SacBee: Kings Thomas Needs To Find Balance

[The_Jamal]

His stats, along with his obvious improvement say otherwise.

Bring it up to Malone then? I don't know what to say. Malone obviously feels forced to play IT for 40 minutes for whatever reason. That means he's not seeing enough out of Jimmer. In practice, on the floor, etc.

 

[Npliam]

Bring it up to Malone then? I don't know what to say. Malone obviously feels forced to play IT for 40 minutes for whatever reason. That means he's not seeing enough out of Jimmer. In practice, on the floor, etc.

That is kind of where I am going. I think Malone is a decent coach but I can't quite figure out what he is doing here. I mean what would he have to lose? The Kings have the worst record in the league and they pretty much know who IT is at this point.

 

[treach1976]

Bring it up to Malone then? I don't know what to say. Malone obviously feels forced to play IT for 40 minutes for whatever reason. That means he's not seeing enough out of Jimmer. In practice, on the floor, etc.

Jimmer is what Jimmer is... and what he isn't able to do at this point is help that backup squad be successful. They suck. Is that on Jimmer? Is that on Malone for not playing him the right way? Is it both? Probably, but you are quick to discount a guy that can help a team out with his shooting / playmaking, he just isn't an all-purpose guard at this point and most likely will never be. But those are really hard to come by.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

There's a reason guys are never given a chance. The Jeremy Lin case is one in a million. That, and him being Asian, are the reason he created such a hoopla in the basketball world.

Disregarding the "hoopla," there is nothing remotely "one in a million" about what happened with Jeremy Lin. From a basketball perspective, if Jeremy Lin is "one in a million," then so is Isaiah Thomas. So, for that matter, are Steve Blake, Monta Ellis, George Hill, Jodie Meeks, Patty Mills, Ramon Sessions, Goran Dragic and Danny Green. Which is to say, not really "one in a million" at all.

Isaiah Thomas can play. But just about everybody in the NBA can play; with the exception of the international selections, there isn't anyone in the NBA that wasn't dominant at the previous level. Most of these guys can put up numbers, if you just give them minutes and touches. Could any of them average twenty points, if you gave them fifteen shots? I stand by what I've said several times before, I think that there are a lot more than you think there are.

Isaiah Thomas is good, but he's not special. He's not doing anything that's never been done, or can't be duplicated in similar circumstances. But, you know what? Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Thomas is as special as you think he is; he's still a terrible fit in the starting lineup. And this false dilemma that we have to ride him because we don't have anyone better is a total canard. In terms of talent, we don't need somebody "better." We need someone who is a better fit. Is that someone Fredette? Probably not, but it's hard to say. He's been given opportunity, but not really: he hasn't been given significant non-garbage time minutes with the starters, like Thomas has. He hasn't been given the same opportunities to play through his mistakes. If Thomas makes two mistakes in a row, he's going to get a chance to make the third, and the fourth, and the fifth. If Fredette makes two mistakes in a row, he's probably not going to see the court for the rest of the game.

Am I stumping for Fredette? **** no; I like Jimmer Fredette even less than I like Isaiah Thomas. But I'll tell you what I don't think: I don't think that a player who can do what Fredette can do is incapable of starting. I look at it this way: even if Fredette never gets any better, he's Derek Fisher: you telling me that there's no room in the NBA for the Derek Fishers of the world to start? Do I think that he could start on this team? Well, I'm not one of those people who believes that we'd only average eighty points a game, if not for Isaiah Thomas, let's put it that way. Would I start him? No, but I wouldn't start Thomas, either. Given the option of the three point guards we have, and only those three, I'd start McCallum, and give Thomas thirty-to-thirty-five minutes off the bench; I certainly don't believe that we'd be any worse than 17-34.

 

[The_Jamal]

Disregarding the "hoopla," there is nothing remotely "one in a million" about what happened with Jeremy Lin. From a basketball perspective, if Jeremy Lin is "one in a million," then so is Isaiah Thomas. So, for that matter, are Steve Blake, Monta Ellis, George Hill, Jodie Meeks, Patty Mills, Ramon Sessions, Goran Dragic and Danny Green. Which is to say, not really "one in a million" at all.

