Porzingis + 2nd round pick for Dinwiddie, Bertans

[pcbothwel]

I'm not sure where you're heading with this. Except maybe...

I wrote that KP is a bad player. That was sloppy of me.

What I should have written was "in his career up to now, KP has been a bad player." If you look at his numbers for those seasons -- including his time in Dallas this very year -- they support the characterization. They were, overall, below average for an NBA Center in every one of those seasons.

So, rather than making a judgment, let me just describe what I can:

In no season of KP's career has he put up numbers per 40 minutes that were as good, overall, as an average player at his position. Please don't respond by saying he's scored a lot of points per 40 minutes in those seasons. I can read, so I see that. But, his career TS% is .549 -- well below average for a 4 or 5.

Im still trying to process this.
You take a player that came into the year at 20 and is now 26 (6 seasons). You seem to value what he did at 20/21 the same as we he has done over the last 2 years... which makes zero sense.
Dejounte Murray, Devin Booker, Garland... all players who have made tremendous improvements. Even our own Brad Beal.

If you look at these players Career averages at 23/34, you dont even get a starting caliber player. But if you properly weight their more recent success over their early career failures, then you would clearly see where their career would go.

I mean, what are we even talking about. Look at Murray this year vs his career up to this point... which player is he? How about Bookers or Beals first 4 years?

To me, you have to value what KP has done the last 2 years over anything else.
And when you do so, you get the following as I previously mentioned:

2020-22:
Per36: 24 & 10; AST:TOV = 2.4:1.7
Advanced: TS = 58%; BPM = 2.9; ORtg/DRtg of 116/109; Usage = 28%

Can you list a couple Centers that you consider an "average player at his position"?
Again, Im trying to establish where KP lines up. Also, please take minutes & usage into consideration. I dont want to get in some back in forth about how good some big is that plays 12-15 MPG and has a usage of 15%.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you are arguing with/about.


So... what are you arguing about? Maybe it comes down to this: do you think that in 2020-21 Porzingis had a good season for Dallas? That he had another one -- for Dallas, I mean -- this year? Where "good season" means "put up numbers per 40 minutes that, overall, were above average?" Is that it?

If that's what you think, then you're just wrong. He didn't. Of course, you may mean "good season" in some other way, i.e. not just numbers. In that case, you may be right -- but that has little to do with what he is doing as a Wizard, which is putting up terrific numbers.

This is mind numbing.
You keep pointing to Porzingis's "Career per 40" numbers and that they were "Below average". You are being vague because you are wrong. I will restate what I am asking/arguing:
1) You keep talking about career numbers, when you very well know that the more recent sample size is a better indicator. I gave you multiple examples and can give you dozens more (Otto?). If you look at a 24/25 y/o player in the middle of breaking out, but continue to use their 19/20 y/o seasons as some sort of marker of their ability you look foolish.
Why is this so hard? If you look at any player that came into the league young and look at 2 sets of data:
A) Their career stats after breaking out (Usually year 4/5), or B) Their most recent 1-2 years numbers...

Now look back over their career and tell me if the rest of their prime (25-30) ended up being more in line with the 1st set or 2nd. Again, the examples are endless and you seem to ignore it... its very strange. Again, Other than some GOATs that hit the ground running (Lebron, CP3, Doncic, KD), All others align with my argument: Otto, Beal, Giannis, Booker, Donovan Mitchell, Steph Curry, Garland, Derozan, McCollum, Brandon Ingram, Lowry, Embiid.


2) You stated that KP has been below average as a player. I asked you to provide me with bigs that YOU argue are equal or better than KP (I.E. Average to slightly above average) and compare what they have done statistically to the numbers that KP has put up over the last 2-3 years.

You act like KP has been a bad/journey man player that has not shown considerable improvement and is just having a small breakout with us. I.E. There is no reason to believe it will continue.
I contend that while he has been Great with us, his stats over the last 2-3 years show a clear improvement.

[payitforward]

I don't know who you are arguing w/, but it ain't me!

1. You keep presuming that I'm trying to measure Porzingis' "ability" in a negative way. I'm not. What KP is doing as a Wizard, what he's doing right now, is a perfect indicator of his "ability." If he didn't have the ability, how could he be doing it? Duh!

2. Of course, current numbers are a better indicator of the present than old numbers! How could they not be? They ARE the present. Duh! Similarly, numbers from the recent past are a better indicator of the near future than old numbers are. How could this not be so?

3. KP's numbers for us are significantly better than his numbers were for Dallas this year & last year. Period.

4. As well, his numbers for Dallas this season & last were better than his numbers for the Knicks his first 3 seasons. & also a bit better than his numbers in his 5th season (He was out the whole of his 4th year).

