Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXIX

[doclinkin]

Except you did not do the rest of the work. If you look through the rest of the 2-man pairings of the team you will see that Bertans improved each of them relative to the same metric (net points per 100 possessions) compared to their pairings with other players. Try it yourself if you don't think so. If you walk through each of the 2 man line-ups you will see that the Bertans pairing raised the net points of the team vs their opponent (even from a negative to a lesser negative) next to that player. It makes it tough to argue that Bertans is the one hurting the team.

Would we be better if he could do so and also rebound as well as a true Power forward? Of course. Personally I don't think he is a power forward though. His numbers look better if you think of position designations as exactly that: Position. Are they inside or outside players. Where does a player do his work on the floor? Your pet metric fetishizes offensive rebounds. Bertans will suffer in that metric if you compare him to players who snatch offensive boards, because it is hard to do so when you are busy hitting shots from 30 feet out. If you compare him to perimeter positions, instead of classifying him as a PF because of height (as most box score designations do) you'll see he stacks up better. It's fine though because opposing coaches make the same mistake and will send their bigs out to chase him on the perimeter. This opens up backdoor opportunities for players like Bonga, Mahinmi etc. to name the ones you cite.

I understand you were in a hurry to make your point, and frankly, yes, be a wise ass, but I think you only managed one of the two, and I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the 'wise' part.

The team was better with Bertans on the floor. The team scored better with him on the floor. That is what the +/- numbers are saying. You can parse it finer by looking at individual pairings to note that even with crappy players the team was less crappy with Bertans + anybody. The point is the team was significantly measurably improved with him on court. Yeah we were a lousy team, but he did his part. His part was not to stand under the basket and bang for boards. Yes that is a key role on any team, we need that player. We need players who are good at all aspects of the game. But teams can succeed with highly skilled specialists playing their role well. Bertans played his role well, he just wasn't playing the role you expected him to. We do need that player, also. Bertans is too busy scoring quickly and making teams scramble to chase him to also play the role of efficient banger underneath.

[WizarDynasty]

bertans good 3pt shooter

[payitforward]

dat, nate, doc, WD -- this has become a really interesting discussion. Thank you.

It's possible I'm mis-reading the meaning of the data, but it's too late this evening for my mind to move numbers fast enough that I can look further. Will get back to it tomorrow.

[payitforward]

Brandon Clarrke, has really bad hips. He can't dribble for extended period of time and maitained fluid dribble and flexed hips and knees. He definitely can't slow and accelerate smoothly. He has a very low elbow on his jumpshot meaning that he can't shoot with touch. If your elbow is below your eye when you release the ball, then you are not a natural jumpshooter.
He is two foot jumper. He basically just jump as high as he can when playing defense inthe post. He doesn't have alot of core strength to move anyone around.
He's a tweener with bad knees, especially his right knee. He can hit the wide open shot when left alone, but his landing mechanics are aweful. He doesn't bend his hip and land backwards after release jumpshot and his elbow isn't above his eyesocket as he is rising for his jumpshot.
I would never have clarke in my starting line up is all i can say. Maybe if i had 4 allstars, and we were playing video game rules where you have to pick your fifth player and his rating couldn't be above rookie. But yes Clarke has bad knees, definitely can't change direction and maintain a dribble for an extended time with his knees and hips bent while dribbling. He has teh build of a lanky shooting guard, but he is not explosive while moving and changing directions while dribbling. So yeah i would pass on him if were drafting in a snake round my first 5 players. 32 teams times 5 players. He would not be in my top 150 players.
\Precious has alot of work, but his intangible elements that can't be taught, bending his knees and hips for an extended time while dribbling, low center of gravity, at 6'9 and still explosive and balanced, are things that can't be taught by coaches, and is something this team does not have at the forward spot. the key word is that he can flex his hips and knees for extended periods of time while dribbling and change directions explosively at his height is 6'9. that is perfect fit for wall, beal, and rui. Bryant is extremely slow footed, rui is about average. Even Onyeka is kinda of slow footed defensively on the perimeter and isn't a high energy rodman high energy "Piston's Bad Boys" type of front court player that this team needs.
You have to find 6'10 or longer players with great knee and hip bend ability. they are very hard to find.

