Letting Rondo walk

[ParniValjak]

If we're taking a PG in the top 10 this year though it's probably Kris Dunn -- which is basically my best-case scenario for this draft -- and I don't think we have to give up on Rondo in that case either. At least not right away. Dunn would be making only 2.5 million next season while taking over the important backup PG role which leaves us more money to spend at SG, SF, and PF. Maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense to immediately block him with a 3 or 4 year Rondo deal, but he did say that Rondo was his favorite player growing up. Rather than pulling another Ben McLemore or Jimmer Fredette and clearing out the roster for him before he plays a single NBA game it would be smart to bring him along slowly in a bench role until he's ready. He's big enough and athletic enough that we could actually play him at SG too without losing much if anything on defense. And you know he'd be attached to Rondo's hip the whole time soaking up whatever knowledge he can. If Dunn is ready for a bigger role right away he becomes a great sixth man for a couple years until Rondo's contract is up. My perfect off-season would involve us drafting Dunn to be our PG of the future and also re-signing Rondo for 4 years to be our PG of the present. A rookie PG won't look nearly as appealing to other free agents as a 4-time All Star and we're not going to be able to upgrade the team dramatically through trades alone.

I am looking at it from a different perspective.

If we draft Dunn then he can be a good back up PG his rookie season, coming off the bench and develop his game, get some experience. While you are developing Dunn, Collison will do a very solid job as a starter on both ends of the floor and based on next season's salary cap, he is a bargain. In other words you have your PG rotation sorted next year for some $8 million leaving you a LOT more money to address other needs. If you re-sign Rondo at $15 million you are still have some $18 million committed to your PG rotation which leaves you $10 million less to address other needs.

Look I would like to get Rondo back but sheer economics tells me if you get a ready to contribute PG in the draft, then Rondo investment at the money he will get doesn't add up. In fact all the rumblings and comments from coach Joerger hints at Collison being our starter next season. Not brilliant but solid as long as we become better balanced team overall.

 

[Glenn]

I am looking at it from a different perspective.

If we draft Dunn then he can be a good back up PG his rookie season, coming off the bench and develop his game, get some experience. While you are developing Dunn, Collison will do a very solid job as a starter on both ends of the floor and based on next season's salary cap, he is a bargain. In other words you have your PG rotation sorted next year for some $8 million leaving you a LOT more money to address other needs. If you re-sign Rondo at $15 million you are still have some $18 million committed to your PG rotation which leaves you $10 million less to address other needs.

Look I would like to get Rondo back but sheer economics tells me if you get a ready to contribute PG in the draft, then Rondo investment at the money he will get doesn't add up. In fact all the rumblings and comments from coach Joerger hints at Collison being our starter next season. Not brilliant but solid as long as we become better balanced team overall.

There is a note somewhere where Vlade says he will not compete to retain Rondo. Even just having Collison and Curry is fairly risk free and inexpensive. Ideally. I'd like a threesome by adding Dunn.

 

[hrdboild]

Yeah we could certainly get away with spending less, but is that a better team? We're already spending $14.5 million on PGs this year and the salary cap is about to go up about 40 million over the next 2 seasons so $17.5 million is still a bargain. For comparison's sake, Golden State is going to be spending $30 million just on their starting PG after next season. It doesn't make sense to cheap out now. Rudy Gay is really only under contract for one more year. Cousins for two more. We screw next season up and we're starting over with nothing.

 

[ParniValjak]

Yeah we could certainly get away with spending less, but is that a better team? We're already spending $14.5 million on PGs this year and the salary cap is about to go up about 40 million over the next 2 seasons so $17.5 million is still a bargain. For comparison's sake, Golden State is going to be spending $30 million just on their starting PG after next season. It doesn't make sense to cheap out now. Rudy Gay is really only under contract for one more year. Cousins for two more. We screw next season up and we're starting over with nothing.

It's not about cheaping out necesarilly but its about getting the best team possible overall to make the play offs next year and still have the core of that team around Cousins' age to have many years of being in contention.

Cousins is 25 or 26 entering into his prime years. Both Gay and Rondo are 30 or older and getting out of their prime years. We stuffed up every lottery pick between Cousins and WCS which means that we don't have that core of similarly aged players and not many assets to get them so we should be taking the advantage of the salary cap increase over the next couple of seasons to make up for misgivings of the past drafts. Tough on Vlade and his crew but it needs to be done if we want to put a contender together around Cuz and a play off team staring next season. If we don't have some longevity in our plans and give Cousins genuine chance at a championship in his time in Sacramento, then he is out of here if not in two years time, then certainly in 4.

BTW, give me Steph Curry and I too would be willing to play $30 million per season just for my PG.

All I am saying is we can't afford to be too short sighted. It needs to be about making the play offs starting next season and progresively getting better after that just like the Kings of the golden era did and I don't know that blowing most of our cap space on Rondo if we draft someone like Dunn allows us to do that. If we don't draft a PG, then obviously a PG of sort whether Rondo or another quality PG become very important for us.

 

[biltalent]

After watching a few celtics games/highlights from 2008 to 2011 I was actually impressed by Rajon's ability to play of the ball on offense with us this year. I saw nice plays throughout the year with him spotting up or cutting off of Demarcus. For example I remember a play that involved a pick and roll with Rudy and Demarcus at the top of the key and Rajon spotting up in the right weakside corner. The weak side defender sunk in to stop Demarcus and Rajon got an open corner three everytime which he shot at 50% like hrdboild pointed out. Simple but pretty effective. Other plays involve the corner series with Demarcus at the elbow, a modified version of motion weak etc. So I guess Joerger would find ways to install a offense featuring ball movement even if we resign Rajon.

So with Joerger as HC, everyone opting out and assuming we try to resign Rondo I could see the following happen:

If we assume that everyone with a player option opts out, according to basketballinsiders, we have a guaranteed total of 61 mil for 8 players which gives us between 29-31 mil if we factor in cap holds to get to 12 players but ignore Rondos irrelevant cap hold and assume that the cap is at 92 mil.
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/sacramento-kings-team-salary/

Draft:

• Draft #8 pick whoever is available. I don't know who we will draft but just as an example lets say Jaylen Brown falls to us because of bad interviews -> about 27 mil cap space
• Trade Belinelli for a secound round pick to create additional cap space. I don't think he wants to be here anymore and with the cap going up his contract should be pretty attractive for other teams, for example Boston. -> between 28 and 34 mil cap space depending on who we get back in the trade, so lets say 31 cap space*

Free Agency:

• Resign Rondo for 15 mil -> 16 mil cap space
• Try to sign a 3&D shooting guard. First priority would be Kent Bazemore for the rest of the cap space but I doubt he comes here. A more realistic and probably cheaper option is Courtney Lee who played for Joerger and with Rondo in the past and could be had for about 10 mil if we include the Sacramento Tax. -> 6 mil cap space
• If possible resign Curry for 4 mil* -> 2 mil cap space
• Try to bring back Acy for 2 mil, Butler for the vet min and Guidaitis for a league minimum* -> no cap space

*If we don't want to trade Belinelli but we don't resign Curry and Acy/Butler we would still have enough cap space for Rondo + SG

Roster to start traing camp:

PG: Rondo, Collison
SG: Lee, Curry, Mclemore
SF: Gay, Brown, Butler
PF: Cauley-Stein, Casspi, Acy
C: Cousins, Koufos, Guidaitis

Shooting is certainly not a strength of the starting 5 but if Rondo and Gay can keep up their numbers and Cauley-Stein can become a midrange thread it should be enough spacing. Everything else is pretty balanced. Rondo is the primary playmaker and Cousins the #1 option. Rudy gets another chance to prove himself as a #2 option. Lee is the important 3&D wing that we have been searching for for years and Cauley-Stein the defensive swiss army knive that is also a constant lob threat on offense.

