Still too early roster projections - opening night vs final game 2019-2020

[sturt]

 

[Peoriabird]

14 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

Vince Carter as a back up shooting guard??? Lol!

[sturt]

Um. Excuse me?

Vince has logged time at both 2 and 3 over his many years. You weren't aware of that?

Now, granted, he spent more time at 3 last season for us.

But that doesn't change the fact that a quick review of his production at 2 versus his production at 3 in most years shows him to be a better SG than SF. And that should make some sense, given that his frame is that of a SG, and he's giving up a couple of inches or three against many SFs.

He's played SF usually out of necessity, and because he's not awful there in comparison to the other options his teams have had.

[AHF]

Vince Carter played only 9.5% of his minutes at SG last season and played 0% of his minutes at SG two years ago in Sacramento.  

4.25% at SG vs 95.75% at SF/PF over the last two years shows a pretty clear trend where he is playing at this stage of his career.  It makes sense as the mobility diminishes some over time.

Even 3-5 years ago during his 3 years in Memphis he played less than 1/3 of his minutes at SG.  Same story in Dallas back 6 years ago (less than 30% of his minutes at SG).  I stopped looking past that point.

I wouldn't expect Carter to suddenly play primarily at SG for the first time in the better part of a decade or to reverse his recent trend of playing against slower opponents at forward.

[Thomas]

Where minutes count for the first twenty games or possibly less think Trae, Huerter, Hunter, JC and Len start consistently. Being a Bruno fan and believing he will be closer to Draymond than anyone else we could have drafted or brought in, think he gets very good minutes but will not start till later in the season if then. Who knows, maybe Len drains threes at 40%. Think between those two we have a great forty eight minutes at C.

[sturt]

AHF, we just disagree. You're saying he was deliberately deployed as a SF because he's slower. I say, nonsense. It's not about him being slower, it's about what the rest of the roster looked like on those recent teams. There were no better alternatives, and it's not like he's terrible at the 3. But he does have lower numbers there.

[sturt]

And where's the edit thingee on this board?

I would have edited the above to say the numbers are the numbers are the numbers... if he's not suited to playing SG, then naturally you ought to see his numbers at SG look worse than his SF numbers.

[Thomas]

The vessel with the pessel?

[AHF]

Just now, sturt said:

AHF, we just disagree. You're saying he was deliberately deployed as a SF because he's slower. I say, nonsense. It's not about him being slower, it's about what the rest of the roster looked like on those recent teams. There were no better alternatives, and it's not like he's terrible at the 3. But he does have lower numbers there.

How many years has it been since last played more SG than other positions?  The trend on him tells the story, IMO.  You see three stages on his usage:

Stage 3 - Negligible SG Play (2 teams)

2018-19 - 9.5%

2017-18 - 0%

Stage 2 - Minority SG Play (2 teams)

2016-17 - 31.8%

2015-16 - 33%

2014-15 - 30.7%

2013-14 - 29.3%

2012-13 - 19.6%

2011-12 - 42.4%

Stage 1 - Vast Majority SG Play (3 teams)

2010-11 - 98%

2009-10 - 86%

2008-09 - 80%

2007-08 - 76.3%

 

 

[AHF]

12 minutes ago, sturt said:

And where's the edit thingee on this board?

I would have edited the above to say the numbers are the numbers are the numbers... if he's not suited to playing SG, then naturally you ought to see his numbers at SG look worse than his SF numbers.

This only holds true if all other things are equal.  If you start deploying him there in favorable matchups (instead of against all-comers), his numbers should hold up nicely even as his play declines.

As a player gets more limited physically, coaches will cherry-pick the circumstances when they play for maximum effectiveness.

[Peoriabird]

There are no minutes for Carter at shooting guard on this team

[JayBirdHawk]

IIRC correctly, Coach Pierce talked about what position Vince would play for him last season -  SF and PF. (Too lazy to look up article).

Vince started the season at PF in place of the injured JC.

