And the other constant is the stubborn people who refuse to let it go and keep poking sticks at the "stubborn people refusing to take their L"...
Ah the joys of TDOS.
Does Bagley remind you of Siakam?
- Thread starter KainLear
- Start date
And the other constant is the stubborn people who refuse to let it go and keep poking sticks at the "stubborn people refusing to take their L"...
Ah the joys of TDOS.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Superstars are at some point related back to long term production. Before you can consider that they have to be in that role first. He hasn't been. Should he be? Maybe, but this is the same logic that gets players like Harrison Barnes max contracts or allows oneself to be conviced that the Kyle Kuzmas of the world are superstars. Close to it on a good day, but probably no cigar. You have a situation where two teams are polar opposites of one another. The Raps used the matchup to their advantage and now the Warriors are in check to answer or are forced to match up with them. Clearly you'd take Siakam over Bagley. It's not impossible that Siakam has a better individual career but again, I'll put my eggs in the Bagley basket.
Chupacabra
Starter
The Kings being better when Bagley was on the court was a nightly theme all year. Didn't we struggle to win games when Bagley was injured? I get that advanced stats are interesting, but if they say that Bagley didn't help the team win then you can just as well not even look at them.
kingsfan1984
Starter
I thought the intention of this thread was to compare the TYPE of player Bagley will be i.e. Siakam? Is Bagley going to be LIKE Siakam?
To me it was never the best player comparison for Bagley. Giannis is a better comparison IMO
To me it was never the best player comparison for Bagley. Giannis is a better comparison IMO
jcassio
Starter
I think you get to wear the “stubborn” badge this month.
These advanced stats imply just what I said before. Rookies often show raw talent but due to lack of experience, they often dont contribute to winning. Fox was like that last year, raw talent but not contributing to winning. That was the case with Bagley this year. Colin Sexton had the 2nd worst rpm amongst point guards with -5,33. Kevin Knox was last of SF's with over -7. Bagley and Giles were among lasts of PF's and Mo Bamba was last of all centers. Certainly looks like that there is some truth to this rookies dont often contribute to winning -argument. For more proof, 2017 fox was at the bottom of PG's in rpm, Monk was last of SG's, Josh Jackson 2nd to last of SF's, Dragan Bender, Zach Collins, TJ Leaf all bottom 5 of pf's, Jarret Allen close to bottom of centers.
I would recomend you to familiarize yourself with these advanced metrics, how they work, what they indicate and how reliable they are. Usually when multiple advanced metrics all imply that a rookie didnt really contribute to winning, its more likely than not that these metrics are correct in that case. When all the metrics imply that a veteran player had superior contribution compared to a rookie, its probably smarter not to go 100% against them and claim the total opposite.
Its easier to see raw talent with eye test than these hundreads of tiny actions within a game where more experienced players tend to do the right thing more often and quicker and do the "wrong" thing less often. Thats why one should use these advanced metrics and the conclusions/"results" that has been drawn from collecting this huge amount of data (like rookies often not contribute to winning) and use them together with the eye test.
Last edited:
Chupacabra
Starter
Now you're just trolling. Do you have an actual response to the point I made, or is this just frustration because I won't agree with you?
jcassio
Starter
Yes, here’s my response: I don’t agree or disagree with you. I think a few posters in this thread have exposed themselves as being too stubborn for their own good, or for the good of a healthy discussion. No doubt you disagree.
Chupacabra
Starter
Draymond was DPOY 2 years ago. While I think hes a good defensive player, I didnt think he deserved it. Granted, Siakam is playing well against a good defensive player. However, you're sensationalizing the performance when you assert that it was done against the best defensive player in the world. I mean, at least my arguments are honest.
Chupacabra
Starter
I have said that I think Siakam is good. Been saying it in almost every post on this topic. There is no doubt that Siakam is a good player.
You ever hear of Robert Burns?You know damn well that Draymond is one of the best defensive big men in the game. You're just arguing absolutes at this point.
Chupacabra
Starter
I think the problem is that you and other posters are very emotionally tied to your opinions and believe very strongly in them, so when someone disagrees with you it evokes an emotional reaction from you. Draymond is a good man defender and usually switches well; he is not the DPOY. To say he is DPOY is dishonest. This is objectively true.
He may not be the reigning DPOY but he has been the DPOY. I think you're picking nits and arguing semantics.
Chupacabra
Starter
I dont think its any different than referring to a player as the MVP when they are two years removed from having won MVP. Its an attempt to increase the value, slight as it may be.