 

[Amit149]

It's true, I'm kindof an ass too. We're both passionate about our opinions, I can appreciate that. It's nothing personal of course. And I could probably stand to be more open-minded about a lot of things. Especially right before I go to bed when I get downright hostile for some reason. I'm happy to call you my friend -- sorry about the snark.

Some of your arguments though are downright confusing to me. FG% does include 3pt% -- it includes everything except free throws so I don't think it's useless if you're measuring the quality of the shots a team is getting. Of course it doesn't account for players being wide open and missing anyway, but hopefully over the course of a season that evens out a bit league-wide. That's where common sense comes in. If you know you have a team of non-shooters you can't really blame the guy passing the ball for the low team FG%. I'm not talking down to you for using TS% -- I just don't appreciate people talking down to me as if FG% and 3PT% are for bar rants only and the educated folks are using TS% these days. I flat out don't like it as a stat. The whole discussion of the shooting charts was me trying to demonstrate why. It's counter-intuitive to say "this guy is actually worse, you're just using the wrong stat" when it's quite plain in black and white that the player with a higher TS% (both players in this case) missed more shots from the floor than the player with a lower TS%. For my purposes, FG% and 3PT% are much more useful tools. They isolate exactly what I'm trying to talk about without the statistical noise of poor free throw shooting factored in. And in terms of assisted baskets it is statistical noise because free throws typically don't create assists (unless it's a 3pt play but that becomes a lot more work to calculate -- I have a full-time job, and I'm not trying to win the stat Olympics).

DBPM and DWS aren't better stats than BPM and WS in a vaccum, but if we're trying to isolate a player's defensive contributions than they're not just better, it's apples and oranges. Overall BPM and WS factors in a player's offensive contributions as well so they're useful for measuring a players overall impact on the game but useless for measuring their ability as a defender. I don't discount your defensive rating, I just don't know anything about what NBA.com uses to calculate it and I've always used Drtg from basketball-reference.com. I'm sure it comes across sometimes like I'm just interested in winning an argument but that's not my personality. I don't want to talk people into agreeing with me, I want to be correct. I'm obsessed with the truth. I use the stats I know because I can tell when there's an outlier and how to account for it. I don't know anything about defensive rating from nba.com so I don't use it. And I don't know anything about real plus minus because ESPN doesn't want me to know. It's not that I dismiss it when I don't like the results, I dismiss it for everything across the board. It's not falsifiable therefore it's not scientifically permissible.

Maybe this is just semantics, but do you agree that Steve Nash deserved his MVP awards? Is it possible to be an MVP without leading your team in scoring? You make it sound like that's a contradiction in terms and I don't see why assists should be considered less important to the team than points. By definition every assist includes a made basket. If you're going to dismiss assists, rebounds, and steals outright and say "prove to me Rondo is a better player using something else", I just don't understand the point of the question. Why should I want to do that? Andre Drummond and DeAndre Jordan are both terrible free throw shooters. They can't create their own shot nor do they create a lot of shots for their teammates. What they do is rebound the hell out of the ball and block shots. You're going to tell me those contributions aren't important? Do their teams have to play a certain way to accommodate a player who can't dribble the ball or shoot beyond 15 feet? Yeah I suppose they do. And yet that's a sacrifice those teams are not only willing to make, they'll pay max money for the privilege of handicapping their team in that way.

What that indicates to me is that there is no single metric which can be used to sort every player in the league. Some players are elite shotblockers and rebounders, some are elite shooters, some are mediocre shooters but elite scorers because of their ability to force fouls and convert at the free throw line, some are elite individual defenders, and some are elite playmakers. How are you going to compare an elite shotblocker like Hassan Whiteside to an elite scorer like James Harden and say which one is better? It doesn't even make sense to ask that. If you want interior defense, Whiteside is a better fit. If you're having trouble putting points on the board maybe you invest in Harden instead. Maybe Conley and Holiday have more diverse overall games but you have to acknowledge that trading out Rondo for either one of them means losing something in certain areas (playmaking, rebounding, and as far as I can tell, team defense as well) while you gain in shooting ability and ball movement. And frankly, Rondo shot the 3 ball better than both of them this season so it's even less obvious to me that either one would actually be an upgrade.

It feels like our arguments are just sliding by each other in parallel though. I show you every metric I use and you dismiss all of them. Then you show me every metric you use and I dismiss all of them. We're never going to come to any kind of agreement like this. You seem a lot more comfortable with advanced stats than I am, which is fine. I'm old-fashioned in the sense that I want you (or really anyone) to prove it to me why I'm supposed to use your metrics instead. Are counting stats flawed? Sure. Are defensive ratings universally accepted? Not even close. But we're not talking about a few points of difference here. Rondo was the league leader in assists (by a large margin), he was 7th overall in steals, he was #2 in rebounding among all PGs (and basically tied for #2 among all guards). These are significant and important parts of the game in which he has demonstrated over the course of his career that he's among the best in the league. Why should the burden be on me to prove to you that he's better than two starting PGs who aren't elite in any skill areas?

A few notes:

FG% does include 3pt% but it doesn't take it's value into account and that's why it will tell you very little on it's own and you shouldn't judge a team/player scoring efficiency based on it- you can have to guys shooting 40 precent from the field but one is only shooting 3's and the other only 2pt shots, their FG% would be the same but in reality the guy shooting from 3 is far more effective- eFG% solves that problem, TS% adds FT shooting to the mix.

When talking about a player/team scoring efficiency why wouldn't you take into account everything relevant? FG% is in reality an outdated stat that tells you very little and it doesn't isolate anything,
There is value on looking at 3pt%, 2pt% and of course checking shot charts- but when you are talking about who is a more efficient scorer or how the team is playing I don't see the reasoning in ignoring parts of it.

Of course BPM and WS aren't good for judging someone's defense, but that's not the point I was making- you were talking about Conley not being better than Rondo using those stats and you can't claim "he's a better defender based on DBPM" and than go the other way and say "BPM doesn't matter" when talking about Rondo as a player and not only a defender.
Defensive rating from NBA.com is basically just a check of how the team preformed when he was on the floor per 100 poss, it's what DRTG from b/r tried to achieve by estimates only this is real data using the SportVU cameras.

Steve Nash maybe wasn't the leading scorer- but he was a 50-40-90 guy and was on the top of the league in NetRtg in his MVP years- Rondo is nothing like him.

Assists are less important to the team than points- it's kind of a weird stat when you think about it, it doesn't have inherent value (unlike a rebound for example that gives you a possesion)- it's basically just a pass, only the guy who got it made a basket, and in a game where you only count points it's false to give it the same value as the actual points.

That's not to say it should be given no value- but it is only an indicator of playmaking- not an actual contribution if you get what I mean, Rondo stacked up assists for a going nowhere Boston team in his last few years that got better immediately after he left- was he a good playmaker? or was it just him holding the ball in every possession and rarely shooting- if assists are made to show contribution to the team offense and you are actually hurting it what's the value in them?

