Getting Rudy Going Is Key To Our Success

rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#31
#31
Kingster said:
So according to your analysis, the Kings are guaranteed playing .500 ball if IT just shoot less enough to be under 20 points (Let's max IT at 5 shots a game; even he can't get to 20 with 5 shots; but wait, if he makes 5 consecutive three point shots, and then adds 5 free throws, that's 20 points; that's bad). And if the opposing team merely doubles or triples Gay every single time they are guaranteed 100% winning percentage. Presumably, Gay doesn't score in that circumstance, although if he forced the ball 40 times it's possible he gets his 20 points, so maybe that's the strategy: have Gay shoot 40 times a game, regardless. o_O
Click to expand...
What?
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#32
#32
The numbers don't mean much to me. Actually, they mean next to nothing. Of course, when Rudy and Cuz are rolling, we're going to be competitive. But to put an arbitrary number on PPG? That's assuming everything else with the team is exactly the same each and every game and the only thing that changes with our team is when IT, Gay, Cuz score 20 or not. Which in as basketball game, is impossible. What was our opponent FG like when Rudy/Cuz score 20 compared to when they didn't? What was the role guys PPG and FG% in those games? How many TO's? You get the point.

Getting Cuz and Rudy going is important. If they suck, we aren't going to win. But choosing some arbitrary point total that somehow says we're a better team when player x scores a certain amount is wrong
 
Hadlowe

Hadlowe

Starter
#33
#33
The_Jamal said:
The numbers don't mean much to me. Actually, they mean next to nothing. Of course, when Rudy and Cuz are rolling, we're going to be competitive. But to put an arbitrary number on PPG? That's assuming everything else with the team is exactly the same each and every game and the only thing that changes with our team is when IT, Gay, Cuz score 20 or not. Which in as basketball game, is impossible. What was our opponent FG like when Rudy/Cuz score 20 compared to when they didn't? What was the role guys PPG and FG% in those games? How many TO's? You get the point.

Getting Cuz and Rudy going is important. If they suck, we aren't going to win. But choosing some arbitrary point total that somehow says we're a better team when player x scores a certain amount is wrong
Click to expand...
It's not "wrong." The sample size is small enough that the margin for error nearly envelops the entire set of results, but it does suggest a trend to watch in the future.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#34
#34
The_Jamal said:
The numbers don't mean much to me. Actually, they mean next to nothing. Of course, when Rudy and Cuz are rolling, we're going to be competitive. But to put an arbitrary number on PPG? That's assuming everything else with the team is exactly the same each and every game and the only thing that changes with our team is when IT, Gay, Cuz score 20 or not. Which in as basketball game, is impossible. What was our opponent FG like when Rudy/Cuz score 20 compared to when they didn't? What was the role guys PPG and FG% in those games? How many TO's? You get the point.

Getting Cuz and Rudy going is important. If they suck, we aren't going to win. But choosing some arbitrary point total that somehow says we're a better team when player x scores a certain amount is wrong
Click to expand...
So the original post is useless and should be ignored, huh? If I had even a slightest clue that you aren't incredibly biased, I'd pay attention to what you just wrote. I wonder what you would have said if IT had come out looking like a hero.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#35
#35
Glenn said:
So the original post is useless and should be ignored, huh? If I had even a slightest clue that you aren't incredibly biased, I'd pay attention to what you just wrote. I wonder what you would have said if IT had come out looking like a hero.
Click to expand...
The idea isn't. Get Rudy and Cuz going. Great. I agree.

The numbers he provided are. I'd say the same thing if it came out that we were 11-0 when IT scored 20 PPG or whatever. Doesn't mean much. I already explained why in my previous post

And why do you insist on bringing up IT when I'm not even talking about him? Aren't you the one who said you were tired of the argument? So why bring it up?
 
rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#36
#36
The_Jamal said:
The numbers don't mean much to me. Actually, they mean next to nothing. Of course, when Rudy and Cuz are rolling, we're going to be competitive. But to put an arbitrary number on PPG? That's assuming everything else with the team is exactly the same each and every game and the only thing that changes with our team is when IT, Gay, Cuz score 20 or not. Which in as basketball game, is impossible. What was our opponent FG like when Rudy/Cuz score 20 compared to when they didn't? What was the role guys PPG and FG% in those games? How many TO's? You get the point.

