Which NBA Players Have the Most Divisive Value? (There's Gotta Be a Better Title Than This)

I am fascinated by the concept of team construction in the National Basketball Association. Last week's Trade Deadline gave me the perfect opportunity to explore these what-ifs up close and personal - how would a pairing of two of the most talented big men the Association has ever seen (Demarcus Cousins and Anthony Davis) work in an era dominated by small-ball? Could the Sacramento Kings possibly play better now that they've been freed to play the style that Demarcus Cousins' presence would apparently never allow?

Although it is primarily a star-driven sport, I believe basketball to also be situational in fundamentally important ways. For instance, as a Celtics fan, I have been particularly enthralled with watching Isaiah Thomas this year. Thomas has become one of the elite offensive players in the league, and arguably one of the most valuable, period. His top-notch speed, body control, and touch around the rim give him the ability to drive, absorb contact, and still get off his shot. But it is also true that Thomas's talents are maximized on his current team - a team of versatile shooters who are able to space the floor and cover up for his defensive deficiencies. So it leads me to think - would the Celtics ever believe they could get equal trade value for IT?

Of course, there are more factors at play here than just Thomas's play on the court. He's on a ridiculously team-friendly contract through next season. He's also a local hero in Boston - Beantown might revolt if the Celtics ever decided to trade him. But the thought experiment endures - IT has clearly discernible strengths as well as weaknesses. If the Celtics looked to move him, would other teams think of him as a cornerstone offensive force, or would they deal with him similarly to how Phoenix and Sacramento did earlier in his career - as a spark plug off the bench?

With this in mind, I set out to find the players at each position whose value was most difficult to figure out, based on the fact that they had a heavily divergent skill set. One team might build themselves around an all-offense, defensively limited point guard like Thomas, and another team might decide that they're better off with him getting only garbage-time minutes. After identifying these players, I then proposed who would be a perfect fit for their abilities and style (To make it fun, I excluded their current teams from the equation).

A quick overview of how I came to my decisions - for player performance, I used pre All-Star Break stats from Basketball-reference.com and NBA.com. Specifically, I looked at percentages - assist percentage, turnover percentage, steal, block, and total rebound percentage, usage rate and three-point rate. Because I didn't feel that defense was getting it's fair shake, I took the Defended Field Goal percentage from NBA.com, as well as the differential between defended field goals and overall field goals. I then eliminated from the conversation any players who hadn't played in at least 25 games or played at least 16 minutes a night. My reasoning was that I'd generally like all comparisons to be between players of similar caliber (at least rotational players), who had been reasonably healthy. In order to make all the statistics decently relatable to each other, I then ranked players by percentile in each category (for instance, Tyson Chandler is better than 91% of other Centers in terms of Total Rebounding percentage, but falls short of every single one of his peers in terms of Block percentage this year). Finally, I took the standard deviation (explained here) of all these numbers to figure out which players have the widest range between skills.

I did use some discretion here, as I did not necessarily write about whoever had the craziest disparity between certain skills. For example, Jeremy Lamb is the two-guard with the biggest range between good and poor skills in my data set. Though a fascinating case, I thought an exceedingly more interesting case, based on playing time and stature, was number ten on my list: DeMar Derozan.

So, with that, I present to you my selection for the players with the most divisive value in the NBA.

POINT GUARD: ISAIAH THOMAS, BOSTON

I mean, I did talk about him in the intro, after all. Full disclaimer: Russell Westbrook was, in fact, #1 on the list I compiled. But I don't think many NBA execs disagree about his value. Besides, there's almost no one who he's comparable to, which makes him difficult to talk about in an article about value. For anyone, trade discussions involving Russ would start with your firstborn and go from there.

So... back to Isaiah - according to the all-encompassing Win Shares stat, he's been as valuable as players such as Jimmy Butler and Kawhi Leonard this season (I used Win Shares, explained here, as a basis for comparing overall value. Of course there are others, but to me Win Shares seems to be best at representing overall value.). Even if you use a different measurement, Isaiah Thomas has arguably been a top-10 player in the NBA this season.

The only problem is that he isn't consistently dominant across all categories. He clears the 75th percentile in three-point rate, and he draws fouls better than 90% of his peers. He doesn't turn the ball over, but he doesn't take it away, either. He is not a strong defender (as mentioned before), but, at the 45th percentile in terms of defended field goal percentage, perhaps not as much a sieve as you may have thought.

So how does another team value a transcendent offensive player who must have teammates cover for him on the less-glamorous end? How about a team chock-full of spindly, defensively astute players who are also capable shooters? A team with enough spacing to open up the floor to allow IT to maximize his speed and 1-on-1 scoring ability? How about a team like...

