What is our PG worth? SI takes a stab at it.

bajaden

Hall of Famer
That article and those stats don't being to tell the whole story and I'd go as far to say it's an insult to the other nine guys on that list to compare IT to them. The larger picture and IT's fit has been debated from numerous angles around here so no point in going into it all yet again. But it's quite a one-sided article and doesn't touch on fit or obvious weaknesses. This is a great example of simply looking at stats being entirely misleading.

Aykis has been on of IT's biggest fans for awhile now. STR bans members who aren't on the IT train. There's a reason Reynolds and STR have a working relationship. Also a reason why Aykis and Bruski are good friends. Cut from the same cloth in regards to overvaluing stats and in drawing comparisons between IT and All Stars/HOFers.

If IT was as good as those stats suggest and as good as Aykis/Bruski believe, he'd had received a helluva lot more interest at the deadline.


I still say he's largely a 6th man, probably a top 5 6th man in the right situation or a guy who could have some success starting for a handful of teams around the league in the right situation. That situation isn't as a starter next to Rudy/Boogie though.

What are we, 0-10 without Boogie when IT starts? That doesn't happen with any of the other 9 players in that list.

This isn't meant to be a knock on Tyreke, but that chart reminds me of when they were putting Tyreke in the same company with Oscar Robertson when Tyreke was on his way to a 20/5/5 year. Water always finds its level.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Since I wasn't aware (nor do I really care ;) ) about the STR backstory, I simply posted the link to the article. It brings up some points that are, I think, worthy of discussion/debate. If Aykis is, in fact, that much of an IT jocker, there are at least a couple of participants in this thread who should be happy to have another positive IT take.
Rainmaker is correct. Aykis can't mention IT's name without slobbering all over himself, or herself. But I guess if you have the bully pulpit, you might as well use it.
 
This isn't meant to be a knock on Tyreke, but that chart reminds me of when they were putting Tyreke in the same company with Oscar Robertson when Tyreke was on his way to a 20/5/5 year. Water always finds its level.
Yes and it would also be akin to putting out an article about how impressive three guys averaging 20/20/20 is, without a backdrop and going into how unsuccessful that strategy is.

I don't mind stats, but context is always appreciated. What I do mind is concentrating on and marketing around stats on a losing/lottery team. The previous regime did that and we're seeing it now as well. Unless it's a far and away dominant talent like Boogie where the talent/statistical achievements are clear, I see it as trying to distract from the situation at large and meant to drum up excitement amid another losing season.
 

funkykingston

Super Moderator
Staff member
Since I wasn't aware (nor do I really care ;) ) about the STR backstory, I simply posted the link to the article. It brings up some points that are, I think, worthy of discussion/debate. If Aykis is, in fact, that much of an IT jocker, there are at least a couple of participants in this thread who should be happy to have another positive IT take.
If you look at the stats posted for the nine players in the comparison IT is also the worst rebounder, had the 2nd lowest steal rate (0.1 above Brandon Roy), the worst Defensive rating, the lowest Defensive win share (1.1 compared to Frazier's 12.8, Wade's 10.8 or Paul's 10.7) and the lowest FG%. For what it's worth he also has the lowest APG of those players.

All of that is to validate what we all see with our own eyes each game. IT is a talented scorer who shoots well from outside and gets to rim incredibly well. He's a sparkplug scorer, not really a facilitator or "true PG" and pretty poor defensively.

As a side note from 1985-2003 John Stockton AVERAGED a PER of 21.8, an assist percentage double that of the players in that list at an amazing 50% and a true shooting percentage of 60% with a much higher defensive rating, a defensive win share 3 times higher and 10.5 assists per game despite a USG% 4.5% LOWER than IT.

Is it unfair to compare IT to a HOFer like Stockton? Yep. Just as unfair as cherry picking stats to make it seem like he belongs alongside Magic Johnson, Walt Frazier, Chris Paul etc.

Isaiah Thomas is a very gifted scorer who plays with great hustle and heart. He's accomplished more than anyone ever thought he would in the NBA and is continuing to improve. But let's be realistic about what he is and isn't.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the stats posted for the nine players in the comparison IT is also the worst rebounder, had the 2nd lowest steal rate (0.1 above Brandon Roy), the worst Defensive rating, the lowest Defensive win share (1.1 compared to Frazier's 12.8, Wade's 10.8 or Paul's 10.7) and the lowest FG%. For what it's worth he also has the lowest APG of those players.