In short, like pretty much every other player, KP has improved as he reached his mid-20s & the middle years of his career. Duh.

But, "improved" is not the same as "good." As a Wizard, KP has actually been "good."

He wasn't actually "good" in Dallas. That's why, when they decided to trade him, they got a horrible return -- & still had to throw in a R2 pick to make it happen. Duh.

[tleikheen]

I watched all the Dallas games KP was in and use to yell at the tv for KP to get the hell off the 3 pt line. But that was the Dallas offense, to set picks for Luka and let him decide who shoots the ball. The guy that rolled was Powell whos good at it but still Dallas fans wanted KP at center which he prefers over PF.
Now he's with the Wiz and rolling to the basket ,pump faking and driving to the rim, and doing turn around bankers and fades while still letting the 3's fly .He's getting to polish up on his whole arsenal of moves and getting to the free throw line at a high rate. This definitely seems to be opening up space for Hachimura,Avidja ( hopefully Gafford too),Kispert and KCP. The young guys are starting to shine playing with KP.

[pcbothwel]

PIF... Why are you being so evasive? Im literally quoting you from the last week(s) and you wont give me an answer:

You stated above that KP's stats before he got here "were, overall, below average for an NBA Center in every one of those seasons."

To counter that, I provided you KP's stats over the last two years(Yes, I know it included some games in DC, but was overwhelmingly taken from his time in Dallas) and asked you to provide me with a sample of Bigs that you deem to be better. After numerous vague post you have yet to do that

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

Honestly I really like watching KP play, and I hope he stays. He's got to be the most talented and exciting player to wear a Wizards uni since Gil was here. Maybe my natural depression that comes from being a long-time Wizards fan is coloring my view here, but I do worry that KP/Beal isn't a sustainable plan for going forward.

As for KP opting out... if he extends his current streak of play through next season (high usage, .600+ TS, good rebounding and rim protection) don't you think he would command a max deal?

I don't know enough about Beal (I'm afraid/ashamed to say) to really be able to judge how feasible KP+Beal is playing wise. KP's best spells were his third season in NY before he had the ACL tear, when he was the #1 option, and in the bubble with Dallas where he was playing with Luka. Arguably, also this season where a lot of the time he was playing with Luka out (either injured or with covid) and pretty depleted teams (again, covid and injury). I discount this year because it was so disjointed. I don't see, in principle, why KP+Beal couldn't work, and while Luka is undoubtedly a fantastic player the Mavs do get heliocentric when he's fit and playing well (particularly under Carlisle - who's coaching I thought was pretty terrible, but also this year under Kidd - who's coached extremely well imo). So, I'm glass half full on that. But you guys will all have much better (and firmer) opinions on how Beal would take playing with a KP playing a role similar to what he's been doing since he's arrived in Washington.

Filling in the back story: KP was initially supposed to be a development project and not expected to contribute his first year, at least. Obviously he exceeded expectations, but the Dolan/PhilJax/Melo/Mills combo was so disfunctional that by the start of his third year Jackson and Melo had been sacked and more terrible HC decisions were being made by the new FO (+ the THJ signing etc etc). After the Giannis submarine ACL tear KP didn't play for 18 months. Then had the meniscus tear in the bubble playoffs - again a contact injury, which Dallas didn't want him to have operated until way after they should have because (i) they hoped an operation wouldn't be necessary and (ii) they mis-estimated how soon the season after the bubble would start (mid-Dec rather than their estimation of mid-Feb); consequently KP was never really properly recovered to play in 2020-2021.

Is he fragile? Well, he's not AC Green and does miss games with back soreness and sundry minor things. Those are probably unavoidable and par for the course. The real question is: is he more likely to suffer traumatic, season-ending contact injuries because of his body shape and if so how much more likely? Teams have to make their own assessments of that and of what training in terms of kinesthesis and strength to reduce those risks. My hope is that partly he's made some progress on that and partly that he's been pretty unlucky in his career so far - if KD had had the injuries he's had over the last 3 years in his years 3-6 and was now in year 7 what would we all think of him? But everyone has a different view.

[payitforward]

PIF... Why are you being so evasive? Im literally quoting you from the last week(s) and you wont give me an answer:

You stated above that KP's stats before he got here "were, overall, below average for an NBA Center in every one of those seasons."

