Ray McCallum

bajaden

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#61
#61
Gilles said:
Actually they are pretty different: last 4 games was up and down for Ray, included some garbage time to pad stats, but here are per48 of Ray's last 4 games vs IT's season long stats:
---------shots---FTs---ast---TOs
Ray-----17.6----3.5----7.5---1.86
IT-------21.1----8.0---8.8---4.13
To be fair to IT with his TO problem, in his absence Cousins and Rudy having to create more, upped their per36 assist averages only by 0.8apg, while creating 1.8 TOpg more. And overall Kings averaged 15.5 TOpg versus average 14.1.
Still when you get the amount of possessions, IT makes final decision in, multiply it by the amount of time he controls the ball during possessions, someone else finishes, Ray starts to look like a really dialed back version of Thomas, which is a good thing, when he's surrounded by better offensive players.
P.S. There's still 7 games left with 6 against teams still playing for something. Sample size will get bigger.
Click to expand...
Not to beat a dead horse, but only to reflect minutes played and the comparison thereof. Comparing Ray's last four games to IT's season in real numbers, and not projected 48 per numbers.

McCollum: 44.85 MPG - 16.5 APG - 36.9% FGP - 7.0 Assists PG - 1.7 TO'ers - 1.2 SPG - 3.2 RPG
I. Thomas: 35.00 MPG - 15.4 APG - 45.3% FGP - 6.4 Assists PG - 3.0 TO'ers - 1.3 SPG - 3.0 RPG

Although McCallum's field goal percentage is almost 10 points less than IT's, his last game he shot 47%, and the game before he shot 44%, so as his confidence has grown, so has he field goal percentage. Although his shot attempts are about one attempt per game more, he's also played almost 10 minutes more per game. As you said, its a small sample size, and if he continues to get similar minutes, we should have a good read on him by seasons end. If nothing else, it gives the Kings a little bit of insurance at the PG position if they can't come to terms with IT.
 
jcwkings

jcwkings

All-Star
#70
#70
Maybe we can use his as our 7th man next season, IT as the 6th of course. Then we sign Jason Hart to be the pure defense never take a shot starting PG.
 
HereWeBoogie

HereWeBoogie

Hall of Famer
#73
#73
The_Jamal said:
Not where HereweVivek is concerned, champion of making sure we bash IT into oblivion
Click to expand...
Well Giles was clearly making a Ray/IT comparison with his Chucker comment so i think its fair to bring up the fact that while Ray took a lot more shots than any of us would like, at least he did it in an efficient fashion, as well as a win. Which is not what we have seen in the case of Isaiah's high volume shooting
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#74
#74
HereWeVivek said:
Well Giles was clearly making the Ray/IT comparison so i think its fair to bring up the fact that while Ray took a lot more shots than any of us would like, at least he did it in an efficient fashion, as well as a win
Click to expand...
IT doesn't score in efficient fashion? You simply have to be joking. Efficiency is literally the reason IT is an above-average player in this league. I refuse to accept you're this blind to who IT actually is as a player.
 
K

KingMilz

Guest
#75
#75
I wonder if his max ceiling could be a poorman's Kyle Lowry if everything goes right

Kyle Lowry rookie season 5.6ppg 3.2apg 3.3rpg 36% FG
Ray rookie season 5.4ppg 1.6rpg and 1.9apg 39.3% FG

I always in my mind have compared him to Lowry since they are both roughly 6foot have thick body builds and while I would not call either a pure PG they can defend well and have enough playmaking ability to run a team and get there own.
 
Mr. S£im Citrus

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#76
#76
The_Jamal said:
HereWeVivek said:
Well Giles was clearly making the Ray/IT comparison so i think its fair to bring up the fact that while Ray took a lot more shots than any of us would like, at least he did it in an efficient fashion, as well as a win
Click to expand...
IT doesn't score in efficient fashion? You simply have to be joking. Efficiency is literally the reason IT is an above-average player in this league. I refuse to accept you're this blind to who IT actually is as a player.
Click to expand...
Ugh. I consider myself a charter member of the ABT Club, and even I don't think he's inefficient. If anything, my position has always been that his efficiency is overrated, and doesn't outweigh his negatives. But inefficient? That's selection bias, all day.