I'm not dismissing steals outright but they can be a lot of times a symptom of the problem, Rondo is a good example for that- another one is MCW... he posted great steal numbers but that was only because he gambled all the time and was actually a terrible defender, I'm not sure how you could see Rondo defending this season and come up with a positive review of his defense.

I didn't dismiss your metrics I just gave them context, they show things that are valid but they don't show the whole picture (unlike more general metrics) here are examples for what I mean adding some 82games.com stats:

He leads the league in assists- but the whole point of that is making our offense better and it's not better with him on the floor:
We score only 0.4 more points with him on the floor and our eFG% goes up by 1.5% when he plays.
Conley is far better in both with Memphis scoring 4.2 points more with him on the floor and eFG% going up by 2.6%.

He is 7th in steals- but our defense gets better with him off the floor:
Opponents score 1.7 points more when he is on the floor.
While Conley is on the floor opponents score 3.9 points less.

He is 2nd in rebounding among PG's but only 12% of his rebounds are even contested and we rebound worse as a team when he plays:
We get 49.9% of the rebounds with him on the floor and 50% when he is not on the floor.

What's the point of being good at those things if he doesn't help the team with it?

Basically every other stat (you can add to that 82games simple rating) goes against him and most importantly he makes the team worse while on the court and limits the way we can play- that's why I can't see why you would want him as a starter long term other than for his name and to make Cousins happy (which can actually be a valid argument).

 

[MizzouKing]

Because it makes very, very little sense to me to give a four year deal to a 30 year old PG that starts in the $15 million range just to keep together a roster that won 33 games.

THIS. And doesn't it hamper a new coach's ability to stress/enforce defense when they drop a huge contract on a known non-defender? How would that kind of mixed message play out...does that guy really go to the bench? I do love the idea of Rondo being on the team...just don't like the cost-to-benefit ratio, and am not entirely sold on the upsides.

 

[hrdboild]

A few notes:

FG% does include 3pt% but it doesn't take it's value into account and that's why it will tell you very little on it's own and you shouldn't judge a team/player scoring efficiency based on it- you can have to guys shooting 40 precent from the field but one is only shooting 3's and the other only 2pt shots, their FG% would be the same but in reality the guy shooting from 3 is far more effective- eFG% solves that problem, TS% adds FT shooting to the mix.

When talking about a player/team scoring efficiency why wouldn't you take into account everything relevant? FG% is in reality an outdated stat that tells you very little and it doesn't isolate anything,
There is value on looking at 3pt%, 2pt% and of course checking shot charts- but when you are talking about who is a more efficient scorer or how the team is playing I don't see the reasoning in ignoring parts of it.

Of course BPM and WS aren't good for judging someone's defense, but that's not the point I was making- you were talking about Conley not being better than Rondo using those stats and you can't claim "he's a better defender based on DBPM" and than go the other way and say "BPM doesn't matter" when talking about Rondo as a player and not only a defender.
Defensive rating from NBA.com is basically just a check of how the team preformed when he was on the floor per 100 poss, it's what DRTG from b/r tried to achieve by estimates only this is real data using the SportVU cameras.

Steve Nash maybe wasn't the leading scorer- but he was a 50-40-90 guy and was on the top of the league in NetRtg in his MVP years- Rondo is nothing like him.

Assists are less important to the team than points- it's kind of a weird stat when you think about it, it doesn't have inherent value (unlike a rebound for example that gives you a possesion)- it's basically just a pass, only the guy who got it made a basket, and in a game where you only count points it's false to give it the same value as the actual points.

That's not to say it should be given no value- but it is only an indicator of playmaking- not an actual contribution if you get what I mean, Rondo stacked up assists for a going nowhere Boston team in his last few years that got better immediately after he left- was he a good playmaker? or was it just him holding the ball in every possession and rarely shooting- if assists are made to show contribution to the team offense and you are actually hurting it what's the value in them?

I'm not dismissing steals outright but they can be a lot of times a symptom of the problem, Rondo is a good example for that- another one is MCW... he posted great steal numbers but that was only because he gambled all the time and was actually a terrible defender, I'm not sure how you could see Rondo defending this season and come up with a positive review of his defense.

I didn't dismiss your metrics I just gave them context, they show things that are valid but they don't show the whole picture (unlike more general metrics) here are examples for what I mean adding some 82games.com stats:

He leads the league in assists- but the whole point of that is making our offense better and it's not better with him on the floor:
We score only 0.4 more points with him on the floor and our eFG% goes up by 1.5% when he plays.
Conley is far better in both with Memphis scoring 4.2 points more with him on the floor and eFG% going up by 2.6%.

He is 7th in steals- but our defense gets better with him off the floor:
Opponents score 1.7 points more when he is on the floor.
While Conley is on the floor opponents score 3.9 points less.

He is 2nd in rebounding among PG's but only 12% of his rebounds are even contested and we rebound worse as a team when he plays:
We get 49.9% of the rebounds with him on the floor and 50% when he is not on the floor.

What's the point of being good at those things if he doesn't help the team with it?

Basically every other stat (you can add to that 82games simple rating) goes against him and most importantly he makes the team worse while on the court and limits the way we can play- that's why I can't see why you would want him as a starter long term other than for his name and to make Cousins happy (which can actually be a valid argument).

Yeah but 82games.com's on/off stats aren't all that different than plus/minus. Does our defense get better with Rondo off the floor because the guy subbing in for him is a better defender? The only way you could say that is if he's the only player that ever subbed out of the game on either team. You've got 5 players on the floor at once to account for plus 5 opposing players of varying quality subbing in and out on the other side. I can see why people try to accumulate this kind of data but if you think about the amount of variables involved, how are you actually going to isolate one variable and quantify it? From a scientific point of view it's more or less useless. There's a whole bunch of data there but no control baseline to judge any of it by. I don't object to people using that kind of data and attempting to interpret it. I do object to people drawing concrete conclusions from it. That's what I'm upset about. You keep telling me over and over again that my stats are outdated or useless and then you shoot back with the most useless kind of data there is and treat it as fact.

If you watch Rondo play, his assists are not just passes to perimeter players who happen to make the shot. There's no way a player can consistently lead the league in assists while being completely reliant on their teammates to hit shots. A good number of those assists lead to wide open dunks or layups. Those shots are actually created by the pass, that's why they're so valuable. Cousins has said it multiple times:

"This dude makes my job so much easier on a nightly basis. Throughout my career this is the most easy baskets I've ever got. He just makes my job so much easier."

(link)

This is a player who played with John Wall for a whole year at Kentucky. You don't have to take his word for it though. NBA.com breaks their shotcharts down into unassisted and assisted baskets.

The first image shows his unassisted baskets. 202 of them were from close-range, 37 were from mid-range, and he didn't make a single unassisted 3pt shot. The second image shows his assisted baskets. 226 of them are from close-range, 66 of them are from mid-range, and 70 of them are from 3pt range. Obviously these assists didn't all come from Rondo, but that's a clear indication of how much value an assist has to your offensive efficiency. DeMarcus is a completely different kind of scorer when he has someone else setting him up vs. when he has to create on his own.

