I Believe in Time Lord...Why Can't You?

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
22 more than 28th pick RJ Hunter. Most of us were perfectly fine trading any of our 3 picks for Bertans. If you are a competing team, you probably are far better off trading the pick.

In recent years, teams are getting more value out of 2nd rounders though. I think that's partly because teams are signing max guys and filling out the roster with rookies and part because rosters are now 17 and not 12.
100% agree about using some of those picks for a Bertans or Bjelica.

In a re-draft there were about 10 players from the 2018 2nd round that I'd move ahead of TL
 
Last edited:

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
In a re-draft there were about 10 players from the 2018 2nd round that I'd move ahead of TL
Mitchell Robinson is the only clear case. A lot of the guys earning minutes in the second round wouldn’t crack the Celtics’ rotation.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
Mitchell Robinson is the only clear case. A lot of the guys earning minutes in the second round wouldn’t crack the Celtics’ rotation.
IDK about the Celtics rotation, but if I was to re-draft, I have a whole bunch of guys jumping ahead of TL

While it's not representative of a late 1st rounder, the 27th pick had a nice 5-year run prior to Rob Williams:
2017 Kuzma
2016 Siakam
2015 Nance
2014 Bogdon
2013 Gobert
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
I mean, at the end of the day it’s okay to lament the TL pick but what the Celtics missed out on are Ryan Gomes types, not a Manu or even a Michael Redd.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
100% agree about using some of those picks for a Bertans or Bjelica.

In a re-draft there were about 10 players from the 2018 2nd round that I'd move ahead of TL
Obviously Robinson and Graham, probably Brunson though I don't think he'd be playing on Cs roster, maybe Melton I guess, other than that I can't see anyone in the 2nd round that's done really much of anything
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
TL is your Quese. GW is your Paschall. But the Warriors got the better one on both those counts imho (though GW is a couple years younger than Paschanimal, so may have a higher ceiling).
This strays off topic, but the idea that Paschall is better than Grant Williams is insane. Both players have been bad offensively, but one of them plays very good NBA defense and one does not. Grant Williams will be getting playoff rotation minutes on a contender this year, and will deserve those minutes. Paschall isn’t close to being at that level.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
This strays off topic, but the idea that Paschall is better than Grant Williams is insane. Both players have been bad offensively, but one of them plays very good NBA defense and one does not. Grant Williams will be getting playoff rotation minutes on a contender this year, and will deserve those minutes. Paschall isn’t close to being at that level.
Hmm, I’d put it more as: Williams has been pretty good at D and sucked on O, whereas Paschall has sucked at D and been pretty good on O. Not sure how a guy averaging 17.9 pts per 36 on .554 TS can be said to be just as “bad offensively” as a guy averaging 8.8 on .528 TS.

All-Star game alert, but only one of the two made the Rising Stars challenge and led Team USA in scoring with 23 points on 13 fga, with a +33 in 20 minutes.

As for how many playoff rotation minutes GW will get this season: I’ll defer to you. But as long as we’re conjecturing, I’d imagine if EP were a Celtic Stevens would be pretty comfortable running him out there for a few minutes a game. He’s bigger and at least as athletic as GW; and while his defensive metrics have sucked (as with pretty much all of GS) he easily passes the eye test as a guy who’s strong enough to band with bigs inside and quick enough to switch onto smalls. He doesn’t block shots like GW, but then he doesn’t commit fouls like him either.

Anyway, sorry for the detour (unless this can become “The Williamses Thread”?...)
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Hmm, I’d put it more as: Williams has been pretty good at D and sucked on O, whereas Paschall has sucked at D and been pretty good on O. Not sure how a guy averaging 17.9 pts per 36 on .554 TS can be said to be just as “bad offensively” as a guy averaging 8.8 on .528 TS.

