Just a note. In no way do I think Vasquez failed here. Neither he nor anyone here made it work at the time. He along with 3 others were traded for value at another position.
Ray McCallum
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Is there logic somewhere in this statement? This is the same thing as "I don't care about having efficient offense, because I prefer defense."
it's there, after the comma.
Edit:
Try reading it the way it was meant to be read, as the statement does not properly read the way you highlighted it. (Then you might see the point a little more clearly.)
If you want to get back to the data, my point still stands.
Edit:
Try reading it the way it was meant to be read, as the statement does not properly read the way you highlighted it. (Then you might see the point a little more clearly.)
If you want to get back to the data, my point still stands.
Last edited:
lol, so true. Was about to respond, but yours works just fine.
Padrino
All-Star
i didn't claim that such was your assertion. you said, "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." and i simply take issue with the notion that jimmer/vasquez "failing" has anything at all to do with whether or not some other PG will be able to succeed in coach malone's system, IT/mccallum included...
upinsmoke
All-Star
So presumably we re sign IT and we let Malone do his job and decide who starts and how the mins are distributed at the 1. That leaves us with only Ben and J. Terry (75 yrs old) so we are going to need to acquire another guard in all likelihood. What do you guys think about a guy we got a good look at last night like Kent Bazenmore. His Defense is actually pretty good and has worked hard to improve his shooting and handle. He's going to be a FA and if the Lakers break the bank elsewhere in true L.A fashion he could be low hanging fruit at a bargain price. Another guy I like is Avery Bradley his offense is coming around nicely and is a defensive ace but health is a concern and will obviously cost more maybe even force us to let IT walk and draft a PG. So that's just my .2 cents but who do you guys think fits here at the 2 either via trade/FA/draft?
whozit
Starter
Shamsports has the Lakers with the option of a qualifying offer.
http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/lakers.jsp
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
i said inefficient on his high volume shooting nights. Not as a whole.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Ok, let me go through this slowly.
1. I said sarcastically as a joke that you can replace IT was any NBA nobody in Malone's system and get the same results.
2. Spike responded (playing devil's advocate, not necessarily that he believed it) that essentially thats what we did with McCallum, taking an NBA nobody, putting him in Malone's system, and we are getting similar results. So, either the system is magical, or we got lucky twice with second round PGs.
3. To which I responded by saying the system didn't make everyone look good since Vasquez and Jimmer failed in it. So I lean more towards that Ray/IT are actually good players given freedom in Malone's system as opposed to Malone's system magically turning scrubs into 20ppg scorers. Its the skills that are prerequisite, not the system.
That is a far cry from what you are insinuating about my post.
That being said, the idea that Jimmer/Vasquez's failure tells us nothing at all about this configuration in Malone's system is rather absurd. When you contextualize this information with the direction the NBA is taking as a whole, there are definite nuggets of knowledge to be derived from that situation.
Well, I don't know if that's what Spike meant, but I'm not seeing anything objectionable in that statement, at all.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
The logic with most TS% debates is this: "so what"?
Or I think more precisely put "is that it?"
Its not a question of bad efficiency being > good efficiency. Its just a question about where that trait ranks amongst all the traits you can have, and what you would give up to get it. Here's what I know, Michael Jordan was a .569TS% guy. Pippen was a .536, Rodman a .546...and yet they were the core of maybe the best team in NBA history. Today our long running dynasty has had Duncan (.551) Parker (.551) and Manu (.589) at its heart for a decade. Amongst your major players at least I don't think it accurately describes WHY they are great. Or rarely at least. Obviously the Durant/Lebron tag team has taken things to silly heights here in the last couple of years. But even so, 2 years ago Lebron was still known a a choker and Durant has yet to bust through for a ring. LeBron is being threatened by a team led by Paul George (.556). Durant will have to get by the Spurs trio. It doesn't mean that good teams can't be helmed by super-efficient players. Miami is. The Clippers are. It does mean that they can also be helmed by non-super-efficient players. In fact most have been. Jordan has 6 rings with his .569. Kobe has 5 with his .555. Duncan 4 with his .551. Hakeem 2 with his .553. There were more efficient players than most of the greats playing when they played, but efficiency is only one part of the puzzle.
