3-point shooter? Well, over 100 3 pt. attempts, their averages suggest that this season Davis will make 1 more than Garrison. OTOH, in that time he'll get to the line less & shoot a lower FT%, & he'll shoot 2-point shots at a lower % too. To put it another way, Garrison't TS% -- his overall effectiveness as a scorer -- is a little better than Davis's.
But don't get me wrong here! Davis Bertans' TS% is .620, which is absolutely terrific & indicates what an outstanding scorer he is! It's just that Garrison Mathews' TS% is .635 -- just that much more outstanding.
Btw, Garrison is 24; Davis is 28 -- back when he was 24, Davis Bertans didn't put up numbers anywhere near the numbers Garrison Mathews has posted this year.
So... I don't know...? Maybe Garrison Mathews should get some minutes tomorrow night -- & some shots too! Maybe that would help.
I'm completely in favor of Mathews playing more minutes, but I disagree with the idea that he is better than Bertans. It matters that Bertans does what he can do at 6-10 while Mathews is just 6-4. When Mathews plays, he is replacing some other wing player who can shoot pretty well (or he is playing as an undersized SF where he is a defensive liability) and is therefore only slightly helping spacing. When Bertans plays, he is replacing someone who doesn't shoot well at all and therefore massively boosts the spacing for the team.
I didn't mean to suggest that Garrison Mathews is a better NBA player than Davis Bertans. Certainly, I wouldn't say that he should play
in place of Davis. Situationally & in every other way, that wouldn't make sense.
Essentially, my point was that
he should play -- & that some of the reasons he should play are similar to some of the reasons Davis should play (& does play, in his case).
I don't even think one can conclude that Mathews is "a good NBA player," though one can say that he has the potential to become one. Overall, it's not that different from what one would say about Gill or Hutchison. & situationally, i.e. in this series, we need his scoring potential.
In general, we know that teams shorten their rotations in the playoffs. But, this isn't "in general." If we play Beal & Westbrook over 40 minutes a game (as we did in game 1) because we hope "to steal one," we have no chance to take the series. Hell, we have very little chance to do it under any circumstance! But, it can only happen if we get best possible level performances from bench scorers.