All-Star game alert, but only one of the two made the Rising Stars challenge and led Team USA in scoring with 23 points on 13 fga, with a +33 in 20 minutes.
...
I mean, if offense means per 36-scoring plus a TS% comparison, the bolded is correct. If offense means "guy helps team put the ball in the basket more", Grant looks much better in impact metrics like Darko and on/off comparisons. Watching the games is also helpful here--Grant makes quick decisions on offense, sets great screens, passes well, and has shot the 3 well after his slow start.

Grant is also 2 full years younger than Paschall, which is dog-years for young players.

I'm not Grant's biggest fan or Paschall's biggest hater by any means, but if your methodology for evaluating players amounts to reading slash lines without context and citing Rising Stars numbers...let's just say you have some low-hanging analytical fruit that you could pick.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
I mean, at the end of the day it’s okay to lament the TL pick but what the Celtics missed out on are Ryan Gomes types, not a Manu or even a Michael Redd.
I'm not really lamenting the TL pick, it was a perfectly fine gamble. It just hasn't worked out years 1 & 2, due to health. We all understand late 1st/2nd rounders are lottery tickets. Other draftees are passing him not with on-court ability but their ability to stay healthy, play games and develop. If TL isn't playing, he isn't improving or helping the Celtics.

My bigger lament now is Danny expecting that "lottery ticket" to be helpful in March/playoffs after not playing for ~3 months. TL is injury-prone, inexperienced and will be rusty/out of rhythm. Ainge could have easily picked up 5 depth for free or on the cheap weeks ago and integrated that player into the rotations. IMO it was an obvious move that would have helped the C's chances this season.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
...
My bigger lament now is Danny expecting that "lottery ticket" to be helpful in March/playoffs after not playing for ~3 months. TL is injury-prone, inexperienced and will be rusty/out of rhythm. Ainge could have easily picked up 5 depth for free or on the cheap weeks ago and integrated that player into the rotations. IMO it was an easy/cheap move that would have helped the C's chances this season.
This is a very reasonable criticism. If your entire organizational philosophy is "5s are fungible", you have to be willing to funge them.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
My bigger lament now is Danny expecting that "lottery ticket" to be helpful in March/playoffs after not playing for ~3 months. TL is injury-prone, inexperienced and will be rusty/out of rhythm. Ainge could have easily picked up 5 depth for free or on the cheap weeks ago and integrated that player into the rotations. IMO it was an easy/cheap move that would have helped the C's chances this season.
I think the lack of acquisitions says more about Ainge/Stevens' lack of confidence in available bigs than their expectations for TL.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I mean, if offense means per 36-scoring plus a TS% comparison, the bolded is correct. If offense means "guy helps team put the ball in the basket more", Grant looks much better in impact metrics like Darko and on/off comparisons. Watching the games is also helpful here--Grant makes quick decisions on offense, sets great screens, passes well, and has shot the 3 well after his slow start.

Grant is also 2 full years younger than Paschall, which is dog-years for young players.

I'm not Grant's biggest fan or Paschall's biggest hater by any means, but if your methodology for evaluating players amounts to reading slash lines without context and citing Rising Stars numbers...let's just say you have some low-hanging analytical fruit that you could pick.
I was going to ojbect with his post but I imagine someone who doesn't watch much Celtics games would probably think Grant Williams isn't that good. Grant Williams is definitely over rated on here because it's all projection.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
If Chriss is the answer, the question was probably wrong.
Ha...My bar is pretty low for 3rd string centers, but him, WCS or other veteran 5s would have sufficed. I guess we should be thrilled Danny hung on to the other 2020 2nd round pick with two fists
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Ha...My bar is pretty low for 3rd string centers, but him, WCS or other veteran 5s would have sufficed. I guess we should be thrilled Danny hung on to the other 2020 2nd round pick with two fists
They probably just didn't think those 2 players were noticeably better than VP or they weren't available for 2nd rounders. Or they think TL will actually be returning. You really overstate the injury concerns with him.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I was going to ojbect with his post but I imagine someone who doesn't watch much Celtics games would probably think Grant Williams isn't that good. Grant Williams is definitely over rated on here because it's all projection.
He is what he is: a 21 year-old back-of-the-rotation player who's undersized but smart, strong, and projects decently as a spot-up-shooter. I don't think he's the golden ticket or anything, but there's some stuff he does well.

