Baynes needs to be part of the starting five

[smokeablount]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

[gouki88]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

[Moranis]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid. 

[Eddie20]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

So how exactly did we win in 5? We were without our 2 best players, according to you Baynes couldn't cover Embiid, yet we still took them out in 5? How is that even possible? Could it be that you make the usual mistake of underrating C's players (including Baynes) and overrate players on other teams?

[smokeablount]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Wrong.  That's factually incorrect, or at least you haven't proven it, because it isn't the same thing as saying the Sixers were better with Baynes off the floor.  Again, when Baynes was in the game, Embiid was in the game 100% OF THAT TIME.  Embiid is great, so Philly played well. 

When Baynes was out, Embiid was in for I'd bet only 40% of that time, and so in 60% of those minutes with Baynes off the floor, the Sixers relied on Simmons who played horribly and 3 point shooters who shot 30%.  So they performed worse then, duh.  If you understand basketball, or even common sense, you see that the +/- aren't informative about Baynes's play, the key there is who was playing 100% of the time Baynes was in, and who played (poorly) when he was out. 

So my question is, is that too complex or are you just trying really hard to zig when others zag?

[smokeablount]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Hmm.  So the Celtics did well because Embiid did mostly worse than he did in the regular season.  Okay, that logic makes sense. 

Oh wait, weren't you arguing here weeks ago that Kyrie played poorly in the 2016 finals where the Cavs won, by selecting only his worst games and looking at point per shot?

Now I present to you an argument about Embiid relying on your familiar points per shot, and instead you throw out plus minus numbers that I've address the legitimacy of above. 

By the way, we're talking about playoffs vs season averages, your new metric now that you've conveniently abandoned points per shot when it exposes Embiid...

Kyrie in the 2016 finals:

27 ppg
3.9 apg
3.9 rpg
2.1 spg
.7 bpg
56.4 TS%
46.8 FG%
40.5 3PT%
94 FT%

Kyrie in the 2015-2106 Season:

19.6 ppg
4.7 apg
3 rpg
1.1 spg
.3 bpg
54 TS%
44.8 FG%
32.1 3PT%
88.5 FT%

A massive step up in literally every single key stat but assists, which dropped by .8, and you're arguing against people that are saying Kyrie played well in the 2016 finals.  By picking games and using points per shot.  And then ignoring points per shot for Embiid, instead comparing his playoff dips to his season averages to make an assessment.  But then when we're talking Kyrie, you ignore his massive leap vs. season averages, and focus on tricky, selective points per shot.

See how it's kind of weird, but kind of a cycle where the data, no matter what it is, tends to argue against the Celtics vs. other teams and players pretty consistently?

[Moranis]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Wrong.  That's factually incorrect, or at least you haven't proven it, because it isn't the same thing as saying the Sixers were better with Baynes off the floor.  Again, when Baynes was in the game, Embiid was in the game 100% OF THAT TIME.  Embiid is great, so Philly played well. 

When Baynes was out, Embiid was in for I'd bet only 40% of that time, and so in 60% of those minutes with Baynes off the floor, the Sixers relied on Simmons who played horribly and 3 point shooters who shot 30%.  So they performed worse then, duh.  If you understand basketball, or even common sense, you see that the +/- aren't informative about Baynes's play, the key there is who was playing 100% of the time Baynes was in, and who played (poorly) when he was out. 

So my question is, is that too complex or are you just trying really hard to zig when others zag?

I did actually prove it using Embiid's +- as compared to Baynes.  Embiid's +- was much worse when Baynes was on the bench. 

[Moranis]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Hmm.  So the Celtics did well because Embiid did mostly worse than he did in the regular season.  Okay, that logic makes sense. 

Oh wait, weren't you arguing here weeks ago that Kyrie played poorly in the 2016 finals where the Cavs won, by selecting only his worst games and looking at point per shot?

Now I present to you an argument about Embiid relying on your familiar points per shot, and instead you throw out plus minus numbers that I've address the legitimacy of above. 

By the way, we're talking about playoffs vs season averages, your new metric now that you've conveniently abandoned points per shot when it exposes Embiid...

Kyrie in the 2016 finals:

27 ppg
3.9 apg
3.9 rpg
2.1 spg
.7 bpg
56.4 TS%
46.8 FG%
40.5 3PT%
94 FT%

Kyrie in the 2015-2106 Season:

19.6 ppg
4.7 apg
3 rpg
1.1 spg
.3 bpg
54 TS%
44.8 FG%
32.1 3PT%
88.5 FT%

A massive step up in literally every single key stat but assists, which dropped by .8, and you're arguing against people that are saying Kyrie played well in the 2016 finals.  By picking games and using points per shot.  And then ignoring points per shot for Embiid, instead comparing his playoff dips to his season averages to make an assessment.  But then when we're talking Kyrie, you ignore his massive leap vs. season averages, and focus on tricky, selective points per shot.

