Out of Nowhere with a Steel Chair: Kristaps Porziņģis (Nov 25th Return)

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
24,588
Pittsburgh, PA
He's coming back, maybe sooner than expected (i.e. December), and it's gonna feel unfair when he does. Let's give the man his own thread again.

But while we track that progress, let's also jump in on a debate that last night sparked in the Knicks thread, one that isn't really about the Knicks:

This really highlights where KP is a step above KAT for a true contender. He can brutalize any guy under 6-7, consistently, and doesn't need to back them down all the way to do so.

(ofc health, which is why KAT makes way more money)
Health being the reason doesn't make sense for me, KP has played more games over the last 5 years (273) than KAT (250). As a #1 (or #2) option I think KAT is far stronger, but in their current roles, KP can be more impactful. Particularly on defense, KAT was lowkey a disaster yesterday. I think they need Robinson starting, even if that causes issues elsewhere, they really need that rim protection.
I guess I just trust KAT more to be available for a given postseason, but I might be overindexing on one unlucky postseason for KP.

As far as being a number 2: if both were healthy, would KP or KAT be better for NY on offense? It's not obvious imo. KP's edge in the post is so, so big, particularly since he can do it at volume.

And on defense, it's not remotely close. KAT plays near the rim like he's 6-7.
"would you trade KP for KAT straight up, if they had the same contract so it's purely an on-court question", is a very interesting puzzle. I feel like you can argue that one is a rich man's version of the other, on both ends of the floor, in both directions.

KAT is a more dangerous 3-point shooter, although of course KP is no slouch. But KAT might be the best-outside-shooting big man ever. You absolutely cannot help off of him from the perimeter at all, you have to be right in his face the entire time. In that way, needing to put (say) Jrue on him on defense costs you a lot of help-D equity. KP has great range, but the accuracy comes and goes, his wind-up is long (just like every other part of him), etc - you can help off of him, as long as you're putting enough size on him.

Down low, both are good post-scoring threats, although KP has the foul-line jumper game really perfected, but KAT's turnaround moves and layup game feel more refined, he's a lot more nimble. But a Mitchell Robinson should be able to contain Porzingis' post scoring, whereas it seems like you need an entirely different sort of player to defend Towns.

On defense, Porzingis gives you more rim defense, but of course got ISO'd a bit by smaller players in the playoffs (especially the first 2 games of the Finals), and held up only OK. You can't just hide him and let him roam to help at the rim, TimeLord-style, he can't get back to the perimeter fast enough to be that much of a center-fielder. Towns can contain drives 1v1 a bit better, but offers you almost no help defense and his rim protection is below where you'd expect for a 7-footer.

And then there's the health factor. We have the luxury of saying "play 20 regular-season games and just be healthy in April", for this year anyway, but maybe not in future years, barring a big leap from Kornet or something. And just as obviously, KP's unique and freakish physiology means bad stuff happens to him randomly just that much more often - being healthy for Playoff Game 1 does not guarantee anything at all, hell even being healthy-ish for Finals Game 1 doesn't mean you'll get a full series out of him. It's not just a matter of over-indexing to "one unlucky postseason", as Dallas can tell you from their own experiences. So even if you think KP is more of a value-add to the Celtics on a per-minute basis, if your expected minutes by him are that much fewer (in both regular and post season, no matter how much you try to give him R&R vacations), there's an argument it tips the scales in favor of Towns.

I dunno, it's an interesting problem to think about, at least. Last night didn't sway me all that much on it, because if we had him on our team, he wouldn't have to play against the Celtics - something I really advise against doing in general, because they're going to abuse just about everybody.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
He's coming back, maybe sooner than expected (i.e. December), and it's gonna feel unfair when he does. Let's give the man his own thread again.

But while we track that progress, let's also jump in on a debate that last night sparked in the Knicks thread, one that isn't really about the Knicks:






"would you trade KP for KAT straight up, if they had the same contract so it's purely an on-court question", is a very interesting puzzle. I feel like you can argue that one is a rich man's version of the other, on both ends of the floor, in both directions.