Ask @Peoriabird about his disdain for Vince at PF, lol.

 

[Peoriabird]

3 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

IIRC correctly, Coach Pierce talked about what position Vince would play for him last season -  SF and PF. (Too lazy to look up article).

Vince started the season at PF in place of the injured JC.

Ask @Peoriabird about his disdain for Vince at PF, lol.

 

Stop it Bird..I do not have disdain for Vince playing power forward on a tanking team! But this year we aren't tanking

[sturt]

13 minutes ago, AHF said:

This only holds true if all other things are equal.  If you start deploying him there in favorable matchups (instead of against all-comers), his numbers should hold up nicely even as his play declines.

As a player gets more limited physically, coaches will cherry-pick the circumstances when they play for maximum effectiveness.

 

I disagree with the premise that VC's coaches have been framing their 5-man decisions around hiding VC's weaknesses, or for that matter, trying to accentuate his strengths.... he's *not* been the focal point of *any* roster for years. His position has been a matter of default, not game scheming... if you don't have a better alternative at SF, then that's *naturally* where he's going to accumulate minutes.

The guy is 6-5. He's a SG who can play SF mainly because of his hops.

To defeat my point, you'll have to show me that there were better SF options on those rosters than VC... I don't think you want to go there, do you.

 

[sturt]

13 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

There are no minutes for Carter at shooting guard on this team

[AHF]

27 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

I disagree with the premise that VC's coaches have been framing their 5-man decisions around hiding VC's weaknesses, or for that matter, trying to accentuate his strengths.... he's *not* been the focal point of *any* roster for years. His position has been a matter of default, not game scheming... if you don't have a better alternative at SF, then that's *naturally* where he's going to accumulate minutes.

The guy is 6-5. He's a SG who can play SF mainly because of his hops.

To defeat my point, you'll have to show me that there were better SF options on those rosters than VC... I don't think you want to go there, do you.

 

Let's break this down.

Quote

I disagree with the premise that VC's coaches have been framing their 5-man decisions around hiding VC's weaknesses, or for that matter, trying to accentuate his strengths.... he's *not* been the focal point of *any* roster for years.

This is called a false dilemma.  Smart coaches try to hide player's weaknesses and accentuate their strengths regardless of whether they are the focal point of a roster or not.  What is indicative of being the focal point of a roster is minutes played and usage rate not whether a coach tries to optimize you when he plays you.  Chicago absolutely did that for years with guys like Luc Longley and Steve Kerr who had some clear strengths and weaknesses but they were never focal points of the roster.  There is little to no connection between these two concepts.  You see guys used situationally all the time in the league - even more so when they are not the focal point of the roster.

Quote

His position has been a matter of default, not game scheming... if you don't have a better alternative at SF, then that's *naturally* where he's going to accumulate minutes.

The guy is 6-5. He's a SG who can play SF mainly because of his hops.

To defeat my point, you'll have to show me that there were better SF options on those rosters than VC... I don't think you want to go there, do you.

We had better SF alternatives last season, particularly once Prince got healthy but Bembry and Baze are also better options (even though Baze is absolutely better off at SG).  But Carter continued to play mostly SF and PF even after Prince returned because he was less of a defensive liability there and could better attack slower defenders.

The season before in Sacramento, the King's leading minutes player and top WS among guards and wings was their SF Bogdan Bognanovic (who shot a nice >39% from 3).  Guess where Carter played all his minutes?  Forward.  Why?  Because that was what he was now suited to play.  But the starters are not the real competition.  It is the backups.  So why did they give Garrett Temple minutes at SG over him?  Because Garrett Temple is great?  Temple got all his minutes as backup SG and Carter had plenty of availability to get those minutes but they chose to play him exclusively at SF and PF.

