Boogie and the League's Other Pure Centers

[bajaden]

This is a good thread. While we can debate the merits of "per/36" all day long, there is no doubt that DMC has the talent to become one of the league's best centers, if not THE best center. He just needs to keep his head on straight and continue doing what he's done the past 3 games. It's easy when he's playing well and the team is winning. It's when he struggles and/or the team starts losing that he starts to unravel. Even though I have been highly critical of him on this forum, I am rooting for him to succeed.

I think the mere fact that you, and many on this fourm, including myself, feel that so goes Cousins, so goes the Kings, because that is what were saying here. That in itself, speaks volumes about his talent. For a big man in just his third year, which means he still figuring it out to some extent, he's doing just fine. By no means am I disregarding what steps he needs to take to be great. I just think he's on his way and its just a matter of time. So while criticism is certainly warranted at times, were dammed lucky to have him on our team.

The team just proved it could win a couple of games without Tyreke. I don't think its proved it can win without Cousins.

 

[CruzDude]

baja's last sentence says it all. Cuz still has a bunch of growing in the NBA sense and maturing to do to start getting on the Aal Star team. But so does 75% of the team (need growth and maturity) which makes it all the harder for Cuz.

 

[bajaden]

You can either have good games, bad games, or neutral games where you don't help your team win or lose.

Cousins has mostly bad games with a lot of monster games in between.

A guy like Jefferson has mostly good games with a couple bad ones every now and then.

In the end their numbers can look similar on paper, but Jefferson helped his team win more because he plays well almost every night. It's great when Cousins can dominate a game but that's just one win and one night. If you are awful the next night, then you're no better than a player who played neutral two nights in a row.

If the team depends on you to win and you can only play well half the time, chances are you're going to be around a .500 team. In Cousins case it's lower than that because he doesn't play well half the time. Like I've been preaching here lately, check out his game logs and check out our wins. His success pretty much goes hand in hand with our wins.

14 points, 7 rebounds, and 1 assist
11 points, 4 rebounds, and 0 assists
21 points, 13 rebounds, and 1 assist
23 points, 15 rebounds, and 1 assist
21 points, 11 rebounds, and 0 assists
14 points, 9 rebounds, and 3 assists
9 points, 16 rebounds, and 7 assists
29 points, 7 rebounds, and 3 assists
7 points, 8 rebounds, and 2 assists
14 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists
14 points, 9 rebounds, and 3 assists
20 points, 5 rebounds, and 2 assists
19 points, 16 rebounds, and 1 assist
8 points, 6 rebounds and 0 assists ( This was the Clipper game where everyone stunk, and Cuz only played 17 minutes)
25 points, 13 rebounds, and 1 assist
17 points, 14 rebounds, and 4 assists
19 points, 12 rebounds, and 2 assists

Please be so kind to point out the 50% of the games that were bad, and if bad, by comparison to who?

 

[bajaden]

Brooks is a pretty decent defender at PG, maybe about average, while IT is slightly below average on top of his height hurting him, and Jimmer's the worst of the three. Both the eye test and defensive stats show Jimmer is the worst of the three, and the other aspect is that's largely against backup 1's and 2's, while Brooks is facing off against starting PG's most of the time.

Are any of them great defensively? No, but just because Brooks and IT aren't great doesn't really have anything to do with Jimmer's defense. And while you sit here and say Brooks and IT are just too small to defend, even with the size disadvantage they're still better on that end than Jimmer, which would mean Jimmer is even worse given his size advantage over those two, if you're bringing up size and using it in this argument. If in your mind IT/Brooks are too small and Jimmer has an advantage by being bigger, than he's even worse given with his size advantage over those two.

Show me any stats which show Jimmer is a better defender than IT or Jimmer. You must have some stats to back up your assertion, right? I mean, coming on here and saying what you are without any stats to back it up would be foolish.

While I think Jimmer is capable of being a better defender over time, I think it all comes down to whether the other things he'll eventually bring to the game compensate for the areas in which he's lacking. Similiar to other PG's that are not the best defenders in the world, but they're still starting in the NBA because of other skills. Only time will tell. Whether with us, or someone else.

 

[sdballer]

The stats aren't quite as dramatic as you make it sound.... Every source I looked at has all three guards pretty close in various defensive statistics.... Hoopdata actually has Jimmer as the best of the 3 across the defensive metrics (except steals). And he doesn't foul as frequently.

So not that much worse than the others still equals worse, right? And this is with him often being buried on the weakest offensive player on the court.

