If Bane, Herro, Haliburton were Celtics

[Roy H.]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

[Moranis]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

[Roy H.]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

I make it a habit not to watch Kings games; it was enough of a chore when they had Boogie, who I actually liked.

That said, aren't Haliburton and Fox sharing ball-handling duties?  I think it would operate similarly in Boston, with he and Smart sharing that role.

Of course, maybe that creates problems, since Tatum also needs touches.  Or, maybe it helps things tremendously.  Hard to say.

[KG Living Legend]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

 I think your Way off here Moranis respectfully.  Check the box scorers recently.  Haliburton goes for 10 to 12 assists per night routinely.

 T.H. is the type of player we need because once the Jays understand what type of player he is the team will gladly give him the ball knowing  all they have to do is get to their spots or cut to the hoop and Tyrese will find them.

 Also he's 6'5" and would help the defense more than you think.  Tyler Hero would also start sooner than later.

 Herro is avg 21 ppg 5 rpg and 4 apg for the Miami Heat. Shooting 39% from three he would help massively.

[todd_days_41]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

Arguement makes little sense. Schroder by your rationale is an even worse fit.

If Haliburton were here, he'd start at PG, and Schroder would be 6th man. Smart would play the 2, or better yet, be traded.

[Moranis]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

I make it a habit not to watch Kings games; it was enough of a chore when they had Boogie, who I actually liked.

That said, aren't Haliburton and Fox sharing ball-handling duties?  I think it would operate similarly in Boston, with he and Smart sharing that role.

Of course, maybe that creates problems, since Tatum also needs touches.  Or, maybe it helps things tremendously.  Hard to say.

And Brown needs touches as well.  I just don't really see Haliburton as an off the ball guy.  Schroder probably isn't either, but he does seem to do ok in that role.

[Moranis]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

Arguement makes little sense. Schroder by your rationale is an even worse fit.

If Haliburton were here, he'd start at PG, and Schroder would be 6th man. Smart would play the 2, or better yet, be traded.

Schroder wouldn't be here if Haliburton was. 

[keevsnick]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

I make it a habit not to watch Kings games; it was enough of a chore when they had Boogie, who I actually liked.

That said, aren't Haliburton and Fox sharing ball-handling duties?  I think it would operate similarly in Boston, with he and Smart sharing that role.

Of course, maybe that creates problems, since Tatum also needs touches.  Or, maybe it helps things tremendously.  Hard to say.

And Brown needs touches as well.  I just don't really see Haliburton as an off the ball guy.  Schroder probably isn't either, but he does seem to do ok in that role.

I would be very surprised if this was true, given that coming into the draft Haliburton was being praised as a very off ball player.

According to NBA.com he's in the 80th percentile off spot ups.

And even if he needs the ball a little, I think you can argue taht would be a good thing given that he's clearly ahead of brown and Tatum in the playmaking department. A PG who can get those guys soem easier shots would be welcome.

[Moranis]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

I make it a habit not to watch Kings games; it was enough of a chore when they had Boogie, who I actually liked.

That said, aren't Haliburton and Fox sharing ball-handling duties?  I think it would operate similarly in Boston, with he and Smart sharing that role.

Of course, maybe that creates problems, since Tatum also needs touches.  Or, maybe it helps things tremendously.  Hard to say.

And Brown needs touches as well.  I just don't really see Haliburton as an off the ball guy.  Schroder probably isn't either, but he does seem to do ok in that role.

I would be very surprised if this was true, given that coming into the draft Haliburton was being praised as a very off ball player.

According to NBA.com he's in the 80th percentile off spot ups.

And even if he needs the ball a little, I think you can argue taht would be a good thing given that he's clearly ahead of brown and Tatum in the playmaking department. A PG who can get those guys soem easier shots would be welcome.

don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Haliburton over Schroder long term without giving it a second thought, so I'd gladly swap them out, but the question was based on win totals and frankly I think Schroder is more valuable this year to the C's in the W/L department though neither does a whole lot of anything in that regard as role players rarely affect actual wins and losses.