Getting Cuz and Rudy going is important. If they suck, we aren't going to win. But choosing some arbitrary point total that somehow says we're a better team when player x scores a certain amount is wrong
Click to expand...
Then you're more the welcome to attempt to refute this trend with any statistics you deem worthy. Until then, simply saying it's wrong simply because you feel it's wrong holds no weight.

8-3 vs 0-8 when Rudy does his the 20pt threshold is clearly evidence we're better when he crosses that barrier, whether you think the numbers are arbitrary or not, and if they mean nothing then you should have no problem refuting it with numbers of your own.

BTW, it's not the only factor in our success. I said as much in my OP. But if you're saying it's wrong it's on you to prove it's wrong and that would involve more than simply saying it's wrong. Evidence please. Don't waste our time.
 
Glenn

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#37
#37
The_Jamal said:
The idea isn't. Get Rudy and Cuz going. Great. I agree.

The numbers he provided are. I'd say the same thing if it came out that we were 11-0 when IT scored 20 PPG or whatever. Doesn't mean much. I already explained why in my previous post

And why do you insist on bringing up IT when I'm not even talking about him? Aren't you the one who said you were tired of the argument? So why bring it up?
Click to expand...
I will go back over your posts and determine what percentage of your posts are about IT if you wish. It isn't 100% as there is a rational side to you but the chip on your shoulder when it comes to IT is huge. I have begun to expect a hidden agenda to everything you write and this note was partially about IT. What other notes have you written today? If I am wrong that your note in response to an article that that could be determined as a criticism of IT was not the reason it caught your attention, I'll apologize.

You are very correct I am tired of this and will take care of my problem in a way that has proven very effective.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#38
#38
Glenn said:
I will go back over your posts and determine what percentage of your posts are about IT if you wish. It isn't 100% as there is a rational side to you but the chip on your shoulder when it comes to IT is huge. I have begun to expect a hidden agenda to everything you write and this note was partially about IT. What other notes have you written today? If I am wrong that your note in response to an article that that could be determined as a criticism of IT was not the reason it caught your attention, I'll apologize.

You are very correct I am tired of this and will take care of my problem in a way that has proven very effective.
Click to expand...
Indeed. What caught my attention in this thread was the arbitrary use of the 20 PPG
 
Entity

Entity

Hall of Famer
#39
#39
The_Jamal said:
Indeed. What caught my attention in this thread was the arbitrary use of the 20 PPG
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call ppg arbitrary. It's usually first stat anybody looks at. So not random just #1 on the list. I am surprised you find ppg arbitrary when you advocated TS% several times before. Yet the first number you use in order to start the algorithm for TS% is ppg but that's arbitrary? You should check your agendas they are starting to butt heads
 
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#40
#40
rainmaker said:
considering these numbers, one of our focus' should clearly be getting Rudy more touches and doing everything we can to get him into a rhythm, not being a focal point but the focal point next to Boogie. We're a better team when that happens and it's tough for that to happen if someone else is shooting the rock instead. We've got to get Rudy going more frequently as to maximize our current roster's ability it has to be the Boogie/Rudy show. Anyone else steps into that #2 role and we're not nearly as competitive. Our mission should be to get Rudy to that 20 point mark, featured next to Boogie and do it at all costs. Why? Because we have yet to win a game when he doesn't cross the 20pt barrier.
Click to expand...
Your stats are on points made, not touches. Right off the bat, the conclusion doesn't jibe with the data. Second, you're confusing correlation and causation. If getting 20 or more points for Gay was the recipe for success, then it's easy-peezy: make sure he has however many shots he needs to get 20 points. However, we know it's not that simple. There is something called shooting percentage. If the guy takes 40 shots to get 20 points common sense dictates he's not going to win you the game, regardless of your "correlation" that you depict. Bottom line is that this data doesn't jibe with your conclusions. Also, common sense tells you that if Gay is doubled, you don't want to have Gay as your primary focus in getting points. If you do, then you're forcing it, which is the last thing you want in order to win the game.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#41
#41
rainmaker said:
Then you're more the welcome to attempt to refute this trend with any statistics you deem worthy. Until then, simply saying it's wrong simply because you feel it's wrong holds no weight.

8-3 vs 0-8 when Rudy does his the 20pt threshold is clearly evidence we're better when he crosses that barrier, whether you think the numbers are arbitrary or not, and if they mean nothing then you should have no problem refuting it with numbers of your own.

