Author Topic: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline  (Read 12893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #45 on: January 20, 2017, 10:32:30 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58546
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'm a big fan of Nurkic. BUT, I don't think he would give us anything that Zizic can't give us, and I think we needed a center with much better lateral quickness than he has.

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

On the turnover issue - isn't that one of the more fixable problems someone could have, especially at age 22?

Heck, Terry Rozier is older than Nurkic and his flaws are far more worrisome.

He's also cost-controlled for this year and next.

I think if the price is right (meaning Rozier and a non-lottery draft pick or two), it's a good move. Helps our rotation, carries little long-term cost.

Can we pencil Nurkic in for that production? Extrapolating per-36 numbers seems extremely optimistic. He's yet to average above 8.6 points or 6.2 rebounds.

I'd be fine with paying a modest price, but I think we should limit our expectations.

I didn't extrapolate per-36 numbers. Those are his numbers (15/12 actually) when he plays starter minutes (30-39).

Even if you look at more reasonable number for a player with his physical profile, when playing 20-29 minutes he averages 11 and 8.

Taking the entire spectrum of minutes played, his per-minute production does not decline when he plays more minutes.

Well, as an actual starter he's averaging 9.8 points and 7.3 rebounds.

This year, he's played 30+ minutes in only one game. It stands to figure that he gets more minutes when he's playing well, so projecting any stat line based upon the limited numbers of games he gets extended playing time seems faulty.

I'm using his career totals, not his numbers this year.

And I understand the selection bias on minutes, but the data don't support it. If that were true, his per-36 figures would be better when he plays more. They're the same.

And if you take the starter numbers you quote above (which are, at least on a game-by-game basis, not subject to the "plays more minutes when playing well" bias), they come out to...you guessed it. 15 and 12 per-36.

Zero evidence that his productivity changes based on minutes played. Or starting vs. not. None.

Like anyone who understands what per-36 numbers are for, I'm not projecting performance. I'm describing it.

And if you want to say "yeah but he'd never play more than 20 minutes," fine. But then the question is whether Zizic's per-20 performance would match Nurkic's.

And just to get out of the weeds: I love Zizic and hope he ends up a better player than Nurkic. Perhaps he'd come in at age 21 and give us 10 and 7 in 22 minutes a game. I'm just saying that it's a lot to expect of someone who's never played a minute of NBA ball.

He's played 30+ minutes seven times in three years. How much do those numbers tell us?  There's zero evidence that he's regularly going to put up 16 / 11 while playing 30+ minutes. That's my quibble. I have no idea what Zizic will average, but holding him to numbers that are almost entirely fictional seems unfair.

Also, one other disagreement:

Quote
And I understand the selection bias on minutes, but the data don't support it. If that were true, his per-36 figures would be better when he plays more. They're the same

In games Nurkic plays 19 minutes or fewer, he has a 38.9% FG%.

When he plays 20+ minutes, he averages 51.8% shooting.

To me, that intuitively suggests that he plays more minutes when he's playing well.  Unfortunately, he's only played 20+ minutes in 42 career games (out of 121 games played).

It's just not legitimate to look at 7 career games and "pencil him in" for production based upon that sample size.



« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 10:45:35 PM by Roy H. »


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2017, 10:33:17 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
I suppose one way to look at this this way - who would we rather have on the current celtics, nurkic or Amir? I would roll the dice on nurkic if that were the choice.

We might not even face that tradeoff. The question might be, would you rather have Zeller as your backup center with Terry Rozier as the 3rd PG, or Nurkic as your backup center with Demetrius Jackson as the 3rd PG?

These are good points, but there is just something really uninspiring about Nurkic.

Unless Nurkic has this unlocked potential that I just do not know about (certainly possible), I am not sure I even want to think about re-signing him to a huge deal during the big offseason of IT/AB/Smart.

I know Amir has his flaws, but I still like the idea of keeping him around with something like the room exception when we go over the salary cap this off-season.

Yeah, he's not the ideal guy, but I don't see him as someone we need to pay or keep around long-term if we don't want to. And for now he's a cheap, reasonably productive option with little downside risk.



Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2017, 10:39:04 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
I don't think DA would be interested in Nurkic. Really solid center but not mobile enough. With BS system mobility is very important for big guys. Jokic would fit much better but he is untouchable i think but if Faried became availiable that would get DA attention. Faried doesn't have secured starting spot, plays only 22 mpg so i think maybe they will trade him. DA would be interested because Faried is signed on a solid deal, he is mobile, he rebounds so he can get Amir's minutes if Horford plays the 5.

edit: if Faried is on the trade block i would offer Amir, Rozier + Grizz/Clips pick

I agree. We need a center with great lateral mobility on defense.

Why Faried though, he's like 6'7-6'8, i.e. not a true big.

I know he is small, that is why i said that if Horford play the 5, Faried could play the 4. But if BS and DA plan to continue to play Horford as a 4 than we need center like Noel. Who is mobile enough to switch on defense plus being a good rebounder

Yeah, I'd rather play Crowder at the 4 if we move Horford to the 5. At least Crowder can spread the floor.

You do realize we suck at rebounding.  Right?

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2017, 10:43:10 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
I'm a big fan of Nurkic. BUT, I don't think he would give us anything that Zizic can't give us, and I think we need a center with much better lateral quickness than he has.

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

On the turnover issue - isn't that one of the more fixable problems someone could have, especially at age 22?

Heck, Terry Rozier is older than Nurkic and his flaws are far more worrisome.

He's also cost-controlled for this year and next.

I think if the price is right (meaning Rozier and a non-lottery draft pick or two), it's a good move. Helps our rotation, carries little long-term cost.

Can we pencil Nurkic in for that production? Extrapolating per-36 numbers seems extremely optimistic. He's yet to average above 8.6 points or 6.2 rebounds.

I'd be fine with paying a modest price, but I think we should limit our expectations.

I didn't extrapolate per-36 numbers. Those are his numbers (15/12 actually) when he plays starter minutes (30-39).

Even if you look at more reasonable number for a player with his physical profile, when playing 20-29 minutes he averages 11 and 8.

Taking the entire spectrum of minutes played, his per-minute production does not decline when he plays more minutes.

Well, as an actual starter he's averaging 9.8 points and 7.3 rebounds.

This year, he's played 30+ minutes in only one game. It stands to figure that he gets more minutes when he's playing well, so projecting any stat line based upon the limited numbers of games he gets extended playing time seems faulty.

I'm using his career totals, not his numbers this year.

And I understand the selection bias on minutes, but the data don't support it. If that were true, his per-36 figures would be better when he plays more. They're the same.

And if you take the starter numbers you quote above (which are, at least on a game-by-game basis, not subject to the "plays more minutes when playing well" bias), they come out to...you guessed it. 15 and 12 per-36.

Zero evidence that his productivity changes based on minutes played. Or starting vs. not. None.

Like anyone who understands what per-36 numbers are for, I'm not projecting performance. I'm describing it.

And if you want to say "yeah but he'd never play more than 20 minutes," fine. But then the question is whether Zizic's per-20 performance would match Nurkic's.

And just to get out of the weeds: I love Zizic and hope he ends up a better player than Nurkic. Perhaps he'd come in at age 21 and give us 10 and 7 in 22 minutes a game. I'm just saying that it's a lot to expect of someone who's never played a minute of NBA ball.

He's played 30+ minutes seven times in three years. How much do those numbers tell us?  There's zero evidence that he's regularly going to put up 16 / 11 while playing 30+ minutes. That's my quibble. I have no idea what Zizic will average, but holding him to numbers that are almost entirely fictional seems unfair.

Who said we'd want to play him 30+ minutes? I never said that. You think Zizic will in his first year? Jeez.

Again: I'm talking about his actual production. Which is a known quantity. We know what he produces in the NBA when he starts, when he comes of the bench, when he plays a lot of minutes or a few. And he's been equally effective in all those scenarios. That's what the numbers say. I'm just saying it's a level that would be on the high end for a typical unproven rookie big man in the NBA.

