The return of Hernangomez vs the Mavs

[AbeVigodaLive]

A bunch of those guys in DeRozan's first season with the Spurs ended up having career years from 3. I mean, multiple guys hitting 39%+. So as a team, they were the #1 team in 3 PT accuracy and it certainly wasn't DeRozan's long-range shooting that did it.

I've never said he's a terrible player or that coaches are idiots for playing him. But if in 11 out of 12 seasons, a player's team does better with him off the floor than on, that tells me that said player is not worth $30M, $25M, or $20M per year. You can explain away three or four seasons like that - but not 11 out of 12. He's just not that great. He's a role playing scorer that is overpaid. DLO and LaVine are more extreme versions of DeRozan.

Ok... for fear of going around the bend here... apologies

1. The stat indicates DeRozan makes his teams worse every year.
2. His coaches disagree.
3. DeRozan's teams win almost every year DESPITE him making them worse.
4. Those coaches/GMs are obviously idiots. That stat proves it.

----------

What are some possible reasons for anybody to keep playing DeRozan at this point? Simply an obligation because he makes so much money?

[Coolbreeze44]

Abe, do you have any other players who fall into this Derozan dichotomy? The reason I ask is statistical anomalies exist. Maybe he's one player that just happens to defy the odds. Now if a significant % of the population fall into the same category, that would be different.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

A bunch of those guys in DeRozan's first season with the Spurs ended up having career years from 3. I mean, multiple guys hitting 39%+. So as a team, they were the #1 team in 3 PT accuracy and it certainly wasn't DeRozan's long-range shooting that did it.

I've never said he's a terrible player or that coaches are idiots for playing him. But if in 11 out of 12 seasons, a player's team does better with him off the floor than on, that tells me that said player is not worth $30M, $25M, or $20M per year. You can explain away three or four seasons like that - but not 11 out of 12. He's just not that great. He's a role playing scorer that is overpaid. DLO and LaVine are more extreme versions of DeRozan.

Ok... for fear of going around the bend here... apologies

1. The stat indicates DeRozan makes his teams worse every year.
2. His coaches disagree.
3. DeRozan's teams win almost every year DESPITE him making them worse.
4. Those coaches/GMs are obviously idiots. That stat proves it.

----------

What are some possible reasons for anybody to keep playing DeRozan at this point? Simply an obligation because he makes so much money?

Yes, you've gone around the bend and continue to twist the argument I'm trying to make. Gah!

I said "he's not that great". "He's a role playing scorer".

That is a lot different than saying his coaches are idiots for ever playing him. We might as well end this debate since you will never get beyond over-simplifying and exaggerating my position.

[AbeVigodaLive]

A bunch of those guys in DeRozan's first season with the Spurs ended up having career years from 3. I mean, multiple guys hitting 39%+. So as a team, they were the #1 team in 3 PT accuracy and it certainly wasn't DeRozan's long-range shooting that did it.

I've never said he's a terrible player or that coaches are idiots for playing him. But if in 11 out of 12 seasons, a player's team does better with him off the floor than on, that tells me that said player is not worth $30M, $25M, or $20M per year. You can explain away three or four seasons like that - but not 11 out of 12. He's just not that great. He's a role playing scorer that is overpaid. DLO and LaVine are more extreme versions of DeRozan.

Ok... for fear of going around the bend here... apologies

1. The stat indicates DeRozan makes his teams worse every year.
2. His coaches disagree.
3. DeRozan's teams win almost every year DESPITE him making them worse.
4. Those coaches/GMs are obviously idiots. That stat proves it.

----------

What are some possible reasons for anybody to keep playing DeRozan at this point? Simply an obligation because he makes so much money?

Yes, you've gone around the bend and continue to twist the argument I'm trying to make. Gah!

I said "he's not that great". "He's a role playing scorer".

That is a lot different than saying his coaches are idiots for ever playing him. We might as well end this debate since you will never get beyond over-simplifying and exaggerating my position.

