Do We Want Gay That Badly?

[hrdboild]

You know, those extended WS stats are really not showing how poor Rudy gay is so much they are showing how poor WS is as a stat.

I do think win shares do a poor job of evaluating an individual's defensive contributions, but if you look at that All-Star list again I posted earlier with their WS/48 for this season, it does do a pretty good job I think of separating star players from everyone else. And if you were to subjectively rank the season that those 24 players just had, I think you would probably end up with a list that matches up closely with their WS/48 rankings.

 

[John Galt]

You know, those extended WS stats are really not showing how poor Rudy gay is so much they are showing how poor WS is as a stat.

Amen - I was just going to post the same comment. If we see people that we know damn well are not better players than Rudy Gay with loftier WS/48 it shouldn't necessarily make us doubt our plain common sense... alternatively it might suggest we question the validity of the metric.

imho these guys are not better basketball players than Rudy Gay:

Danilo Gallinari .129
Mike Dunleavy .104
Matt Barnes .104
Demarre Carroll .103
Marvin Williams .097
Trevor Ariza .096
Josh Smith .091
Draymond Green .086

To the OP question I think "yes, we want him that badly". He's a very good player with a good head on his shoulders and a good attitude complement to DMC.

 

[hrdboild]

If you see a stat you don't like, you're just going to throw it out altogether. I get the motivation. But you've got to at least come up with a valid reason why. You seem to think that stats which don't reinforce what you already believe are useless. The whole point of a stat like WS/48 in the first place is to objectively measure players in a way that isn't influenced by your biases. A layup is worth the same 2 points as a dunk. A player who hits a lot of threes but takes a huge number of them may seem like a better shooter than a player who hardly takes any but hits them at a good percentage, but objectively he's not a better shooter he's worse and his volume shooting is compounding the problem.

I'm not intending to say WS/48 is the end all be all of the stats world. I'm trying to find a simple way to explain to people that what you think you see isn't always what's really going on. People have a tendency to be blinded by superficial qualities like freakish athleticism or size, degree of difficulty shots, and how many points show up in a boxscore. When you take all of that away you start to get a clearer picture of when those flashy tools contribute toward winning games and when they're just flash without substance.

For instance...

Trevor Ariza had three horrid seasons in Houston and New Orleans where he was playing on bad teams and expected to be a primary scorer. The rest of his career he's been a solid defender and an opportunistic scorer who maximizes offensive possessions by not trying to do too much. He was far and away Washington's best player in both of their playoff series this year.

Danilo Gallinari doesn't have a very good FG% on the surface, but his 3pt% is actually very respectable for his career and he takes nearly half his shots from that range. The result is an inflated TS%. He also limits his turnovers and boards well for his position.

You might think Mike Dunleavy was never that good to begin with and at 33 he's surely on the decline, but the last 4 years have been the best stretch of his career. Like Gallinari he's bumped up his efficiency by mostly eschewing the mid-range and taking 67% of his shots this season either right at the rim or from 3pt range. And he's been at or above 40% from three in 3 of the last 4 seasons.

Matt Barnes started out his career as a journeyman with no shot but he's worked very hard to earn his place and he's been an elite role-player the past 5 seasons for Orlando and both LA squads. How is he doing it? Like Ariza, his game is all three and D.

Josh Smith is consistently one of the very few players in the league who's near the top of the list in both steals and blocks every season. This past season in Detroit was by far the worst of his career which is probably why you don't think he belongs on the list, not to mention who ever watches the Atlanta Hawks, but since 2008 whenever he limits himself to less than 2 threes per game, he's been one of the most productive forwards in the game.

Maybe you should look at what the stat is actually measuring before you dismiss it completely. OPS in baseball didn't even exist until 1984. Batting average was all anyone cared about before that but in the last 10 years particularly OPS has become the stat for measuring how much impact a hitter has on the game and it doesn't even include batting average at all. Getting on base and driving in runs is typically what wins baseball games (defense is measured completely differently in MLB so it's not really relevant here).

In basketball, games are won by hitting shots and limiting your opponent's ability to do the same. If you're elite at either one of those, you're probably a very good player. Rudy Gay for all of his supposed gifts is elite at neither. In fact, here's Rudy Gay's page on basketball-reference: link. scroll down to the bottom of the page where they keep track of appearances on leaderboards. The only thing he's ever been elite at is staying on the floor and taking a ton of shots.

Small market teams have been successful in baseball by finding better and better ways of sifting through the mountains of data and identifying overlooked players who aren't out of their price range and by refusing to waste resources on "name recognition". More often than not, "name recognition" is a code-word which means overpaying somebody based on past performance. Even if we can afford to pay Rudy Gay what he wants to stay, it would be a monumental waste of resources to do so unless he undergoes a sudden career transformation in his 9th NBA season. Because at no point in his career to date has he ever performed well enough to justify making even $10 million per year. It's there in black and white if you're open-minded enough to see it.

 

[PurpleHaze]

For years and years Kings fans lamented the teams SF weakness. Basically, a black hole since the Glory Days with Peja being that "3." Yeah, I know Artest was around for a spell. Now, in Gay we have that particular issue solved, be it for one more year or with an extension. I hope the guy stays for as long as we'll have him and he'll have us - because the alternative would be back to square one with possibly more desperate years singing SF blues in Sactown.

 

[Bricklayer]

If you see a stat you don't like, you're just going to throw it out altogether. I get the motivation. But you've got to at least come up with a valid reason why. You seem to think that stats which don't reinforce what you already believe are useless. The whole point of a stat like WS/48 in the first place is to objectively measure players in a way that isn't influenced by your biases. A layup is worth the same 2 points as a dunk. A player who hits a lot of threes but takes a huge number of them may seem like a better shooter than a player who hardly takes any but hits them at a good percentage, but objectively he's not a better shooter he's worse and his volume shooting is compounding the problem.

I'm not intending to say WS/48 is the end all be all of the stats world. I'm trying to find a simple way to explain to people that what you think you see isn't always what's really going on. People have a tendency to be blinded by superficial qualities like freakish athleticism or size, degree of difficulty shots, and how many points show up in a boxscore. When you take all of that away you start to get a clearer picture of when those flashy tools contribute toward winning games and when they're just flash without substance.

For instance...

Trevor Ariza had three horrid seasons in Houston and New Orleans where he was playing on bad teams and expected to be a primary scorer. The rest of his career he's been a solid defender and an opportunistic scorer who maximizes offensive possessions by not trying to do too much. He was far and away Washington's best player in both of their playoff series this year.

Danilo Gallinari doesn't have a very good FG% on the surface, but his 3pt% is actually very respectable for his career and he takes nearly half his shots from that range. The result is an inflated TS%. He also limits his turnovers and boards well for his position.

You might think Mike Dunleavy was never that good to begin with and at 33 he's surely on the decline, but the last 4 years have been the best stretch of his career. Like Gallinari he's bumped up his efficiency by mostly eschewing the mid-range and taking 67% of his shots this season either right at the rim or from 3pt range. And he's been at or above 40% from three in 3 of the last 4 seasons.

