TJ Warren now

[ColdPickleNachos]

Why the tone? If we were two Suns fans having a conversation in person, you wouldn't speak to me like this, so why do it on this message board? It's incredibly frustrating.

I said "Sure it is" in response to player ratings being subjective. I would happily speak that way to you in person.

If, after having done so, you repeated what I said in an effort to mock my point, our personal interaction would likely change in tone and demeanor.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Not sure its worth arguing any more. Stats can lie. That’s pretty obvious.

 

[ColdPickleNachos]

I'm going to stop responding now, as I am going down the road of myself bringing the animus to this board I was trying to address.

Let's leave it at this:

1. I believe player rankings are largely subjective.
2. I am happy to have TJ Warren on the Suns.
3. This conversation is clearly not going down a constructive path. I apologize for my contribution to that.

 

[hcsilla]

To the topic at hand, I don't see real plus-minus as a definitive judgment of a player's worth, even when factoring in outlier performances.

Robert Covington is 6th in the league, at any position, on this list. David West is 17th. These are role players on elite teams, while Warren is the #2 option on a bad team. Given this and several other trends from the RPMs listed, it seems an ill-fitted tool for determining a player's objective overall value or ranking at a position in the league.

I don't think so.

West is just a rotation player on an elite team, so in his case RPM can be misleading.

Covington is one of the top 3 and D players, plays +32 min. for a good team, averages 14 PPG on 58% TS.

Warren is less effective on offense and a much weaker defender.

I didn't use RPM as a Holy Bible but it is a good tool (combining with others) to determire which player is more valuable.

For example in case of Covington and Warren, it is obviously Covington.

 

[Covert Rain]

So Derrick Jones Jr. is better than Warren according to the rankings. LOL

This. Stats are an indicator but they can be extremely misleading depending on your team, scheme and coaching. There is definitely an element of subjectivity in rankings.

 

[SirStefan32]

This is definitely an interesting phenomenon that is somewhat recurring. It was the same thing with Bledsoe, Dragic, and Bell, Marion, and a few other before. It is amazing to me that knowledgeable people can look at the same player, look at the same stats and to one group he is a top-15 SF and to the other group he is a top five.

 

[3rdside]

This is definitely an interesting phenomenon that is somewhat recurring. It was the same thing with Bledsoe, Dragic, and Bell, Marion, and a few other before. It is amazing to me that knowledgeable people can look at the same player, look at the same stats and to one group he is a top-15 SF and to the other group he is a top five.

So consider his contract as an added dimension:

“Warren’s rank in this league as a player is (arguably) hard to determine; by some metrics he’s a top 10 player by others he’s not, but if you also consider the value of his contract, and length of service due under that contract, dollar for dollar he’s one of the most valuable players in the league”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elindholm]

So consider his contract as an added dimension:

“Warren’s rank in this league as a player is (arguably) hard to determine; by some metrics he’s a top 10 player by others he’s not, but if you also consider the value of his contract, and length of service due under that contract, dollar for dollar he’s one of the most valuable players in the league”.

"One of the most..." never does anything for me because it doesn't say one of the how many most. Is Warren one of the 200 most valuable players in the league? Sure. One of the 10 most? No. So now there's a whole additional layer of confusion about how many players are included under the umbrella "one of the most."

You could have two people who agree precisely on Warren's value, but still disagree on whether he qualifies by the "one of the most" language. Heck, Trump is one of the best Presidents in U.S. history, if you say one of the 45 best.

It's a shame that Bill Simmons doesn't do his NBA Trade Value column anymore, because he made an attempt to get to exactly this question. His analyses were biased, but at least they were a starting point. If Simmons were to do that column now, would Warren crack the top 50? I'd lean toward No, but it's a close call.

 

[hcsilla]

What pick in this year's draft would Warren net if the Suns would put him on the market?

 

[ColdPickleNachos]

What pick in this year's draft would Warren net if the Suns would put him on the market?

As a guess...mid-lottery. On his contract, I think he's worth a lot. I doubt anyone is trading out of the top 6 (maybe 7) in this stacked class for anything short of an all-star, but I think he could fetch a pick between 7-10.

Incidentally, I wouldn't trade him for a pick unless it was top 6 (maybe 7). We don't need more raw prospects unless they are potential franchise-changers (of which this draft has a shocking amount).

 

[3rdside]

"One of the most..." never does anything for me because it doesn't say one of the how many most. Is Warren one of the 200 most valuable players in the league? Sure. One of the 10 most? No. So now there's a whole additional layer of confusion about how many players are included under the umbrella "one of the most."

You could have two people who agree precisely on Warren's value, but still disagree on whether he qualifies by the "one of the most" language. Heck, Trump is one of the best Presidents in U.S. history, if you say one of the 45 best.

It's a shame that Bill Simmons doesn't do his NBA Trade Value column anymore, because he made an attempt to get to exactly this question. His analyses were biased, but at least they were a starting point. If Simmons were to do that column now, would Warren crack the top 50? I'd lean toward No, but it's a close call.

I don't buy that my deliberately general generalisation (!) doesn't make sense - one of the best means one of the best (in the upper percentile of a data set, to get specific).


I would have thought a metric like:

PER x Value of Contract x Length of Contract Remaining

Would give a pretty good idea of what's what?


And i'd bet Warren is easily a top 50 player based on this.

Considering the link below that shows PER for the current season, filtered by Minutes Played > 800 (click on the PER column header to rank by this), he's top 50 already - 41 to be exact - and considering Warren's contract, he is surely "one of the best":

https://www.basketball-reference.co...7.9&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=800&order_by=ws

 

[hsandhu]

What pick in this year's draft would Warren net if the Suns would put him on the market?