I get your antipathy for pumping young Celtics guys who are lower picks, but what exactly are you supposed to do with 21 year-olds, if not project? Like, just as I can't ignore that Carsen Edwards has been an abysmal failure, I also can't ignore that Grant is able to play good NBA team defense, switch onto guards, not muck up the offense, and be a significant net positive on the floor. I'm fine projecting him as a solid rotation player.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
I mean, if offense means per 36-scoring plus a TS% comparison, the bolded is correct.
Okay: Paschall 13.2 points PER GAME to Williams 3.8 if you prefer. :) On much better efficiency. Assist rate and 3FG% are the same. Those are qualitatively different offensive players right now. But sure, they’re both equally “bad offensively” (JakeRae’s assessment) because screen-setting or something.

If offense means "guy helps team put the ball in the basket more", Grant looks much better in impact metrics like Darko and on/off comparisons.
The samples are too small for stuff like that to normalize, but fwiw, their offensive net on-off per 100 is effectively the same: +0.9 Paschall, +0.5 Williams.

Grant is also 2 full years younger than Paschall, which is dog-years for young players.
Yeah, I established that from the outset. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Try to stay on topic ... Robert Williams. ;)
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
He is what he is: a 21 year-old back-of-the-rotation player who's undersized but smart and strong. I don't think he's the golden ticket or anything, but there's some stuff he does well.

I get your antipathy for pumping young Celtics guys who are lower picks, but what exactly are you supposed to do with 21 year-olds, if not project? Like, just as I can't ignore that Carsen Edwards has been an abysmal failure, I also can't ignore that Grant is able to play good NBA team defense, switch onto guards, not muck up the offense, and be a significant net positive on the floor. I'm fine projecting him as a solid rotation player.
I think he's going to be good but if your an Orlando Magic fan, you probably don't care about Grant Williams at all. Not enough to claim he's easily superior to Paschall.

edit: I think Paschall sucks and I'd take Williams over him all day but I doubt that's the case outside of Boston. We see the guy every day and we project and we cherry pick.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
I was going to ojbect with his post but I imagine someone who doesn't watch much Celtics games would probably think Grant Williams isn't that good. Grant Williams is definitely over rated on here because it's all projection.
You want to hammer away at Carsen, Tacko, Tremont - have at it

But going after Granite, is a bridge too far.

He makes Grant plays all game long that don't show up in the box score, but it definitely shows up on the scoreboard. He effects winning

+3.9 ON/OFF rating

advanced net ratings 110.4 / 101.7 / +8.8

Those are excellent numbers for a rookie that has started hitting 3pts at a 40+% clip over the last 2 months.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willigr01/on-off/2020
https://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/?sort=TEAM_ABBREVIATION&dir=-1
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You want to hammer away at Carsen, Tacko, Tremont - have at it

But going after Granite, is a bridge too far.

He makes Grant plays all game long that don't show up in the box score, but it definitely shows up on the scoreboard. He effects winning

+3.9 ON/OFF rating

advanced net ratings 110.4 / 101.7 / +8.8

Those are excellent numbers for a rookie that has started hitting 3pts at a 40+% clip over the last 2 months.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willigr01/on-off/2020
https://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/?sort=TEAM_ABBREVIATION&dir=-1
Right, and Paschall doesn't make any plays at all. You are arguing something I'm not even arguing.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
OUTSIDE OF BOSTON, I doubt people have that high an opinion of Grant Williams.
Sure...but every team has players who opposing fans don’t know well and should value more—that doesn’t make the valuation wrong.

I wouldn’t trade Grant for Paschall, but I’d probably trade him for Thybulle (similar draft slots, trying to compare apples to apples).

Conversely, there are players whose weaknesses we know, but other teams don’t. I like Jaylen Brown, but I think his league-wide trade-value perception might be higher than his actual value (finding an actual trade with young players is tough, but I think you get my point).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Sure...but every team has players who opposing fans don’t know well and should value more—that doesn’t make the valuation wrong.