Sigh. I guess I'll give up. I mean per-36 minute numbers are just a reference frame to gauge productivity. They are never a prediction about what a player will do in 36 minutes, or how many minutes he will or should play. It seems like an easy concept to understand, to me anyway.

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2017, 10:49:09 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
I suppose one way to look at this this way - who would we rather have on the current celtics, nurkic or Amir? I would roll the dice on nurkic if that were the choice.

We might not even face that tradeoff. The question might be, would you rather have Zeller as your backup center with Terry Rozier as the 3rd PG, or Nurkic as your backup center with Demetrius Jackson as the 3rd PG?

These are good points, but there is just something really uninspiring about Nurkic.

Unless Nurkic has this unlocked potential that I just do not know about (certainly possible), I am not sure I even want to think about re-signing him to a huge deal during the big offseason of IT/AB/Smart.

I know Amir has his flaws, but I still like the idea of keeping him around with something like the room exception when we go over the salary cap this off-season.

Everyone is overthinking this.

He is a 7-footer who would instantly be the best rebounder on the team (ya know, like, what we really need right about now).  He is also not a black-hole offensively, and is a good passer. 

He is 22, signed for another year, and making less than $3M.  You could trade him straight up for James Young salary wise.  This is WAY better than trading for Bogut (and Bogus is a better player, don't get me wrong).  At least with Nurkic, you get another year. 

I don't think people realize how badly this team needs a capable big who can rebound off the bench.  They don't even have one in the starting lineup. 

But like I said before, it makes almost too much sense.

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2017, 10:51:33 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58546
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'm a big fan of Nurkic. BUT, I don't think he would give us anything that Zizic can't give us, and I think we need a center with much better lateral quickness than he has.

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

On the turnover issue - isn't that one of the more fixable problems someone could have, especially at age 22?

Heck, Terry Rozier is older than Nurkic and his flaws are far more worrisome.

He's also cost-controlled for this year and next.

I think if the price is right (meaning Rozier and a non-lottery draft pick or two), it's a good move. Helps our rotation, carries little long-term cost.

Can we pencil Nurkic in for that production? Extrapolating per-36 numbers seems extremely optimistic. He's yet to average above 8.6 points or 6.2 rebounds.

I'd be fine with paying a modest price, but I think we should limit our expectations.

I didn't extrapolate per-36 numbers. Those are his numbers (15/12 actually) when he plays starter minutes (30-39).

Even if you look at more reasonable number for a player with his physical profile, when playing 20-29 minutes he averages 11 and 8.

Taking the entire spectrum of minutes played, his per-minute production does not decline when he plays more minutes.

Well, as an actual starter he's averaging 9.8 points and 7.3 rebounds.

This year, he's played 30+ minutes in only one game. It stands to figure that he gets more minutes when he's playing well, so projecting any stat line based upon the limited numbers of games he gets extended playing time seems faulty.

I'm using his career totals, not his numbers this year.

And I understand the selection bias on minutes, but the data don't support it. If that were true, his per-36 figures would be better when he plays more. They're the same.

And if you take the starter numbers you quote above (which are, at least on a game-by-game basis, not subject to the "plays more minutes when playing well" bias), they come out to...you guessed it. 15 and 12 per-36.

Zero evidence that his productivity changes based on minutes played. Or starting vs. not. None.

Like anyone who understands what per-36 numbers are for, I'm not projecting performance. I'm describing it.

And if you want to say "yeah but he'd never play more than 20 minutes," fine. But then the question is whether Zizic's per-20 performance would match Nurkic's.

And just to get out of the weeds: I love Zizic and hope he ends up a better player than Nurkic. Perhaps he'd come in at age 21 and give us 10 and 7 in 22 minutes a game. I'm just saying that it's a lot to expect of someone who's never played a minute of NBA ball.

He's played 30+ minutes seven times in three years. How much do those numbers tell us?  There's zero evidence that he's regularly going to put up 16 / 11 while playing 30+ minutes. That's my quibble. I have no idea what Zizic will average, but holding him to numbers that are almost entirely fictional seems unfair.