What pick would Covington or ariza get?

Congratulations on posing a question that ends up losing your own argument.

 

[3rdside]

What pick in this year's draft would Warren net if the Suns would put him on the market?

For a really general metric, I really like this measure.

 

[devilalum]

Lotto teams would never give up their pick for a role player. Contenders don’t have a high enough pick to get it done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elindholm]

I don't buy that my deliberately general generalisation (!) doesn't make sense - one of the best means one of the best (in the upper percentile of a data set, to get specific).

The "upper percentile" means the top 1%. By that standard, Warren is not one of the best.

Considering the link below that shows PER for the current season, filtered by Minutes Played > 800 (click on the PER column header to rank by this), he's top 50 already - 41 to be exact - and considering Warren's contract, he is surely "one of the best"

So you are saying that "one of the best" means "top 50." In that case it is clearer to say "top 50."

 

[devilalum]

Also I would bet my house that at least 5 of this coming drafts lotto picks will never be as good as TJ Warren.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[devilalum]

The "upper percentile" means the top 1%. By that standard, Warren is not one of the best.



So you are saying that "one of the best" means "top 50." In that case it is clearer to say "top 50."

Doesn’t too 50 roughly equate to top 10 at your position?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hcsilla]

Also I would bet my house that at least 5 of this coming drafts lotto picks will never be as good as TJ Warren.

Yes, and at least 5 of this coming lottery picks might become much better than Warren.

That's the beauty of high draft picks vs. established players.

 

[BC867]

This is definitely an interesting phenomenon that is somewhat recurring. It was the same thing with Bledsoe, Dragic, and Bell, Marion, and a few other before. It is amazing to me that knowledgeable people can look at the same player, look at the same stats and to one group he is a top-15 SF and to the other group he is a top five.

I think that reflects the point of view of each poster. And their priorities.

My own point of view about Warren is that he is now one of two NBA calibre scorers on the Suns. That reflects how poorly the roster is stocked. Until that changes, Warren is extremely valuable in taking some of the pressure off Booker on offense. Or stepping up when Book is out.

On a balanced team, a playoff calibre team, Warren would hardly be the second most (and only other) valuable player on that team.

If that is not a reflection of the incompetence of the owner and GM, I don't know what is. It is certainly not the formula for building and fielding a winner.

They try three lead Point Guards competing with each other to be the alpha dog. Then they switch it to three Centers. Our players are either over the hill or teenagers (slight exaggeration).

I'll say it again. Balance is not a priority on the Suns ... and has hardly ever been. Balance is a key to building and maintaining success. Not just in one or two examples, but across the team. Our two best players are Wings.

When Cotton said, "We need a Charles Barkley" (to balance the front court/back court) and then we went out and got him, he understood. Throughout most of the Suns 50 seasons, the rest of management hasn't.

 

[3rdside]

The "upper percentile" means the top 1%. By that standard, Warren is not one of the best.

A percentile is any 1% in 100%, not the top 1% although to be accurate I should have said percentiles, with an 's'. 'Upper' doesn't = 'Top', I don't think.

So you are saying that "one of the best" means "top 50." In that case it is clearer to say "top 50."

There's 301 players in the NBA; the 50th ranked player by PER is in the top 17% of players.

The 41st ranked player is in the top 14% of players.

I'd think Warren, when considering his contract (so PER x Contract Value x Contract Length Remaining), would easily be in the top 10% (or 30 players, or decile to carry on the theme) and possibly / probably the top 5%.


Which then raises the question - do the terms of a contract even matter when considering the value of a player as there's no way anyone would say Warren is in the top 5% of players in the league outright?

Maybe not, but that isn't exactly the point - the argument started over whether Warren was a top 7 SF in the league, which is uncertain, but if you consider his contract there's an argument that he is.

And to elaborate further, if you were to construct a roster from scratch you'd need to consider a salary cap, in which case Warren is one of the first players you'd pick period, let alone first SF's.

 

[3rdside]

Yes, and at least 5 of this coming lottery picks might become much better than Warren.

That's the beauty of high draft picks vs. established players.

CPN's right - he's worth 7-10 in this draft (i'd go 7-9 personally but that's getting a little picky) but in the Bender / Chriss draft he's probably top 5 even without the benefit of hindsight as everyone knew that draft sucked.

 

[elindholm]

I'd think Warren, when considering his contract (so PER x Contract Value x Contract Length Remaining), would easily be in the top 10% (or 30 players, or decile to carry on the theme) and possibly / probably the top 5%.

This is a nice, precise claim. I don't happen to agree with it, but the language is very clear.

I won't go through the exercise, but I would think it would be fairly easy to come up with 30 players who are more valuable than Warren by that metric. 30 is only one per team on average, and even the Suns, who are not very good, have Booker. So I would estimate that the average number of players per team who are more valuable than Warren is greater than 1.

Maybe an easier question is: How many teams in the league have no players that are more valuable than Warren?

 

[JCSunsfan]

Nerd fight!!!!!!

 

[3rdside]

For my claim to hold you’d probably have to ignore rookies - which isn’t ideal - as their small contracts would have a distorting effect.

But if I was allowed to do that, then I’d be surprised if he wasn’t in that top 30, or somewhere close to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elindholm]

Nerd fight!!!!!!

I take it "Open my mind to richer ways of thinking" was not one of your New Year's resolutions. Oh well, there's always hope for 2019.