Woj: Rudy Gay to Sacramento

[knucklecup]

The trendy opinion is that he is terrible; yet those same people are placing his value in dollars at $10-$15 million per season. I don't understand that.

How much of the negativity surrounding Gay has to do with his terrible contract? Is he a terrible player or is he somebody that is catching a ton of flak because of the absurd contract he was given?

Also, how much of the Gay conundrum can be blamed on coaching / the situations he has been in?

 

[Kliq]

Gay is a horrific offensive player. He uses 30 percent of his teams possesions, something that only elite scorers should ever use. Only 4 other times has a player used 30 percent of his teams possisions and shot under 40 percent from the field. Iverson twice, Baron Davis and Jerry Stackhouse. Even worse, at least those guys where scoring at a good rate. Iverson averaged 31ppg and 26ppg during his two seasons, Stackhouse at 21.5ppg and Davis at 23ppg. Rudy is averaging just 19.

 

[Blacken]

The trendy opinion is that he is terrible; yet those same people are placing his value in dollars at $10-$15 million per season. I don't understand that.

Because most of the league's GMs are metrics-stupid mouthbreathers who fetishize "scorers" over "efficient scorers".

 

[knucklecup]

Gay is a horrific offensive player. He uses 30 percent of his teams possesions, something that only elite scorers should ever use. Only 4 other times has a player used 30 percent of his teams possisions and shot under 40 percent from the field. Iverson twice, Baron Davis and Jerry Stackhouse. Even worse, at least those guys where scoring at a good rate. Iverson averaged 31ppg and 26ppg during his two seasons, Stackhouse at 21.5ppg and Davis at 23ppg. Rudy is averaging just 19.

"he uses 30 percent of his teams possessions" - If Casey thought those shots would have gone in more efficiently had they come out of Lowry or DeRozan's hands, isn't it on him to make that happen?

If he played for San Antonio for instance, he's not taking shots on 30 percent of his teams possessions.

 

[Blacken]

"Chuckers gonna chuck" is one of the worst arguments for a player's not-shitness I have ever heard in any sport.

 

[knucklecup]

Because most of the league's GMs are metrics-stupid mouthbreathers who fetishize "scorers" over "efficient scorers".

I agree with you, but I think the metric-driven people aren't looking at the whole picture, which is what basketball metrics do a terrible job of calculating.

"Chuckers gonna chuck" is one of the worst arguments for a player's not-shitness I have ever heard in any sport.

Jordan Crawford is an example. Why did Ainge see value in him and why has Stevens been able to evolve his game from "chucker gonna chuck" to something more than that?

 

[wutang112878]

"he uses 30 percent of his teams possessions" - If Casey thought those shots would have gone in more efficiently had they come out of Lowry or DeRozan's hands, isn't it on him to make that happen?

If he played for San Antonio for instance, he's not taking shots on 30 percent of his teams possessions.

 
This is mostly on Gay:
 
These are per 36 shot attempts:
10/11 with Memphis 14.5, FG% 47.1% , eFG% 50.3%
11/12 with Memphis 15.9 / 45.5% / 48%
12/13 with Memphis 16.1 / 40.8% / 43.8%
12/13 with Toronto 17.7 / 42.5%  / 46.4%
13/14 with Toronto 18.9 / 38.8% / 42.1%
 
 
This is 2 stops now and the more he shoots the worse he shoots, yet the more he shoots.  Thats insane.  You would think for his own selfish interest thinking of his value for his next contract he might want to pass up a couple of shots, yet he doesnt.

 

[wutang112878]

Jordan Crawford is an example. Why did Ainge see value in him and why has Stevens been able to evolve his game from "chucker gonna chuck" to something more than that?

 
At the moment he is shooting 40% from 3, thats probably not going to continue all season at which point his efficiency stats are going to take a hit.  There is still some improvement beyond that though, and I would say that his contract year status, coupled with the fact that he has never got a big contract could be a big factor.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I agree with you, but I think the metric-driven people aren't looking at the whole picture, which is what basketball metrics do a terrible job of calculating.


Jordan Crawford is an example. Why did Ainge see value in him and why has Stevens been able to evolve his game from "chucker gonna chuck" to something more than that?