BTW, it's not the only factor in our success. I said as much in my OP. But if you're saying it's wrong it's on you to prove it's wrong and that would involve more than simply saying it's wrong. Evidence please. Don't waste our time.
Click to expand...
Certainly. I'll use your own criterion for some trends I found. FYI, I DO NOT advocate these. That's sort of the whole point:

-We are 5-2 when Cousins is not the #1 scorer

-We are 3-1 when Cousins is the #3 scorer

-We are 3-2 when Cousins does not score 20 points

-We are 3-0 when Rudy is the #1 scorer

-We are 2-2 when IT is the #1 scorer

-We are 4-2 when IT, Gay, Cousins score 20 in the same game

Point is, if you look hard enough, you can see whatever you want. We used the same criterion, but my trends suggest many different things than yours did
 
Last edited:
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#44
#44
Entity said:
As a side note I just skimmed for a min and quickly saw 4 losses when Isaiah was #1 scorer. So your 2-1 is not accurate. When I saw that your numbers were just made up I quit looking. Looks like you see what you want no matter how hard you look
Click to expand...
Don't be annoying. It's just a typo. Which makes sense. If we are 5-2 when Cousins isn't the top scorer, and 3-0 when Gay is the top scorer, then it's logical that we went 2-2 when IT is the top scorer

Don't know where you are getting the 4 losses from. I'm only including when Gay joined the team. IT has only lead in scoring 4 times since then. And we've gone 2-2 in those games. So... yea...
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#45
#45
The reason I have trouble with this kind of look at the data is not that the numbers are invalid - they're not, though they're a small sample size. The problem is that, as we all ought to learn in our science courses, correlation does not imply causation. For instance, rather than focusing on what an individual player scores, it would seem to me that looking at team shooting would probably be more informative. For instance, when we shoot a higher percentage than our opponent, we are 13-3. When we shoot a lower percentage than our opponent, we are 1-22. If we shoot at .463 or above, we are 11-3, if we shoot under .463, we are 3-22. And I would guess that when we as a team shoot higher percentages, Rudy Gay is more likely to score 20 points - either because he is hot and lifting our team %age, or because the opposing defense is bad. But you can replace "Rudy Gay" in that previous sentence with either "DeMarcus Cousins" or "Isaiah Thomas" and the logic should still hold.

In other words, when somebody is hot, we should be more likely to win. It just doesn't seem like there's any reason this would apply specifically to Rudy Gay.
 
T

treach1976

Bench
#48
#48
Mavs / Phoenix - 2005 Playoffs (Game 4).... Mav's strategy was deliberately to give Steve Nash almost everything he wants in order to keep the rest of the team out of it.... Not surprisingly, Nash was highly efficient, scored 48 points, and his team lost...
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=250515006

The point is, your PG has to do more than just score. You can let one guy go off, but when that one guy's most important job is the facilitator, and if you can distract him from that, you've got a good chance to win.
 
jcwkings

jcwkings

All-Star
#49
#49
When I'm reading posts on here, it would seem like IT is gunning 100% of the time averaging 2 assists. Well he is averaging 6 assists on the season(7 as a starter), which is the norm for PG's and right there with guys considered among the best in the league like Tony Parker and Mike Conley, as a starter he is above those two and a respectable 10th in the league among starting PG's. IT actually doesn't stop player movement like someone said on here, most of his pts in the halfcourt come from running pick and roll with Cousins or JT, the only Isolation type shots IT gets are when the play breaks down and the shotclock is winding down. The rest of his pts usually come when we are pushing the ball. If anything Gay and Cousins are more ball stoppers because they get true isolation plays run for them. I could see why people would complain if IT was an inneficient gunner like say Brandon Jennings, but IT's shooting numbers are great for a PG across the board FG%, 3 PT %, FT%.
 
Entity

Entity

Hall of Famer
#51
#51
jcwkings said:
When I'm reading posts on here, it would seem like IT is gunning 100% of the time averaging 2 assists. Well he is averaging 6 assists on the season(7 as a starter), which is the norm for PG's and right there with guys considered among the best in the league like Tony Parker and Mike Conley, as a starter he is above those two and a respectable 10th in the league among starting PG's. IT actually doesn't stop player movement like someone said on here, most of his pts in the halfcourt come from running pick and roll with Cousins or JT, the only Isolation type shots IT gets are when the play breaks down and the shotclock is winding down. The rest of his pts usually come when we are pushing the ball. If anything Gay and Cousins are more ball stoppers because they get true isolation plays run for them. I could see why people would complain if IT was an inneficient gunner like say Brandon Jennings, but IT's shooting numbers are great for a PG across the board FG%, 3 PT %, FT%.
Click to expand...
I would think the center is supposed to be the ball stopper as he is the one that should be scoring. Same with gay. The argument saying cousins and gay don't get a lot of assist to prove that Isaiah does is jumping the shark.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#53
#53
Well, if the Pelicans game is any indication this is absolutely the case. As Thomas has handled the ball more and initiated the offense more the Kings offense has slowed to a crawl.
 