Matt Barnes started out his career as a journeyman with no shot but he's worked very hard to earn his place and he's been an elite role-player the past 5 seasons for Orlando and both LA squads. How is he doing it? Like Ariza, his game is all three and D.

Josh Smith is consistently one of the very few players in the league who's near the top of the list in both steals and blocks every season. This past season in Detroit was by far the worst of his career which is probably why you don't think he belongs on the list, not to mention who ever watches the Atlanta Hawks, but since 2008 whenever he limits himself to less than 2 threes per game, he's been one of the most productive forwards in the game.

Maybe you should look at what the stat is actually measuring before you dismiss it completely. OPS in baseball didn't even exist until 1984. Batting average was all anyone cared about before that but in the last 10 years particularly OPS has become the stat for measuring how much impact a hitter has on the game and it doesn't even include batting average at all. Getting on base and driving in runs is typically what wins baseball games (defense is measured completely differently in MLB so it's not really relevant here).

In basketball, games are won by hitting shots and limiting your opponent's ability to do the same. If you're elite at either one of those, you're probably a very good player. Rudy Gay for all of his supposed gifts is elite at neither. In fact, here's Rudy Gay's page on basketball-reference: link. scroll down to the bottom of the page where they keep track of appearances on leaderboards. The only thing he's ever been elite at is staying on the floor and taking a ton of shots.

Small market teams have been successful in baseball by finding better and better ways of sifting through the mountains of data and identifying overlooked players who aren't out of their price range and by refusing to waste resources on "name recognition". More often than not, "name recognition" is a code-word which means overpaying somebody based on past performance. Even if we can afford to pay Rudy Gay what he wants to stay, it would be a monumental waste of resources to do so unless he undergoes a sudden career transformation in his 9th NBA season. Because at no point in his career to date has he ever performed well enough to justify making even $10 million per year. It's there in black and white if you're open-minded enough to see it.

1) WS is not a stat. Its a formula. Created by a stat geek, but still just a formula. Disagreeing with the importance of the formula, or especially the sincerely stupid conclusions it reaches sometimes is not the same thing as disagreeing with the FACT that is FG% for instance (although even FG% is only a number. if you know the sport you know that role/situation/teammates etc. can make it a more or less accurate description of ability). I could make up a formula tommorow called The Brick, calculated by multiplying ast x 0.1768 reb / # of times player scratches himself per game. You might not be able to disagree with the underlying raw stats, nor could you disagree that The Brick is in fact measuring Ast x .1768Reb / scratches. But you could certainly take a look at the final results making Greg Stiemsma the highest rated Brick player in the league and say, you know what? So what. Your formula kinda sucks and I don't care who scores out well in it. It isn't reflecting anything important.

2) your last statement is confusing BASKETball, with BASEball. This isn't moneyball. Basketball is an actual sport, not something that can be accurately simulated on a computer from a set of numbers. Its also got a salary cap which helps immensely. No need to be shopping for bargain basement sleepers. 100 things happen every play in basketball that completely exceed even the most gloriously stupidly complex formula's ability to reflect. But not the eyes and brain of somebody who knows the sport. With the new cameras recording every nose picking and passing of gas, maybe there will eventually be enough raw data to do better. But cud like WS isn't that. Its just a regurgitated mass of traditional stats looking for some imagined nirvana that is almost surely not achievable from any combination and recombination of basic stats. You can't rely on it. Certainly not as any sort of be all (as you noted above was not your intent).

P.S. I have no idea whether Dean Oliver is actually as big of a basketball dullard as his various formulas suggest he is, he went to Cal tech, presumably he can program a VCR, or could back when that was an important skill. But most of his junk consistently mistakes the ability to hit an open three standing in the corner like a good little scrub with being a good or impactful basketball player. It consistently misses the ability to create your own shot, and has no understanding of role or team situation whatsoever.

P.P.S. I often wonder if the many people who got inadvertently sucked up into the fools gold of advanced statting ever really stopped to consider whether they were truly ready to argue that Dean Oliver knows more about basketball than does Lionel Hollins or Larry Brown who insisted on featuring payers the dinky little formulas can't find a way to value.

 

[Kingster]

Stats include formulas - e.g. standard deviation, mean, correlation, and regression. Statistics is the meaningful arrangement (forumula) of "observations" (non-formula) to draw logical conclusions. I think most would agree that there is no perfect statistic, but if a player like Gay falls far outside the median of WS/48, it's worth discussion at least.

 

[Jerichoholic]

Stats and formulas are definitely useful things, but it's important to remember that any of them can be twisted to make an argument. I think that if this stat tells us anything it could be that perhaps what is even more important than talent in basketball is team fit. This of course doesn't count players that transcend this where their talent is so superior that their fit doesn't matter such as James, Bryant, and Durant. Many of these players that rate higher than Gay are truly better players, but others may not have better talent, but fit their teams better. This has always been my argument for why keeping him will hurt the Kings long-term. I don't think Gay's game style fits with teams that are winners, I believe Memphis and Toronto would agree with me.

Why did Gay not do well in Toronto and why did it all of a sudden start working out in Sacramento? I think the answer is simple and that difference in play styles between the teams. Toronto is trying to emulate winning teams who tend to move the ball and shoot the ball well consistently, that is the winning formula in today's NBA. So why did Gay and the team not do well? Gay doesn't move the ball well, doesn't shoot well from the outside, and turns the ball over too much. He got in the way and when he was removed their game was allowed to flow as it was supposed to.

Now let's look at the Kings. They play a loser brand of basketball which is little ball movement, poor outside shooting, and isolation basketball. So why did Gay do well here? That is the perfect style of basketball for him to look good. It allows him to dominate the ball and do most of his scoring close to the basket with drives, post-ups, and short stop and pops which he prefers to do. This is why his shooting percentage went up so much here. If the Kings stick with this kind of basketball then Gay will continue to look good, but the team will lose. If the team starts to shift to a more winning style of basketball then I believe we will start talking about wanting to trade him as he is getting in the way, just like in Toronto.

 

[HndsmCelt]

It would be foolish to believe Rudy would opt out AND resign with the Kings. That is the kind of player sacrifice that is made to sign a specific player or players that may well put the team over the top into contention. IF we want Rudy to stay the FIRST step is the swallow the 19 mill pill for a season and hope we can keep him beyond this year. Before I entertain any discussion of letting our#2 guy go I really want to see who we can realistically get to take his place. I like the DMC Rudy pairing a lot better than I thought I would before watching them. If we are going to turn the corner and become a play off team we need to keep talent, build ON stability, and bring in roll players around some kind of core including DMC. So if we loose Rudy who will make up the core? and where is our stability? We just can't move forward with the player of the year club.

 

[Jerichoholic]

Actually I think that is exactly what the Kings are hoping to do, it is a give and take. Gay has already said that he cares about stability and that he has made a lot of money and that is not the only consideration. I think the goal of the Kings would be for Gay to opt out of his $19 million final year and sign something along the lines of a 4-year $48 million deal. In the end the Kings get their small forward for the long-term and Gay ends up with stability and $29 million more total money than he had before. Players do have to think about leaving long-term money on the table, what if he got a serious injury next year in his contract year? Hopefully not, but it is something he has to consider.