[todd_days_41]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

Arguement makes little sense. Schroder by your rationale is an even worse fit.

If Haliburton were here, he'd start at PG, and Schroder would be 6th man. Smart would play the 2, or better yet, be traded.

Schroder wouldn't be here if Haliburton was.

You have zero basis to make this statement.  But your entire argument is a reach to begin with.

[Roy H.]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

Arguement makes little sense. Schroder by your rationale is an even worse fit.

If Haliburton were here, he'd start at PG, and Schroder would be 6th man. Smart would play the 2, or better yet, be traded.

Schroder wouldn't be here if Haliburton was.

You have zero basis to make this statement.  But your entire argument is a reach to begin with.

I actually buy this part of Moranis' argument.

I suspect that if we had Haliburton as the starter, along with Herro, Smart and maybe Pritchard on the roster, Schroder never would have signed here.  He wanted an opportunity for minutes to regain his value.

[keevsnick]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

I make it a habit not to watch Kings games; it was enough of a chore when they had Boogie, who I actually liked.

That said, aren't Haliburton and Fox sharing ball-handling duties?  I think it would operate similarly in Boston, with he and Smart sharing that role.

Of course, maybe that creates problems, since Tatum also needs touches.  Or, maybe it helps things tremendously.  Hard to say.

And Brown needs touches as well.  I just don't really see Haliburton as an off the ball guy.  Schroder probably isn't either, but he does seem to do ok in that role.

I would be very surprised if this was true, given that coming into the draft Haliburton was being praised as a very off ball player.

According to NBA.com he's in the 80th percentile off spot ups.

And even if he needs the ball a little, I think you can argue taht would be a good thing given that he's clearly ahead of brown and Tatum in the playmaking department. A PG who can get those guys soem easier shots would be welcome.

don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Haliburton over Schroder long term without giving it a second thought, so I'd gladly swap them out, but the question was based on win totals and frankly I think Schroder is more valuable this year to the C's in the W/L department though neither does a whole lot of anything in that regard as role players rarely affect actual wins and losses.

I don't see what the argument is for Schroder being more valuable this year, to be honest. A 43% three point shooter vs a 35% shooter. Way better passer, 30.2% assist percentage vs 23.6% for Schroder. Bigger, long defensively at 6'5 vs 6'3.

There's a reason everyone wants to poach Haliburton off the Kings, and nobody would give Schroder more than the MLE.

maybe your right in taht it doesn't really make enough of a difference to matter, but its a clear upgrade imo this year, let alone going forward.

[Moranis]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

Arguement makes little sense. Schroder by your rationale is an even worse fit.

If Haliburton were here, he'd start at PG, and Schroder would be 6th man. Smart would play the 2, or better yet, be traded.

Schroder wouldn't be here if Haliburton was.

You have zero basis to make this statement.  But your entire argument is a reach to begin with.

I actually buy this part of Moranis' argument.

I suspect that if we had Haliburton as the starter, along with Herro, Smart and maybe Pritchard on the roster, Schroder never would have signed here.  He wanted an opportunity for minutes to regain his value.

Yep.  There is no way Schroder is here if the team had a PG on the roster.  In fact, the whole roster would be different.  We probably don't have Richardson either.  Kemba trade is probably made as that would have freed up some time for the young guys.  If we drafted Haliburton, we don't have Pritchard, at least I wouldn't expect that was the case, wouldn't have Nesmith, etc.  With Herro we clearly don't have Langford and who knows what might have happened with 20 and 22.  Maybe we needed both of those to move ahead of Miami for Herro.  So there goes Grant Williams and then we don't have the Jerome pick to unload Baynes so no Kemba Walker, which may be a good thing or maybe not.

There are just so many variables at play when you start doing that sort of thing.  I mean if the argument is that instead of Hernangomez, Parker, and Fernando we just added Bane, Herro, and Haliburton, well then sure the team is better because you take 3 garbage players and replace them with usable players the team is going to get better, but that isn't a reasonable thing to do since it isn't realistic. 

