# Humphries unhappy with playing time



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

> BOSTON — Kris Humphries was joking around recently about him, MarShon Brooks and Keith Bogans joining a YMCA team so they could play in some games.
> 
> The NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement won't allow such a thing to happen, but that's besides the point.
> 
> ...


http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/humphries-unhappy-playing-time


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

He'll be happy in March when he gets to hand-pick the playoff team he signs with as a buyout guy. Between him, Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor, and at least one other guy I'm sure I'm forgetting, it might actually be a somewhat impactful buyout period.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Humphries probably would be getting nice 20-25 minutes per game if the Celtics weren't tanking. He and Sullinger would make a pretty good rebounding combo and he don't do many stupid things to hurt your team. But Faverani showed up and Brad needs to give Olynyk tons of playing(which is silly if you're trying to win) so he can develop. And ofc there is Bass who isn't really much better than Humph nor Sullinger with lower ceiling.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zanshadow said:


> Humphries probably would be getting nice 20-25 minutes per game if the Celtics weren't tanking. He and Sullinger would make a pretty good rebounding combo and he don't do many stupid things to hurt your team. But Faverani showed up and Brad needs to give Olynyk tons of playing(which is silly if you're trying to win) so he can develop. And ofc there is Bass who isn't really much better than Humph nor Sullinger with lower ceiling.


There's a difference between playing your first-round pick over a guy who won't be here next year and outright tanking. Humphries isn't a difference-maker right now, so they're developing the guy that'll still be on the roster in March. Holding Pierce out of games when he was healthy in 2007 was tanking, this is just prioritizing the long-term over tomorrow. It also doesn't help Humphries' case that the backcourt aren't great shooters and there are four better-shooting bigs on the roster.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

You make tanking sound more complex than it is.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zanshadow said:


> You make tanking sound more complex than it is.


I dunno, I just differentiate between rebuilding and losing on purpose. If we're calling tanking "anything other than building for the current season", sure, I suppose they're actively tanking. I just don't define it that way.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Maybe I'm just more dirty minded. But I find your argument sexy. But then I don't believe tankers know that they're tankers. Stop messing with my head, you.



> *Celtics Players Not Looking to Tank Season *
> 
> But ask the veterans on a team that has been tagged to lose, and the subject is grating, going against the way most professional athletes are wired.
> 
> ...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Humphries "doesn't do stupid things on the court"? Did he get a brain transplant? He's one of the dumbest players I've ever seen.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

It probably has more to do with Kardashian and TMZ than actual basketball.

He actually has always been a consistent high IQ role player that's little more than a hard nosed rebounder. Give him a chance and he'll prove you wrong.

http://www.celticsblog.com/2013/9/22/4748118/kris-humphries-9-22


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

He's actually _never_ been a "high IQ roleplayer". That's why he lost his time on the Nets to the calcified remains of Reggie Evans. Has he been good at padding his numbers on 30 win teams? Yeah, he's aces up at that. On teams looking to win NBA games he usually ends up stapled to the bench. The Nets gave him huge minutes in 2011 & 2012 while rolling to a 45-91 record in games that he played. Last year they more or less buried him on the bench after New Year's because he's an incredibly stupid player and giving him heavy minutes is counterproductive when you're trying to win games.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Padding stats isn't possible unless we are talking merely about boxscore stats which tells pretty much close to nothing. That's just absurd anyways. It's like people telling me back in the days that Kevin Love was a stat padder only because they couldn't explain how he was raping on boards.

The reason the Nets played more Reggie than Humphries is actually simple. Because he was tearing the league apart in rebounding. He led the league Offensive Rebound Pct, Defensive Rebound Pct, Total Rebound Pct, 14th in Defensive Rating, 8th in OReb, 5th in DReb, 4th in total reb. The Nets simply utilized his rebounding skills more.

But in a closer look, Humphries actually held more than his own in a reduced role. 5 man rotation WIN% was actually better with Humphries(team won more with humph than not.) This isn't surprising. This again is backed up by his winshare/48 stats which is slightly higher than Reggie's though he has more total winshare due to playing time much more minutes. So, nothing supports a big phony narrative that he's the dumbest player ever. That simply isn't possible, he doesn't try to be Josh Smith, Kobe Bryant. His marriage obviously got to a lot of peoples' head. Why can't people even accept that he's a decent capable role player but mindlessly bash him to death for no good reason.