This is interesting -- & because I think this is a serious discussion, I have to ask a serious question:

What do you do about the numbers Brandon Clarke put up as a rookie? Do you ignore them?

Because Clarke was, basically, better than average at nearly everything (down only by 1/2 an assist & 1/12 a steal per 40 minutes -- up, sometimes way up, in absolutely everything else), his overall productivity was comfortably in the top dozen Power Forwards in the league. As a rookie.

If you question that statement, take a look at the numbers & feel free to judge for yourself. But, per 40 minutes Clarke scored more points than an average PF, had a higher TS% than an average PF, did this on higher usage than an average PF, had a higher 2 pt. % than an average PF (way higher!), a higher 3 pt. % than an average PF, and a higher FT% than an average PF.

Clarke also turned the ball over less than an average PF. He got more defensive boards than an average PF, & more offensive boards than an average PF. He also blocked more shots than an average PF, & he fouled less than an average PF.

Given all that -- how does your assessment of his physical make-up integrate with those results? I do mean to be asking this seriously. Is it that his physical frame means that he will break down? I.e. that he can't last in the league because of his physical frame?

Is that your point? Or, if not that -- how are we to we look at his outstanding numbers?

Show me a clip where I see with my eyes that he dominates starting caliber playoff powerforward offensively or defensively and it dramatically influence his team winning the game.

Here's the thing; all the other stuff aside from numbers is only "good" or "bad" insofar as it influences numbers, because when the buzzer sounds the refs don't look at anyone's hip bend; they don't assess the players at all, in fact. All they do is look at the numbers on the scoreboard -- team with big number wins game. Period.

Brandon Clarke's work, in other words, can be judged based on his numbers -- unless his numbers somehow took away from the numbers of someone else on the court.

[WizarDynasty]

This is interesting -- & because I think this is a serious discussion, I have to ask a serious question:

What do you do about the numbers Brandon Clarke put up as a rookie? Do you ignore them?

Because Clarke was, basically, better than average at nearly everything (down only by 1/2 an assist & 1/12 a steal per 40 minutes -- up, sometimes way up, in absolutely everything else), his overall productivity was comfortably in the top dozen Power Forwards in the league. As a rookie.

If you question that statement, take a look at the numbers & feel free to judge for yourself. But, per 40 minutes Clarke scored more points than an average PF, had a higher TS% than an average PF, did this on higher usage than an average PF, had a higher 2 pt. % than an average PF (way higher!), a higher 3 pt. % than an average PF, and a higher FT% than an average PF.

Clarke also turned the ball over less than an average PF. He got more defensive boards than an average PF, & more offensive boards than an average PF. He also blocked more shots than an average PF, & he fouled less than an average PF.

Given all that -- how does your assessment of his physical make-up integrate with those results? I do mean to be asking this seriously. Is it that his physical frame means that he will break down? I.e. that he can't last in the league because of his physical frame?

Is that your point? Or, if not that -- how are we to we look at his outstanding numbers?

Show me a clip where I see with my eyes that he dominates starting caliber playoff powerforward offensively or defensively and it dramatically influence his team winning the game.

Here's the thing; all the other stuff aside from numbers is only "good" or "bad" insofar as it influences numbers, because when the buzzer sounds the refs don't look at anyone's hip bend; they don't assess the players at all, in fact. All they do is look at the numbers on the scoreboard -- team with big number wins game. Period.

Brandon Clarke's work, in other words, can be judged based on his numbers -- unless his numbers somehow took away from the numbers of someone else on the court.

Sorry bro, Brandon Clarke is a bench player with bad knees. Your stats won't tell you that but its a fact if you watch him. That limits his entire career and basketball value.