 

[Chupacabra]

Yeahhh, I'll stick to the good ole eye-test and other more traditional stats. I don't need an advanced statistical formula to tell me whether or not Rudy Gay is a baller. I think it's been established for years now that Gay is a baller, overpaid as he may be.

 

[Jerichoholic]

Yeahhh, I'll stick to the good ole eye-test and other more traditional stats. I don't need an advanced statistical formula to tell me whether or not Rudy Gay is a baller. I think it's been established for years now that Gay is a baller, overpaid as he may be.

I'm with you, today everyone is trying to come up with some metric to figure out who the best players are, but I think with basketball there is nothing close to an exact science to use. As Bricklayer said, there are 100 things that happen on every possession that can't be quantified. Individually I believe the best ways to gauge talent is to watch the games and look at basic stats that have been around for awhile. However I think the next generation of stats will not be just individual, but how that individual has played with certain styles of players, under certain styles of coaches, and within certain systems and how changes have occurred under those dynamics. Unlike other sports basketball is less about individual talent and more about using that talent to fit with a group. I believe that many average young players' careers have become incredibly successful by simply being put into a system that fits them while many very good young players' careers have been ruined by simply being put in the wrong system.

Getting back to Rudy Gay though, I think watching his games can sometimes be deceiving. He does have the look of a baller, he is very smooth when he plays and makes a lot of plays look easy. Another thing though that is important when watching games and looking at stats is reading between the lines and I think some people miss out on that when assessing his game. There are many great things about his game, but there are also many problems and I think a lot of those problems are prohibitive to a winning formula.

 

[Bricklayer]

There is some lesson in most stats/formulas. Its their overapplication that gets you into trouble. Rudy Gay has not had as much team success as many players. But you don't go to a stat and say look, Ryan Hollins is a better player. If you know basketball you know that's not remotely true, and any stat that tells you it is is broken. Or your application of it is broken. But there is some lesson there about Rudy's use, about his teams, about whatever.

For the last two years Boogie's WS/48 was about .100. If you had taken that stat literally you would have traded him for Matt Barnes.

You simply HAVE to go beyond that sort of thing. So let's look closer at Rudy's win shares/career

Rookie year WS/48 0.11. Not good. But rookie. But the real difficulty is the degree to which we dump Memphis's record onto Rudy Gay, rookie. Ben had a higher WS/48 despite having a notably worse rookie season simply because Memphis won 22 games, while we won 28 games.

In his 2nd year they lost Pau to injury, then trade him, and won only 22 again. Rudy's WS/48 jumps to .080.

In his 3rd year, OJ Mayo joins and becomes the man, Gasol arrives but still is fat Gasol, not DPOY Gasol, Rudy's numbers take a slight dip and his WS/48 is punished down to .054 as they win only 24 games again. They go through 3 coaches, but by the end of the season Lionel Hollins has taken over.

In his 4th year, with finally some coaching stability, the arrival of Zach Randolph etc., Rudy's WS/48 bounce up to 0.96 as the team goes 40-42. The still have no bench, Still too much offense in the starting lineup. Rudy is 23. Same age as Boogie this year.

In his 5th year the coach is settled, the lineup is settled, Tony Allen ahs arrived and Mayo has headed to the bench for better balance, they go 46-36 and Rudy's WS/48 jumps to .123, despite him having virtually identical seasons for 4 years now.

In his 6th year, the Memphis team as its been known is fully in place, but they lose Zach Randolph to injury for much of the year. Rudy maintains his same steady Rudy game, and they go 41-25 in the 66 game season, a 51 win pace. Rudy's WS/48 remains at .120.

In his 7th year, Rudy starts off the season shoting terribly, there are rumors he needs glasses, but by far the worst of his career, then some numbnuts kid buys the franchise, installs some know it alls and number crunchers in the front office, and they proceed to dump Rudy on Toronto, much to Lionel Hollins dismay, setting up his exit after another 50 win season. Rudy's shooting recovers slightly in Toronto, but his FG% still plummets to .416 on the year after being between .453 and .471 for 5 straight years.

Then this past year happens.

Now all the above is the story of Rudy Gay, with WS/48 barely describing the tip of it. Or any stat really. With the exception of the 2012-13 season when his FG% took such a hit (and you could see the change just with that basic stat), the variances in his WS/48 were largely based on external forces. Rudy himself was just Rudy. He was Rudy on losing teams without better options, he was Rudy on winning teams that had come together. He may not make you win, but he also doesn't prevent you form winning. In fact his years in Memphis were largely one logn upward march in the win column 22, 22, 24, 40, 46, 51(on pace), 56 (partial season)

 

[rainmaker]

Career WS/48 of the guys you mentioned:

That's a phenomenal example of how cherry picking a stat doesn't nearly begin to reflect reality.


Other current SFs with better career WS/48 than Rudy Gay (.081):

Danilo Gallinari .129
Mike Dunleavy .104
Matt Barnes .104
Demarre Carroll .103
Marvin Williams .097
Trevor Ariza .096
Josh Smith .091
Draymond Green .086

And? None are better players than Rudy. I don't judge talent based on WS/48. I judge based on my eyes.

 

[The_Jamal]

There is some lesson in most stats/formulas. Its their overapplication that gets you into trouble. Rudy Gay has not had as much team success as many players. But you don't go to a stat and say look, Ryan Hollins is a better player. If you know basketball you know that's not remotely true, and any stat that tells you it is is broken. Or your application of it is broken. But there is some lesson there about Rudy's use, about his teams, about whatever.

For the last two years Boogie's WS/48 was about .100. If you had taken that stat literally you would have traded him for Matt Barnes.

You simply HAVE to go beyond that sort of thing. So let's look closer at Rudy's win shares/career

Rookie year WS/48 0.11. Not good. But rookie. But the real difficulty is the degree to which we dump Memphis's record onto Rudy Gay, rookie. Ben had a higher WS/48 despite having a notably worse rookie season simply because Memphis won 22 games, while we won 28 games.

In his 2nd year they lost Pau to injury, then trade him, and won only 22 again. Rudy's WS/48 jumps to .080.

In his 3rd year, OJ Mayo joins and becomes the man, Gasol arrives but still is fat Gasol, not DPOY Gasol, Rudy's numbers take a slight dip and his WS/48 is punished down to .054 as they win only 24 games again. They go through 3 coaches, but by the end of the season Lionel Hollins has taken over.

In his 4th year, with finally some coaching stability, the arrival of Zach Randolph etc., Rudy's WS/48 bounce up to 0.96 as the team goes 40-42. The still have no bench, Still too much offense in the starting lineup. Rudy is 23. Same age as Boogie this year.

In his 5th year the coach is settled, the lineup is settled, Tony Allen ahs arrived and Mayo has headed to the bench for better balance, they go 46-36 and Rudy's WS/48 jumps to .123, despite him having virtually identical seasons for 4 years now.

In his 6th year, the Memphis team as its been known is fully in place, but they lose Zach Randolph to injury for much of the year. Rudy maintains his same steady Rudy game, and they go 41-25 in the 66 game season, a 51 win pace. Rudy's WS/48 remains at .120.

