Brickowski said:
Sorry, this just isnt true, Bradley is basically at his career averages.
FG% 44.5% vs 44% career average
3pt FG% 34.5% vs 33.8%
TS% 49.3% vs 49.4%
eFG% 47.9% vs 47.3%
Trading Chips and Keepers
- Thread starter Sprowl
- Start date
Sorry, this just isnt true, Bradley is basically at his career averages.
FG% 44.5% vs 44% career average
3pt FG% 34.5% vs 33.8%
TS% 49.3% vs 49.4%
eFG% 47.9% vs 47.3%
I don't really believe in Bradley, mostly because he hasn't shown he can guard twos in the league yet (and he's been absolutely abused by them so far this year). He can't play a credible PG offensively, and he's only a plus defender at PG, so I'm not sure what the point of him is. He's not Tony Allen, so I'm not sure where you can play him. I'd take a back end first round pick back for him if someone were willing to offer that.
Well, I think Bradley is Tony Allen with a better outside shot and a little better handle but not so much slashing ability. Which two guards have abused him this year? He's had bad games, but I don't recall any serious abuse.
As a Celtic, Tony Allen was a knucklehead, prone to turnovers and fouls at the worst possible time. Bradley is a smart player with good timing on moves without the ball, and getting better at recognizing his shot. They really don't have much in common except for defensive talent and intensity against the shooting wing or point guard, respectively. Both of them look like good rotation bench players for playoff teams.
Yeah, we mostly differ on whether or not Bradley is anywhere near Allen as a defender. I think he's a long ways from that. His opponent counterpart numbers at the SG spot this year are pretty awful. 24.5 opposing PER, on high efficiency shooting against him, and getting really brutalized on rebounds, although the minutes are few. His numbers against PGs are better, but still nothing special (about average).Brickowski said:
Since Bradley is almost exclusively a jump shooter, his percentages are worse than they appear. That's because he never gets to the foul line, by virtue of his playing style.
According to 82games, Bradley's "close" percentage is 19%. That puts him in Ray Allen-in-Miami territory.
According to 82games, Bradley's "close" percentage is 19%. That puts him in Ray Allen-in-Miami territory.
Bradley, like so many other young Celtics players, is a work in progress. IMHO Sprowl's assessment of him is spot on, except that like Allen Bradley also commits dumb turnovers. In Allen's case, he bounced the ball off his knee or muffed a pass. In the case of Bradley it is making bad passes, especially when he's trying to play the point.
Can we all agree that there isn't some omniscient entity that assigns a value to a player when he comes into the league, which value doesn't change over time? Players develop, players decline, some thrive in one system, some in another, etc. Bradley is a good fit for the motion offense that Stephens runs and for the defensive style they've been playing. He has a motor that never stops.
Can we all agree that there isn't some omniscient entity that assigns a value to a player when he comes into the league, which value doesn't change over time? Players develop, players decline, some thrive in one system, some in another, etc. Bradley is a good fit for the motion offense that Stephens runs and for the defensive style they've been playing. He has a motor that never stops.
I agree players improve and decline. I disagree that he's 1) he's improving; 2) thriving in this system; 3) a good fit offensively or defensively.Brickowski said:
A motor only takes you so far.
He's not really improving much and his ceiling is nowhere near Tony Allen. He's two inches shorter and 35 pounds lighter, even at 6'4" Allen is a bit small on certain perimeter players, at 6'2" Bradley is way too small on them, he's basically a very good defensive PG, unfortunately he's not a PG. He's not thriving any more in this system than past systems he's just taking more shots, if anything he's improved since last year, but is still playing significantly below his best year in 2011-12. Even if he reaches or slightly exceed his 11-12 season numbers he's a bench player on a good NBA team, he can guard PGs but not many SGs, he doesn't give you rebounds or assists, his value is mostly as a 3P specialist if he gets back over 40%.Brickowski said:
To continue the Tony Allen comparison. Through their first 4 seasons (well 3.25 for Bradley but that actually helps him since Tony's 4th season was worse than the previous 3 and maybe his worst as a pro.) Allen was significantly better at : TS%, eFG%, RB%, STL%, slightly better at AST% and absolutely obliterates Bradley on WS/48.
Let's see how the next 9 games pan out, for Bradley and for the Celtics in general. This takes them through the end of December. Seven games are at home. They've got tough games against the Clips (at home on Wednesday) and the Pacers (12/22 on the road). The others are quite winnable, although I worry about tomorrow night's game against Brooklyn. The Knicks win was too easy, and the worst thing for a young team is to start thinking they are better than they are.