[nate33]

Ok I look at it like this. Can Bertans game be sustainable for an entire 82 game schedule. Bertans needs the assistance of another team mate to get him open looks. Another player has to sacrifice his body, getting in front of Bertans man, to work Bertan free for a catch and shoot.

So what?

He is a great catch and shoot player but he can't make his shot with a defender playing him closely, hence he needs the assistance of another player. If Bertan could consistently make a defender pay for playing him to tightly, then i would agree that Bertan is lethal weapon. Bertan is a lethal weapon on a small volume. He is not a lethal weapon on large volume.

He has a USG% of 19, which is just 1% shy of that of an average starter. A 19% USG% with an incredible 120 ORtg is very good. He could just throw a few more shots off the backboard and get his USG% up to 20% and an ORtg at 118 or so, which would be an average offensive load on very good efficiency. I fail to see how that should be characterized as "small volume".

Bertan's game is that of a bench specialist. He is not a starter or even a 6th man type player on a playoff team. "So using the words lethal weapon" should be reserved for a player who can start for 82 games, and can be relied on carry his portion of the offensive load.

As I just conclusively proved, he does carry his portion of the offensive load, with extreme efficiency. He's not a lead option superstar on offense, nobody said he was. But that doesn't make him a bench-caliber offensive player. His offensive aptitude is quite clearly starting-caliber. Heck, it's well above-average for a starter.

Secondly, Bertan bombing away threes means that he has to guard playoff starting shooting guards and small forwards or powerforards. He can't stop his own man on defense, and he needs help to be effective on offense for all of his shots. He needs a pick, or he needs someone to break down the defense and give him a wide open shot. He need to have high volume efficient scorers in your line up before you make Bertan a priority. He is a nice piece on your bench to create havoc when your regular offense is getting shut down, which is why popovich had him, but he isn't a heavy minute rotation guy. He has shock value when you are facing a defense that shuts down your efficient scoring weapon, and you an unorthodox strategy that the other team hasn't had time to prepare for. "that's is the only way to consider Bertan a lethal weapon. He can't draw fouls during clutch, if a point guard is guaring him, he can't take a point guard down in the post and get us and easy score. NOw he forces a big out the three point line on defense, but he gets slaughter in the post if he has to guard that same player. If Bertan had a game even close to klay thompson, and we had a draymond green pick setter with ball handing skills, then Bertan would be lethal. Otherwise this on and off analytics is really a waste of time for anyone that really knows basketball.

Bertans has a high release point and doesn't need to start his shooting motion from his chest, so he can shoot right over PG's in a switch. The fact that he can't score one-on-one in isolation means that he isn't a superstar 1st option scorer, but it doesn't mean he is bench caliber. Once you have an elite on-ball scorer like Beal, the next thing you want is an elite off-ball threat like Bertans to create spacing.

The criticisms of his defense are fine. If Bertans was an average defender, about as good as Otto Porter, then he would get All-Star consideration. I've got no problems with concluding that he is a 6th man caliber player due to his mediocre defense and poor rebounding. I'm just saying that his offense is really, really good.

[nate33]

Here's the thing; all the other stuff aside from numbers is only "good" or "bad" insofar as it influences numbers, because when the buzzer sounds the refs don't look at anyone's hip bend; they don't assess the players at all, in fact. All they do is look at the numbers on the scoreboard -- team with big number wins game. Period.

Brandon Clarke's work, in other words, can be judged based on his numbers -- unless his numbers somehow took away from the numbers of someone else on the court.

The only valid criticism he offered was that Clarke is a bench player and did much of his damage against the opposition's bench. That's is true and one should factor that when looking at his numbers. On the other hand, Clarke is a rookie and will presumably get a bit better on experience and weight training alone. If he improves 5-10%, I don't see why he couldn't post similar numbers as a full time starter.

[WizarDynasty]

efficiency important to analyze.

[payitforward]

nate -- not to state the obvious, but people investigate what interests them most. I rattled WD's cage w/ Clarke's on-court achievements, because I couldn't let the shape of his interests serve as an overall assessment. But, I'm still interested in the way he thinks about these subjects -- interested to see whether (or, more modestly, to what degree) I can understand it & how much I can learn from it.