In his 7th year, Rudy starts off the season shoting terribly, there are rumors he needs glasses, but by far the worst of his career, then some numbnuts kid buys the franchise, installs some know it alls and number crunchers in the front office, and they proceed to dump Rudy on Toronto, much to Lionel Hollins dismay, setting up his exit after another 50 win season. Rudy's shooting recovers slightly in Toronto, but his FG% still plummets to .416 on the year after being between .453 and .471 for 5 straight years.

Then this past year happens.

Now all the above is the story of Rudy Gay, with WS/48 barely describing the tip of it. Or any stat really. With the exception of the 2012-13 season when his FG% took such a hit (and you could see the change just with that basic stat), the variances in his WS/48 were largely based on external forces. Rudy himself was just Rudy. He was Rudy on losing teams without better options, he was Rudy on winning teams that had come together. He may not make you win, but he also doesn't prevent you form winning. In fact his years in Memphis were largely one logn upward march in the win column 22, 22, 24, 40, 46, 51(on pace), 56 (partial season)

These "Stat geeks" also know the pitfalls of banking everything on one stat. Ws/48 starts a conversation. Just like TS% starts a conversation. But you, as the educated fan, need to go out and find what and how that player got the number he did.

I know I've talked with you about this before, but the Kevin Martin vs Michael Jordan TS% argument. Kevin Martin has the higher TS% than Michael. So if you took that literally without looking at anything else, you'd say, ok, I want Kevin Martin shooting over Michael because he shoots at a higher %.

Once you go searching for context, you'll find rather easily how wrong the original argument was. MJ had some of the highest USG rates in NBA history while still producing extremely good scoring/efficiency. You'll find that MJ actually created for his teammates and did things on the floor to help his team improve. We also know that Michael was the de facto #1 on all of his teams and faced the challenges of a defense keying off him every night and trying to stop him. Martin's period of being a #1 saw a decline in his numbers and never any team success.

Most examples aren't as obvious as the one above, but you also fall into the same traps of just using one advanced (not really all that advanced) anymore to try and compare players. Advanced stats are about using a COMPILATION of numbers to reach a conclusion. And most of the time, you're going to come to the right conclusion if you do so.

 

[William Blake]

P.S. I have no idea whether Dean Oliver is actually as big of a basketball dullard as his various formulas suggest he is, he went to Cal tech, presumably he can program a VCR, or could back when that was an important skill. But most of his junk consistently mistakes the ability to hit an open three standing in the corner like a good little scrub with being a good or impactful basketball player. It consistently misses the ability to create your own shot, and has no understanding of role or team situation whatsoever.

I can assure you that Oliver knows about basketball more than the vast majority of the internet/media pundits. I don't know what's his current stance on the stats he came up with but in his book (Basketball on paper) he is far from a zealot and treats the numbers in a very critical way.

That said, his stats and his line of thought have the same fault as every boxscore-based "advanced" stat, i.e. they overvalue individual shooting efficiency.
I don't like Gay very much, but his value for this Kings team goes way beyond his pace-adjusted statistical contributions.

 

[kingsboi]

Since it seems the Kings want to keep Gay, whether it's beyond the opt in option or not, what about giving him a three year deal with the third year being able to opt out? I think that would be fair, gives Pete three offseasons to put together a playoff team.

 

[John Galt]

What is the reason Rudy doesn't just play for $19M again? It would seem he could buy an insurance policy against career ending injury. He's only one year further into his prime - he'll have had a chance to size up the Kings org and teammates for another year. Surely he already has more money than a sucker could ever spend.

What does he have to lose? It seems nutty - way "over-careful" to abandon a 1/19 deal in favor of a 4/48 deal with a team that is a couple years away from the new arena and best-case deep playoff runs.

Easy to see why he would opt out and take a 4/48 for a contender NOW. Also easy to see why he would play this year for the Kings. But I cannot see the financial or non-financial reasons to lock down another 3 yrs $29M with the Sacramento Kings. Seems near certain he can get way way more than that extra 3/29 on the open market next year - for the team he chooses - even if he doesn't light up the league next season (which he may).

 

[Bricklayer]

Since it seems the Kings want to keep Gay, whether it's beyond the opt in option or not, what about giving him a three year deal with the third year being able to opt out? I think that would be fair, gives Pete three offseasons to put together a playoff team.

reports seem to indicate we very specifically do NOT want him to opt out, because we're not confident we can win a bidding war for him given our current dilapidated state. Which is probably correct. Maybe the Igoudala debacle actually taught gerbil something about this market. too bad he didn't stop by here first and I could have saved him and us a lot of trouble. In any case, sounds like we want him to opt into his $19mil, gives us a year to try to improve enough that next year when the questions comes up not only do we have a better team to pitch him, but we also have the shiny new building just over the horizon.

Were we in a stronger position or stronger market you could maybe make other plans. In that situation I would love to maybe make a run at Gordon Hayward's restricted status. But as it is, we're lucky to even have Ruby, and certainly would have dim prospects of replacing him with any sort of equal talent.

Remember Boogie has lost here for 4 straight years. Kevin Love is hinting he wants out after 6 straight years of losing in Minny. We need to get this turned around, and that means retaining the talent gerbil did not already lose, and then adding more, and more talent ready to win. Gay doesn't have to be a perfect longterm solution to be the most reasonable one for us in the short term.

 

[kingsboi]

reports seem to indicate we very specifically do NOT want him to opt out, because we're not confident we can win a bidding war for him given our current dilapidated state. Which is probably correct. Maybe the Igoudala debacle actually taught gerbil something about this market. too bad he didn't stop by here first and I could have saved him and us a lot of trouble. In any case, sounds like we want him to opt into his $19mil, gives us a year to try to improve enough that next year when the questions comes up not only do we have a better team to pitch him, but we also have the shiny new building just over the horizon.

Were we in a stronger position or stronger market you could maybe make other plans. In that situation I would love to maybe make a run at Gordon Hayward's restricted status. But as it is, we're lucky to even have Ruby, and certainly would have dim prospects of replacing him with any sort of equal talent.

Remember Boogie has lost here for 4 straight years. Kevin Love is hinting he wants out after 6 straight years of losing in Minny. We need to get this turned around, and that means retaining the talent gerbil did not already lose, and then adding more, and more talent ready to win. Gay doesn't have to be a perfect longterm solution to be the most reasonable one for us in the short term.

Hence why I suggested a three year deal, which would be ideal for both parties because we can see if the Gay & Cousins duo can co exist and net us wins and hopefully a playoff berth. Otherwise, he can be a valuable trade chip down the road if we are looking to move in another direction. You are right though, all this losing will eventually catch up with DeMarcus and we don't want to start hearing rumors about him wanting out due to a incompetant front office.

 

[bajaden]

Stats include formulas - e.g. standard deviation, mean, correlation, and regression. Statistics is the meaningful arrangement (forumula) of "observations" (non-formula) to draw logical conclusions. I think most would agree that there is no perfect statistic, but if a player like Gay falls far outside the median of WS/48, it's worth discussion at least.

