Player The restricted-age video store section of Dylan Harper

[kxs783]

I think that what people aren't getting is that having a third penetrating guard is one of the main reasons why the Spurs are in the position they're in right now. That's both because they needed the extra ball-handling and play-making early in the season to cover for injuries and because having the ability to play two such guards 48 minutes a night has helped them make come backs and overwhelm opponents numerous times.

The Spurs could have and probably should have tried harder to bring in good-shooting role-players (Bobby Portis would look so damned good on the team right now), but the Spurs would be a worse team THIS YEAR without Harper. Not only is his scoring, passing and defense so important, but he helps unlock Kornet so Luke's a two-way threat when Wemby sits, and he's allowed Castle to play hard D and throw his body around because he doesn't have to carry the team when Fox is on the bench. He's also helped keep Fox fresh, boosted Keldon's efficiency by taking over ball-handling duties off the bench, allowed Vassell to focus on shooting, etc. The Spurs simply wouldn't look like as deep of a team if they didn't have elite PG play coming off their bench.

Or we could be an even better team with Kon's shooting. And there's no metric that can tell you by us having a 3rd penetrating guard is what made us better lol. That's eye test and your feelings you're going by my guy and we just can't go by that.

 

[kxs783]

kon to me looks like a bigger slower Ray Allen. He’s going to be really ridiculously good. But I’m more than happy with Harper. Like I said earlier, I see a Brandon Roy 2.0 in him.

This is a reasonable expectation for both.

 

[kxs783]

I've been mentioning Kon but Ace, Fears, Queen, etc have good high ceiling futures as well. I'm not going to say these guys don't have what it takes to possibly be just as good as Harper just because we drafted him.

 

[ace3g]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[dn0774]

Latest Dunc'd On podcast (Feb 27th) presents their wholly subjective thoughts on "the best and worst players to watch," where they very loosely drafted a top-5 in each category. Hollinger stole Dylan Harper with the first pick. Lots of love for Harper from both of these guys.

I happened to listen to this yesterday as well and as mentioned it wasn't Hollinger (thats the Hollinger & Duncan Pod) but Danny Leroux. I enjoy them because they are some of the most shrewd in the business when it comes to compliments, when they give out compliments it means something. They also don't let wins or losses cloud the entirety of what they saw like "normal" fans usually do.

 

[Chinook]

Or we could be an even better team with Kon's shooting. And there's no metric that can tell you by us having a 3rd penetrating guard is what made us better lol. That's eye test and your feelings you're going by my guy and we just can't go by that.

There isn't a metric to say that the Spurs would have won more games if they had Kon. We know that the Spurs have the third-best record in the league with Harper. I don't know how you got yourself so twisted up that you think you had the null hypothesis here. I'm describing a thing that's already happening. You're speculating on what you reckon would happen. If you need stats that show that the Spurs are better when Harper's on the court rather than off it, those stats readily exist already. Harper's in the 29-40 range in on-off in the entire league. Kon is a very good rookie, but he's in the 54-70 range.

The Spurs and Hornets are tied with Cleveland in TS%. Charlotte shoots more threes (second in 3PAr compared to the Spurs' 15th) but the Spurs get to the line more (10th in FT/FGA to Charlotte's 22nd). Overall, they're pretty close offensively (118.6 for CHA and 118 for SAS).

 

[OK Computer]

I think that what people aren't getting is that having a third penetrating guard is one of the main reasons why the Spurs are in the position they're in right now. That's both because they needed the extra ball-handling and play-making early in the season to cover for injuries and because having the ability to play two such guards 48 minutes a night has helped them make come backs and overwhelm opponents numerous times.

The Spurs could have and probably should have tried harder to bring in good-shooting role-players (Bobby Portis would look so damned good on the team right now), but the Spurs would be a worse team THIS YEAR without Harper. Not only is his scoring, passing and defense so important, but he helps unlock Kornet so Luke's a two-way threat when Wemby sits, and he's allowed Castle to play hard D and throw his body around because he doesn't have to carry the team when Fox is on the bench. He's also helped keep Fox fresh, boosted Keldon's efficiency by taking over ball-handling duties off the bench, allowed Vassell to focus on shooting, etc. The Spurs simply wouldn't look like as deep of a team if they didn't have elite PG play coming off their bench.

I agree, and I don’t think a lot of fans have fully settled this idea in their heads yet. People are still locked into the traditional blueprint of a contender where your best players are spread across the classic positions, usually a point guard, a wing, and a center. The Spurs might be trying to push past that model. Time will tell if they’ve actually found a way to stay ahead of the curve again by pulling off something other teams have attempted but never really sustained.

