Grant “Corner Office” Williams

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
However, as a fan, you have to trust what your eyes see somewhat.
I guess here's where i diverge as I don't trust my eyes at all. If I want to break down any given play, it takes slow motion and a few rewinds to figure out what's going on, and that's just one play. And I still wonder who is supposed to be doing what.

At any rate, I think we all can agree that instead of resorting to GW (or Semi or anyone else), someone - like Romeo - steps up and just grabs that spot. That would be ideal.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,303
I guess here's where i diverge as I don't trust my eyes at all. If I want to break down any given play, it takes slow motion and a few rewinds to figure out what's going on, and that's just one play. And I still wonder who is supposed to be doing what.

At any rate, I think we all can agree that instead of resorting to GW (or Semi or anyone else), someone - like Romeo - steps up and just grabs that spot. That would be ideal.
This is an honest question (not meant to be negative at all).....what’s the point of watching the games then? Essentially your eyes completey device you and your judging everything based on a box score (since the coach has rotations nailed down)
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
This is an honest question (not meant to be negative at all).....what’s the point of watching the games then? Essentially your eyes completey device you and your judging everything based on a box score (since the coach has rotations nailed down)
Isn't that exactly why people watch magic shows?
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
This is an honest question (not meant to be negative at all).....what’s the point of watching the games then? Essentially your eyes completey device you and your judging everything based on a box score (since the coach has rotations nailed down)
Don't we watch the games because it's fun? Don't get me wrong, I love trying to figure this shit out, but ultimately I love watching the games, as heartbreaking as it is sometimes.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
This is an honest question (not meant to be negative at all).....what’s the point of watching the games then? Essentially your eyes completey device you and your judging everything based on a box score (since the coach has rotations nailed down)
I watch the games for enjoyment and to try to get a sense of what the team is doing generally.

However, when it comes to evaluating players - or even plays, - I don't trust my eyes because first of all I'm old and can't really take in all of the action at once. Stats are great but as we've discussed ad nauseam, measuring defense by statistics is super hard because we don't really know who is supposed to rotate where or when.

But at the end of the day, if you really want to evaluate players, it requires video tape and a clicker and a lot freaking time, which is something the Cs staff has but I don't.

I mean take the play below. In real time, it might look like Smart blew a rotation because he's the closest guy there. But rewinding the play back and forth, you see - as Weiss points out - that JT breaks the rotation to try to pick off the pass. So then you have two guys on Curry and none on Green. I suppose that JT's fault but maybe it was really JB's fault for not recognizing that JT was gambling and moving in behind him to pick up the open man. It would be interesting to hear how this was scored by the statisticians.

View: https://twitter.com/JaredWeissNBA/status/1379773411879231489
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Does anyone actually believe that they can can effectively analyze an NBA game by simply watching a broadcast?
Can you effectively analyze any team sport simply watching it on tv? They only show the ball/puck.

Maybe Doubles Tennis or Beach Volleyball.

edit: Cheerleading, but that's not a direct competition.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Does anyone actually believe that they can can effectively analyze an NBA game by simply watching a broadcast?
Do you mean without replay? Yeah, it's tough to get more than shallow.

With re-watching? Pretty sure the entire premise of film study is that the answer is "yes".
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Do you mean without replay? Yeah, it's tough to get more than shallow.

With re-watching? Pretty sure the entire premise of film study is that the answer is "yes".

When they are studying film, they are not studying the tv broadcast. The tv broadcast only shows you the ball.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Do you mean without replay? Yeah, it's tough to get more than shallow.

With re-watching? Pretty sure the entire premise of film study is that the answer is "yes".
Our SMEs here may correct me but I believe film study uses separate recordings (Second Spectrum) or incorporates non-television footage into their process. The networks aren't always good at showing the actual plays themselves imo. You only see what someone else wants you to see.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Our SMEs here may correct me but I believe film study uses separate or incorporates non-television footage into their process. The networks aren't always good at showing the actual plays themselves imo. You only see what someone else wants you to see.
They definitely incorporate non-television footage, but I would be shocked if players/coaches couldn't get a ton of useful stuff from analyzing only television footage. It's not football where you need the All-22: you see the whole court at almost all times, albeit with a perspective shift.