 
Which is what, exactly? I am not arguing that there aren't plenty of dark spots in available basketball metrics, but at this point I'm really struggling to see how Rudy Gay isn't just Rudy Gay. I get that you think he should shoot less--everybody does--but this is now two different systems in which Gay has been the exact same high volume, low efficiency scorer he's always been. Since he was traded from Memphis, you've insinuating that advanced metrics are somehow missing Gay's value. But you haven't yet told anybody what Gay's value is, you've just attacked the metrics and alluded to poor coaching/schemes. What is the right way to use Rudy Gay, and why haven't either of the two teams that thought he was worth a max contract used him in that way?

 

[Devizier]

The trendy opinion is that he is terrible; yet those same people are placing his value in dollars at $10-$15 million per season. I don't understand that.

How much of the negativity surrounding Gay has to do with his terrible contract? Is he a terrible player or is he somebody that is catching a ton of flak because of the absurd contract he was given?

Also, how much of the Gay conundrum can be blamed on coaching / the situations he has been in?

 
I think these are fair questions. I struggle with them myself.
 
In the end, I think it comes down to potential versus performance.
 
Players like Gay (and there have been many in NBA history) are capable of outstanding basketball feats. Consider this drive-and-dunk on Lebron James:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixS8DYz3YGw
 
That's a pretty impressive display of athleticism and handle. The problem lies with Gay's decision making -- he makes a lot of contested shots and he's not an especially good shooter, either. If he were to play within himself, say as a slasher/supporting player, he would be a more effective player overall. But at a certain point in your career, it becomes impossible. The large contracts in part stem from general managers who are hoping players like that can put together those talents into an all-around game, but that happens infrequently.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Is anyone really going to try and make the argument with a straight face that Rudy Gay is going to change the way he plays and improve?
 
He's in his EIGHTH SEASON, he's if anything entering his decline.
 
The comparison with Crawford is weird on several levels, 1. Crawford is still on his rookie deal. 2. Crawford has shown significant improvement in his efficiancy every year (about 30 points in both eFG% and TS% year 1 to 2, 25 points from 2 to 3) 3. This years numbers for Crawford are likely at least in part SSS. 4. Jordan Crawford isn't good and 5. Rudy Gay makes the max, J-Craw makes 12% of that. Also beside the point, but Crawford has always been a good assists guy, Gay has not.
 
Rudy is who he is, at best he's a moderately inefficient gunner, at worst he is a black hole of pure basketball evil that devours a team's season.
 
Also I enjoyed the throw in line in Zach Lowe's article where he said several GMs think he's at best an MLE guy.

 

[Blacken]

I agree with you, but I think the metric-driven people aren't looking at the whole picture, which is what basketball metrics do a terrible job of calculating.

Daryl Morey is not just looking at spreadsheets. Daryl Morey is looking at spreadsheets to confirm or deny (this one's important) what his eyes and his scouts are telling him. And from what I've seen, good organizations aren't using the metrics you have available to you so making a hurfblurf claim about what they do or do not calculate based on the ones you can see is real dumb.
 

Jordan Crawford is an example. Why did Ainge see value in him and why has Stevens been able to evolve his game from "chucker gonna chuck" to something more than that?

1) "I can get someone who might be an NBA player...for Jason Collins and a dead guy? SCORE!"

2) Crawford's not playing much differently from the way he did during his best years in Washington. He's putting up better numbers, but he's also getting lucky. Meanwhile, Rudy Gay has been a Bad Basketball Player everywhere he's been. For eight years. Eight.

 

[Blacken]

Also I enjoyed the throw in line in Zach Lowe's article where he said several GMs think he's at best an MLE guy.

Matt Moore mentioned that on his podcast today, but also that he'd personally talked to two GMs who think he's very underrated.

(I would bet that Zach Lowe has a better give-me-a-quote type of rapport with the GMs who aren't metric-stupid than with the ones who are. That's not a criticism of Lowe by any means, but context matters.)

 

[radsoxfan]

I thought Zach Lowe had a good take on the trade and hit all the important points
 
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/85058/a-new-king-what-the-rudy-gay-trade-means-for-toronto-and-sacramento

 

[knucklecup]

I thought Zach Lowe had a good take on the trade and hit all the important points
 
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/85058/a-new-king-what-the-rudy-gay-trade-means-for-toronto-and-sacramento

 
Dissecting the Lowe piece:
 
Those thinking the Kings made this move because they think Gay will decline $19.3 million dollar option for next season are mistaken:
 
"But none of those guys was looking at anything close to $19 million for a single year of missing shots. Around a dozen teams could have max-level space this summer, but Gay’s value is at rock bottom right now. He might struggle to get $25 million over three seasons if he keeps shooting like this. The Raptors wagered he’d opt in, and that’s the likely outcome here."
 