Brickowski said:
At what point does Bradley enter into the 'he is what he is' category? There isnt a single offensive stat that suggests he is improving, and those guarding the 2 numbers really shocked me and greatly limit his value as a player. I just dont see how he finds additional upside.
The question is whether the stretch in spring 2012, where Bradley was competently draining jumpers and playing only a slightly less agressive D, was an aberation. Given the likelihood that his health issues have set him back, it is possible that strecth can be sustained (with more than a year of solid shoulders and a role where he can thrive).Brickowski said:
If so, the guy is quite good. Not perfect, probably never an all star, but a real contributor in a 3 or 4 man backcourt..
He's 23 years old. And his stats look to me like he's improving, especially after his shoulder problems. http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/4240/avery-bradleywutang112878 said:
dhellers said:
I'll agree the guy can be a contributor, but I dont know if he can be a starter on a contender. But at this point I dont see what spring of 2012 has to do with his projection. Even if we throw out all of last year and say he was recovering from surgery, thus far this season he is basically as efficient as his career averages. I just dont know how much more we have to see of this before we realize this is the baseline.
Brickowski said:
Thank you, I didnt know where the stats were located on ESPN, thanks for pointing that out. Something of value would be pointing out which of the stats you believe is indicative of improvement. As I already pointed out to you once today, Bradley is basically putting up career average numbers:
And I am snarky because you arent putting an effort into posting or reading.
Bradley would probably be a great fit in Miami. He could play the point there, since the offense runs through LBJ anyway. Obviously his defense would be a huge asset, and he's competent enough offensively to cash in on some open shots courtesy of Lebron.
And he'd get another chance to start in front of Ray Allen.
Not sure what we could get from Miami that would justify a deal though.
And he'd get another chance to start in front of Ray Allen.
Not sure what we could get from Miami that would justify a deal though.
Well, for starters, he's scoring four more points than last year while averaging only one more minute per game. Am I missing something?wutang112878 said:
Having said that, I don't think comparisons between the stats he's put up previously in his brief career and this year's stats are particularly meaningful. Different system, different teammates, different role.. the list goes on.
His shooting numbers, were, and remain terrible. Worse, his turnover rate is high, but his assist rate is extremely low.
What positives are there in his numbers?
What positives are there in his numbers?
bowiac said:
The positives are all relative. Compared to his atrocious 2012-2013 season, they are an improvement. Compared to a normal NBA 2 guard.... not so good.
Having said that, he has looked significantly better his entire career when not forced to handle the ball. I don't really have any hope for him being an impact player, but I think he has a decent chance to at least be a rotation player on a good team. That's more than I would have said about him last season.
I agree they're an improvement, but they're an improvement from abysmal to awful. The hitter who goes from batting .200 to batting .220 still doesn't seem all that promising just because he's 23.
To drive home the turnover/assist issue, of players with at least 400 minutes this year, Bradley ranks 140th of 183 in the NBA in assists/turnover %. He's overwhelmingly surrounded by bigmen down there too - all the point guards are towards the top of the list.
He's too small to credibly be a lockdown defender at the 2, and he's too awful at all facets off offense other than wide open three point shooting to be a credible PG. I'm not a scout, but I just don't see it with him.
To drive home the turnover/assist issue, of players with at least 400 minutes this year, Bradley ranks 140th of 183 in the NBA in assists/turnover %. He's overwhelmingly surrounded by bigmen down there too - all the point guards are towards the top of the list.
He's too small to credibly be a lockdown defender at the 2, and he's too awful at all facets off offense other than wide open three point shooting to be a credible PG. I'm not a scout, but I just don't see it with him.
You're preaching the choir on Bradley. But you asked for positives, so I pointed out the one thing that can be considered as a positive. He's not as atrocious as last year.
I do think his play at the 2 on offense bears watching. When he can focus on timely back cuts and spot up jumpers, he has shown some marginal offensive aptitude. Couple that with good PG defense, and you might have a role player on your hands.
When he is forced to dribble or create a shot for himself or others, my eyes begin to bleed. That experiment has failed enough, and must never be tried again.
I do think his play at the 2 on offense bears watching. When he can focus on timely back cuts and spot up jumpers, he has shown some marginal offensive aptitude. Couple that with good PG defense, and you might have a role player on your hands.
When he is forced to dribble or create a shot for himself or others, my eyes begin to bleed. That experiment has failed enough, and must never be tried again.