I think its actually a better more predictive trait amongst roleplayers (at least offensive ones), because its their whole purpose out there.
WRT #3, my response would be that Vasquez and Fredette did not have the same responsibilities in the system that Thomas and McCallum had, were not given the same latitude offensively, and did not have nearly as long a leash. So, in that aspect, I would agree with Padrino that it is disingenuous to say that they failed, relative to McCallum and Thomas.
Marcus Thornton failed: he was asked to score, and he did not score. Greivis Vasquez was not asked to score, so he did not "fail," in that respect. Did Fredette fail? I wouldn't say so: when he was given minutes, he was mostly productive. He simply wasn't given minutes.
Efficiency is the most important aspect of offense to everyone outside of your #1 option. Coincidentally, you only pointed out #1 options, who are treated (and should be) on a different level than anyone else because they are the focus of the defense night in and night out. Jordan's efficiency is insane, with how much defenses were focused on stopping him. Kobe had the luxury of playing with quite possibly the most dominant and effective offensive C ever in Shaq, and one of the best offensive big men in the 00's decade in Pau Gasol. Even then, Kobe's efficiency isn't atrocious. Duncan and Hakeem were never as dominant as their fellow HoF GOAT big men offensively (Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, etc), but I also consider them both top 3 defenders at any position and top 5, 2-way players of all-time.
Where efficiency shines is in the other guys. Miami doesn't win without Bosh, Battier, Anderson, Allen hitting their shots off of what Bron created for them. The Spurs trio doesn't remain nearly as dominant as they have without their machine of creating super role players like Leonard, Bellinelli, Diaw, Splitter and the army of guys from past teams.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Almost there. Just a few more steps and I'll turn you into an advanced stats guru Dean Oliver would be proud of
TS% isn't just another factor to consider among a laundry list of pro's and con's a player in evaluating a player. Its a measure of how efficiently a player scores, and when you combine that with statistics that measure volume (like Usage and Points per 36), it gives you a holistic picture of the value a player brings scoring the ball.
So lets look at some of the examples you provided compared to some roleplayers.
Jordan: .569 TS%
Duncan .551 TS%
Kobe: .555 TS%
Hakeem: .553 TS%
Tyson Chandler: .615 TS%
Kyle Korver. .590 TS%
Steve Kerr: .593 TS%
But we're not done. Now you combine it in looking at volume and the picture becomes much more clear
Jordan: 28.3 points per 36 on 33.3 USG% at .569 TS%
Duncan 20.6 points per 36 on 27.6 USG% at .551 TS%
Kobe: 25 points per 36 on 31.8 USG% at .555 TS%
Hakeem: 21.9 points per 36 on 27.1 USG% at .553 TS%
Tyson Chandler: 11 points per 36 on 13.8 USG% at .615 TS%
Kyle Korver: 13.9 points per 36 on 16.7 USG% at .590 TS%
Kerr: 12.1 points per 36 on 14.0 USG% at .593 TS%
When looking at both efficiency and volume, its obvious the latter three aren't in the same stratosphere as the former four. Dean Oliver theorized that there was a bell curve relationship between efficiency and volume for each player. And the best offensive players had the higher efficiency at higher volume. So you can't just say "Well, there's TS%, and it kind of shows something". You have to include the analysis of volume otherwise its incomplete. But when you add volume to your analysis, there is no better way to compare relative values of a player's scoring output.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Well, maybe Greivis didn't play with the same cast as Ray (who had Reggie at PF and a functional Ben at SG), but you can't say he didn't fail in comparison to Isaiah, who played with basically the same cast. Greivis was asked to go out and run a good offense. Turns out the offense was TERRIBLE with Greivis on the court. And when he left the court, the offense got MILES better. And by miles better I mean it was at roughly league average.