This kind of discussion sorta reminds me of skip bayless and stephen a show. Somebody comes up with a big narrative and say whatever supports their case with absolutely zero facts and whoever has a louder voice wins in the end. It's good for entertainment but I don't consider any of it a useful analysis. I try to stay away from it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Last year the Nets were worse with him on the court. Not just defensively, but offensively too. That's why he lost his rotation spot to an elderly 6'6" PF. Not because Reggie Evans had suddenly morphed into an NBA all star at age 32. Evans has always been a one trick pony, but he at least doesn't hurt you defensively. Humphries has always been a horrific defender in space, and doesn't bring any offense to the table to compensate for it. And it's been his coaches that have labeled him basketball stupid, not "talk show hosts".


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

Humphries' most played top 5 rotation was more or less the same as Evans, just about the same in wins/loss%. Where Humphries struggled mostly last season was with his shooting, not anything else. Now Evans getting the nod wasn't much of a surprise. Here's why.

http://bkref.com/tiny/SKYMf


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

You want to see why the calcified remains of Reggie Evans took over for Humphries?

Brooklyn off/100 108.2 def/100 106.2

off. points/100 w/Evans 110.9 w/o Evans 107.8
def. points/100 w/Evans 105.5 w/o Evans 108.2

off. points/100 w/Humphries 106.7 w/o Humphries 110.5
def. points/100 w/Humphries 110 w/o Humphries 105.5

The Nets were worse than their average on both sides of the ball when Humphries was on the court, despite his "ossum win shares, dude!" In short, Humphries was a defensive liability without an offensive game. 

Here in Boston, where they're actively working on establishing a defensive identity, that liability is magnified. Add in the fact that Boston's guards may be the worst shooting unit this side of the 1950s and Boston needs forwards that can shoot. And that means Bass, Olynyk, Sullinger, and Faverani are going to get the time. The Celtics are already too easy to defend (they're a bottom five offensive unit), making it even easier on opponents isn't going to make them magically win.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

The Celtics are dead last in defensive rebounding and under average in offensive rebounding. I just don't think playing Sullinger and Humphries for 20-25 minutes is going to do much harm than good.

But ultimately, Bogg hit the nail on the head, it's about future not tomorrow. The point is moot. Thanks for the discussion though.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

They're also the 12th best defense for the moment and that's the _only_ reason they've won anything so far. Sacrificing defense for even worse offense doesn't really make a lot of sense in either the short or long terms.


----------



## zanshadow (Jun 26, 2013)

I don't mean to drag this meaningless discussion but...

You and I probably aren't that far off. If you actually *read* my initial comment, I was just pointing out how rotation could make more sense with Humphries in over likes of Olynyk(or possibly Bass). Olynyk's not better, in fact worse on either ends. But as Boggs said, I see why there's needs for him to be on the court, for the future. I just happen to understand Humphries's frustration as he's still in his prime, and capable role player. Everything else's taken out of context stuff becuase you claimed how he was worthless piece of shit which stirred up everything.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

zanshadow said:


> But as Boggs said, I see why there's needs for him to be on the court, for the future.


There's also the fact that Olynyk is a much better perimeter shooter, and the C's need all the floor spacing they can get. It's because of that I don't necessarily believe that Humphries would actually make the team better right now.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Bogg said:


> I don't necessarily believe that Humphries would actually make the team better right now.


That's because he wouldn't.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

zanshadow said:


> I don't mean to drag this meaningless discussion but...
> 
> You and I probably aren't that far off. If you actually *read* my initial comment, I was just pointing out how rotation could make more sense with Humphries in over likes of Olynyk(or possibly Bass). Olynyk's not better, in fact worse on either ends. But as Boggs said, I see why there's needs for him to be on the court, for the future. I just happen to understand Humphries's frustration as he's still in his prime, and capable role player. Everything else's taken out of context stuff becuase you claimed how he was worthless piece of shit which stirred up everything.


