Rudy Gay's about to show the world he's on Durant's level

He is basically Kevin Durant.

 

um, leeb, 37%/3 > 50%/2

If they can't count, they should learn.

Granted, the tradeoff isn't strictly linear, as you shoot more three pointers, there's a good chance that you're going to miss more, since you'll probably be more likely to take unfavorable ones.

I think pre foul-rule chagne, martin's way better 3 point-shooting and ridiculous foul-drawing ability made him as good or better than Gay since it more than accounted for his defensive lapses.

Now they're about even as scoring effectiveness since martin doesn't get 5 extra free FT's made a night

 

Average 2pt jump shooting % is around the mid 40s. Let's just say it's 45% for the sake of simplicity, although many players don't achieve that. For example, Rudy Gay's current jump shooting % (taken from 82games.com) is 0.419, and that's WITH 3pt shots factored in to raise his numbers. Take away his 3's and his jump shooting % is probably in the 30s.

Average 3pt % in the league is about 36%.

45/36 = 1.25x easier

However, 3/2 = 1.5x more points.

Simple math shows that taking the 3pt shot means taking on additional risk, but for a MUCH higher reward.

The best defensive NBA teams defend inside and far outside, allowing opponents to shoot at mid range.

And as dharocks pointed out, the best scorers in history scored in the paint, or got lots of FTAs.

Michael Jordan, 1996:
TS% - 0.582
3pt Made - 1.4 per game
FTA - 8.0
FTA/FGA - 0.354

Rudy Gay, 2012:
TS% - 0.510
3pt Made - 0.6 per game
FTA - 3.7
FTA/FGA - 0.219

Seems like the great MJ agreed with what we've been saying. What other greats do you want to bring up? Larry? He was a jumpshooter but a FAR better jumpshooter than Gay is (plus he developed a good 3pt shot). Wilt? Shaq? Both extreme inside players.

Generally:
2pt jumper < 3pt shot <= Shot in the paint << Free Throw

Taking the 2pt shot should be something you fall back on when everything else has been denied to you. To rely on it as your go-to option is stupid.

This is basketball, not gymnastics. You don't get "difficulty" or style bonuses. Except at the 3pt line, of course. If Rudy Gay is taking bad shots in the teeth of the defense, then Rudy Gay isn't providing elite offense. Good defensive teams WANT you to take the long 2. Going by what you're saying, Gay is playing into his opponents' hands.

 

i find this very unlikely. during the bulls 2nd 3-peat, the only 3 seasons that i know of that jordan and rodman were teammates, jordan totaled 54.5 WS and rodman totaled 20 WS. if wins shares' creator did argue that rodman was better than jordan, he damn sure wasn't using win shares. jordan led the league in win shares a bunch of years. also PER. it's almost like they figured out he was the best player.

just like PER has figured out rudy gay is a little above average and win shares (which doesn't reward volume shooting as much as PER) has figured out he's pretty much average (in fact, this year i think he's at .102 WS/48 and average is .100 WS/48), and that's with him getting 2/3 of his win shares from defense, which i think partially gives him credit for memphis' overall good team defense.

i'm pretty sure you were looking at gay's EFG% on 3's, which was 59% (if you were on hoopdata). he shot mid-range jumpers at 39%, actually lower than his 3pt%. so don't concede anything.

in fact, looking at the numbers from hoopdata (not scary advance stats what and MemphisX, just shots made and attempted), gay was slightly below league average (40.1%).

the league averages for shots at the rim, from 3-9 ft, 10-15 ft, 16-23 ft, and 3's were:

65%, 40.4%, 40.1%, 40.1%, and 54 efg%

gay's numbers were:

66.4%, 42.6%, 44.3%, 39.0%, and 59.4 efg%.

so gay, just like the entire league, was most efficient at the rim, 2nd most efficient from 3, and then hovering around the same inefficient numbers no matter where he shot from in 2 point range (people just don't realize how inefficient non-layup 2's really are). i'm not sure why some persist in trying to give gay credit for taking these tough mid-range shots, as if there is a difficulty bonus on them. basing your offense on difficult shots isn't a virtue, it's a problem. even for the mighty mid-range shooter rudy gay. 40% is worse than 65% and 54%. that's why offenses try to shoot layups, 3's, and free throws and defenses try to allow long 2's.

rudy gay historically takes a lot of long 2's. and that's why he can shoot 47% and not be overall efficient. although this year he's actually taking more shots at the rim and somehow taking even fewer free throws than ever.


for those who think 50% is efficient no matter what, if all you did was take 2's and make 50%, you would average 1 point per possession and a 50 TS%. even in this horrible offensive season teams are averaging something like 1.02 points per possession and the league TS% is 52.1. in most years, it's 1.07 or 1.08 per possession. that may not sound like a big difference, but every .01 is worth about 2.5 wins over the course of a season. so most years, the efficient 50% 2 point shooting team would be about 20 wins worse off than the average offensive team.