Who said we'd want to play him 30+ minutes? I never said that. You think Zizic will in his first year? Jeez.

Again: I'm talking about his actual production. Which is a known quantity. We know what he produces in the NBA when he starts, when he comes of the bench, when he plays a lot of minutes or a few. And he's been equally effective in all those scenarios. That's what the numbers say. I'm just saying it's a level that would be on the high end for a typical unproven rookie big man in the NBA.

Sigh. I guess I'll give up. I mean per-36 minute numbers are just a reference frame to gauge productivity. They are never a prediction about what a player will do in 36 minutes, or how many minutes he will or should play. It seems like an easy concept to understand, to me anyway.

1.  Do you stand by this statement?

Quote

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

You defined "starter's minutes" as 30+ minutes, and cited his numbers from 7 games over 3 years.

2. His production isn't steady. In the vast majority of his games, he's played 19 or fewer minutes. In those games, he's shot 39%.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #51 on: January 20, 2017, 11:32:21 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
I'm a big fan of Nurkic. BUT, I don't think he would give us anything that Zizic can't give us, and I think we need a center with much better lateral quickness than he has.

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

On the turnover issue - isn't that one of the more fixable problems someone could have, especially at age 22?

Heck, Terry Rozier is older than Nurkic and his flaws are far more worrisome.

He's also cost-controlled for this year and next.

I think if the price is right (meaning Rozier and a non-lottery draft pick or two), it's a good move. Helps our rotation, carries little long-term cost.

Can we pencil Nurkic in for that production? Extrapolating per-36 numbers seems extremely optimistic. He's yet to average above 8.6 points or 6.2 rebounds.

I'd be fine with paying a modest price, but I think we should limit our expectations.

I didn't extrapolate per-36 numbers. Those are his numbers (15/12 actually) when he plays starter minutes (30-39).

Even if you look at more reasonable number for a player with his physical profile, when playing 20-29 minutes he averages 11 and 8.

Taking the entire spectrum of minutes played, his per-minute production does not decline when he plays more minutes.

Well, as an actual starter he's averaging 9.8 points and 7.3 rebounds.

This year, he's played 30+ minutes in only one game. It stands to figure that he gets more minutes when he's playing well, so projecting any stat line based upon the limited numbers of games he gets extended playing time seems faulty.

I'm using his career totals, not his numbers this year.

And I understand the selection bias on minutes, but the data don't support it. If that were true, his per-36 figures would be better when he plays more. They're the same.

And if you take the starter numbers you quote above (which are, at least on a game-by-game basis, not subject to the "plays more minutes when playing well" bias), they come out to...you guessed it. 15 and 12 per-36.

Zero evidence that his productivity changes based on minutes played. Or starting vs. not. None.

Like anyone who understands what per-36 numbers are for, I'm not projecting performance. I'm describing it.

And if you want to say "yeah but he'd never play more than 20 minutes," fine. But then the question is whether Zizic's per-20 performance would match Nurkic's.

And just to get out of the weeds: I love Zizic and hope he ends up a better player than Nurkic. Perhaps he'd come in at age 21 and give us 10 and 7 in 22 minutes a game. I'm just saying that it's a lot to expect of someone who's never played a minute of NBA ball.

He's played 30+ minutes seven times in three years. How much do those numbers tell us?  There's zero evidence that he's regularly going to put up 16 / 11 while playing 30+ minutes. That's my quibble. I have no idea what Zizic will average, but holding him to numbers that are almost entirely fictional seems unfair.

Who said we'd want to play him 30+ minutes? I never said that. You think Zizic will in his first year? Jeez.

Again: I'm talking about his actual production. Which is a known quantity. We know what he produces in the NBA when he starts, when he comes of the bench, when he plays a lot of minutes or a few. And he's been equally effective in all those scenarios. That's what the numbers say. I'm just saying it's a level that would be on the high end for a typical unproven rookie big man in the NBA.