Isaiah Thomas can play. But just about everybody in the NBA can play; with the exception of the international selections, there isn't anyone in the NBA that wasn't dominant at the previous level. Most of these guys can put up numbers, if you just give them minutes and touches. Could any of them average twenty points, if you gave them fifteen shots? I stand by what I've said several times before, I think that there are a lot more than you think there are.

Isaiah Thomas is good, but he's not special. He's not doing anything that's never been done, or can't be duplicated in similar circumstances. But, you know what? Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Thomas is as special as you think he is; he's still a terrible fit in the starting lineup. And this false dilemma that we have to ride him because we don't have anyone better is a total canard. In terms of talent, we don't need somebody "better." We need someone who is a better fit. Is that someone Fredette? Probably not, but it's hard to say. He's been given opportunity, but not really: he hasn't been given significant non-garbage time minutes with the starters, like Thomas has. He hasn't been given the same opportunities to play through his mistakes. If Thomas makes two mistakes in a row, he's going to get a chance to make the third, and the fourth, and the fifth. If Fredette makes two mistakes in a row, he's probably not going to see the court for the rest of the game.

Am I stumping for Fredette? **** no; I like Jimmer Fredette even less than I like Isaiah Thomas. But I'll tell you what I don't think: I don't think that a player who can do what Fredette can do is incapable of starting. I look at it this way: even if Fredette never gets any better, he's Derek Fisher: you telling me that there's no room in the NBA for the Derek Fishers of the world to start? Do I think that he could start on this team? Well, I'm not one of those people who believes that we'd only average eighty points a game, if not for Isaiah Thomas, let's put it that way. Would I start him? No, but I wouldn't start Thomas, either. Given the option of the three point guards we have, and only those three, I'd start McCallum, and give Thomas thirty-to-thirty-five minutes off the bench; I certainly don't believe that we'd be any worse than 17-34.

We simply will always disagree about the ability to score. While his efficiency has gone down, what he was doing at the beginning of the year was in the top 5% of scorers in the league. I don't think that's easily repeatable under the right circumstance.

I've never, ever, ever said IT was a franchise cornerstone. What I do recognize him as is one of the most talented scorers in the league and a capable ball-distributor. Also oddly enough, even though it's widely assumed of me, I haven't pushed for him to be a starter either. He needs to be a 2nd option on a team and we already got it covered. A noticeable trait of recent bigs 3s (Boston, Miami etc) is the 3rd guy was completely comfortable being an off-ball shooter. Allen and Bosh. Both guys got/get some chances to score, but they are primarily on the floor to serve to compliment the 2 main guys.

The solution for me is to turn IT into what Manu became for the Spurs. Has absolute control over the 2nd unit and always gives the 2nd unit a big advantage over every other team. Of course, the Spurs are an institution of basketball and it's a lot easier to give up some personal pride if you know you're going to be a contender for 15 straight years

 

[The_Jamal]

That is kind of where I am going. I think Malone is a decent coach but I can't quite figure out what he is doing here. I mean what would he have to lose? The Kings have the worst record in the league and they pretty much know who IT is at this point.

Might just be a coaching trait of his? If you don't show it in practice, you're not going to see the floor kind of a thing.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

We simply will always disagree about the ability to score. While his efficiency has gone down, what he was doing at the beginning of the year was in the top 5% of scorers in the league. I don't think that's easily repeatable under the right circumstance.

I suspect that we shall also disagree as to the importance of scoring, particularly from the point guard position. A "scoring" point guard holds little value to me. And, even if I agreed with you that Thomas was a special player as a scorer (which I don't), I would not grok that to be a goodness from a point guard.

 

[Hadlowe]

I suspect that we shall also disagree as to the importance of scoring, particularly from the point guard position. A "scoring" point guard holds little value to me. And, even if I agreed with you that Thomas was a special player as a scorer (which I don't), I would not grok that to be a goodness from a point guard.

The bottom line for me is that when your team is built around the assumption that your point guard will get you 20 points per game, that is the single easiest position to stop with just a lineup/matchup change. Thabo Sefalosha > Isaiah Thomas. It's the reason I suspect that the Blazers and Warriors are in for a rude awakening come playoff time.

Bring that scoring guard off the bench, though, and have him run roughshod over opposing benches, and you've got a viable scoring threat that isn't easy to stop.

