Trade Ideas Thread (9 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
Big Dog said:
Nope, never found it. It's really not up to me to prove your statement is it?
Click to expand...

Idk about ROY specifically, but Dame was very high on Swanigan in his first training camp so it wouldn’t surprise me if he did say it. I love Dame but he’s got unwavering loyalty to his teammates. I do agree with him here though, Zach is important to the team. The off/on numbers prove it.
 
Big Dog said:
Nope, never found it. It's really not up to me to prove your statement is it?
Click to expand...
No? But I know he said it. Are you seriously asking for proof from a statement 3 years ago or you wont believe it?
 
Scalma said:
Idk about ROY specifically, but Dame was very high on Swanigan in his first training camp so it wouldn’t surprise me if he did say it. I love Dame but he’s got unwavering loyalty to his teammates. I do agree with him here though, Zach is important to the team. The off/on numbers prove it.
Click to expand...
"pRoVe iT".
 
Scalma said:
I do agree with him here though, Zach is important to the team. The off/on numbers prove it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about those on/off numbers. I think they can be rotation-centric numbers and for Zach, I don't think they prove much of anything yet

last season, on/off showed Zach as 3rd best on team:

upload_2020-11-28_17-38-18.png

of course, it was too small a sample size to really gauge anything

how about the season before when he played 77 games:

upload_2020-11-28_17-40-1.png

he was 11th on the team

quite a difference a year makes. I'd suggest that players that start with Lillard, Nurkic/Whiteside, & CJ and share plenty of floor time with those starters are going to show much better in +/-. That's not about Zach as much as it is about Dame and the wake he creates

bbref shows the same thing by the way. And in 2017-18 Zach was a net negative too, but less of a net negative than the following year, primarily, IMO, because he was welded to Ed Davis
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm not sure about those on/off numbers. I think they can be rotation-centric numbers and for Zach, I don't think they prove much of anything yet

last season, on/off showed Zach as 3rd best on team:

View attachment 35258

of course, it was too small a sample size to really gauge anything

how about the season before when he played 77 games:

View attachment 35259

he was 11th on the team

quite a difference a year makes. I'd suggest that players that start with Lillard, Nurkic/Whiteside, & CJ and share plenty of floor time with those starters are going to show much better in +/-. That's not about Zach as much as it is about Dame and the wake he creates

bbref shows the same thing by the way. And in 2017-18 Zach was a net negative too, but less of a net negative than the following year, primarily, IMO, because he was welded to Ed Davis
Click to expand...

When it’s positive the reason is either small sample size or that he played with someone better. But when it’s negative it’s his fault, and not the fact that the lineup he spent the most time on the court with in 2018 included Stauskas, Evan Turner, and Meyers Leonard. Funny.
 
Scalma said:
When it’s positive the reason is either small sample size or that he played with someone better. But when it’s negative it’s his fault, and not the fact that the lineup he spent the most time on the court with in 2018 included Stauskas, Evan Turner, and Meyers Leonard. Funny.
Click to expand...

Serious question. What will it take for you to accept that Collins is not the answer?
 
Scalma said:
When it’s positive the reason is either small sample size or that he played with someone better. But when it’s negative it’s his fault, and not the fact that the lineup he spent the most time on the court with in 2018 included Stauskas, Evan Turner, and Meyers Leonard. Funny.
Click to expand...

hey...you are the one that said Zach's on/off number proved something.....I didn't bring it up. So I looked at his on/off numbers and posted them

if Zach's on/of was so valuable to the team, as you said, he wouldn't have been a net -7.2 in 2018/19.

as far as a possible sample size issue:

* in the first season he played in 77 games and logged 1356 minutes. His on/off was -7.2 points. The next season he played 11 games and logged 290 minutes and his on/off was +7.9 points. In other words, the sample size difference was 7 times as many games and 5 times as many minutes

* In the first season he had a PER of 13.5; in the 2nd season, a PER of 9.9.
* In the first season his TS was .562 and his FTRate was .315; the following season his TS% dropped to .538 while his FTRate cratered to .118.
* From that first season to the second, his Reb rate dropped from 12.7% to 12.4%;
* his turnover rate increased from 14.5% to 16.4%
* his block rate dropped from 3.9% to 1.5%;
* his winshare/48 dropped from .104 to .052;
* his defensive BPM dropped from +0.3 to -1.4;
* and his BPM dropped -1.2 to -3.1

basically, by just about every major stat gauging impact and efficiency he was far worse in his 3rd season than his 2nd. But his on/off went from -7.2 to + 7.9 when he went from a bench role to starting with Dame and other starters.

so yeah, I'll repeat my point: his on/off last season doesn't prove much of anything other than it's very likely due to circumstances and sample size rather than Zach's performance
 
Hoopguru said:
Geez...give the kid a full season and lets see what he can do. Enough of all these numbers. Back in the day there were some fantastic players and they didnt have all the anal letics.
Click to expand...
I really like analytics, but the truth is that you can only garner so much from a boxscore - no matter how you rearrange the numbers.
 
Hoopguru said:
Geez...give the kid a full season and lets see what he can do. Enough of all these numbers. Back in the day there were some fantastic players and they didnt have all the anal letics.
Click to expand...

he's already had 2 full seasons

and if somebody starts the statistical ball rolling in support of a player, they should not get in a twist if the ball rolls in a direction they don't like
 
Zach has had the slowest development I’ve seen - there is very little difference between current Zach and Gonzaga Zach.
 
BonesJones said:
That's not true
Click to expand...
I just love that with the exception of Dame, CJ and Nurk... the rest of this team is going to be working their asses off for minutes. Sure RoCo seems to have a lock as a starter as well but there are a lot of guys trying to get some of his minutes too. I really think that Terry will still play Dame and CJ at least 36 minutes a game and Nurk like 30 but who knows if the right guys can scratch and claw for more minutes maybe even CJ's or Dame's minutes can be shaved down a bit. The point is that it's exciting that there are so many good players vying for all of the minutes at F and all of the backup minutes and how many back up minutes there will be at G and C. Small ball, big ball or something in between, offense first, defense first or for the love of everything a balanced approach... these are decisions that this roster lends itself to on a game to game basis, on a minute to minute basis and even for stretches of the season.

So we'll get to see who has and hasn't made big improvements, we'll get to see how flexible Stotts can be. There are a lot of questions that have a ton of different answers... with a roster like this more of those answers are positive than negative because bad answers can create other questions with good answers. Depth and positional fluidity within that depth is a really fun thing for our team to have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top