Grievis' plus/minus during his time in Sacramento:
Now, while it may be true that Isaiah and Greivis shared some time on the court together, I don't recall it being more than very short stints enough to skew the results.
Arguing that Greivis was anything other than terrible relative to Isaiah during is time here *is* disengenous. The team's production was worse with Greivis on the court instead of Isaiah, Demarcus' production was worse with Greivis on the court instead of Isaiah, and Greivis' production was much less than what Isaiah was bringing. Its not even close.
Thomas is asked to shoot. Vasquez was asked to pass. It's like comparing apples to bananas.
Almost there. Just a few more steps and I'll turn you into an advanced stats guru Dean Oliver would be proud of
TS% isn't just another factor to consider among a laundry list of pro's and con's a player in evaluating a player. Its a measure of how efficiently a player scores, and when you combine that with statistics that measure volume (like Usage and Points per 36), it gives you a holistic picture of the value a player brings scoring the ball.
So lets look at some of the examples you provided compared to some roleplayers.
Jordan: .569 TS%
Duncan .551 TS%
Kobe: .555 TS%
Hakeem: .553 TS%
Tyson Chandler: .615 TS%
Kyle Korver. .590 TS%
Steve Kerr: .593 TS%
But we're not done. Now you combine it in looking at volume and the picture becomes much more clear
Jordan: 28.3 points per 36 on 33.3 USG% at .569 TS%
Duncan 20.6 points per 36 on 27.6 USG% at .551 TS%
Kobe: 25 points per 36 on 31.8 USG% at .555 TS%
Hakeem: 21.9 points per 36 on 27.1 USG% at .553 TS%
Tyson Chandler: 11 points per 36 on 13.8 USG% at .615 TS%
Kyle Korver: 13.9 points per 36 on 16.7 USG% at .590 TS%
Kerr: 12.1 points per 36 on 14.0 USG% at .593 TS%
When looking at both efficiency and volume, its obvious the latter three aren't in the same stratosphere as the former four. Dean Oliver theorized that there was a bell curve relationship between efficiency and volume for each player. And the best offensive players had the higher efficiency at higher volume. So you can't just say "Well, there's TS%, and it kind of shows something". You have to include the analysis of volume otherwise its incomplete. But when you add volume to your analysis, there is no better way to compare relative values of a player's scoring output.
Wonderful. To add on to this a bit, any statistic is not meant to be a be-all-tell-all of a player. The whole purpose of statistics like TS% and USG% is to give that holistic view of a player. It just requires knowing the right combination to use for different players in different roles, such as Monkey did here with the GOATs and role players
TS% shouldn't be taken as one number, but rather used the way HighFlyingMonkey did. Sometimes #1-2 options have to take lower percentage shots, because that's all team offense can produce, and these guys are the ones, who can make tough shots, better than their teammates. Here though we are are talking about two players in similar role with Ray's being less prominent, so IT is more efficient as far as offense goes. Defense is another thing...
P.S. LeBron was threatened by 2013 George, whose offense has fallen off a cliff in 2014. Add referee guidelines, that look like supposed crackdown on "verticality rule", NBA announced a few days ago. We might witness Heat steamrolling through East this POs.
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
2013 Paul George was actually only .531 TS%. In the playoffs it was .548.
But as I say, TS% is often a distraction from other things at least as important.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Thomas and Vasquez are asked to run an efficient offense. One was league average at it and one was terrible. The reasons for that can be debated but the results are the results.
FaStRmAn
Starter
If McCallum is going to play like this for the remainder of the season, does this change what direction they go in the draft and free agency? It is possible that they have known that Ray was going to be good, and so they are playing him perhaps in hopes to keep IT's contract request number down. Some team always overpays so it might be so long for IT. With Ray at point either to start or come off the bench, it is possible they would go after a veteran FA PG who could help Ray along. IT is a good scorer but his defense will always suffer from his physical limitations. Just a case of physics.