True. But that's literally what the stat is telling us. And that's what the implication is...

The team is better with him off the court EVERY year.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Abe, you choose to read the stat that way and then play dumb and just say throw-away lines like, "well, I guess the coaches must be idiots". You're a smart guy. You are capable of thinking more intelligently about it, but I don't think you want to since it would destroy the narrative you are trying to create.

We know that DeRozan has to play against mostly starters and his backups over the years have to play against mostly other backups. So right there is a key variable that automatically tells us that just because the team plays better with him sitting down does not equate to DeRozan being an inferior player to his backups. What if we switched roles for him and his backup all those seasons? Perhaps DeRozan's +/- would look a lot different.

The real question is just how much of a gap is there between DeRozan and his backup through the years if his backup always has more on court success than he does? Again, that's not implying his backup is literally better than DeRozan, but it could mean that his backups are better than him on a relative basis to the competition.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Abe, you choose to read the stat that way and then play dumb and just say throw-away lines like, "well, I guess the coaches must be idiots". You're a smart guy. You are capable of thinking more intelligently about it, but I don't think you want to since it would destroy the narrative you are trying to create.

We know that DeRozan has to play against mostly starters and his backups over the years have to play against mostly other backups. So right there is a key variable that automatically tells us that just because the team plays better with him sitting down does not equate to DeRozan being an inferior player to his backups. What if we switched roles for him and his backup all those seasons? Perhaps DeRozan's +/- would look a lot different.

The real question is just how much of a gap is there between DeRozan and his backup through the years if his backup always has more on court success than he does? Again, that's not implying his backup is literally better than DeRozan, but it could mean that his backups are better than him on a relative basis to the competition.

I don't know. I don't know everything going into the stat. There's merit in every stat. Likewise most have fuzziness to them. It's just one stat... that's being used more and more and more around here with more clout than others. It's being used in seemingly every thread now.

We know DeRozan posts a lot of solid to good stats. We know that he plays the most minutes on his team every season. We know that his teams almost always make the playoffs, often winning 50+ games. It's logical to assume he actually helps his teams win games. But that stat implies that he's marginally better/or even worse than his backups. And maybe... he's just been really lucky to be on organizations that are super deep every season and they still win despite DeRozan being inferior to the competition most nights.

That stat implies that Zach LaVine who is having one of the most efficient shooting seasons in NBA history is potentially worse than D. Graham who's shooting 35% for Charlotte or Goran Dragic who has a negative VORP for an underachieving Heat team.

I have ZERO problem with the stat being used as one of many to differentiate players, especially players on the same tier. I just couldn't help but notice how OFTEN it's being used recently.

There's fuzziness there that must be addressed. Yes... even when it seems to happen every year. Because nobody in the Bulls or Spurs organization is questioning DeRozan or LaVine much this season.


[Note: And it's not like those guys are getting extra acclaim or anything anyway. LaVine is only making $19M per year. He probably won't make an All Star team. He's been RIPPED for years. DeRozan is making more money, but he was recently listed as the 80-something best player in the league. He's become a laughingstock to many... for a few playoff performances and that one stat. It's a discredit to both of them in some ways.]

[FNG]

I'm enjoying the heck out of this back and forth between Q and Abe...two smart guys making some good points.

I'm not going to take sides here. Oh who am I kidding...of course I am. Or at least I'm going to cherry pick a small point that Abe made when he said nobody in the Bulls organization is questioning Zach this year. Of course they're not. Just like Thibs and Saunders never questioned Wig out loud, and Rosas and Ryan don't question DLO publicly. You gotta build up your own guys!

But pay attention to what the guys who cover the Bulls say. Sure. some marvel at his elite offense like last night. But there's also a lot of this kind of stuff.

https://heavy.com/sports/chicago-bulls/zach-lavine-wendell-carter-defense-rant/

[AbeVigodaLive]

I'm enjoying the heck out of this back and forth between Q and Abe...two smart guys making some good points.

