What's new
By:

Is Derrick Favors the best player on this team?

Xsy said:
Right now, I'd say yes. He's been the leading scorer in 5 of our 10 games, and was sick for 3 of them.

Really, though, I feel like we'll have a different "best player" on the team every few weeks. I'm sure there will be stretches where Hayward is the best, where Burks is the best, where Gobert is the best, where Hood is the best.

We've got a good balance, here, and all of these guys are capable of going on a mean streak.
Click to expand...
Good post
 
dalamon said:
It's not silly-- our assessment of players don't always have to be reflective of their inner talents. It's a forum, dog. Gobert is as important as **** because our big-situation would become a ****ing nightmare if he left. I guess you could argue the same with Fav, but maybe you could make Hayward a small-ball PF.
Click to expand...

Our opinion of a player doesn't have to have anything to do with the player himself? You're right--this is a forum.
 
spycam1 said:
See, this is an explanation. But it's placing the entire value of a player's "importance" based on who their back up is, instead of on the player in discussion. "Importance" of a player then becomes a critique of depth; it really has nothing to do with the actual player, which is pretty silly. It just goes back to my point that discussing who the most "important" player is isn't a worth while discussion. Let's talk about who the best player on the team is. Period. If people want to say the depth at a certain position sucks, then just say that. What's the point of these mental semantics?

Of course, this is just one attempt at defining "importance." I think most people really have no idea what they mean by it when they use it as some sort of opposition to the word "best."

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Another way of differentiating: I think Hayward is better than Gobert but Gobert is more important (regardless of depth) because his skillet influences and rubs off on the rest of the team... And his skillset is more rare.

Imo Hayward is a better basketball player than rudy. But I think Rudy is more important and harder to replace
 
spycam1 said:
He's shooting .512 this year and shot .525 last year. In terms of FTs, last year he shot .669, compared to .667 this year. These numbers are nearly identical.

Someone recently posted his %s on midrange jumpers season by season, and it's noticeably higher (I wanna say it's a jump from about 42% to 47%, IIRC).

But yes, I want him to get more touches, too.
Click to expand...

That seems pretty intuitive. I tried to find this on nba/stats the other day but that website is so damn slow I couldn't load it. The guy looks automatic from the top of the key.
 
fishonjazz said:
Another way of differentiating: I think Hayward is better than Gobert but Gobert is more important (regardless of depth) because his skillet influences and rubs off on the rest of the team... And his skillset is more rare.

Imo Hayward is a better basketball player than rudy. But I think Rudy is more important and harder to replace
Click to expand...

I still think statements like these are completely vague. I don't see any difference between how you're using the word "important" vs how you're using the word "best."

The discussion is about who gives us the best chance of winning, regardless of how they go about accomplishing that. If you want to define that as being the best, or being the most important, then cool. The problem comes with acting like they're somehow different terms (when they're clearly synonymous) without providing an explanation as to how they're different. I don't think it accomplishes anything, and just makes the whole conversation abstract and useless. If I said that Gobert was the best player on the team, and that Hayward was the most important, and Favors was the most astounding, no one would have any idea what I was talking about. That seems to be what's happening with using all these synonyms as if they were clearly different in definition: no one understands what anyone else is saying, which makes the whole conversation pretty pointless.
 
franklin said:
That seems pretty intuitive. I tried to find this on nba/stats the other day but that website is so damn slow I couldn't load it. The guy looks automatic from the top of the key.
Click to expand...

I tried to find the post with no luck. I can't remember who posted it or in what thread, but I'm pretty sure he was at 47%.
 
spycam1 said:
I still think statements like these are completely vague. I don't see any difference between how you're using the word "important" vs how you're using the word "best."

The discussion is about who gives us the best chance of winning, regardless of how they go about accomplishing that. If you want to define that as being the best, being the most important, then fine. The problem comes with acting like they're somehow different terms (when they're clearly synonymous) without providing an explanation as to how they're different. I don't think it accomplishes anything, and just makes the whole conversation abstract and useless.
Click to expand...

It's Kinda bizarre how much this annoys you.
 
Hack said:
Totally disagree.

Gobert is so unique. You put him on any team and they instantly get better on defense.

It's not just because he replaced Kanter who was terrible. Gobert is actually an elite defender.
Click to expand...
This is what makes him most important, but not best. I said at the end of last year Faves would be tops. Said this after looking at his progression through the years. Look at the Clippers after DJ committed to Dallas. CP3 Blake and Rivers camped out at DJ's house, because they knew it would be disastrous if he left. Also look at GS's title run. Curry, obviously is there franchise but GS desperately needed his defense on LBJ and playmaking ability.

Gobert brings an element of winning to this team that enhances the other parts to this team. Take those pieces away and Gobert becomes less affective as a player. Take Gobert away and we are still dangerous as a team, but less affective due to having to work harder at the defensive end.


NAOS said:
good post, but how did he abuse Millsap?
Click to expand...
There was a five min stretch where faves posted him up 3-4 times in a row and scored every time. After that Favers didn't do much more post as this is a heavily wing oriented team. His oppertunities are somewhat limited on this team. Put him on a team like the griz and a few of those 20+ point games are 30 point games as he's not the focus of our offense.
spycam1 said:
People have yet to describe what they mean by "important" vs "best." I personally hate those type of discussions. I would say those words are synonyms in the context we're using here, and people act like they're very different without even an attempt at an explanation.

I remember Eric Spoelstra saying that Bosh was Miami's most important player when LeBron was there (lol).
Click to expand...
See my post above
franklin said:
He's had 3 monster games (26, 25, 23) and 3 horrible games (6,6,5) out of 10. How's that consistent?
Click to expand...
Two of the games he was sick and didn't play the second half in one. And the other game he never got into a game flow due to early and often foul trouble
 
I agree that Favors got the best of Millsap a few times. "Abused" is a hard word when you're applying it to a guy who scored more than Favors and had a ****ing excellent game. That's all.



(btw, I think "Anchorman" is a pretty good nickname for Paul. That's what the ATL broadcast guys are calling him).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top