Despite the negativity, mostly harping on the contract he was given (not his fault) and his lackluster scoring efficiency (somewhat to blame), Lowe does recognize the talent Gay has by labeling his offensive performance this season as "irresponsible," going on to say that he's "long," works as a "stretch power forward," and is "an above-average defender" when he wants to be. 
 
Additionally, he recognizes that Gay has "better intentions" and "plans to cut off the ball, pass more, and act more decisively" and that he just "hasn't been able to execute those plans."

 

[knucklecup]

Daryl Morey is not just looking at spreadsheets. Daryl Morey is looking at spreadsheets to confirm or deny (this one's important) what his eyes and his scouts are telling him. And from what I've seen, good organizations aren't using the metrics you have available to you so making a hurfblurf claim about what they do or do not calculate based on the ones you can see is real dumb.
 

 
I didn't imply that Morey looked at one spreadsheet to make a determination.  I'm not even talking about Morey. I'm talking about the conclusions you and other people in this thread have come to on something that is entirely subjective.
 
Is it not "real dumb" to conclude that "most of the league's GMs are metrics-stupid mouthbreathers who "fetishize scorers" over "efficient scorers" ?

 

[knucklecup]

Is anyone really going to try and make the argument with a straight face that Rudy Gay is going to change the way he plays and improve?
 
He's in his EIGHTH SEASON, he's if anything entering his decline.
 
The comparison with Crawford is weird on several levels, 1. Crawford is still on his rookie deal. 2. Crawford has shown significant improvement in his efficiancy every year (about 30 points in both eFG% and TS% year 1 to 2, 25 points from 2 to 3) 3. This years numbers for Crawford are likely at least in part SSS. 4. Jordan Crawford isn't good and 5. Rudy Gay makes the max, J-Craw makes 12% of that. Also beside the point, but Crawford has always been a good assists guy, Gay has not.
 
Rudy is who he is, at best he's a moderately inefficient gunner, at worst he is a black hole of pure basketball evil that devours a team's season.
 
Also I enjoyed the throw in line in Zach Lowe's article where he said several GMs think he's at best an MLE guy.

 
Why not?  He's played on two horrendous teams going through coaching, management, and ownership changes.  He's a supremely athletic player who can defend a multitude of positions, who can create his own shot, and if was in the right system, IN MY OPINION, could improve his game.
 
They were going to have to tweak the roster to keep Thomas anyways, now they get to see if Gay can fit into their system in a dollar spot that was once occupied by two awful players that didn't fit into their future plans in Hayes and Salmons, and worst case if Gay isn't that guy, they use the dollar spot that Gay is now occupying with a different piece to the puzzle after next season.  Given the alternative scenario, I see virtually no cons to this for Sacramento.
 
The deal Jordan Crawford is on and the total years Gay has spent in the league are two entirely irrelevant points.  You're already faulting Gay for the teams he's played on, please don't penalize him for being a more talented player at a younger age in comparison to Crawford.
 
The point of bringing up Crawford's name is to show an example of a player who was a statistical black hole in Washington, and in a different system is flourishing.
 
Carmelo Anthony has a FG percentage only 4.3% higher than Gay, yet you couldn't find a soul who doesn't consider Anthony as a top ten player in basketball, and one of the premier franchise players in the league.

 

[knucklecup]

 
I think these are fair questions. I struggle with them myself.
 
In the end, I think it comes down to potential versus performance.
 
Players like Gay (and there have been many in NBA history) are capable of outstanding basketball feats. Consider this drive-and-dunk on Lebron James:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixS8DYz3YGw
 
That's a pretty impressive display of athleticism and handle. The problem lies with Gay's decision making -- he makes a lot of contested shots and he's not an especially good shooter, either. If he were to play within himself, say as a slasher/supporting player, he would be a more effective player overall. But at a certain point in your career, it becomes impossible. The large contracts in part stem from general managers who are hoping players like that can put together those talents into an all-around game, but that happens infrequently.

 
Thank you for responding constructively, and I couldn't agree more with your assessment.
 
He very well could be a lost cause, given that he's always been the guy at UConn, in Memphis, in Toronto... but if he could ever do as you say, "play within himself" and be a complimentary piece to Cousins, getting Mclemore open looks, playing off the ball when Thomas gets hot, etc. he could very well be the missing link that this team needs.