I guess so, but no for me. If I watch a player play 82 games, I know whether he's a good player or not, and I don't need a bunch of formula's or stats to convince me I'm right, or wrong. I've never been a fan of the per anything stat. Especially when applied to a player playing 12 minutes a night against other subs. Gay is a very good basketball player. He's the best SF we've had since Artest, and he's not nuts like Artest was. The Nineteen million dollars owed if he opts in, is immaterial to everyone except the guy writing the check. And if he's willing to pay the bill, then I don't have a problem with it. You can't look at any one player as the total answer to success. You have to build a core that you want to go forward with, and every player you add, is going to have pluses and minuses. Their going to add something, and at the same time, leave other problems to be solved.

Trying to find players that are good offensive and good defensive players is very difficult, and in general, their very expensive, and that's if you can find one. So to some extent, you have to compromise, and Gay is a very good compromise. If you can get him to buy into a system that's less selfish, and minimize his three point attempts, he'd be a very efficient player, and I'd gladly sign him to a long term contract. But I'd love to have him for a full year to see how good the chemistry between Gay and Cousins can become? How efficiently they can play together? While Gay shot 48% this past season with the Kings, which is almost 10 percent higher than with Toronto, he wasn't exactly chopped liver with Memphis. If you throw out his rookie year, he averaged over 46% from the floor his last full 5 years there. I think Gay is a good player as a number 2 or even number 3 option. When he's the number 1 option, like at Toronto, that's when he struggles.

 

[hrdboild]

I don't really have the patience or willpower to step people through every phase of my analysis so I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and say hell with it. Believe whatever you want. If you read what I actually said you'll find that I never intended to place WS/48 on a pedestal as the sole means of evaluating talent nor did I ever intend to say that it can be used to rank players one to one absent context or further explanation. I was simply trying to make a point that Rudy Gay last season succeeded on the Kings to the extent that he did mostly because he was allowed to dominate the ball as much as he wanted to. With the exception of a couple career shooting nights, catering to Rudy Gay's scoring whims did not turn us into a winning team. And since it's rather easy for people to dismiss that opinion, they've been doing it all season actually, I was curious if there was some kind of statistical analysis which backed it up.

And yes there is a lot of variance in these stats that are based on external factors. But here's the thing about wins, if you're getting paid max contract money and shooting the ball 17 times a game and your team isn't winning, doesn't that say something about you? You want to argue it's validity for low usage players, I think you've got a good point. But let's look at just the big movers. DeMarcus Cousins has played on some pretty awful teams but his Win Shares didn't shoot up this season solely because we found him some gunners to fit alongside him and propel us to more wins. In 2014 he had the same 28 wins to his name that he had a year before and his WS/48 shot up 70 points (.166 vs. .092). Why? Wouldn't most of us agree that in previous seasons he showed a lot of potential but this was the first season he put everything together and emerged as a legit All-Star? The win totals don't reflect it, but Cousins in 2014 was a much better player than Cousins in 2013 and it turns out the WS/48 number does reflect that big time.

My argument against Rudy Gay isn't that he's a poor player. It's that he's a lot closer to average than most people here are willing to admit. He's not going to make you lose games, but team's that featured him as a primary scorer lost a ton of games because he's also not good enough to carry a poor team to a winning record. The only time in his career when he played on a winning team, it was Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol who shouldered the biggest load. If he was that important to winning in Memphis, why did their win percentage shoot up substantially after they swapped him for Tayshaun Prince (another 3 and D guy coincidentally)? Rudy Gay leaving Toronto meant an increased role for Kyle Lowry in particular and he delivered big time in a way that Rudy Gay was unable to do.

Which brings me back to a point so simple it's destined to be mocked or ignored. Players are paid to deliver wins. The more wins a player gets you, the bigger share of your salary cap he deserves. If Rudy Gay isn't producing wins, than why pay him? If he needs All Star teammates to succeed, how valuable is he? If DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay is no better than DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans, why are we prepared to sign on the dotted line for one of them but not the other? Different teams, different coaches, different circumstances and all that. I know, I get it. But if you're prepared to commit a significant chunk of your financial future on one player you damn sure better use every resource available to ensure it's a smart investment. Because we can't get anyone better, because he's the most talented SF we've had in years, because Cousins is on the verge of exploding if he loses any more -- these are all cute justifications for fans. As a professional basketball executive you've got to do better than that. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the braintrust sees something in Rudy that I don't. I'm also perfectly willing to say I told you so if it comes to it.

 

[upinsmoke]

I don't really have the patience or willpower to step people through every phase of my analysis so I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and say hell with it. Believe whatever you want. If you read what I actually said you'll find that I never intended to place WS/48 on a pedestal as the sole means of evaluating talent nor did I ever intend to say that it can be used to rank players one to one absent context or further explanation. I was simply trying to make a point that Rudy Gay last season succeeded on the Kings to the extent that he did mostly because he was allowed to dominate the ball as much as he wanted to. With the exception of a couple career shooting nights, catering to Rudy Gay's scoring whims did not turn us into a winning team. And since it's rather easy for people to dismiss that opinion, they've been doing it all season actually, I was curious if there was some kind of statistical analysis which backed it up.

And yes there is a lot of variance in these stats that are based on external factors. But here's the thing about wins, if you're getting paid max contract money and shooting the ball 17 times a game and your team isn't winning, doesn't that say something about you? You want to argue it's validity for low usage players, I think you've got a good point. But let's look at just the big movers. DeMarcus Cousins has played on some pretty awful teams but his Win Shares didn't shoot up this season solely because we found him some gunners to fit alongside him and propel us to more wins. In 2014 he had the same 28 wins to his name that he had a year before and his WS/48 shot up 70 points (.166 vs. .092). Why? Wouldn't most of us agree that in previous seasons he showed a lot of potential but this was the first season he put everything together and emerged as a legit All-Star? The win totals don't reflect it, but Cousins in 2014 was a much better player than Cousins in 2013 and it turns out the WS/48 number does reflect that big time.

My argument against Rudy Gay isn't that he's a poor player. It's that he's a lot closer to average than most people here are willing to admit. He's not going to make you lose games, but team's that featured him as a primary scorer lost a ton of games because he's also not good enough to carry a poor team to a winning record. The only time in his career when he played on a winning team, it was Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol who shouldered the biggest load. If he was that important to winning in Memphis, why did their win percentage shoot up substantially after they swapped him for Tayshaun Prince (another 3 and D guy coincidentally)? Rudy Gay leaving Toronto meant an increased role for Kyle Lowry in particular and he delivered big time in a way that Rudy Gay was unable to do.

Which brings me back to a point so simple it's destined to be mocked or ignored. Players are paid to deliver wins. The more wins a player gets you, the bigger share of your salary cap he deserves. If Rudy Gay isn't producing wins, than why pay him? If DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay is no better than DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans, why are we prepared to sign on the dotted line for one of them but not the other? Different teams, different coaches, different circumstances and all that. I know, I get it. But if you're prepared to commit a significant chunk of your financial future on one player you damn sure better use every resource available to ensure it's a smart investment. Because we can't get anyone better, because he's the most talented SF we've had in years, because Cousins is on the verge of exploding if he loses any more -- these are all cute justifications for fans. As a professional basketball executive you've got to do better than that. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the braintrust sees something in Rudy that I don't. I'm also perfectly willing to say I told you so if it comes to it.