Before that Memphis was absolutely starved for offensive talent at SG but they played him the vast majority of the time at forward.  They did that even when they had a healthy rotation at SF like Jeff Green and Tayshaun Prince.  In 2014-15, both Green and Prince played a ton more minutes per game at SF than Carter.  They both played the vast majority of their time at SF.  But Carter played 70% of his minutes at SF despite his competition for backup minutes at SG being guys like Nick freaking Cathalas and his abominable .455% TS%.  Memphis gave more backup SG minutes to Calathas instead of Carter even though Calathas was so bad he was out of the league after that 2014-15 season.  

Carter's time being a focal point for a team was done a long time ago but that has nothing to do with where he is deployed during the minutes he does get.  Coaches play him where they think he will be effective.  For the past 8 years that has been at forward and not SG.  8 years without exception.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

3 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

Stop it Bird..I do not have disdain for Vince playing power forward on a tanking team! But this year we aren't tanking

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

This is called a false dilemma.  Smart coaches try to hide player's weaknesses and accentuate their strengths regardless of whether they are the focal point of a roster or not.  What is indicative of being the focal point of a roster is minutes played and usage rate not whether a coach tries to optimize you when he plays you.  Chicago absolutely did that for years with guys like Luc Longley and Steve Kerr who had some clear strengths and weaknesses but they were never focal points of the roster.  There is little to no connection between these two concepts.  You see guys used situationally all the time in the league - even more so when they are not the focal point of the roster.

Wow. I seem to have hit a nerve... hehe...

 

My friend, you proposed two options... your own dilemma. Here's your comment.

 

2 hours ago, AHF said:

This only holds true if all other things are equal.  If you start deploying him there in favorable matchups (instead of against all-comers), his numbers should hold up nicely even as his play declines.

So, you suggest that VC's coaches started "deploying him (to the point of the conversation, as a SG exclusively) in favorable match-ups"... that's one... "(instead of against all comers)"... that's the second.

That's a dilemma you suggested in retaliation to my assertion that coaches do not game plan around VC, and for that matter players of his age and caliber, in the same way that they game plan around their stars, and really, hardly ever.

Now, you're calling that assertion a "false dilemma." Then, you parade Longley... notably who pretty much exclusively played C... and Kerr... notably who pretty much exclusively played PG... as examples of guys who disprove my assertion that coaches do not game plan around players like VC.

This is true that Longley and Kerr were deployed in specific situations instead of against all comers.

To the point of this conversation, it is not true that Carter in ATL was deployed as a specialist, ie in specific situations. To the contrary, he was deployed against all comers.

 

If you can produce evidence that, in his previous stops, he was deployed as a specialist, then you're on to something.

Pardon my skepticism. I think he's pretty much been used in SAC, MEM, DAL as he's been here.

 

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

 

We had better SF alternatives last season, particularly once Prince got healthy but Bembry and Baze are also better options (even though Baze is absolutely better off at SG).  But Carter continued to play mostly SF and PF even after Prince returned because he was less of a defensive liability there and could better attack slower defenders.

 

Aside, Prince's best defensive numbers were at PF, fwiw.

 

What would be your support for saying "Bembry and Baze are better options" than Carter at SF? At the very best, I could say they might be even. But VC's girth gives him a definite edge over those two and Huerter from where I sit.

 

And here's what complicates the entire conversation that you should be able to acknowledge... (a) when, for example, Bembry and Baze are the two wings on the floor at the same time, how does one establish which one is the 2 and which is the 3?... or Bembry and Carter or Baze and Carter... ?.... and (b) if the reply to that is, "well, look at who they're guarding," how does playing switching schemes as Pierce prefers to do affect that.... and if the reply is, "well, look at who is guarding them," we don't actually control that part in the first place, and moreover, some teams have the same situation that they have wings that can very arguably be labeled SG or SF interchangeably.

 

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The season before in Sacramento, the King's leading minutes player and top WS among guards and wings was their SF Bogdan Bognanovic (who shot a nice >39% from 3).  Guess where Carter played all his minutes?  Forward.  Why?  Because that was what he was now suited to play.  But the starters are not the real competition.  It is the backups.  So why did they give Garrett Temple minutes at SG over him?  Because Garrett Temple is great?  Temple got all his minutes as backup SG and Carter had plenty of availability to get those minutes but they chose to play him exclusively at SF and PF.