I'm not going to take sides here. Oh who am I kidding...of course I am. Or at least I'm going to cherry pick a small point that Abe made when he said nobody in the Bulls organization is questioning Zach this year. Of course they're not. Just like Thibs and Saunders never questioned Wig out loud, and Rosas and Ryan don't question DLO publicly. You gotta build up your own guys!

But pay attention to what the guys who cover the Bulls say. Sure. some marvel at his elite offense like last night. But there's also a lot of this kind of stuff.

https://heavy.com/sports/chicago-bulls/zach-lavine-wendell-carter-defense-rant/

Ha. Fair enough.

I should have known better to include LaVine in my ranting.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

I also don't believe +/- is the end-all-be-all stat. I don't claim that DeRozan (or LaVine or DLO for that matter) are poor players. In fact, I try to avoid using that stat much unless we have at least 4 years of it on a guy!

The main reason the stat has value is because defense simply cannot be measured well via a box score and it's derivative advanced stats. It just isn't captured with the exception of some rudimentary things like blocks or steals and even they don't always mean you are a good defender.

My theory with DeRozan, LaVine and DLO especially is that their defense is so bad, that it almost completely sabotages their effectiveness on offense. Again, that doesn't mean they are a bad player. After all, you need people that can put the ball in the hoop. It means they are overpaid. An example of a guy not overpaid to put the ball in the hoop is Lou Williams. Is DLO really worth $22M more per year? I don't think so.

So back to the "coaches are idiots for playing them" dummying down of my argument.....No, the coaches aren't idiots at all. The dummies are the POBOs/GMs signing them to huge contracts. It's a fundamental misallocation of capital.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I also don't believe +/- is the end-all-be-all stat. I don't claim that DeRozan (or LaVine or DLO for that matter) are poor players. In fact, I try to avoid using that stat much unless we have at least 4 years of it on a guy!

The main reason the stat has value is because defense simply cannot be measured well via a box score and it's derivative advanced stats. It just isn't captured with the exception of some rudimentary things like blocks or steals and even they don't always mean you are a good defender.

My theory with DeRozan, LaVine and DLO especially is that their defense is so bad, that it almost completely sabotages their effectiveness on offense. Again, that doesn't mean they are a bad player. After all, you need people that can put the ball in the hoop. It means they are overpaid. An example of a guy not overpaid to put the ball in the hoop is Lou Williams. Is DLO really worth $22M more per year? I don't think so.

So back to the "coaches are idiots for playing them" dummying down of my argument.....No, the coaches aren't idiots at all. The dummies are the POBOs/GMs signing them to huge contracts. It's a fundamental misallocation of capital.

Ok. Fair enough.

I think part of my over-the-top beef is that DeRozan, a guy who's won more playoff games as the leading minutes guy for his team... than the Wolves have won as a franchise in 32 years... is being grouped in with LaVine and Russell who have one playoff win between them. I think the guy takes A LOT of heat despite being a pretty solid professional who continues to improve his game. But instead of celebrating the progress, we get hyper-focused on specific negatives. In a different way, Ben Simmons deals with much more criticism than acclaim because we can't get past the shooting.

DeRozan despite his shortcomings... has been on a top 11 (or better) defensive team 4 times in the past 8 seasons. Five if you count this season. 19th once. And 25th rated twice. So whether his teams are overcoming his presence or really buckling down in the 12 - 15 minutes he's on the bench... they've figured out a decent-enough system most years.

Meanwhile, DeRozan's teams have had a top 10 offense every one of those seasons... sans this season (#22).

Obviously, you need both. You need defenders. You need offensive guys. It's finding the right mix (as we are well aware of as Wolves fans). Maybe DeRozan offers just enough on D to not knock over the apple cart? At least with DBPM, he grades out better every season than LaVine or DLO or some others.

Is he worth $27M? We both agree NO. Is it worth more than $8M? I'd argue strongly... YES.