KAT is a more dangerous 3-point shooter, although of course KP is no slouch. But KAT might be the best-outside-shooting big man ever. You absolutely cannot help off of him from the perimeter at all, you have to be right in his face the entire time. In that way, needing to put (say) Jrue on him on defense costs you a lot of help-D equity. KP has great range, but the accuracy comes and goes, his wind-up is long (just like every other part of him), etc - you can help off of him, as long as you're putting enough size on him.

Down low, both are good post-scoring threats, although KP has the foul-line jumper game really perfected, but KAT's turnaround moves and layup game feel more refined, he's a lot more nimble. But a Mitchell Robinson should be able to contain Porzingis' post scoring, whereas it seems like you need an entirely different sort of player to defend Towns.

On defense, Porzingis gives you more rim defense, but of course got ISO'd a bit by smaller players in the playoffs (especially the first 2 games of the Finals), and held up only OK. You can't just hide him and let him roam to help at the rim, TimeLord-style, he can't get back to the perimeter fast enough to be that much of a center-fielder. Towns can contain drives 1v1 a bit better, but offers you almost no help defense and his rim protection is below where you'd expect for a 7-footer.

And then there's the health factor. We have the luxury of saying "play 20 regular-season games and just be healthy in April", for this year anyway, but maybe not in future years, barring a big leap from Kornet or something. And just as obviously, KP's unique and freakish physiology means bad stuff happens to him randomly just that much more often - being healthy for Playoff Game 1 does not guarantee anything at all, hell even being healthy-ish for Finals Game 1 doesn't mean you'll get a full series out of him. It's not just a matter of over-indexing to "one unlucky postseason", as Dallas can tell you from their own experiences. So even if you think KP is more of a value-add to the Celtics on a per-minute basis, if your expected minutes by him are that much fewer (in both regular and post season, no matter how much you try to give him R&R vacations), there's an argument it tips the scales in favor of Towns.

I dunno, it's an interesting problem to think about, at least. Last night didn't sway me all that much on it, because if we had him on our team, he wouldn't have to play against the Celtics - something I really advise against doing in general, because they're going to abuse just about everybody.
If the contracts didn't matter, I'd rather have KAT.

The Celtic style of play would lead to many open 3s for KAT. The C's could hide his D, put him in drop.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,598
Shouldn't KAT's general lack of basketball IQ be a consideration? For someone of his talents, he makes some of the most boneheaded plays at the most inopportune times which explain why he has never been a winning player.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
55,966
If the contracts didn't matter, I'd rather have KAT.

The Celtic style of play would lead to many open 3s for KAT. The C's could hide his D, put him in drop.
But why?

I'd rather have KP taking those 3s and we don't have to hide his D. What, for you, is in KAT's column?
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
But why?

I'd rather have KP taking those 3s and we don't have to hide his D. What, for you, is in KAT's column?
KAT is a better 3pt shooter on similar volume BUT I haven't given it much thought because I HATE Karls' contract.

I really don't think of NBA talent in a vacuum since the Celtics will be operating under a Hard CAP
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,224
KAT is a better 3pt shooter on similar volume BUT I haven't given it much thought because I HATE Karls' contract.

I really don't think of NBA talent in a vacuum since the Celtics will be operating under a Hard CAP
I feel like we've forgotten a bit about how good KP is with this team because he's been injured for so long... but I think just for how he and JB work with one another it's not worth it to switch him with KAT. Beyond that KP's D can be game changing and he also fits in very well with Boston's absolute abuse of mismatches.. not sure that KAT does that same amount of recognition/natural movement.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
13,064
around the way
Yeah I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I'd prefer KAT to KP, and the only one I can come up with is heightened risk of debilitating injury just due to the latter's size. KP all the way.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,586
I'll go a step further - I'm not sure I'd start anyone on the Knicks over the Cs top 5.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,210
I like Porzingis' game significantly more, especially his D, but if you include durability, I have to take KAT. No matter how well you manage his minutes, I feel like the odds of KP being healthy when you really need him for the entire playoffs are about 50%, whereas with KAT it's closer to 80%.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
I'll go a step further - I'm not sure I'd start anyone on the Knicks over the Cs top 5.
I love the enthusiasm, but we may have hit peak Celtics.

Brunson finished 5th in MVP voting last year, I've got him cracking the Celtics starting lineup.