"I've been wanting to play with Cuz for four or five years now. I think he's the best big -- he is the best big in the game. And with a little bit of direction, even as far as his knowledge of the game, he can take even a bigger step in this game. I'm enjoying it. He's listening, he's embraced it."

(link)

Rondo said that back at the beginning of the year. Cousins had the best season of his career by far and you could credit that to George Karl's offensive principles if you want but I think there's an obvious difference between a PG making the game all about them and a PG making the game about helping their teammates. Maybe I don't have a stat that shows that (even if I did you would probably tell me it doesn't count anyway ) but ultimately all of the numbers are attempts to measure something that isn't really measurable. Teams win by playing together on both ends of the floor. Rondo has his flaws, but from everything I've seen and read, he seems to understand the team aspect of basketball better than any other PG in the NBA.

“I’ve never seen anyone like him as a floor general, a coach on the floor,” Casspi said. “Coach Karl gives him freedom, and he runs the show. In practice, Rondo’s the most vocal guy. He’s always competing, talking trash. He holds everyone accountable. I’m a big fan.”

(link)

 

[notoriousBEN3]

This isn't even true though. Rondo was a better 3pt shooter than a whole lot of PGs this season (though Collison was quite notably not among them). If shooting is the most important skill for a PG now than we should just put Collison back in the starting PG spot. We're unlikely to find a better outside shooter at the position. What I see in the playoffs is that talent wins, not any one style of play. I bet that defensive juggernaut of a Detroit Pistons team would still win today if Billups, Hamilton, Prince, Wallace and the other Wallace were still in their primes. People tend to have a short memory about these kinds of things but that team was capable of holding teams under 70 points a game. I think it's just an accident of history that any particular group of players comes together at the right time. If Golden State doesn't draft Klay Thompson or sign Igoudala, maybe we never see this team win a championship? If you want to chase every new trend at the same time every other team in the league is chasing it, you're probably going to spin yourself in circles. I think we have to learn a lesson from the Oakland A's here. Teams in smaller markets have to be one step ahead of the pack chasing after undervalued players rather than overvalued ones. The fact that every other team in the league seems to think outside shooting is their ticket to the Finals too could give us an advantage if we go after the talent that they're ignoring and build a team tailored around their strengths instead.

While i hear what you're saying, i'm not suggesting we "chase a trend" and go all in on 3-pt shooters, but we MUST improve from beyond the arc if we want a chance to win. Look at Detroit today - they've got a bully inside, and they're surrounding him with shooters to open up space for him. Without shooters, Cuz is going to continue to be abused down low b/c right now, we have very few guys that can stretch the defense. Rondo shot the ball better than expected this year, but he's still not a guy you ever really feel that great about taking the 3. Your fingers are always kind of crossed since everyone knows that's not his game.

For that reason, Collison, IMO may be a better fit because he's at least more of a threat than Rondo beyond the arc, and teams will at least have to guard him. He may not be a better overall player than Rondo, but he's more well rounded, and has less deficiencies to cover up, keeping the defense honest. The bottom line, it's not chasing a trend, it's creating a more balanced attack, and freeing up space for Cuz to do his thing. With Collison at the helm, the need for shooters is slightly less drastic than Rondo, but if ROndo is the starter, we better get some damn good shooters at the 2 and 3 spots or else we're right back where we were this season.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for creating a very defensive minded team. But as our roster is currently constructed, i believe having more shooters is necessary to help out the big guy inside. Rondo can absolutely be a part of the puzzle, but we may need to spend some extra money on filling in his gaps. While he can shoot the 3 at an ALRIGHT level, does anybody really think he's a part of the solution when it comes to improving our 3 pt game?

 

[Amit149]

Yeah but 82games.com's on/off stats aren't all that different than plus/minus. Does our defense get better with Rondo off the floor because the guy subbing in for him is a better defender? The only way you could say that is if he's the only player that ever subbed out of the game on either team. You've got 5 players on the floor at once to account for plus 5 opposing players of varying quality subbing in and out on the other side. I can see why people try to accumulate this kind of data but if you think about the amount of variables involved, how are you actually going to isolate one variable and quantify it? From a scientific point of view it's more or less useless. There's a whole bunch of data there but no control baseline to judge any of it by. I don't object to people using that kind of data and attempting to interpret it. I do object to people drawing concrete conclusions from it. That's what I'm upset about. You keep telling me over and over again that my stats are outdated or useless and then you shoot back with the most useless kind of data there is and treat it as fact.

If you watch Rondo play, his assists are not just passes to perimeter players who happen to make the shot. There's no way a player can consistently lead the league in assists while being completely reliant on their teammates to hit shots. A good number of those assists lead to wide open dunks or layups. Those shots are actually created by the pass, that's why they're so valuable. Cousins has said it multiple times:

(link)

This is a player who played with John Wall for a whole year at Kentucky. You don't have to take his word for it though. NBA.com breaks their shotcharts down into unassisted and assisted baskets.

The first image shows his unassisted baskets. 202 of them were from close-range, 37 were from mid-range, and he didn't make a single unassisted 3pt shot. The second image shows his assisted baskets. 226 of them are from close-range, 66 of them are from mid-range, and 70 of them are from 3pt range. Obviously these assists didn't all come from Rondo, but that's a clear indication of how much value an assist has to your offensive efficiency. DeMarcus is a completely different kind of scorer when he has someone else setting him up vs. when he has to create on his own.

(link)

Rondo said that back at the beginning of the year. Cousins had the best season of his career by far and you could credit that to George Karl's offensive principles if you want but I think there's an obvious difference between a PG making the game all about them and a PG making the game about helping their teammates. Maybe I don't have a stat that shows that (even if I did you would probably tell me it doesn't count anyway ) but ultimately all of the numbers are attempts to measure something that isn't really measurable. Teams win by playing together on both ends of the floor. Rondo has his flaws, but from everything I've seen and read, he seems to understand the team aspect of basketball better than any other PG in the NBA.

(link)

1. I told you that FG% is an outdated and really bad way to examine a player efficiency- and it's pretty much a fact at this point, how can you take seriously a measure that treats 2pt shots and 3pt shots as having the same value and discounting FT's altogether? there is no other side for this argument (if there is please explain).

2. Using steals to determine who is the better defender is widely considered as not enough. especially for players like Rondo who tends to gamble, in their case it's just a symptom of the problem.

3. On/Off numbers does suffer from a lot of variables and aren't perfect but they are far from useless, especially if you use them to compare players from the same team... it does in the most literal sense of the word tell you if the team was better/worse with him on the court- and that's what I claimed and if you look around the league you'll see the guys with a big impact on this stats are the stars.

4. So what you showed me is that Rondo (though we can't tell if it is Rondo) assists to Cousins came mostly in the form of jump shoots while his unassisted baskets are almost entirely inside- how is that supposed to convince me he creates more easy baskets?
And in any way I alredy showed you the Nylon Calculus stat measuring how well people shot from his assists/potential assists (which basically shows you how easy the baskets he asissted were) and he is actually worse than Conley and many others on that list- he is not bad at it, but most good starting PG's are ahead of him.

Rondo has his flaws, but from everything I've seen and read, he seems to understand the team aspect of basketball better than any other PG in the NBA

Even if I might disagree with that I can respect that point of view. I only objected to your posts because you made the claim that the stats goes with Rondo and there is no basis to the claim he is worse than Conley.