One side has a mountain of data/facts/productive knowledge and making intelligent informed claims about certain players(in this case, Siakam). The other side has their own eyeballs and biases.
Whose arguing an "opinion" again?
I'm extremely comfortable calling him the best defensive player in basketball. His ability to hedge out on the perimeter and defend the perimeter and the rim at an elite level is a HUGE reason the Warriors are the dynasty they are. He's the sole reason the death LU and the Hampton 5 can exist. Kawhi defense took a step back this year (although still elite) while Gobert still has trouble when he gets isolated in the PnR and has to defend in space and leave the rim.
At the very worst, he's a top 3 defensive player in the game.
Chupacabra
Starter
Everyone is arguing in favor of their opinion. This player comparison doesn't quite lend itself to the open and closed case that other more lopsided comparisons might, regardless of the stats or eye test that is being applied. You have a bias towards using advanced stats over eye tests. I think you weight advanced stats too heavily. Perhaps it's the case that you don't have as accurate of an eye test as I do. Maybe I have one of the best eye tests on here. How would anyone know? What's certain is that neither eye tests nor advanced stats are the end-all, be-all measurements that define who the better player is.
I've made a great point to refute the idea that I'm simply being biased, only one person has semi-addressed it. Now, if I said that Bagley is definitely head and shoulders better than Luka Doncic, you could make a great case that I'm being biased. But I don't think that. What I have also said is that I think that Doncic and Trae young are better than Siakam, right now. Two other strong rookies who do not play for the Kings, both better. That's no slight on Siakam; those guys are really good. According to my wacky eye tests all three of Bagley, Doncic, and Young are better at basketball than Siakam, right now.
Siakam is playing great and will probably continue to play well for a long time. He is doing it for a very good team and getting lots of shine. I'm happy for him.
Last edited:
Chupacabra
Starter
Extremely comfortable? Top 3 at worst? Good enough for all defensive second team. I put him behind Giannis, George, Leonard, Gobert, Embiid, and Beverly at the very least. I'm comfortable with "really good defensive player". Why be so hyperbolic?
The point is that Green isn't the reigning DPOY, and it is very likely that he won't be this year either. The semantic argument is not pointing this out as an objective fact; the semantic argument is trying to unnecessarily inflate the performance of Siakam by attempting to anchor a past DPOY award to a current player as though they still hold that title. It also slights other players who are more deserving.
The logic also follows that we would look at Bagley's performances against Green as well, since we're comparing Bagley and Siakam. But that wasn't even attempted. He who brought up the scenarios in which Siakam was guarded by Green, as well as those who support this as a metric for this argument, all share the responsibility of comparing it to Bagley v Green scenarios in order to use it as part of a credible, non-biased argument. That was not done, which reveals the bias.
When literally every advanced metrics suggest that the veteran player contributed significantly more to winning than the rookie, your argument to support your opinion is pretty weak. Metrics alone or eye test alone are not end all be all but you seem to be the only one that only use eye test alone and completely disregard all the metrics that unanimously indicate literally the opposite what you are arguing. When your argument is basically that advanced metrics are completely wrong, you have so weak argument that you are not in a position to claim people diasgreing with you are either trolling or too much emotionally tied to their opinions.
jcwkings
All-Star
Bagley isn't as mobile defensively, but he is only 20 so strength and core work could improve that. He will also have to improve his handle quite a bit to be the type of driver Siakam is. I think we'll see next season with a summer of work what Bagley can start to become. As of now he is a post scorer/energy guy, but he did flash raw ball skills that say he can become much more.
Chupacabra
Starter
Ive used the words "trolling" and "emotionally tied to" to describe posts that say things like "you know damn well that Green is one of the best defensive players in the game" and "quit being stubborn". Im not using that phrasing to respond to arguments based on advanced metrics in general. I'm accustomed to using statistics and results of studies in arguments outside of basketball, so I get what you mean when you say I have a weak argument. I dont get the same satisfied feeling when I have to use an eye test versus citing a study when arguing a different topic. I dont think that advanced stats can be applied to basketball arguments with the same degree of credibility as can the citation of empirically collected data to things that are not sports.
I think there is a good reason why I very rarely, if ever, hear former NBA players talk about advanced stats. They dont do it in interviews. Player analysts dont talk about them much at all. The same with coaches. Mike Krzyzewski doesnt praise or covet players because of their advanced stats. Most of the analysis being done on individual players is based on qualitative observations. Im not a former NBA player, but I'm doing the same thing. It's not to say that advanced stats are meaningless, but to use them as though the argument that they support cant be disputed is a fallacy. everyone should be able to see that.