Smallball fever would reign
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,281
I love the enthusiasm, but we may have hit peak Celtics.

Brunson finished 5th in MVP voting last year, I've got him cracking the Celtics starting lineup.

Smallball fever would reign
Offensively? Sure, Brunson is better than White or Jrue. Defensively?
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,586
Offensively? Sure, Brunson is better than White or Jrue. Defensively?
Offensively, he'd hugely upgrade Pritchard. Defensively, well...he's not going to be checking Towns, that's for sure.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,586
Um - yeah! Was my point, actually, I don't think Brunson would start over White or Jru (at least, in the playoffs) either.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,687
I love the enthusiasm, but we may have hit peak Celtics.

Brunson finished 5th in MVP voting last year, I've got him cracking the Celtics starting lineup.

Smallball fever would reign
Brunson would be terrible on the Celtics IMO. Would create huge issues on defense in the playoffs and ruin a lot of their flow on offense. I'd much rather have Derrick White as the 5th than Brunson.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,456
north shore, MA
It's kind of crazy that I agree with the prevailing sentiment that I prefer KP to KAT, and I'm not sure Brunson would start for this Celtics team...

AND, I think the Knicks are the second-best team in the East, at least for regular season purposes.

Edit: Brunson should probably start over either of their guards, I just don't think it's a slam dunk. They could win that way, but they'd be playing very differently, and they'd be using their best player (Tatum, to be clear) sub-optimally. I love what the Knicks are doing though. I was trying to think of an historical comp for Brunson, but it's tough. Stylistically, I thought Baron Davis, but even adjusting for pace and era, Brunson is a way more efficient scorer than Baron ever could have dreamed of being.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
Brunson would be terrible on the Celtics IMO. Would create huge issues on defense in the playoffs and ruin a lot of their flow on offense. I'd much rather have Derrick White as the 5th than Brunson.
Yea I'd rather have White also since he's the Celtics 2nd or 3rd best player

I'd take Brunson over KP and play small
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
14,632
SF
I think that if the Knicks & Celtics swapped Brunson with DWhite, both teams would get worse.

This is all downstream from Boston having a better offensive creator than Brunson, in Tatum, and Brunson losing a lot of value in a secondary offensive role, relative to DWhite or Jrue. Simple as.

Josh Hart would not crack Boston's top 8.
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,456
north shore, MA
To me, Brunson is a lot like (not exactly like) IT4 before hip injury.
I agree, and that crossed my mind too. Was trying to give Brunson the benefit of the doubt defensively in that comparison, and something about Brunson's herky-jerky, zig-zag drives to the paint versus IT's work behind the three point line threw me off.

But I agree, results-wise especially, they're quite similar. Both have had unreal efficiency for a player their size, in no small part due to being about to finish at the rim and get to the line consistently.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
32,360
I'll go a step further - I'm not sure I'd start anyone on the Knicks over the Cs top 5.
This starting 5 has the POTENTIAL to be the greatest starting 5 in the history of the game. There, I said it.

A healthy KP rest of year, a 60+ win season and another title…..at that point I’m not so sure I can name a better and deeper 5. Ever.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
10,017
Oakland
This starting 5 has the POTENTIAL to be the greatest starting 5 in the history of the game. There, I said it.

A healthy KP rest of year, a 60+ win season and another title…..at that point I’m not so sure I can name a better and deeper 5. Ever.
The Hamptons Five had more top end talent (and it wasn't their starting group, but it was their crunch time lineup), but this bunch is more versatile. Everyone can do everything.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
7,035
Cultural hub of the universe
This starting 5 has the POTENTIAL to be the greatest starting 5 in the history of the game. There, I said it.

A healthy KP rest of year, a 60+ win season and another title…..at that point I’m not so sure I can name a better and deeper 5. Ever.
Bird McHale Parish DJ Ainge was pretty good. I'd take Holiday or White over Ainge, but the rest is tough to beat.

Kareem Magic Worthy Scott Cooper was pretty damn good too. I'm not willing to put this team ahead of either of those (yet).
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
KAT is a better 3pt shooter on similar volume BUT I haven't given it much thought because I HATE Karls' contract.