After all, everybody's POV is partial -- & canted to overstate the importance of whatever info it turns up. I'd have to be an idiot not to recognize that in my own case, for example -- as I'm sure you will agree!

Yes, Clarke -- & Bertans as well -- played more this year vs. subs than starters, & we assume that we should apply at least some discount to their achievements for that reason. The problem is that we don't know how much of a discount; & since that term, "subs," covers a multitude of players with different skill levels, on dozens of other teams, & a different set for Clarke & Bertans for example, it'd be foolish to try to quantify that discount with any precision.

[WizarDynasty]

nate -- not to state the obvious, but people investigate what interests them most. I rattled WD's cage w/ Clarke's on-court achievements, because I couldn't let the shape of his interests serve as an overall assessment. But, I'm still interested in the way he thinks about these subjects -- interested to see whether (or, more modestly, to what degree) I can understand it & how much I can learn from it.

After all, everybody's POV is partial -- & canted to overstate the importance of whatever info it turns up. I'd have to be an idiot not to recognize that in my own case, for example -- as I'm sure you will agree!

Yes, Clarke -- & Bertans as well -- played more this year vs. subs than starters, & we assume that we should apply at least some discount to their achievements for that reason. The problem is that we don't know how much of a discount; & since that term, "subs," covers a multitude of players with different skill levels, on dozens of other teams, & a different set for Clarke & Bertans for example, it'd be foolish to try to quantify that discount with any precision.

Who were the top 4 seeded teams in the playoffs this year? When wizards played these team, which 4 starters did bertan guard? Same thing for Clarke.
If wizards played each playoff team at least twice in the shortened year, you should have a sample size of at least 8 games for Bertan when he went against 4 playoff teams. What powerforward did he guard and what were his stats combined in each of these 8 games.

You then could expand your sample set and include the top 4 western conference playoffs teams. An additional 8 games to make the total sample size 16.

Whatever stats you get from these 16 games should give you a clear glimpse into Bertans and Clarke's true value. Obviously you have to sort this data yourself, but if you really want insight and want to educate the pretend GM's here, then that's your best way of doing it and earning respect.
Sorting your stats based on top 4 playoff team data should wash out alot of frivolous data and get to the real meat and potatoes.

[payitforward]

...I'm just saying that (Bertans) offense is really, really good.

No question about it. Let's just use the dreaded box score stats for a moment. Just the offensive ones -- scoring, offensive boards, turnovers, & assists -- per 36 minutes.

In 36 minutes, an average NBA PF uses 14.5 possessions to deliver 16.65 points.
Davis uses 15 possessions to deliver 19 points.

An average NBA 4 gets 1.7 offensive boards but turns the ball over 1.9 times -- net is minus .2
Davis gets only .85 offensive boards, but he only turns it over 1.35 times -- net minus .5

An average NBA PF delivers 2.78 assists.
Davis delivers 2.1 assists


Average guy +3.34 (points plus offensive boards plus 1/2 assists [trust me on this] minus possessions used)
Davis' total = +4.55

Bertans delivers 19 points, using 15 possessions to do so (+4) He gets .85 offensive boards, turns the ball over 1.35 times, & delivers 2.1 assists. Total = 4.55 (assists =.5 each -- trust me)

The average NBA 4 delivers 16.65 points, using 14.5 possessions to do so. He gets 1.7 offensive boards, turns the ball over 1.9 times, & delivers 2.78 assists. Total = 3.44

Using this rough -- useful, but not very precise -- metric, Davis is about a 35% better offensive player than an average NBA PF.

(If you integrate defensive box score numbers -- blocks, steals, defensive rebounds & fouls -- the overall total leaves Davis just around average overall. Make of it what you will.)

