[Winter 2020] Woj Rumor: Drummmmmnd to ATL talks happening

[AHF]

32 minutes ago, JTB said:

Maybe but we all know Cam is a project. I’d rather we keep him than giving him away  and He actually live up to what the front office thinks he could become 

To me it would be idiotic to sell at this point.  The front office had to believe in him to take him where they did in the draft.  Nothing we've seen from him so far should be a big surprise based on his college performance and the amount of time he missed this offseason.  So why would you dump him now?  See your project through unless an offer comes in that blows you away.

[High5]

1 hour ago, Vol4ever said:

With his talent and stats you would have to get the first pick in the draft. .  Why are you dissenters worried about a middle rd first pick for him?  

Because you're trading that pick for one of two things: 

1) You're trading the pick for a rental where all he does is mess up our lottery odds and leaves. That's obviously a disaster.

2) You're trading the pick so you can sign him to a massive 4 or 5 year deal. It becomes much more than a mid-round pick at that point.

It's not about whether or not we can find a better center than Drummond. It's about using our resources effectively. Many people see locking up Drummond long term as putting a hard cap on our potential because he's not worth ~$30 million a year. It's fine in the short term when we have roster spots to fill and money to burn, but the back half of his contract could put us in a pickle. 

[thecampster]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

To me it would be idiotic to sell at this point.  The front office had to believe in him to take him where they did in the draft.  Nothing we've seen from him so far should be a big surprise based on his college performance and the amount of time he missed this offseason.  So why would you dump him now?  See your project through unless an offer comes in that blows you away.

Let's go back a few months when I was accused of Cam hate for simply asking us to pump the brakes and stop elevating him to Jesus status.  IMHO, no one on this roster is untouchable except Trae. If any other player is close to untouchable at this point it is Cam. Not because of what he is, but because of what I believe he will be. He is a rare two way player who I think will end up as both a point forward and 3 and D guy.  He's a unicorn who just needs a shooting coach with patience. Again IMHO, although it will take a few years for him to really scratch his potential, I believe if anyone had a chance to be Steve Smith in his prime, its Cam...maybe better.

[gurpilo]

We all need to recognize that is possible that Cam becomes a bust, that is true. However you just cannot ensure that a 20 year old player that is showing some promising signs is going to bust for sure, that is unreasonable. 
 

In Cam you can see a lot of promise, play making ability, good defense, can go to the rim.... needs to play under control, limit his turnovers, shoot better.... a lot of flaws and some good signs, no one can predict how good or bad he is going to be but the potential is there, one of those players we will need to wait to see if we got something or not. Is just that we are not used to draft this kind of players. Isaac, Exum, Ingram, Chriss, Bender.... are players that remind me his potential, some histories have good end other don’t.... most teams have at some point these kind of prospects, is just that we are not used to it.

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

Would oh so much like Jami to dress like "Star" and sit on the front row where the cameras physically can not avoid her. Some memories you just can't go into detail about you know but they are still really good ones.

not you too. She got me! She didn’t know this but she was my first. It was 1990 and we accidentally got free cable..HBO... they used to play the same movies over and over ...one was the boyfriend school. I digress but.. I agree ☝ #morethanjustamemoryburn

[sturt]

Mavs want in on this.

 

 

[macdaddy]

Cam is a project who is already a very good NBA defender.  He's already a better player than Bembry who we've had on the team for 3 years (or is 4?) now.   

[txsting]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

Cam is a project who is already a very good NBA defender.  He's already a better player than Bembry who we've had on the team for 3 years (or is 4?) now.   

What are you using to claim he's a very good NBA defender?

[macdaddy]

5 minutes ago, txsting said:

What are you using to claim he's a very good NBA defender?

Watching the games

[Spud2nique]

3 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Watching the games

Wrong... the correct answer is... 

What are my eyes ... what are myyy eyes... ok onto the next category you choose!

[txsting]

The eye test doesn't pass for me.  He doesn't look good on defense to me, except for the effort is good.  The results are no good.  He gives up 64% DFG, which is, well, it isn't good.  NBA real defensive plus/minus, he ranks 52 out of 75 small forwards.  I think the perception of Cam as a good defender is a blend of 1) homer bias and 2) he was so bad on offense that he didn't look like a complete bum on the other end of the court, so that's good right???  Right?

[kg01]

I want to circulate a petition that we forever ban the use of defensive "analytics".

Who's with me?

Analytics are already made up, as it is.  It's even worse when it comes to defense.

[AHF]

Just now, kg01 said:

I want to circulate a petition that we forever ban the use of defensive "analytics".

Who's with me?

Analytics are already made up, as it is.  It's even worse when it comes to defense.

Offense does a pretty good job of quantifying production and what is qualitatively good offensive production from the numbers.  That just isn't the case on defense as of today.  Too often they are either missing the key data (such as numbers driven by defensive rebounds, blocks and steals, etc. which don't account for forcing low% shots, deflections, cutting off passing lanes, etc.) or are team based (such that the player's individual numbers are largely driven by how the team performs when they are in the game whether they are the lynchpin to the defense or someone the team is hiding on defense).  

I expect this will improve substantially over time.  In fact, I'd bet it already has made huge improvements but that these numbers are not something we fans see and are instead proprietary formulas that the teams use based on data from the non-public systems they are using to track defensive action.