I really don't think of NBA talent in a vacuum since the Celtics will be operating under a Hard CAP
KAT's numbers may be better but Porzingis is good enough from 3 to accomplish their collective scheme/spacing goals, such that KAT's better shooting wouldn't really make a difference offensively. So KP's D and fit make it an easy choice, even before you talk contract.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
33,630
This starting 5 has the POTENTIAL to be the greatest starting 5 in the history of the game. There, I said it.

A healthy KP rest of year, a 60+ win season and another title…..at that point I’m not so sure I can name a better and deeper 5. Ever.
Agree they'd be in the conversation.

But some of the old lineups - 62-63 Cs with Rusell / Cousy / Heinsohn / Jones / Havlicek or 73-74 NYK with Reed / DeBusshere / Frazier / Monroe / Bradley or 69-70 LAL with Wilt / Elgin / West / Happy Hairston / Tresvant are hard to compare (and don't get enough credit).

Also, KAJ / Magic / Worthy / Scott / AC Green was a great starting lineup (I hate to admit)
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
12,476
The Hamptons Five had more top end talent (and it wasn't their starting group, but it was their crunch time lineup), but this bunch is more versatile. Everyone can do everything.
Thats the 5 that immediately came to my mind

Curry/Klay/KD/Iggy/Dray is real damn tough
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
KAT's numbers may be better but Porzingis is good enough from 3 to accomplish their collective scheme/spacing goals, such that KAT's better shooting wouldn't really make a difference offensively. So KP's D and fit make it an easy choice, even before you talk contract.
Agreed, the contracts make the comps/conversation a complete non-starter
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
Iggy didn't start. It was Pachulla (started all 70 games he played).
Zaza Pachulla 70 GS ($2.9M)
JaVale McGee 77 GP/10 GS ($1.4M)
David West 68 GP ($1.5M))
Looney 53 GP ($1.2M)

They sopped up ~3500 minutes during the regular season.

In total, they were 5/22 from 3

Maybe you can win a lot by starting/playing dirt-cheap, non-shooting BIGs if surrounded by skilled WINGs/PGs.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
10,017
Oakland
Zaza Pachulla 70 GS ($2.9M)
JaVale McGee 77 GP/10 GS ($1.4M)
David West 68 GP ($1.5M))
Looney 53 GP ($1.2M)

They sopped up ~3500 minutes during the regular season.

In total, they were 5/22 from 3

Maybe you can win a lot by starting/playing dirt-cheap, non-shooting BIGs if surrounded by skilled WINGs/PGs.
If we're talking top 6 (starters + 1 bench player), I'm taking the current Celtics over any team since the 80s.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
If we're talking top 6 (starters + 1 bench player), I'm taking the current Celtics over any team since the 80s.
The 2024 Celtics should comfortably be considered one of the ten greatest NBA teams ever.

Even with a ridiculously good Net Rtg (4th All-Time) that theme hasn't taken hold.

I guess folks are waiting for a repeat :popcorn:

#disrespecting18
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
24,588
Pittsburgh, PA
Zaza Pachulla 70 GS ($2.9M)
JaVale McGee 77 GP/10 GS ($1.4M)
David West 68 GP ($1.5M))
Looney 53 GP ($1.2M)

They sopped up ~3500 minutes during the regular season.

In total, they were 5/22 from 3

Maybe you can win a lot by starting/playing dirt-cheap, non-shooting BIGs if surrounded by skilled WINGs/PGs.
Yeah that's a lot of arrows in your "fungible 5s!" quiver, right there.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
Yeah that's a lot of arrows in your "fungible 5s!" quiver, right there.
Bob & Kerr were harvesting them for years.;)

Dray, as the high-leverage/low-minute Center, made it work.