The only thing that Humphries offers is offensive rebounding. As of today they're an above-average defensive team, Humphries actually hurts in that regard. If you were getting improved offense out of the deal, there'd be a decision to make. Unfortunately he hurts there, as well. So there really isn't. They need Bass, Sullinger, Olynyk, and Faverani (who gives you everything that Humphries does with better spacing to boot) to hit their jumpers for this team to have any chance to score.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

More Humphries rumblings...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1855687-facing-uncertainity-heres-the-trade-the-knicks-might-need-to-make-with-boston



> But even if it's not Rondo, the Celtics are still attractive for the potential of a big man swap, and according to a source close to Gang Green, they might be willing to take on what basically no other team wants: Stoudemire's $21.7 million and $23.4 million salaries this season and next, respectively.
> 
> In that scenario, according to the source, the Knicks would acquire power forward/center Kris Humphries and small forward Gerald Wallace, while the Celtics would lose two massive salaries for one, Stoudemire, who the Celtics would have to retain only until 2015 (Wallace is through 2016). The Celtics also plan on "stinking in 2014-15 anyway," according to the source close to the team, so Stoudemire's financial presence wouldn't necessarily hurt them as they have plenty of salary-cap flexibility and can continue to add roster pieces.


If New York is listening I do it without even thinking. Getting Wallace off the books in summer 2015 would be an enormous plus. I don't see the Knicks doing it, though, even though Woodson supposedly likes Humphries.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Its so unlike this guy to try to ditch a trainwreck after a few weeks.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Bogg said:


> More Humphries rumblings...
> 
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1855687-facing-uncertainity-heres-the-trade-the-knicks-might-need-to-make-with-boston
> 
> ...


I suppose Boston would need to sweeten it a little so that they get to swap LA's #1 for New York's in 2015, because that's the prize here. Of course it's interesting that they're expecting to suck again next year, that would seem to be an indication that they're moving on from Rondo.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

E.H. Munro said:


> I suppose Boston would need to sweeten it a little so that they get to swap LA's #1 for New York's in 2015, because that's the prize here. Of course it's interesting that they're expecting to suck again next year, that would seem to be an indication that they're moving on from Rondo.


Lots of conflicting messages on Rondo. I have a feeling we'll simultaneously be hearing that Rondo's completely off the market and that teams are in discussions about him for at least the next two years (if he stays in green).


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

If I'm the Celtics, I hold onto all my picks right now.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> If I'm the Celtics, I hold onto all my picks right now.


Nobody's giving up a first for Amare. It's a straight-up two for one trade that condenses the last two years of Wallace's contract into one payment next year or it's nothing. Now, if they want to talk about some of Boston's rotation guys in exchange for that right to swap that EH mentioned, then you can talk about that as well, but there won't be any picks going the Knicks way.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

RollWithEm said:


> If I'm the Celtics, I hold onto all my picks right now.


New York can't trade a pick of their own until 2018, so if you want their 2015 #1 it has to come via a pick swap, and Boston just happens to have a spare first rounder in its 2015 wallet to use for the deal.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> New York can't trade a pick of their own until 2018, so if you want their 2015 #1 it has to come via a pick swap, and Boston just happens to have a spare first rounder in its 2015 wallet to use for the deal.


But will LA or Boston be worse that season?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

RollWithEm said:


> But will LA or Boston be worse that season?


Almost certainly Boston, but that's not relevant. The right to swap would be Boston having the option to exchange the Clippers' first-round pick they got for Doc with the Knicks' first round pick that year. Barring a major event, the Clips are probably going to be five to ten picks after the Knicks next year, if not more.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

RollWithEm said:


> But will LA or Boston be worse that season?


Boston will be a disaster next year, the Clippers will be title contenders, so swapping the Clippers pick for New York's would work out well for Boston. Because even if Anthony comes back next year the Knicks are no better than a middle of the road squad while the Clippers will be a top 5 squad.


----------



## Alumni96 (Aug 23, 2006)

zanshadow said:


> I don't mean to drag this meaningless discussion but...
> 
> You and I probably aren't that far off. If you actually *read* my initial comment,* I was just pointing out how rotation could make more sense with Humphries in over likes of Olynyk(or possibly Bass)*. Olynyk's not better, in fact worse on either ends. But as Boggs said, I see why there's needs for him to be on the court, for the future. I just happen to understand Humphries's frustration as he's still in his prime, and capable role player. Everything else's taken out of context stuff becuase you claimed how he was worthless piece of shit which stirred up everything.


No rotation is going to make sense, because the entire roster doesn't make sense.


----------