I agree especially on your last two sentences. To me at least he's not a true King unless he re-signs here until then he is still trade fodder to me.

 

[KingMilz]

Amen - I was just going to post the same comment. If we see people that we know damn well are not better players than Rudy Gay with loftier WS/48 it shouldn't necessarily make us doubt our plain common sense... alternatively it might suggest we question the validity of the metric.

imho these guys are not better basketball players than Rudy Gay:

Danilo Gallinari .129
Mike Dunleavy .104
Matt Barnes .104
Demarre Carroll .103
Marvin Williams .097
Trevor Ariza .096
Josh Smith .091
Draymond Green .086

To the OP question I think "yes, we want him that badly". He's a very good player with a good head on his shoulders and a good attitude complement to DMC.

Healthy Danillo I would take over Gay just from a fit point of view, based on nothing but pure talent ( I would say he's the 3rd most talented King in 15 years after Cuz/Webb) Rudy Gay is the 3rd best SF in the NBA but that pure talent has not translated to anything and he based on perfromance / impact on a game is a top 10 SF and there's a big difference between him and the top 5 which should not exist given his high talent level. There's something missing from Rudy Gay the talent is at a extreme level but the performance is not.

I was also love DeMarre Carroll he's a terrific glue guy

 

[Jerichoholic]

I don't really have the patience or willpower to step people through every phase of my analysis so I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and say hell with it. Believe whatever you want. If you read what I actually said you'll find that I never intended to place WS/48 on a pedestal as the sole means of evaluating talent nor did I ever intend to say that it can be used to rank players one to one absent context or further explanation. I was simply trying to make a point that Rudy Gay last season succeeded on the Kings to the extent that he did mostly because he was allowed to dominate the ball as much as he wanted to. With the exception of a couple career shooting nights, catering to Rudy Gay's scoring whims did not turn us into a winning team. And since it's rather easy for people to dismiss that opinion, they've been doing it all season actually, I was curious if there was some kind of statistical analysis which backed it up.

And yes there is a lot of variance in these stats that are based on external factors. But here's the thing about wins, if you're getting paid max contract money and shooting the ball 17 times a game and your team isn't winning, doesn't that say something about you? You want to argue it's validity for low usage players, I think you've got a good point. But let's look at just the big movers. DeMarcus Cousins has played on some pretty awful teams but his Win Shares didn't shoot up this season solely because we found him some gunners to fit alongside him and propel us to more wins. In 2014 he had the same 28 wins to his name that he had a year before and his WS/48 shot up 70 points (.166 vs. .092). Why? Wouldn't most of us agree that in previous seasons he showed a lot of potential but this was the first season he put everything together and emerged as a legit All-Star? The win totals don't reflect it, but Cousins in 2014 was a much better player than Cousins in 2013 and it turns out the WS/48 number does reflect that big time.

My argument against Rudy Gay isn't that he's a poor player. It's that he's a lot closer to average than most people here are willing to admit. He's not going to make you lose games, but team's that featured him as a primary scorer lost a ton of games because he's also not good enough to carry a poor team to a winning record. The only time in his career when he played on a winning team, it was Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol who shouldered the biggest load. If he was that important to winning in Memphis, why did their win percentage shoot up substantially after they swapped him for Tayshaun Prince (another 3 and D guy coincidentally)? Rudy Gay leaving Toronto meant an increased role for Kyle Lowry in particular and he delivered big time in a way that Rudy Gay was unable to do.

Which brings me back to a point so simple it's destined to be mocked or ignored. Players are paid to deliver wins. The more wins a player gets you, the bigger share of your salary cap he deserves. If Rudy Gay isn't producing wins, than why pay him? If he needs All Star teammates to succeed, how valuable is he? If DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay is no better than DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans, why are we prepared to sign on the dotted line for one of them but not the other? Different teams, different coaches, different circumstances and all that. I know, I get it. But if you're prepared to commit a significant chunk of your financial future on one player you damn sure better use every resource available to ensure it's a smart investment. Because we can't get anyone better, because he's the most talented SF we've had in years, because Cousins is on the verge of exploding if he loses any more -- these are all cute justifications for fans. As a professional basketball executive you've got to do better than that. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the braintrust sees something in Rudy that I don't. I'm also perfectly willing to say I told you so if it comes to it.

Very well said! I think this WS/48 argument has grown a little bigger than you intended when you were just using it as one of many stats to prove a point.

My argument is similar to yours, just watch the games and use stats where necessary. Rudy Gay is definitely not a poor player, but he is much closer to average than an all-star in my opinion and that seems to be the debate here. A lot of people have said that we need to keep our star level players here when we can because we have a hard time getting new ones to come here. That argument I totally agree with. The argument that I don't agree with is that Gay is a star level player. I watched a lot of Memphis games in Gay's last year with them and the truth is that he was insignificant to their success, that's why he was the one they decided to move. It was the Randolph and Gasol show, Gay was really not that important and replacing him with more of a role player actually worked out better. So think of it this way, on a losing team like Toronto he is the first option and he is unable to produce more wins or even look good in the process, yet on a winning team like Memphis where he is third or fourth option (depending on where you put Conley) he doesn't provide enough support and ends up getting traded for a role player who does the little things better. Where is his sweet spot then, as the second option on a mediocre team? That's the only option left that we haven't seen.

No offense to him, but in my opinion he is a slightly above average SF who is and will continue to be way overpaid and just because the Kings have had a recent history of playing some of the worst SFs in the league is no reason to over pay a slightly above average one. I know many people won't agree with me, but I stand by this. If the Kings start Derrick Williams and give him the same minutes as Rudy Gay received I believe their stats and the Kings' win totals will be very similar.

 

[The_Jamal]

I don't really have the patience or willpower to step people through every phase of my analysis so I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and say hell with it. Believe whatever you want. If you read what I actually said you'll find that I never intended to place WS/48 on a pedestal as the sole means of evaluating talent nor did I ever intend to say that it can be used to rank players one to one absent context or further explanation. I was simply trying to make a point that Rudy Gay last season succeeded on the Kings to the extent that he did mostly because he was allowed to dominate the ball as much as he wanted to. With the exception of a couple career shooting nights, catering to Rudy Gay's scoring whims did not turn us into a winning team. And since it's rather easy for people to dismiss that opinion, they've been doing it all season actually, I was curious if there was some kind of statistical analysis which backed it up.

And yes there is a lot of variance in these stats that are based on external factors. But here's the thing about wins, if you're getting paid max contract money and shooting the ball 17 times a game and your team isn't winning, doesn't that say something about you? You want to argue it's validity for low usage players, I think you've got a good point. But let's look at just the big movers. DeMarcus Cousins has played on some pretty awful teams but his Win Shares didn't shoot up this season solely because we found him some gunners to fit alongside him and propel us to more wins. In 2014 he had the same 28 wins to his name that he had a year before and his WS/48 shot up 70 points (.166 vs. .092). Why? Wouldn't most of us agree that in previous seasons he showed a lot of potential but this was the first season he put everything together and emerged as a legit All-Star? The win totals don't reflect it, but Cousins in 2014 was a much better player than Cousins in 2013 and it turns out the WS/48 number does reflect that big time.