This is one of the things I like most about basketball: you can observe everything that's happening in one frame.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Due to angles? I feel like 95% of the time you see all 10 guys, the exceptions being some transition plays and the inbounds after a made basket.
Yeah. I mean, basketball is one of the better sports to watch on TV. I hear hockey is pretty great too but I only watch hockey if the Bruins are in the Cup.

Baseball is awful. Football is awful.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
I watch the games for enjoyment and to try to get a sense of what the team is doing generally.

However, when it comes to evaluating players - or even plays, - I don't trust my eyes because first of all I'm old and can't really take in all of the action at once. Stats are great but as we've discussed ad nauseam, measuring defense by statistics is super hard because we don't really know who is supposed to rotate where or when.

But at the end of the day, if you really want to evaluate players, it requires video tape and a clicker and a lot freaking time, which is something the Cs staff has but I don't.

I mean take the play below. In real time, it might look like Smart blew a rotation because he's the closest guy there. But rewinding the play back and forth, you see - as Weiss points out - that JT breaks the rotation to try to pick off the pass. So then you have two guys on Curry and none on Green. I suppose that JT's fault but maybe it was really JB's fault for not recognizing that JT was gambling and moving in behind him to pick up the open man. It would be interesting to hear how this was scored by the statisticians.

View: https://twitter.com/JaredWeissNBA/status/1379773411879231489
It's just one play, but you can get a good taste from it on what's been going on with the D this year. JT goes for broke and abandons his man, leaving him wide open behind the 3 line. JB has a clear view of the shooter but for some reason doesn't close out. Smart sees it too but doesn't want to abandon his man. He gestures towards the spot someone should be filling then slaps his hands together in frustration I'd guess as the shot's launched.

Why did this happen? There's not enough context to know for sure. Was JB trying to send a message to JT that this is what happens when you break discipline. Was JB tired? Injured? That's all unclear but what is clear is at this moment in time each defender wasn't acting as one organism. As we've seen all season, breakdowns plague this D and there's a level of passiveness/apathy that's an unfortunate trait and it highlights and expands each breakdown.
 
Last edited:

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
2,446
Seattle
Yeah. I mean, basketball is one of the better sports to watch on TV. I hear hockey is pretty great too but I only watch hockey if the Bruins are in the Cup.

Baseball is awful. Football is awful.
Do people think hockey is good on TV? That surprises me. If someone asked me what the one sport is that I thought was better live than on TV I'd pick hockey.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Are we talking about basketball? You can see the whole floor on a broadcast I thought? Except when they do those annoying weird angles from floor level to mix things up.
Yeah I was going to say the same thing. If you cannot form a good player evaluation or team from watching on tv I’m not really sure what one is watching. You still see most of the off-ball action but nothing beats being at center court 10 rows up. Of course data can supplement this.

Football is the worst for “television evaluation” as the tv doesn’t show much beyond the ball and line of scrimmage. What goes on downfield is only shown on certain replays and the public data is limited/flawed. Hockey is another one that isn’t so great.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
The longer lenses compress distance and so hockey takes a big hit from its traditional angle as you get little sense of what, say, a defenseman sees when he's teeing up a slapshot just within the blue line. You might infer that the goalie is being screened or a forward has his stick angled to the side for a tip, but it's not clear at all. Also, you can't see the puck when it's travelling along the nearby boards. You're following it by watching where the skaters go.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
Grant today, 20 minutes - most of anyone off the bench. 2 points on 1-3 shooting. 2 rebounds, an assist, and a block. 2 turnovers. But he got the minutes today because he was a +23, and he was on for the whole Celtics comeback.

He came in with 3:15 left in the third quarter and the Celtics down 76-62. He checked out with 3:23 to go in the game and the Celtics up 96-85, a 25-point swing.

For most of that stretch, Romeo Langford was in, too. Langford came in with 4:23 to go in the third and the Celtics down 11 (70-61), gave them third first least of the night with a pair of free throws early in the 4th, and left with 6:11 to go in the game and the Celtics up 90-82, a 17-point swing.

In the third, they had Grant, Romeo, Brown, Thompson, and and Walker on when they cut the lead from 14 to 5. With about 10 minutes left and the Celtics up 1, Romeo and Grant stayed out and Tatum, Smart, and Time Lord came in, and which point Tatum went off, scoring to straight Celtic points.