I wouldn’t trade Grant for Paschall, but I’d probably trade him for Thybulle (similar draft slots, trying to compare apples to apples).

Conversely, there are players whose weaknesses we know, but other teams don’t. I like Jaylen Brown, but I think his league-wide trade-value perception might be higher than his actual value (finding an actual trade with young players is tough, but I think you get my point).
It works both ways. TO SRN, we are opposing fans who should be valuing Paschall more.

He's probably seen way more of Paschall than Williams, and we've seen way more of Williams than Paschall.

Everyone overvalues their rookies. Everyone.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
It works both ways. TO SRN, we are opposing fans who should be valuing Paschall more.

He's probably seen way more of Paschall than Williams, and we've seen way more of Williams than Paschall.

Everyone overvalues their rookies. Everyone.
I have no doubt that he thinks we should be valuing Paschall more ;)

I feel like you're arguing with some generic Abdel Nader-lover in your head, rather than with the posters on the topic. "Everyone overvalues their rookies" and "some rookies are better than others" are not mutually exclusive opinions.

Knowing what you do about everyone's rookie biases, would you trade Grant for Paschall straight up?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I have no doubt that he thinks we should be valuing Paschall more ;)

I feel like you're arguing with some generic Abdel Nader-lover in your head, rather than with the posters on the topic. "Everyone overvalues their rookies" and "some rookies are better than others" are not mutually exclusive opinions.

Knowing what you do about everyone's rookie biases, would you trade Grant for Paschall straight up?
No, but I think there are plenty of people around the league that would. I don't think it's clear cut. I think both are actual NBA players rather than fringe NBA players.

On a site note: Abdel Nader, Kadeem Allen, PJ Dozier have all played in the NBA this year. I think all 3 may be on a roster. With roster sizes at 17, I really need to readjust what it takes to be an NBA player.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Am I the only one here actually excited for TL to come back? Not looking at the numbers and the pessimism is understandable given that he’s been out a very long time.

But he seemed to have made some significant leaps before he hurt the hip. He was less out of position defensively, which meant less blocks but better team defense. He also was clearly less of a liability on offense – passing decently and, more importantly, grew into his role facilitating guys like Brown and Tatum.

It also seemed like Brad was increasingly comfortable using him – the team’s first slide coincided with when he went down and we had several losses (including Philly IIRC) where posters here were lamenting his absence. This was all in pretty stark contrast to Year 1 TL.

Obviously this is all anecdotal and I get that a 10-week lay-off is bad for his development. But it seemed like there was a lot to be bullish about with TL, so please tell me if I’m remembering wrong.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Am I the only one here actually excited for TL to come back? Not looking at the numbers and the pessimism is understandable given that he’s been out a very long time.

But he seemed to have made some significant leaps before he hurt the hip. He was less out of position defensively, which meant less blocks but better team defense. He also was clearly less of a liability on offense – passing decently and, more importantly, grew into his role facilitating guys like Brown and Tatum.

It also seemed like Brad was increasingly comfortable using him – the team’s first slide coincided with when he went down and we had several losses (including Philly IIRC) where posters here were lamenting his absence. This was all in pretty stark contrast to Year 1 TL.

Obviously this is all anecdotal and I get that a 10-week lay-off is bad for his development. But it seemed like there was a lot to be bullish about with TL, so please tell me if I’m remembering wrong.
He has a ton of potential it's just players with his skill set can only make so much of an impact in today's NBA and players like him lose more and more value every year. They've become the definition of fungible.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Sure...but every team has players who opposing fans don’t know well and should value more—that doesn’t make the valuation wrong.

I wouldn’t trade Grant for Paschall, but I’d probably trade him for Thybulle (similar draft slots, trying to compare apples to apples).