 

[The_Jamal]

I suspect that we shall also disagree as to the importance of scoring, particularly from the point guard position. A "scoring" point guard holds little value to me. And, even if I agreed with you that Thomas was a special player as a scorer (which I don't), I would not grok that to be a goodness from a point guard.

Absolutely. You've made it clear you don't give 3 cents about efficiency and I value over everything except having a dominant #1 option.

The bottom line for me is that when your team is built around the assumption that your point guard will get you 20 points per game, that is the single easiest position to stop with just a lineup/matchup change. Thabo Sefalosha > Isaiah Thomas. It's the reason I suspect that the Blazers and Warriors are in for a rude awakening come playoff time.

Bring that scoring guard off the bench, though, and have him run roughshod over opposing benches, and you've got a viable scoring threat that isn't easy to stop.

uhh Russell Westbrook?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

How'd that work out for OKC last year, when they no longer had the ability to get twenty points out of the point guard position? Counting on your point guard to score twenty has not shown to be a championship winning proposition.

 

[The_Jamal]

How'd that work out for OKC last year, when they no longer had the ability to get twenty points out of the point guard position? Counting on your point guard to score twenty has not shown to be a championship winning proposition.

Cause of an injury? Really hard to blame them for crumbling to an elite defensive squad without Amigo #2.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

My argument would be that, if that team were properly balanced, Westbrook wouldn't be their #2. No team can withstand the loss of their second-best player, especially not in the playoffs, but I would contend that, if your second-best player is your point guard, you're built wrong and, unless you play defense like the Bad Boy Pistons, your failure is inevitable.

 

[mac]

My argument would be that, if that team were properly balanced, Westbrook wouldn't be their #2. No team can withstand the loss of their second-best player, especially not in the playoffs, but I would contend that, if your second-best player is your point guard, you're built wrong and, unless you play defense like the Bad Boy Pistons, your failure is inevitable.

What about Spurs with Parker though? He doesn't give them 20 points but he's their best player

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

What about the Spurs with Parker? I'm sorry, did they win the championship? They had a shot, and couldn't close the deal. Just like the Thunder had a shot, and couldn't close the deal.

Back in the previous decade, when the Spurs still played elite, championship-level defense, they might have won a championship with Parker as their best player (and even when he was awarded Finals MVP in 2007, Duncan was still their best player that year), but these Spurs don't play defense like those Spurs. They don't defend well enough to win a title with a point guard as their best player.

 

[Hadlowe]

uhh Russell Westbrook?

Westbrook is also the size of a shooting guard.

The injury is something to consider with Westbrook, Rose and the hyperathletic point guards of this era. There's a growing sense that these leapers are putting so much strain on their lower bodies that they are breaking down very early in their careers.

When Andre Miller was asked a few years back how he was so durable, he laughed a little and said "I don't jump." I have to think there's something to that.

 

[ParniValjak]

I don't think there's any denying IT needs to find a balance. The 6th man version of himself at the beginning of the year correlated to him being one of the most valuable players in the NBA. But he got to be Iverson on the bench. He's now expected to be Nash or Rondo, especially with 2 ball-dominant, high USG% players with him in the starting 5. But there's also more to the story than IT being a "selfish stat monger" or whatever you kids call him these days.

Why does Malone let him operate the way he does? Why so many minutes? Why have we not tried something different from the 1-4 flat at the end of the games? We're obviously missing pieces to the puzzle with this story and the signs point to us simply not having any other option but to hope he learns to adjust his game. It's not like we have a huge $10mil salary attached to Thomas (yet) where we have to get value out of him. He's the 2nd best bargain contract in the NBA under Parsons currently.

However, we have seen signs of him coming around. When he wants to be, he's a top-tier passer and creator for others. He's shown the ability to have restraint and get others involved. There's been moments of defensive excellence. It's just not Consistent right now. As with developing any PG, there are going to be growing pains. And like most of our hold-overs from the previous regime, it's hard to really count those years as "development" for them.

Why haven't we tried something else different? Why doesn't he play less minutes? Its because we have no other options. Jimmer has a solid game then he stinks it up the next 5. Not to mention that we are hiding him like there is no tomorrow on defense.

If as you seem to claim Malone wants him to play extended minutes. Malone plays him extended minutes because he has no one else he trusts or that he can rely on.