The Milwaukee Bucks

If not Boston, Thomas would be an ideal fit in Brew City. Despite the multiple multidimensional players on the Bucks, the best iso player on the team that gets any run is Michael Beasley, scoring 1.00 point per possession (tied with venerable isolation scorers Jerryd Bayless and Ian Mahinmi). Thomas, by contrast, makes 10% of his buckets off of isolation plays, and is doing so on par with Kyrie Irving, perhaps the quintessential one-on scorer. He would add a dimension on offense that is relatively nonexistent in Milwaukee. 

Although Milwaukee is not a good defensive squad in 2016-17, they have the tools to be one. Length (Khris Middleton, Giannis Antetokuonmpo, Tony Snell, John Henson et. al.) and foot speed mean the Bucks could feasibly regain a top-10 defensive form, just as they did in 2014-15. And that was when Brandon Knight ran the point for most of the season. Similarities, anyone?

Oh! And I haven't told you the best part of Isaiah Thomas's fit with the Bucks - dribble handoffs with Giannis Antetokuonmpo. No... seriously. The Celtics are the most handoff-happy team in the league, but they are middling on a points-per-play basis (0.89). You know who is number one, scoring 0.15 more points than that per play? Yup, the Bucks. IT has become highly proficient at taking a handoff, using his teammate's body as cover, and then drilling a 3. But what if that teammate was a 6'11" forward with guard skills? Now suddenly, if defenders go under their man, they give Thomas way too much space to shoot. If they fight over, IT gives to Giannis and Giannis is a step and a half away from a dunk. Seriously scary. And even though Antetokuonmpo is the de facto point guard for the Bucks, that would not be a concern working with Thomas, considering how comfortable he is working off the ball. Isaiah Thomas is a bona fide star in Boston, and if there's any team where he would be as revelatory, my bet would be in Milwaukee.

SHOOTING GUARD: DeMAR DeROZAN, TORONTO RAPTORS

An NBA fan following the league over the past year and a half (or, for that matter, eight years) wouldn't be surprised to see DeMar DeRozan on this list. He and Carmelo Anthony are the poster children for the long two-point shot, otherwise known as He Who Shall Not Be Named in analytics circles. But thing is - DeRozan's good at it. He shoots in the midrange with incredible volume, and cans those shots at generally above-average rates. Plus, he's also really good at doing something else which results in efficient point-making - getting to the free throw line. For that, he is better than all but 3% of other 2-guards, per my data set. And although the efficient long-range snipers seem to get the ink lately (the Splash Brothers), frequenters of the charity stripe are equally represented, if not more so, in the lexicon of current superstars - think LeBron James, James Harden, and Russell Westbrook. 

So how do we value DeRozan in today's NBA? Per NBA.com, he's an upper echelon scorer in isolation, in transition, posting up, and off cuts. Those play types seem to indicate that he's adept at using his body and athleticism to score, and would be ideal in an uptempo, free-flowing offense. Which would make him a perfect fit for...

The Denver Nuggets

OK. At first glance, this may not seem like a perfect fit. The Nuggets will potentially lose two or three frontcourt players this offseason in Danilo Gallinari, Mason Plumlee, and Wilson Chandler, and they feel like they've been drafting shooting guards for a while. But DeRozan is not just any shooting guard, and Denver has the supplemental pieces to make a beautiful marriage there. The Nuggets are 7th in the league in terms of three-point percentage and tenth in the league in attempts, allowing DeRozan the floor space to operate in post-ups and isolations, as well as mitigate any space-squeezing that his midrange game may lead to. The Nuggets are an excellent passing team, highlighted by their starting big men (Plumlee and Nikola Jokic). Jokic is a few years away from being a superstar, making DeRozan the first go-to player the Mile High City would have since Melo.

SMALL FORWARD: OTTO PORTER, WASHINGTON WIZARDS

Although others are ahead of him in my calculations of skill dispersion, I wanted to highlight Otto Porter here for one important reason - his upcoming restricted free agency. We will see soon enough what value the NBA places on his skills. And some may be surprised that that value is a maximum-salary contract.

So, why would some teams value the Wizards Small Forward as a max salary guy, despite the fact that he rates among the least-used (by usage percentage) players at his position? One word - versatility. He shoots well, rebounds well, and has quick hands to make a steal. Even though he has not defended well this year, Porter has positional versatility and will be paid in the offseason as a quintessential three-and-D player. Given the amount that wings like Harrison Barnes, Nic Batum, and Solomon Hill were paid last offseason, it is a given that Porter will get a similarly handsome payday this summer. But for which team would he be most valuable? Perhaps a team like...