Regarding McCallum, I don't like the idea of "McCallum as PG chucker" any more than I like the idea of "Thomas as PG chucker," but I'm willing to believe that it may have more to do with Malone's "system," at this point, so hopefully he brings in somebody next season to manage that end for him, and he can concentrate on defense. I do consider myself a fan of McCallum's hustle. It has been a very small sample of games of him as a starter, but I have yet to feel like he was overmatched. Even in his first start, I felt like he was more overwhelmed than overmatched.
 
lwc

lwc

Starter
#77
#77
For the sake of the argument let's say that both are "chuckers". If both are chuckers then let us look at positives and negatives:

Isaiah- good sometimes great deep shooter and scorer. However poor defender and will be much more expensive. Friends with Cuz. Definitely a "me-first" player.

Ray- average or good deep shooter, not great. Can score when defense gives green light. Doesn't turn the ball over. Plays great defense and has the body and coach to make it better over time. Much cheaper. Small sample size, do we know what we have?
 
H

HighFlyingMonkey

Starter
#78
#78
The_Jamal said:
IT doesn't score in efficient fashion? You simply have to be joking. Efficiency is literally the reason IT is an above-average player in this league. I refuse to accept you're this blind to who IT actually is as a player.
Click to expand...
No no no, you've got it wrong, we can just grab the 12th man on the Pelicans, jack up his shot attempts, and make another IT :p
 
Spike

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#79
#79
HighFlyingMonkey said:
No no no, you've got it wrong, we can just grab the 12th man on the Pelicans, jack up his shot attempts, and make another IT :p
Click to expand...
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here:

Isn't that what we've done with McCallum? We've given him the green light, and the minutes. It does seem to take some of the shine off of IT's luster, unless you think we've "struck gold" again.
 
H

HighFlyingMonkey

Starter
#80
#80
Spike said:
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here:

Isn't that what we've done with McCallum? We've given him the green light, and the minutes. It does seem to take some of the shine off of IT's luster, unless you think we've "struck gold" again.
Click to expand...
Thats a fair point, but I do think we have something here with Ray. The FO was obviously really high on him and its looking like he'll be a contributor going forward. The question is, can he keep it up? What exactly will he contribute over a larger sample size?

Also we have to keep in mind we had both Vasquez and Jimmer here as well, both of whom really failed, whereas IT and McCallum are thriving in Malone's system. So its probably not that you can just take anybody and expect the same results.
 
ForlornKing

ForlornKing

Starter
#81
#81
I really don't have problem wth ray's shot attempts and I'm not worried he's gonna turn into IT.

They are just two different players with different philosophy's in how they play. Ray is just getting his feet wet in becoming a good nba scorer, it's a lost season, so why not just give him the green light and let him get totally comfortable and find his scoring game.

Now if he's doing this at this point next season you sorta have a problem, but I doubt it will get to that. Defenses will figure him out, and then I think we will really see the best of ray as a PG where he really plays as a pass-first guy.
 
Last edited:
Padrino

Padrino

All-Star
#83
#83
HighFlyingMonkey said:
Thats a fair point, but I do think we have something here with Ray. The FO was obviously really high on him and its looking like he'll be a contributor going forward. The question is, can he keep it up? What exactly will he contribute over a larger sample size?

Also we have to keep in mind we had both Vasquez and Jimmer here as well, both of whom really failed, whereas IT and McCallum are thriving in Malone's system. So its probably not that you can just take anybody and expect the same results.
Click to expand...
personally, i don't think that's something "we have to keep in mind." jimmer fredette was considered a rather poor nba prospect by most who weren't self-described jimmerfans. he was always going to be climbing an uphill battle, and i'm not sure that he "really failed" so much as he was never going to be able to live up to the expectations set by his illustrious collegiate career. he's long had "unathletic tweener" and "journeyman jump shooter" written all over him. but his list of shortcomings does not validate IT's or mccallum's place on the team. just because jimmer effing fredette couldn't live up to his draft position doesn't mean a more successful and established role player couldn't successfully start or backup at PG for this kings team. that's a pretty massive false equivalency you're attempting to draw...