 

I was actually on 82games, but I see now that I just very drastically miscalculated, not sure where I screwed up. However, I'm still coming up with a slightly different number.

82games lists his percentage of "Inside" FGAs at 21%, at 64.4% eFG% (since no 3PAs come from inside, I'm assuming that's also his FG% from there).

869 FGAs x 21% = 182.

182 x 64.4% = 117

869 FGAs - 182 Inside shots - 144 3PAs = 543 midrange FGA

409 FGM - 117 Inside FGM - 57 3PM = 235 midrange FGM

235/543 = 43.3% midrange shooting

Still less efficient than a 3PA, but do you have any idea why my calculation is different? Could be a difference in 82games' classification, or I might have made a dumb error.

Repped for Hoopdata btw, haven't been there before.

 

No, it's not. It's based on 2010-11. If I used his career stats it would be worse.

http://www.82games.com/1011/10MEM13.HTM

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gayru01.html

 

39% was actually just for 16-23 feet, which i guess i was calling mid-range jumpers (although i would include 10-15 footers if i was doing it again, which would be around 40.7% or so). 82games and hoopdata probably also have different definitions of "inside shots" for 82games and "at rim" on hoopdata so there will be small discrepancies.

 

Rudy playing absolutely great tonight. Perhaps I was wrong and he is even maybe better the Kevin Durant

 

Seriiously - i put it on again, (though I switched off to watch Stewart/Colbert, Colbert's interview with Maurice Sendak was epically awesome bit of TV) and Rudy's got 15 shots and 0 trips to the line. How does that happen.

 

Sam don't bring your advanced stats around here. I don't want to hear about how these newfangled free throws and this garbage about how they get you points efficiently.

 

The gay trade was a terrible deal some rockets fans need to accept it and move on instead trying to justify how gay sucks.

 

Really? That's what you think this is about? Not how we're trying to smack these homers back to reality?

 

I watched the entire Blazers/Grizzlies. Amazing performance by Gay. I was especially impressed with his decision to take jumpers and not drive to the lane. His 0 free throws in 35 minutes was expected, because he usually only gets 2-3 anyway. However his 5 fouls were a surprise because usually he doesn't even bother to defend.

In all seriousness... Glad Gay is not the Rockets problem. He will have his moments, but over the long hall he is what he is, an average starter that gets 17-19 points a game by taking the number of shots usually reserved for elite players.

 

Rudy Gay finishes the game with more shot attempts than points.
GOAT!

(I didn't watch the game. Just looked at the box score.)

In all honesty I don't hate the guy... I just have to point out the stupidity of Grizz fans who think he's better or even close to the same level as Durant.

 

Seriously dude... I came here to post just for "what" I think it's funny that he thinks the 2 guys are on the same level. Not because of resentment from a trade 5 years ago.

 

Why would the Cavs wanna give up the #4 overall pick for such an inefficient and overpaid scrub, especially considering all the money he's owed and why would Memphis reject the Cavs' offer?

This is what the majority of the Rudy Gay hate boils down to. Demonstrating how Gay "sucks" or is "inefficient" or is "average to slightly above-average" or a "scrub" or "mediocre" or is "just a role player" in order to justify a terrible deal like you said.

You managed to contradict yourself in less than a sentence...that's impressive. An "average starter" doesn't average close to 20 ppg, which is what Gay gives you on a nightly basis for his NBA career minus his rookie season. Instead of Nook you should change your name to Intellectual Crook.

 

Maybe nook meant he is a average starter that scores a lot, another example Kevin Martin.

 

And exactly how have you "smacked anyone back to reality"? All you've done in your two posts in this thread is whine and complain and engage in name-calling.

I know what he meant, but by definition and by NBA standards that would make the player in question above average. I said it before in this thread (see here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6550642&postcount=77) and other threads, but I just think a lot of members here go out of their way to bash Rudy Gay ever since the infamous trade for a role player. Then when people come in and try and balance those criticisms by bringing up positive aspects of his game, the critics or haters just get louder and louder and post more and more.

 

You really are dense .. It just hit, shame on me. If you take an average NBA starter and let him shoot the same number of times that an elite player gets to shot, you will get a player that gives 18 pts a game... Nothing impressive about it, and very inefficient. You see it happen from time to time; Ricky Davis, Ron Mercer, Jerry Stackhouse... All scored at an above average level as a result of shooting the ball at a clip usually reserved for stars.