At some point we've just got to accept that Jalen more than likely is just going to be an average to below average SG. It's year 4 and he still doesn't have a reliable offensive skill that he can use to consistently and efficiently generate points in the half court offense. He's not that good of a passer, he's not a good shooter, hasn't shown an aptitude for being an off ball cutter/mover, he doesn't consistently get to and finish at the rim, his mid range game isn't close to reliable... Jalen being successful offensively has almost entirely been predicated on him having hot shooting streaks/nights. When he's not hot or not hitting jumpers at an abnormally high rate (for him) he is really not much of an offensive threat that teams need to be scared of.
Honestly my biggest issue with Jalen this year beyond his efficiency is that he seems to have almost no chemistry with anyone. He sometimes links up with Sengun or Amen but it isn't like....a common thing. I groan if Reed is forced to play with Jalen because he just isn't getting the ball. Every Jalen gets the ball it feels like the same situation. Honestly it reminds me a hell of a lot like when KPj was here.
Finally, I had the time to read this. Interestingly, it wasn't behind a paywall on my laptop. TLDR: There is nothing wrong with his thinking and it is not contradicting with what I said. The two points I tried to make were: 1- The tracking data is very valuable to the nba teams rather than the aggregated metrics that (try to) represent a player's overall impact 2- The aggregated metrics, though called advanced, are - simplistic, - fail to grab the value created by playing team ball - not clear if distribution of overall production to players is actually realistic - noisy and especially for non-starters So overall they have tons of room for improvement and not as useful to the trained person as tracking stats. The trained person will rather look at the a collection of individual advanced stats than the aggregated forms when they need to make a decision. So my criticism was for the weak points of aggregated metrics that try to measure total impact/value, in particular the ones that use on/off comparisons. And just for the record, I never said basic counting stats and watching a player is better than using advanced metrics. 3- When a stat says it is measuring something in real life, it doesn't necessarily mean that the measurement is good. Just like looking at steals, rebounds and blocks is a very insufficient way to measure defensive impact. This is very true for on/off stats being interpreted as impact imo. Most of the article actually talks about point 1. How the tracking data and detailed information helps to evaluate a player and plan defenses to reduce efficiency of opposing offenses. It is also what I meant in the last paragraph. They go into these detailed stats to make decisions, and they have to, to understand how the player performs in different aspects of the game. The aggregated stat might be used as some starting point, but in the end it has to come down to the detailed individual stats. There is really not much about my point 2 in the article, except for the remarks about +/-. He says that they make adjustments, but he doesn't tell what they are. So, I am still in the same opinion that this is the type of stat that is more informative for starters and over a long time and not with the on/off style. It is good to have some measure but I am sure this will improve a lot in the future. If you look at his example about Battier's defensive impact, he explains it as being a team player, doing the right thing for the team rather than playing for his own stats and the ability to glue things, and make the system work. In the end, he doesn't have a stat to measure any of this. And that's why I mention the eye-test. The stats are very weak in measuring this kind of impact, especially in a predictive manner for the future. Thanks for the article again, also the info for getting through the pay-wall.
Green is an enigma. Great player? Terrible player? Both? I keep thinking of who he reminds me of. Not sure I have seen anyone be so good, and then be so bad.
when he was first got drafted, i thought he was going to be rockets' own version of ja morant. he plays more like brandon jennings.
What is amazing about something we should have known before that the success of the team did not hinge on the performances of an inconsistent guard.
Still nitpicking at things, we're all waiting for you to have an original thought. The guy who knows one thing wrong with anything but too scared to share his own ideas because he knows anyone can nitpick at anything.
Yahoo had an article "Giddey is not a PG" last month and made me feel the same about JG. JG may be a undersized SF more than a SG.