Because that is the one point in his career where he has been healthy/not-recovering-from injury, with a well defined role. That's a reason to not proclaim his current averages as the true baseline.wutang112878 said:
Brickowski said:
The increase in scoring is because he is taking 15.4 shots per 36 min compared to 12 last year, and 12.2 for his career. He is basically just shooting more, and like success thats just a choice thats not a skill. It would be one thing if he was an efficient player who maintained or improved his efficiency while shooting more (ie Harden last year), but thats not the case.
As for different system, teammates, role, etc that basically throws out almost all the stats in the NBA. And if a player can only produce under certain conditions then he isnt much of a player.
dhellers said:
But is he not healthy now? We are a quarter of the way through the season and his eFG% and TS% are at his career averages and havent reverted back to his 11/12 career highs. You would think that if health was a problem we would see the recovery back to the 11/12 baseline. Now instead what its looking like is that in 11/12 when he was taking just 10 shots per 36 (compared to the 15.4 per 36 he is taking now) and playing with superstars who took the pressure off of him, he thrived. But now without great teammates around him, he just isnt a competent 2 guard offensively.
To add on, according to 82 games 42% of his shots are coming within the first 10 seconds of a possession, so either he is taking foolish shots early or he is getting great looks for most of these shots and he still isnt an efficient shooter. To add some context, Bradleys eFG% in the first 10 seconds is 46% whereas Crawford is taking a comprable 43% of his shots in the first 10 seconds and his eFG% is 54.5% Now Crawford is a much better shooter but his shot selection has typically been suspect, but it goes to show what a competent 2 can indeed do in this system with these teammates around him. For some more context, Lee who has simply never looked comfortable or sure of himself here, is taking 46% of his shots within the first 10 seconds and his eFG% is 64.1% Comparatively, ever shot that Bradley takes instead of our other alternatives at the 2 is really destroying the efficiency of the team.
radsoxfan said:
82 games agrees that his offense at the 2 is much improved, his eFG% is 54.5%, unfortunately his 2 counterpart that he is guarding has an eFG% of 55.6%, so he is really a negative presence on the court. His ideal situation would be Miami where he could guard the 1 and technically play the '1' but in essence be a 2 because he wouldnt be handling the ball whatsoever, unfortunately that wont be happening here and its pretty rare to be able to find scenarios across the league where you can play like that.
eFG% doesn't take into account rebounds, steals, assists, hockey assists or any positive contribution except individual scoring. It might also reflect the fact that he defends the perimeter so well that his man in getting a reduced number of shots, hence fewer points.wutang112878 said:
You're grasping at straws here, this is minutia. Bradley's assists are essentially irrelevant considering he gets less than 3 per 36, and his assists per 36 are actually at a career low this year. He is within career norms in steals, no significant improvement here. If you want to get excited about his rebounds per 36 being a career high at 4.7, thats great.
As for hockey assists, the only people in the basketball world who get them are guys who get doubled and their pass leads to an assist pass. I dont think an opposing NBA coach has ever said 'lets double Bradley'
But the elephant in the room, which is by far his biggest issue as a basketball player, remains which is that he is simply not good at putting the ball in the basket. Nothing that you have noted comes close to compensating for this fact.
As for limiting his opponents shots, according to 82 games when he guards PGs they average 17.9 FGA per 48, and SGs average 20.4 per 48 Crawford is 17.7 and 13.9 respectively, and is 18.9 and 17 So when guarding PGs he is basically average for us at shot attempts, and he is actually the worst on the team at limiting SGs shot attempts.
As for hockey assists, the only people in the basketball world who get them are guys who get doubled and their pass leads to an assist pass. I dont think an opposing NBA coach has ever said 'lets double Bradley'
But the elephant in the room, which is by far his biggest issue as a basketball player, remains which is that he is simply not good at putting the ball in the basket. Nothing that you have noted comes close to compensating for this fact.
As for limiting his opponents shots, according to 82 games when he guards PGs they average 17.9 FGA per 48, and SGs average 20.4 per 48 Crawford is 17.7 and 13.9 respectively, and is 18.9 and 17 So when guarding PGs he is basically average for us at shot attempts, and he is actually the worst on the team at limiting SGs shot attempts.
Thanks for mentioning 82games. It wasn't on my radar. Very good stuff!wutang112878 said:
This Bradley argument seems pointless. Even if we pretend that he's improved, he's not going to be a top 4 guy on the next contending Celtics team. Heck he's not even under contract past this season. Unless we resign him to retain a cap slot, I suspect he'll be gone. Our best hope is that a Miami-like team gives us something of value for him.
Bradley's a piece. He's definitely not higher than your 4th scoring option in any system in the NBA. Never someone to build around. Depending on the type of ball you want to play, he can go from a good piece to a great piece. Does anyone disagree with this?
