The Rudy Gobert Thread (2016-17)

[eminence]

This is an exaggeration, and a pretty clear one, because Rudy was doing this in 2015 as well and it didn't matter to the O then. They were a 105.1, 17th-ranked O with Rudy shooting 60.4% on 5.2 FGA/g and scoring 8.4 ppg. The difference between then and now is there, sure, but the functional results to team offensive production aren't that much. They're 4.1 points per 100 possessions better as a team. This is with Favors struggling/injured, too, of course, but with noticeably superior team 3P%. George Hill is smashing it from 3 right now at almost 46% from 3 on 5.2 3PA/g. Chances are, that won't last at quite that level, I mean he's producing at a 131 ORTG right now and I don't think anyone sane expects that to carry on for much longer. He'll eventually have a slump, he'll have some turnovers, his shooting percentage below the arc will tail off, and so forth. Only so much, I mean he's a good player and everything, but that will affect the tone of a discussion such as this, since you're discussing their 8th-ranked offense. The acquisition of Joe Johnson is helping a lot, and he's smashing it from 3 as well, as is Joe Ingles. The Jazz have added more perimeter firepower and that's helping them a lot more than the specific FG% of Gobert, even if Rudy's participation in the offense enables certain sets which facilitate team offense.

Essentially, you're overplaying the value of the roll man. He's there, he's useful, he contributes and it helps, for sure. But there are other things going on here that are contributing to the specifics that you're discussing.

The truth is probably somewhere in between, Gobert is not the best offensive player on the team as OWS would suggest, nor is he some barely useful roll man. The Jazz have had a good offense this year with Burks out all year, Favors/Hill missing half the games, and Hayward missing a quarter of the games. Hood/Gobert have been the only two consistently healthy guys among the top 6 guys on the team. Johnson stepping up is great, but him being 4th on the team in minutes is not great at all.

[tsherkin]

The truth is probably somewhere in between, Gobert is not the best offensive player on the team as OWS would suggest, nor is he some barely useful roll man. The Jazz have had a good offense this year with Burks out all year, Favors/Hill missing half the games, and Hayward missing a quarter of the games. Hood/Gobert have been the only two consistently healthy guys among the top 6 guys on the team. Johnson stepping up is great, but him being 4th on the team in minutes is not great at all.

In no way do I mean to suggest he plays no part. Merely being a threat won't show up in the box score, for sure, and in PnR-heavy play like we have now, that's very useful. Likewise, his offensive rebounding and lob finishing, etc. I have a healthy level of respect for his utility as a player. My point is that he's being a little overemphasized in this conversation from the POV of their offense.

Johnson is old, so he's going to be only so valuable, but shooting 2.9 3PA/g at over 44% alongside Hill's volume 3pt bombing is a big part of why they're a dominant eFG% team, which is what's actually driving their team offensive ranking.

[QRich3]

The Jazz are currently the 8th best offense in the league, after having below average offenses for 3 years in a row, and Gobert's improvement is an important reason why. They've had spacing problems in years prior and everything is working more smoothly this year. You can attribute it all to Hayward's improved efficiency as a "1st option", or to Hill's good shooting in his 11 games played, but I just think it's very simplistic to look at it in a vacuum like that. None of that happens if Rudy is not a threat inside when he sets a screen, and the perimeter guys are crowded when they have the ball, like they were in previous seasons.

This is an exaggeration, and a pretty clear one, because Rudy was doing this in 2015 as well and it didn't matter to the O then. They were a 105.1, 17th-ranked O with Rudy shooting 60.4% on 5.2 FGA/g and scoring 8.4 ppg. The difference between then and now is there, sure, but the functional results to team offensive production aren't that much. They're 4.1 points per 100 possessions better as a team. This is with Favors struggling/injured, too, of course, but with noticeably superior team 3P%. George Hill is smashing it from 3 right now at almost 46% from 3 on 5.2 3PA/g. Chances are, that won't last at quite that level, I mean he's producing at a 131 ORTG right now and I don't think anyone sane expects that to carry on for much longer. He'll eventually have a slump, he'll have some turnovers, his shooting percentage below the arc will tail off, and so forth. Only so much, I mean he's a good player and everything, but that will affect the tone of a discussion such as this, since you're discussing their 8th-ranked offense. The acquisition of Joe Johnson is helping a lot, and he's smashing it from 3 as well, as is Joe Ingles. The Jazz have added more perimeter firepower and that's helping them a lot more than the specific FG% of Gobert, even if Rudy's participation in the offense enables certain sets which facilitate team offense.

