Q12543 wrote:Cam, I'm using Net On/Off rating which takes your net rating while on the court per 100 possessions (that's the one you cited above) and subtracts the net rating of the team while you are off the court per 100 possessions. It basically asks the question: What happens when you are on the bench?
- Andrew's team almost always does worse when he is on the bench.
- LaVine's team almost always does better when he is on the bench. Same with DLO.
- To answer Lip's question, I'd take Wiggins over LaVine IF contracts were similar. He hurts your team less than LaVine does.
- KAT and Rubio's teams almost always do worse when they are on the bench. They each have similar net on/off ratings for their career (+5.6 and +5.1 respectively). Wiggins is at +2.6. DLO is at -3.1. LaVine is -4.6.
I'm not saying this means Wiggins is a great player, as obviously the quality of his backups over the years has an impact and we've seen how he struggles to lift a team when he is on the floor. But as each year passes and the context changes, these stats become more and more valid. I've looked at a bunch of players on this. I might write a separate post about it.
I'm not sure how revealing that stat is when evaluating Wiggins. I know that KAT was almost always on the court with Wiggins, which would really help Andrew's on-court rating. I'd want to know who was on the court when when Wiggins was on the bench.
Give me the player who hits 37.5 of his threes and 82% of his free throws over the guy who hits 33.2% of his threes and 73% of his free throws. Neither one is a good defender, so you have to surround either one with good defenders and employ a defensive system that covers for them. I wouldn't want either one at Wiggins' salary of nearly $30 million. At Zach's salary of $19.5M, I'd take Zach.
Here's another question: Rank the following in order of preference:
1. Buddy Hield under his current contract (4 yrs starting at $25.9M & declining each yr to $19M)
2. Zach LaVine under his current contract (2 yrs at $19.5M each year); or
3. Malik Beasley under his new contract (3 yrs. guaranteed - $13.3M, $14.4, $15.5M - 4th yr TO $16M)
That's an interesting comparison. Beasley is the least proven but also the youngest for that group as well. I suggest we throw in Bogdanovic's 4 years 72 million into consideration too.
One reason I MIGHT take Wiggins over Lavine If they cost the same amount of money is the fact that he is a better fit defensively at SF which we don't really have a guy that can player there. Wiggins really got a lot better at guarding bigger player the last couple years doing well even switched into guys that are PFs. Offensively his fit is not great but if we added Lavine some true would need to be traded at some point.
Q12543 wrote:Cam, I'm using Net On/Off rating which takes your net rating while on the court per 100 possessions (that's the one you cited above) and subtracts the net rating of the team while you are off the court per 100 possessions. It basically asks the question: What happens when you are on the bench?
- Andrew's team almost always does worse when he is on the bench.
- LaVine's team almost always does better when he is on the bench. Same with DLO.
- To answer Lip's question, I'd take Wiggins over LaVine IF contracts were similar. He hurts your team less than LaVine does.
- KAT and Rubio's teams almost always do worse when they are on the bench. They each have similar net on/off ratings for their career (+5.6 and +5.1 respectively). Wiggins is at +2.6. DLO is at -3.1. LaVine is -4.6.
I'm not saying this means Wiggins is a great player, as obviously the quality of his backups over the years has an impact and we've seen how he struggles to lift a team when he is on the floor. But as each year passes and the context changes, these stats become more and more valid. I've looked at a bunch of players on this. I might write a separate post about it.
I'm not sure how revealing that stat is when evaluating Wiggins. I know that KAT was almost always on the court with Wiggins, which would really help Andrew's on-court rating. I'd want to know who was on the court when when Wiggins was on the bench.
Give me the player who hits 37.5 of his threes and 82% of his free throws over the guy who hits 33.2% of his threes and 73% of his free throws. Neither one is a good defender, so you have to surround either one with good defenders and employ a defensive system that covers for them. I wouldn't want either one at Wiggins' salary of nearly $30 million. At Zach's salary of $19.5M, I'd take Zach.