Here is a question for you then. Why did Malone start Vasquez instead of IT when we had both? Why despite IT outperforming Vasquez did Malone continue to play Vasquez and IT was getting around 25mpg?

This is despite us only having Cousins and IT who could consistently score. I have no doubt that if we still had Vasquez, he would be starting and IT would be coming off the bench. It is also one of the reasons why are are constantly in rumors that we are looking for a pass first PG. Its why we have had interest in Miller and we reportedly have interest in Rondo.

IT is a very talented player. A talented scorer. He has always been a shoot first, pass later player. That has not changed this year, nor will it change in the future. It goes completely against his basketball instinct. He can contain himself for a couple of games, then he is back to Iverson mode.

I am of the opinion that our front office and coaching staff really like Isaiah but they think he is best suited to the role he played to star the season. Thats the role he is best suited to and it suits us much better as a team. Especially with Gay here as another scorer. Sometimes its not about talent. It is also about fit. Its part of the reason why Ginobili comes off the bench for San Antonio. IT might not like it, but no matter where he ends, chances are that he will be a dynamite 6th man off the bench on that team. Especially if he wants to play on a winner.

I like IT. I would absolutely LOVE to keep him as a 6th man dynamite that he was to start of the season. If I can get a half competent PG who can run the team, 3 and D to start the team, we can then have IT-DMC or IT-Gay or IT-Gay-DMC on the court a lot of the time. It allows us to have 2 scorers on the court all the time. I think that is the model that the front office would like to build. Now if that PG could also guard SGs, it gives us a LOT more flexibility.

 

[mac]

What about the Spurs with Parker? I'm sorry, did they win the championship? They had a shot, and couldn't close the deal. Just like the Thunder had a shot, and couldn't close the deal.

Back in the previous decade, when the Spurs still played elite, championship-level defense, they might have won a championship with Parker as their best player (and even when he was awarded Finals MVP in 2007, Duncan was still their best player that year), but these Spurs don't play defense like those Spurs. They don't defend well enough to win a title with a point guard as their best player.

They were literally a rebound away from winning it though. To me that seems good enough to kinda not be "built the wrong way"... However, I agree with you that generally your PG shouldn't be your best player. The Spurs are the exception IMO just in terms of how team-oriented they are.

 

[Hadlowe]

They were literally a rebound away from winning it though. To me that seems good enough to kinda not be "built the wrong way"... However, I agree with you that generally your PG shouldn't be your best player. The Spurs are the exception IMO just in terms of how team-oriented they are.

Everything Popovich does is the exception that proves the rule. You shouldn't build a team around a point guard, unless you have Popovich. You shouldn't take on a bunch of scrubs with one notable skill, unless you have Popovich. You shouldn't re-sign an over the hill future hall of famer to a long contract, unless you have Popovich.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Are we far enough into landry's tenure to start in on him? Does he deserve his own topic? Cause I'd like to know what is going on there. Will he ever score in double digits? I mean, in one game, not over a week.

I'm fine with moving some heat off our pg, cause at least he's a productive nba player. But Landry? Is he healthy? Cause he's a been invisible so far. That's our big free agent signing folks! Remember, this offseason? He's not left over from the maloof era, although it sure seems like it.

If this FO will throw 28 million at a 30 year old undersized whatever he is, what will they toss at a 24 year old 5'9 guy putting up huge numbers? A max contract? That's only partially a joke.

No kidding, the Landry signing is looking indefensible now. My best guess was that he was meant to provide bench scoring when Cousins sits, as well as some veteran leadership, yet now he's back and both of these seem to remain glaring weaknesses during this awful stretch.

 

[mac]

Everything Popovich does is the exception that proves the rule. You shouldn't build a team around a point guard, unless you have Popovich. You shouldn't take on a bunch of scrubs with one notable skill, unless you have Popovich. You shouldn't re-sign an over the hill future hall of famer to a long contract, unless you have Popovich.

I thus conclude that we should acquire Gregg Popovich!

 

[fanop]

Thomas does his thing day in and day out. Lately, I've noticed he's been trying to run more offensive setsand distribute the ball. I think IT is capable of being a starter on our team if we didn't have Gay and had a better defensive lineup. People blame IT for our lack off ball movement, but tend to forget that our 1st/2nd best players have an iso offense. There's nothing we can do about that unless they're willing to pass out, but them going 1 on 1 is their best game.