Sigh. I guess I'll give up. I mean per-36 minute numbers are just a reference frame to gauge productivity. They are never a prediction about what a player will do in 36 minutes, or how many minutes he will or should play. It seems like an easy concept to understand, to me anyway.

1.  Do you stand by this statement?

Quote

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

You defined "starter's minutes" as 30+ minutes, and cited his numbers from 7 games over 3 years.

2. His production isn't steady. In the vast majority of his games, he's played 19 or fewer minutes. In those games, he's shot 39%.

I don't need to "stand by the statement." It's an empirical fact. Again: the "starter minutes" figure is for reference. It makes the numbers easy to compare across players. But no, it isn't based on 7 games. That figure also describes his performance over all categories of minutes played, whether you take his production at lower minutes and scale it up for reference, or look at his production at higher levels of minutes. It's a convenience because without any notion of per-minute production, saying a player averages "10 and 7" contains zero information.

And I only mentioned the fact that he actually maintained that level of production in the 30+ category because YOU brought it up, arguing that his per-36 numbers might not apply at higher levels of minutes. Which is demonstrably not true. In a small sample to be sure, but there's no evidence of a decline. Nor should the issue of "extrapolating" to higher minutes be discussed at all, anyway. His production is what it is, you don't need to extrapolate anything to describe it. 

As to the second point, I don't know why you're talking about his shooting percentages in one category. He shoots 52% from the field when he plays 20+ minutes, in 52 career games, and the figure you refer to applies to 79 games which is not "vastly more" under any definition I can think of. (His points and rebounds in that bin, by the way, are 15 and 12 in per-36 terms.) You can split the numbers up other ways too and see differences. He shoots 47% as a starter and 45% as a reserve. He shoots 62% on Tuesdays and 43% on Saturdays. And?

Again, the point is simple: Nurkic has a record of production. It's about two full seasons' worth in the NBA.

And if you look at his production on the admittedly simple bases I mention, it's rare for young players to do what he has shown he can do. There are 3-4 such players per year, I checked. And based on that I'm saying it's on the high end. That's it.

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2017, 11:58:05 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58546
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'm a big fan of Nurkic. BUT, I don't think he would give us anything that Zizic can't give us, and I think we need a center with much better lateral quickness than he has.

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

On the turnover issue - isn't that one of the more fixable problems someone could have, especially at age 22?

Heck, Terry Rozier is older than Nurkic and his flaws are far more worrisome.

He's also cost-controlled for this year and next.

I think if the price is right (meaning Rozier and a non-lottery draft pick or two), it's a good move. Helps our rotation, carries little long-term cost.

Can we pencil Nurkic in for that production? Extrapolating per-36 numbers seems extremely optimistic. He's yet to average above 8.6 points or 6.2 rebounds.

I'd be fine with paying a modest price, but I think we should limit our expectations.

I didn't extrapolate per-36 numbers. Those are his numbers (15/12 actually) when he plays starter minutes (30-39).

Even if you look at more reasonable number for a player with his physical profile, when playing 20-29 minutes he averages 11 and 8.

Taking the entire spectrum of minutes played, his per-minute production does not decline when he plays more minutes.

Well, as an actual starter he's averaging 9.8 points and 7.3 rebounds.

This year, he's played 30+ minutes in only one game. It stands to figure that he gets more minutes when he's playing well, so projecting any stat line based upon the limited numbers of games he gets extended playing time seems faulty.

I'm using his career totals, not his numbers this year.

And I understand the selection bias on minutes, but the data don't support it. If that were true, his per-36 figures would be better when he plays more. They're the same.

And if you take the starter numbers you quote above (which are, at least on a game-by-game basis, not subject to the "plays more minutes when playing well" bias), they come out to...you guessed it. 15 and 12 per-36.

Zero evidence that his productivity changes based on minutes played. Or starting vs. not. None.

Like anyone who understands what per-36 numbers are for, I'm not projecting performance. I'm describing it.

And if you want to say "yeah but he'd never play more than 20 minutes," fine. But then the question is whether Zizic's per-20 performance would match Nurkic's.