Here's another question: Rank the following in order of preference:
1. Buddy Hield under his current contract (4 yrs starting at $25.9M & declining each yr to $19M)
2. Zach LaVine under his current contract (2 yrs at $19.5M each year); or
3. Malik Beasley under his new contract (3 yrs. guaranteed - $13.3M, $14.4, $15.5M - 4th yr TO $16M)
Lip, That's the whole point of seeing On/Off numbers over an extended period of time - I think it uncovers the stuff not shown in box scores easily that helps determine if a player is effective or not. You are right that LaVine has better shooting percentages, but he's another level bad at defense. By the way, don't forget that LaVine played with Wiggins and KAT for a couple years there, yet his On/Off numbers were worse than Wiggins. How could that be if he also started with KAT?
As for your question, I probably take Beasley and his deal. The reason is that I don't think any of those three are very impactful players. Hield is the best of the three, but we're already paying big money to a one-way backcourt player in DLO. So the guy with the smallest deal of the three (Malik) is least likely to demand 32+ minutes and 16+ shots per night to go along with a lot of crappy defense. The other two you almost have to play big minutes to rationalize what you paid for them. We have more flexibility with Malik.
Q12543 wrote:Cam, I'm using Net On/Off rating which takes your net rating while on the court per 100 possessions (that's the one you cited above) and subtracts the net rating of the team while you are off the court per 100 possessions. It basically asks the question: What happens when you are on the bench?
- Andrew's team almost always does worse when he is on the bench.
- LaVine's team almost always does better when he is on the bench. Same with DLO.
- To answer Lip's question, I'd take Wiggins over LaVine IF contracts were similar. He hurts your team less than LaVine does.
- KAT and Rubio's teams almost always do worse when they are on the bench. They each have similar net on/off ratings for their career (+5.6 and +5.1 respectively). Wiggins is at +2.6. DLO is at -3.1. LaVine is -4.6.
I'm not saying this means Wiggins is a great player, as obviously the quality of his backups over the years has an impact and we've seen how he struggles to lift a team when he is on the floor. But as each year passes and the context changes, these stats become more and more valid. I've looked at a bunch of players on this. I might write a separate post about it.
I'm not sure how revealing that stat is when evaluating Wiggins. I know that KAT was almost always on the court with Wiggins, which would really help Andrew's on-court rating. I'd want to know who was on the court when when Wiggins was on the bench.
Give me the player who hits 37.5 of his threes and 82% of his free throws over the guy who hits 33.2% of his threes and 73% of his free throws. Neither one is a good defender, so you have to surround either one with good defenders and employ a defensive system that covers for them. I wouldn't want either one at Wiggins' salary of nearly $30 million. At Zach's salary of $19.5M, I'd take Zach.
Here's another question: Rank the following in order of preference:
1. Buddy Hield under his current contract (4 yrs starting at $25.9M & declining each yr to $19M)
2. Zach LaVine under his current contract (2 yrs at $19.5M each year); or
3. Malik Beasley under his new contract (3 yrs. guaranteed - $13.3M, $14.4, $15.5M - 4th yr TO $16M)
Lip, That's the whole point of seeing On/Off numbers over an extended period of time - I think it uncovers the stuff not shown in box scores easily that helps determine if a player is effective or not. You are right that LaVine has better shooting percentages, but he's another level bad at defense. By the way, don't forget that LaVine played with Wiggins and KAT for a couple years there, yet his On/Off numbers were worse than Wiggins. How could that be if he also started with KAT?
As for your question, I probably take Beasley and his deal. The reason is that I don't think any of those three are very impactful players. Hield is the best of the three, but we're already paying big money to a one-way backcourt player in DLO. So the guy with the smallest deal of the three (Malik) is least likely to demand 32+ minutes and 16+ shots per night to go along with a lot of crappy defense. The other two you almost have to play big minutes to rationalize what you paid for them. We have more flexibility with Malik.
Not that I think it probably matters all that much but I remember Lavine playing with the 2nd unit a lot even when he was starting so he probably played fewer minutes with Towns than Wiggins did I think 2 years in a row the Mitchell year and then Thibs shifted to using him with the 2nd unit.