rainmaker

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#54
#54
Capt. Factorial said:
For instance, when we shoot a higher percentage than our opponent, we are 13-3. When we shoot a lower percentage than our opponent, we are 1-22. If we shoot at .463 or above, we are 11-3, if we shoot under .463, we are 3-22. And I would guess that when we as a team shoot higher percentages, Rudy Gay is more likely to score 20 points - either because he is hot and lifting our team %age, or because the opposing defense is bad. But you can replace "Rudy Gay" in that previous sentence with either "DeMarcus Cousins" or "Isaiah Thomas" and the logic should still hold.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I'd argue it seems we're better when Rudy is more involved, and in games where Rudy is more involved and getting good looks, meaning the offense is running well, then the team shoots a higher % and we're better for it. You can argue we can replace Rudy with whomever, yet when we do replace Rudy with whomever our win/loss column looks quite different.

It appears how Rudy performs is a direct reflection of how our offense performs or at least is a reflection of our competitiveness. I would think part of our success when Rudy is involved and scoring at a higher rate is that means others are playing off him, as well as Cuz obviously and are getting cleaner looks off the attention Rudy is drawing, which leads to higher shooting %'s for the team. Generally when a team plays through its top two options who can draw doubles/more attention it opens the game up for others and they get better looks. Opposite that, when the 3rd or 4th options take on that role(who don't draw doubles), the flow of the offense based off defensive attention will change, meaning more contested looks for others and the top two options generally trying to force their way into games, having a negative impact on the offense.

If Rudy only shoots/scores well due to the team having occasional hot nights from the field and us winning games where Rudy shoots/scores well has more in your opinion to do with him randomly getting hot or going against poor defense, that's quite an indictment on Rudy as a 2nd option as you're suggesting he doesn't have much of an impact on our success and rather his success is more a product of our hot shooting nights and/or poor defense. I'd strongly argue role players are more impacted by whether the team is shooting well or not as they play off the attention of others but the stars and how they're used has much more of an impact on how a team's offense will click on any given night.

You appear to be arguing Rudy's success is more dependent on the offense clicking, where as I see for the offense to click well it's more dependent on Rudy's success and being heavily involved to do so. There'a reason most 2nd options on successful teams are used as 2nd options. Offense usually runs better as they draw more attention and open the game up for others. If teams could shoot high %'s regularly running the offense just through anybody, more would and they wouldn't break the bank for big name players.
 
Last edited:
Gary

Gary

All-Star
#57
#57
SacTownKid said:
Well, if the Pelicans game is any indication this is absolutely the case. As Thomas has handled the ball more and initiated the offense more the Kings offense has slowed to a crawl.
Click to expand...

Well yahhh.. Soooo many fast breaks.. Usually when Thomas gets the ball he's trying to set up the offense. Not much offense setup in a fast break. Im curious.. Does anyone have the fast break points tonight?
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#58
#58
rainmaker said:
If Rudy only shoots/scores well due to the team having occasional hot nights from the field and us winning games where Rudy shoots/scores well has more in your opinion to do with him randomly getting hot or going against poor defense, that's quite an indictment on Rudy as a 2nd option as you're suggesting he doesn't have much of an impact on our success and rather his success is more a product of our hot shooting nights and/or poor defense.
Click to expand...
That's not really what I was trying to say. Rather, on nights that Rudy shoots well, that success translates to team FG%, and team FG% is highly correlated with winning. In principle, when Rudy is hot, the team should shoot well, and we are more likely to win. When DeMarcus shoots well, the team should shoot well, and we are more likely to win. Isaiah...should be the same thing, but the numbers are a bit weird on that one, as you showed. I'd probably chalk that up to small sample size more than anything else.
 
KingsFanSince85

KingsFanSince85

All-Star
#60
#60
With tonight's win, the Kings are 9-11 with Rudy Gay in the lineup. Keep in mind that 12 of those 20 games have been on the road.

5-3 at home. 4-8 on the road.

It's modest improvement, but improvement nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.