I watch Bagley and Siakam play. I look at how skilled i percieve them to be, their strengths and weaknesses, how theyre used, how they affect their teammates on the floor, how they affect their opponents on the floor, how their teams and opposing teams adapt their coaching schemes, and I come away believing my eyes when they tell me Bagley is the better player, right now.
Former players and their opinions have become more and more irrelevant to me, at least in a sense that being a former player doesnt automatically make his evaluation correct. Even some smart players like Paul Pierce seem to lack the ability to analyze the game. In Nfl you hear current and former players saying stuff like "we need to establish the run" even though all the statistics show that passing is so much more important and run success doesnt correlate to winning and so on.
I completely understand that advanced metrics are not some holy truth but if the argument is that they are basically worthless, then I would disagree wholeheartedly. If you look at stuff like RPM, WS, VORP for the past years you can see that the best and most impactful players are usually on top of those things and very rarely if ever you find a player at the bottom that really has contributed to winning more than lets say the 30th ranked player. These metrics are pretty consistent and they give some solid guidelines on where a player approximately ranks in the context of contributing to winning.
That still sounds to me like evaluating on who has more raw talent. I see a lot of raw talent on Bagleys game. On defense a lot of great tools but still inexperienced and tons of small mistakes. Same thing with offense. Tons of raw talent but still a rookie and not yet "a winning player". I check the advanced metrics and they agree with what I personally see.
On the other hand there is a guy like Siakam that isnt flashy, doesnt have that superstar potential but does a lot of things well and correctly. Smart defender, can execute coverages and rotations and can switch effectively. Offensively makes the right pass, doesnt stop the ball movement, provides some spacing and cutting ect. Looks to me like he contributes to winning a lot and the metrics agree with me.
DesertFox
Starter
I compare them the way I would compare Blake and Draymond. Very different players, but their value can be argued.
I would trade Bagley for Siakam, and would be willing to trade for the next 5 years of Siakam vs Bagley's. Siakam has made insane jumps, and while Bagley is capable, he hasn't done it yet. I am hopeful Bagley fulfills his potential, but have seen enough basketball to know there can be a wide range of outcomes for a young player.
I would trade Bagley for Siakam, and would be willing to trade for the next 5 years of Siakam vs Bagley's. Siakam has made insane jumps, and while Bagley is capable, he hasn't done it yet. I am hopeful Bagley fulfills his potential, but have seen enough basketball to know there can be a wide range of outcomes for a young player.
Livinthedream
All-Star
Talking about which player is better is subjective. One could argue that Siakim is better because he wears a headband. Wearing a headband is a fact. How much of a deciding factor that is is subjective.
While advanced basketball stats may be factually derived, they lack nuance and omit "facts" that the creator did not find relevant to the equation. What constitutes a win share, for example, is subjective and therefore an opinion.
The debate is good. I don't think anyone is being stubborn.
While advanced basketball stats may be factually derived, they lack nuance and omit "facts" that the creator did not find relevant to the equation. What constitutes a win share, for example, is subjective and therefore an opinion.
The debate is good. I don't think anyone is being stubborn.
macadocious
Starter
Which player is better right now is not subjective.
Who may become better is.
Why is this a thing?
Who may become better is.
Why is this a thing?
King Baller
All-Star
How good would Pascal be if Kawhi was not on the Raptors? If Kawhi was not on the Raptors would this affect the other Raptors advanced stats? How about Gasol, Lowry and Ibaka?
I am not saying Pascal is not a good player. I am saying Kawhi, Gasol and Lowry draw a lot of attention and allow Pascal better looks than he would get on say the Kings. How would Pascal look if he started for the Kings?
Conversely how would Bagley look on the Raptors? How would Bagley look on this current Raptors team if he was in his 3rd season?
Looking forward to tonight's game and I hope the Raptors play a great game!
I am not saying Pascal is not a good player. I am saying Kawhi, Gasol and Lowry draw a lot of attention and allow Pascal better looks than he would get on say the Kings. How would Pascal look if he started for the Kings?
Conversely how would Bagley look on the Raptors? How would Bagley look on this current Raptors team if he was in his 3rd season?
Looking forward to tonight's game and I hope the Raptors play a great game!
TDOS
jcassio
Starter
Good points. But I think you're being stubborn!