 

[knucklecup]

Coach Mike Malone:
 

 
But in Rudy Gay, you get a 6’10, versatile scorer. And I know everybody’s hung up on his 38 percent this year, but if you look at his numbers throughout his career, he’s shot well over 45 percent a number of seasons. So I’m not as concerned as a lot of these analytic people get concerned about (Rudy). He’s a very talented player. End of games, he can make plays for you. He’s versatile. He can score in the post, handling the ball, catch-and-shoot, isolation, so he’s talented and we’ve become a much more talented team with him.

 
GM Pete D'Alessandro:
 

"That’s a great question. I read everything that everyone reads. We have our processes too and we see things differently. That’s just the nature of that ever-growing and ever-expanding game. We look at him differently than maybe others do. I feel like a lot of times with certain players, it’s where they’re getting the ball, it’s where they’re scoring, it’s the position they’re put in. And I think we have a good idea, we’re talking as a staff a little bit, we have a good idea of what positions that we’d like to put him in."

 
Now that's an innovative GM who sees the big picture.

 

[Blacken]

Rhey're going to be the suckers who give him that bugfuck deal, aren't they. They're gonna be the ones to give them that deal and Chris Grant is going to keep his job. My god, the NBA is wacky.
 

Is it not "real dumb" to conclude that "most of the league's GMs are metrics-stupid mouthbreathers who "fetishize scorers" over "efficient scorers" ?

My understanding is that something like two-thirds of teams are close to the Bobby V school with regards to metrics--which makes sense, given that APBR isn't where SABR is (yet, it's inevitable). The you-have-no-more-excuses availability of SportVU data is going to make the winners and losers very apparent, but it is going to take time. But my rule of thumb right now: if Houston, Toronto, or Dallas get rid of a guy, there's probably a really good reason for it.

D'Alessandro could be right; he has a decent pedigree. But given who Rudy Gay has been for eight years, that's a long but within-the-arc shot over three people with 18 seconds left on the clock. Reinventing a player that late in the career is rare, and usually they're better players to begin with.

 

[cardiacs]

 
At the moment he is shooting 40% from 3, thats probably not going to continue all season at which point his efficiency stats are going to take a hit.  There is still some improvement beyond that though, and I would say that his contract year status, coupled with the fact that he has never got a big contract could be a big factor.

 
He's probably thinking ala gambler's fallacy - the more he shoots, the more likely he is to regress to his shitty mean. 

 

[Kliq]

For those that think he can improve, I have one thing to say to you: He is on the fucking Kings. It isn't like he is being traded to a veteran team with a great coach, like San Antonio or Chicago, he is going to literally the worst place he could have possibly gone. No one is ever going to say "Wow, the Kings have really taught Rudy to share the ball and not take so many bad shots."

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Why not?  He's played on two horrendous teams going through coaching, management, and ownership changes.  He's a supremely athletic player who can defend a multitude of positions, who can create his own shot, and if was in the right system, IN MY OPINION, could improve his game.
 
They were going to have to tweak the roster to keep Thomas anyways, now they get to see if Gay can fit into their system in a dollar spot that was once occupied by two awful players that didn't fit into their future plans in Hayes and Salmons, and worst case if Gay isn't that guy, they use the dollar spot that Gay is now occupying with a different piece to the puzzle after next season.  Given the alternative scenario, I see virtually no cons to this for Sacramento.
 
The deal Jordan Crawford is on and the total years Gay has spent in the league are two entirely irrelevant points.  You're already faulting Gay for the teams he's played on, please don't penalize him for being a more talented player at a younger age in comparison to Crawford.
 
The point of bringing up Crawford's name is to show an example of a player who was a statistical black hole in Washington, and in a different system is flourishing.
 
Carmelo Anthony has a FG percentage only 4.3% higher than Gay, yet you couldn't find a soul who doesn't consider Anthony as a top ten player in basketball, and one of the premier franchise players in the league.

 
1. Memphis went the the Western Conference finals last year. At the time, because you were defending Rudy Gay, you called them "arguably the best team in the league". Now they're a terrible franchise that held Gay back. (http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/77225-2013-nba-playoffs-game-thread/?p=4705365)
 
2. I don't actually think I know a soul who does think Carmelo Anthony is a top ten player in the NBA. Most people think of him as a sometimes efficient scorer who does nothing else well on a basketball court and feel like it's unlikely he'll ever be the best player on a championship team. So, your argument is that with a substantial improvement, Rudy Gay can score as inefficiently as Carmelo Anthony is this year.
 