I like McCallum's defensive effort and he has good size. I am sure that a vet PG could come in and run the team for 20-25 minutes and as Ray progresses he can gain more and more playing time. His trajectory is certainly upward.
So my question is does the emergence of Ray change the FO thinking regarding the draft and free agency? It has to make a difference knowing that Ray is solid and apparently able to play point in the NBA. Perhaps they will look at a defensive stretch 4 in the draft? Someone who can rebound and unclog the paint with a solid jumper. Wishful thinking perhaps...
I like McCallum's defensive effort and he has good size. I am sure that a vet PG could come in and run the team for 20-25 minutes and as Ray progresses he can gain more and more playing time. His trajectory is certainly upward.
So my question is does the emergence of Ray change the FO thinking regarding the draft and free agency? It has to make a difference knowing that Ray is solid and apparently able to play point in the NBA. Perhaps they will look at a defensive stretch 4 in the draft? Someone who can rebound and unclog the paint with a solid jumper. Wishful thinking perhaps...
twslam07
All-Star
Sigh
Thompson already does that. He plays solid post defense, averages 9.3 RPG per36, and he shoots above 40% from 16-23 feet. We need a shotblocking big!
I apologize for my impatience, but I'm amazed that this is still a debate for certain fans.
Last edited:
Chupacabra
Starter
^ I agree. It's great to see that McCallum CAN play starting point guard and do the things that we need our starting pg to do. McCallums play has allowed us to exclusively search for a shot blocking power forward. If we don't draft one with our first round pick this year I'm going to be FURIOUS.
Not really. You have to realize that it's all relative. Vasquez arguably ran as effective an offense as he could have, with the assets he had at his disposal: no games with Gay, minimal games with Williams (FWIW, Williams averaged 12.8pts, on 53% shooting, in the five games he played with Vasquez, and has averaged 8.4, on 43% since). He certainly didn't get any less out of McLemore, Thompson, Thornton or Outlaw than Thomas has as a starter. Comparing the teammates/roleplayers they had in common, Vasquez got either more, or exactly the same out of all of them, so there's a definite argument to be made as to which one was "average," and which one was "terrible."
Padrino
All-Star
it's entirely dependent on where the ping pong balls ultimately bounce the kings in terms of draft position. if they somehow sneak into the top-3, the apparent emergence of ray mccallum probably won't matter, as andrew wiggins, jabari parker, and joel embiid still remain the top prospects most likely to come off the board first, and it would be exceedingly difficult to imagine the kings not selecting BPA in that lucky instance...
if they did manage to score, say, the third pick in the draft lottery, then maybe the kings would buck conventional thinking and pluck dante exum a bit earlier than expected, but otherwise exum will likely be out of the kings' draft range, somewhere between 4 and 6. and that leaves marcus smart and tyler ennis as the two remaining PG prospects who could be available when the kings are on the clock. IT's contract status will still be up-in-the-air on draft day, and considering that their only other PG is a 22-year-old with a single year of [limited] nba experience, i really don't know how the kings would feel about drafting another PG (though smart does have the benefit of an additional year of collegiate experience)...
at 6'3", 190 lbs, mccallum's got pretty good size for an nba PG, but smart is 6'4", 225 lbs and an absolutely monstrous physical presence on court. however, he is limited by his lack of an outside shot and middling court vision. he's lauded for his intangibles, though, and scouts seem to really value his leadership abilities. that said, if PDA didn't want to pay up for tyreke evans, then perhaps big guards who aren't great shooters simply do not fit PDA's vision of the team (and this is where i wonder about any possible disconnect between PDA and coach malone). or perhaps he simply felt like he couldn't justify evans' asking price, and he'd be happy to bring a tough, similar kind of player like marcus smart into the fold. it's a bit hard to get a read on the gerbil sometimes...