All of that is to validate what we all see with our own eyes each game. IT is a talented scorer who shoots well from outside and gets to rim incredibly well. He's a sparkplug scorer, not really a facilitator or "true PG" and pretty poor defensively.

As a side note from 1985-2003 John Stockton AVERAGED a PER of 21.8, an assist percentage double that of the players in that list at an amazing 50% and a true shooting percentage of 60% with a much higher defensive rating, a defensive win share 3 times higher and 10.5 assists per game despite a USG% 4.5% LOWER than IT.

Is it unfair to compare IT to a HOFer like Stockton? Yep. Just as unfair as cherry picking stats to make it seem like he belongs alongside Magic Johnson, Walt Frazier, Chris Paul etc.

Isaiah Thomas is a very gifted scorer who plays with great hustle and heart. He's accomplished more than anyone ever thought he would in the NBA and is continuing to improve. But let's be realistic about what he is and isn't.
Clearly, you're the one looking to take the article out of context.

Stats are what you make them to be. Aykis isn't comparing IT to the players on the list. He's using the list as apart of a line of evidence for IT being a strong starter in the NBA. You know, the way it should be to back up an assertion.

Also, you want to talk about cherry-picking? PER, TS%, AST%, and TOV% are 4 of the best stats to measure an offensive player. Aykis used 3 of them. You on the other hand cherry-picked some of the worst ways of measuring a player with FG%, STL%, APG, defensive rating and even worse, defensive win shares.
 

funkykingston

Super Moderator
Staff member
Clearly, you're the one looking to take the article out of context.

Stats are what you make them to be. Aykis isn't comparing IT to the players on the list. He's using the list as apart of a line of evidence for IT being a strong starter in the NBA. You know, the way it should be to back up an assertion.

Also, you want to talk about cherry-picking? PER, TS%, AST%, and TOV% are 4 of the best stats to measure an offensive player. Aykis used 3 of them. You on the other hand cherry-picked some of the worst ways of measuring a player with FG%, STL%, APG, defensive rating and even worse, defensive win shares.
We can argue the validity of different stats all we want, that wasn't really the point of my post.

The evidence (statistical or observational) shows that IT is a strong scorer, a mediocre distributor/facilitator (as PGs go) and a poor defender. He's putting up great offensive numbers on a team that is near the bottom of the league in most defensive categories and has plummeted to the bottom of the league in assists in the last few months.

Your defense is that the stats chosen are great for measuring offensive productivity. And I'm saying that offensive productivity isn't what I want out of the starting PG on a team featuring DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay.
 
Last edited:

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Yes and it would also be akin to putting out an article about how impressive three guys averaging 20/20/20 is, without a backdrop and going into how unsuccessful that strategy is.

I don't mind stats, but context is always appreciated. What I do mind is concentrating on and marketing around stats on a losing/lottery team. The previous regime did that and we're seeing it now as well. Unless it's a far and away dominant talent like Boogie where the talent/statistical achievements are clear, I see it as trying to distract from the situation at large and meant to drum up excitement amid another losing season.
Please stop the hypocrisy. So stats aren't useful (for IT) unless you deem them useful (for Cousins)? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to make the "losing team argument", then great, let's get rid of them ALL, including Cousins. Every single last one. But don't put Cousins' stats in some super special secret category because, well, you know, he's Cousins, and you like Cousins, so he's special and therefore his stats should be viewed as credible, whereas IT, you know, is not special, and therefore his stats shouldn't be viewed as credible. That's pure BS.
 
The only statistic that matters to me is that we simply don't win. If IT was really that good we should have at least 35-40 wins right now. Well we don't and that is a telling sign. He's a great offensive player and has achieved much more than I thought he ever could, but his game is not suited for on court chemistry or winning, at least as a starter. I'm not at all pinning all of our losses on IT but considering his self proclaimed I'm a leader role and his usage rate, he certainly is a big part of the problem.
 
Please stop the hypocrisy. So stats aren't useful (for IT) unless you deem them useful (for Cousins)? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to make the "losing team argument", then great, let's get rid of them ALL, including Cousins. Every single last one. But don't put Cousins' stats in some super special secret category because, well, you know, he's Cousins, and you like Cousins, so he's special and therefore his stats should be viewed as credible, whereas IT, you know, is not special, and therefore his stats shouldn't be viewed as credible. That's pure BS.
well... that's sorta the difference between a franchise cornerstone and a support talent, no? 18-19 with cousins/gay/thomas. 0-10 without cousins. it speaks volumes.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I can't believe that this discussion is still going on. I'm not sure I have the mental endurance for it. That's assuming that I have a mind at all. o_O
 
Please stop the hypocrisy. So stats aren't useful (for IT) unless you deem them useful (for Cousins)? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to make the "losing team argument", then great, let's get rid of them ALL, including Cousins. Every single last one. But don't put Cousins' stats in some super special secret category because, well, you know, he's Cousins, and you like Cousins, so he's special and therefore his stats should be viewed as credible, whereas IT, you know, is not special, and therefore his stats shouldn't be viewed as credible. That's pure BS.
You're main issue is after months of debating this issue, you still fail to understand the argument. People have tried to hold your hand and walk you through it, but at this point I think there's little hope. If you can't tell the difference between the talent which is DeMarcus Cousins, in comparison to the talent which is Isaiah Thomas and why comparing stats between them isn't an apple to apple comparison, you'll never get it.

I'm not regurgitating this entire debate yet again.
 
I can't believe that this discussion is still going on. I'm not sure I have the mental endurance for it. That's assuming that I have a mind at all. o_O
Ideally we'd be talking about playoff basketball and the trajectory we're on, yet when spring after spring we're stuck discussing lottery balls, these types of discussions tend to go round and round.

I think we'd all love something else to talk about at this time of year. This lottery crap pisses me off. But, it's also on the FO and the team to give us something else to talk about. Royce White doesn't do it for me. When they produce a winner, I'd guess we'd all be talking post season basketball and not having these same, tired debates.
 
Ideally we'd be talking about playoff basketball and the trajectory we're on, yet when spring after spring we're stuck discussing lottery balls, these types of discussions tend to go round and round.

I think we'd all love something else to talk about at this time of year. This lottery crap pisses me off. But, it's also on the FO and the team to give us something else to talk about. Royce White doesn't do it for me. When they produce a winner, I'd guess we'd all be talking post season basketball and not having these same, tired debates.
The FO did take over a very bad team last year, and it hasn't even been a full year since they did.

This team is playing much better following the acquisition of gay. This is a franchise that hasn't had a 30 win season since the 2007-2008 season, so it's certainly going to take more than one off season to fix all of that.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
The FO did take over a very bad team last year, and it hasn't even been a full year since they did.

This team is playing much better following the acquisition of gay. This is a franchise that hasn't had a 30 win season since the 2007-2008 season, so it's certainly going to take more than one off season to fix all of that.
Which is what makes the IT situation all that more important. Offering a guy who's one leg injury away from being utterly useless a large above-his-paygrade contract is something that could potentially torpedo the franchise (which is kinda the same reason that I was fine with not matching Reke's contract, though that was to a lesser extent as he at least offers length and defense).
 
I can't believe that this discussion is still going on. I'm not sure I have the mental endurance for it. That's assuming that I have a mind at all. o_O
The frustrating thing about this debate is that IT fans are defending him as if others do not think he's a good player. We all know he can play. Some just don't think he's a good fit for our roster. Every team would love to have an IT because of his spark, grit and scoring ability. But most teams can't afford to have a PG who doesnt look to make the whole team better before trying to get their's.

It's not entirely about ppg and assists. It's about game flow. Knowing when to try to take over a game and knowing when to get other players the ball so they have the confidence late in the game when you need them.
 
Which is what makes the IT situation all that more important. Offering a guy who's one leg injury away from being utterly useless a large above-his-paygrade contract is something that could potentially torpedo the franchise (which is kinda the same reason that I was fine with not matching Reke's contract, though that was to a lesser extent as he at least offers length and defense).
That's the major issue. If the Kings can retain Thomas for cheap, great, but that's far from guaranteed. Do the QO and wait to see what the market is for Thomas.

If you lose Thomas, you sign D.J. Augustin, who is on Thomas' tier for scoring point guards and should be available for a mini-MLE level contract as long as you offer him a couple of years. If we had better wing ball-handlers, I would suggest chasing Mario Chalmers, but I don't trust him to run an offense with McLemore and the turnover prone Gay.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Which is what makes the IT situation all that more important. Offering a guy who's one leg injury away from being utterly useless a large above-his-paygrade contract is something that could potentially torpedo the franchise (which is kinda the same reason that I was fine with not matching Reke's contract, though that was to a lesser extent as he at least offers length and defense).
You can't worry too much about that sort of thing for a 25yr old guy with no injury history. Tough little nut too. We do have to quit plying him 40min a night though. That's just asking for it eventually.

Now IT's next contract when he's 29 will be the interesting one for somebody. Little guys always begin slowing down in their early 30s and you don't want to be caught holding the bag.
 
Aykis has been on of IT's biggest fans for awhile now. STR bans members who aren't on the IT train. There's a reason Reynolds and STR have a working relationship. Also a reason why Aykis and Bruski are good friends. Cut from the same cloth in regards to overvaluing stats and in drawing comparisons between IT and All Stars/HOFers.
Rainmaker is correct. Aykis can't mention IT's name without slobbering all over himself, or herself. But I guess if you have the bully pulpit, you might as well use it.
Its always amusing to hear this kind of stuff about more well-known commentators coming from people inside their comfy little echo chambers. Especially when its hyperbolic horse doodoo like the above.

Now, its really easy to start exaggerating about someone or another's opinions about a certain player or another. Easy to say someone "slobbers" over IT when that person isn't around to defend himself. I have to say though, its rather cowardly. Sounds like someone doesn't want their opinion challenged.
 
Its always amusing to hear this kind of stuff about more well-known commentators coming from people inside their comfy little echo chambers. Especially when its hyperbolic horse doodoo like the above.

Now, its really easy to start exaggerating about someone or another's opinions about a certain player or another. Easy to say someone "slobbers" over IT when that person isn't around to defend himself. I have to say though, its rather cowardly. Sounds like someone doesn't want their opinion challenged.
now this sounds hyperbolic to me; there are certainly more than enough individuals "slobbering" over IT right here on this forum to challenge the opinions of those who aren't nearly as taken by the public representative of a fairly mediocre local pizza chain...

:p
 
now this sounds hyperbolic to me; there are certainly more than enough individuals "slobbering" over IT right here on this forum to challenge the opinions of those who aren't nearly as taken by the public representative of a fairly mediocre local pizza chain...

:p
Ah, if all posters were created equal you would have a point. But I think you know as well as I do that they aren't. ;)
 
now this sounds hyperbolic to me; there are certainly more than enough individuals "slobbering" over IT right here on this forum to challenge the opinions of those who aren't nearly as taken by the public representative of a fairly mediocre local pizza chain...

:p

Saying there are more than enough individuals slobbering over IT on this forum is hyperbole.
 
Ah, if all posters were created equal you would have a point. But I think you know as well as I do that they aren't. ;)
haha, indeed they aren't. and that's the trouble with the "RUDY" storyline, right? americans are fundamentally drawn to the underdog narrative, and to a fault; it's why you hear so many abstract descriptors applied to isaiah thomas, his possession of a limitless supply of "heart" being the most prevalent among them. he's very undersized, and thus his tunnel-visioned drives to the basket are characterized as brave and tough because he's doing so amongst players who are much bigger and much taller than he is...

compare that grant- and jerry-sponsored narrative for isaiah thomas to a full-sized, strong, physical talent like tyreke evans, whose tunnel-visioned drives to the basket were often characterized as bull-headed and selfish during his time in sacramento. yet both players are strong finishers at the rim, and both prefer to make that play at the rim rather than pass out of it, though evans' size has always been an underrated asset in those drive-and-kick situations. but one of these two has "heart," and the other is "selfish."

my point is simply that the passionate rah-rah'ing of the "RUDY" narrative will always drown out a more sensible discussion about how an overabundance of offensively-inclined talent fits together on this defensively-deficient roster, and that is why we see the backlash to IT-mania. that is why we see so many at kf.com overstepping in their criticism of IT, however warranted that criticism may be. when one is met with unproductive hyperbole, one often responds in kind...
 
If that's slobbering, then I rarely see much of it in regards to IT.
It's not as prevalent as it used to be. His rookie season, the slobbering was pretty bad, in part because Tyreke wasn't making serious progress and Jimmer was bad, so any ray of hope was something to latch on to. I still think that Smart moving Tyreke to the 3 and starting IT and letting him dominate the ball was the biggest (of many) mistakes that he made while coaching here.

Most posters here like IT, but don't like the constant rah-rah for the little guy that comes with him. It's especially tiresome because the team's announcers are the two biggest culprits, with a few of the Sacramento beat writers chiming in as well. He is a good to very good offensive guard who pounds the ball more than anyone in the NBA not named John Wall and is a defensive liability because of size and inconsistent effort. People who build him up by making Chris Paul comparisons and talking about how he shut down John Wall (serious, you guys) make the rest of us roll our eyes so hard that it requires surgical correction.