And just to get out of the weeds: I love Zizic and hope he ends up a better player than Nurkic. Perhaps he'd come in at age 21 and give us 10 and 7 in 22 minutes a game. I'm just saying that it's a lot to expect of someone who's never played a minute of NBA ball.

He's played 30+ minutes seven times in three years. How much do those numbers tell us?  There's zero evidence that he's regularly going to put up 16 / 11 while playing 30+ minutes. That's my quibble. I have no idea what Zizic will average, but holding him to numbers that are almost entirely fictional seems unfair.

Who said we'd want to play him 30+ minutes? I never said that. You think Zizic will in his first year? Jeez.

Again: I'm talking about his actual production. Which is a known quantity. We know what he produces in the NBA when he starts, when he comes of the bench, when he plays a lot of minutes or a few. And he's been equally effective in all those scenarios. That's what the numbers say. I'm just saying it's a level that would be on the high end for a typical unproven rookie big man in the NBA.

Sigh. I guess I'll give up. I mean per-36 minute numbers are just a reference frame to gauge productivity. They are never a prediction about what a player will do in 36 minutes, or how many minutes he will or should play. It seems like an easy concept to understand, to me anyway.

1.  Do you stand by this statement?

Quote

Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

You defined "starter's minutes" as 30+ minutes, and cited his numbers from 7 games over 3 years.

2. His production isn't steady. In the vast majority of his games, he's played 19 or fewer minutes. In those games, he's shot 39%.

I don't need to "stand by the statement." It's an empirical fact. Again: the "starter minutes" figure is for reference. It makes the numbers easy to compare across players. But no, it isn't based on 7 games. That figure also describes his performance over all categories of minutes played, whether you take his production at lower minutes and scale it up for reference, or look at his production at higher levels of minutes. It's a convenience because without any notion of per-minute production, saying a player averages "10 and 7" contains zero information.

And I only mentioned the fact that he actually maintained that level of production in the 30+ category because YOU brought it up, arguing that his per-36 numbers might not apply at higher levels of minutes. Which is demonstrably not true. In a small sample to be sure, but there's no evidence of a decline. Nor should the issue of "extrapolating" to higher minutes be discussed at all, anyway. His production is what it is, you don't need to extrapolate anything to describe it. 

As to the second point, I don't know why you're talking about his shooting percentages in one category. He shoots 52% from the field when he plays 20+ minutes, in 52 career games, and the figure you refer to applies to 79 games which is not "vastly more" under any definition I can think of. (His points and rebounds in that bin, by the way, are 15 and 12 in per-36 terms.) You can split the numbers up other ways too and see differences. He shoots 47% as a starter and 45% as a reserve. He shoots 62% on Tuesdays and 43% on Saturdays. And?

Again, the point is simple: Nurkic has a record of production. It's about two full seasons' worth in the NBA.

And if you look at his production on the admittedly simple bases I mention, it's rare for young players to do what he has shown he can do. There are 3-4 such players per year, I checked. And based on that I'm saying it's on the high end. That's it.

Quite simply, there's zero reason to "pencil in" Nurkic for 16/11 unless you extrapolate his per-36 minute numbers (which you say you're not doing) or over-emphasize his performance in the seven career games that he's played 30 minutes in (which you say you're not doing).

When "penciling in" Nurkic for production, why not look at reality, which is that his career highs are 8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds with 2.0 turnovers. That's the player we'd be getting until proven otherwise, and no amount of moving goalposts changes that.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #53 on: January 21, 2017, 12:04:20 AM »

Offline The One

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2017
  • Tommy Points: 203
He has some nasty to him...I like it!

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #54 on: January 21, 2017, 12:08:11 AM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065

Quite simply, there's zero reason to "pencil in" Nurkic for 16/11 unless you extrapolate his per-36 minute numbers (which you say you're not doing) or over-emphasize his performance in the seven career games that he's played 30 minutes in (which you say you're not doing).

When "penciling in" Nurkic for production, why not look at reality, which is that his career highs are 8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds with 2.0 turnovers. That's the player we'd be getting until proven otherwise, and no amount of moving goalposts changes that.