My argument against Rudy Gay isn't that he's a poor player. It's that he's a lot closer to average than most people here are willing to admit. He's not going to make you lose games, but team's that featured him as a primary scorer lost a ton of games because he's also not good enough to carry a poor team to a winning record. The only time in his career when he played on a winning team, it was Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol who shouldered the biggest load. If he was that important to winning in Memphis, why did their win percentage shoot up substantially after they swapped him for Tayshaun Prince (another 3 and D guy coincidentally)? Rudy Gay leaving Toronto meant an increased role for Kyle Lowry in particular and he delivered big time in a way that Rudy Gay was unable to do.

Which brings me back to a point so simple it's destined to be mocked or ignored. Players are paid to deliver wins. The more wins a player gets you, the bigger share of your salary cap he deserves. If Rudy Gay isn't producing wins, than why pay him? If he needs All Star teammates to succeed, how valuable is he? If DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay is no better than DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans, why are we prepared to sign on the dotted line for one of them but not the other? Different teams, different coaches, different circumstances and all that. I know, I get it. But if you're prepared to commit a significant chunk of your financial future on one player you damn sure better use every resource available to ensure it's a smart investment. Because we can't get anyone better, because he's the most talented SF we've had in years, because Cousins is on the verge of exploding if he loses any more -- these are all cute justifications for fans. As a professional basketball executive you've got to do better than that. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the braintrust sees something in Rudy that I don't. I'm also perfectly willing to say I told you so if it comes to it.

My man. I love all of this. Post more!

It's the same argument I had when we were having the Tyreke discussions for the level his deal received. People were making the same claims. the "We can't lose his talent." "We can trade him if it doesn't work out" "He never got a real chance here!" "We have to see what he can do with a coach"

When dealing with 10+mil contracts, you're signing your building block players. That means you have a real plan to build around that guy and he's going to be one of the main focuses when constructing the roster. There should be no guess work when you're committing a 4/50 sort of deal to a player.

I've pointed this out many times, but signing Rudy long-term really limits what we can do over the life of Cuz's contract. This is without offering IT a deal, and letting him walk for nothing. Just for giggles, we'll say we get Gay at 14mil/season long-term. If that'd happen, Rudy would still likely opt in, so Cuz+Rudy adds up to 33mil. After next season, you're looking at 28 mil tied up into both guys for the next 3 seasons after. For the next 3 seasons, including next year, we have around 13mil/season tied into Landry and JT. So after next season, we're up to 41 mil, just tied into Cuz, Gay, Landry,JT. Next, add in Ben McLemore, Ray McCallum, and our rookie this year, and you're looking at around $5-$10mil for those guys over the next 4 seasons with rookie pay scale. So long-term, we will roughly have 46-49mil committed if we can't move anybody.

So with a $63mil salary cap, here's what the DC looks like with the long-term contracts and the holes we'll have to fill with around $17mil to spend:

PG: Ray McCallum
SG: Ben McLemore
SF: Rudy Gay
PF: Jason Thompson || Carl Landry
C: DeMarcus Cousins.

2014 rookie??

So I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that we better have a long-term plan if we keep Rudy here over the Cuz contract. Because there's not a whole lot to work with there and you have 2 contracts that aren't going to bring in much value or something that teams are going to want to take on.

 

[Chupacabra]

Is Rudy Gay a #2 option? What do we think Rudy is worth? If we don't resign Rudy, whats our move? Lets try to answer those questions.

 

[Jkbiker]

HAPPY FATHERS DAY WEEKEND RUDY!
Rudy Gay
@rudygay22Already miss my lil man instagram.com/p/pElRoHI42c/11:11 - 14 Jun 14

Read more: http://hoopshype.com/social/gallery.html#/slideID477830780811739136#ixzz34d0rfshv

 

[bajaden]

I don't really have the patience or willpower to step people through every phase of my analysis so I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and say hell with it. Believe whatever you want. If you read what I actually said you'll find that I never intended to place WS/48 on a pedestal as the sole means of evaluating talent nor did I ever intend to say that it can be used to rank players one to one absent context or further explanation. I was simply trying to make a point that Rudy Gay last season succeeded on the Kings to the extent that he did mostly because he was allowed to dominate the ball as much as he wanted to. With the exception of a couple career shooting nights, catering to Rudy Gay's scoring whims did not turn us into a winning team. And since it's rather easy for people to dismiss that opinion, they've been doing it all season actually, I was curious if there was some kind of statistical analysis which backed it up.

And yes there is a lot of variance in these stats that are based on external factors. But here's the thing about wins, if you're getting paid max contract money and shooting the ball 17 times a game and your team isn't winning, doesn't that say something about you? You want to argue it's validity for low usage players, I think you've got a good point. But let's look at just the big movers. DeMarcus Cousins has played on some pretty awful teams but his Win Shares didn't shoot up this season solely because we found him some gunners to fit alongside him and propel us to more wins. In 2014 he had the same 28 wins to his name that he had a year before and his WS/48 shot up 70 points (.166 vs. .092). Why? Wouldn't most of us agree that in previous seasons he showed a lot of potential but this was the first season he put everything together and emerged as a legit All-Star? The win totals don't reflect it, but Cousins in 2014 was a much better player than Cousins in 2013 and it turns out the WS/48 number does reflect that big time.

My argument against Rudy Gay isn't that he's a poor player. It's that he's a lot closer to average than most people here are willing to admit. He's not going to make you lose games, but team's that featured him as a primary scorer lost a ton of games because he's also not good enough to carry a poor team to a winning record. The only time in his career when he played on a winning team, it was Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol who shouldered the biggest load. If he was that important to winning in Memphis, why did their win percentage shoot up substantially after they swapped him for Tayshaun Prince (another 3 and D guy coincidentally)? Rudy Gay leaving Toronto meant an increased role for Kyle Lowry in particular and he delivered big time in a way that Rudy Gay was unable to do.

Which brings me back to a point so simple it's destined to be mocked or ignored. Players are paid to deliver wins. The more wins a player gets you, the bigger share of your salary cap he deserves. If Rudy Gay isn't producing wins, than why pay him? If he needs All Star teammates to succeed, how valuable is he? If DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay is no better than DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans, why are we prepared to sign on the dotted line for one of them but not the other? Different teams, different coaches, different circumstances and all that. I know, I get it. But if you're prepared to commit a significant chunk of your financial future on one player you damn sure better use every resource available to ensure it's a smart investment. Because we can't get anyone better, because he's the most talented SF we've had in years, because Cousins is on the verge of exploding if he loses any more -- these are all cute justifications for fans. As a professional basketball executive you've got to do better than that. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the braintrust sees something in Rudy that I don't. I'm also perfectly willing to say I told you so if it comes to it.

