Spot on. Would you ever see him as starter on any team with championship aspirations? No. The only players we have that would fit on truly championship-oriented team are Dame, Ant, Shaeden, Jerami, and excuse me, Nurk (every championship team needs a hulking guy like that.) Hart, Winslow, Drew, etc - all expendable.
It's decently good comparing players on the same team. I don't trust it when comparing players across the league.
As others alluded to, the Lakers traded 3 players for Anthony Davis but still had Lebron who recruited others. Of course, they got better. As for New Orleans yeah they got better because they had injuries and no point guard after they traded Ball. Hart was playing 4 different positions for them because of injuries. He was a winner in college and most teams want a guy like Hart on their team....even if it is off the bench.
Curious how many players tend to do better when they are in their appropriate spot and not having to play a position that 'can' play, but not one they excel in. Wish our team could do more of that.
it used to be better but about 3 years ago they changed the way it was calculated seems a lot noisier and prone to outliers now, and like any stat, it needs to be viewed along with other stats that supposedly gauge the same thing. Defensive stats are rather unreliable anyway, and they tend to overvalue guys who live in the paint (10 of the top 12 in DRPM are bigs) if this is about Nurkic, he's a good defender but he sure isn't the 6th best defender in the league.
LOL... you nailed this one. The need to complain is greater than the need to have a legit reason to complain.
It is entirely possible that the excuses are right, and that what he did in terms of winning about a decade ago is more relevant than his entire NBA career. It doesn't seem likely, but I suppose it's possible.
The Lakers were 26-56 before they drafted Josh Hart. They improved to 35-47, and then to 37-45 in his 2 seasons there. The Pelicans were 33-49 before trading for Josh Hart. A .402 winning percentage. The following year they went 30-42, for a .417 winning percentage. They followed that up by going 31-41. A .431 winning percentage. Everywhere Josh Hart goes, his teams get better! Who needs context for anything, right?
That's not context. Are you saying that the teams would have been even better when keeping Hart? Or did you pay attention to what actually happened after he was traded both places? Do you think the Hornets would have made the playoffs last year without making the trade that shipped him out? Or that they'd be over .500 this year without making that trade? "Context" doesn't matter if it doesn't actually change the argument.
People should talk about how Winslow is a winner, too. And GP III. All of the "winners" we have on a sub-.500 team is amazing.
I'm not trying to make predictions on what would or could have happened with the teams. Straight facts. The Lakewrs improved once he got there, and the years he was there. The Pelicans did the same. Are you saying my numbers are wrong?
I think the argument Ed is making is that while they may have improved slightly while he was there, each of the teams improved more once they traded him away. If Portland trades him and gets a better fit in return, it could also fit into the same narrative. Ed, correct me if I'm putting incorrect words in your mouth.
For sure. I understand. But Ed is dismissing context and saying "excuses" for what transpired. As others pointed out, yes, the Lakers got better, they traded for Anthony fucking Davis! When a team trades pieces for a super star, they often get better. It's extremely stupid to attribute that getting better to just being rid of Josh Hart. There's addition by subtraction, and that's almost what Ed wanted to say happens, by pointing out teams get better when he leaves, without the context of, they traded for Anthony Davis! So if we can make claims on teams getting better when he leaves, I can likewise point out that teams got better when he was there.
I was being a bit sarcastic about winning "in college" because I found the whole "contributing to winning basketball at this level" a little ridiculous.
I think the problem is, Hart can't really shoot. Once in a while, sure. But just from watching him play consistently, he has no confidence and would rather pass it off unless he has an open lane.
I think part of that problem is that because he rarely shoots, he never gets into a rhythm. Last year for example his last 5 games before they shut him down he went for 44, 31, 17, 25, 26. He just knows that there are better shooters on the floor so he passes it to them. Granted he does occasionally overpass
The truth hurts. Dame and MAYBE Jerami are the only players who would sniff the court for a legit contender. Ant, no. Shaedon, (right now) hell no. Nurk, LOL no.
Exactly man, and you notice it's from a lot of the same group of people. Always finding a way to complain, always finding a way to be negative 24/7. Quite frankly is gets old quickly and the reason this place isn't as fun to browse anymore, and a lot of the reasonable posters have seemed to disappear.