I don't want to move forward with all 3 players in our team. Each player always has to/wants to have a big night. The problem is, all 3 are ball dominant players and not enough role players. Outlaw could be such a good role player for teams if he didn't have such a low bball iq. He's a decent defender who passes. I think on a different team he could be a 10ppg 3rebs type of player.

 

[King Baller]

Might just be a coaching trait of his? If you don't show it in practice, you're not going to see the floor kind of a thing.

The issue that I have with that approach is you never find the rare "Gamer". Practice is practice and games are games. Some guys are good in practice but not in games, Douby for example. Some are good at both. There are some people who play above their head in game situations. The only way to find that out are to let them play. Often you have to let them play through mistakes.

I'm ready for Malone to shake up the line up. he should start Ray or Jimmer for 10 games or so and bring the Pizza Guy off the bench. If that does not work try the other guy as a starter. If Pete makes a trade try that guy as a starter. What is the worst thing that could happen? Lose to the Cavs?

By the way even tonight IT put up two more shots than Cousins or Gay!

 

[Padrino]

We simply will always disagree about the ability to score. While his efficiency has gone down, what he was doing at the beginning of the year was in the top 5% of scorers in the league. I don't think that's easily repeatable under the right circumstance.

I've never, ever, ever said IT was a franchise cornerstone. What I do recognize him as is one of the most talented scorers in the league and a capable ball-distributor. Also oddly enough, even though it's widely assumed of me, I haven't pushed for him to be a starter either. He needs to be a 2nd option on a team and we already got it covered. A noticeable trait of recent bigs 3s (Boston, Miami etc) is the 3rd guy was completely comfortable being an off-ball shooter. Allen and Bosh. Both guys got/get some chances to score, but they are primarily on the floor to serve to compliment the 2 main guys.

The solution for me is to turn IT into what Manu became for the Spurs. Has absolute control over the 2nd unit and always gives the 2nd unit a big advantage over every other team. Of course, the Spurs are an institution of basketball and it's a lot easier to give up some personal pride if you know you're going to be a contender for 15 straight years

yeah, what he was doing at the beginning of the year was impressive (if we except the defensive side of the ball completely), but it was also never sustainable. and it's sustainability that separates the truly special talents in the league from those who simply end up on the right side of a hot streak. since "the beginning of the year," isaiah thomas has returned to his career percentages, both raw and advanced, but with the benefit of a considerable increase in minutes per game...

 

[The_Jamal]

yeah, what he was doing at the beginning of the year was impressive (if we except the defensive side of the ball completely), but it was also never sustainable. and it's sustainability that separates the truly special talents in the league from those who simply end up on the right side of a hot streak. since "the beginning of the year," isaiah thomas has returned to his career percentages, both raw and advanced, but with the benefit of a considerable increase in minutes per game...

Well, I'd still happily debate that his career averages are still in the upper-tier of scorers in the league, but I wouldn't necessarily say that if he had stayed on the bench, that his numbers would have regressed back to career means. Starting VS better defenders, more minutes= less efficiency. Him going chuck city for 2 weeks when Gay and Cuz were out really didn't help either. Get him back to 14 shots a game and I'd be willing to bet the efficiency rises again.

 

[Padrino]

Well, I'd still happily debate that his career averages are still in the upper-tier of scorers in the league, but I wouldn't necessarily say that if he had stayed on the bench, that his numbers would have regressed back to career means. Starting VS better defenders, more minutes= less efficiency. Him going chuck city for 2 weeks when Gay and Cuz were out really didn't help either. Get him back to 14 shots a game and I'd be willing to bet the efficiency rises again.

sure, but then we're not really talking about some kind of lofty, special offensive talent (as you've often characterized IT), are we? we're talking about a player that you have to put a nice, tight, short leash on in order to keep him at his most effective. i'm 100% on board with the notion of eventually returning thomas to a sixth man's role, of course, because it would make for a more balanced rotation, and it would mean that the kings could fairly pay him about $5-$7 million per...

 

[Chubbs]

Well, I'd still happily debate that his career averages are still in the upper-tier of scorers in the league, but I wouldn't necessarily say that if he had stayed on the bench, that his numbers would have regressed back to career means. Starting VS better defenders, more minutes= less efficiency. Him going chuck city for 2 weeks when Gay and Cuz were out really didn't help either. Get him back to 14 shots a game and I'd be willing to bet the efficiency rises again.