He comes across as a smart, unselfish, high-energy player. I think in the current system he has a place because he plays good team offence and defense. One notable thing with the current team is that the scoring is very balanced. and everyone is playing solid, smart team ball. Bradley can start in this system and he doesn't need to take X amount of shots per day as long as he averages in the low teens.
So in reference to the topic, he's a keeper in my opinion. Personally, I love watching him play and hope he sticks around.
He comes across as a smart, unselfish, high-energy player. I think in the current system he has a place because he plays good team offence and defense. One notable thing with the current team is that the scoring is very balanced. and everyone is playing solid, smart team ball. Bradley can start in this system and he doesn't need to take X amount of shots per day as long as he averages in the low teens.
So in reference to the topic, he's a keeper in my opinion. Personally, I love watching him play and hope he sticks around.
cardiacs said:
I'm going to go ahead and disagree. Just looking at some high level barometers: this year Bradley is 52 among SGs in TS% and 43rd in eFG%, even if we consider him an elite defensive piece on average we have a top 20 SG at best. I dont think thats a great piece. Now, if we go back to 2012 where he ranked 17th and 16th in those stats respectively, we could gloss over the fact that he really cant create his own offense and that he cant guard 2s and then consider him a great piece. But to be considered great, I dont think you can be awful on one side of the court
No one is calling him great. He is what Sprowl says he is. Maybe in the end he's no better than Lindsay Hunter or Randy Brown, both of whom brought energy and defense to championship teams. But players like that are Bradley's floor, not his ceiling.
I disagree with this, yes. Other than some very strange teams, like Miami, he doesn't really fit on most NBA rosters without significant improvement. His poor shooting, and high turnover rate is a problem, but so is the fact that he's not actually Tony Allen on defense.cardiacs said:
He's either a 2 who can't guard his position, or a 1 who can't play offense at it. Either way, he doesn't belong on the court most times.
Bradley is an ideal 6th man in many ways, he can come in, score some, play D on the opposing PG and generally bring energy. That is really valuable on a good team. THe ideal situation for him is next to a tall PG so they can swap on D, someone with the height of a Livingston, Vazquez, or Evans.
Virtually every player in the NBA has skills that could be used as part of a championship rotation. So, saying that a player is a piece that could be part of a contending team is essentially saying that the guy plays in the NBA. Bradley has some positives, but he's eminently replaceable. If he had G/F size, I'd be inclined to keep him as a Bruce Bowen-type. But he doesn't really have that kind of size, which sort of limits his usefulness.
One thing working in Bradley's favor is that he's still only 23 years old. If he committed himself full-time to developing a three-point shot that he can make with >40% efficiency, he could be a real weapon... on team that has a G/F primary ballhandler, which the Celtics are not. I wouldn't be too surprised if Bradley turned out to be a useful player in the right context in the league. But the current edition is pretty medicore.
One thing working in Bradley's favor is that he's still only 23 years old. If he committed himself full-time to developing a three-point shot that he can make with >40% efficiency, he could be a real weapon... on team that has a G/F primary ballhandler, which the Celtics are not. I wouldn't be too surprised if Bradley turned out to be a useful player in the right context in the league. But the current edition is pretty medicore.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is this fellow name of Rondo who might be able to play some point guard for the Celtics. And there is another character named of Jordan who might be a competent shooting guard, who can hold is own playing point. Is it possible that Avery would be a useful player in this rotation?Cellar-Door said:
Kind of. Problem is neither Rondo nor Crawford is all that good guarding 2 guards.dhellers said:
Brickowski said:
I think Bradley's floor is the guy we saw in his rookie season and in the playoffs last season. That's not Lindsay Hunter, that's some D-League scrub.
I think Hunter is actually a pretty reasonable middle of the road, perhaps slightly optimistic projection. To throw a number out there, I think there's probably around a 25% chance that he turns into something better than that.
Neither is Bradley. He's 6'2", with 6'7" wingspan - He's just 2 inches too short to be all that useful against 2 guards.Cellar-Door said:
That was the point. I was saying Bradley would be a great 6th man for a team with a big PG as they could swap on defense, but we don't have that which makes him less useful than he could be on a team with a PG who can guard SGs. For example, if a team had Livingston as their backup 2, or started Vasquez, Bradley is a great fit. Doesn't have to play point on offense, but can harrass the PG on defense without causing a bad mismatch on the 2.bowiac said:
Well, last night's game certainly supports your evaluation. Bradley was terrible.radsoxfan said:
With the Knicks working out how to dump their few worthless assets to acquire Kyle Lowry, the list of Rondo destinations gets shorter.
