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

Francis for prez, if one guy is shooting 47% from the field vs 42, who do u consider more effecient? Without looking, I would say martin and gay efgs are probably really, really close. That take into account 3 and 2's. Now I have a problem with stackhouse type of guys who shoot 41% to get into the 20. Hell, rudy probably should shoot more considering he's right at 47%

 

Francis killin the Rudy supporters with a dominant performance, I love it.

 

sure, but that's maybe 1 or 2 plays for the whole game (and that's if that player is getting a huge percentage of the late game shots). and it's not as if the shot creators of the world are 100% shooters and the kevin martin's of the world are 0% shooters in those situations. even with a big incremental advantage in those situations like 50% to 30% (which is assuming a huge dropoff for the martin's of the world), it wouldn't make up for the other 46 minutes of the 60 TS% to 50 TS% advantage.

free throws count as possessions. not sure why you think they don't. they're just good possessions because they are so much more efficient than regular shots. hitting 80% of your free throws is equivalent to shooting 80% from the field. lots of people shoot 80% on free throws. no one shoots anywhere close to 80% from the field. that's why getting to the line is good.

are you really going this route? now you're just arguing simple math. if you think 20 points on 16 shots is the same as 20 on 13 shots, again i don't know what to tell you. is 20 points on 80 shots also the same thing? apparently you think it is. if i'm hired by the rockets, and i take 80 shots to get 20 points, you think i'm as good as rudy gay? and should get a max contract? that doesn't make much sense for you to think.

i'm also not sure how you think it's a "myth" that those 3 shots go to other players. if they don't, then where do they go? the team doesn't just lose 3 possessions because rudy gay didn't shoot, i'm almost certain of it? they're 3 extra possessions you get to add to your 20 points total that you already have. unless you think those 3 shots are going to a 0% shooter, you're going to end up with more than 20 points on that same total of 16 shots. if you don't think more points is better than fewer points, again i don't know what to tell you.

 

No more stupid than saying Rudy is on Durant's level.

 

OK. I guess it boomeranged to the other extreme.

 

neither, until i know what those shots are. if they are only taking 2's, then of course the 47% player. if the 42% player is taking a ton of 3's it very well may be that player. and if the 42% player is adding a ton of free throws and hitting them, it may be that guy. that's one thing people seem to miss with free throws. they aren't really the cause of efficiency, they're a byproduct of efficiency (except again maybe in the case of the unique kevin martin, who seems to be (or was) a master of generating free throws out of no where). guys like lebron and durant aren't efficient because of their free throws, they get free throws because they are about to dunk on somebody and fouling them becomes a better option for the defense. if fouls were somehow never committed, lebron and durant wouldn't have any free throws but their FG% would soar as they would suddenly get tons of layups and dunks and uncontested shots. but that's not what would happen with rudy gay. he would still be taking long 2's that don't require fouls to prevent just like always. and that's why doesn't take a lot of free throws. because he only does things at an average level efficiency-wise. you don't have to foul while playing D on gay to keep him from taking a long jumper. you just let him take it.

50.3 to 50.6. very close. but kmart was going to the line once every 1.9 FGA, while gay was going once every 3.6 FGA. nearly twice as often for kmart. and thus the source of martin's large efficiency advantage.

not if he has even more efficient teammates who could take those shots.

 

I'm not so sure about that one, but the Rockets' management is great at bringing out a player's potential. Some players (Chase, Brooks, Head) eventually lose it.

 

Francis, u said u would take the 7-14 guy for 24 pts, I would too. Martin is more like 6 for 15 which is totally different. In fact, martin hasn't shot over 44% since what his 3rd yr inthe league.

The point of this thread was about gay getting to durants level scoring wise which I don't think he can and said it. I think if he shot 4 more shots a game and judging by his per clip, he would be a 24ppg guy. I think he should attack more and get more fts, but in the grand scheme, he's better than all but about 3 or 4 small forwards in the league.

Lbj,durant,melo then who? Wallace,deng,gay, who?

 

He may have more talent than all but 3 or 4 small forwards in the league but as far as his effect on the court, he is average, as shown by advanced metrics.

You could argue since this is a cap based league, an average player making near max dollars is detrmimental to a team.

This is why Rudy Gay is has never been in a playoff game.

 

I hate these new age wanna be advance stats experts. Ok, king ding ding of advanced stats, Kevin Love is da king of advanced stats and he has never been on a winning team.

There is absolutely zero proof that advanced stats in hoops has any juice toward winning. Basketball is not baseball.

 

If people can't agree on what stats matter, then you'll just be talking past each other.

I think advanced stats show more accurately the value of a player than the "traditional" stats.

 

Pretty much this.

The only argument in response is to say "advanced stats don't matter" or some variaton thereof.

 

Advanced stats?

Please explain how those are more effective in an argument when they are all skewed to begin with.....

DD

 

Don't know about that, Rudy is making near max money.

 

There are two kinds of advanced stats.

The first type tells you things that happened in the game which simply aren't recorded in the boxscore. Its additional information. Stuff like player tendencies, shot distribution, defensive charting, lineup statistics, etc.. These are stuff that professional coaches have been tracking for their teams for decades. I think its only a good thing for fans that this information is making its way into the public domain.

The second type takes existing "stats" and combines them in some manner in order to give an overall picture of a player's contributions. When we scan through a boxscore, we will typically do something like this in our head ("Oh 20 points, 8 rebounds, 50% shooting" -> pretty good game). Using a formula allows us to quickly and more accurately/consistently do this mapping. Without it, there is a greater tendency for people to make flawed arguments based on the individual stats. To your point, though, I agree there is sometimes a temptation to just take the final result of a nifty formula (e.g. PER) and attach more significance to it than it deserves. In the end, it reflects only what is in the boxscore. I still think its a useful tool.

 

How do you even know this? He wouldn't touch Gay when he came for free as an 8th round pick, why will he trade for him now when he comes with a 20M price tag?

The cap is only around 58M, by getting Gay you only have 38M to spend on the 14 other guys on the roster. If I were spending almost half of the cap on just 1 player I'd rather have it on a guy better than Rudy Gay.

 

What's the point of explaining it to you?

You have no interest in understanding what they mean or are trying to measure and are just going to respond with some stupid nonsequitur or pointless cliche.

 

This is almost as bad as believing Pacroid would beat Mayweather