Essentially, you're overplaying the value of the roll man. He's there, he's useful, he contributes and it helps, for sure. But there are other things going on here that are contributing to the specifics that you're discussing.

I don't even think we're even disagreeing that much here, I'm not trying to say Rudy's improvement is the one and only thing that's made the Jazz improve as an offensive unit, and from what I'm seeing in your last few posts, you're not saying it's insignificant as I read from your first few interventions ITT. But you keep looking at scoring numbers in a vacuum as if they're not related to how other teammates affect the make up of the team, and that is what keeps making you underrate the value of these guys. Johnson and Hill's great shooting numbers are related to Rudy's and viceversa, and it's apparent when you watch them play that they don't crowd the ball handler in P&R's as much as they did last year, or as much as other teams with worse roll men suffer. Just as it's apparent that Rudy is benefiting by having Johnson and Hood, or Hill and Hood on the weakside, as opposed to last year when he had Mack and Hood or Neto and Burks, so he has more space to operate and that helps him having better numbers.

Not sure why there's any need to compare Rudy, or the role of your regular roll man, to the guys who are driving the offense, I don't think anyone's suggested here that Rudy, Deandre and all are as important as Harden or Paul. I actually compared them to other offensive role players with a higher scoring volume like Redick or Anderson, and I still think they're in the ballpark of importance to an offense.

[tsherkin]

I don't even think we're even disagreeing that much here, I'm not trying to say Rudy's improvement is the one and only thing that's made the Jazz improve as an offensive unit, and from what I'm seeing in your last few posts, you're not saying it's insignificant as I read from your first few interventions ITT.

Yep. We're roughly on the same page, just getting into particulars of phrasing.

But you keep looking at scoring numbers in a vacuum as if they're not related to how other teammates affect the make up of the team, and that is what keeps making you underrate the value of these guys.

No, I'm not underrating them, I'm just putting a damper on what has been somewhat-hyperbolic language, that's all, and adding some context for what a 31 mpg offensive roleplayer means to a team's offense. Tyson Chandler is exactly what Rudy is on offense right now. That's quite useful.... if you've got the perimeter play to take advantage of it and to shoulder the volume scoring load. Rudy is able to do what he does because he has people on the other side of that set running the play and drawing their own attention, etc. He's a valuable player, but only so much, given in how many possessions he is actually involved or even potentially so.

Johnson and Hill's great shooting numbers are related to Rudy's and viceversa

Yes and no. Both JJ ad Hill have proven themselves as shooters without Rudy, so his presence is only somewhat relevant.

Not sure why there's any need to compare Rudy, or the role of your regular roll man, to the guys who are driving the offense,

Semantics and language specifics, that's all. And not just you, there are a number of comments to which I've been specifically responding. He's a useful player on offense. Limited in scope and total effect, but still useful. Someone like Redick is more important to the Clippers than is Gobert to the Jazz from an offensive perspective, though.

[Ron Swanson]

I mean, Gobert is a great defensive C, but leading the league in FG% on that volume means essentially nothing. Kendrick Perkins led the league in FG% in 2009-10 on the same volume (10.1 PPG on 61%), and I don't think anyone would ever consider Perk to have been an even average offensive player.

[tsherkin]

I mean, Gobert is a great defensive C, but leading the league in FG% on that volume means essentially nothing. Kendrick Perkins led the league in FG% in 2009-10 on the same volume (10.1 PPG on 61%), and I don't think anyone would ever consider Perk to have been an even average offensive player.

Yes, this is the more distilled version of my point.

The other things being said here are also true, though. He has relevance as a useful PnR partner, and his offensive rebounding matters. Really, this whole aspect of the conversation started as a result of the misleading thread title. The sentiment behind the thread, that Rudy has made some improvements and is a useful contributor to the team beyond his defense, that's all good stuff. He is directly a big part of their team success right now, and while he's very much a defense-first player, what he's doing on offense is the same as Chandler in New Orleans: not an initiator, not a volume guy, but still a useful part of the way the team runs its sets and attacks the D.

[trex_8063]

This title is perhaps a little misleading, because it implies that him leading the league in FG% is something significant.