The Oklahoma City Thunder

If we're being honest, every team could use Otto Porter, which is why he'll be highly sought after. Everyone loves versatile defenders who don't need the ball and can shoot. But who would really love it? Russell Westbrook. Westbrook's team is the worst shooting team in basketball from three, which is why they traded for Doug McDermott at the deadline. But Dougie McBuckets can only do so much. Porter is the perfect role player to sandwich between Westbrook, Victor Oladipo and Steven Adams - he won't turn the ball over, he makes the right play, and he shoots above-average percentages in close, from three, and in the mid-range. He doesn't dominate the ball, which is good because there are only so many non-Westbrook possessions that OKC should be comfortable having. And despite all the multi-talented players on the Thunder, Otto Porter would be the first true Swiss Army knife.

POWER FORWARD: ZACH RANDOLPH, MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES

Is there a place for the bruising big man in the modern NBA? Lately, it seems to be that place is as a sixth man. Guys like Zach Randolph, Al Jefferson, and to a lesser extent Jahlil Okafor and even Tobias Harris, have been asked to come off the pine to bully second units. In their stead, the lumbering big guys are replaced among the starters by quicker, rangier players.

Zach Randolph is the perfect case study for this. He is a usage monster when he's in the game, ending a possession 28.8% of the time (on par with LeBron James, Jimmy Butler, and Paul George). His strengths are defined - he inhales boards (98th percentile in my data set), he scores down low, he takes care of the ball, and he is an underrated passer for a big man. But he doesn't shoot. His slow-footedness has cost him defensively in the new NBA. Is there a team out there who could benefit from an old-school player like Z-Bo?

The Dallas Mavericks

There are two teams that are slower than Randolph's Grit-and-Grind Grizzlies this year - the Utah Jazz at 93.5 possessions per game, and the Mavericks, at 93.7. The Jazz seem to be set in the frontcourt with Rudy Gobert, Derrick Favors, and Trey Lyles, but what about the Mavs? Despite their trade for Nerlens Noel, Randolph would be a great fit for their style of play. With Dirk Nowitzki, Wes Matthews, Harrison Barnes, and Seth Curry, they have enough shooting around Z-Bo to open up the floor for post-up opportunities. And he'd be maximized defensively by being paired with a quicker 4, along with playing at a pace he's comfortable with. Randolph's veteran savvy would be a welcome addition to Rick Carlisle's read-and-react scheme, where his inside passing would be a boon for Mavs bigs.

CENTER: RUDY GOBERT, UTAH JAZZ

Rudy Gobert is another guy, kind of like Russell Westbrook, who has a divergent skill set but is still a consensus top player in the league. The Stifle Tower is a vortex into which opposing players get swallowed up. Drives are eliminated, layups a figment of your imagination. As you might expect, he exceeds 96% of his peers in terms of block percentage, and he's holding opponents to 42.2% shooting on defended field goals, which places him in the top 5% of his peer group. The things he does less superlatively (steals, assists, taking care of the ball) are easy to look over when you're talking about a foundational defensive force.

Which brings me to the point that he's been better than LeBron James this season. Wait. Did I really write that sentence? Per Win Shares, Gobert has amassed 9.7 Win Shares, while LeBron has 8.9. Again, you can certainly argue with the measurement, but the fact remains that Gobert supersedes the consensus Best Player In The World in a stat that is widely used to determine player value. Perhaps an argument could be that Win Shares is a cumulative statistic rather than a rate statistic, so maybe LeBron is still a better per-minute player? Nope. Gobert's Win Shares per 48 minutes stands at 0.243, outpacing James' 0.219.

So the question of value is a different one with Gobert. Everyone recognizes his superstardom, but who'd value him over a LeBron James-type player? It'd have to be a dynamite offensive team, with versatile players up front who lack the defensive chops to play with the big boys. They'd have to have a dominant bucket-making superstar capable of running an offense that favors Gobert (specifically, pick-and-roll and in transition). It would have to be a team like...

The Houston Rockets

Seriously, the fit is too perfect. If there was a team that would rather Gobert than King James, it would be Houston. Clint Capela is a perfectly capable Center, but that hasn't stopped opponents from shooting 64.7% within 5 feet of the basket, the worst mark in the league. The thing is, the Rockets have been pretty darn effective defending every shot that isn't point-blank. They rank no worse than 12th defending shots at every distance outside the circle. Add a defensive anchor to the middle, and suddenly opposing teams can't attempt 30 shots a night at the rim. Not when he's making those shots harder than a coin-flip. 

And make no mistake: Gobert's offense would be maximized in H-Town too. He's above the 97th percentile in transition and as a roll man, a perfect fit for an offense centered around James Harden and a bunch of sharpshooters. There's almost no team who would take any player over LeBron James, especially if that player is an offensively-limited non-shooter. But if that player is the perfect salve to what ails them, and they already have a player on par with LBJ, they just may be crazy enough to do it.

***

So, that does it for this list. Thank you for indulging me on my basketball nerdism. If you'd like to see the full data set that I used, here it is. While my thoughts have some statistical basis, they certainly do have their fair share of opinion, and I certainly do not consider myself an expert. Enjoy the rest of the season, folks!