Right or wrong, Brad clearly values Grant and Romeo on defense, and it worked out today.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Grant today, 20 minutes - most of anyone off the bench. 2 points on 1-3 shooting. 2 rebounds, an assist, and a block. 2 turnovers. But he got the minutes today because he was a +23, and he was on for the whole Celtics comeback.

He came in with 3:15 left in the third quarter and the Celtics down 76-62. He checked out with 3:23 to go in the game and the Celtics up 96-85, a 25-point swing.

For most of that stretch, Romeo Langford was in, too. Langford came in with 4:23 to go in the third and the Celtics down 11 (70-61), gave them third first least of the night with a pair of free throws early in the 4th, and left with 6:11 to go in the game and the Celtics up 90-82, a 17-point swing.

In the third, they had Grant, Romeo, Brown, Thompson, and and Walker on when they cut the lead from 14 to 5. With about 10 minutes left and the Celtics up 1, Romeo and Grant stayed out and Tatum, Smart, and Time Lord came in, and which point Tatum went off, scoring to straight Celtic points.

Right or wrong, Brad clearly values Grant and Romeo on defense, and it worked out today.
I still think there's a rotation player living inside Grant if he can shed some weight, take over Semi's big wing spot rather than being a tiny center, and make the usual progression on offense that players do in their first few years.

This year has been a big step back defensively and kind of a lost year as a result, but he's playing a bit better of late imo.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
I still think there's a rotation player living inside Grant if he can shed some weight, take over Semi's big wing spot rather than being a tiny center, and make the usual progression on offense that players do in their first few years.

This year has been a big step back defensively and kind of a lost year as a result, but he's playing a bit better of late imo.
I think next year will be make or break for him.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I think next year will be make or break for him.
The argument I heard for adding Fournier this year and extending him was to eliminate those Grant and Semi minutes which was kinda happening. I don’t see our offseason revamped roster counting on any Grant minutes. If he’s still here wouldn’t he be in something similar to Javonte’s 10th-11th man role of earlier this year?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
The argument I heard for adding Fournier this year and extending him was to eliminate those Grant and Semi minutes which was kinda happening. I don’t see our offseason revamped roster counting on any Grant minutes. If he’s still here wouldn’t he be in something similar to Javonte’s 10th-11th man role of earlier this year?
He probably has more value as a "maybe he'll develop" guy than as a guy you trade, because his trade value is 0.

I'd expect to see him in that 10th/11th man role, hopefully slimmed down to fully take over Semi's slot. Injuries happen, so he'd still see a decent amount of time.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
He probably has more value as a "maybe he'll develop" guy than as a guy you trade, because his trade value is 0.

I'd expect to see him in that 10th/11th man role, hopefully slimmed down to fully take over Semi's slot. Injuries happen, so he'd still see a decent amount of time.
Grant never had much upside to begin with but now it’s pretty clear his upside is limited after regressing from his rookie year. That’s never a good sign.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
Grant never had much upside to begin with but now it’s pretty clear his upside is limited after regressing from his rookie year. That’s never a good sign.
It’s been a weird year though, so I’d attach less significance to that than I would to a typical year.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
I think next year will be make or break for him.
Make or break what? GW is 8th on the current team in minutes and Brad obviously trusts him on defense. He's a super-versatile defender which in Brad's system is really important.

The Cs will happily ride out his rookie K and play him his 20 mpg for the next two seasons.

I have no idea whether any other team is going to value GW when his contract is up but in the interim, he's a valuable piece of the Cs given his salary.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Make or break what? GW is 8th on the current team in minutes and Brad obviously trusts him on defense. He's a super-versatile defender which in Brad's system is really important.

The Cs will happily ride out his rookie K and play him his 20 mpg for the next two seasons.

I have no idea whether any other team is going to value GW when his contract is up but in the interim, he's a valuable piece of the Cs given his salary.
I don’t believe this for one second. Grant “could” end up playing 15-20 mpg again due to rotation injuries but I don’t think anyone would be happy about that.

In two recent games when all the non-5’s were playing he got less than 10 min vs Dallas and would have been a DNP-CD vs Charlotte if not for the final 8 min of garbage time. He’s getting all of these minutes with Fournier out by default from my seat. This is before any summertime roster upgrades where the 2nd unit frontcourt would seemingly be an area to upgrade.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I don’t believe this for one second. Grant “could” end up playing 15-20 mpg again due to rotation injuries but I don’t think anyone would be happy about that.