One thought that popped to mind is the slumping Minnesota Timberwolves. That's a top-heavy team, with Love, Pekovic, and Martin. Much-heralded Ricky Rubio has failed to live up to his hype in the NBA, largely because he can't shoot worth a damn. Still, he's 23 and it's not like the Celtics are going to get anything from Rondo anyways.
I could see a trade for Rondo with either Rubio or Barea coming back, and some draft-related compensation attached. Especially if it's Barea.
The point guard situation may be mostly settled in the league, but some places are better off than others.
One thought that popped to mind is the slumping Minnesota Timberwolves. That's a top-heavy team, with Love, Pekovic, and Martin. Much-heralded Ricky Rubio has failed to live up to his hype in the NBA, largely because he can't shoot worth a damn. Still, he's 23 and it's not like the Celtics are going to get anything from Rondo anyways.
I could see a trade for Rondo with either Rubio or Barea coming back, and some draft-related compensation attached. Especially if it's Barea.
The point guard situation may be mostly settled in the league, but some places are better off than others.
Mitch Lawrence says the Heat are interested in Jordan Crawford:
"Miami is looking to deal for a young wing player who can score and take some of the load off Dwyane Wade. A few GMs have identified Boston’s Jordan Crawford as a player the Heat will go after in the coming days/weeks."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/lawrence-injured-bulls-star-fearful-cupboard-bare-article-1.1547747#ixzz2nVjNrohd
"Miami is looking to deal for a young wing player who can score and take some of the load off Dwyane Wade. A few GMs have identified Boston’s Jordan Crawford as a player the Heat will go after in the coming days/weeks."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/lawrence-injured-bulls-star-fearful-cupboard-bare-article-1.1547747#ixzz2nVjNrohd
Would you deal Crawford for 2nd rounders? I wouldn't. The Heat do not have any trade assets that might be useful to the Celtics, with the possible exception of Norris Cole.
A deal I would make is Wallace and Crawford to Houston for Asik and Patrick Beverly, but only if I could extend Asik for reasonable money. (That doesn't mean I would keep him, necessarily.) Houston would also have to throw in $3M to help defray Asik's actual salary next year. Houston would be crazy to do that deal you say? Well, let's see how things go over the next 4 days.
I would not trade Bass at this point. If he keeps playing well he will have more value at the deadline.
A deal I would make is Wallace and Crawford to Houston for Asik and Patrick Beverly, but only if I could extend Asik for reasonable money. (That doesn't mean I would keep him, necessarily.) Houston would also have to throw in $3M to help defray Asik's actual salary next year. Houston would be crazy to do that deal you say? Well, let's see how things go over the next 4 days.
I would not trade Bass at this point. If he keeps playing well he will have more value at the deadline.
I agree that second rounders are not very useful. Crawford has been good this year, and would only trade him if we could get rid of Wallace (or maybe Lee).
Otherwise, unless some team is desperate and willing to overpay, I think they should just keep him.
Otherwise, unless some team is desperate and willing to overpay, I think they should just keep him.
Neither the Lee or Wallace contracts are going to kill the Celtics over their duration--they're not going to be serious contenders until maybe 2015-16, when, hey, those become expirings. If they're going to sell on Bass/Crawford/etc., I'd rather they be selling for assets, not cap relief. Nobody's coming here without a firmer core, so cap relief only gets you so far.
(edited - mistakenly thought Lee's somehow expired in 2016-2017, because I really can't do math)
(edited - mistakenly thought Lee's somehow expired in 2016-2017, because I really can't do math)
Houston is looking for a stretch 4 to pair with Howard. And while Crawford may intrigue them, they have absolutely zero interest in Wallace.
Blacken said:
If the assets are quality, sure. If they are "meh", then I would like them to dump Wallace and Lee.
They aren't absolute killers, but it would be nice to have the flexibility of having 16M off the cap, particularly going into the 2015-2016 season. It's not just for FA possibilities, but general roster flexibility, contract extensions, etc.
Wallace and Lee serve no real purpose on this team, and can be replaced with minimum level guys, especially on a rebuilding team.
Yes, trading Crawford for a couple of 2nd rounders would be so stupid that any GM contemplating it should be fired immediately. I doubt Ainge is even thinking about it.
While Wallace and Lee are replaceable, there's probably better targets than dumping them today just because Miami has a surplus of 2nd round draft picks.
While Wallace and Lee are replaceable, there's probably better targets than dumping them today just because Miami has a surplus of 2nd round draft picks.