as for vasquez, i feel like some people think that he was here much longer than he actually was. vasquez played all of 18 games for a kings team with a new head coach and exactly one scoring option on offense. marcus thornton was the invisible man during his time in sacramento this season, so the kings' only legitimate second option was isaiah thomas off the bench, and it posed a problem of how to split minutes at PG (especially considering that neither vasquez nor thomas is an adequate defender). i certainly don't know how vasquez would have performed on a kings team with demarcus cousins and rudy gay in the starting lineup, but then again, nobody knows. point is, to say he "really failed" strikes me as "really disingenuous." he "failed" at gaining enough traction in a scant 18 games to not be deemed trade bait (and pretty much everybody on the roster not named demarcus cousins was deemed trade bait throughout the season)...

but once again, these factors do not validate IT's or mccallum's place on the team. they've both been given the kind of long leash that vasquez simply didn't have in his brief stint here. vasquez averaged 26 mpg as a king, topping out once at 36 minutes, whereas ray mccallum is already averaging 45 mpg in five games as a starter, topping out once for a full 48. now, i didn't necessarily believe that greivis vasquez was ever going to be the answer in sacramento; his defense is atrocious and he didn't seem to click with demarcus like many had hoped he would. but again, it was 18 games in a new season with a new head coach and a new system that hadn't taken root yet. there's not many worthwhile conclusions to extrapolate from that...
 
Last edited:
P

pshn80

Starter
#84
#84
lwc said:
For the sake of the argument let's say that both are "chuckers". If both are chuckers then let us look at positives and negatives:

Isaiah- good sometimes great deep shooter and scorer. However poor defender and will be much more expensive. Friends with Cuz. Definitely a "me-first" player.

Ray- average or good deep shooter, not great. Can score when defense gives green light. Doesn't turn the ball over. Plays great defense and has the body and coach to make it better over time. Much cheaper. Small sample size, do we know what we have?
Click to expand...
Do we know what we have? No, I don't think so between the two and any other option but it's nice to see building quality in both and the hope of a good outcome despite "money". Let's sit back and smile and let the games continue.
 
Spike

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#85
#85
HighFlyingMonkey said:
Thats a fair point, but I do think we have something here with Ray. The FO was obviously really high on him and its looking like he'll be a contributor going forward. The question is, can he keep it up? What exactly will he contribute over a larger sample size?

Also we have to keep in mind we had both Vasquez and Jimmer here as well, both of whom really failed, whereas IT and McCallum are thriving in Malone's system. So its probably not that you can just take anybody and expect the same results.
Click to expand...
I agree wrt to Ray.
 
H

HighFlyingMonkey

Starter
#86
#86
Padrino said:
personally, i don't think that's something "we have to keep in mind." jimmer fredette was considered a rather poor nba prospect by most who weren't self-described jimmerfans. he was always going to be climbing an uphill battle, and i'm not sure that he "really failed" so much as he was never going to be able to live up to the expectations set by his illustrious collegiate career. he's long had "unathletic tweener" and "journeyman jump shooter" written all over him. but his list of shortcomings does not validate IT's or mccallum's place on the team. just because jimmer effing fredette couldn't live up to his draft position doesn't mean a more successful and established role player couldn't successfully start or backup at PG for this kings team. that's a pretty massive false equivalency you're attempting to draw...
Click to expand...
I hope you had fun hacking down that strawman argument I never presented. I'm not sure where from my post you got that I was asserting "Jimmer/Vasquez failed = IT/McCallum are the answer" but it was a silly waste of verbage to engage as such.

What I was saying was in response to the idea that it wasn't actually IT/McCallum who were succeeding at PG, but perhaps it was Malone's system and the former could be replaced with lesser talents to the same results. It was an interesting thought, but I personally believe IT and McCallum are/were flourishing on their own merits. I presented Vasquez and Jimmer as an example of why you can't just assume its Malone's system making IT/McCallum look good. IT/McCallum are doing well because they're good players (in McCallum's case its too early to tell) and if they fail its because they aren't good players.