Dissecting the Lowe piece:
 
Those thinking the Kings made this move because they think Gay will decline $19.3 million dollar option for next season are mistaken:
 
"But none of those guys was looking at anything close to $19 million for a single year of missing shots. Around a dozen teams could have max-level space this summer, but Gay’s value is at rock bottom right now. He might struggle to get $25 million over three seasons if he keeps shooting like this. The Raptors wagered he’d opt in, and that’s the likely outcome here."
 
Despite the negativity, mostly harping on the contract he was given (not his fault) and his lackluster scoring efficiency (somewhat to blame), Lowe does recognize the talent Gay has by labeling his offensive performance this season as "irresponsible," going on to say that he's "long," works as a "stretch power forward," and is "an above-average defender" when he wants to be. 
 
Additionally, he recognizes that Gay has "better intentions" and "plans to cut off the ball, pass more, and act more decisively" and that he just "hasn't been able to execute those plans."
 

 
Is any of what you (selectively) quoted here good?

 

[Devizier]

2. I don't actually think I know a soul who does think Carmelo Anthony is a top ten player in the NBA. Most people think of him as a sometimes efficient scorer who does nothing else well on a basketball court and feel like it's unlikely he'll ever be the best player on a championship team. So, your argument is that with a substantial improvement, Rudy Gay can score as inefficiently as Carmelo Anthony is this year.

 
C'mon, I think that's overstating things. Carmelo Anthony has his flaws, but he was definitely a top-ten player for a number of seasons, including last season.
 
Top ten, doesn't mean Lebron James, Chris Paul, or Kevin Durant.

 

[bowiac]

 
C'mon, I think that's overstating things. Carmelo Anthony has his flaws, but he was definitely a top-ten player for a number of seasons, including last season.
 
Top ten, doesn't mean Lebron James, Chris Paul, or Kevin Durant.

I don't believe Carmelo Anthony is a top ten player. I know some NBA teams don't consider him a top ten player. He probably was a top ten guy last year, as that was one of the better shooting seasons of his career. It cannot be considered his baseline however.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
C'mon, I think that's overstating things. Carmelo Anthony has his flaws, but he was definitely a top-ten player for a number of seasons, including last season.
 
Top ten, doesn't mean Lebron James, Chris Paul, or Kevin Durant.

 
I don't think it's overstating things. ESPN Rank, for instance, put him at 15. Even after he led the league in scoring and had what might have been the best year of his career. He's a one dimensional player. I like him fine for what he is, but if I'm starting a franchise there are most certainly 10 players I take ahead of him. He's behind LeBron, Durant, Paul, Howard, Curry, (healthy) Rose, Westbrook, Marc Gasol, Harden, Love, Parker, and Paul George. Kyrie Irving is close, LaMarcus Aldridge seems to have taken a big step forward, Wade when healthy is a better player than Carmelo, and Anthony Davis is very close to eclipsing him if he hasn't already.

 

[Devizier]

 
I don't think it's overstating things. ESPN Rank, for instance, put him at 15. Even after he led the league in scoring and had what might have been the best year of his career. He's a one dimensional player. I like him fine for what he is, but if I'm starting a franchise there are most certainly 10 players I take ahead of him. He's behind LeBron, Durant, Paul, Howard, Curry, (healthy) Rose, Westbrook, Marc Gasol, Harden, Love, Parker, and Paul George. Kyrie Irving is close, LaMarcus Aldridge seems to have taken a big step forward, Wade when healthy is a better player than Carmelo, and Anthony Davis is very close to eclipsing him if he hasn't already.

 
I love many of those guys, too, and I won't get into parsing the list.
 
But you stated that you don't know anyone who thinks Anthony is a top-ten player in the league and I think that's pretty clearly an overstatement.
 
So much of a player's performance depends on context, as Paul Pierce's career so effectively highlights.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
I love many of those guys, too, and I won't get into parsing the list.
 
But you stated that you don't know anyone who thinks Anthony is a top-ten player in the league and I think that's pretty clearly an overstatement.
 
So much of a player's performance depends on context, as Paul Pierce's career so effectively highlights.