I can see why you would want him from a team chemistry (and maybe even aesthetics) point of view- this is also why I think we will eventually keep him- I do think that with Rondo our ceiling is very limited and with such a short window to do something meaningful with Cousins still on his contract I really think we should aim higher than 8th seed contention if we want to keep Cousins.

 

[funkykingston]

I'm still going back and forth on whether the team is better off resigning Rondo or letting him walk. I LIKE watching him play. And I feel like with a few more reliable weapons around him he and Cousins are a nice big man/PG combo. Probably the second biggest part of the decision of whether to let him walk or not (besides the price tag of course) is whether the Kings can get a better player or more bang for their buck with their caproom elsewhere.

Is it better to let Rondo walk, start Collison and pay another free agent? And if so, which free agent?

Or is it better to resign Rondo and trade Collison and/or other players to make improvements?

I honestly don't have an answer for that right now.

 

[ockingsfan]

I think what happens on Draft Night will determines what happens with Rondo.

IF the Kings draft Dunn, Rondo is Done.

IF the Kings draft Murray or Valentine, Rondo is more than likely gone.

IF the Kings draft Buddy Hield, Brown or a big man, Rondo is more likely to come back.

If they trade the pick for a veteran, non-PG, Rondo would be pursued very aggressively to come back (Win at all cost mentality).

If the Kings trade pick for a PG (i.e. Holiday or Teague), Rondo is gone.

June 23rd will be a big night for the Kings and Rondo's future.

 

[Glenn]

I'm still going back and forth on whether the team is better off resigning Rondo or letting him walk. I LIKE watching him play. And I feel like with a few more reliable weapons around him he and Cousins are a nice big man/PG combo. Probably the second biggest part of the decision of whether to let him walk or not (besides the price tag of course) is whether the Kings can get a better player or more bang for their buck with their caproom elsewhere.

Is it better to let Rondo walk, start Collison and pay another free agent? And if so, which free agent?

Or is it better to resign Rondo and trade Collison and/or other players to make improvements?

I honestly don't have an answer for that right now.

These are interesting questions but they demonstrate the multi-solution position we are in. Most teams are looking for a few stars. We have started there very much dependent on what the heck happened with Rudy last year. Will his game come back? It is interesting to speculate as this forum demonstrates day after day but in the end, the speculation just keeps us from being bored. The decision making is in capable hands and there are multiple answers to each question.

 

[John Galt]

I'm an admitted Rondo jocker, but I don't want him to get $20M either. So if he tries to hardball us for crazy money then yes for sure we walk away and go with Collision & Seth and go try to find some 2's with all that money. I hate to swag at NBA salary figures, I'm no expert... but he should get star money, not max money.

But we can't take for granted that some other FA will come for the money we would have paid Rondo. I wouldn't have guessed that Matthews would spurn us last year... but outside Ryan Anderson, who is there that we KNOW we can get for ANY kind of money? I mean if guys like Wes Matthews just don't want to come here... what are you gonna do? In the words of Stephen Stills: Love the one you're with.

 

[Glenn]

I think what happens on Draft Night will determines what happens with Rondo.

IF the Kings draft Dunn, Rondo is Done.

IF the Kings draft Murray or Valentine, Rondo is more than likely gone.

IF the Kings draft Buddy Hield, Brown or a big man, Rondo is more likely to come back.

If they trade the pick for a veteran, non-PG, Rondo would be pursued very aggressively to come back (Win at all cost mentality).

If the Kings trade pick for a PG (i.e. Holiday or Teague), Rondo is gone.

June 23rd will be a big night for the Kings and Rondo's future.

Vlade has already said he will not get into a bidding war over Rondo. We may need to start with the idea that Rondo is not in our future. As arguments could fly back and forth as to who is a better starter, Collison or Rondo, there is no question that one will cost $8-10 million more than the other ....... per year.

 

[funkykingston]

These are interesting questions but they demonstrate the multi-solution position we are in. Most teams are looking for a few stars. We have started there very much dependent on what the heck happened with Rudy last year. Will his game come back? It is interesting to speculate as this forum demonstrates day after day but in the end, the speculation just keeps us from being bored. The decision making is in capable hands and there are multiple answers to each question.

I don't think anything really "happened" to Rudy Gay other than being in a different offensive system and playing with a more ball dominant PG. By the numbers Rudy actually shot a slightly better percentage from the field last year - a bit better on twos, slightly worse on threes. His steals and rebounds were up a bit but his assists were cut in half, he took 2 fewer shots per game and he got to the free throw line less often, shooting around 8% worse. Between Rondo and Karl's offense (which put the emphasis on three's and drives and discouraged midrange shots) Gay got fewer possessions where he caught the ball around 15 ft and worked for a jumper or went inside to take a shot or get fouled.

I've never been a huge Rudy Gay fan, but I think he's still the same player he was his first two seasons in Sacramento. He was just used slightly differently this year.

Vlade has already said he will not get into a bidding war over Rondo. We may need to start with the idea that Rondo is not in our future. As arguments could fly back and forth as to who is a better starter, Collison or Rondo, there is no question that one will cost $8-10 million more than the other ....... per year.

To be fair though, that's only true for one season. Collison is a bargain at $5 million this upcoming season but barring injury or a terrible season he's going to make significantly more the next season. Maybe in the $8-9 million range?

 

[bajaden]

I don't think anything really "happened" to Rudy Gay other than being in a different offensive system and playing with a more ball dominant PG. By the numbers Rudy actually shot a slightly better percentage from the field last year - a bit better on twos, slightly worse on threes. His steals and rebounds were up a bit but his assists were cut in half, he took 2 fewer shots per game and he got to the free throw line less often, shooting around 8% worse. Between Rondo and Karl's offense (which put the emphasis on three's and drives and discouraged midrange shots) Gay got fewer possessions where he caught the ball around 15 ft and worked for a jumper or went inside to take a shot or get fouled.

I've never been a huge Rudy Gay fan, but I think he's still the same player he was his first two seasons in Sacramento. He was just used slightly differently this year.



To be fair though, that's only true for one season. Collison is a bargain at $5 million this upcoming season but barring injury or a terrible season he's going to make significantly more the next season. Maybe in the $8-9 million range?

My biggest complaint with Rudy last season was his consistency. He was either hot or cold. He'd have a game where he couldn't miss, and the next game, taking the same shots, he couldn't shoot a pea into the ocean. So while he actually shot better overall, he had an otherwise appearance because of the bad shooting games. Also, in the games where he couldn't hit anything early on, he tended to disappear and pass up open shots. Rudy just looked uncomfortable to me last season.

 

[funkykingston]

My biggest complaint with Rudy last season was his consistency. He was either hot or cold. He'd have a game where he couldn't miss, and the next game, taking the same shots, he couldn't shoot a pea into the ocean. So while he actually shot better overall, he had an otherwise appearance because of the bad shooting games. Also, in the games where he couldn't hit anything early on, he tended to disappear and pass up open shots. Rudy just looked uncomfortable to me last season.

I'm still of the mind that the Kings can bring back Rudy or Rajon but not both. Rondo/Gay/Cousins just doesn't seem like a good fit to me.