Dude takes just under 6 shots per game and is assisted on over 70% of his shots. Over 41% of his shots are dunks. Credit to him for playing his role well but this is precisely no different than Tyson Chandler in 2012.

Gobert is obviously a wicked-valuable defender and a better rebounder than Chandler, mind, I'm just saying < 6 FGA/g and 60%+ FG, leading the league in FG%... This isn't new.

Great player, though. Huge for the Jazz, and fun to watch. Very, very valuable.

I'm a big Gobert fan; he's turned me into a Jazz fan in the last year or so. But I'm kinda with tsherkin on this one. OP would seems to insinuate [EDIT: unintentionally, Spaceman has later stated] he's something more on offense than he is.

He's an excellent finisher on very low volume (generally just put-backs or assisted gimme's), sets very nice screens for the high screen and roll (which the Jazz do A LOT of, and defenders have to respect his roll for reasons OP mentioned), is a semi-OK FT-shooting big man. That's pretty much it. It's valuable, but let's not get carried away. As tsherkin says, it's very similar to Tyson Chandler circa-2011/2012.

I think Gobert's a little better defensively than Chandler ever was (including his DPOY season), though, and obv a little better rebounder.

Overall, that's a damn valuable player, and definitely the best/most important player on the Jazz. But as much as I like him, I can't see claiming he's the best center in the game. I was thinking of starting a thread about him because I'm now thinking he's probably a top 5 center in the league (arguably even top 3??), which is higher than even I placed him preseason.

[tsherkin]

He's an excellent finisher on very low volume (generally just put-backs or assisted gimme's), sets very nice screens for the high screen and roll (which the Jazz do A LOT of, and defenders have to respect his roll for reasons OP mentioned), is a semi-OK FT-shooting big man. That's pretty much it. It's valuable, but let's not get carried away. As tsherkin says, it's very similar to Tyson Chandler circa-2011/2012.

Also, FWIW, I was making Chandler comparisons on offense, not player value as a whole. They are similar, but I agree that Gobert has been a little better on D.

I also agree that he's a top 5 center in the league. I think he has an interesting argument for higher than that, but I'd be hesitant to say #1 overall as well. Any team should be happy to have him, though. He's highly portable.

[eminence]

Rudy with the 22 pts on 8 shots. Love the dude.

[GSP]

Utah is finally starting to pull away from the rest of the West to establish themselves as the clear 4th best team in the conference

[HawaiianJazzFan]

Where does he rank overall?

Not sure about the rank, but I'm taking Hassan Whiteside over him. Superior rebounder, comparable shot-blocker and rim protector, and he's taking on a significantly larger scoring and USG% load while maintaining good efficiency. Obviously his efficiency isn't close to Gobert's, but Gobert's role isn't close to Whiteside's.

I don't understand why so many are devaluing the ultra-efficient low-volume rolling big man in today's NBA. I think this stems from people not understanding the value of each and every possession of basketball. A player who shoots 2-3 (big man, small man, whatever) from the field in a game with an offensive rebound and 0 turnovers in 11 minutes has likely been a major positive force on offense for his team. You want your low-USG%, non-creative role players to be your most efficient players. If they do that, they are doing their job, finishing plays created directly or indirectly by their creative offensive teammates. If they add other components to their offense, like being an elite roll-threat like DeAndre Jordan/Rudy Gobert or a great shooter like Reddick, so much the better.

Getting back to Gobert...Statistically, I don't see a huge difference between 2015 Gobert and present Gobert on offense. Better eFG%, foul draw, and FT% with less offensive rebounding. Slight increase in USG% and slight improvement in TOV%. Biggest difference is MPG: he's playing 5 extra MPG. I believe the articles linked in this thread that he's worked on catching the ball. He's likely a better threat now. Thaaat much better than in 2015? Ehh...maybe.

Still taking Whiteside over him.

Gobert is definitely the better defender, this was true last year and even more so this year as Gobert has gotten even better:

He [whiteside] is wrapping one of the greatest shot-blocking seasons ever.
But that addiction to swattage leaves Whiteside out of position when he comes up empty, clearing the lane for easy offensive boards and drop-off passes; the Heat rebound a higher percentage of opponent misses with Whiteside on the bench. His second jump, and second effort, are slower and less urgent than you'd expect.