 

[ESP47]

14 points, 7 rebounds, and 1 assist
11 points, 4 rebounds, and 0 assists
21 points, 13 rebounds, and 1 assist
23 points, 15 rebounds, and 1 assist
21 points, 11 rebounds, and 0 assists
14 points, 9 rebounds, and 3 assists
9 points, 16 rebounds, and 7 assists
29 points, 7 rebounds, and 3 assists
7 points, 8 rebounds, and 2 assists
14 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists
14 points, 9 rebounds, and 3 assists
20 points, 5 rebounds, and 2 assists
19 points, 16 rebounds, and 1 assist
8 points, 6 rebounds and 0 assists ( This was the Clipper game where everyone stunk, and Cuz only played 17 minutes)
25 points, 13 rebounds, and 1 assist
17 points, 14 rebounds, and 4 assists
19 points, 12 rebounds, and 2 assists

Please be so kind to point out the 50% of the games that were bad, and if bad, by comparison to who?

Totals don't mean much when were talking about points. Look at his field goals attempted compared to his points. If he has to shoot 5 for 17 to score 15 points, he's hurting the team if we end the game with 80 field goals attempted and 90 total points.

I'm sure Marcus Thornton's point totals look decent as well. If it takes 20 shots to score 20 points, you aren't really doing your team any favors. It'll take someone else on the team who is more efficient to win the game for you.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Totals don't mean much when were talking about points. Look at his field goals attempted compared to his points. If he has to shoot 5 for 17 to score 15 points, he's hurting the team if we end the game with 80 field goals attempted and 90 total points.

Well, maybe, but that's moving the goalposts. You said that the reason why Cousins wasn't helping the team win was because he was having bad games more than half the time. And then, when bajaden demonstrated how that is not true, you not only failed to defend your original argument that Cousins played poorly, you then said the games he did play well in don't count, because he shoots a lot. Well, shooting a low percentage does not, in and of itself, tell you whether you had a bad game, either. I wouldn't rely on points as being a sole determining factor, at all. Or even the most important determining factor. How good was his defense? How did his rebounds, prevent the other team from getting out in transition? Did he draw doubles, to create shots for his teammates?

I would submit that the night Cousins went for 9/16/7, he had a pretty good game, even if he went 4-19.

 

[ESP47]

Well, maybe, but that's moving the goalposts. You said that the reason why Cousins wasn't helping the team win was because he was having bad games more than half the time. And then, when bajaden demonstrated how that is not true, you not only failed to defend your original argument that Cousins played poorly, you then said the games he did play well in don't count, because he shoots a lot. Well, shooting a low percentage does not, in and of itself, tell you whether you had a bad game, either. I wouldn't rely on points as being a sole determining factor, at all. Or even the most important determining factor. How good was his defense? How did his rebounds, prevent the other team from getting out in transition? Did he draw doubles, to create shots for his teammates?

I would submit that the night Cousins went for 9/16/7, he had a pretty good game, even if he went 4-19.

He didn't demonstrate anything other than numbers that look good from afar but don't look quite as good when you get into them. Where are the shooting percentages and turnovers? I don't have the time, nor desire to delve into each game and explain to you guys why the numbers aren't as good as they seem. I'll do one and you can figure out the rest if you wish.

First game against the Pacers, Cousins had 21 and 13. Great game when you say it like that. Then you look closer and you see it took him 27 shots to get 21 points. That's awful. If the whole team played like that, we'd basically score 80 points and lose the game by 20+. Yeah rebounds matter, he had 13 total and 7 of them offensive. I'm guessing at least half of his offensive boards added to his point total. So basically he took a crap load of shots, secured a crap load of offensive rebounds and still couldn't have a nice offensive game. Most of his games are like this, maybe not as extreme but you just flat out aren't helping your team if you're consistently attempting more field goals than points scored.

I'm pretty sure points are the #1 determining factor to winning a game. Obviously there are a ton of other factors but points are and will always be #1.

Just look at the box scores....they don't lie. When Cousins is scoring efficiently, they win almost every time. The games against Brooklyn and Chicago are the only two real efficient games where Cousins played well and they still lost.

Cousins should be able to score at a 50% rate more often than anyone on our team. He's only shot 50% or better in 5 out of 17 games. That's awful for a big man. There are guys on the team that Cousins should be giving his shots to based on percentages alone. Brooks firing up a 3 is more efficient than Cousins stumbling into the lane and throwing up garbage to try and draw a foul.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

13 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 15 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 16 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. The assists also matter. What was his free throw percentage in those games? How many charges did he draw? Did he get T'd up in those games? There is so much more to whether or not Cousins had a good game than how many shots he took.

I'm pretty sure points are the #1 determining factor to winning a game. Obviously there are a ton of other factors but points are and will always be #1.

Points scored or points allowed? If you score 105, and give up 109, then your offensive efficiency was hardly the determining factor.

 

[mac]

13 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 15 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 16 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. The assists also matter. What was his free throw percentage in those games? How many charges did he draw? Did he get T'd up in those games? There is so much more to whether or not Cousins had a good game than how many shots he took.


Points scored or points allowed? If you score 105, and give up 109, then your offensive efficiency was hardly the determining factor.

Well with Cousins and JT FGA and ORpg tend to be correlated. They sometimes take 3 shots/tips to get a bucket. The result is 1-3 FG and 2 offensive boards.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Well with Cousins and JT FGA and ORpg tend to be correlated. They sometimes take 3 shots/tips to get a bucket. The result is 1-3 FG and 2 offensive boards.

