NBA Thread
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
I guess people don't realize Pierce has played good defense; the Wizards are 7 points better per 100 possessions with him on the court. The Wiz defense was 3.5 points better with Ariza on the court last year.
Pierce is shooting 45% and 38% from 3. TS% of .583. Rebound rate of 8.9%. Stl%1.2%, turnover rate 11.3%. winshares/48 of .139
Ariza shot 46% and 41% from 3. TS% of .590. Rebound rate of 10.1%. Stl% 2.4%. Turnover rate 12.3% winshares/48 of .141
He's not really good. He's 4th or 5th wheel. He's played good defense. Hence why role players are easy to replace.
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
The NBA is actually probably the deepest it's been in terms of really good talent in a long, long time.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I wouldn't agree with gf that Pierce is easy to replace. He has value for a reason.
However, the fact that most teams have a guy similar to Pierce on their bench suggests that they aren't unicorns. You can find one every easily if you want to spend the money.
It's still not so deep where you can say a player the caliber of pierce is easy to replace.
But you have to be in a position where you can spend money and the right guy at the right position is available at the right time.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Source: John Hart
Pierce makes 5.3 million per year.
Wiz lost Ariza, didn't miss a step with Pierce. Rockets lost Parsons, didn't miss a step with Ariza. You can potentially find a viable SF with the talent (maybe different skillset) of Pierce easily. There are about 20 that you could sign for say 7-8 million or less that can give you equal value of Pierce.
Wiz lost Ariza, didn't miss a step with Pierce. Rockets lost Parsons, didn't miss a step with Ariza. You can potentially find a viable SF with the talent (maybe different skillset) of Pierce easily. There are about 20 that you could sign for say 7-8 million or less that can give you equal value of Pierce.
chop2chip
Well-known member
All that does is create a greater need to have even better players as your fourth or fifth best player.
chop2chip
Well-known member
The Jazz got some random Australian dude named Joe Ingles off waivers from the Clippers and he's done a good job filling that role.
Most teams do have that guy, but if you don't then you are screwed.
In a way, I think you guys both are right even though you are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
chop2chip
Well-known member
That's an insult to bench players everywhere.
The main point is if you have 2-3 stars, you can easily build up a competitive team. For one, every vet FA wants to sign their and will take a MLE. And finding guys that fits certain roles 3 and D/defensive stopper/rebounder/etc. isn't all that difficult. Thunder needed a backup PG and an offensive threat at center; they acquired that rather easily. Hell, look at the Rockets, they were able to build around Harden with spare parts outside of Howard
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
Yeah...most guys on their roster wouldn't be good bench players on good teams.
WHen tanking goes wrong. They've literally got nothing. Noel is pathetic.
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
Simmons talked about this on the BS Report, I think it was with Klosterman, it was really interesting. Basically Philly is modeling everything after Houston but Houston is only really good because OKC was dumb enough to trade Harden over 6.5 mil. Morey was on the verge of being fired and the tear it down to nothing strategy was failing.....until OKC saved them.
Makes a ton of sense. I think the Philly GM worked for Morey?