personally, i'd be happy if the kings were in a position to grab noah vonleh, who figures to be a great defender and rebounder at the PF position. i'd also be fairly satisfied with marcus smart, because i happen to like big, physical PG's, and i think smart has the potential to be a much more vocal leader on the court than a player like tyreke evans, whose personality doesn't really allow for such a role. i'm not really all that thrilled by the prospect of the kings selecting anyone else who figures to be in their draft range, so if vonleh or smart aren't on their radar, i hope they're either prepared to trade their pick for veteran talent, or trade their pick to move down in the draft, where they could draft a guy like willie cauley-stein...
twslam07
All-Star
I wouldn't be furious. I still say you go best player available if you're the Kings and sort it out later. It's very, very important to "hit" on your draft picks even if they don't fit with your team. Because if you draft a rookie that shows well, that player will have a lot of trade value. The worst thing you can do is to not take a player who you think has a better chance at success in the NBA over a player who happens to play the right position or is a better fit. The draft is a time to accumulate as much talent as you can. Free agency and trades is where you rearrange that talent into complimentary players.
I feel like there are a couple tiers in this draft and it looks like we're projected to be right on the cusp of both.
Embiid
Wiggins
Parker
---Tier 1---
Exum
Randle
Vonleh
Smart
---Tier 2---
Ennis
Harris
Cauley-Stein
Gordon
McDermott
Anderson
---Tier 3---
We'll either be in the top 3, or we will be picking 6-11 depending on how the rest of the season plays out. If we land a top 3 pick, take one of the top 3 guys. If we land a top 7, take whoever is left of the first two tiers. If we don't land a top 7 pick, I would explore trading the pick for a veteran or trading down to get Cauley-Stein and a second round pick.
By the way, you can hit "reply" in the bottom right corner. That way you don't have to use "^" to indicate who you are replying to.
Last edited:
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
If this was true, the team offense with Vasquez at the helm would have been much better than it was with Thomas. It wasn't. The overall team offense is more important than any individual player. That's Greivis' job. Not to pad his own stats, any roleplayers' stats, or any other distraction. How good was the offense as a whole? Answer: it was terrible. And honestly I'm shocked anyone would try to argue otherwise.
And by the way, I'm just talking about the beginning of the year, when Isaiah and Greivis had the same teammates. The difference in between the two was striking.
twslam07
All-Star
I've brought this point up in another thread. With a lineup consisting of Vasquez, Thornton/McLemore, Salmons/Moute/Outlaw, Thompson/Patterson/Hayes, Cousins, there is literally no scoring threat on the floor other than Cousins, add to the fact that you don't have reliable shooters to knock down shots on the perimeter, and you have a recipe for disaster on offense. Thomas gave that unit another scoring threat which made the offense smoother since teams couldn't just solely focus on stopping Cousins. However, if Thomas is your second option, your team is going nowhere fast.
Offensively, I believe a Vasquez/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins lineup would be a better run offense than Thomas/McLemore/Gay/Thompson/Cousins because we found our #2 option in Gay. Thomas would then come off the bench and allows us to always have two scoring threats on the floor at all times. All this is kind of moot considering we never got a chance to see Vasquez with Gay in the lineup since he was shipped off in the trade that brought Gay here.
I think saying Vasquez failed here is too harsh. I would say he was setup for failure by not having another scoring threat to insert into the roster next to Cousins (AKA the team was poorly constructed at the time - I guess you can argue it still is
).
ShastaKingsFan
All-Star
I think saying Vasquez failed here is too harsh. I would say he was setup for failure by not having another scoring threat to insert into the roster next to Cousins (AKA the team was poorly constructed at the time - I guess you can argue it still is
I agree. Vasquez is distributor of the ball who looks to get other players going. Who did he have to work with? An ice cold Thornton and Patterson. John Salmons and Ben. Would be very difficult for him to have success working with those players.. at that point of the season especially.
Combine this with IT having the hottest stretch of his career at the start of the season and it made Vasquez look bad. Just unfortunate timing for him