So, unlike the previous paragraph where you speak to your opinion that Baze and Bembry were better options at SF, you never actually got to that question here... which of course again is the pivotal question... a paragraph of words that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, don't speak to my assertion that SAC didn't have a better back-up option at SF than VC, so... who knew... he gets SF minutes.

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Before that Memphis was absolutely starved for offensive talent at SG but they played him the vast majority of the time at forward.  They did that even when they had a healthy rotation at SF like Jeff Green and Tayshaun Prince.  In 2014-15, both Green and Prince played a ton more minutes per game at SF than Carter.  They both played the vast majority of their time at SF.  But Carter played 70% of his minutes at SF despite his competition for backup minutes at SG being guys like Nick freaking Cathalas and his abominable .455% TS%.  Memphis gave more backup SG minutes to Calathas instead of Carter even though Calathas was so bad he was out of the league after that 2014-15 season.  

 

 

 

Um. You said "healthy?"

 

 

More recently...

 

 

 

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Carter's time being a focal point for a team was done a long time ago but that has nothing to do with where he is deployed during the minutes he does get.  Coaches play him where they think he will be effective.  For the past 8 years that has been at forward and not SG.  8 years without exception.

 

 

So let's review.

We agree that he's no longer a focal point.

We appear to disagree in the idea that he's not some specialist that you "deploy" like a Kerr or a Longley to take advantage of some mismatch.... to the contrary, he's very much a JAG at this stage of his career, and depending on the coach's other options at a given position, he's going to get his minutes dictated accordingly... just as seen in the MEM 15-16 numbers above.

And hopefully we agree that it's all somewhat in the eye of the beholder anyhow because of the nature of "wing" players being so interchangeable in the first place... we categorize these guys as "SG" and "SF" at our level, but a coach is more intricate than that... it's not a matter of matching up a SF to a SF and a SG to a SG, but a matter of precisely diagnosing whether he's better off to have Bembry match up on Beal, and Carter on Ariza or vice-versa.

 

[sturt]

So, maybe my Jontay Porter angle isn't to be....

[AHF]

Sometimes you take the most tortured reading of things just for the sake of stirring up conflict. It is frustrating to try to have a conversation in that fashion.  For example, I never said that only players who are the focal point of a team have their coaches try to accentuate their strengths and hide their weaknesses or the opposite.  I said that players who play limited minutes can be selectively played against lineups and specific opponents to optimize them while someone who plays heavy minutes doesn’t have the same luxury.  The person playing heavy minutes can’t be hidden from opposing lineups but can be used in a way to give them the most favorable matchups possible.  So two weak defenders might both get matched up against the weakest offensive player as a means of hiding weaknesses but only a limited minutes player can be deployed only against reserve lineups or small lineups or big lineups, etc.  

When you distort what is being said in a way that you obviously know better it makes things tough because we end up just talking past each other.

You throw out quotes from me with straw men like “did you say healthy?” and pretend you are disputing what I said by pointing out Carter wasn’t healthy all season.  You ignore that what I said was that even when they were all healthy that he didn’t get the minutes.  That means I was giving that healthy window emphasis — not that I was saying he was healthy all year.  This is like saying that Collins was the primary option for the Hawks front court when the front court was healthy and pretending like pointing out that members of our frontcourt had injuries is any kind of response.  Of course you know this.

Lets make this a bet instead.  A month of you picking my avatar if Carter plays 50% or more of his minutes at SG and a month of me picking your avatar if 50% or more time is spent at forward.  We use 82games.  

That should crystallize whether you truly believe he is best utilized as a SG or not because any smart coach would be more likely to use him as he is best suited and any smart GM would be more likely to sign him to play his best position. Both of us have some risk that he might sign with a particular team with an oddball situation that bucks against his skill set but whoever is right about how he is best deployed anymore will have the advantage.

You in?