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

This is just bad logic. A MAX contract in the NBA does not denote FRANCHISE GUY or great player. It is a tool used to UNDERpay the true superstars. Over 1/2 the league would give Rudy Gay his current contract and not bat an eye. He is the 23rd highest paid player in the NBA and about one of the top 20-30 players in the league. He is not over paid and nobody expected him to transform into LeBron once he got paid.

 

The thing about most of these advanced basketball stats(the ones most message board flunkies quote) is that they are trying to mimic baseball when basketball is an entirely different animal. Any statistical reference that does not include at least the players other 4 teammates at worst and the other team at best is flawed.

The worst of the lot is win shares. That is an entirely hokey stat that should have been dismissed after the creator tried to justify the crappy stat by arguing that Rodman was more important to the Bulls than MJ.

I like PER but it is also flawed.

Basketball advanced stats are in their infancy. IMO the layman should not be acting like they know the context.

It is all good though. What is funny is that the thread transformed after about page 2 into a general Rudy Gay update thread. Nobody has argued that Rudy Gay is on par with Durant.

 

LeBron probably is too much of an expectation - Do you expect him to have about the same impact as Kevin Martin post-rule change?

Because that's what appears to be his cohort.

You're right, half the league would give him max money anyway, but the other half would loook for a Martin, Lowry, Gortat to save resources for other use.

I just don't see any downside in the latter approach that the detractors like ot point out.

It's not nearly as hard as you think. Kyle Lowry is a foul-drawing magnet, it takes about 5 minutes of watching him play to watch him toss himself into the lane (though he does it less now since his 3 pter is better). Looking at stats that prove this aren't anymore divorced from context than a youtube video or a box score.

 

There's nothing wrong with the advanced NBA stats though. They just all have to be looked at in context. The nice thing about PER is that it gives you a single number to help you judge how good a player is, no other stat does that. The league leader in PER is basically always one of the top three players in the league. Like any other stat PER has its limitations.

And the advanced metrics are a **** of a lot better than most of the basic box score stats if you understand what they represent and look at them in context.

All that said, you don't need advanced metrics to determine that Rudy Gay isn't an elite player. And that's what we're all arguing. He's a good player. There's no shame in being a good player. But the fact that (some) people have talked themselves into believing that he's anything more than that is just bizarre.

 

Find the posts of people saying Rudy Gay is an elite player. Now look for the post that say he isn't even a good player. Only one type exists in this thread.

 

I think the Grizzlies could have realistically gotten Rudy Gay on a Martin type deal. But, even without doing that Gay is significantly better than Martin and worth the $3M difference in salary. He can get his own shot and his length and strength allow him to defend guys with relative ease that Martin couldn't D up trying his hardest (and he rarely does that). Lowry and Gortat are under paid but that's mostly because they weren't in significant enough roles before signing their contracts and in Lowry's case he made huge strides post deal.

I agree with the general idea most have argued with 'what' over. The fact that Gay isn't as good as Durant and it wasn't smart to pay him so much money given the state of their roster. I just don't think he deserves as much criticism as he gets. The guy is a damn good player. He'd be fine as the 2nd scorer along side a true superstar like Russell Westbrook is to Durant in OKC.

 

Rudy Gay's about to show the world he's not worth the max.

Fixed it for you.

 

What's the title of the thread?

 

Check the Title Bro.

 

3 points > 2 points

Man, what kind of BS are they teaching kids in school these days?

And yet the best teams in the NBA typically base their offenses on lots of 3pt shots or shots in the paint, while forcing 2pt jumpers on defense.

 

Yet, the best scorers in the history of the game were not 3pt shooters. 15ft is easier to make than 23'9. Even if you're a great 3pt shooter at 37%, you're missing almost 1/3 of your shots. Again, I guess the greatest scorer's can't count by your logic. There is a reason they teach to defend inside then out. Now, it would be ignorant to say the 3pt line can't neutralize some of what players do inside the arc. The so called great shooter martin is shooting what 40% from the field. I think he's around 30% from 3. When u struggle from 23'9, they don't say go back do they? So if ur theory is 35% from 3 is like 50% from 2, that's cool. The thing is some of those 2s are going to be a helluva lot easier than that 23'9 shot.

 

You may disagree, but my position is very reasonable.

 

The best scorers in the history of the game generally shot high percentage shots near the basket (often resulting in fouls and FTAs).

It's really not a difficult concept here. Efficient scorers either shoot high-percentage shots (i.e., near the basket) and get to the FT line, or convert 3PAs at a high clip, or both.

Midrange jumpers are generally low %, don't often result in FTAs, and are obviously worth less points than 3PAs. It's a valuable tool to have, but by itself, for the vast majority of NBA players, it's the least inefficient shot and shouldn't be relied upon. This is just a fact.

The best offenses get good looks right at the basket, draw fouls, and hit 3s. I can't believe we're even arguing this.

 

And this is where the disconnect is. You'd think it would be easier based on common sense and what you usually see, but some players may actually shoot better from 23 feet than 15. Wouldn't you be at a disadvantage if you were coaching and told your players to focus more on defending 2s than 3s?

That's where advanced stats come in. The point isn't to just trust your experience and eyes or just trust the numbers, but to use both to make the best decisions. The game changes sometimes and 20 or 30 years of experience won't mean as much if certain trends just started.

 

Of course it's the harder shot. They're almost always contested. As a result they're generally low %. WHICH IS WHY IT'S BETTER TO TAKE THE BALL TO THE RIM AND FINISH AT THE BASKET/DRAW FOULS, OR SHOOT THREES IF YOU CAN CONVERT THEM AT A HIGH ENOUGH CLIP.

 

I will concede that because he averaged around 59% shooting on his midrange jumpers last year, Rudy's shots from that distance were roughly as efficient as the 3s he took (which he converted at 39%).

That said, that kind of shot selection hasn't led to FTAs (it rarely does). Even if he can maintain that high shooting % on his midrange shots, that flaw will prevent him from being more than just a good scorer.

 

Has rudy gay ever hit a game winning layup/drive or short jumper?

Or at least in the final minute or so?

Or has it all been longer jump shots?