 
Fair enough, point is that it's not at all universally accepted that Carmelo is a top 10 guy, and many people think he's severely overrated. So knucklecup's attempt to align Gay with Anthony ("Gay's only shooting 4.0% worse than Carmelo who is a top 10 guy" or whatever) is a weird way to argue that Gay's underrated.

 

[knucklecup]

 
Fair enough, point is that it's not at all universally accepted that Carmelo is a top 10 guy, and many people think he's severely overrated. So knucklecup's attempt to align Gay with Anthony ("Gay's only shooting 4.0% worse than Carmelo who is a top 10 guy" or whatever) is a weird way to argue that Gay's underrated.

 
It's a weird way to argue that Gay's underrated only now that I realize how close minded the people on the other side of the spectrum are.
 
Carmelo Anthony hasn't played with an elite teammate his entire career, and has consistently over achieved with the teams he has been on.  If the Bulls were to let Deng go and amnesty Boozer this offseason for instance, I believe with a healthy Rose and Anthony, they would be one of the best teams in basketball, if not the best.  Rose, Butler, Anthony, Gibson, Noah is an ideal starting line up for Melo with guys who know their role, play exceptional defense, etc.
 

 
I don't think it's overstating things. ESPN Rank, for instance, put him at 15. Even after he led the league in scoring and had what might have been the best year of his career. He's a one dimensional player. I like him fine for what he is, but if I'm starting a franchise there are most certainly 10 players I take ahead of him. He's behind LeBron, Durant, Paul, Howard, Curry, (healthy) Rose, Westbrook, Marc Gasol, Harden, Love, Parker, and Paul George. Kyrie Irving is close, LaMarcus Aldridge seems to have taken a big step forward, Wade when healthy is a better player than Carmelo, and Anthony Davis is very close to eclipsing him if he hasn't already.

 
You're nitpicking my "top ten" comment.  In my opinion, it's a certainty that he's one of the ten best basketball players on the planet right now, but it's shortsighted of me to assume that other people judge him the same as I do.
 
You can't simply say Marc Gasol is better than Carmelo Anthony.  The only players you listed that I have no doubt are better than Anthony are Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, and perhaps a healthy Derrick Rose.  I do believe that George, Davis, Harden, etc. have entered that tier but I'm not ready to say that Anthony wouldn't be a better fit in Houston alongside Howard, and in Indy alongside Hibbert, West, Stephenson, and Hill.
 
When constructing a roster, I do think scoring in the middle is easier to come by than elite PG play, so perhaps I would start my team with Paul before Anthony but that's another argument in and of itself.
 
As Devizier said:
 

 
So much of a player's performance depends on context, as Paul Pierce's career so effectively highlights.

 

[bowiac]

 
It's a weird way to argue that Gay's underrated only now that I realize how close minded the people on the other side of the spectrum are.
 
Carmelo Anthony hasn't played with an elite teammate his entire career, and has consistently over achieved with the teams he has been on.  

At various points, Carmelo Anthony's teammates have been Ty Lawson, Tyson Chandler, Allen Iverson, Marcus Camby, Chauncey Billups and Nene. I'm not sure where you're drawing the line on elite, but those guys were all top very strong players during some seasons when they played with him.
 
Other than last year's Knicks, I'm not sure a single one of Melo's teams could be said to have overachieved. And that was mostly the tyranny of low expectations. A 2nd round playoff exit wasn't some kind of tour de force.

 

[ivanvamp]

Guys like Carmelo and Rudy Gay are the most frustrating people to have on a basketball court.  Anyone who has ever played ball at any level knows what I'm talking about.  You hate to play with them because you never see the ball, they take every shot imaginable, and you usually lose as a result and have no fun in the process.
 
But you hate when they're on the other team simply because there will be those days when they absolutely go off - and they're totally capable of that - and when they do go off, they can make you look very silly and they can bury your team.  
 
I hate those guys whether they're on my team or the other team.  Just not pleasant to be around a basketball court with.  
 
And I say this as a guy who is eternally grateful to Carmelo for 2003 (note my avatar).

 

[ivanvamp]

Other than last year's Knicks, I'm not sure a single one of Melo's teams could be said to have overachieved. 

 
Syracuse, 2003?  

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
It's a weird way to argue that Gay's underrated only now that I realize how close minded the people on the other side of the spectrum are.
 