 

[ParniValjak]

I'm still going back and forth on whether the team is better off resigning Rondo or letting him walk. I LIKE watching him play. And I feel like with a few more reliable weapons around him he and Cousins are a nice big man/PG combo. Probably the second biggest part of the decision of whether to let him walk or not (besides the price tag of course) is whether the Kings can get a better player or more bang for their buck with their caproom elsewhere.

Is it better to let Rondo walk, start Collison and pay another free agent? And if so, which free agent?

Or is it better to resign Rondo and trade Collison and/or other players to make improvements?

I honestly don't have an answer for that right now.

I wouldn't mind seeing us get Batum.

Collison
Batum
Gay
WCS
Cousins

That would be a very nicely balanced staring 5 and that is not even taking into account pick 8 or other potential trades

 

[kingsboi]

I'm still of the mind that the Kings can bring back Rudy or Rajon but not both. Rondo/Gay/Cousins just doesn't seem like a good fit to me.

It's not just you. They aren't a good fit. They are all ball dominant players, can't have that.

 

[The_Jamal]

I don't want either back. ISO scorers who can't defend or really space off a lead option are quickly dying off. Especially when we have a perfect compliment in Omri waiting right on the bench. It's no surprise Omri/Boogie was our most effective pairing; he's an excellent catch and shoot spacer, he's a high energy/hustle player, he took big strides defensively and was one of the most effective defensive SF's in the NBA last year, and he and Boogie have great chemistry.

I'd absolutely love Batum as a 2nd option. He's a fantastic all-around player and he'd do wonders as our perimeter playmaker next to Boogie.

Collison
Batum
Casspi
WCS
Boogie

with Seth, Ben, Marco, Kosta+Rudy acquisition assets and our 1st round pick to round out the bench. Length, shooting, defenders and guys who actually compliment Boogie.

 

[Glenn]

It's not just you. They aren't a good fit. They are all ball dominant players, can't have that.

I think also Rajon has a favorite target and it isn't Rudy.

 

[kingsfan1984]

I don't want Rondo back. Enjoy watching him, but as fan i dont see him leading to more wins...as stated above, he gets his assists because of the way he runs the offense, but that doesn't equal a better offense. Cuz certainly liked the handful of easy buckets he got from Rondo, but majority of the time Cuz created for himself, wasnt being hit for layups and oops obviously. Many of the easy looks came off risky full court passes to Cuz hanging back.

The litmus test in my opinion is 4th quarter when teams step up there D and give less windows for Rondo to find a guy, what happens? The proof is in the pudding (F those stat arguments haha). If the Rondo offense was effective we would not have struggled to score as much as we did in the 4th...throw in the defensive issues and i think Rondo is an interesting player with a very good talent (vision), but his deficiencies on other areas will always hold back the team. In a sense its the same as other 1 dementional guys like Belineli. Rondo if does come back also shouldn't be on court 35+mins a game...maybe if he was playing 25-30 he would be able to defend.

Also, how many times did we atruggle out of the gate to get things going offensively? If Rondo and what he brings was highly effective, our offense would not be so inconsistent to start games and starting 3rd quarters in addition to finishing games...and the queation is, would Rondo be valuable in a different system that what we saw last year where he has freedom and the ball in his hands most of time? I dont think so. Put him in a spur or Hawk jersey and he would be aweful IMO.

Therefore, why would we want to spend our cap on him versus other targets? Collison starting at PG i think is no less effective than Rondo, but his balanced game allows for so many more options as far as systems and fit with other players go. Rondo i want in an assistant coach suite though

 

[bajaden]

It's not just you. They aren't a good fit. They are all ball dominant players, can't have that.

Rondo is the least adaptable of the two. Rondo only likes to play one way, and that's Rondo's way. He fought with Doc Rivers. He once threw a basketball through a TV set in the viewing room and had to be physically picked up and removed from the room by Kevin Garnett. Why, because he didn't like Rivers dictating to him how to play. He had a similar problem with the Mav's. If Joerger tries to implement his ball movement offense that would probably run the offense through Cousins, he's going to have similar problems with Rondo. Frankly, I'm not sure I want a PG that passes the ball to Cousins so he can take a three, even if he did shoot 35% from there. Sorry Cuz!

Rudy on the other hand, will be a good soldier and try to fit in. He may not be a perfect fit, but I think it can work with him. I predict that Rondo will become a giant headache if he's resigned, and I think the Kings are nuts to even risk it. Especially for a 30 year old player that doesn't play defense. And please, to whom it might concern, don't bore me with some stats. I have two eyes!

 

[kingsfan1984]

I doubt Rondo will get any big offers this offseason. Maybe New York, butnot sure with Horny there now about fit

 

[hrdboild]

I don't want Rondo back. Enjoy watching him, but as fan i dont see him leading to more wins...as stated above, he gets his assists because of the way he runs the offense, but that doesn't equal a better offense. Cuz certainly liked the handful of easy buckets he got from Rondo, but majority of the time Cuz created for himself, wasnt being hit for layups and oops obviously. Many of the easy looks came off risky full court passes to Cuz hanging back.

The litmus test in my opinion is 4th quarter when teams step up there D and give less windows for Rondo to find a guy, what happens? The proof is in the pudding (F those stat arguments haha). If the Rondo offense was effective we would not have struggled to score as much as we did in the 4th...throw in the defensive issues and i think Rondo is an interesting player with a very good talent (vision), but his deficiencies on other areas will always hold back the team. In a sense its the same as other 1 dementional guys like Belineli. Rondo if does come back also shouldn't be on court 35+mins a game...maybe if he was playing 25-30 he would be able to defend.

Also, how many times did we atruggle out of the gate to get things going offensively? If Rondo and what he brings was highly effective, our offense would not be so inconsistent to start games and starting 3rd quarters in addition to finishing games...and the queation is, would Rondo be valuable in a different system that what we saw last year where he has freedom and the ball in his hands most of time? I dont think so. Put him in a spur or Hawk jersey and he would be aweful IMO.

Therefore, why would we want to spend our cap on him versus other targets? Collison starting at PG i think is no less effective than Rondo, but his balanced game allows for so many more options as far as systems and fit with other players go. Rondo i want in an assistant coach suite though

Seriously? The proof is in the pudding? We had two players on our roster this year who've ever won an NBA championship and only one of them was a starter on that team and averaged 30+ minutes per game. If the proof is in the pudding for you, how do you explain that Rajon Rondo has played in 94 playoff games in his career and was the starting PG in every single one of them? Oh that's right, he played with 3 hall of famers who made him look good right? Ray Allen was 33 when they won the Finals, Kevin Garnett was 32, Paul Pierce was 31. And if Rondo was actually ruining the offense with his bullheadish-ness, if his ceiling as a lead guard is 33 wins and mediocre offense than Danny Ainge would have shipped his ass out of Boston so fast his head would be spinning. When they lost to the Lakers in 7 games two years later, Rondo was already the best player on the team. He averaged 40 minutes per game in the playoffs that year and they were basically one Ron Artest miracle 3 away from winning their second ring in 3 years.

“The thing that’s impressed me the most is his humility and his commitment to learning as much as possible about our team and how to help us win.”