[payitforward]

nate -- not to state the obvious, but people investigate what interests them most. I rattled WD's cage w/ Clarke's on-court achievements, because I couldn't let the shape of his interests serve as an overall assessment. But, I'm still interested in the way he thinks about these subjects -- interested to see whether (or, more modestly, to what degree) I can understand it & how much I can learn from it.

After all, everybody's POV is partial -- & canted to overstate the importance of whatever info it turns up. I'd have to be an idiot not to recognize that in my own case, for example -- as I'm sure you will agree!

Yes, Clarke -- & Bertans as well -- played more this year vs. subs than starters, & we assume that we should apply at least some discount to their achievements for that reason. The problem is that we don't know how much of a discount; & since that term, "subs," covers a multitude of players with different skill levels, on dozens of other teams, & a different set for Clarke & Bertans for example, it'd be foolish to try to quantify that discount with any precision.

Who were the top 4 seeded teams in the playoffs this year? When wizards played these team, which 4 starters did bertan guard? Same thing for Clarke.
If wizards played each playoff team at least twice in the shortened year, you should have a sample size of at least 8 games for Bertan when he went against 4 playoff teams. What powerforward did he guard and what were his stats combined in each of these 8 games.

You then could expand your sample set and include the top 4 western conference playoffs teams. An additional 8 games to make the total sample size 16.

Whatever stats you get from these 16 games should give you a clear glimpse into Bertans and Clarke's true value. Obviously you have to sort this data yourself, but if you really want insight and want to educate the pretend GM's here, then that's your best way of doing it and earning respect.
Sorting your stats based on top 4 playoff team data should wash out alot of frivolous data and get to the real meat and potatoes.

Ok, this is interesting -- but it's gonna take some time, which I will give it in the next day or so.

But, WD, to make the resulting stats meaningful, I have to compare them to some other player or players. I could compare them to

1. A known good PF (to assess Bertans). Who would you suggest I use? It shouldn't be a star, obviously; no one is making that kind of claim for Davis!

2. Another rookie PF (i.e. to assess Clarke). Again, who should I use? Obviously, Rui would be one obvious choice. But, who else? De'Andre Hunter? PJ Washington? Widen it to include a 2d year player? That seems ok.... His teammate Jaren Jackson? (played 1600 minutes to Clarke's 1300)

Suggestions welcome.
Wait -- you're not suggesting a comparison (could be useful later...). Just, how did these guys do against players on top teams.

[WizarDynasty]

bertan can play sf?

[wall_glizzy]

Not sure where the idea that Bertans is taking only wide-open shots all the time came from - per the NBA stats API, the bulk of his shots were about evenly split between being "open" and "tightly defended," and he shot about the same percentage from 3 in each case.

[doclinkin]

...I'm just saying that (Bertans) offense is really, really good.

No question about it. Let's just use the dreaded box score stats for a moment. Just the offensive ones -- scoring, offensive boards, turnovers, & assists -- per 36 minutes.

In 36 minutes, an average NBA PF uses ..

Now run your comparisons for the Small Forward position, considering this is how he plays and his position on the floor. He is stationed as a wing and perimeter motion player. There you will see he is roughly a top 15 player relative to other SF's. That's not earth-shattering, but is solid. This team can use solid.

The term of art to look for is gravity. I can't find a current free tracking database of player offensive gravity rankings, but Bertans has ranked highly in these studies. These are not box score stats but measurements based on the camera tracking that the NBA briefly shared publicly. (Now those gravity rankings are behind a paywall at BBall Index, for instance).

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

The red spots on the graph linked above show how strong a players pull is at that position, how closely they have to be guarded and paid attention to, and therefore how tightly they are marked on video tracking data. You can see Bertans was not really a threat on the interior, but shows incandescent heat on the perimeter. This opens the interior for ballhandlers and bigs to attack. If you are solely looking at his rebounding totals relative to other tall players you are misunderstanding his role. He is a role player, but he is an elite role player at the SF position.

[Ruzious]

So not even in the 99th percentile.

[payitforward]

...Now run your comparisons for the Small Forward position...