[Atlantaholic]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

Cam is a project who is already a very good NBA defender.  He's already a better player than Bembry who we've had on the team for 3 years (or is 4?) now.   

I am one of the biggest Bembry haters on here but that is simply not true. Bembry is terrible, but Cam, few flashes of competency aside, has been one of the worst players that has ever graced an NBA court. By any metric. 

[Atlantaholic]

59 minutes ago, txsting said:

The eye test doesn't pass for me.  He doesn't look good on defense to me, except for the effort is good.  The results are no good.  He gives up 64% DFG, which is, well, it isn't good.  NBA real defensive plus/minus, he ranks 52 out of 75 small forwards.  I think the perception of Cam as a good defender is a blend of 1) homer bias and 2) he was so bad on offense that he didn't look like a complete bum on the other end of the court, so that's good right???  Right?

He has his moments, but like with everything else, he isn't consistent. He has some plays were he looks like a lock down defender, and many others where he is slow, or makes mistakes. 

[kg01]

Just now, AHF said:

Offense does a pretty good job of quantifying production and what is qualitatively good offensive production from the numbers.  That just isn't the case on defense as of today.  Too often they are either missing the key data (such as numbers driven by defensive rebounds, blocks and steals, etc. which don't account for forcing low% shots, deflections, cutting off passing lanes, etc.) or are team based (such that the player's individual numbers are largely driven by how the team performs when they are in the game whether they are the lynchpin to the defense or someone the team is hiding on defense).  

I expect this will improve substantially over time.  In fact, I'd bet it already has made huge improvements but that these numbers are not something we fans see and are instead proprietary formulas that the teams use based on data from the non-public systems they are using to track defensive action.

I don't think we'll ever get to a point where defensive "analytics" don't produce flawed or incomplete results.  It just doesn't lend itself well to it.  The larger issue I have is that people just assume, because it's a nimber, it must be right.  The shear laziness with which people quote "analytics" makes my head spin.

Can we just watch the freaking game?  We know what's good and what's not.  Why we gotta try to make it all math?  It's like, since most people can't actually do it, we're trying to athletically dumb it down so we can all participate.  And I went to Georgia Tech, for cryin' out loud.  I'm s'posed to love nimbers!  You people ruin it for me.

[bleachkit]

4 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

I am one of the biggest Bembry haters on here but that is simply not true. Bembry is terrible, but Cam, few flashes of competency aside, has been one of the worst players that has ever graced an NBA court. By any metric. 

Word has gotten around. Teams are starting to leave him wide open. If he can't hit wide open shots I don't think you can have him on the floor. 

[Atlantaholic]

7 minutes ago, kg01 said:

I don't think we'll ever get to a point where defensive "analytics" don't produce flawed or incomplete results.  It just doesn't lend itself well to it.  The larger issue I have is that people just assume, because it's a nimber, it must be right.  The shear laziness with which people quote "analytics" makes my head spin.

Can we just watch the freaking game?  We know what's good and what's not.  Why we gotta try to make it all math?  It's like, since most people can't actually do it, we're trying to athletically dumb it down so we can all participate.  And I went to Georgia Tech, for cryin' out loud.  I'm s'posed to love nimbers!  You people ruin it for me.

This assumes you actually know how to judge NBA defense. Which is a massive assumption. 

If you can't meassure something how can you judge it? It's impossible. Subjective opinion is absolutely the worst possible measuring stick in the world... Literally even the opinion of pro scouts turns out to be completely worthless most of the time. Any number is simply a measurement. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Atlantaholic

[AHF]

6 minutes ago, kg01 said:

I don't think we'll ever get to a point where defensive "analytics" don't produce flawed or incomplete results.  It just doesn't lend itself well to it.  The larger issue I have is that people just assume, because it's a nimber, it must be right.  The shear laziness with which people quote "analytics" makes my head spin.

Can we just watch the freaking game?  We know what's good and what's not.  Why we gotta try to make it all math?  It's like, since most people can't actually do it, we're trying to athletically dumb it down so we can all participate.  And I went to Georgia Tech, for cryin' out loud.  I'm s'posed to love nimbers!  You people ruin it for me.

In fairness, people have shown in multiple sports that the eye test doesn't work real well by itself either.  It led to people thinking batting average was wayyyyy more important in baseball than it actually was, led people to think points per game were the biggest stat in basketball (regardless of how many shots it took), etc.  

The reality is you need to marry the eye test with the data, etc. and use each of these things as tools that tell you part of the picture.  By using all of them you get much closer to the full picture.  

But anyone who relies on defensive WAR or defensive WS or DRTG or something as the be-all, end-all for defensive stats is making a real mistake for sure.

[kg01]

2 minutes ago, Atlantaholic said:

This assumes you actually know how to judge NBA defense. Which is a massive assumption. 

Alls you gotta do is look at what Jabarme Parker does and think, "Don't do dat."

1 minute ago, AHF said:

In fairness, people have shown in multiple sports that the eye test doesn't work real well by itself either.  It led to people thinking batting average was wayyyyy more important in baseball than it actually was, led people to think points per game were the biggest stat in basketball (regardless of how many shots it took), etc.  

The reality is you need to marry the eye test with the data, etc. and use each of these things as tools that tell you part of the picture.  By using all of them you get much closer to the full picture.  

But anyone who relies on defensive WAR or defensive WS or DRTG or something as the be-all, end-all for defensive stats is making a real mistake for sure.

This was a really long way to just say you agree with me.