You know, first it was not enough minutes, then it's too many minutes.

If he's the star, leader of the team, etc then we should not be talking about limiting his minutes to be effective, right? That's pulling back quite a bit from earlier statements about his star power.

I just can't shake the feeling that the man himself thinks he a major star. It's coming from the broadcast team, from written media as well. I don't know what to about that. He's best off the bench, but we've given him free reign for too long to do whatever he pleases. And frankly, his numbers are massive. Who wants to try to talk him into returning to the bench? You want to tell him he's not worth more than Will or Landry? That's a tough sell at this point. I can't convince myself of that either.

This team is too limited talent wise for the stars to not show up. Right now, rudy and cuz aren't playing with any passion. Hopefully it's just an aberration.

 

[Glenn]

You know, first it was not enough minutes, then it's too many minutes.

If he's the star, leader of the team, etc then we should not be talking about limiting his minutes to be effective, right? That's pulling back quite a bit from earlier statements about his star power.

I just can't shake the feeling that the man himself thinks he a major star. It's coming from the broadcast team, from written media as well. I don't know what to about that. He's best off the bench, but we've given him free reign for too long to do whatever he pleases. And frankly, his numbers are massive. Who wants to try to talk him into returning to the bench? You want to tell him he's not worth more than Will or Landry? That's a tough sell at this point. I can't convince myself of that either.

This team is too limited talent wise for the stars to not show up. Right now, rudy and cuz aren't playing with any passion. Hopefully it's just an aberration.

Last night in response to a question about fans being critical of him he in so many words said that Kobe and Lebron are critized also. Whatever that meant. Even without that comment, I DO think IT over-rates himself and that is outright delusional.

 

[Chubbs]

There was a lot of talk in that interview about him being the leader of the team, as he goes everyone goes. If that's what he's hearing from the coaches, then, well, I better start getting used to him I guess, cause that doesn't sound like a guy going anywhere to me.

 

[The_Jamal]

sure, but then we're not really talking about some kind of lofty, special offensive talent (as you've often characterized IT), are we? we're talking about a player that you have to put a nice, tight, short leash on in order to keep him at his most effective. i'm 100% on board with the notion of eventually returning thomas to a sixth man's role, of course, because it would make for a more balanced rotation, and it would mean that the kings could fairly pay him about $5-$7 million per...

14 shots is a nice tight leash? That's news to me. That range is exactly where most #2 options in the NBA are.

The difference is beginning of the year IT was approaching the realm of Durant, Bron, and Steph territory. (This is me talking about scoring the ball. Not comparing the players) Which is to say , absolutely nuts. Even IT scaling back to his career averages, he's still one of the top PG scorers in the NBA (no small feat in today's NBA)

http://www.basketball-reference.com...014&p5=parketo01&y5=2014&p6=curryst01&y6=2014

There's his comparison to who are widely considered the top offensive scoring PG's in the league. You can argue the list obviously, but a majority of lists will include those guys. And the only one who stands ahead of Thomas is Curry. (Again, this is me talking about SCORING. Nothing else. So no trying to con volute my argument )

2nd in FT attempts, 2nd in efficiency. And if you balance the FG attempts/36, he's actually 5th on the list.

 

[The_Jamal]

You know, first it was not enough minutes, then it's too many minutes.

If he's the star, leader of the team, etc then we should not be talking about limiting his minutes to be effective, right? That's pulling back quite a bit from earlier statements about his star power.

I just can't shake the feeling that the man himself thinks he a major star. It's coming from the broadcast team, from written media as well. I don't know what to about that. He's best off the bench, but we've given him free reign for too long to do whatever he pleases. And frankly, his numbers are massive. Who wants to try to talk him into returning to the bench? You want to tell him he's not worth more than Will or Landry? That's a tough sell at this point. I can't convince myself of that either.

This team is too limited talent wise for the stars to not show up. Right now, rudy and cuz aren't playing with any passion. Hopefully it's just an aberration.

There's a huge difference between getting played 40+ MPG and a consistent 34 MPG and then comparing that to getting the 27 MPG he was getting previously off the bench. Especially at the PG position, as it's evolved into mega-quick athletes, it takes a lot of energy to play the position.