This surprises me a bit, given the relative strengths and needs of this team’s immediate and near future. Is it just a matter of valuing elite perimeter D and the additional spacing on offense? Grant’s ability to defend bigs and his fit as a low-usage offensive player who can move the ball and provide plus screening seem like a great match with this roster, even in just his current form. Plus I think his savant-like BBIQ, along with his passing and his capacity to become an effective pick-and-pop threat, give him considerable upside next to guys like JT, JB and Kemba.

I was Thybulle’s number one stan around here predraft, but given the glut of two-way wings, Grant’s ability to defend down low, and his higher offensive ceiling (age + college role, but we’ve seen the screening and glimpses of the passing), I have to think hard about that swap.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
He has a ton of potential it's just players with his skill set can only make so much of an impact in today's NBA and players like him lose more and more value every year. They've become the definition of fungible.
Well put.
How did a player like Devonte Graham last until 34 anyway?
Old. upper-class PGs are decent value in the 2nd round IMO

Probably a Brogdon bias, since I liked him
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
This surprises me a bit, given the relative strengths and needs of this team’s immediate and near future. Is it just a matter of valuing elite perimeter D and the additional spacing on offense? Grant’s ability to defend bigs and his fit as a low-usage offensive player who can move the ball and provide plus screening seem like a great match with this roster, even in just his current form. Plus I think his savant-like BBIQ, along with his passing and his capacity to become an effective pick-and-pop threat, give him considerable upside next to guys like JT, JB and Kemba.

I was Thybulle’s number one stan around here predraft, but given the glut of two-way wings, Grant’s ability to defend down low, and his higher offensive ceiling (age + college role, but we’ve seen the screening and glimpses of the passing), I have to think hard about that swap.
Yeah, my point is more that a Philly fan would probably tell you about all the amazing things Thybulle can do, how Tatum+Kemba gives enough shooting from 3, how you’d be better off picking up the Poeltls of the world, etc.

Big wing defense is really, really, valuable, and the bar to not take it is high. The bull case for Grant is that he’s started moving his feet well enough to maybe be more of a wing who can check centers, rather than a short 4-5.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
How did a player like Devonte Graham last until 34 anyway?
He's old and small (so he has to provide his value offensively). The line between being a good player like him and being unplayable is shooting 37% from 3 on 9+ attempts instead of (say) 31% on 7 attempts. The margins are really, really thin for these kinds of guys, and it's hard to project them.

It's awesome when it works out, and good for Charlotte, but these guys have so little margin for error for becoming starters that it's hard to pick them in the 1st round.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
He's old and small (so he has to provide his value offensively). The line between being a good player like him and being unplayable is shooting 37% from 3 on 9+ attempts instead of (say) 31% on 7 attempts. The margins are really, really thin for these kinds of guys, and it's hard to project them.

It's awesome when it works out, and good for Charlotte, but these guys have so little margin for error for becoming starters that it's hard to pick them in the 1st round.
Seems like he'd have a pretty high floor though. He was lights out from 3 in college. I was hoping maybe he's what Waters would become but they don't have similar college profiles at all.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
Seems like he'd have a pretty high floor though. He was lights out from 3 in college. I was hoping maybe he's what Waters would become but they don't have similar college profiles at all.
Keep in mind that Frank Mason was running the show at Kansas up until Graham’s senior year. His usage was still below Tre’s, even as a senior, but their numbers are a lot closer when he had the ball to himself.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
He has a ton of potential it's just players with his skill set can only make so much of an impact in today's NBA and players like him lose more and more value every year. They've become the definition of fungible.
Sure – I just think that Brad figured out how to get something positive from him in his rotations. Could he do it with a fungible big? Of course. Before the team started completing getting more out of guys than anyone else (Evan Turner?) had become kind of Brad’s calling card.

I guess the question with TL is whether you think the ceiling and cost control make more patience worth it. I’d also guess that Ainge priced this sort of thing in when they drafted him given his makeup questions and falling draft position.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Big wing defense is really, really, valuable, and the bar to not take it is high. The bull case for Grant is that he’s started moving his feet well enough to maybe be more of a wing who can check centers, rather than a short 4-5.
I haven't seen Paschal play at all but the only reason Brad is giving GW minutes - and the big reason why Chriss wouldn't be getting minutes on the Cs - is that GW has the feet and BBall smarts to execute a pretty complicated defense.