A lot of the conversation around Harper feels like wish-casting. Fans naturally want a high draft pick to become the future starting point guard because that’s the expectation attached to top picks. But there’s another outcome that could be just as successful, maybe even more valuable. What if he meets those expectations by becoming the best bench leader in the league, the guy who comes in and destroys opposing second units and swings playoff games? That still makes him a star-level contributor, just in a role that doesn’t fit traditional thinking.

It’s similar to the surface-level conversations around Wemby’s points or rebounds. Some fans focus too much on individual numbers instead of what actually drives winning. Harper becoming a major piece on a championship team matters more than whether he technically starts. Role and impact are not the same thing.

And even if the long-term financial reality forces one of the current guards into a different situation and Harper eventually becomes a starter, people may still need to adjust their thinking. If this structure keeps working, the Spurs could easily continue prioritizing a third high-level point guard who plays major minutes. That might just be the optimal formula for a team built around Wemby, even if it doesn’t look like the conventional lineup model people are used to.

 

[Chinook]

I think this conversation just underscores how much some folks just do not realize what the Spurs have in Harper. Anyone who actually bothers to look can see he's the team's second-most important player by a wide margin. It would be like the Thunder not being able to who was better between Westbrook and Harden all over again. Westbrook is a future HoFer and former MVP. He's had a very good career for a long time. Hell, even attitude wise he seems like a player you'd want on the team more than Harden. But Harden is clearly the better player between the two, and that was apparent before the Thunder traded him.

 

[kxs783]

There isn't a metric to say that the Spurs would have won more games if they had Kon. We know that the Spurs have the third-best record in the league with Harper. I don't know how you got yourself so twisted up that you think you had the null hypothesis here. I'm describing a thing that's already happening. You're speculating on what you reckon would happen. If you need stats that show that the Spurs are better when Harper's on the court rather than off it, those stats readily exist already. Harper's in the 29-40 range in on-off in the entire league. Kon is a very good rookie, but he's in the 54-70 range.

The Spurs and Hornets are tied with Cleveland in TS%. Charlotte shoots more threes (second in 3PAr compared to the Spurs' 15th) but the Spurs get to the line more (10th in FT/FGA to Charlotte's 22nd). Overall, they're pretty close offensively (118.6 for CHA and 118 for SAS).

Again just a bunch of nonsense lol. Our record isn't only because we have Harper on the team. Mentioning we have the 3rd best is supposed to mean what exactly other than we have a TEAM that's playing great together. Stop it guy lmao. You maybe can fool someone else though.

 

[dn0774]

Feels like some around here are determined to make this a Castle vs Harper situation, not taking that bait. I love having both on the team and there is absolutely a path to them coexisting. There skill sets are actually quite a bit different.

If Dylan had ended up on the Wizards or w/e he would absolutely be showing out playing 35 mpg with all the usage he could handle. Instead, he gets to play an important role on a winning team as a rookie lead ball handler and is actually having a plus season overall (extremely rare for his player type as a rookie). There are recent examples of both paths leading to eventual big time success (Cade for example 1, Harden for example 2).

Having multiple guys who can take the reins of the offense is going to be our strength going forward and right now is the worst they will be.

 

[CGD]

Steph v Dylan is a dumb debate. Obviously we should be debating how soon to trade Fox TBQH

 

[OK Computer]

I think this conversation just underscores how much some folks just do not realize what the Spurs have in Harper. Anyone who actually bothers to look can see he's the team's second-most important player by a wide margin. It would be like the Thunder not being able to who was better between Westbrook and Harden all over again. Westbrook is a future HoFer and former MVP. He's had a very good career for a long time. Hell, even attitude wise he seems like a player you'd want on the team more than Harden. But Harden is clearly the better player between the two, and that was apparent before the Thunder traded him.

I get what you’re saying, but this is where I push back a bit. I hope you’re being deliberate with the phrase “most important,” because that’s very different from saying best player or biggest contributor. Right now I think people are getting ahead of themselves again. It’s a stretch to frame Harper as carrying some major load or to imply he’s a primary reason the team is sitting near the top of the league.

If we’re being honest about impact today, both Castle and Fox have stronger cases. Castle sets the tone defensively at a level that changes how the team plays. Without that elite defense and energy, the identity of the team looks completely different. Fox, meanwhile, is the dependable veteran presence and reliable bucket when things get tight. Remove either of those guys and the drop-off is obvious.

Harper has had real flashes and deserves credit, but a lot about his future is still unproven. Taking advantage of bench units or attacking teams when they’re already on their back foot doesn’t automatically make him the superior player. It shows talent, not complete control of the game.