See how it's kind of weird, but kind of a cycle where the data, no matter what it is, tends to argue against the Celtics vs. other teams and players pretty consistently?

Not surprisingly you totally conflated my argument about Irving.  My point was that Irving is inconsistent.  He has great games, but he also has poor games.  That isn't uncommon, but his peaks and valleys are much greater then the all time great players.  Irving is a very good player, but he isn't a franchise guy.  That is all I've ever argued about Irving.  He is a terrible defender and doesn't do much well outside of ball handling and shooting/scoring.  he does those very well and that is what makes a very good player, but he isn't a super duper high level player either. 

[smokeablount]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Wrong.  That's factually incorrect, or at least you haven't proven it, because it isn't the same thing as saying the Sixers were better with Baynes off the floor.  Again, when Baynes was in the game, Embiid was in the game 100% OF THAT TIME.  Embiid is great, so Philly played well. 

When Baynes was out, Embiid was in for I'd bet only 40% of that time, and so in 60% of those minutes with Baynes off the floor, the Sixers relied on Simmons who played horribly and 3 point shooters who shot 30%.  So they performed worse then, duh.  If you understand basketball, or even common sense, you see that the +/- aren't informative about Baynes's play, the key there is who was playing 100% of the time Baynes was in, and who played (poorly) when he was out. 

So my question is, is that too complex or are you just trying really hard to zig when others zag?

I did actually prove it using Embiid's +- as compared to Baynes.  Embiid's +- was much worse when Baynes was on the bench.

Ok, we'll forget for a second the issues with that +/- stats, and that you said it means the Celtics played Embiid well, Baynes guarded Embiid for 65% of the minutes Embiid played, and Baynes was a top defender in some metrics in the NBA last year.  We'll ignore all those things.

Let's look at D Rating between Embiid and Baynes in the series.  Now, Embiid was 2nd in DPOY so I'm not saying Baynes is better than Embiid at defense, I'm just saying, let's look:

Embiid D Rating (by game)

119
113
96
100
115

Baynes:

105
116
97
107
115

Embiid's D Rating average per game: 108.6
Embiid on the season: 100

Baynes's D Rating average per game: 108
Baynes on the season: 103

So, the stats from the season clearly show Embiid as the superior defender, as they should, but in this series that Boston won 4-1, Baynes's D Rating was better than that of the DPOY runner up, who Baynes was guarding for 100% of his game time, just under 24 mins per game.  Baynes was also a top defender all year, and Embiid scored over 20% lower on his points per shot. 

I think 95% of the evidence points a certain way.  You keep doing your +/- thing though. 

[nickagneta]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

Ummmm...just saying but are you trying to say things like taking shots when doubled or shots at the end of the clock or being guarded by different players didn't happen when he was getting 1.4 ppp in the regular season? You realize it goes both ways.

[greece66]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Hmm.  So the Celtics did well because Embiid did mostly worse than he did in the regular season.  Okay, that logic makes sense. 

Oh wait, weren't you arguing here weeks ago that Kyrie played poorly in the 2016 finals where the Cavs won, by selecting only his worst games and looking at point per shot?

Now I present to you an argument about Embiid relying on your familiar points per shot, and instead you throw out plus minus numbers that I've address the legitimacy of above. 

By the way, we're talking about playoffs vs season averages, your new metric now that you've conveniently abandoned points per shot when it exposes Embiid...

Kyrie in the 2016 finals:

27 ppg
3.9 apg
3.9 rpg
2.1 spg
.7 bpg
56.4 TS%
46.8 FG%
40.5 3PT%
94 FT%

Kyrie in the 2015-2106 Season:

19.6 ppg
4.7 apg
3 rpg
1.1 spg
.3 bpg
54 TS%
44.8 FG%
32.1 3PT%
88.5 FT%

A massive step up in literally every single key stat but assists, which dropped by .8, and you're arguing against people that are saying Kyrie played well in the 2016 finals.  By picking games and using points per shot.  And then ignoring points per shot for Embiid, instead comparing his playoff dips to his season averages to make an assessment.  But then when we're talking Kyrie, you ignore his massive leap vs. season averages, and focus on tricky, selective points per shot.

See how it's kind of weird, but kind of a cycle where the data, no matter what it is, tends to argue against the Celtics vs. other teams and players pretty consistently?

