What is our PG worth? SI takes a stab at it.
- Thread starter Chubbs
- Start date
And I have fallen in with the posters that think that what IT is doing in Sacramento isn't all that special. There are 15 to 20 NBA guards out there that could replicate his production and efficiency if given the keys to the car as he has been. There are probably a few D-League guys who could do it as well.
That's not to slight IT, that's just saying that what he has demonstrated is competent, high-volume offense as part of the natural set of tools of an NBA scoring guard. He is in the ideal situation to showcase himself and he'll get a good paycheck out of it. I just don't want to break the bank for something that you can replicate 90% of for half the price. Save some of that cash for a shot blocker.
That's not to slight IT, that's just saying that what he has demonstrated is competent, high-volume offense as part of the natural set of tools of an NBA scoring guard. He is in the ideal situation to showcase himself and he'll get a good paycheck out of it. I just don't want to break the bank for something that you can replicate 90% of for half the price. Save some of that cash for a shot blocker.
indeed, the former. i suppose i wasn't terribly clear, but i was also counting on the fact that the cultural weight of "RUDY" as a film tends to resonate loud enough to not require a whole lotta preamble...
and the thing is that IT's lauded efficiency as a shooter has sunk back to career levels during his time as a starter, as one would expect with the increase in minutes/pressure/responsibility/etc. of course, that doesn't mean he's becoming inefficient, but rather that, as you say, "what IT is doing in Sacramento isn't all that special" anymore. time and expectation have eroded that narrative...
isaiah thomas remains a talented young combo guard with the unfortunate distinction of being an undersized, non-defensive gunner, though he certainly does provide a bit more playmaking ability than the average scorer of his quality, and i do believe that he could become "special" in a reserve role. just inscribe the next several Sixth Man of the year trophies with "Pizza Guy" and call it a day, ya know?
the issues that remain are if the kings will be able to 1) re-sign thomas at a sixth man's salary, and 2) whether or not thomas will accept a bench role now that he's had his taste of life as a starter...
isaiah thomas remains a talented young combo guard with the unfortunate distinction of being an undersized, non-defensive gunner, though he certainly does provide a bit more playmaking ability than the average scorer of his quality, and i do believe that he could become "special" in a reserve role. just inscribe the next several Sixth Man of the year trophies with "Pizza Guy" and call it a day, ya know?
the issues that remain are if the kings will be able to 1) re-sign thomas at a sixth man's salary, and 2) whether or not thomas will accept a bench role now that he's had his taste of life as a starter...
Of course, the "he started it!" argument
Sure, the Grant and Jerry homerism can be nauseating. From the "Great Rudini" to their excuses for McLemore all the down to, yes, the "Huslin' Husky" narrative, its all emotional rah-rah that I'm not particularly interested in. However, the only player rah-rah that gets such a vitriolic response is Isaiah's for whatever reason. The response to this of course is "Grant and Jerry are shoving the Isaiah narrative down our throats!" which is true, but not to an extent greater than most other players on our roster relative to their respective talent. But given that the shoving of Isaiah down our throats is unacceptable while the shoving of Rudy or McLemore or whoever down our throats is perfectly fine, there are indications of an a priori animus that most around these parts either choose to ignore or are ignorant of.
And its equally hilarious that some cling so dearly to their ideas about Isaiah in the face of facts to the extent where the fact-presenter is depicted as "slobbering" over IT and the facts themselves are downplayed as presented without context. Because that is exactly what statistics are: facts. Now whether facts support an argument or not is up to debate. But there is an incredible amount of reading into another's argument that goes around, and its probably due to the aformentioned animus. For example: Aykis presented 10 players who accomplished what Isaiah has so far in his career. The assertion was then made that Aykis thinks Isaiah is as good as those players, and therefore he is an IT slobberer who bans people from StR that don't worship at the altar of IT. The backlash is rather stupid.
Here are some more facts: Isaiah is an elite scoring PG and average distributer/playmaker. Without Isaiah on the court, Demarcus uses less possessions (Usage rate drops from 33.6 to 28.9) and his scoring efficiency plummets (from 55.6 TS% to 51.5). Without Isaiah on the court, the team's offensive rating drops from 107.6 to 102.4. The opponent's offensive rating is 107.9 with Isaiah on the court and 110.8 with him off the court.
What the evidence points to me is that he's been a rather big part of whatever success the team's had this year. The assertion that we could replace Isaiah in the lineup with a Mario Chalmers type and see an improvement in the team is without evidence. Yet somehow one is slobbering and the other is rational thought.
But honestly, I don't mind those who seem to be stuck on the notion that Isaiah's ceiling is a sixth man playing 25 minutes per game. Nor do I mind the people who think advanced stats are the devil's work, to which the appropriate response is a pat on their senile little heads. Whats notable to me is that one group likes to depict all of the other as some kind of raging cult mob without questioning their own internal animus. Its really quite funny.
Sure, the Grant and Jerry homerism can be nauseating. From the "Great Rudini" to their excuses for McLemore all the down to, yes, the "Huslin' Husky" narrative, its all emotional rah-rah that I'm not particularly interested in. However, the only player rah-rah that gets such a vitriolic response is Isaiah's for whatever reason. The response to this of course is "Grant and Jerry are shoving the Isaiah narrative down our throats!" which is true, but not to an extent greater than most other players on our roster relative to their respective talent. But given that the shoving of Isaiah down our throats is unacceptable while the shoving of Rudy or McLemore or whoever down our throats is perfectly fine, there are indications of an a priori animus that most around these parts either choose to ignore or are ignorant of.
And its equally hilarious that some cling so dearly to their ideas about Isaiah in the face of facts to the extent where the fact-presenter is depicted as "slobbering" over IT and the facts themselves are downplayed as presented without context. Because that is exactly what statistics are: facts. Now whether facts support an argument or not is up to debate. But there is an incredible amount of reading into another's argument that goes around, and its probably due to the aformentioned animus. For example: Aykis presented 10 players who accomplished what Isaiah has so far in his career. The assertion was then made that Aykis thinks Isaiah is as good as those players, and therefore he is an IT slobberer who bans people from StR that don't worship at the altar of IT. The backlash is rather stupid.
Here are some more facts: Isaiah is an elite scoring PG and average distributer/playmaker. Without Isaiah on the court, Demarcus uses less possessions (Usage rate drops from 33.6 to 28.9) and his scoring efficiency plummets (from 55.6 TS% to 51.5). Without Isaiah on the court, the team's offensive rating drops from 107.6 to 102.4. The opponent's offensive rating is 107.9 with Isaiah on the court and 110.8 with him off the court.
What the evidence points to me is that he's been a rather big part of whatever success the team's had this year. The assertion that we could replace Isaiah in the lineup with a Mario Chalmers type and see an improvement in the team is without evidence. Yet somehow one is slobbering and the other is rational thought.
But honestly, I don't mind those who seem to be stuck on the notion that Isaiah's ceiling is a sixth man playing 25 minutes per game. Nor do I mind the people who think advanced stats are the devil's work, to which the appropriate response is a pat on their senile little heads. Whats notable to me is that one group likes to depict all of the other as some kind of raging cult mob without questioning their own internal animus. Its really quite funny.
Sigh. Going that far just remains statistically insupportable.
I find IT jockers insufferable, but the toughest thing to do, and surest sign of a superior mentality, is not to push back against such childishness with exaggerations the other way. When some sad fanboy in any field says "x is the bestest most grestest thing EVA!!!" the toughest trick to master is not responding "x SUX!!" back the other way. The tendency is to want to make just as insupportable an argument in exactly the opposite way to "balance" things out. Natural reaction. And like most fanboy movements the irony is that idiots like Jerry have actually done far more to damage ITs rep than he ever could have if he just stuck to using IT pics as marital aids. It inspires revulsion. hatred/overreaction the other way. But that doesn't make the arguments that spring from such anti-ness any better than the ones from the fanboys which started the whole mess. You gotta keep grounded. And grounded says that there are no D-Leaguers wandering around who could come in and averaged 20-6 on decent efficiency. Nor any 12th men.
I'll queue you in to the winning variety to your argument though: its DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay. Without those players drawing attention IT's efficieny plummeted and his play got ridiculous. Suggesting that if you put him on Philadelphia all this Pizza Guy nonsense would be swamped in who's that little chucker chatter. But of course that is true to some degree of most lesser players. Only truly great ones can maintain decent efficiency even when surround by dreck.
I find IT jockers insufferable, but the toughest thing to do, and surest sign of a superior mentality, is not to push back against such childishness with exaggerations the other way. When some sad fanboy in any field says "x is the bestest most grestest thing EVA!!!" the toughest trick to master is not responding "x SUX!!" back the other way. The tendency is to want to make just as insupportable an argument in exactly the opposite way to "balance" things out. Natural reaction. And like most fanboy movements the irony is that idiots like Jerry have actually done far more to damage ITs rep than he ever could have if he just stuck to using IT pics as marital aids. It inspires revulsion. hatred/overreaction the other way. But that doesn't make the arguments that spring from such anti-ness any better than the ones from the fanboys which started the whole mess. You gotta keep grounded. And grounded says that there are no D-Leaguers wandering around who could come in and averaged 20-6 on decent efficiency. Nor any 12th men.
I'll queue you in to the winning variety to your argument though: its DeMarcus Cousins and Rudy Gay. Without those players drawing attention IT's efficieny plummeted and his play got ridiculous. Suggesting that if you put him on Philadelphia all this Pizza Guy nonsense would be swamped in who's that little chucker chatter. But of course that is true to some degree of most lesser players. Only truly great ones can maintain decent efficiency even when surround by dreck.
Last edited:
No.
There is nobody REMOTELY as slathered over as IT. Its not even close. Its amusing you would even suggest it.
I actually am rather enjoying Jerry's alternate whining and excuse making. His dismay that people around the league don't see it like he does. Almost every game now he alternates his "you just don't know" lines with sniveling about how I guess it doesn't count because he's 5'9" etc. Now it sounds like he's quit talking to all the meanies without little pizza guy faces on their boxers, and has been trolling the assistant coach pools looking for people "who know what's really going on". He also appears to have heard about the reports about IT's open market value, and has been making preemptive excuses for that too. Its quite sad. He must be becoming a mocked figure around the league, if he weren't already.
There is nobody REMOTELY as slathered over as IT. Its not even close. Its amusing you would even suggest it.
I actually am rather enjoying Jerry's alternate whining and excuse making. His dismay that people around the league don't see it like he does. Almost every game now he alternates his "you just don't know" lines with sniveling about how I guess it doesn't count because he's 5'9" etc. Now it sounds like he's quit talking to all the meanies without little pizza guy faces on their boxers, and has been trolling the assistant coach pools looking for people "who know what's really going on". He also appears to have heard about the reports about IT's open market value, and has been making preemptive excuses for that too. Its quite sad. He must be becoming a mocked figure around the league, if he weren't already.
Last edited:
For D-League guys, Pierre Jackson was the name that I was thinking of. I suspect Josh Akognon could come close to averaging 18 ppg and 5 assists (90% of IT's production) if given 37 minutes per game, total control of the offense, and a deep green light to shoot. I don't think either of those guys is as good as IT, but they also aren't going to be as expensive next year.
I wouldn't give those guys the starting job or that green light, but I also wouldn't give IT the keys to the car with Tyreke on the roster.
I wouldn't give those guys the starting job or that green light, but I also wouldn't give IT the keys to the car with Tyreke on the roster.
Last edited:
Oh dear jesus, the asinine Slim argument. I really wish some of you would click on basketball reference one in awhile
No, there aren't 15-20 guys who can put up IT's numbers. What you're suggesting is that any PG can be Damian Lillard, Russell Westbrook and Tony Parker offensively. That any PG, given the minutes, could as good or better offensively than any PG not named Steph Curry or Chris Paul.
P.S: I'm talking offensive skills and numbers. Not overall game.
No, there aren't 15-20 guys who can put up IT's numbers. What you're suggesting is that any PG can be Damian Lillard, Russell Westbrook and Tony Parker offensively. That any PG, given the minutes, could as good or better offensively than any PG not named Steph Curry or Chris Paul.
P.S: I'm talking offensive skills and numbers. Not overall game.
To pick a nit, the argument isn't that they can be Damian Lillard, Russell Westbrook and Tony Parker. It's that they can replicate what IT is doing statistically. And not that any PG, given the minutes, but many PGs. There's a slight difference in the argument, but an important one.
IT is a scorer - that's what he does, but it's hardly an elite trait in the NBA. Most guards can replicate the scoring, especially on a team featuring Rudy Gay and Demarcus Cousins. Those who can't specialize in another area that still helps their team.
IT is a scorer - that's what he does, but it's hardly an elite trait in the NBA. Most guards can replicate the scoring, especially on a team featuring Rudy Gay and Demarcus Cousins. Those who can't specialize in another area that still helps their team.
Oh please. I'm not sure where you are when we are hearing about the magical exploits of the "Great Rudini" or how much potential McLemore has when he shows something every ten or so games, but its fascinating that your ears perk up at the mere mention of the "Hustlin Husky" to rage about. Jerry's fantasy kingdom depiction of a basketball game is annoying but its annoying in totality, not just when its about Isaiah.
Of course, the "he started it!" argument
Sure, the Grant and Jerry homerism can be nauseating. From the "Great Rudini" to their excuses for McLemore all the down to, yes, the "Huslin' Husky" narrative, its all emotional rah-rah that I'm not particularly interested in. However, the only player rah-rah that gets such a vitriolic response is Isaiah's for whatever reason. The response to this of course is "Grant and Jerry are shoving the Isaiah narrative down our throats!" which is true, but not to an extent greater than most other players on our roster relative to their respective talent. But given that the shoving of Isaiah down our throats is unacceptable while the shoving of Rudy or McLemore or whoever down our throats is perfectly fine, there are indications of an a priori animus that most around these parts either choose to ignore or are ignorant of.
Sure, the Grant and Jerry homerism can be nauseating. From the "Great Rudini" to their excuses for McLemore all the down to, yes, the "Huslin' Husky" narrative, its all emotional rah-rah that I'm not particularly interested in. However, the only player rah-rah that gets such a vitriolic response is Isaiah's for whatever reason. The response to this of course is "Grant and Jerry are shoving the Isaiah narrative down our throats!" which is true, but not to an extent greater than most other players on our roster relative to their respective talent. But given that the shoving of Isaiah down our throats is unacceptable while the shoving of Rudy or McLemore or whoever down our throats is perfectly fine, there are indications of an a priori animus that most around these parts either choose to ignore or are ignorant of.
rudy gay, on the other hand, has performed well above just about everybody's expectations because of his recently-earned reputation as an inefficient ball stopper and destroyer of chemistry. it's sort of hard to justify being vitriolic towards rudy in any fashion, given that he's provided the kings with quite a lift (nearly .500 since he arrived), and without much practice time or familiarity with an ever-changing roster...
but isaiah thomas is in his third season as a king. we know much about what he is and we know much about what he isn't. this season, he's been thrust into a very high usage role alongside two other very high usage players, and it's fairly understandable that controversy has erupted over IT's place in that hierarchy...
i'm not terribly interested in "the backlash." it's a byproduct of poor argumentative approaches. but i'd say that it's certainly worth questioning the motives of an individual who is seeking to frame his argument by comparing isaiah thomas to magic johnson. Aykis' article is titled "Isaiah Thomas is putting himself in elite company," and after Aykis has done his statistical dance, he writes, "While I wouldn't go so far as to say Isaiah is or will be as good as these players, it's enough to me that he's performing at an incredibly high level. Thomas has done more than enough in my eyes to prove that not only can he be a starter in this league, but that he can be a damn good one."
my question for Aykis would be, if "it's enough...that [IT is] performing at an incredibly high level," then why attempt to shoehorn IT into a statistical conversation with the likes of chris paul at all? there's no useful comparison to be made in such an instance. it was silly when the kings mentioned tyreke evans' name in the same breath as oscar robertson during the 20-5-5 campaign, and it's silly to draw the same kinds of parallels to isaiah thomas unless you're attempting to convince others of something that they might not be so easily convinced of without the irresponsible wielding of "facts" such as these...
and here we have more "facts," and they're wielded just as irresponsibly as before. the statistics you've provided are buoyed by a significant factor that you've omitted: the kings have not one additional playmaker on their roster. not one. it should hardly be surprising that demarcus cousins uses less possessions or scores less efficiently when isaiah thomas is on the bench; the only other guard on the entire roster capable of handling the ball and making even the simplest of plays is a second round draft pick in his rookie season. this has less to do with what isaiah thomas is doing right and much more to do with the fact that his usage rate has skyrocketed for lack of competence elsewhere in the kings' backcourt rotation. that's not to say that thomas is doing nothing right, but again, this is where advanced statistics, while useful, are often rendered ineffective by those who wield them. context is everything...
beyond that, "The assertion that we could replace Isaiah in the starting lineup with a Mario Chalmers type and see an improvement in the team is without evidence" is a convenient but dishonest arguing position. of course it's without evidence because it hasn't yet been done, and we wouldn't have evidence until it had been done. but there is more than enough suggestion in the possibility of such a move to recommend it. mario chalmers measures out as one of the best defensive PG's in the nba. inserting him into the starting PG role would likely result in fewer instances of successful dribble penetration from opposing PG's, thus easing the pressure on demarcus cousins to slide over and help on defense as often as he currently does. if the only result is that cousins picks up fewer fouls as a help defender, then, in my opinion, it's still more than reason enough to seek out defensively-inclined players for the kings' starting backcourt...
Swing and a miss. You are fundamentally misunderstanding my argument. I’m not noting that there in fact exists criticism of Isaiah Thomas. Nor am I asserting there exists no criticism of McLemore or Gay or Cousins. I am noting that, for some reason, Jerry’s constant homerism about Isaiah seems to be under the microscope while his constant blathering about the rest of the roster is being ignored. That there is some kind of hidden Jerry Reynolds/Aaron Bruski/Aykis Yericostas alliance in the shadows that insists on promoting Isaiah at the detriment of everyone else.
There is legitimate criticism here of Isaiah and there is asinine criticism. Same with Gay, McLemore and Cousins. I take it on a case-by-case basis. The criticism of Jerry have been seemingly for one singular reason, and that vexes me.
Because he’s a blogger and he decided to post an article about Isaiah’s numbers? Because that’s what NBA writers do, from Grantland down to Bleacher Report? Because simply copy and pasting Isaiah’s NBA.com profile leads to a very uninteresting piece? Because its interesting to see how Isaiah stacks up against some very good point guards in the past? This isn’t the first time this type of writing has been seen and it certainly won’t be the last. If this is causing some kind of consternation with you, then good luck is all I can tell you.
And I think its really amusing you point out how hard life has been for Demarcus without a playmaker at PG when Isaiah sits on the bench, yet assert in the very next paragraph a non-playmaker at PG like Mario Chalmers, who's next set-up for a big will be his first, is exactly what this team needs because of some, perceptible or not, upside on the defensive end. What it sounds like to me is that you are asking for a better playmaker/set-up man than Isaiah for Demarcus while also demanding he be an elite defender. And, while you didn’t explicitly mention it, you probably want this PG to be able to space the floor. So in essence, for our starting PG, you want… Chris Paul. Great starting point there
There is legitimate criticism here of Isaiah and there is asinine criticism. Same with Gay, McLemore and Cousins. I take it on a case-by-case basis. The criticism of Jerry have been seemingly for one singular reason, and that vexes me.
Because he’s a blogger and he decided to post an article about Isaiah’s numbers? Because that’s what NBA writers do, from Grantland down to Bleacher Report? Because simply copy and pasting Isaiah’s NBA.com profile leads to a very uninteresting piece? Because its interesting to see how Isaiah stacks up against some very good point guards in the past? This isn’t the first time this type of writing has been seen and it certainly won’t be the last. If this is causing some kind of consternation with you, then good luck is all I can tell you.
And I think its really amusing you point out how hard life has been for Demarcus without a playmaker at PG when Isaiah sits on the bench, yet assert in the very next paragraph a non-playmaker at PG like Mario Chalmers, who's next set-up for a big will be his first, is exactly what this team needs because of some, perceptible or not, upside on the defensive end. What it sounds like to me is that you are asking for a better playmaker/set-up man than Isaiah for Demarcus while also demanding he be an elite defender. And, while you didn’t explicitly mention it, you probably want this PG to be able to space the floor. So in essence, for our starting PG, you want… Chris Paul. Great starting point there
What makes you think I haven't confronted Aykis about this very issue myself and had dialogue with him, or dialogue with other editors at STR outside site threads? Hell, what makes you think I haven't personally challenged a few editors at STR to come on this very forum so we can debate more at length on disagreements than happens on STR, and they were the ones who declined that challenge?
Sounds to me like someone is not all that intelligent and jumps to immediate assumptions.
Sounds to me like someone is not all that intelligent and jumps to immediate assumptions.
And I think its really amusing you point out how hard life has been for Demarcus without a playmaker at PG when Isaiah sits on the bench, yet assert in the very next paragraph a non-playmaker at PG like Mario Chalmers, who's next set-up for a big will be his first, is exactly what this team needs because of some, perceptible or not, upside on the defensive end. What it sounds like to me is that you are asking for a better playmaker/set-up man than Isaiah for Demarcus while also demanding he be an elite defender. And, while you didn’t explicitly mention it, you probably want this PG to be able to space the floor. So in essence, for our starting PG, you want… Chris Paul. Great starting point there
FWIW, I agree with you that Chalmers is likely a poor fit on the roster simply because I don't trust McLemore or Gay to create offense for others (Gay's TO's are way, way too high for my liking). But setting up Cousins is so easy, even a caveman could do it.
I was following along until you said there were probably a few D-League guys that could do what IT does. Those guys are in the D-League because they aren't considered to be talented enough or ready enough to be in the NBA. IT is more than a capable NBA player. He's better than a fair share of starters and he's better than 90% of the backups. If these D-League guys could do what IT does, they'd be here already.
It's like when people here clamor for McCallum to start. What part of his game from college to the pros has shown anyone that he can be a starting PG in the league? The guy's ceiling is as a backup PG. If he can keep developing his shot, he has a chance to be a backup in this league. But the guy isn't a play maker. Never has been and most likely never will be. If that's what we want then we better hope we get lucky with the lottery. If not then our only chance is to try winning with IT, average SG, Gay, Cousins and shot blocker.
It's like when people here clamor for McCallum to start. What part of his game from college to the pros has shown anyone that he can be a starting PG in the league? The guy's ceiling is as a backup PG. If he can keep developing his shot, he has a chance to be a backup in this league. But the guy isn't a play maker. Never has been and most likely never will be. If that's what we want then we better hope we get lucky with the lottery. If not then our only chance is to try winning with IT, average SG, Gay, Cousins and shot blocker.
Not surprisingly, the trouble with these numbers is that they lack context. It's the same as the notion of Iverson Thomas being a good passer, based on his assist numbers: those numbers, by themselves, look good, until you recognize what percentage of the game the ball is in his hands, and how many opportunities for assists he has, versus how many he makes. You look at those numbers, and you say, "Hey, I guess we really are better when Thomas is on the court!" But then, you take a closer look, and you realize that Isaiah Thomas has an on/off-court percentage of 72, which is tied for fifteenth-highest in the league, and is third-highest among all players on non-playoff teams (Carmelo Anthony - 77, Josh Smith - 74), and then you realize, "Well, on second thought, maybe the reason it looks like we're better when Thomas is on the court, is because he's never off the court." It's also interesting to me that, of the fourteen players ranked above Thomas in on/off-court percentage, only three of them (Lowry, Wall, Lillard) are point guards. That indicates to me that Thomas is afforded way more opportunities to monopolize the game than most other players at his position. Which, IMO, makes his numbers that much less impressive.
Numbers might not lie, but they rarely tell the whole truth...
Numbers might not lie, but they rarely tell the whole truth...
That's because, contrary to your opinion, the "blathering about the rest of the roster" is not, in fact, constant. If the ratio of praise for Thomas, versus the rest of the roster, were closer to one-to-one, or even three-to-one, there wouldn't be any "backlash."
There's nothing vexing about it. Many of us consider the praise for Thomas, valid or not, to be grossly disproportionate to the criticism of Thomas, valid or not. There isn't nearly as much "backlash" towards other players because many of us do not consider their praise to be out of proportion to their criticisms. Your mileage may, and obviously does, vary.
There's nothing vexing about it. Many of us consider the praise for Thomas, valid or not, to be grossly disproportionate to the criticism of Thomas, valid or not. There isn't nearly as much "backlash" towards other players because many of us do not consider their praise to be out of proportion to their criticisms. Your mileage may, and obviously does, vary.
Thomas is on the court so much because there is no legit backup point guard. McCallum has shown he has some nice tools, but nothing to the point where you ask yourself, "why didn't this guy get playing time earlier in the year?" He's still incredibly raw.
Thomas isn't going to average high assist numbers with this current team as most players are either iso or garbage point players. McClemore is the only pure catch and shoot player and well, he's been his own problem.
Thomas isn't going to average high assist numbers with this current team as most players are either iso or garbage point players. McClemore is the only pure catch and shoot player and well, he's been his own problem.
You’re seeking an explanation for the stats that fit preconceived notions. The premise here is that Isaiah “monopolizes” the game when he’s in; if that were true, then Demarcus’ usage rate wouldn’t *increase* when Isaiah is on the floor. Its true Isaiah is on the floor a lot. It is also true that he has been off the floor for enough minutes to give us a reasonable enough sample size (over the course of the season) to analyze whats happening on the court when he’s off. And if that’s the case, looking at his +/- across the board, its much more preferable to have him in than out.
In theory you’re right, Demarcus doesn’t need help. But in practice, it doesn’t work out that way. I personally think that the zone rules are to blame. Before, you could have a dominant big with an offensively inert PG and still be ok. But its really interesting to note that very few dominant interior bigs have surfaced ever since the new zone rules were implemented. And ever since those zone rules were slashed only Duncan has won a championship as a true interior big-man, and he did it with a shoot-first PG. I personally think that a shoot-first PG is necessary for a big in the modern NBA because space it at such a premium. Before, the zone rules meant that defenders had to be in one place or another. Now defenders can float, creating spacing issues for offensive players, especially around the rim area.
We tried a PG with Demarcus who was offensively zero besides passing (Vasquez). We tried Jimmer, who can shoot but not set up. Demarcus was better off with Isaiah than both.
In theory you’re right, Demarcus doesn’t need help. But in practice, it doesn’t work out that way. I personally think that the zone rules are to blame. Before, you could have a dominant big with an offensively inert PG and still be ok. But its really interesting to note that very few dominant interior bigs have surfaced ever since the new zone rules were implemented. And ever since those zone rules were slashed only Duncan has won a championship as a true interior big-man, and he did it with a shoot-first PG. I personally think that a shoot-first PG is necessary for a big in the modern NBA because space it at such a premium. Before, the zone rules meant that defenders had to be in one place or another. Now defenders can float, creating spacing issues for offensive players, especially around the rim area.
We tried a PG with Demarcus who was offensively zero besides passing (Vasquez). We tried Jimmer, who can shoot but not set up. Demarcus was better off with Isaiah than both.
i think you're looking for conspiracy theory in others' expressions of annoyance that simply isn't there. the game threads at kf.com are ordinarily rife with groans over jerry reynolds' wholesome indiana farmboy-isms. but if you fail to see the distinction between jerry's goofy pet names for various kings players and the incessant, overbearing, hyperbolic blather that grant and jerry commit to isaiah thomas every single game, then i simply cannot help you. there is a grand canyon of difference between jerry's dunderheaded proclamations of "the great rudini" and the verbal diarrhea of grant and jerry tag-teaming shovelfuls of sugar-coated, vomit-inducing praise onto the pizza guy...
i fully understand that he's a blogger, and i even enjoy this kind of writing, but that doesn't mean i can't take him to task for what i consider to be a poorly-framed argument...
i did not point out how hard life has been for demarcus without a playmaker at PG. i pointed out that there are precious few playmakers on the kings' roster. personally, i don't believe demarcus cousins needs a PG with tremendous creativity to get him the ball. i believe cousins needs a PG [who is tall enough] to make a simple entry pass into the post, and i also believe that the kings need a staring SG who can assume ballhandling duties occasionally...
that said, my ideal PG for this roster would be mike conley, if you'd like to hear it from me rather than putting words in my mouth. but in the absence of such a talent, i'd like a roleplayer at PG who can move the ball effectively, defend reasonably well, and hit the occasional spot-up jumper. those guys aren't as rare as you seem to think, and a guy like mario chalmers can certainly accomplish those, ya know, incredible feats of roleplayerdom. why you mention that chalmers' "next set-up for a big will be his first," i have no idea. you seem to enjoy stripping context from your player evaluations. the miami heat aren't exactly a team known for their imposing big man play. lebron usually functions as their major post presence, and chalmers doesn't have much trouble getting him the ball where he wants it...
i fully understand that he's a blogger, and i even enjoy this kind of writing, but that doesn't mean i can't take him to task for what i consider to be a poorly-framed argument...
And I think its really amusing you point out how hard life has been for Demarcus without a playmaker at PG when Isaiah sits on the bench, yet assert in the very next paragraph a non-playmaker at PG like Mario Chalmers, who's next set-up for a big will be his first, is exactly what this team needs because of some, perceptible or not, upside on the defensive end. What it sounds like to me is that you are asking for a better playmaker/set-up man than Isaiah for Demarcus while also demanding he be an elite defender. And, while you didn’t explicitly mention it, you probably want this PG to be able to space the floor. So in essence, for our starting PG, you want… Chris Paul. Great starting point there
that said, my ideal PG for this roster would be mike conley, if you'd like to hear it from me rather than putting words in my mouth. but in the absence of such a talent, i'd like a roleplayer at PG who can move the ball effectively, defend reasonably well, and hit the occasional spot-up jumper. those guys aren't as rare as you seem to think, and a guy like mario chalmers can certainly accomplish those, ya know, incredible feats of roleplayerdom. why you mention that chalmers' "next set-up for a big will be his first," i have no idea. you seem to enjoy stripping context from your player evaluations. the miami heat aren't exactly a team known for their imposing big man play. lebron usually functions as their major post presence, and chalmers doesn't have much trouble getting him the ball where he wants it...