That Memphis win looks a little better tonight. 😂

Just a reminder, with the 3 ball any team can beat any team on any given night. Let?s see what these boys do in a 7 game series before we, myself included, demand this team be broken up. Let?s go Pels!!!

This isn't just the Memphis game or the last 3 games before the Allstar break it's been the same all season.

The problems isn't JV or CJ its supposedly the "best due in the league":

There is enough data to suggest that the starters are one of the worst +/-.

Minny - Edwards and Towns: +8.7
Denver - Jokic and Murray: +12.9
LAC - Kawhi and PG: +13.8
OKC - SGA and JWill: +11.8
PHX - KD and Booker: +8.7

NOLA: Zion and BI: +1.1

Purely from an eye test it seems like the Pels play teams better after a quick turn around rematch. Just saying that this could bode well for the playoffs. Miami made the finals as a 7 seed I believe. I know the East is easier, but no one saw that coming.

A random thought. Could it be that the Pels are built for playoff bball? Jonas which may be our oddest fit, wouldn’t be used in the playoff - small ball. Larry Nance finally looking heathy. Herb won’t pick up ticky tac fouls because it’s the playoff. We have a top 5 defense the last couple months. We have multiple shot creators. BI is built four the playoff with his mid ranged game as he showed 2 years ago in the playoffs. Lastly, you can gear up for Zion for 1 game, but who wants to take them charges game 6 and 7? Not gonna lie I’m intrigued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUSSIE_PELICAN

This isn't just the Memphis game or the last 3 games before the Allstar break it's been the same all season.

The problems isn't JV or CJ its supposedly the "best due in the league":

There is enough data to suggest that the starters are one of the worst +/-.

Minny - Edwards and Towns: +8.7
Denver - Jokic and Murray: +12.9
LAC - Kawhi and PG: +13.8
OKC - SGA and JWill: +11.8
PHX - KD and Booker: +8.7

NOLA: Zion and BI: +1.1

---

I've seen where people have dug deeper into our numbers and the thing is, we're better when Zion and BI are NOT on the court together. BI with no Zion excels, Zion with no BI excels. Its when they're both on the court together that we're getting that +1.1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobertM320

I've seen where people have dug deeper into our numbers and the thing is, we're better when Zion and BI are NOT on the court together. BI with no Zion excels, Zion with no BI excels. Its when they're both on the court together that we're getting that +1.1.

---

And they'll soon be paid 80+ million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUSSIE_PELICAN

And they'll soon be paid 80+ million.

---

The data you pulled was posted on X by Mac, and you conveniently left out the part that when they're NOT together the numbers are much better. Now, if you go compare SGA w/o JWill or JWill w/o SGA for example, their +/- is negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobertM320

The data you pulled was posted on X by Mac, and you conveniently left out the part that when they're NOT together the numbers are much better. Now, if you go compare SGA w/o JWill or JWill w/o SGA for example, their +/- is negative.

---

Conveniently left out what?
My point is why do they need both and pay them both all that money when they could use that money on retaining assets that do work together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUSSIE_PELICAN

Conveniently left out what?
My point is why do they need both and pay them both all that money when they could use that money on retaining assets that do work together.

---

Or you could look at the numbers when they aren't on the court together. Then compare that to all those other player's numbers in the same scenario and see which teams perform better in all the lineups. You know, if we want to be fair and not cherry pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

Or you could look at the numbers when they aren't on the court together. Then compare that to all those other player's numbers in the same scenario and see which teams perform better in all the lineups. You know, if we want to be fair and not cherry pick.

---

LOL.
You are still missing the point.
The rest of the team is still nearly making combined less money than both Zion and BI will be making in 2025.
I would hope that having your two best players off the court it would be worse and if it isn't then it says alot about Zion and BI.
You should only move forward with one or the other and not both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUSSIE_PELICAN

LOL.
You are still missing the point.
The rest of the team is still nearly making combined less money than both Zion and BI will be making in 2025.
I would hope that having your two best players off the court it would be worse and if it isn't then it says alot about Zion and BI.
You should only move forward with one or the other and not both.

---

What do other more advanced stats say? It's plus/minus bro. How about taking into consideration the age of the players, games played together and other factors?