Not surprisingly you totally conflated my argument about Irving.  My point was that Irving is inconsistent.  He has great games, but he also has poor games.  That isn't uncommon, but his peaks and valleys are much greater then the all time great players.  Irving is a very good player, but he isn't a franchise guy.  That is all I've ever argued about Irving.  He is a terrible defender and doesn't do much well outside of ball handling and shooting/scoring.  he does those very well and that is what makes a very good player, but he isn't a super duper high level player either.

It depends on the definition of "very good" and "super duper high level". I suppose LBJ and Durant are in the latter cat, are there any other players who belong there in your opinion?

[Moranis]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

Ummmm...just saying but are you trying to say things like taking shots when doubled or shots at the end of the clock or being guarded by different players didn't happen when he was getting 1.4 ppp in the regular season? You realize it goes both ways.

Sure it does, but that wasn't my point.  My point was he keeps saying Embiid shot 1.12 and attributes it to Baynes, yet when Baynes was the on the bench and Embiid was in the game the Sixers performed much worse on the scoreboard.  My argument is the reason for that is Baynes couldn't effectively guard Embiid.  The scoreboard is the only thing that matters and in that Baynes failed miserably when he was in the game.

[Moranis]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Wrong.  That's factually incorrect, or at least you haven't proven it, because it isn't the same thing as saying the Sixers were better with Baynes off the floor.  Again, when Baynes was in the game, Embiid was in the game 100% OF THAT TIME.  Embiid is great, so Philly played well. 

When Baynes was out, Embiid was in for I'd bet only 40% of that time, and so in 60% of those minutes with Baynes off the floor, the Sixers relied on Simmons who played horribly and 3 point shooters who shot 30%.  So they performed worse then, duh.  If you understand basketball, or even common sense, you see that the +/- aren't informative about Baynes's play, the key there is who was playing 100% of the time Baynes was in, and who played (poorly) when he was out. 

So my question is, is that too complex or are you just trying really hard to zig when others zag?

I did actually prove it using Embiid's +- as compared to Baynes.  Embiid's +- was much worse when Baynes was on the bench.

Ok, we'll forget for a second the issues with that +/- stats, and that you said it means the Celtics played Embiid well, Baynes guarded Embiid for 65% of the minutes Embiid played, and Baynes was a top defender in some metrics in the NBA last year.  We'll ignore all those things.

Let's look at D Rating between Embiid and Baynes in the series.  Now, Embiid was 2nd in DPOY so I'm not saying Baynes is better than Embiid at defense, I'm just saying, let's look:

Embiid D Rating (by game)

119
113
96
100
115

Baynes:

105
116
97
107
115

Embiid's D Rating average per game: 108.6
Embiid on the season: 100

Baynes's D Rating average per game: 108
Baynes on the season: 103

So, the stats from the season clearly show Embiid as the superior defender, as they should, but in this series that Boston won 4-1, Baynes's D Rating was better than that of the DPOY runner up, who Baynes was guarding for 100% of his game time, just under 24 mins per game.  Baynes was also a top defender all year, and Embiid scored over 20% lower on his points per shot. 

I think 95% of the evidence points a certain way.  You keep doing your +/- thing though.

Because Boston was better than Philadelphia, but that doesn't say Baynes was better than Embiid.  He wasn't.

Again here are Embiid's +- stats when Baynes was in and when Baynes wasn't in

Game 1 - against Baynes +1, 29 minutes - against others -7, 6 minutes
Game 2 - against Baynes +16, 21 minutes - against others -24, 16 minutes
Game 3 - against Baynes +8, 23 minutes - against others -2, 18 minutes
Game 4 - against Baynes +9, 19 minutes - against others +13, 16 minutes
Game 5 - against Baynes +6, 25 minutes - against others -3, 14 minutes

The only game Baynes was more effective against Embiid then the rest of the C's was Game 4, which the Sixers won (which is the only game where Embiid was + against everyone else - he was + every game against Baynes in the series).  In the four Boston wins, Embiid's +- was significantly worse when Baynes was on the bench.

[BitterJim]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Wrong.  That's factually incorrect, or at least you haven't proven it, because it isn't the same thing as saying the Sixers were better with Baynes off the floor.  Again, when Baynes was in the game, Embiid was in the game 100% OF THAT TIME.  Embiid is great, so Philly played well. 

When Baynes was out, Embiid was in for I'd bet only 40% of that time, and so in 60% of those minutes with Baynes off the floor, the Sixers relied on Simmons who played horribly and 3 point shooters who shot 30%.  So they performed worse then, duh.  If you understand basketball, or even common sense, you see that the +/- aren't informative about Baynes's play, the key there is who was playing 100% of the time Baynes was in, and who played (poorly) when he was out. 

So my question is, is that too complex or are you just trying really hard to zig when others zag?