(link)

That's a quote from Rick Carlisle last year about Rondo. This mental image people have about him as a stubborn, coach-hating nuisance doesn't match at all with what his actual coaches and teammates say about him. Competitive as hell? Absolutely. Unwilling to listen to coaches? Read what Doc Rivers, Brad Stevens, Rick Carlisle, and George Karl have to say about him or what he has to say about them for that matter. Rick Carlisle also said this when Rondo returned to Boston this year:

"That stuff with Rondo, you can't blame that on Rondo," Carlisle said. "He tried to make that work. The ending was difficult, but bottom line, I knew he'd move on and play great, which he is."

(link)

But of course the fans all choose to blame it on Rondo anyway...

I already told you what I think our problems were in the fourth quarter this season. Every single game I was screaming at George Karl to get all these stupid guards off the floor and play an actual full-sized lineup. We had trouble scoring in the fourth quarter because George Karl never put his starting lineup back in the game. Maybe twice in 82 games did the game start and end with Cauley-Stein and McLemore on the floor. Instead we got the 2 PG offense with Belinelli at SF and Rudy Gay at PF. Yeah of course we had trouble getting shots with that lineup-- 3 guys are playing out of position, Rondo was playing off the ball, Rudy Gay couldn't shoot over PFs, and Belinelli couldn't hit the broadside of a barn all year. That we also couldn't defend anyone is almost immaterial at that point. And I still haven't seen 1 single person come up with a believable explanation for how one-dimensional Rajon Rondo hurt the team with his terrible shooting in a season where he shot better behind the arc than Mike Conley, Isaiah Thomas, John Wall, Brandon Knight, Jrue Holiday, Kyrie Irving, Goran Dragic, and Russell Westbrook and shot better from the floor than every starting PG not named Curry, Parker, Dragic, or Paul.

 

[hrdboild]

1. I told you that FG% is an outdated and really bad way to examine a player efficiency- and it's pretty much a fact at this point, how can you take seriously a measure that treats 2pt shots and 3pt shots as having the same value and discounting FT's altogether? there is no other side for this argument (if there is please explain).

2. Using steals to determine who is the better defender is widely considered as not enough. especially for players like Rondo who tends to gamble, in their case it's just a symptom of the problem.

3. On/Off numbers does suffer from a lot of variables and aren't perfect but they are far from useless, especially if you use them to compare players from the same team... it does in the most literal sense of the word tell you if the team was better/worse with him on the court- and that's what I claimed and if you look around the league you'll see the guys with a big impact on this stats are the stars.

4. So what you showed me is that Rondo (though we can't tell if it is Rondo) assists to Cousins came mostly in the form of jump shoots while his unassisted baskets are almost entirely inside- how is that supposed to convince me he creates more easy baskets?
And in any way I alredy showed you the Nylon Calculus stat measuring how well people shot from his assists/potential assists (which basically shows you how easy the baskets he asissted were) and he is actually worse than Conley and many others on that list- he is not bad at it, but most good starting PG's are ahead of him.



Even if I might disagree with that I can respect that point of view. I only objected to your posts because you made the claim that the stats goes with Rondo and there is no basis to the claim he is worse than Conley.

I can see why you would want him from a team chemistry (and maybe even aesthetics) point of view- this is also why I think we will eventually keep him- I do think that with Rondo our ceiling is very limited and with such a short window to do something meaningful with Cousins still on his contract I really think we should aim higher than 8th seed contention if we want to keep Cousins.

1. You're the only one here who's talking about player efficiency! I didn't ask for it so why would you just assume that because I'm talking about shooting I must be talking about true shooting %? That's a stat that people have made up to measure a particular aspect of the game. It is not God's gift to basketball analysis. It does not supercede any and all other shooting stats. There is no other side to the argument? The absolute arrogance of you stat-heads to butt into every conversation and say "oh you're talking about this, you must really want to talk about this" would be hilarious if it wasn't so damn annoying. I know exactly what I'm talking about. What are you talking about? That's my side of the argument.

2. This is the second (third?) time you've brought up this straw man. I ignored it before because I just figured you misread me, but since you persist in making it an issue: Not once have I said that steals or steal % should be used to determine who is a better defender. What I did say is that there are a number of ways to measure an individual player's defensive impact on the game. The stats I use are defensive rating, defensive box plus minus, defensive win shares, steal %, defensive rebound %, and block %. None of these measures is better than the others and none of them should be used in isolation because defense is so difficult to measure quantitatively anyway that you want as much data as possible to minimize your margin of error.

Two seasons ago I generated a search on basketball-reference.com using some of these criteria attempting to identify under-appreciated defenders. (Note to 206Fan: Maurice Harkless was the starting PF on a playoff team this year ) Anyway, the point is -- if these stats are in fact measuring real defensive contributions, than generating a search to isolate the leaders in these stat areas should come up with a list of the best defenders in the game shouldn't it? And it does. Kawhi Leonard, Ron Artest, Tony Allen, Andre Igoudala, Jimmy Butler, and Draymond Green are all up there near the top of the list (along with some other unexpected names, but you do have to pay close attention to minutes played to sort out the wheat from the chaff so to speak). So I looked at defensive rating, defensive box plus minus, defensive win shares, steal % and defensive rebound % and Rondo scored better than Conley this year in every single one of them. I did ignore block % because we're talking about PGs and nobody expects a lot of blocks from their PG but for completeness sake: Conley had 16 blocks and a 0.8 block % and Rondo had 10 blocks and a 0.3 block % so I suppose Conley is measurably better on defense in one statistical area.

3. "If you look around the league you'll see the guys with a big impact on this stats are the stars." -- If you want me to believe this is anything more than a case of "correlation does not imply causation" you're going to have to work a little harder than that. So maybe it does a good job of telling us things we already know -- that Cleveland wouldn't be very good if you took out Lebron James for instance. But why does Kosta Koufos have a rating of -7.7 when defensive rating says he was the second best defender on the team? Were Wiggins, Rubio, Garnett, and Dieng all more important to the TWolves this season than Karl Anthony-Towns? Is Jahlil Okafor the worst player on the Sixers? It's been my experience with any kind of +/- or on/off derived stat that you have to do so much work trying to explain the flukey results that it feels dishonest to then turn around and use the same numbers to prove something. When ESPN first started putting +/- on their boxscores, Kevin Durant famously had the worst +/- in the entire league that year. Granted he wasn't a superstar in his first season but this is a future league MVP and clearly the best player on his team. By the time you explain how that's possible you realize that the data isn't actually telling you anything useful, or at least that's how I feel about it.

4. How did you miss the obvious here? It's right there in visual form! Cousins made 70 3pt shots this season and not a single one of them was unassisted! Not one! Is that not remarkable to you? When people talk about how impressive it is that he's expanded his game out beyond the 3pt line, they should keep that stat in the back of their heads. This isn't Steph Curry freeing himself up with some fancy dribbling and swishing a 25 footer off balance and falling out of bounds, this is a player who was 5th on the team in made 3pt shots and didn't create a single one of them on his own. How are you going to tell me that assists aren't creating easy shots for him? No I didn't go in-depth and compare the shooting percentage of shots he took off of Rondo passes but I don't see why I need to. A lob over the top of the defense leading to an easy dunk is quite obviously a high percentage shot and if you watched the Kings at all last season I know you saw bunches of them.