The next step is different. “Doing it” means leading from the opening tip against starting-level NBA talent, commanding the offense, handling adjustments, and carrying responsibility when defenses are game-planning specifically for you. That’s a higher bar than what we’ve seen so far. Right now, the evidence says he’s extremely talented, capable of creating easy offense, and valuable in his role. It doesn’t yet prove he’s the second-most important player on the roster.

 

[Chinook]

Again just a bunch of nonsense lol. Our record isn't only because we have Harper on the team. Mentioning we have the 3rd best is supposed to mean what exactly other than we have a TEAM that's playing great together. Stop it guy lmao. You maybe can fool someone else though.

It seems like you're not capable of having a real conversation. No one said the Spurs only have a good record because of Harper. But the Spurs having Harper and being good is the reality. The Spurs having Kon is the speculation. So me talking about how Harper is helping the Spurs is me describing the world as it actually is, and you saying why the team would be better with Kon instead is a theory that needs evidence to support.

Despite that, you've made no real argument for why the Spurs would be better other than the Spurs need shooting. But the Spurs could have solved their shooting in numerous ways while still drafting Harper, whereas they'd have zero options to get a second blue-chip prospect other than hoping the Hawks' pick wins the lotto. Is Kon a better shooter than Harper? Yes. Is Kon a more impactful player on the court than Harper, even right now? That's not something the stats currently bear out. And I don't think you realize that the stats are VERY not on your side, which is why you think your case is strong when it's very superficial.

 

[spursfanfromafar]

There isn't a metric to say that the Spurs would have won more games if they had Kon. We know that the Spurs have the third-best record in the league with Harper. I don't know how you got yourself so twisted up that you think you had the null hypothesis here. I'm describing a thing that's already happening. You're speculating on what you reckon would happen. If you need stats that show that the Spurs are better when Harper's on the court rather than off it, those stats readily exist already. Harper's in the 29-40 range in on-off in the entire league. Kon is a very good rookie, but he's in the 54-70 range.

The Spurs and Hornets are tied with Cleveland in TS%. Charlotte shoots more threes (second in 3PAr compared to the Spurs' 15th) but the Spurs get to the line more (10th in FT/FGA to Charlotte's 22nd). Overall, they're pretty close offensively (118.6 for CHA and 118 for SAS).

Thanks @Chinook. I had the same thought to explain why some posters had half baked ideas. They ignore how the Spurs have made a major jump in their record with the addition of a playmaking / finishing wizard and a defensive plus in Harper while speculating on the prospective impact of a shooting specialist who plays adequate defense in Knueppel.

 

[ginobilized]

I'm so not of the mindset to second-guess the decision to take Dylan Harper. He's been a great player and has freakish potential. He comes from a high basketball pedigree and is obviously a great kid.
It's up to the coaches and FO to use him properly. I think that for the most part they are.
Who cares what Kon is doing in the context of Harper? Total waste of time.....especially in a Dylan Harper thread. He's so good people are just looking for stupid things to debate.

 

[elpimpo4cc]

I think this conversation just underscores how much some folks just do not realize what the Spurs have in Harper. Anyone who actually bothers to look can see he's the team's second-most important player by a wide margin.

LMAO not this year. He's like..... 9th?

in the speculative future maybe 2nd or 3rd

 

[dn0774]

I agree, and I don’t think a lot of fans have fully settled this idea in their heads yet. People are still locked into the traditional blueprint of a contender where your best players are spread across the classic positions, usually a point guard, a wing, and a center. The Spurs might be trying to push past that model. Time will tell if they’ve actually found a way to stay ahead of the curve again by pulling off something other teams have attempted but never really sustained.

A lot of the conversation around Harper feels like wish-casting. Fans naturally want a high draft pick to become the future starting point guard because that’s the expectation attached to top picks. But there’s another outcome that could be just as successful, maybe even more valuable. What if he meets those expectations by becoming the best bench leader in the league, the guy who comes in and destroys opposing second units and swings playoff games? That still makes him a star-level contributor, just in a role that doesn’t fit traditional thinking.

It’s similar to the surface-level conversations around Wemby’s points or rebounds. Some fans focus too much on individual numbers instead of what actually drives winning. Harper becoming a major piece on a championship team matters more than whether he technically starts. Role and impact are not the same thing.

And even if the long-term financial reality forces one of the current guards into a different situation and Harper eventually becomes a starter, people may still need to adjust their thinking. If this structure keeps working, the Spurs could easily continue prioritizing a third high-level point guard who plays major minutes. That might just be the optimal formula for a team built around Wemby, even if it doesn’t look like the conventional lineup model people are used to.