It's a lot easier to talk about offense since there are many more statistics quantifying that part of the game but being in the right spot both offensively and defensively matters. Not sure how teams are going to quantify that but on a team like the Cs, that's way more important for a rookie to do than knock down shots.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
I haven't seen Paschal play at all but the only reason Brad is giving GW minutes - and the big reason why Chriss wouldn't be getting minutes on the Cs - is that GW has the feet and BBall smarts to execute a pretty complicated defense.

It's a lot easier to talk about offense since there are many more statistics quantifying that part of the game but being in the right spot both offensively and defensively matters. Not sure how teams are going to quantify that but on a team like the Cs, that's way more important for a rookie to do than knock down shots.
Fair point. Maybe Danny/Brad felt Chriss/WCS wouldn't buy into playing Celtic defense in short minutes. AND no other team wanted to part with a cheap veteran defensive 5 (Poltl).

BUT after watching Trez go ISO on Grant as a 5, I'm sure Bam, Sabonis, Embiid are all licking their chops. So far Grant has been better defensively (and more efficient overall) playing the 4 with Theis/Kanter.

https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanced/?Season=2019-20&SeasonType=Regular Season&GroupQuantity=2&TeamID=1610612738&sort=GROUP_NAME&dir=-1
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Fair point. Maybe Danny/Brad felt Chriss/WCS wouldn't buy into playing Celtic defense in short minutes. AND no other team wanted to part with a cheap veteran defensive 5 (Poltl).

BUT after watching Trez go ISO on Grant as a 5, I'm sure Bam, Sabonis, Embiid are all licking their chops. So far Grant has been better defensively (and more efficient overall) playing the 4 with Theis/Kanter.

https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanced/?Season=2019-20&SeasonType=Regular Season&GroupQuantity=2&TeamID=1610612738&sort=GROUP_NAME&dir=-1
well to get this back to the TL. if he's healthy, I'm pretty comfortable that GW or TL against any of those three is not going to be the deciding factor in playoff series.

And with respect to getting someone else, you have to remember that picking someone up costs two assets - whatever draft pick the Cs give up (may not be a huge deal) plus the guy who the Cs have to cut. The Cs have made an investment in each of these guys and must see something in them.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
It works both ways. TO SRN, we are opposing fans who should be valuing Paschall more.

He's probably seen way more of Paschall than Williams, and we've seen way more of Williams than Paschall.

Everyone overvalues their rookies. Everyone.
Sure, but his argument is like Celtics fans who were high on Ojeleye as a rookie despite the fact that he was terrible at basketball. Most rookies are terrible at basketball. I haven’t seen enough of Paschall to evaluate his future as an NBA player, but he is objectively not good right now by any measure that attempts to account for actual on court impact. Grant Williams, on the other hand, is already a good NBA player. I actually am not sure how much projection he has in him. It’s unclear if he has an offensive future that extends beyond becoming a good low usage shooter. But his defensive and team offense make him a valuable bench big in the modern league right now.

To repeat, most rookies suck and we all tend to believe in the projections of how our own rookies can become good. Paschall fits in that category just like Edwards does, or Jaylen Brown did. Grant Williams doesn’t because he is a quality player right now.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
The Paschal love is based off a very good, but very small stretch of time in November and early December. Since then, he has been generally pretty bad.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Sure, but his argument is like Celtics fans who were high on Ojeleye as a rookie despite the fact that he was terrible at basketball. Most rookies are terrible at basketball. I haven’t seen enough of Paschall to evaluate his future as an NBA player, but he is objectively not good right now by any measure that attempts to account for actual on court impact. Grant Williams, on the other hand, is already a good NBA player. I actually am not sure how much projection he has in him. It’s unclear if he has an offensive future that extends beyond becoming a good low usage shooter. But his defensive and team offense make him a valuable bench big in the modern league right now.