It's an open question whether a 3pt gunner would indirectly create more space for Cousins inside than Rondo's passes. I'm not against that type of offense -- it worked very well with Mike Bibby here for instance -- but I don't understand why people think it's the only way to run an offense in today's NBA or that it's the best way to run an offense. Steph Curry's Warriors are circumstantial evidence. A lot more goes into making that team work than just one player (as important as he is). On the flip-side is OKC which won 55 games this year and is currently playing in the Conference Finals with a non-shooter (29.6%) at starting PG. Yes he took 341 of them this season but I don't see you or anyone else telling me that a high-volume 3pt shooter averaging only 30% is helping his team's offense with his long range shooting.

 

[Amit149]

There is no other side to the argument? The absolute arrogance of you stat-heads to butt into every conversation and say "oh you're talking about this, you must really want to talk about this" would be hilarious if it wasn't so damn annoying. I know exactly what I'm talking about. What are you talking about? That's my side of the argument.

I'm gonna make it hsort since we are not changing each other minds and it's getting kinda pointless.

What does FG% gives you exactly? you have yet to make any argument in favor of it- like I said, you can use 2p% and 3p% and shot charts are very important- but looking at FG% is worthless compared to other shooting stats.
If you think otherwise why won't you tell why instead of going into more rants with strawmanning and name-calling.

How did you miss the obvious here? It's right there in visual form! Cousins made 70 3pt shots this season and not a single one of them was unassisted! Not one! Is that not remarkable to you?

All that's tell me is that Cousins doesn't shoot 3's off-the-dribble, it's not even necessarily Rondo who's making the assists and in any case- how is this an easy shot exactly? if most assisted shots Cousins made are J's while his unassisted are at the rim than how is that exactly helping his game in terms of getting easy shots?

 

[hrdboild]

I'm gonna make it hsort since we are not changing each other minds and it's getting kinda pointless.

What does FG% gives you exactly? you have yet to make any argument in favor of it- like I said, you can use 2p% and 3p% and shot charts are very important- but looking at FG% is worthless compared to other shooting stats.
If you think otherwise why won't you tell why instead of going into more rants with strawmanning and name-calling.

I did tell you why several times, and you just read right past it. If I want to know which percentage of a player's shots went in the basket, FG% tells me that. If I want to know where on the floor those shots were taken from, I can look at the shooting chart. TS% isn't telling me how well a player actually shot the ball it's giving me an abstracted rating of their overall scoring efficiency by also accounting for free throws. TS% is a better mark of a player's scoring efficiency, I will agree with you on that. But it's an inferior way to measure their ability to shoot the ball from the floor during an offensive possession -- which is generally what we're talking about when we're calling a player a good or a bad shooter. The ball is passed to him, he takes the shot -- is it going in or not?

Other advanced metrics have the same issue -- eFG% is adjusted to account for the increased value of a 3pt shot. That's a useful tool no doubt but again it's not telling me how many shots the player made or missed. The "flaw" in FG% that these other stats are attempting to correct for is exactly why I like it. All I want to know is whether the shot went in or not. Everything else -- does the player take difficult contested shots or are they generally left open, are they scoring more points on less shots because of their ability to draw fouls or shoot from distance -- it's my job to contextualize the actual shooting numbers by keeping all of these factors in mind. I've yet to see a single advanced stat which is adjusted for every situational contingency.

I know the trend is to reduce everything down to numbers to remove all "human error"/"critical thinking" from statistical analysis. But the further you abstract from the actual nuts and bolts of whether a shot went in or it didn't go in, the harder it gets to explain what is actually being measured. If all you tell me is the eFG% for instance, I don't know if the player is shooting all of his shots from 3pt range or not. If all you tell me is TS% I don't know if they're a threat spotted up in the corner or if they're chiefly a threat pounding the ball inside and shooting free throws. So I don't see ultimately that these alternative stats are telling me anything that I can't already figure out with a boxscore and a shooting chart.

All that's tell me is that Cousins doesn't shoot 3's off-the-dribble, it's not even necessarily Rondo who's making the assists and in any case- how is this an easy shot exactly? if most assisted shots Cousins made are J's while his unassisted are at the rim than how is that exactly helping his game in terms of getting easy shots?

Take another look -- 19.34% of his assisted baskets were 3pt jumpers, 18.23% were 2pt jumpers, and 62.43% were right at the basket.

 

[Amit149]

I did tell you why several times, and you just read right past it. If I want to know which percentage of a player's shots went in the basket, FG% tells me that. If I want to know where on the floor those shots were taken from, I can look at the shooting chart. TS% isn't telling me how well a player actually shot the ball it's giving me an abstracted rating of their overall scoring efficiency by also accounting for free throws. TS% is a better mark of a player's scoring efficiency, I will agree with you on that. But it's an inferior way to measure their ability to shoot the ball from the floor during an offensive possession -- which is generally what we're talking about when we're calling a player a good or a bad shooter. The ball is passed to him, he takes the shot -- is it going in or not?

Other advanced metrics have the same issue -- eFG% is adjusted to account for the increased value of a 3pt shot. That's a useful tool no doubt but again it's not telling me how many shots the player made or missed. The "flaw" in FG% that these other stats are attempting to correct for is exactly why I like it. All I want to know is whether the shot went in or not. Everything else -- does the player take difficult contested shots or are they generally left open, are they scoring more points on less shots because of their ability to draw fouls or shoot from distance -- it's my job to contextualize the actual shooting numbers by keeping all of these factors in mind. I've yet to see a single advanced stat which is adjusted for every situational contingency.

I know the trend is to reduce everything down to numbers to remove all "human error"/"critical thinking" from statistical analysis. But the further you abstract from the actual nuts and bolts of whether a shot went in or it didn't go in, the harder it gets to explain what is actually being measured. If all you tell me is the eFG% for instance, I don't know if the player is shooting all of his shots from 3pt range or not. If all you tell me is TS% I don't know if they're a threat spotted up in the corner or if they're chiefly a threat pounding the ball inside and shooting free throws. So I don't see ultimately that these alternative stats are telling me anything that I can't already figure out with a boxscore and a shooting chart.

Get out of here with the "reduce everything down to numbers to remove all "human error"/"critical thinking" from statistical analysis", I said myself that looking at shot charts are a very important part of player analysis- but what the **** does it have to do with FG%?

I call a shooter a player who's efficient at shooting, I know it's a radical thought but if a guy makes 50% from 3 he's a better shooter than a guy shooting 51% from 2.
Going by your definition of shooter the best shooters in the league are: DeAndre Jordan, Dwight Howard and Hassan Whiteside.
Going by mine (and almost everyone else) it's: Curry, Durant and Redick.
Who of this 2 groups are we usually calling shooters?

The number of missed shots is meaningless (especially since you not only made the claim one is a better shooter because of it you also judged our team offense efficiency with it), FG% doesn't tell you how many 3p shoots a player took- 3pA tell you that.
eFG% is just like FG% only it accounts for 3pt shots being worth (wait for it...) 3 points! which again, is a thing that exists- you keep complaining about other stats being abstract (and it's really don't) but FG% is the most abstract there is- it doesn't care if you took a hundred threes or just took lobs.

Again just to clarify (and you will probably use it anyway)- the numbers of 3's you took are important, shot charts are extremely important- that got nothing to do with using FG% to argue about who is a better shooter or how a team is doing on offense.

Take another look -- 19.34% of his assisted baskets were 3pt jumpers, 18.23% were 2pt jumpers, and 62.43% were right at the basket.

Well since 85.3% of his unassited shots were at the rim than the question still stands...