Mac is known for cherry picking stats to fit a narrative.if you are going to use stats to try and make a valid point, be more analytical aboit it and see if it all lines up. If it does, get back to us and maybe you will be on to something. Plus/minus though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUSSIE_PELICAN

LOL.
You are still missing the point.
The rest of the team is still nearly making combined less money than both Zion and BI will be making in 2025.
I would hope that having your two best players off the court it would be worse and if it isn't then it says alot about Zion and BI.
You should only move forward with one or the other and not both.

---

The NBA more than any other league is about having elite talent. Teams are desperate for top tier talent, especially small market teams where it's almost impossible to get those kinds of players. Having 6 good players is still not better than 1 elite player. So your point about the salaries isn't as strong as you seem to think. You don't move on from Z or BI unless it means replacing them with an even better player.

Never understood why so many fans of both the NBA and the NFL worry so much about how OTHER PEOPLE spend their money. So what if Mrs Benson is willing to pay Z/BI $80M+. That's her business. As long as she's willing to pay the luxury tax WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT to go all in, I'm good with continued progress.

2018-19, before Zion we were 33-49

Since then
30-42
31-41
36-46
42-40
33-22 (on pace for 49 wins)

Or lets look at it this way for the people worried about money:

We have the same record as the Suns, who are paying THREE STARS, Beal, KD and Booker
We are a half game better than the Mavs, who are paying TWO STARS, Luka and Kyrie
We are 3.5 games ahead of the Lakers, who are paying TWO STARS, AD and Lebron
We are 5 games ahead of the Warriors, who are paying THREE STARS, Steph, Klay and Draymond.


We're also a half-game better than the Sixers, who are paying Embiid and Maxey
Same record as the Knicks who are paying Brunson, Randle and Anunoby.


I'd be willing to bet on ALL those teams the rest of the team combined is making less money than just their two or three stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobertM320

Never understood why so many fans of both the NBA and the NFL worry so much about how OTHER PEOPLE spend their money. So what if Mrs Benson is willing to pay Z/BI $80M+. That's her business. As long as she's willing to pay the luxury tax WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT to go all in, I'm good with continued progress.

2018-19, before Zion we were 33-49

Since then
30-42
31-41
36-46
42-40
33-22 (on pace for 49 wins)

Or lets look at it this way for the people worried about money:

We have the same record as the Suns, who are paying THREE STARS, Beal, KD and Booker
We are a half game better than the Mavs, who are paying TWO STARS, Luka and Kyrie
We are 3.5 games ahead of the Lakers, who are paying TWO STARS, AD and Lebron
We are 5 games ahead of the Warriors, who are paying THREE STARS, Steph, Klay and Draymond.


We're also a half-game better than the Sixers, who are paying Embiid and Maxey
Same record as the Knicks who are paying Brunson, Randle and Anunoby.


I'd be willing to bet on ALL those teams the rest of the team combined is making less money than just their two or three stars.

---

I don't think anyone cares about Benson's finances. It is more of how the roster is constructed within the confines of the salary cap and tax restrictions. It is more a use of available cap space rather than Mrs. Benson's personal finances.

The roster should theoretically work. I question the coaching and the players willingness to let go of certain habits though. When they are good they look great and it comes down to balancing the floor, using clever interplay and taking care of the ball. When we stop it or hit the iso switch we tend to suck and that is where we have to make strides. That goes for everyone- not just the starters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJackisangry

The roster should theoretically work. I question the coaching and the players willingness to let go of certain habits though. When they are good they look great and it comes down to balancing the floor, using clever interplay and taking care of the ball. When we stop it or hit the iso switch we tend to suck and that is where we have to make strides. That goes for everyone- not just the starters.

---

Yeah, to an extent I agree with the criticism that the whole has not lived up to the sum of the parts. There are some big caveats though. These are young players and the core has not really played together enough to warrant giving up and declaring that it can't work... and also it's not like they suck either. Even without having reached full potential yet they are already much better than previous iterations of the team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornetsrebirth

Yeah, to an extent I agree with the criticism that the whole has not lived up to the sum of the parts. There are some big caveats though. These are young players and the core has not really played together enough to warrant giving up and declaring that it can't work... and also it's not like they suck either. Even without having reached full potential yet they are already much better than previous iterations of the team.

---

Yes. If you objectively look at the team, it is still very good. It is just underachieving. That can be said for many rosters in the past- not just ours. For instance some of those Utah Jazz teams were really really good but they always fell short of where they should have. Some teams live up to their potential and some don’t.