I don't have a problem understanding your analysis, I just don't agree with it. You make good points, but I don't agree with all of them. Like comparing Cousins and Tyreke, to Cousins and Gay. That's comparing apples to oranges. You say that Gay isn't getting us wins as though its his total responsibility. Well, using that analogy, I could say that Cousins isn't getting us any wins either. IT isn't getting us any wins either. I could make a case, going player by player, why we should just junk the entire team. I don't think Cousins is on the verge of exploding. He's a bright guy, and I think he understands the situation. I think where you and I part company, is that you seem to place too much emphasis on the effect one player has on the wins and losses of the team. I'm a team oriented guy. I look at Cousins and Gay as important parts of a larger machine, but until you get all the right parts in place, it's never going to run at its full potential. The only time one player, and this is just my opinion, makes a dramatic difference, is when his name is Michael Jordan, or Lebron James etc. Or he happens to be the final piece that completes the team. Cousins and Gay can't do it alone, and the mistake, is thinking that they can, and should.

Now, having said that, I'm not a fan of one player, or a group of players dominating the ball. But I don't blame the players as much as I blame the coach. If you or anyone could convince me that Gay is incapable of taking fewer shots, and playing a more unselfish game, then I'd be totally on board with your opinion. But we don't know that to be true. That's why I would love for Gay to opt in so we could get a full year to pass judgement on exactly who he is as a player. But hey, just my opinion, which is free by the way.

 

[bajaden]

My man. I love all of this. Post more!

It's the same argument I had when we were having the Tyreke discussions for the level his deal received. People were making the same claims. the "We can't lose his talent." "We can trade him if it doesn't work out" "He never got a real chance here!" "We have to see what he can do with a coach"

When dealing with 10+mil contracts, you're signing your building block players. That means you have a real plan to build around that guy and he's going to be one of the main focuses when constructing the roster. There should be no guess work when you're committing a 4/50 sort of deal to a player.

I've pointed this out many times, but signing Rudy long-term really limits what we can do over the life of Cuz's contract. This is without offering IT a deal, and letting him walk for nothing. Just for giggles, we'll say we get Gay at 14mil/season long-term. If that'd happen, Rudy would still likely opt in, so Cuz+Rudy adds up to 33mil. After next season, you're looking at 28 mil tied up into both guys for the next 3 seasons after. For the next 3 seasons, including next year, we have around 13mil/season tied into Landry and JT. So after next season, we're up to 41 mil, just tied into Cuz, Gay, Landry,JT. Next, add in Ben McLemore, Ray McCallum, and our rookie this year, and you're looking at around $5-$10mil for those guys over the next 4 seasons with rookie pay scale. So long-term, we will roughly have 46-49mil committed if we can't move anybody.

So with a $63mil salary cap, here's what the DC looks like with the long-term contracts and the holes we'll have to fill with around $17mil to spend:

PG: Ray McCallum
SG: Ben McLemore
SF: Rudy Gay
PF: Jason Thompson || Carl Landry
C: DeMarcus Cousins.

2014 rookie??

So I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that we better have a long-term plan if we keep Rudy here over the Cuz contract. Because there's not a whole lot to work with there and you have 2 contracts that aren't going to bring in much value or something that teams are going to want to take on.

While you and me were in agreement on the Tyreke situation, I guess we're on opposite sides of the fence this time. Funny how that works out. Well, first of all, whether I'm on board to signing Gay to a long term contract depends on the deal. I have never thought of Gay as a star player, but he's far from average, and if he is considered average, then what is Derrick Williams and a whole bunch of other NBA SF's that aren't as good as Gay. I've always found it amusing how people have to denigrate a player in order to make their case. (not talking about you) So, I'm not on board with giving Gay something like 15 or 16 mil a year for 4 or 5 years. But I would be on board with giving him an average of 12 mil a year, and I think that's workable going forward, and that's hopefully after getting to watch him play this coming season after he opt's in. Also, I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but the NBA is renegotiating its TV contract, and rumor has it that it will double, and possibly triple, which would cause a dramatic increase in the BRI, which would cause the salary cap to take a huge jump upward. So the Kings would have more wiggle room in the future than it appears now.

Of course I'm not saying that justifies anything in regards to Gay. So I doubt the lineup you have there is realistic, and I suspect that it will look very different by training camp. Look, if we had one of the top three picks, I'd let Gay walk and draft Parker or Wiggins. But we don't and so we have to deal with what's available, and other than drafting a Rodney Hood, or someone of similar ilk, Gay still looks like the best option. But I'm open to suggestions. What I don't want to do, is assume that D. Williams will suddenly rise to the occasion and totally fill the gap left by Gay. Maybe he would, but maybe he wouldn't. I have no faith or confidence in Williams right now, and I was a big fan of his coming out of college. I know what Gay can do, I have no idea what Williams will do. The main thing any coach wants out of his players, is consistency. Regardless of the result, he wants to know he can get that same result night after night, and then he can figure how said player fits into the team. Williams is the antithesis of that. Anyway, I'm not going to convince you, nor you me. So I'm done here. Happy fathers day to all those dads out there. Better early than not at all.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm not claiming it so much as I'm citing the stats which claim it. WS/48 is adjusted every year so that .100 is considered to be league average. Rudy Gay's career WS/48 is .081. That includes the 2 years he played on playoff teams in Memphis. His career average in 7 playoff games (he was injured in 2011) is .085. This season it was .021 in Toronto and .114 in Sacramento for a combined total of .091.

How are we defining "average" for the purposes of this discussion? Four hundred seventy-seven men played in an NBA game during the 2013-14 season and, according to basketball-reference, an even three hundred of them had a WS/48 at or below .099. How can sixty-three percent of the league be "below average"?

These "Stat geeks" also know the pitfalls of banking everything on one stat. Ws/48 starts a conversation. Just like TS% starts a conversation...

Okay, what do you make of this conversation:

I did a lookup on B-R.com of all of the qualified* forwards in the league, and Gay was shown to be ranked 32nd among all forwards in the league in WS/48. However, when you remove everyone who isn't an everyday** small forward (which you have to do manually, since B-R.com doesn't allow you to select for "small forward", only guard, forward or center), then he's actually 14th.

Now, I tend to side with those who say that WS/48 is a bogus metric, but since you want to use it to start a conversation, here's where I'm taking the conversation: of the fourteen small forwards with a WS/48 of .091 or better, Gay is 5th in scoring, 9th in rebounding, 8th in assists, 9th in steals, 1st in blocks, and 5th in PER. Now, here's where the conversation gets interesting to me: Gay is one of four small forwards who is Top Ten among the other small forwards in all six of those categories. The other three are Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony and Trevor Ariza.

Now, hopefully, nobody is stupid enough to try and make the argument that Rudy Gay, Trevor Ariza, or even Carmelo Anthony are as good as either LeBron James or Paul George (neither of whom were in the Top 10 among qualified SF in blocks), but when a guy is ostensibly middle-of-the-road in one metric, but rates higher in other, more meaningful (IMO) ones, then I think it's quite fair to question just how useful a metric it is in the first place.


* - qualified, for the purposes of this post, meaning the player played in at least 25 games, and averaged at least 30 minutes per game.
** - If two starters on the same team made the list, then it's a logical necessity that one of them can't be the small forward. In that event, I went with the player with the higher WS/48 so, for the purposes of this post, Jimmy Butler and DeMarre Carroll were small forwards, and Mike Dunleavy and Kyle Korver were not.