Interesting thoughts, we certainly do get locked into blueprints when it comes to team building as we draw from previous proof of concepts. Some small push back I would offer; convincing a 19 year old (and his representation) to embrace a Manu-role has a very real impact on his earning capacity which is ultimately what brought these guys here. Their agents certainly understand that (far better than us even) and would be apt to move them the moment an idea like that is even broached or it becomes obvious that is the intention.

Obviously, that shouldn't be an issue for awhile as Dylan is under team control for 3 more years after this one. Even Manu himself had multiple seasons of being the primary starter before it became obvious that having his offensive punch/energy off the bench was a better fit for that iteration of the Spurs (not to mention his durability was famously terrible).

Crazy to think, but Manu was 30 years old when became the primary 6th man going forward (except 2011). He was fully formed as a player and financially locked in on a lucrative deal.

There is a good chance Dylan won't hit the lofty superstar expectations the fan base (and maybe front office?) has for him, but we don't want that to be because we didn't at some point give him the opportunity to do so.

 

[Chinook]

Thanks @Chinook. I had the same thought to explain why some posters had half baked ideas. They ignore how the Spurs have made a major jump in their record with the addition of a playmaking / finishing wizard and a defensive plus in Harper while speculating on the prospective impact of a shooting specialist who plays adequate defense in Knueppel.

I think it would make way more sense to stand on the table about Harper needing to play more minutes. I wish someone posted player-pair numbers. It would really obvious to everyone how Harper basically makes everyone better in a way that only Victor can emulate.

 

[OK Computer]

Interesting thoughts, we certainly do get locked into blueprints when it comes to team building as we draw from previous proof of concepts. Some small push back I would offer; convincing a 19 year old (and his representation) to embrace a Manu-role has a very real impact on his earning capacity which is ultimately what brought these guys here. Their agents certainly understand that (far better than us even) and would be apt to move them the moment an idea like that is even broached or it becomes obvious that is the intention.

Obviously, that shouldn't be an issue for awhile as Dylan is under team control for 3 more years after this one. Even Manu himself had multiple seasons of being the primary starter before it became obvious that having his offensive punch/energy off the bench was a better fit for that iteration of the Spurs (not to mention his durability was famously terrible).

Crazy to think, but Manu was 30 years old when became the primary 6th man going forward (except 2011). He was fully formed as a player and financially locked in on a lucrative deal.

There is a good chance Dylan won't hit the lofty superstar expectations the fan base (and maybe front office?) has for him, but we don't want that to be because we didn't at some point give him the opportunity to do so.

I’d argue the organization putting Wemby front and center is intentional for this exact reason. It sets the hierarchy early so everyone understands who the franchise revolves around. When that’s clear, it naturally changes how other players see their role and where they fit in the bigger picture.

You can already see that mindset with Fox. He’s a proven player and still talks like Wemby is the head of the snake. That kind of culture keeps egos in check and makes it easier for guys to buy into something larger than themselves instead of feeling like they need to be the main reason the team succeeds.

And when that mentality exists, it can influence money decisions too. Nobody ignores earning power, but being part of a winning situation built around a generational player can make someone more willing to take slightly less to stay in the right environment rather than chasing a bigger role somewhere else.

 

[OK Computer]

I think it would make way more sense to stand on the table about Harper needing to play more minutes. I wish someone posted player-pair numbers. It would really obvious to everyone how Harper basically makes everyone better in a way that only Victor can emulate.

The thing people keep missing is that advanced stats don’t exist in a vacuum. Of course his numbers are going to look great when a lot of his impact comes in bench-heavy stretches. That’s literally how sixth-man type roles work. You get cleaner matchups, more favorable lineups, and more opportunities to attack units that don’t have the same defensive structure as starters. That doesn’t mean the impact isn’t real, it just means you have to understand where it’s coming from before using it to rank players.

We’ve seen this across the league for years. Bench guys can look insane in plus-minus or lineup data without actually being better than the starters they play behind. That’s not a knock, it’s just role context. The real question isn’t whether Harper’s stats look great, they do. The question is how those numbers hold up when the environment changes. Again… until we see him consistently doing the same thing from the opening tip against starting-level competition, I don’t think it proves what some people want it to prove.

 

[scott]

Harper is awesome and I'm so happy he's a Spur...

What exactly are people arguing about here?

 

[scott]

I think it would make way more sense to stand on the table about Harper needing to play more minutes. I wish someone posted player-pair numbers. It would really obvious to everyone how Harper basically makes everyone better in a way that only Victor can emulate.