To repeat, most rookies suck and we all tend to believe in the projections of how our own rookies can become good. Paschall fits in that category just like Edwards does, or Jaylen Brown did. Grant Williams doesn’t because he is a quality player right now.
Some/All of that is fair. I think the playing time works both ways too, though. Maybe Paschall looks better playing 15 minutes a game in a more defined bench role than he does playing 27 minutes. It's the Chriss vs Bam argument when SRN brought up Per 36. It probably doesn't help SRN is making the argument either because he definitely tilts homer. I don't think Paschall is all that great but I think he's going to get a 2nd NBA contract.

Plus if Grant Williams is what he is and doesn't improve at all going forward, are people really happy with that? Would that be a player you would look into re-signing on a 2nd deal? How much would that cost? I think he develops into something quite a bit more to where he's actually somewhat of a threat from deep but I've been wrong as much as I've been right. I see him developing into a 25 minute rotation player who might put up something like 10/5/3 on .450/.350/.750 type shooting.

Use Graham. If he was on the Celtics, he'd probably be only playing 20-22 minutes a night and be way more efficient. I'm guessing Paschall would look better on the C's too. Have Grant Williams playing 27 minutes a night on GS and I'm guessing he looks worse.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The Paschal love is based off a very good, but very small stretch of time in November and early December. Since then, he has been generally pretty bad.
No one is really giving him love other than SRN. I don't want to come across like I love Paschall. I don't like him at all and don't think he's particularly good. I do think he's an NBA rotational player though. I think Grant is better. I think most people on this board do. We may all be right. But I also think a bunch of that is bias towards your own. Most of us have seen Grant Williams play 400+ minutes of basketball. Someone outside of Boston sees a player who's shooting .430/.286/.715 in 15.6 minutes a game averaging 3.8 points. 2.7 rebounds and 1.1 assists. They don't see the guy who plays good defense and has gone 20/45 from 3 after starting the year 0/25. That may work in our favor or it may be clouding our judgement. Chances are he's not 0/25 bad but he's also not a 44% 3 point shooter. I think most of assume he's going to be ok and fall in that 35-38% range but it's based off a really small sample size and the fact he can shoot FTs.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
No one is really giving him love other than SRN. I don't want to come across like I love Paschall. I don't like him at all and don't think he's particularly good. I do think he's an NBA rotational player though. I think Grant is better. I think most people on this board do. We may all be right. But I also think a bunch of that is bias towards your own. Most of us have seen Grant Williams play 400+ minutes of basketball. Someone outside of Boston sees a player who's shooting .430/.286/.715 in 15.6 minutes a game averaging 3.8 points. 2.7 rebounds and 1.1 assists. They don't see the guy who plays good defense and has gone 20/45 from 3 after starting the year 0/25. That may work in our favor or it may be clouding our judgement. Chances are he's not 0/25 bad but he's also not a 44% 3 point shooter. I think most of assume he's going to be ok and fall in that 35-38% range but it's based off a really small sample size and the fact he can shoot FTs.
You are correctly calling out our biases towards our own guys. That's fair, and we don't really know yet what Grant or Paschall are.

Regarding what Paschall would look like in green though, I think that we can answer that question. He wouldn't see the floor very much because he can't cover the peanut vendor. In Stevens system, he would probably improve, yes. But rooks don't see the floor here if they don't D.

Any Paschall buzz is based on offense only.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You are correctly calling out our biases towards our own guys. That's fair, and we don't really know yet what Grant or Paschall are.

Regarding what Paschall would look like in green though, I think that we can answer that question. He wouldn't see the floor very much because he can't cover the peanut vendor. In Stevens system, he would probably improve, yes. But rooks don't see the floor here if they don't D.

Any Paschall buzz is based on offense only.
I think he'd get some minutes but this is a fair point. Carsen Edwards got minutes. There are always some minutes to go around. If both Paschall and Williams were on the Celtics though, Williams would be playing more. I agree with that.

On the flip side, if they were both on GS, I think Paschall would probably be playing more. He can "score."