In two recent games when all the non-5’s were playing he got less than 10 min vs Dallas and would have been a DNP-CD vs Charlotte if not for the final 8 min of garbage time. He’s getting all of these minutes with Fournier out by default from my seat. This is before any summertime roster upgrades where the 2nd unit frontcourt would seemingly be an area to upgrade.
Semi will be gone after this year and they'll have Grant under contract still. Brad likes him for whatever reason so he'll get minutes. There are always injuries.

If the team is fully healthy, yeah he'll get some DNP-CDs.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I don’t believe this for one second. Grant “could” end up playing 15-20 mpg again due to rotation injuries but I don’t think anyone would be happy about that.

In two recent games when all the non-5’s were playing he got less than 10 min vs Dallas and would have been a DNP-CD vs Charlotte if not for the final 8 min of garbage time. He’s getting all of these minutes with Fournier out by default from my seat. This is before any summertime roster upgrades where the 2nd unit frontcourt would seemingly be an area to upgrade.
They may upgrade, but I also doubt they'll just throw away a guy with 2 years left on his rookie deal. There also aren't *that* many extra minutes at the big wing position, since Tatum and Brown can check most 4s.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
They may upgrade, but I also doubt they'll just throw away a guy with 2 years left on his rookie deal. There also aren't *that* many extra minutes at the big wing position, since Tatum and Brown can check most 4s.
I didn’t advocate “throwing Grant away” but if he isn’t included in a deal this summer I don’t expect him to be counted on as part of the regular rotation which is what would need to occur for him to play 20 mpg. He’s a good insurance policy on a rookie deal so I don’t mind him hanging around for bench minutes when rotation guys are out. If he’s seeing more 20-min games next year than he is single figures or DNP-CD then something went wrong is what I’m saying.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
Grant and Semi seem to me to have value as guys who fit a few, pretty valuable, matchup specific roles. Semi can defend bigger guys who aren't a threat to shoot over him, like Giannis. Grant can body up bigger guys as well. In the playoffs they might be small difference makers in certain series. Not a bad idea to have those guys as 10-12 bench dudes.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
Make or break what? GW is 8th on the current team in minutes and Brad obviously trusts him on defense. He's a super-versatile defender which in Brad's system is really important.

The Cs will happily ride out his rookie K and play him his 20 mpg for the next two seasons.

I have no idea whether any other team is going to value GW when his contract is up but in the interim, he's a valuable piece of the Cs given his salary.
Interesting way of saying he can get blown by at positions 1-5.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
The argument I heard for adding Fournier this year and extending him was to eliminate those Grant and Semi minutes which was kinda happening. I don’t see our offseason revamped roster counting on any Grant minutes. If he’s still here wouldn’t he be in something similar to Javonte’s 10th-11th man role of earlier this year?
Brad obviously trusts him defensively and even this year that pays off sometimes. Overall for this year, he has not played at a level that would put him in a regular rotation, but I think he's a better player than he has shown. That's why I say make or break. I think he could nail down a regular bench role or he could fade towards being an end of bench guy, and in that sense next year is make or break.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
4,047
South Carolina via Dorchestah
This is a good joke even though GW was part of the scenario that caused Jokic to lose his composure.
I have to say that Grant throwing Jokic out of the club was the most unexpectedly delightful moment of the season. All year long I've thought Williams was a liability. Slow-footed, pot bellied, one step late on rotations, with the added bonus of being no threat to score.

Up until then Jokic had been putting on a clinic -- strong moves to the hoop, darting precision passes, ripping down boards. By all accounts Grant should have been a stain on the hardwood once Jokic recognized the matchup.

And somehow Grant transmogrified into Granite and shut down the future MVP, so much so that Jokic lost his composure and basically quit on his team.

Grant. Grant Williams.

It was like John Wasdin throwing a scoreless inning.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I didn’t advocate “throwing Grant away” but if he isn’t included in a deal this summer I don’t expect him to be counted on as part of the regular rotation which is what would need to occur for him to play 20 mpg. He’s a good insurance policy on a rookie deal so I don’t mind him hanging around for bench minutes when rotation guys are out. If he’s seeing more 20-min games next year than he is single figures or DNP-CD then something went wrong is what I’m saying.
Yeah I think we agree as to his role, and that if he's playing a lot it probably means something went wrong.