On top of that, you still would have a roster problem as none of those guys are better than Tatum or Brown and arguably Smart.  There are only so many minutes available for players on the wing and the simple reality is teams by and large win and lose games based on their starters not their bench players.  Improving the bench can help with a game here or there, but isn't going to make a middling team a contender.  That isn't how it has ever worked at any level in the sport's history.  You win with your prime time players and none of those guys would be prime time players here (and if they were the team would be awful).

[todd_days_41]

 Sheesh. Nobody actually answered the question.  Are we 5 wins better with these three players? 10 wins better? 15?

I did and said not much better.

The three players wouldn't have made much of a difference on a team with no legit starting PG (Haliburton) and lousy shooting / bench shooting (Bane, Herro) during a season where rosters are thin due to COVID? C'mon.

Absolutely.  They wouldn't make much difference.  Bench players almost never make much of a difference and Schroder is clearly better than Haliburton right now.  It isn't close.  Schroder is a significantly better player, who isn't on the team if Haliburton is thereby making Boston worse in that regard.  Obviously at some point Haliburton will almost certainly eclipse Schroder, but that year is not this year and probably not next either.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=schrode01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=halibty01&p2yrfrom=2022

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Schroder scores more points and gets to the line more.  His usage and FGAs are also higher.

Haliburton leads in assists, FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, steals, blocks, ORtg, DRtg, PER, VORP, BPM, WS, and commits fewer turnovers per possession.

Rebounding is essentially identical.

Objectively, it seems like Haliburton is better.  How are you concluding that Schroder is having a better season, let alone significantly so?

It is more about fit and role.  I don't think Haliburton makes a lot of sense for the C's with Tatum, Brown, and Smart.  I don't think he'd play very well at all off the ball and that is what would be required of him in Boston.  Fit matters and I just don't like the fit of Haliburton, at least right now.  He can absolutely grow into the role better and he will, but right now for this team for this year, I'd rather have Schroder.  I trust him more.  I think he gets it more. 

At the end of the day, even if you think Haliburton is better than Schroder, he isn't going to affect the wins and losses.  Players that are not top 3 players on the team rarely do and that is what both of those guys are.  The problem with the Celtics is not the role players, it is the top end talent. The C's just don't have good enough top end talent and swapping out a role player for a slightly better role player isn't going to change that.

Arguement makes little sense. Schroder by your rationale is an even worse fit.

If Haliburton were here, he'd start at PG, and Schroder would be 6th man. Smart would play the 2, or better yet, be traded.

Schroder wouldn't be here if Haliburton was.

You have zero basis to make this statement.  But your entire argument is a reach to begin with.

I actually buy this part of Moranis' argument.

I suspect that if we had Haliburton as the starter, along with Herro, Smart and maybe Pritchard on the roster, Schroder never would have signed here.  He wanted an opportunity for minutes to regain his value.

I follow the argument (so I should not have said "zero" basis and explained myself).

My point was: had the Cs taken TH, one can't predict how roster moves would have occurred thereafter. Would Smart be starting at SG? Would the Cs have selected someone other than Pritchard? No one knows.

So yes, had everything else stayed precisely the same, perhaps Denis signs elsewhere. Which would be great. Because then we'd have a future with the better player, instead of no future with the worse one.

[nickagneta]

Once you start playing these hypotheticals, no one seems willing to talk about the butterfly effects. If the Celtics traded up for Herro, do they even have the pick that becomes Nesmith that you would have needed to trade up to draft Haliburton? Do they have the picks to grab Grant and Pritchard? Does the team have the #30 pick to take Bane? Depending on what they would have needed to trade up to get both Herro and Haliburton, what does the team even look like and if they then had something left, do they even target Bane because they have Brown, Smart, Herro and Haliburton and may have need a big because of no Grant?

Lots of what ifs if you consider the butterfly effects. Personally, I feel there is no way they ended up with all three because of all the picks that would have been needed to be sent out just to get 2 of them.

For that reason, I'm not a huge fan of what ifs. Well, unless it's a Marvel What If? Those are cool.