re: .

quote:

---

if Utah and Boston are similarly talented, wouldn't common sense tell you that taking the best player from Utah and putting him on Boston would make them a hell of a lot better?

---

Well Gobert was clearly their best player last year, he led Hayward in every statical category and was amongst the top on the league in many of them.

That being said, taking Hayward and putting him on Boston obviously makes them better. The problem with "a lot" better is that they lost two players with good value (Crowder and Olynyk) in order to get Hayward.

So they should he better, but I don't think the evidence suggests that will be a lot better.

Without Hayward and Hill that team isn't good enough offensively to make the playoffs.

I'm usually with you, but you're attempting to apply quantitative measures to players of different positions. They aren't apples to apples. Would a team of 5 Goberts beat a team of 5 Haywards? They play completely different roles.

Kelly Ollynk just signed for 4 year/50 plus million with the Heat

quote:

---

I'm usually with you, but you're attempting to apply quantitative measures to players of different positions.

---

Of course, but that's why I focus on the +\- statistics and the on-off because despite different positions, and different roles and contributions, they still capture the value of a player on the court.

quote:

---

Would a team of 5 Goberts beat a team of 5 Haywards? They play completely different roles.

---

Well that's a red-herring. They have different roles, but those roles still have the same primary purpose: to score more points than their opponents.

While the individual statistics showed that Gobert was far more valuable, it should have been no question with the on-off statistics. With or without Hayward, the Jazz outscored their opponents. Without Gobert they got outscored soundly, even with Hayward in the game, while the Jazz had a advantage without Hayward in the game as long as Gobert was in.

It's just like Shaq and Kobe in the 3 Peat. Both great players, who played different positions, but it was clear Shaq was the better and more valuable player during that time.

I mean by your logic, we can't compare MJ and LBJ to their teammates since they had different roles. But we do, because like Gobert, the data overwhelmingly shows they were the best and most valuable players on their teams. But that doesn't make the next best player any worse.

quote:

---

Kelly Ollynk just signed for 4 year/50 plus million with the Heat

---

Wow.

Lol

All of the numbers argue greatly for gobert. Don't get me wrong. But when it comes to the team winning games, you need a ball handler or wing. Without them, you're borderline playoff material. All advanced stats say gobert was more important, but the team is far different without Hayward. Add Rubio for hill and they go from being efficient and solid offensively to questionable at best. Defensively they're still stout.

The best example is Anthony Davis and the pelicans. He's an exceptional player. But he needs a competent ball handler on the team to win. It's not a knock on either gobert or Davis, but it's the reality of how the game is played.

As for Utah, losing Hayward is going to have a huge impact. Gobert and everyone else on that team is going to have a hard time replacing hill and Hayward's production

quote:

---

By my calculations, Gobert played without Hill and Hayward for 273 minutes and that were +11 or +1.93 per 48.

---

Were those minutes versus starters or bench players?

Vinsanity to Sac-Town. 1 year for $8 mil. I'm starting to like this Kings team a good bit