Here's a question, who would be a better fit for this current Blazers team: Kevin Durant or Nic Batum?
Kevin Durant any day, all day. I love Batum, but KD would make it impossible for teams to double Brandon and would give us a third player that can create his own shot. As I wrote that, I realized today is April Fools Day, so I hope this wasn't a joke, and I look like an idiot for actually responding.
Great question. Can't tell how good Durant really is because he's just putting up a lot of points on a bad team but he does shoot a decent percentage. I love Batum and don't want to lose him, but if there was a trade on the table, you'd have to consider it. Here's some Kobe airball footage, by the way: [video=youtube;H4pnPaZtO3c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4pnPaZtO3c[/video]
batum is the better fit. durant is the much better player and the team would be significantly better with him instead of batum.
I remember watching that game and seeing Jerome Kersey on the Laker bench with his hands raised above his head after the final airball, like,"What is this fuckin' rookie doin'?"
You guys are serious? I'd love for someone to post a poll on this. I would disappointed if the vote wasn't 90/10 in favor of Durant, and even that would be too low. I'm confident Pritchard, Penn, and Nate would all agree with me and wouldn't think twice about it. Maybe if you mean "fit" as locker room chemistry, maybe I'd have to think about it, but KD seems like he's got an easy going personality that would fit perfectly in Portland.
Durant, easily. Except in rare cases (which usually turns out to be a case of overrated talent, not too much talent), you fit the team around talent, not the other way around. Batum is a very nice talent, Durant is a potential Hall of Fame talent. There's no comparison and I'm a huge Batum fan.
i think batum is the better fit for the portland team meaning that his game fits in better with the rest of the team than durant's. but it's also very clear that durant is the much better player and the team would be much better off with him(and anyone would be crazy to not want durant on the team over batum). that just doesn't necessarily mean that he "fits" better, just that he is much better.
No, that's the obvious question, and it's the one that we will ponder for years to come. The reason why I phrased it, who would be the better FIT is because it would be obvious whether someone would rather have Durant or Batum. I'm just curious which player everyone thinks would FIT better with this team, not which player IS better.
IMO, they are generally the same thing, when talking about players at the same position. If you have Chris Paul, who fits better beside him: Michael Jordan or Reggie Miller? Well, you already have great play-making ability, so why duplicate that...isn't the pure shooting, non-play-making Miller the best fit next to the penetrating, distributing Paul? Maybe in some abstract, synergistic realm, but in reality, you'd be crazy not to install Jordan at the 2. Sure, he's also a play-maker and slasher and not quite the long-distance spot-up shooter that Miller is...but he's so much better. You're going to win many more games with Paul/Jordan than with Paul/Miller. More wins = better fit. So, give me the better player. Roy/Durant/Aldridge/Oden wins more than Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden.
but more wins doesn't equal better fit. at least not to me. fit would be about how the players play together and how their games complement each other. in both the example you give and the batum/durant question i think the team would be better off and get more wins with the player who would be a worse fit with the other players but the worse fit is so much better and fits pretty well themselves so that more than makes up for it.
It will be interesting to revisit this question in five years. One thing that Batum has over Durant, is his ability to guard... four positions? At the very least three positions. Batum's defense is going to be such a huge part of our team concept over the next decade. I do not necessarily agree with you this time Minstrel (crazy, I know). I think past experience has shown that you can not have an All-Star at every position. This team dangerously walks that line. With Roy, Aldridge, and Oden, we have at least three players on this team that could be the first option on offense. If you added Durant, you would need to find another piece to the pie. I'm not convinced he would fit well. Batum, on the other hand, fits perfectly. He's a slasher, a runner, and a decent spot up shooter. He plays excellent defense, he rebounds, and he passes. He will only get better. If I could get Kevin Durant for Batum, would I do it? Yes, but the experiment could fail, and one of our four young stars would have to go. Batum might not ever be an All-Star, but he might end up being Shawn Marion with a better looking jump shot. We just don't know.
To what purpose? I thought the only reason for putting players together was to maximize wins. What other purpose would you want to put players together for, that "better fit" measures?
Not that I disagree with you on this particular part of the argument Minstrel, but I guess you could argue that the Blazers specifically have put together a team based on chemistry AND talent, and not necessarily just talent. If any team would pass on a potentially bad chemistry guy, despite his undeniable talent, it would be the Blazers. In Portland you have to factor in more than just wins, would you not agree? With that said, I'm still not convinced that the fans have returned because of the chemistry. The team is winning. Period. Obviously the chemistry and the smiling faces help, but I think there's a good chance we would still see some of the worst attendance in the league if we had a team that was winning 17-20 games this year.
i love the 180 that kingspeed has done on oden, now it's all roses with him. wasn't it fez with the avitar of "the big mistake"? that mistake was you choosing that as an avitar.
I think you're slightly off. I don't think Pritchard values chemistry as a separate factor. I think he believes chemistry is a factor in winning. So, he's still really only looking to win, but feels chemistry is a tool to win. I guess the question would be, if he could have Player A or Player B and KNEW (magically) Player A would help the team win more games and give them a better chance to win the title, but Player B was a much better person, would he select Player A or B? I think A, but it's impossible to know. I agree with you. I also think a big reason everyone on the team is smiling is because they're winning. Remember, Zach Randolph was actually a fan favourite when he was the young kid who had a nose for rebounds and baskets on a playoff team. It was only after he struggled coming back from microfracture surgery and the Nash-ruined team crashed into suckitude that Randolph became All The Was Wrong With The Team. If Randolph was drafted in the 2008 draft and joined this ascending team as the rebounding/scoring dynamo he was (and really still is), would he still be a "cancer" or would he be one of the smiling faces and one more amazing piece backing up Aldridge? Personally, I think winning breeds chemistry, not the other way around.
obviously the goal is to maximize wins. that's why you would take durant over batum or jordan over miller regardless of "fit". i would say that putting together players that fit together better is a way to maximize each of those players. like we can all agree that durant is much better than batum, but i say that batum fits better. i think if you put durant is batum's place, the amount the blazers improved would not simply be the same amount that durant is better than batum, it would be less than that due to batum's better fit. in the end it doesn't really matter and i don't really have an answer to the "to what purpose" question.
