the game is played on two ends, and his offensive numbers weren't that awful, really. guys like that make your team better, thus they're worth money. it's appropriate that this conversation is happening in the clarkson thread--what if he committed to the defensive end like matthews? if anyone could do it, more people would, but guys who bring it defensively every night, every play are rare indeed. and valuable.
He's got a tremendous metabolism and that trainer probably has him working with a nutritionist to really beef him up. I'm not sure this gain is sustainable because he just burns so many calories naturally, but it's DAMN impressive he's able to put that weight on while not gaining a lot of fat. Most of us can make gains like that muscularly but would have to put on some fat to make it happen. I'm not convinced he's gained more than 3-5 pounds of fat with that muscle.
You are still evaluating Wes based on what he was pre-achillie injury and not for what he is today. Last yrs Wes declined offensively and defensively. He makes 17+mill per yr. He is not worth that contract presently. Yes every team does need a Wes type player but i cant agree present day Wes was good for he was paid
his defense looked the same to me. his percentages were slightly down. i'd take him at his salary no questions asked. no way dallas would dump him, though, so it's moot. but winning teams have those guys. everyone thought dallas would finish at the bottom of the conference last year. i hope the lakers can find a couple folks like this via trade (difficult, as teams don't move these guys often) or FA.
Wes was seriously not the same player pre-injury, but he might become that again. I suppose Parsons is a similar case, but he has even more injury history.
almost right on his career averages for everything but shooting percentage, and this was less than a year removed from achilles surgery. i really wouldn't say he was seriously not the same player. he looked very similar to me. more importantly, part of his value is the leadership/locker room presence. i'd gladly take him.
No. I wanted to believe it, but you can't believe it. Per 36 minutes start to tell the story: 13.3 points (down from 15.5 career and 17+ the past two seasons) 3.2 rebounds (down from 3.4 career and 3.7+ the past two) 2.1 dimes (down from 2.3 career and 2.5+ the past three) Percentages 38.8 FG% (down from 43.5 career and 43.6+ the past three) 36.0 3pt% (down from 38.7 career and 38.2+ every other season) Advanced Stats 105 ORtg (down from 112 career and 114+ the past two) 10.9 PER (down from 14.1 career and 15.7+ the past two) 3.7 Win Shares (down from 6.2 per season in Portland) .067 WS/48 (down from .112 career and .142 the past two) 1.6 VORP (down from 1.9+ each of the past six seasons and 3+ the past two) 53.2 TS% (down from 57.1 carer and 57.4+ the past three) 49.8 eFG% (down from 52.9 career and 54.0+ the past three)
Definitely agree with the underlined statement, but its way too early on whether or not he will be the best player on the team again next year. Randle, Russell, Ingram, or FA could say otherwise.
the percentages i granted, which i'm guessing drive the PER (about which i don't care). i don't like per 36 for a player who plays 34mpg most years, as it's going to overweight production in his rookie year (under 25mpg). just using the counting stats is fine in this case, imo (i actually don't like per 36 for any reason due to its implicit assumptions). winshares are affected by actual wins correct? in any case, what i see is a guy who's been a 14/3/2 guy his whole career and was a 12.5/3/2 guy last year. i don't like individual defensive metrics (are any really that good?), but my eye told me he was the same dude on that end. he took the toughest assignment on the perimeter pretty much every night for heavy minutes. so, did he shoot worse? yes. was it still better than anything the lakers had? pretty close, right? add in that he can defend and is a great veteran locker room presence, and i pay his salary.
Defensive stats the past three years: He was 60th in DRPM last season, at -1.32, out of 97 SGs who qualified. That is bottom 40%. By comparison, he was 4th in 2014-15 at +3.30. That was elite. He was 31st in 2013-14 at -1.08. That was top 45% among those qualified.
The eye test DOES matter. I really believe that. I haven't watched him play. But all the numbers suggest otherwise.
as i said before, i don't like any of the individual defensive metrics. one (this very one, iirc) had harden near the top of the league a couple years ago. people can crap on qualitative observation, but it still has a place--maybe a large one--in player evaluation. advanced stats on their own have plenty of spectacular failures, as you well know. so an argument based solely on this is no better than an argument based solely on the "eye test". anyway, since the argument is that matthews is a bad offensive player, here are the stats from a couple other guys currently making or about to make his salary: 11.5/5/2 on 44/36 (k. bazemore) PER 13 11/5/1 on 39/39 (d. carroll) PER 12 now, i'd take all three at 15-17 per, numbers be damned. because they bring other things to the table. i HAVE watched a lot of matthews, and the only real difference is that he didn't shoot as well. part of that was dallas using him in different ways (and not having a lob man to pull the defense in), and part of that was probably lingering conditioning issues from the injury. but the original premise of this mini-argument was that he was SERIOUSLY degraded by the injury. i disagree. i might go as far as to say he would have been the best all around player on the lakers last year. anyway, back to clarkson: is there no concern that the added upper body weight will open him up to the possibility of injury? hope he's been adding to the base, too. thick and solid and all.
Main concern is if he's working on his defense. Getting thick and solid is nice and all but if he's constantly getting beat, maybe he should redirect his focus a bit.