I gotchu, courtesy of CourtSketch.com where you can find these great visualizations. I had my own matrix of every possible player pair, but I found it too time-consuming to update when we have all kinds of great, free, data at our fingertips these days. Databallr, CourtSketch, BBIndex and CraftedNBA continue to role out new tools every week that eliminate the need for a lot of manual data collection at this point. The only thing better would be if I had access to the raw data, but I'm not gonna pay for that.

This first one is TeamShift which you can find in the WOWY menu. This second is RatingShift, which is also in the WOWY menu. I've also provided Wemby's RatingShift as a comparison.

 

[Chinook]

The thing people keep missing is that advanced stats don’t exist in a vacuum. Of course his numbers are going to look great when a lot of his impact comes in bench-heavy stretches. That’s literally how sixth-man type roles work. You get cleaner matchups, more favorable lineups, and more opportunities to attack units that don’t have the same defensive structure as starters. That doesn’t mean the impact isn’t real, it just means you have to understand where it’s coming from before using it to rank players.

We’ve seen this across the league for years. Bench guys can look insane in plus-minus or lineup data without actually being better than the starters they play behind. That’s not a knock, it’s just role context. The real question isn’t whether Harper’s stats look great, they do. The question is how those numbers hold up when the environment changes. Again… until we see him consistently doing the same thing from the opening tip against starting-level competition, I don’t think it proves what some people want it to prove.

I agree that stats need context and understanding to really make sense of them. However, you don't typically see bench players leading in on-off stats. You can find a list here: https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2026_play-by-play.html There are very few players at the top of that list that haven't started the vast majority of games for their teams.

The reason for that is that on-off aren't plus-minus numbers. Backups who do well against benches don't dominate the list, because they're usually not more impactful players than their starting counterpart. Like Kornet is a very talented player who's done a good (though not great) job this year. He's probably a top five backup center in the league. But he gets absolutely rinsed in on-off because his "off" minutes are when Wemby's on the court, and Wemby is second-best player in terms of on-offs in the entire league. in fact, Wemby and Kornet probably hurt each other's performance in that stat. If either had an average counterpart, they'd score much better.

Both Castle and Fox score out better with Harper than they do in general (plus 6.5 per 100 for Steph and plus 1.1 for De'Aaron) or each other (plus 8.7 and plus 3.9). Harper having great numbers with all of the starters (plus 34.8 with Wemby, plus 17.8 with Vassell and plus 14.4 with Champagnie, which are better than their average stats and better than any other pairing them have except with Victor) seems to indicate that Harper has a lot of success against starter-level lineups. Ignoring that the Spurs' staggering of guards means they all get time against starters and bench players, Harper's numbers are more an excuse for Fox and Castle than they are a sign that he's getting inflated stats.

Teams don't normally perform better with their backups in the team than their starters. I know Manu made that seem normal, but it's actually quite rare, even for sixth-man candidates. Monk was negative the two years he was a 6MOY candidate. Naz Reid was negative when he won in 2024 (though positive last year when he placed fifth). As much as I love Bobby Portis, he had negative on/offs during his sixth-man candidacy. What Harper's doing is not normal, and his bench role doesn't explain it.

 

[Chinook]

Harper is awesome and I'm so happy he's a Spur...

What exactly are people arguing about here?

I just want people to appreciate that the Spurs drafted an absolute stud in Harper. I think it's important to push back when I see the way some people talk about him like the Spurs should regret not taking Kon or that Castle being on the team should have changed things.

Harper's a franchise changing player. He could have been the centerpiece of the Spurs' revitalization. It just so happens the Spurs already had one of the few guys who's come out in the last few years who eclipses him.

I gotchu, courtesy of CourtSketch.com where you can find these great visualizations. I had my own matrix of every possible player pair, but I found it too time-consuming to update when we have all kinds of great, free, data at our fingertips these days. Databallr, CourtSketch, BBIndex and CraftedNBA continue to role out new tools every week that eliminate the need for a lot of manual data collection at this point. The only thing better would be if I had access to the raw data, but I'm not gonna pay for that.

This first one is TeamShift which you can find in the WOWY menu. This second is RatingShift, which is also in the WOWY menu. I've also provided Wemby's RatingShift as a comparison.

Thanks. The graphs definitely show how players improve next to him. Is there one for Kon too? I don't know if he has a great impact on pairings or not. But my suspicion is he has a good impact that is probably not as superlative as Harper's.

 

[scott]

Thanks. The graphs definitely show how players improve next to him. Is there one for Kon too? I don't know if he has a great impact on pairings or not. But my suspicion is he has a good impact that is probably not as superlative as Harper's.

Of course there is one for Kon, exactly in the place I provided direct instructions on how to find

This one is free, next one you're on your own.