I did neither of those things. Saying 16/11 per-36 puts it on a scale that allows comparisons to other players, if you put them on the same scale. I never said he'd actually play 36 minutes or actually put up 16/11 in those minutes. I'm talking about his actual production but with the necessary frame of reference.

Saying "8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds" is meaningless without benchmarking it to minutes played. It's a very simple point.

I mean I could have said "8/6 in 19 minutes per game" which is exactly the same thing. But most people have a harder time telling whether those numbers are good than they do if you put it in per-36 terms.

Maybe I should have said "per-36" rather than more casually calling it "in starter's minutes," but I was trying to avoid the term because it seems to sidetrack discussions, because people think you're extrapolating when you're not. Case in point.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 12:13:56 AM by Boris Badenov »

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #55 on: January 21, 2017, 12:22:10 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58546
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley

Quite simply, there's zero reason to "pencil in" Nurkic for 16/11 unless you extrapolate his per-36 minute numbers (which you say you're not doing) or over-emphasize his performance in the seven career games that he's played 30 minutes in (which you say you're not doing).

When "penciling in" Nurkic for production, why not look at reality, which is that his career highs are 8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds with 2.0 turnovers. That's the player we'd be getting until proven otherwise, and no amount of moving goalposts changes that.

I did neither of those things. Saying 16/11 per-36 puts it on a scale that allows comparisons to other players, if you put them on the same scale. I never said he'd actually play 36 minutes or actually put up 16/11 in those minutes. I'm talking about his actual production but with the necessary frame of reference.

Saying "8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds" is meaningless without benchmarking it to minutes played. It's a very simple point.

I mean I could have said "8/6 in 19 minutes per game" which is exactly the same thing. But most people have a harder time telling whether those numbers are good than they do if you put it in per-36 terms.

Your quote:

Quote
Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

Put another way:

Quote
we can pencil in [Nurkic] for 16/11

That's inaccurate. You can't pencil him in for that production, since he's never consistently maintained that production. You may as well say that we can pencil in Mickey for 12/8, or Gerald for 18/7.

Gerald averages 17.8 points per 36 minutes, both this season and for his career. When he plays "starter's minutes" he has averaged 17 ppg over his career. Should we then pencil him in for 17 ppg going forward? Or do we instead temper our expectations and note that he's never averaged 17 ppg in his career, making it silly to "pencil him in" for that mark?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #56 on: January 21, 2017, 12:24:46 AM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
I suppose one way to look at this this way - who would we rather have on the current celtics, nurkic or Amir? I would roll the dice on nurkic if that were the choice.

We might not even face that tradeoff. The question might be, would you rather have Zeller as your backup center with Terry Rozier as the 3rd PG, or Nurkic as your backup center with Demetrius Jackson as the 3rd PG?

These are good points, but there is just something really uninspiring about Nurkic.

Unless Nurkic has this unlocked potential that I just do not know about (certainly possible), I am not sure I even want to think about re-signing him to a huge deal during the big offseason of IT/AB/Smart.

I know Amir has his flaws, but I still like the idea of keeping him around with something like the room exception when we go over the salary cap this off-season.

Everyone is overthinking this.

He is a 7-footer who would instantly be the best rebounder on the team (ya know, like, what we really need right about now).  He is also not a black-hole offensively, and is a good passer. 

He is 22, signed for another year, and making less than $3M.  You could trade him straight up for James Young salary wise.  This is WAY better than trading for Bogut (and Bogus is a better player, don't get me wrong).  At least with Nurkic, you get another year. 

I don't think people realize how badly this team needs a capable big who can rebound off the bench.  They don't even have one in the starting lineup. 

But like I said before, it makes almost too much sense.

But he turns over the ball alot.

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2017, 12:30:21 AM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065

Quite simply, there's zero reason to "pencil in" Nurkic for 16/11 unless you extrapolate his per-36 minute numbers (which you say you're not doing) or over-emphasize his performance in the seven career games that he's played 30 minutes in (which you say you're not doing).