To counter that, I provided you KP's stats over the last two years(Yes, I know it included some games in DC, but was overwhelmingly taken from his time in Dallas) and asked you to provide me with a sample of Bigs that you deem to be better. After numerous vague post you have yet to do that

Of course I'm not going to get into that! It's a senseless way to discuss a player. I don't "deem" players better or worse. I'm not judging someone's floor routine in gymnastics. I just look at their actual numbers -- the players determine who's better or worse by the numbers they put up.

Let me just turn it around for you to answer. I don't think you will. Since, I assume, you think KP last season ('20-21) was an above average NBA Center, why don't you tell me whom you would compare him to? You think he had a sizable jump last year: who'd did his jump put him next to? I.e. who was an equally good Center in 2020-21?

Instead, let's just look at KP's per-40-minute numbers in 2020-21 compared to the average output of an NBA Center that year, ok? I'll do everything else first & then scoring last. & I'll give differences (better-worse, more-less) rather than raw numbers.

KP committed .5 fewer fouls per 40 minutes than the average of all Centers. That's good, right?
He had .67 fewer turnovers than average -- also good.
He blocked just slightly more shots than average per 40 -- @ .08 more. A tiny difference, but still on the plus side of average.
But, he also had .5 fewer steals per 40 minutes & 1 fewer assist as well. So, on the sum of all that, he's about average overall.

OTOH, he got .583 fewer defensive rebounds than average. & he got 1 fewer offensive rebound than average for an NBA Center in 40 minutes. In effect, that's @1.6 fewer possessions for his team in those 40 minutes.

So, before we get to scoring, KP is a bit behind the average in what he accomplished last season per 40 minutes.

However, KP scored almost 7.6 more points than an average NBA Center that year. Thing is, though, possessions aren't free, & to score those extra points, KP needed to use about 6.42 more possessions than an average Center.

In other words, with the 1.6 fewer possessions from rebounds, those 7.6 points cost his team something over 8 possessions. Which left Kristaps Porzingis, in 2020-21, as a significantly below average NBA Center in productivity. As he was the year before, & as he was for Dallas this year.

He's playing a lot better for us, fortunately. On 1.3 more shots & a couple more FTAs, he's producing almost 5 more points. The result is that his TS% is .601 rather than .561 as it was in Dallas before he was traded. Plus, his offensive rebounding is up, his defensive rebounding his up, & his assists are also up.

That's what "better" means.

[doclinkin]

Honestly I really like watching KP play, and I hope he stays. He's got to be the most talented and exciting player to wear a Wizards uni since Gil was here. Maybe my natural depression that comes from being a long-time Wizards fan is coloring my view here, but I do worry that KP/Beal isn't a sustainable plan for going forward.

As for KP opting out... if he extends his current streak of play through next season (high usage, .600+ TS, good rebounding and rim protection) don't you think he would command a max deal?

I don't know enough about Beal (I'm afraid/ashamed to say) to really be able to judge how feasible KP+Beal is playing wise. KP's best spells were his third season in NY before he had the ACL tear, when he was the #1 option and in the bubble with Dallas where he was playing with Luka. Arguably also this season where a lot of the time he was playing with Luka out (either injured or with covid) and pretty depleted teams (again, covid and injury). I discount this year because it was so disjointed. I don't see in principle why KP+Beal couldn't work, and while Luka is undoubtedly a fantastic player the Mavs do get heliocentric when he's fit and playing well (particularly under Carlisle - who's coaching I thought was pretty terrible, but also this year under Kidd - who's coached extremely well imo). So, i'm glass half full on that. But you guys will all have much better (and firmer) opinions on how Beal would take playing with a KP playing a role similar to what he's been doing since he arrive in Washington.

Filling in the back story: KP was initially supposed to be a development project and not expected to contribute his first year at least. Obviously he exceeded expectations, but the Dolan/PhilJax/Melo/Mills combo was so disfunctional that by the start of his third year Jackson and Melo had been sacked and more terrible HC decisions were being made by the new FO (THJ signing etc). After the Giannis submarine ACL tear KP didn't play for 18 months. Then had the meniscus tear in the bubble playoffs - again a contact injury, which Dallas didn't want him to have operated until way after they should because (i) they hoped an operation wouldn't be necessary and (ii) they mis-estimated how soon the season after the bubble would start (mid-Dec rather than their estimation of mid-Feb), consequently KP was never really properly recovered to play in 2020-2021.

Is he fragile? Well, he's not AC Green and does miss games with back soreness and sundry minor things. Those are probably unavoidable and par for the course. The real question is: is he more likely to suffer traumatic, season-ending contact injuries because of his body shape and if so how much more likely. Teams have to make their own assessments of that and of what training in terms of kinesthesis and strength to reduce those risks. My hope is that partly he's made some progress on that and partly that he's been pretty unlucky in his career so far - if KD had had the injuries he's had over the last 3 years in his years 3-6 and was now in year 7 what would we all think of him? But everyone has a different view.