KornXQ will get plenty of minutes to confirm its ability to sop up those pesky regular-season games for the Celtics.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,440
Saint Paul, MN
Brunson would be terrible on the Celtics IMO. Would create huge issues on defense in the playoffs and ruin a lot of their flow on offense. I'd much rather have Derrick White as the 5th than Brunson.
Boston wins the title last year if you swap out either of Jrue or White for Brunson. There is no chance he would be terrible alongside the rest of the Celtics
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,687
Boston wins the title last year if you swap out either of Jrue or White for Brunson. There is no chance he would be terrible alongside the rest of the Celtics
That’s seems highly debatable. We have seen what a poor defensive player can do to this team. The standard was not “wins a title”, you’re creating a new metric, presumably because you don’t care to partake in Brunson being a better fit than Jrue/White. Brunson does best holding the ball and having the offense run entirely through him. That’s not how the Celtics operate and would clog up their offense more than their style of spacing, ball movement and ultimately a lot of 3s.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
22,616
Santa Monica
I think that if the Knicks & Celtics swapped Brunson with DWhite, both teams would get worse.

This is all downstream from Boston having a better offensive creator than Brunson, in Tatum, and Brunson losing a lot of value in a secondary offensive role, relative to DWhite or Jrue. Simple as.

Josh Hart would not crack Boston's top 8.
this is fair

But I'd fly to Logan and drive KP to NY for Brunson
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
32,360
Agree they'd be in the conversation.

But some of the old lineups - 62-63 Cs with Rusell / Cousy / Heinsohn / Jones / Havlicek or 73-74 NYK with Reed / DeBusshere / Frazier / Monroe / Bradley or 69-70 LAL with Wilt / Elgin / West / Happy Hairston / Tresvant are hard to compare (and don't get enough credit).

Also, KAJ / Magic / Worthy / Scott / AC Green was a great starting lineup (I hate to admit)
I thought of the Knicks but they only won 60 once and had a couple low-50’s. Great for sure but not #1. I discount teams from 8-team league so I can’t consider the old Celtics teams. Honestly the only team I felt was comparable….were the mid-80’s Celtics.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
32,360
That’s seems highly debatable. We have seen what a poor defensive player can do to this team. The standard was not “wins a title”, you’re creating a new metric, presumably because you don’t care to partake in Brunson being a better fit than Jrue/White. Brunson does best holding the ball and having the offense run entirely through him. That’s not how the Celtics operate and would clog up their offense more than their style of spacing, ball movement and ultimately a lot of 3s.
While I agree with the premise we didn’t even see a Game 6 in any series. Rick Brunson would have to had cost this team like 3 games in any one series. That does seem highly highly unlikely.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,440
Saint Paul, MN
The standard was not “wins a title”, you’re creating a new metric, presumably because you don’t care to partake in Brunson being a better fit than Jrue/White.
The standard presented was “Brunson would be terrible on Boston”. I disagree and yes, maybe they would be a worse team with Brunson instead of either of the guards, but Brunson would be good enough for Boston to still win the title. Thus my reply that touched on how terrible could one be if they play 30+ minutes on a title team.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,687
While I agree with the premise we didn’t even see a Game 6 in any series. Rick Brunson would have to had cost this team like 3 games in any one series. That does seem highly highly unlikely.
The standard presented was “Brunson would be terrible on Boston”. I disagree and yes, maybe they would be a worse team with Brunson instead of either of the guards, but Brunson would be good enough for Boston to still win the title. Thus my reply that touched on how terrible could one be if they play 30+ minutes on a title team.


I bolded a different part than wins a title, which I directly commented was a totally different topic than would he start. I was specifically commenting on it being “no chance” that Brunson wouldn’t be a terrible fit, when I think he would be. I never said they wouldn’t win a title.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,440
Saint Paul, MN
I bolded a different part than wins a title, which I directly commented was a totally different topic than would he start. I was specifically commenting on it being “no chance” that Brunson wouldn’t be a terrible fit, when I think he would be. I never said they wouldn’t win a title.
You didn't say terrible fit, you said "Bruson would be terrible". Apologies if I misread, but I took that as he would be a non good basketball player. I find that dubious, in that an all-NBA guy like Brunson, while not the best fit on some teams (maybe particularly Boston) would still be an incredible player no matter what team he was on.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
32,360
Nobody is going to mention the Rodman era Bulls?
I was thinking more in terms of 1 through 5-deep. Bulls started Luc Longley and Ron Harper's corpse a couple of those years. No doubt a great team, maybe THE greatest ever, but extremely top heavy which wasn't what I was referring to. Sorry I should have been more clear.