When "penciling in" Nurkic for production, why not look at reality, which is that his career highs are 8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds with 2.0 turnovers. That's the player we'd be getting until proven otherwise, and no amount of moving goalposts changes that.

I did neither of those things. Saying 16/11 per-36 puts it on a scale that allows comparisons to other players, if you put them on the same scale. I never said he'd actually play 36 minutes or actually put up 16/11 in those minutes. I'm talking about his actual production but with the necessary frame of reference.

Saying "8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds" is meaningless without benchmarking it to minutes played. It's a very simple point.

I mean I could have said "8/6 in 19 minutes per game" which is exactly the same thing. But most people have a harder time telling whether those numbers are good than they do if you put it in per-36 terms.

Your quote:

Quote
Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

Put another way:

Quote
we can pencil in [Nurkic] for 16/11


You're putting it another way. Not me.

If you say it your way, it changes the meaning completely. Which is what I just said in the post above. If you take out the reference frame of minutes it becomes meaningless.

I said what I said. It's correct. There can't be an argument here because I'm simply stating a fact about the data. Those are his actual numbers. I read them from the per-36 row for this year. You can go look them up. (Note that his actual numbers as a starter, and his actual numbers in 30-39 minutes, are different. So I clearly wasn't talking about them).

If you want to change what I said, and then argue about that, go ahead. But you're having an argument with someone else in your head, not me.


Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2017, 12:48:27 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58546
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley

Quite simply, there's zero reason to "pencil in" Nurkic for 16/11 unless you extrapolate his per-36 minute numbers (which you say you're not doing) or over-emphasize his performance in the seven career games that he's played 30 minutes in (which you say you're not doing).

When "penciling in" Nurkic for production, why not look at reality, which is that his career highs are 8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds with 2.0 turnovers. That's the player we'd be getting until proven otherwise, and no amount of moving goalposts changes that.

I did neither of those things. Saying 16/11 per-36 puts it on a scale that allows comparisons to other players, if you put them on the same scale. I never said he'd actually play 36 minutes or actually put up 16/11 in those minutes. I'm talking about his actual production but with the necessary frame of reference.

Saying "8.6 points and 6.2 rebounds" is meaningless without benchmarking it to minutes played. It's a very simple point.

I mean I could have said "8/6 in 19 minutes per game" which is exactly the same thing. But most people have a harder time telling whether those numbers are good than they do if you put it in per-36 terms.

Your quote:

Quote
Not sure we can pencil in Zizic for 16/11 (what Nurkic averages in starter minutes) the way you could with Nurkic.

Put another way:

Quote
we can pencil in [Nurkic] for 16/11


You're putting it another way. Not me.

If you say it your way, it changes the meaning completely. Which is what I just said in the post above. If you take out the reference frame of minutes it becomes meaningless.

I said what I said. It's correct. There can't be an argument here because I'm simply stating a fact about the data. Those are his actual numbers. I read them from the per-36 row for this year. You can go look them up. (Note that his actual numbers as a starter, and his actual numbers in 30-39 minutes, are different. So I clearly wasn't talking about them).

If you want to change what I said, and then argue about that, go ahead. But you're having an argument with someone else in your head, not me.

It's not correct. Those aren't his actual numbers. Period.

Quote
I didn't extrapolate per-36 numbers. Those are his numbers (15/12 actually) when he plays starter minutes (30-39).

Quote
Those are his actual numbers. I read them from the per-36 row for this year. You can go look them up. (Note that his actual numbers as a starter, and his actual numbers in 30-39 minutes, are different. So I clearly wasn't talking about them).

That's you, both times.

Quote
If you want to change what I said, and then argue about that, go ahead. But you're having an argument with someone else in your head, not me.

This must be what it's like to argue with Trump.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: ESPN: Nurkic to be traded by deadline
« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2017, 01:02:29 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Putting a bid on a guy that could help in our biggest areas of weakness, is still 21, and under contract for 2 more years is probably a good idea.  Hard to predict how well he'd do, but it would be a nice experiment.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC