Reply With Quote
if we didnt trade parker when he was TOSB i dont see us trading mills, unfortunately
I don't think anyone would want him playing starter minutes.
The only two starters worthy of playing "starter minutes" are LaMarcus and healthy Kawhi -- and to a lesser extent Danny when he's locked in. I would only start Bertans or Kyle at the 4 to balance out the rotation. That doesn't mean I'd want either to play " starter minutes". I think a 20 minute role for Bertans or Kyle is great. I think Spurs will need to trade one of Kyle or Davis if they smell the roses and look to trade Patty to free up minutes for Murray, White ....and when Spurs are fully healthy -- free up minutes for Forbes.
I don't see Spurs hanging on to both Kyle and Davis after this season anyway. May as well move one if it means Patty is off the books. I'd prefer trading Davis personally if all money were equal.
The
if we didnt trade parker when he was TOSB i dont see us trading mills, unfortunately
Lame attempt at an ad homenim. There's room for Bertans, Gay and Anderson to all play if they don't play a guard between Manu and Patty. Just a cursory examination of my posts talking about the rotation show that I consider Bertans, Joff, Murray, Paul and Forbes essentially fighting for one spot.
He's just upset because he knows the only possible way Bertans could have a meaningful role on this team when healthy, is if he usurps his precious Anderson in the rotation.
Then again, you're the same guy who turtled into the "Thad Young is a small-forward" position, so I am not surprised you see things so inflexibly.
Bonner could actually play his position on both ends, which is something Bertans hasn't show he can do consistently. Davis is better in a lot of ways that don't matter without a better foundation. Dude is too old to just assume he will clean up the holes in his game.
Since when is 25 old?
And every role player has holes in their games, that's why their role players. That's why Bonner was a role player -- he had holes too and was a very easy cover in the playoffs against prepared teams ( check out his playoff numbers vs. his regular season numbers).
It might amaze you, but Joff as a 26-year-old big should be earlier in his development curve than Davis as a 25-year-old shooter. I know Joff is terrible and Bertans has more hope, but the point is that youth isn't good enough to justify giving a guy minutes.
Only when he's hitting shots at a good clip. Even then, it's close when both guys shoot well. Davis is only viable because of the changes to the modern NBA. No way could he have survived if he had to check the Randolphs and Odoms on the other end like Matt had to.Bertans >>> Bonner
It's a "lie" to say I said Bertans has been negative on the year. I can read just like you can. I said when he's been pulled early it's because he was a negative. That's the principle reason why his minutes are so sporadic. When you only play a guy when he's playing well, you'll skew his numbers toward the good side of the spectrum.Also, it is a lie that Bertans has been a negative impact player. He has a positive 1.6 BPM and positive 0.4 VORP.
I'm "acting like" Bertans has been garbage in those "five minutes or less" games. Again, there's no evidence that Bertans is a rhythm player who plays better the longer he's out on the court, he should have the same rate stats no matter the mpg split. He doesn't, though. He's about half as effective in his low minute games than he is in his high-minute games. You proposed one explanation that I think is faulty for the reasons I've already outlined. Mine seems to fit better with the "eye-test" explanation that his minutes depend on his performance, not vice versa.And lastly, this season Bertans has 20 games of 5 minutes or less, and that's only because the Spurs have been plagued with injuries. If not, he would have played even less. That's not giving the guy enough opportunities. And in the opportunities he did have he did more than OK. I don't know why you are acting as if he has been complete garbage.
25 is old for a perimeter player. It's not old for a traditional big. Bertans has been a pro for going on a decade now. He shouldn't still be a project. There's no reasonable explanation why he's not at least a 6-9 Gary Neal at this point.
DAF86 argued he should start... which I was neutral about. I had no argument for or against... whatever makes the team better. However, watching him on the bench with his surgically repaired knee heavily wrapped after having played 30 minutes the last game, which was 2 days ago was telling for me in terms of his body's resilience. After 2 days rest that knee is acting up. It wouldn't surprise me if that is the reason he played 16 or so minutes, maybe 20 is the ideal max he should play from a physical standpoint... I don't think his body can handle more. So I was responding to that statement DAF86 made, and obviously anyone who agreed with him.
I agree with you, they only can afford one of the two unless Rudy opts out and wants out, which I don't expect. Rudy has had an ok first season, but I think his body is going to require Pop's minutes management from now on to extend his career. I expect him to value the Spurs organization rest/injury management and opt in. In the end it may end up being whoever is most affordable this summer between Kyle and Davis, and whoever has the best playoff showing that they prioritize to keep, so they may want to hold on to both guys for now and make that decision later. That is if they aren't trading anyone and mostly standing pat.
I still think Davis is a long shot to stay. He's definitely a talented shooter, but he wasn't getting playing time at all when the team was at its best earlier this season. They were quite fine without him until Rudy got hurt. If that knee of Davis' is acting up, and they think he won't be durable... paying to keep him, when they would already have a brittle Rudy Gay in the team (and an injury prone Kawhi Leonard in a potential supermax) is not smart. I tend to think due to all these factors they likely prioritize Kyle (he's more versatile position wise, and has been durable).
Davis has been shooting well though and the team is very lacking in good bigs this season, so dealing him is a current blow. I don't think they can afford to deal either guy until they get fully healthy or get someone back that can play their spots.
Otherwise I agree with your points though.
He's not a project. He's a young role player with still some sharpening to do.
I think Bertans as a guy who plays the last three minutes of the first three quarters and the first two or three of the fourth with some situation subbing makes the most sense. Those are perfectly fine tenth man minutes.
That's a pointless semantic argument. He's a player who has about as many bad games as he does good games and who needs to develop skills to be able to fundamentally play a position. However you want to categorize that, he's too old to be there.
I specifically said meaningful, as in something more than the spot minutes available for the 10th man when fully healthy.
Digging deep into the archives, I see. How long you been waiting to pull that one out? I remember saying Young was drafted as an SF first, which he was. This was also probably about 3 years ago, when he was obviously younger and before the game had completely shifted to Warriors ball. Clearly, he's a PF in today's game.
First off, Bertans hardly has had opportunities and he's been a victim of the quick hook Pop gave Splitter for 2 years.
Second, do you not realize that every role player has as many bad games as good games on offense? That's why they are role players. That's why its imperative that role players can't be liabilities on defense because that's the one side of the floor that CAN be consistent -- which is invaluable.
When Bertans gets the green light to play through mistakes and sees 16+ minutes a night he's averaging 11.8 points, 3.4 boards, .8 blocks on 52% shooting and 43% from 3. This is in 14 games... 14 of the 39 games he's appeared in he's seen more than 16 minutes. On the othe r end of the spectrum, in 14 of the 39 games he's seen 5 minutes or less ( mop up duty/ irrational dumb quick hooks).
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 01-12-2018 at 05:39 PM.
Bertans wasn't even getting minutes in a rotation without Kawhi, yet you think Pop would look to give him Anderson's spot? Makes no sense. Pop will likely only have one designated shooter in the regular rotation, if that. If it's Forbes, it's likely not Bertans. Back in the olden days, Bryn being a guard and Davis a forward would matter, but it doesn't now with how many guys Pop has who can play the middle positions.
No. But you've always been keen to have inconsistent standards when it comes to defining where a guy is supposed to play. You simultaneously argued that Thad was an SF because of his size alone and that Turner was a two-guard because of his skill alone. It made no sense because using either standard consistently wouldn't support your view. When I kept bringing that up, you turtled into the phrase "natural three" and "natural two" with no desire to explain beyond repe ion. Definitely the most surreal exchange we've had, and why I've been reluctant to get into discussions about positions since.
This isn't a remotely good comparison. , even Murray is a better comparison to Splitter than Davis is.
Role players who are inconsistent (especially when the bad parts are abysmal) usually get inconsistent minutes to match. If we were just talking about Davis' shooting going up and down, that would be fine. We're not. We;re talking about Bertans making awful decisions on O combined with a tremendous lack of defensive ap ude. There's very little excuse for those when they happen. Pop has benched better players than Bertans for those lapses.Second, do you not realize that every role player has as many bad games as good games on offense? That's why they are role players. That's why its imperative that role players can't be liabilities on defense because that's the one side of the floor that CAN be consistent -- which is invaluable.
More like, when Davis doesn't make those mistakes, he gets 16-plus minutes and has good stats. Again, if he were simply a good player getting inconsistent minutes, his rate stats between the 14 games you're highlighting and the other 25 wouldn't be nearly a factor of 2-to-1.When Bertans gets the green light to play through mistakes and sees 16+ minutes a night he's averaging 11.8 points, 3.4 boards, .8 blocks on 52% shooting and 43% from 3. This is in 14 games... 14 of the 39 guys he's appeared in he's seen more than 16 minutes. 14 of the 39 games he's seen 5 minutes or less ( mop up duty only-- which is like zero opportunity).
No, I don't . . . but there's still a better chance of that than him benching a veteran.
I did explain, by saying they were drafted as SF and SG first, respectively.
You've been reluctant to get into discussions period, which is ironic given how argumentative (and serious) you are.
If Bertans had a midrange game he’d play more..
I guess. But there's no much of a chance of him making such a big change either way.
Even if that were true (which is probably wasn't), that would be pointless to a discussion four years into their careers in which they had already been playing in their current positions for a long time. The point wasn't that you believed what you believed. It's that you turtled and just kept repeating "natural position" like it was some self-evident standard.I did explain, by saying they were drafted as SF and SG first, respectively.
I've been posting at a rate like five times yours. I have little problem getting into discussions on topics that interest me (including enough with you that you seem weird making this point). I usually don't go for the doom and gloom threads where you do most of your work. So that might be biasing your view a bit.You've been reluctant to get into discussions period, which is ironic given how argumentative (and serious) you are.
Bertans just needs a better BBIQ to play more. Otherwise, he'll just be a situational shooter. That's a fine role for him to play and master first, but some folks seem offended at the suggestion.
If'd he'd rebound, he'd play. But he's got a TRB% of 8.6 That's an SG, not a PF, stretch or not...
He doesn't and especially didn't do either of those to start the year. Just go back and read those game threads where everyone was pissed at Davis leaving guys open or turning it over.
It was true and the fact that you're questioning it without having any knowledge of it is further proof of you being argumentative. No, the point was and is, it was their natural position. Then the game evolved and they, like many, moved up a position. End of story.
Nah, you rarely respond when I quote you, clearly trying to avoid a potential back and forth; the type I otherwise see you repeatedly flood the board with. Yeah, I do tend to post in the realistic, non blind faith threads.
Too good of a shooter to not be playing.
He had a good game as the 3rd big tonight. Still just the 1 rebound but whatever, I think he's in the rotation to stay.
I'm stunned a guy that size can only get zero or one rebound a game.
amazing, some of us already knew their potential since Partizan, but it's good to see him put on the court by SA, his gravity is the most important, really opens the game to others players
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
