Originally Posted by ThomasamohT
And thats why you're NOT making decisions for the Spurs. Kaman is an offensive liability. Yes he's scoring 10.4 ppg (Tiago is only 2ppg behind) but at what cost? If you were to replace Kaman with an "average big man"(which is heavily skewed by the number of good PF in the game) your offense improves by 2.23ppg. Replace Kaman with Tiago and you improve by 1.36ppg.
On defense Kaman isn't all that great either. He saves his team 2.73ppg when he is on the court. Tiago saves the Spurs 4.45ppg.
Accordingly, if you were to swap Kaman with Tiago, the Lakers would improve their point differential by over 3ppg. How can a "good" offensive player be so horrible on an awful team??? Likewise if you put Kaman on the Spurs they would have won 3 fewer games this year. That might not be that much but depending on who we lost those 3 games to, that could be the difference between having home court advantage and not.
Chris Kaman's all star birth was one of the biggest jokes in NBA history. That year, the Clippers scored just as much when he was on the bench as when he was in the game. On defense, opposing teams scored 109 points per 100 possessions. For reference, Baynes only gives up 104 points per 100 possessions. Kaman is the sole reason that the NBA started fitting players into spots that they didn't normally play, just so they could prevent a repeat of that incident.
I don't even know how to respond. You are throwing around a bunch of numbers as if they are facts. As if it is a fact that if kaman went to sa, he would decrease our wins by 3.223 games. Ridiculous. For all we know, kaman would produce better with a competent offense. I take those numbers with a grain of salt. Only strengthening my opinion sitting here watching splitter miss his third chip shot in a row. Say kaman as an all star is a joke all you want, at least he had the ability to be one.