Thoughtful and thorough career recap. Appreciated. Stick around.

[nate33]

PIF... Why are you being so evasive? Im literally quoting you from the last week(s) and you wont give me an answer:

You stated above that KP's stats before he got here "were, overall, below average for an NBA Center in every one of those seasons."

To counter that, I provided you KP's stats over the last two years(Yes, I know it included some games in DC, but was overwhelmingly taken from his time in Dallas) and asked you to provide me with a sample of Bigs that you deem to be better. After numerous vague post you have yet to do that

Of course I'm not going to get into that! It's a senseless way to discuss a player. I don't "deem" players better or worse. I'm not judging someone's floor routine in gymnastics. I just look at their actual numbers -- the players determine who's better or worse by the numbers they put up.

Let me just turn it around for you to answer. I don't think you will. Since, I assume, you think KP last season ('20-21) was an above average NBA Center, why don't you tell me whom you would compare him to? You think he had a sizable jump last year: who'd did his jump put him next to? I.e. who was an equally good Center in 2020-21?

Instead, let's just look at KP's per-40-minute numbers in 2020-21 compared to the average output of an NBA Center that year, ok? I'll do everything else first & then scoring last. & I'll give differences (better-worse, more-less) rather than raw numbers.

KP committed .5 fewer fouls per 40 minutes than the average of all Centers. That's good, right?
He had .67 fewer turnovers than average -- also good.
He blocked just slightly more shots than average per 40 -- @ .08 more. A tiny difference, but still on the plus side of average.
But, he also had .5 fewer steals per 40 minutes & 1 fewer assist as well. So, on the sum of all that, he's about average overall.

OTOH, he got .583 fewer defensive rebounds than average. & he got 1 fewer offensive rebound than average for an NBA Center in 40 minutes. In effect, that's @1.6 fewer possessions for his team in those 40 minutes.

So, before we get to scoring, KP is a bit behind the average in what he accomplished last season per 40 minutes.

However, KP scored almost 7.6 more points than an average NBA Center that year. Thing is, though, possessions aren't free, & to score those extra points, KP needed to use about 6.42 more possessions than an average Center.

In other words, with the 1.6 fewer possessions from rebounds, those 7.6 points cost his team something over 8 possessions. Which left Kristaps Porzingis, in 2020-21, as a significantly below average NBA Center in productivity. As he was the year before, & as he was for Dallas this year.

He's playing a lot better for us, fortunately. On 1.3 more shots & a couple more FTAs, he's producing almost 5 more points. The result is that his TS% is .601 rather than .561 as it was in Dallas before he was traded. Plus, his offensive rebounding is up, his defensive rebounding his up, & his assists are also up.

That's what "better" means.

Where I disagree with PIF's analysis is in how he compares players by position, rather than role. Yes, Porzingis is nominally a center, but he is not merely a low usage rim-roller. He plays a lot of pick and pop and a lot of high post, which are lower percentage endeavors. But because he can do it, it allows other players to get more shots at the rim in a higher percentage manner.

PIF will look at Porzingis and Gafford, see that Gafford scores with insanely high efficiency while rebounding just as much, and conclude that Gafford is better. His analysis doesn't factor that other players have more difficulty scoring efficiently with Gafford on the floor because Gafford occupies the paint and isn't much of a passer.

I wish PIF would compare players according to their role, more so than their nominal position. There are stretch bigs, post bigs, and rim running bigs. There are stationary shooting wings, slashing wings, and movement shooters like Kispert. There are primary ball handling guards and secondary ball handlers. Some of those jobs are easier than others. Being good at an easier job isn't necessarily as difficult as being mediocre at a harder job.

[doclinkin]

Instead, let's just look at KP's per-40-minute numbers in 2020-21 compared to the average output of an NBA Center that year, ok?
...
That's what "better" means.

Where I disagree with PIF's analysis is in how he compares players by position, rather than role. Yes, Porzingis is nominally a center, but he is not merely a low usage rim-roller. He plays a lot of pick and pop and a lot of high post, which are lower percentage endeavors. But because he can do it, it allows other players to get more shots at the rim in a higher percentage manner.

PIF will look at Porzingis and Gafford, see that Gafford scores with insanely high efficiency while rebounding just as much, and conclude that Gafford is better. His analysis doesn't factor that other players have more difficulty scoring efficiently with Gafford on the floor because Gafford occupies the paint and isn't much of a passer.

I wish PIF would compare players according to their role, more so than their nominal position. There are stretch bigs, post bigs, and rim running bigs. There are stationary shooting wings, slashing wings, and movement shooters like Kispert. There are primary ball handling guards and secondary ball handlers. Some of those jobs are easier than others. Being good at an easier job isn't necessarily as difficult as being mediocre at a harder job.

Right. Which is why it's instructive to look at on/off numbers and +/- numbers. And look to see if his presence affects his teammates numbers, not just comparing his own with the average center. (I am curious to see what site is listing the definitive figures for what quantifies an average player by position. And how those positions are determined.)

But yes on offense KP will pull down fewer baskets if he is 30 feet away when the ball is in the air. But is the team necessarily giving up that rebound if he is not the player to grab it? No because he draws opposing bigs out of the paint, you could expect to see an up-tick in offensive boards by forwards and wing players. If you look at his time in Dallas, his effect on offensive rebounding was a ~0% change in his on/off numbers. Yes he was not grabbing them, but somebody was. (Not so much here, since we frankly do not have good secondary rebounders on the team). His on/off numbers have been in the positive, except for one year (and even then his play/off on/off numbers were +8 pts per 100 possessions).

Still, the knock on Porzingis has always been that he hasn't lived up to his potential. Whatever his position or wherever he plays. Injuries or chemistry or whatever excuse. He looks better than his numbers show. So it's fair to ding him for that. Not that he is bad, simply that more is expected of him, and by both injury and play he has not lived up to the value of his contract. Fortunately knock wood, in DC, so far, with a new team and lower expectations, he is playing to the level of that contract. Hopefully this is sustainable and not merely a late season blip in his stats. I do like how he has been featured by Wes. And the line-up experiments that have been tried next to him. It helps that his teammate from Spain is playing next to him. It'd be great to retain Sato on a short term bargain contract since he seems to have great chemistry with the Zinger. Better still if we could find an understudy and apprentice at PG who can earn the starting job with solid play.

[payitforward]

Where I disagree with PIF's analysis is in how he compares players by position, rather than role. Yes, Porzingis is nominally a center, but he is not merely a low usage rim-roller. He plays a lot of pick and pop and a lot of high post, which are lower percentage endeavors. But because he can do it, it allows other players to get more shots at the rim in a higher percentage manner....

This is a legit. point, nate. If a player's time on the floor raises the shooting percentage of the guys he's on the floor with, he's having a positive effect on his team's chances of winning the game that isn't captured in his own numbers. The rise in their scoring efficiency should be considered in assessing how good that player is.

But, wouldn't this have to be supported empirically? For sure, we seemed to see something of this in his first few hundred minutes as a Wizard -- you've pointed this out. OTOH, vs the Hawks last night, both Rui & Deni were on the floor a lot w/ KP -- & shot poorly.

IOW, it'd take a granular & long-term study of the numbers to find out whether this kind of "KP effect" exists. We'd have to examine the FG% of guys he plays with over time to see whether they shoot a higher % while on the floor with Porzingis vs other Centers. As well, we'd want to look at how often they get to the line w/ & w/o his presence.

If he has had this effect overall in his career, then for sure it has to be factored in when judging that career.

For that matter, come to think of it, there may be players who have a negative effect on other players' scoring efficiency.

...PIF will look at Porzingis and Gafford, see that Gafford scores with insanely high efficiency while rebounding just as much, and conclude that Gafford is better. His analysis doesn't factor that other players have more difficulty scoring efficiently with Gafford on the floor because Gafford occupies the paint and isn't much of a passer....

Good heavens, nate -- don't paint me as a complete idiot! Plus, in the case of Gafford, don't leave out the other end of the court. If the other team shoots & misses, it's an unambiguously good thing to get the rebound!

For that matter, proficiency at grabbing an offensive board off of a teammate's missed shot has an effect on your primary point above. It doesn't raise the teammate's shooting %, but it limits the damage of misses. As I've pointed out before (too often, no doubt!) only two things actually determine whether a team wins or loses a game -- the number of opportunities the team has to score & the team's efficiency in using those opportunities (measured by TS%).

...I wish PIF would compare players according to their role, more so than their nominal position. There are stretch bigs, post bigs, and rim running bigs. There are stationary shooting wings, slashing wings, and movement shooters like Kispert. There are primary ball handling guards and secondary ball handlers. Some of those jobs are easier than others. Being good at an easier job isn't necessarily as difficult as being mediocre at a harder job.

This is certainly true. & to some degree anyone has to work this way -- even if it's only by way of dealing w/ different positions. I.e. overall, bigs always put up better numbers than guards, so you have to account for their different roles when you assess whether a particular guard is "a better player" than e.g. a particular center.

I'm only interested in judging how "good" a player is in the sense of measuring that guy's effect on wins & losses -- & wins/losses are measured by numbers exclusively. I.e. to understand how good a player is -- in the sense of how much effect he has on wins/losses -- you must be able to translate what he does into its impact on increasing/decreasing his team's TS% or his team's number of possessions.

Moreover, you'll never get to 100% accuracy in that assessment. There are too many dependencies. A step forward would be to measure a guy's effect on other players' FG%s, etc. in the way you suggest is important for understanding KP. That's good stuff!

[payitforward]

Where I disagree with PIF's analysis is in how he compares players by position, rather than role. Yes, Porzingis is nominally a center, but he is not merely a low usage rim-roller. He plays a lot of pick and pop and a lot of high post, which are lower percentage endeavors. But because he can do it, it allows other players to get more shots at the rim in a higher percentage manner....

I wish PIF would compare players according to their role, more so than their nominal position. There are stretch bigs, post bigs, and rim running bigs. There are stationary shooting wings, slashing wings, and movement shooters like Kispert. There are primary ball handling guards and secondary ball handlers. Some of those jobs are easier than others. Being good at an easier job isn't necessarily as difficult as being mediocre at a harder job.

Right. Which is why it's instructive to look at on/off numbers and +/- numbers....

Respectfully, I don't think the one implies the other. Or, rather, someone would have to show that it did -- & to my knowledge no one has.

For one thing, this points to the slight flaw (gap, incompleteness) in nate's thinking which I left unmentioned: if you raise the question of player A's effect on the performance of players B, C, D, etc. as important in judging how good a player A is, then you also have to ask what the effect of players B, C, D, etc. is on player A's performance!

Thus (he writes, leaving out the extensive proof that would be required to justify using the word...), you'd also have to know the effect of B on C, B on D, C on B, C on D, D on B, & D on C. Not to mention B on C when D is on vs. off the floor, & so on! Oh, & then there's A's effect on B when C is on the floor vs. off. Etc.

Overall, there's no end to dependencies. Neither +/- nor On/Off is in any sense meaningful w/o a deep dive into the particulars of those dependencies. You kind of make this point by writing:

...on offense KP will pull down fewer baskets if he is 30 feet away when the ball is in the air. But is the team necessarily giving up that rebound if he is not the player to grab it? No because he draws opposing bigs out of the paint, you could expect to see an up-tick in offensive boards by forwards and wing players. If you look at his time in Dallas, his effect on offensive rebounding was a ~0% change in his on/off numbers. Yes he was not grabbing them, but somebody was. (Not so much here, since we frankly do not have good secondary rebounders on the team)....

I.e. we don't have the right B's & C's. As to...

...Still, the knock on Porzingis has always been that he hasn't lived up to his potential. .. by both injury and play he has not lived up to the value of his contract. Fortunately knock wood, in DC, so far, with a new team and lower expectations, he is playing to the level of that contract. Hopefully this is sustainable...It'd be great to retain Sato on a short term bargain contract since he seems to have great chemistry with the Zinger. Better still if we could find an understudy and apprentice at PG who can earn the starting job with solid play.

On the money all of it.

Trading for Porzingis was a no-brainer. Even if he's overpaid, he ain't as overpaid as Bertans! Nor for as long. & Dinwiddie was expensive & unsustainable on the team.

Hell, on deadline day we sent out 3 players & took back 2 players plus 2 R2 picks. Then picked up a 3d player for free. We lowered our salaries this year & lessened our salary obligations going forward.

Sure, KP is a roll of the dice, but he's a better one than either/both of the loaded dice we sent out for him!

[doclinkin]

Where I disagree with PIF's analysis is in how he compares players by position, rather than role. Yes, Porzingis is nominally a center, but he is not merely a low usage rim-roller. He plays a lot of pick and pop and a lot of high post, which are lower percentage endeavors. But because he can do it, it allows other players to get more shots at the rim in a higher percentage manner....

This is a legit. point, nate. If a player's time on the floor raises the shooting percentage of the guys he's on the floor with, he's having a positive effect on his team's chances of winning the game that isn't captured in his own numbers. The rise in their scoring efficiency should be considered in assessing how good that player is.

But, wouldn't this have to be supported empirically?

This data can be teased out from the line-up data available at basketball reference etc. You can sort by offensive rebound % or eFG or whichever metric, and without need for terribly exacting regression analysis you get a sense of which players occur in each of these metrics, especially when you scroll down to the 2-man combinations with heavy minutes.

If the same name keeps coming up no matter the combination, then that guy is not really hurting the team. Clearly helping.

This year for instance. You see Deni in all of the top lines. Points, rebound % etc.

To my understanding it is from this info that Kevin Broome developed his PPA metric. 82games.com has a simpler version that does isolate for position, but often position is an arbitrary designation that reflects a player's height relative to other players on the floor, not their role on the team.

Interestingly with Porzingis, on the line-up data, when you walk back through his teams he tends to show up at both ends of the spectrum: both the most efficient line-ups and the worst. To me this suggests what analysts and coaches have alluded to with him, that playing with a 'unicorn' is not necessarily intuitive or a consistently winning strategy. If it were then we would see more championships with stretch 5's and teams would rush to land them. Inverting the court puts pressure on those wings and forwards to take on a role they ordinarily don't. If you have players who do it well, then great, if not, you may fall short.

That said, Porzingis' playoff numbers seem consistently to be better than his regular season numbers in this sort of data.

[Shoe]

...I wish PIF would compare players according to their role, more so than their nominal position. There are stretch bigs, post bigs, and rim running bigs. There are stationary shooting wings, slashing wings, and movement shooters like Kispert. There are primary ball handling guards and secondary ball handlers. Some of those jobs are easier than others. Being good at an easier job isn't necessarily as difficult as being mediocre at a harder job.

I'm only interested in judging how "good" a player is in the sense of measuring that guy's effect on wins & losses -- & wins/losses are measured by numbers exclusively. I.e. to understand how good a player is -- in the sense of how much effect he has on wins/losses -- you must be able to translate what he does into its impact on increasing/decreasing his team's TS% or his team's number of possessions

why are teams investing millions of dollars in optical tracking data when it's as simple as TS% and number of possessions

NATE is absolutely right about roles. Execs polled by hoopshype had LEBRON and DARKO as the closest thing to what NBA teams use. Both of those stats use a 12 archetype system to account for players roles.

[Zonkerbl]

are you guys arguing about plus minus again?

[Shoe]

Porzingis is also posting the best LEBRON on the wizards as far back as its been recorded (2009).

My one gripe with the stat is miscast roles....
namely RUI!

Last year: Roll + Cut Big, -0.99 LEBRON (not horrible for a second year player)

This year: Stretch Big, -2.46 LEBRON

Because it accounts for previous years performances, his shooting is considered an outlier. So it believes a career 31% three point shooters role on offense is to stretch the floor. Also Rui is not a big (imo). He's a stationary shooter this year. If you want to tank guys like Grant, Hunter, Derozan's LEBRON scores, list them as Bigs.

0 is average, -2.70 is replacement level. With Rui's shooting improvement, his tweener status, I think it's hard to say what his future role will be. Teams generally only have 4-6 positive LEBRON players, so continuing closer to the 0 mark would be great.

Our positive guys right now are Porzingis, Beal, Gafford, Avdija. Pretty youthful core.

[queridiculo]

This is so typical for the Wizards.

Porzingis teasing like he could really prosper for this team operating out of the high pick and roll alongside somebody like Beal, but then there's also him being a walking DNP-injury and let's face it, it's never worked out great for Washington when they've taken a chance on players with an injury history like him.

[Ruzious]

If you had told me when we got him that Porz would play 32 plus minutes in the back end of a back-to-back on the road in April... I'd be somewhat surprised - regardless of whether or not he'd tie a personal best for rebounds in a game.

[DCZards]

This is so typical for the Wizards.

Porzingis teasing like he could really prosper for this team operating out of the high pick and roll alongside somebody like Beal, but then there's also him being a walking DNP-injury and let's face it, it's never worked out great for Washington when they've taken a chance on players with an injury history like him.

Good morning Eeyore.

[payitforward]

...I wish PIF would compare players according to their role, more so than their nominal position. There are stretch bigs, post bigs, and rim running bigs. There are stationary shooting wings, slashing wings, and movement shooters like Kispert. There are primary ball handling guards and secondary ball handlers. Some of those jobs are easier than others. Being good at an easier job isn't necessarily as difficult as being mediocre at a harder job.

I'm only interested in judging how "good" a player is in the sense of measuring that guy's effect on wins & losses -- & wins/losses are measured by numbers exclusively. I.e. to understand how good a player is -- in the sense of how much effect he has on wins/losses -- you must be able to translate what he does into its impact on increasing/decreasing his team's TS% or his team's number of possessions

why are teams investing millions of dollars in optical tracking data when it's as simple as TS% and number of possessions

NATE is absolutely right about roles. Execs polled by hoopshype had LEBRON and DARKO as the closest thing to what NBA teams use. Both of those stats use a 12 archetype system to account for players roles.

I'm not sure what you think is so funny.

1. Of course roles are important, & roles are significantly related (note that I didn't write "identical") to positions -- unless you'd like to point me to a Center & a PG who have the same roles.

2. Neither DARKO nor LEBRON can tell you anything at all about which of two teams won a game they played against each other.

3. I doubt that you have any idea how either DARKO or LEBRON are calculated. I mean that respectfully, Shoe, as I've tried to work that out myself, & I can't.

If you do understand them, however, I hope you'll take the time to explain one or both of them. Naturally, in doing so, you'll explain what a Kalman filter is & touch on the meaning of "exponential decay." Since without understanding those concepts, neither DARKO nor LEBRON can be understood at all.

4. OTOH, if I tell you team A played a game against team B & team A had 5 more possessions than team B & also had a higher TS%, you can tell me with 100% reliability who won the game -- right? You'll never be wrong will you?

Both DARKO & LEBRON are attempts at what is called "predictive analytics." That phrase is extremely complex, if you think about it. Most statistical analysis is devoted to understanding what has already happened -- to determine why it happened.

If a team wins more often than it loses, then it also gets itself more possessions than the opponent and/or posts a higher TS% than its opponent more often than average. It's just true. & it can't fail to be true, can it?

Are you familiar with the idea of "the holy grail," shoe? It doesn't exist, but people will never stop looking for it. Just the way people are.

That suffices to explain the interest in "optical tracking systems," etc. If you add in the fact that there are a lot of excellent salesmen in the world, why that makes it even easier to understand! Irrational behavior isn't the exception, shoe. It's the norm!

[taikibansei]

4. As well, his numbers for Dallas this season & last were better than his numbers for the Knicks his first 3 seasons. & also a bit better than his numbers in his 5th season (He was out the whole of his 4th year).

Looking at raw stats without context is often misleading. E.g., here's a fun factoid: as of December 31, 2017, the Knicks were 18-12 in the 30 games KP played that season, a .600 pace.

Now here's some more context: The second best player on that squad was THJ. Our starting point guard that season was the 34-year-old Jarrett Jack--a poor passer and worse (.455 eFG%, .489 TS%) shooter, this was to be his last year in the NBA. Jarrett was so ineffective that Coach Hornacek tried starting Mudiay and even Ntilikina for extended periods...only they were both even worse...so we went back to Jarrett. Think about that for a minute.

I watched most of the games that season. Typically, our go-to offense was a guard slowly walking the ball up court, then getting a single screen from somebody--usually KP--at the right side of the top of the key. As we did it almost every single time, and as there was no coordinated movement from the other players, this single screen was almost invariably ineffective. What followed was usually the guard doing one of two things: 1) make a mad rush to the basket (usually failing miserably), or 2) make a wild pass with the clock winding down “to somebody big” (usually KP), who would then put up a rushed shot (hoping it either went in or that Kanter would grab the offensive rebound).

Again, KP had that awful, poorly coached squad at a .600 pace through December 31. Things kind of went south in January...and then KP got injured at the beginning of February. Note that the Knicks would only win six (6) more games that season once KP went down, ending up 7-26 (.205) for the season when he did not play.

Given this context, KP's numbers with the Knicks were pretty exceptional...until he got injured.

He wasn't actually "good" in Dallas. That's why, when they decided to trade him, they got a horrible return -- & still had to throw in a R2 pick to make it happen. Duh.

Dallas got rid of KP not because of his play but because of his injuries. Full stop. Again, if you watched the games and knew the limitations of the "system" in place there, KP was good in 2019-20, and he was good in 2021-22. KP was not good in 2020-21--particularly on defense--though much of that was because of the physical limitations forced on him by his 2020 knee injury. (He probably returned from that injury too soon.)

When you have Luka, a top-five player in the NBA now and still moving toward his prime, you can't afford to waste nearly 40% of your salary cap on a guy who can't stay healthy. Moreover, KP is probably one more serious injury away from not being tradable for anything ever again. Dallas couldn't risk being stuck with him (and wasting Luka's prime), so they broke KP's huge contract down into two smaller contracts--both of which can (and likely will) be moved later.

Most other teams didn't/don't want to take a chance on KP either--again not because KP "plays poorly" (your contention) when healthy, but because he can't stay healthy. It's the sad reality of KP's career so far. His body just does not appear able to handle the rigors of a full NBA season. Hope this changes at Washington.