Carmelo Anthony hasn't played with an elite teammate his entire career, and has consistently over achieved with the teams he has been on.  If the Bulls were to let Deng go and amnesty Boozer this offseason for instance, I believe with a healthy Rose and Anthony, they would be one of the best teams in basketball, if not the best.  Rose, Butler, Anthony, Gibson, Noah is an ideal starting line up for Melo with guys who know their role, play exceptional defense, etc.
 
 
You're nitpicking my "top ten" comment.  In my opinion, it's a certainty that he's one of the ten best basketball players on the planet right now, but it's shortsighted of me to assume that other people judge him the same as I do.
 
You can't simply say Marc Gasol is better than Carmelo Anthony.  The only players you listed that I have no doubt are better than Anthony are Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, and perhaps a healthy Derrick Rose.  I do believe that George, Davis, Harden, etc. have entered that tier but I'm not ready to say that Anthony wouldn't be a better fit in Houston alongside Howard, and in Indy alongside Hibbert, West, Stephenson, and Hill.
 
When constructing a roster, I do think scoring in the middle is easier to come by than elite PG play, so perhaps I would start my team with Paul before Anthony but that's another argument in and of itself.
 
As Devizier said:
 

 
 
It's a weird way to argue it because you're attempting to claim that Gay isn't that inefficient on offense by comparing him to a player who, himself, is pretty inefficient on offense. Either that, or you're saying that offensive inefficiency isn't a hindrance to being a top 10 player in the NBA. I'm not really sure what you're saying, truth be told. All I've gathered is that you think Rudy Gay is good, and the evidence for that exists somewhere in the future and we should all feel comfortable tossing out what he's done in the past because the organizations he played for were bad, the coaches he played for didn't know how to use him, and we shouldn't judge him until he finds himself in his ideal situation.
 
And I don't disagree that context matters. Of course it does. I'm just not going to judge current NBA players based on a hypothetical future context.

 

[bowiac]

Guys like Carmelo and Rudy Gay are the most frustrating people to have on a basketball court.  Anyone who has ever played ball at any level knows what I'm talking about.  You hate to play with them because you never see the ball, they take every shot imaginable, and you usually lose as a result and have no fun in the process.
 
But you hate when they're on the other team simply because there will be those days when they absolutely go off - and they're totally capable of that - and when they do go off, they can make you look very silly and they can bury your team.  

I love that this defense (if that's what it is) of Melo starts with the assumption that he will usually cost you the game. Even I'm not that down on him...
 
I stand corrected with respect to Syracuse's 2003 title. He'd definitely be a top 10 NCAA player.

 

[Devizier]

 
Fair enough, point is that it's not at all universally accepted that Carmelo is a top 10 guy, and many people think he's severely overrated. So knucklecup's attempt to align Gay with Anthony ("Gay's only shooting 4.0% worse than Carmelo who is a top 10 guy" or whatever) is a weird way to argue that Gay's underrated.

 
I'm with you on Gay. He has been a decent player in the past (towards the end of his tenure in Memphis). With good coaching, he could again be a decent player. But good teams don't issue max contracts to decent players. As an MLE-level guy, I'd consider it.

 

[Tony C]

 
I love many of those guys, too, and I won't get into parsing the list.
 
But you stated that you don't know anyone who thinks Anthony is a top-ten player in the league and I think that's pretty clearly an overstatement.
 
So much of a player's performance depends on context, as Paul Pierce's career so effectively highlights.

 
I happen to agree that Carmelo's overrated, but that he was 3rd in NBA MVP voting last year indicates it wouldn't be too very hard to find someone who thinks he's a top 10 player.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
I happen to agree that Carmelo's overrated, but that he was 3rd in NBA MVP voting last year indicates it wouldn't be too very hard to find someone who thinks he's a top 10 player.

Carmelo also had a great season last year. He shot 45%, 38% from 3,  TS% of .560, eFG% of .502, 10.8 RB%, 14.1 AST%, And he has an absolutely insane 35.6% USG. He was also near the top of the league in FT attempted on which he shot 83%.
Probably not actually a top 3 season, but very very good.
 
Getting to comparing Anthony to Gay.... Anthony does just about everything a decent amount better than Gay, and really seperates himself in that he draws nearly twice as many FT, and makes them at a higher rate. If you are going to be an inefficient shooter you have to draw FTs.
Rudy Gay wasn't always terrible, 3 years ago he was pretty decent, the problem is that as teams were able to keep him on the perimeter, they realized his shot was garbage, and unlike say Lebron who that strategy worked on only until he improved his shot (Lebron is also much harder to actually keep on the perimeter) Rudy's shot never improved, if anything it got worse.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't know if Rudy Gay can improve as a player but if I were a dope here I would, at least, consider changing knucklecup's tag-line to "Gay advocate".