Regarding Vasquez, the notion that he simply didn't have enough time or good enough teammates being the reason he failed should be categorically rejected. Vasquez failed offensively because he couldn't score (the defensive issues were an exacerbation). He's been a terrible scorer his entire career and continued to be so during his stint here. Even playing with Rudy wouldn't have suddenly turned Vasquez into a competent scorer. Rudy and Demarcus are both mid-to-low post players. They need perimeter creativity in order to thrive. Rudy is competent with a live dribble from the perimeter, but thats not where he is at his best. Vasquez would not have provided that scoring creativity. When McCallum was playing afraid, we lacked that as well. Needless to say Jimmer failed because he could neither get the team into the offense nor did he possess the ballhandling capacity to provide the necessary perimeter creativity. You may not think that you had seen enough of Vasquez to make a meaningful conclusion but I had seen enough. The skills weren't a match in that configuration.

Now, never did I say, nor will I ever assert, that its impossible for a player of Vasquez's skills (or a non-creator type like Chalmers or Fisher) to succeed in this offense. But you are going to have to make some changes at the SG position to find a slasher. I can see, maybe, Vasquez/Tyreke/Rudy/Whoever/Cousins being a successful offense, hopefully given that Vasquez can hit his perimeter shots. But the point is you must have that offensive shot-creating ability on the perimeter. I can't think of a successful team without it. And Malone knows it as well, which I suspect is why his system seemingly gives the PG a lot of freedom to be aggressive with their offense.
 
jcwkings

jcwkings

All-Star
#87
#87
pshn80 said:
No comprende. I think Jason Hart delivers my newspapers and misses the porch.
Click to expand...
When we signed Jason Hart he was supposed to be the perfect backup to the score first Bibby. The concept of a defensive facilitator sounds good on paper but then you realize you are playing 4 on 5 when he is out there . Ray Mac shows potential to be the best two way PG we have had in a long long time though. The fact that he is showing that he can score in this league is a great thing, because we know even as a rookie he has all the tools to be a very good defender in this league.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#88
#88
Spike said:
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here:

Isn't that what we've done with McCallum? We've given him the green light, and the minutes. It does seem to take some of the shine off of IT's luster, unless you think we've "struck gold" again.
Click to expand...
Not really. For starters, we still have no idea what we got in Ray. But even if the 5 games was a large enough sample size, Ray hasn't come close to IT's scoring or playmaking ability. The 17-6-4.5 looks great, but it's also getting 45 MPG, which is completely unsustainable over a full season. Even then, the efficiency is incredibly weak being a full 11% lower TS than IT's, which is astronomical.

Again, we need more data. I personally love a lot of the traits Ray is displaying. He's got some fire and grit in his playing, a lot like IT, but he's a little more centered, careful with the ball, and has better defensive instincts. There's some real potential with our PG duo in the future as I think there's absolutely a place for Ray and IT to coexist on the floor together and sharing PG duties.
 
King Baller

King Baller

All-Star
#89
#89
The_Jamal said:
Not really. For starters, we still have no idea what we got in Ray. But even if the 5 games was a large enough sample size, Ray hasn't come close to IT's scoring or playmaking ability. The 17-6-4.5 looks great, but it's also getting 45 MPG, which is completely unsustainable over a full season. Even then, the efficiency is incredibly weak being a full 11% lower TS than IT's, which is astronomical.

Again, we need more data. I personally love a lot of the traits Ray is displaying. He's got some fire and grit in his playing, a lot like IT, but he's a little more centered, careful with the ball, and has better defensive instincts. There's some real potential with our PG duo in the future as I think there's absolutely a place for Ray and IT to coexist on the floor together and sharing PG duties.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with you. I think Ray has shown more than "better defensive instincts". He plays good defense right now and will only get better. He also does not appear to turn the ball over. I think time will tell what the Kings have in Ray. Lets see what happens once he plays all the teams in the once and faces them a second time. That is when the fun begins:) Coaches son don't you know:)
 
Spike

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#90
#90
The_Jamal said:
Not really. For starters, we still have no idea what we got in Ray. But even if the 5 games was a large enough sample size, Ray hasn't come close to IT's scoring or playmaking ability. The 17-6-4.5 looks great, but it's also getting 45 MPG, which is completely unsustainable over a full season. Even then, the efficiency is incredibly weak being a full 11% lower TS than IT's, which is astronomical.
Click to expand...
If you mean that IT gets to the free throw line more than Ray, sure. I don't know if that really qualifies for "astronomical". Not that I'm a fan of True Shooting % anyway, because I favor the other side of the ball, but Ray's has gone up to about .519 over the last three games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.