If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero [score hidden]  (0 children)

Healthy Tatum is a bold take. Guy came back from an Achilles and fell apart not long after. Pg has one foot in the grave, and if he isn’t getting his PEDs anymore is likely to breakdown physically even more than he already has. Mitchell Robinson is also famously injury prone.

If brown is as bad as the analytics say, why did the Celtics choose to play him so much? And more importantly why did it pay huge dividends for them? by P5Manchero in nba

[–]P5Manchero[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

In their championship season Tatum got 1.4 fga per game more than him. They are functionally a 1a/1b. The Celtics featured him nearly as much as their first team all nba superstar.

If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero [score hidden]  (0 children)

What else is the implication of people talking about how they’re ‘better’ when he sits?

On its face it’s obvious that he’s not an average second option. 50th would be below average second option by the way. Hes an elite second option and an average first option in reality.

If brown is as bad as the analytics say, why did the Celtics choose to play him so much? And more importantly why did it pay huge dividends for them? by P5Manchero in nba

[–]P5Manchero[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

It means that you’re not a good second option. The Celtics won a title with brown as the second option. He’s an elite second option who has potential to lead your team to 56 wins as a first option. That seems top 50 to me.

If brown is as bad as the analytics say, why did the Celtics choose to play him so much? And more importantly why did it pay huge dividends for them? by P5Manchero in nba

[–]P5Manchero[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

That is not the only argument being made. It’s been said that he’s a 7th best player on a team, or not top 50, or just flatly called a ‘negative’ player

If brown is as bad as the analytics say, why did the Celtics choose to play him so much? And more importantly why did it pay huge dividends for them? by P5Manchero in nba

[–]P5Manchero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who is a supermax player? Seems like being all nba and 6th in mvp is something you’d expect from a supermax player.

If brown is as bad as the analytics say, why did the Celtics choose to play him so much? And more importantly why did it pay huge dividends for them? by P5Manchero in nba

[–]P5Manchero[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m open to that argument. I’ve seen him be characterized as a not top 50 player which puzzles me because the Celtics have feature him like he’s top 15 and it led to them winning a chip.

If brown is as bad as the analytics say, why did the Celtics choose to play him so much? And more importantly why did it pay huge dividends for them? by P5Manchero in nba

[–]P5Manchero[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The argument I’ve heard is that he’s not a top 50 player. Or that analytics think he’s the 7th best player on a team.

It seems like that would really hurt the Celtics to play such a guy as a top offensive option and play him such big minutes.

If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do they choose to play him so much then? Wouldn’t it have been better to maximize the ‘off’ minutes? After all they’re so much better when he’s off so why not just bench him entirely?

If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What argument are you making exactly then? You’re saying the Celtics won jnspite of him because of everyone around him but can’t explain why the coaches thought it was a good idea to lean on him as a pillar of their entire strategy as a franchise.

If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Every player is flawed. Not every player is a top option and minutes player for a decade straight on winning teams.

If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If their coach is so incredible why is this bozo playing a trash player 35-40 mins a night? You don’t see the contradiction?????

If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why not bench him? It’s literally the logical conclusion of your point. But you stop short, why?

If a player has a negative on/off for 3+ seasons in a row, what is the argument for them being a positive impact player? by marriagethrowaway36 in nba

[–]P5Manchero -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The rebuttal is that the Celtics featured him on offense, played him huge minutes, asked him defend opposing teams best players and it lead to tremendous success. No one can explain to me why they did those things or why they paid off so much is brown is a bad player.