Do that, & I have to run a comparison of the other forward on the floor against those PF numbers. As soon as he plays the 3 in a 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 lineup, he'll be a 3.

That said, 3 would certainly be his best position on offense. His rebounding numbers would likely drop further, but not enough to prevent him from posting terrific overall numbers for a wing.

Would he be able to guard 3s at least as well as he's able to guard 4s?

[doclinkin]

...Now run your comparisons for the Small Forward position...

Do that, & I have to run a comparison of the other forward on the floor against those PF numbers. As soon as he plays the 3 in a 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 lineup, he'll be a 3.

That said, 3 would certainly be his best position on offense. His rebounding numbers would likely drop further, but not enough to prevent him from posting terrific overall numbers for a wing.

Would he be able to guard 3s at least as well as he's able to guard 4s?

Which is why we are talking about this in the player acquisitions thread and not the metagaming thread. And why we are looking at defensive front court players. We had no PF last year. Rui was being a rookie, and forced to start, and playing like a tweener forward at best so far, we had no real front court back up for him, and Bertans was playing a stretch Big on the perimeter, where he fits.

Can he defend outside? Not really. He's tall and positionally smart. He can defend some SFs but ballhandling dribble-drive players will get past him. Still the defensive responsibilities of an interior player are more significant. The ball goes towards the basket. If he is leaky outside he still will not give up as much as if you are relying him as a stopper, and his deficiencies are less pronounced if he is not tasked with covering up for another slow-footed frontcourt player in Bryant.

[WizarDynasty]

Not sure where the idea that Bertans is taking only wide-open shots all the time came from - per the NBA stats API, the bulk of his shots were about evenly split between being "open" and "tightly defended," and he shot about the same percentage from 3 in each case.

in order to be starter, you need to generate at least 1100 points.
How many of his points came from being tightly guarded versus being wide opened.

Look here is an easy way to see things. Bertans scored 834 He took 122 free throws so you subtract those points from 834.

Equals 712 points that he scored on the floor.

He shot the ball at total of 610 times.
712/610 means that he scores 1.167 points per attempt.

That is standard measure to evaluate his non free throw total offense.

Rui score 533 point subtracting out his free throws made.
He attempted. 545 attempts.
533/545 = .9779 points per attempt.

Beal

1741-385
1356 and he attempted 1303.
1356/1303 = 1.04 points per attempt.

the real question is, does Bertans points increase or decrease with volume.

What was Bertan's points per attempt against playoff teams versus non playoff teams?

What was Bertans points per contested attempted versus wide open?

--Beals stats. 593-1303 45.5 170-481 35.3 385-457 84.2 52 190 242 347 23 71 126 194 1741

[payitforward]

...Now run your comparisons for the Small Forward position...

Do that, & I have to run a comparison of the other forward on the floor against those PF numbers. As soon as he plays the 3 in a 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 lineup, he'll be a 3.

That said, 3 would certainly be his best position on offense. His rebounding numbers would likely drop further, but not enough to prevent him from posting terrific overall numbers for a wing.

Would he be able to guard 3s at least as well as he's able to guard 4s?

Which is why we are talking about this in the player acquisitions thread and not the metagaming thread. And why we are looking at defensive front court players. We had no PF last year. Rui was being a rookie, and forced to start, and playing like a tweener forward at best so far, we had no real front court back up for him, and Bertans was playing a stretch Big on the perimeter, where he fits.

Can he defend outside? Not really. He's tall and positionally smart. He can defend some SFs but ballhandling dribble-drive players will get past him. Still the defensive responsibilities of an interior player are more significant. The ball goes towards the basket. If he is leaky outside he still will not give up as much as if you are relying him as a stopper, and his deficiencies are less pronounced if he is not tasked with covering up for another slow-footed frontcourt player in Bryant.

Here's the thing -- Davis played the 4 all three years he was with San Antonio. & this year with us. You want to put him at the 3? Sure, why not? Let's see how he does.

But, so far, he's a 4 & will be assessed as a 4.