 

[knucklecup]

- 5 minutes in, no shots for Gay.
 
- One of one from the field to start.  If his Kings career ends before he launches another one, he'll go down as the most efficient scorer in Kings history.
 
- Three of three from field now...
 
- Full half without missing a shot

 

[knucklecup]

I don't know if Rudy Gay can improve as a player but if I were a dope here I would, at least, consider changing knucklecup's tag-line to "Gay advocate".

 
Agreed.  This thread title needs to lose the question mark and/or be changed to "The Gay Conundrum" as well.

 

[Sprowl]

 
Agreed.  This thread title needs to lose the question mark and/or be changed to "The Gay Conundrum" as well.

 
I went with the first version, but as the thread starter, you can change the title yourself.

 

[knucklecup]

 
I went with the first version, but as the thread starter, you can change the title yourself.

 
Thank you.
 
When I edited the post, it only allowed me to adjust the body.  I could be missing it though.  Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Sprowl]

 
Thank you.
 
When I edited the post, it only allowed me to adjust the body.  I could be missing it though.  Wouldn't be the first time.

 
To edit the title, you need to 'use full editor' -- that will give you more options.

 

[knucklecup]

 
To edit the title, you need to 'use full editor' -- that will give you more options.

 
The more you know.  Thanks again.

 

[moly99]

 
Is it not "real dumb" to conclude that "most of the league's GMs are metrics-stupid mouthbreathers who "fetishize scorers" over "efficient scorers" ?

 
A quick look at the past offseason (hello Billy King and Joe Dumars) suggests that the NBA is still far, far behind baseball and football in the smart GM category.
 

 
I happen to agree that Carmelo's overrated, but that he was 3rd in NBA MVP voting last year indicates it wouldn't be too very hard to find someone who thinks he's a top 10 player.

 
People also thought Allen Iverson deserved an MVP, though. This isn't the right path to go down if you want to convince analytically minded people they are wrong on Gay (and Anthony.)

 

[Tony C]

I'm not trying to convince them they're wrong, I agree with them. I'm just saying those who disagree, though, are easy to find -- an insignificant point.

 

[Tony C]

p.s., I thought of this quote

Because most of the league's GMs are metrics-stupid mouthbreathers who fetishize "scorers" over "efficient scorers".

 
when I read this from Zach Lowe
 

The league is much different as we near 2014. Almost every team has made more than a token investment in analytics. Some teams have a half-dozen people, full-time and part-time combined, cranking out proprietary numbers and scouring data from the shiny new SportVU camera system for secrets that might provide a tiny on-court advantage. Everyone knows about plus/minus, adjusted plus/minus, lineup data, and a gazillion other stats. Larry Sanders and Derrick Favors will earn nearly $24 million combined next season despite having never averaged double figures in scoring before signing their new contract extensions. Nobody laughed at those deals, and nobody is laughing at the Asik contract now. Teams pay for defense today, because teams understand it better.
 
Teams measure all kinds of stuff in sophisticated ways, and then they measure which of that stuff correlates most with winning games....
 
There are almost no such behind-the-curve GMs left in the NBA.

 

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/85751/is-anyone-willing-to-pay-for-omer-asik

 
I do think "most" GMs being mouth breathers is more than a bit of an overstatement, anyway.

 

[Blacken]

That doesn't jibe with what I have heard from people working in front offices, but Lowe certainly has a wider set of sources than I do.

My understanding is that most (possibly every?) team is making at least a token effort to get into analytics--specifically now that the NBA has signed the deal they did for SportVU cameras in all the buildings--but most (like, overwhelmingly "most") have a very marginal role in any decision-making. Teams that are taking it seriously are investing significant resources (well, "significant" for non-player resources, it probably still doesn't add up to a bench reserve for all but two or three) expanding on what they get as part of the NBA's deal with SportVU.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Anyone else seen a Raptors game recently? They are so much better without Gay, I think they win the Atlantic if they and the Celtics keep the same rosters as now

 

[Devizier]

Don't worry, the Raptors will resume tanking once they dump Lowry for the Knicks' detritus-du-jour.