I did actually prove it using Embiid's +- as compared to Baynes.  Embiid's +- was much worse when Baynes was on the bench.

That doesn't mean Baynes is bad at defending Embiid, it just means that the Celtics were better (offensivelt, defensively, or both) with Horford out there as the lone big. Given that Horford was the best player on our playoff roster, that hardly comes as a surprise

If someone wants to argue that Baynes is better for the team than Horford, then +/- could be a good stat for disproving that. But it doesn't tell you how well he defended Embiid

[Moranis]

I don't think it is a coincidence that Embiid being able to do whatever he wanted against Baynes

This is true only in your mind.  Embiid is very good and clearly better than Baynes but CBS liked what Baynes did and he helped us win the series, no matter how you twist it....

Yeah, that is a complete rewriting of history. Embiid clearly got upset with Baynes’ physicality at stages, particularly near the end of the series

Sure he got upset that the fouls were harder then Embiid felt they needed to be.  But they were still fouls and they still put Embiid on the line.  If Baynes wasn't getting beat all the time, maybe he wouldn't have needed to foul Embiid at all.

No, Embiid got upset because Baynes held him to an atrocious 1.12 points per shot after he put up 1.4 points per shot in the regular season. Unlike your plus minus metrics, this stat actually measures Baynes effect on Embiid, not Embiids effect on the Sixers / Celtics. It’s really not that difficult.

Did you actually analyze Embiid's shots when being guarded by Baynes?  Like watch video of every possession to see when Baynes was on Embiid and when Embiid was being guarded by others.  Did that analysis include end of the shot clock type shots verse normal offense shots both with and without Baynes?  Did that analysis account for double teams and if so how did it account for double teams?  Just because Embiid had 1.12 points per shot, doesn't mean Baynes held him to that, especially since Embiid was in the game a lot without Baynes even being on the floor.  Of course, as indicated Embiid and the Sixers were a lot more effective on the scoreboard (the only thing that really matters) when Baynes was in the game then when Baynes wasn't in the game.

I don't have to do that, I just have to establish that my statistics are more relevant in regards to Baynes's abilities guarding Embiid than yours are, and I've done that, given the unanimous disagreement you've met in this thread from knowledgeable posters.

With unanimous support on my side, the burden of bearing evidence in the form of video analysis and statistical segmentation is on you.

EDIT - Here's a fun starting point.  Embiid played most teams in the East 4 times- against what teams did he average lower than 1.12 PPS in those 4 games?  If Baynes can't guard Embiid, surely you'll find lots of averages below 1.12 PPS.

Wouldn't be expecting a response to this, lol. Good post. Not sure why he's being obtuse in the face of pretty irrefutable stats

his stats are nonsense for what he is arguing.  If his argument was the Celtics did a great job guarding Embiid, I'd agree.  Embiid performed mostly below his regular season averages overall in that series.  My position is, it wasn't because of Baynes, as both Embiid and the Sixers performed significantly better when Baynes was in the game, then when Baynes wasn't in the game.  Every metric you can use, supports that position.  Boston was better when Baynes wasn't guarding Embiid.

Wrong.  That's factually incorrect, or at least you haven't proven it, because it isn't the same thing as saying the Sixers were better with Baynes off the floor.  Again, when Baynes was in the game, Embiid was in the game 100% OF THAT TIME.  Embiid is great, so Philly played well. 

When Baynes was out, Embiid was in for I'd bet only 40% of that time, and so in 60% of those minutes with Baynes off the floor, the Sixers relied on Simmons who played horribly and 3 point shooters who shot 30%.  So they performed worse then, duh.  If you understand basketball, or even common sense, you see that the +/- aren't informative about Baynes's play, the key there is who was playing 100% of the time Baynes was in, and who played (poorly) when he was out. 

So my question is, is that too complex or are you just trying really hard to zig when others zag?

I did actually prove it using Embiid's +- as compared to Baynes.  Embiid's +- was much worse when Baynes was on the bench.

That doesn't mean Baynes is bad at defending Embiid, it just means that the Celtics were better (offensivelt, defensively, or both) with Horford out there as the lone big. Given that Horford was the best player on our playoff roster, that hardly comes as a surprise

If someone wants to argue that Baynes is better for the team than Horford, then +/- could be a good stat for disproving that. But it doesn't tell you how well he defended Embiid

It tells you Boston was better as a team when Baynes was on the bench though.  My argument after watching the series was because Baynes didn't have the speed or quickness to effectively guard Embiid whereas Horford did.  I'm really surprised that position is a strange one on this board.  Baynes is tough, hard nosed, and very good in the paint at guarding less mobile players, but he really struggles with the new age centers, like Embiid, that stretch the floor, have decent ball handling skills, etc.