The only exception is if he gets his ass in gear over the offseason and comes back improved, particularly on D. Wouldn't be the first 22 year-old to do so, although as you note, his regression this year makes it a lot less likely.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
I have to say that Grant throwing Jokic out of the club was the most unexpectedly delightful moment of the season. All year long I've thought Williams was a liability. Slow-footed, pot bellied, one step late on rotations, with the added bonus of being no threat to score.

Up until then Jokic had been putting on a clinic -- strong moves to the hoop, darting precision passes, ripping down boards. By all accounts Grant should have been a stain on the hardwood once Jokic recognized the matchup.

And somehow Grant transmogrified into Granite and shut down the future MVP, so much so that Jokic lost his composure and basically quit on his team.

Grant. Grant Williams.

It was like John Wasdin throwing a scoreless inning.
Agreed, Grant did a great job on Jokic. To me, he was so strong lower body Jokic couldn't push him and without that movement, his lack of lateral quickness left him nowhere to go and he got frustrated. I do wonder if teams in the West watch that and think "hmmm" a bit on how to defend Joker. Might well be a one-off but it's the first really positive thing we've seen from Grant since last year.

Even next year I struggle with a real rotation role for him unless he gets quicker or better offensively, though. He's a smallball 5 against some matchups, a slow 4 against others. If the defense isn't plus (and while he's reliable defensively in terms of positioning he's not plus) I just don't see the role. Sometimes the low-upside, lower-talent/better basketball skills guys are sneakily valuable but Grant shows the downside risk of that model---he's pretty good at a bunch of things (shooting open threes, passing, position defense, occasional bullyball on a mismatch) but without a real plus skill and with athletic limitations you just can't count on him night to night and there's not a ton of reason for hope, imo.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Agreed, Grant did a great job on Jokic. To me, he was so strong lower body Jokic couldn't push him and without that movement, his lack of lateral quickness left him nowhere to go and he got frustrated. I do wonder if teams in the West watch that and think "hmmm" a bit on how to defend Joker. Might well be a one-off but it's the first really positive thing we've seen from Grant since last year.

Even next year I struggle with a real rotation role for him unless he gets quicker or better offensively, though. He's a smallball 5 against some matchups, a slow 4 against others. If the defense isn't plus (and while he's reliable defensively in terms of positioning he's not plus) I just don't see the role. Sometimes the low-upside, lower-talent/better basketball skills guys are sneakily valuable but Grant shows the downside risk of that model---he's pretty good at a bunch of things (shooting open threes, passing, position defense, occasional bullyball on a mismatch) but without a real plus skill and with athletic limitations you just can't count on him night to night and there's not a ton of reason for hope, imo.
I'm guessing it was just a one off and that Jokic was already somewhat frustrated having watched his team blow a 14 point lead with him on the bench. Semi did ok against Giannis for a little too.

Grant's roll next year will be pretty much the exact same it is this year. if the team is fully healthy, he'll play during favorable match ups and get a few DNP-CDs. With injuries and the like, he'll probably play around 15 mpg and have 10-15 DNP CDs. He has 8 of those this year.

I suppose there is a slim possibility Grant takes a step forward in the off season and has a bigger role. I'm one of the few posters here who doesn't think Grant regressed this year though. I thought he was just as awful last year and I don't really see him developing into much more than he already is. I don't think slimming down will help him much either.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
I will give Grant Credit. After the "vicious" foul on Romeo (i didnt think it was that egregious and neither did the refs evidently but Scal and Mike seemed to think it was bad), Grant was up in Jamicheal Greens face and I thought I even saw a "Point" to his face. Certainly looked like a Burly Forward looking out for a "smaller" guard who got "Unfairly tossed around".

Good to see from a team. You should want to watch out for your teammates.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I will give Grant Credit. After the "vicious" foul on Romeo (i didnt think it was that egregious and neither did the refs evidently but Scal and Mike seemed to think it was bad), Grant was up in Jamicheal Greens face and I thought I even saw a "Point" to his face. Certainly looked like a Burly Forward looking out for a "smaller" guard who got "Unfairly tossed around".

Good to see from a team. You should want to watch out for your teammates.
He's one of the stronger players in the NBA so burly isn't an issue.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Ummm not sure what you mean.
I wasnt saying he was small or fat. Burly means strong