Well, that's certainly the perception. But it seems as though the offensive rebounds of both players are down, compared to last year, while defensive rebounds are up, even though neither player's FG percentage has improved. What explains that?

 

[ESP47]

13 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 15 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 16 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. The assists also matter. What was his free throw percentage in those games? How many charges did he draw? Did he get T'd up in those games? There is so much more to whether or not Cousins had a good game than how many shots he took.


Points scored or points allowed? If you score 105, and give up 109, then your offensive efficiency was hardly the determining factor.

13 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. Yes, 13 rebounds is always good. Doesn't mean you had a good overall game. It just means that 13 rebounds is a good rebounding number.

Points scored, points allowed...it doesn't matter. The point I'm trying to make is that Cousins needs to change up his game. He's doing nothing other than hurting the team by shooting 30 some odd percent while taking 1/5th of the teams total shots. You can't be like "Well he rebounds, passes and defends....so the fact that he goes 5-15 really doesn't matter". It does matter because instead of being the best player on the court, you're now just a neutral player who isn't helping nor hurting your team. The best player on the team should not be a neutral player.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Well, yes, it does matter. If Cousins goes 9-27, with 13 boards, and we score more than the other guys, that's more important than if he goes 9-14, with 10 boards, and we don't score more than the other guys. Offensive efficiency is overrated.

 

[mac]

Well, that's certainly the perception. But it seems as though the offensive rebounds of both players are down, compared to last year, while defensive rebounds are up, even though neither player's FG percentage has improved. What explains that?

Other players' FG%s? Tyreke's missed layups and stuff like that. I know that's not on JT/Cousins though.

 

[Npliam]

Well, yes, it does matter. If Cousins goes 9-27, with 13 boards, and we score more than the other guys, that's more important than if he goes 9-14, with 10 boards, and we don't score more than the other guys. Offensive efficiency is overrated.

No it isn't.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No it isn't.

Sure it is. If it isn't, then how come the team with the highest eFG% never wins the championship? Hell, they don't even get to the Finals.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Sure it is. If it isn't, then how come the team with the highest eFG% never wins the championship? Hell, they don't even get to the Finals.

While the team with the league-best eFG% has only won the championship once in the past 25 years, there's a pretty strong tendency for the team that wins the championship to be high in the eFG% rankings. 16 of the last 25 champs were top-5, 20 were top-10, and the mean rank of 6.7 was killed by a few Pistons teams that won on the basis of their D.

Champs have a slightly better rank in eFG% allowed (5.2 mean, 5 champs were #1, 14 were top-5, 23 were top-10), again suggesting that efficiency is an important metric (this time on the defensive end).

In fact, only two of the last 25 champions has won without being top-5 in either eFG% or eFG% allowed, and 7 were top-5 in both. There are four outlier teams whose "mean efficency rank" ([eFG% rank + eFG% allowed rank]/2) was over 10: 11, 11, 11.5, 12. Of the other 21 champs, the lowest mean efficiency rank was 7.5. If you want to win the championship, you'd better be both offensively and defensively efficient.

 

[DesertFox]

Well, yes, it does matter. If Cousins goes 9-27, with 13 boards, and we score more than the other guys, that's more important than if he goes 9-14, with 10 boards, and we don't score more than the other guys. Offensive efficiency is overrated.

Hard to see any logic there.

Everything is overrated if you lose. If you make more shots and miss less, you will win more than you lose.

 

[ESP47]

Well, yes, it does matter. If Cousins goes 9-27, with 13 boards, and we score more than the other guys, that's more important than if he goes 9-14, with 10 boards, and we don't score more than the other guys. Offensive efficiency is overrated.

Look at the box scores. When Cousins goes 9-27 we generally lose. When he goes 9-14 we generally win. I'm basing this on what I've seen in the box scores. You're basing your point on hypothetical situations. I'm not saying we win or lose every time based on this. There is just a distinctive pattern here that can't be ignored so far this season.

Why would you think 3 rebounds has more to do with winning than 13 missed shots has to do with losing? You saw what something like 13 missed shots did to us in the 2nd quarter tonight. If you are a somewhat efficient player, 13 shots should equal 13 points. 3 rebounds does not equal 13 points scored or saved.

 

[Padrino]

i think this entire argument is moot. it doesn't matter if cuz shoots well or shoots poorly if his coaches and/or teammates fail to put him in a position to succeed. remember, people: against a good defense, the basketball bouncing into the cylinder on a tough shot is, by and large, a matter of luck. some nights, luck is with demarcus. other nights, it is not. so how do you breed consistency in a young talent of his caliber? well, it's really much more simple than one might imagine: you run plays in the halfcourt that make the game easier for demarcus. ex: the pick and roll. run that play even just five times a night, and demarcus' field goal percentage begins to stabilize, as does his confidence at the rim...