And as I wrote Tuesday, dudes are beating him up a little bit in the post; opponents have hit 51 percent of post-up shots against him, per Synergy Sports, one of the worst marks in the league among big men who have faced a lot of such plays. Stepping out on the pick-and-roll remains an issue -- as it is for almost every 7-footer.

That includes Gobert. But he's a little faster gliding through tight spaces, and more careful deciding when to lunge for a block. Opponents have hit only 41 percent of shots around the rim with Gobert nearby, the stingiest mark in the league among rotation big men, and he's a hair tougher to score on in the post.

Basically, he's a better version of Whiteside. Coaches and scouts almost universally pick Gobert as the better defender

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15198958/nba-awards-ballot-part-2


Gobert is still the better rim protector this year and he's top 4 in DRPM and has been trending up, Whiteside isn't even in the top 30. Just watch when they were matched up together both times this year, Gobert dominated him. Whiteside put up ok numbers in the first game but almost all of them came against Jeff Withey. Also Gobert is much younger and his motor doesn't stop like Hassan's. Sometimes Whiteside seems like he'd rather be doing something else.

[dautjazz]

Cousins is the better individual talent, but I'd take Gobert 10 out of 10 times. Gobert is a FAR better defensive player, doesn't get his panties in a bunch, techs, massive foul trouble, etc.. Keep in mind that Rudy does what he does on slowest pace team in the NBA, his PER 100 is 18.4ppg 18.5rpg 1.6apg .9spg 4.4bpg, shooting .644 from the field, and .669 from the line aint that bad for a 7'1" center with a freaking 7'9" wingspan. His impact far exceeds what is on paper too, players have to alter their shot tremendously and take terrible shots in the paint, or they just don't attack the basket because he's protecting the paint. For a team with several good offensive options like Utah (Hayward, Hill, Hood, Favors, Burks, etc..) they don't need their center to put up around 30ppg, having arguably the DPOY is sufficient, and add on top of the that the best FG% in the league, and he's a perfect fit for us.

[tsherkin]

Cousins is the better individual talent, but I'd take Gobert 10 out of 10 times. Gobert is a FAR better defensive player, doesn't get his panties in a bunch, techs, massive foul trouble, etc.. Keep in mind that Rudy does what he does on slowest pace team in the NBA, his PER 100 is 18.4ppg 18.5rpg 1.6apg .9spg 4.4bpg, shooting .644 from the field, and .669 from the line aint that bad for a 7'1" center with a freaking 7'9" wingspan. His impact far exceeds what is on paper too, players have to alter their shot tremendously and take terrible shots in the paint, or they just don't attack the basket because he's protecting the paint. For a team with several good offensive options like Utah (Hayward, Hill, Hood, Favors, Burks, etc..) they don't need their center to put up around 30ppg, having arguably the DPOY is sufficient, and add on top of the that the best FG% in the league, and he's a perfect fit for us.

I would like to see Cousins someplace other than the worst-managed team in the elague before I judge Cousins too much. He's matured into a very good offensive player, he IS a pretty solid defender, he's a great rebounder and he moves the ball well. He's in a fairly awkward position on a bad team, and that colors a lot of things. At that level of usage, it's very hard to maintain full effort on the other side of the floor, even for the very best we've ever seen.

I will say this: it is easier to integrate a player like Gobert into a team than it is someone like Cousins. You can put Gobert on literally any team in the league and he'd have immediate value to them and utility in their offense. About the only place I can envision him sort of not fitting in would be with the Cavs, given how much they like to have their frontcourt open up the interior, but I'm sure they could figure it out with screens away from on-ball action or up at the top of the circle and whatever to make it work out. He's got a highly portable game style.

[eminence]

Rudy with 20 pts on 8/8 FG. Challenged the Warriors with my boy Slow-Mo Joe as his best man.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Cousins is the better individual talent, but I'd take Gobert 10 out of 10 times. Gobert is a FAR better defensive player, doesn't get his panties in a bunch, techs, massive foul trouble, etc.. Keep in mind that Rudy does what he does on slowest pace team in the NBA, his PER 100 is 18.4ppg 18.5rpg 1.6apg .9spg 4.4bpg, shooting .644 from the field, and .669 from the line aint that bad for a 7'1" center with a freaking 7'9" wingspan. His impact far exceeds what is on paper too, players have to alter their shot tremendously and take terrible shots in the paint, or they just don't attack the basket because he's protecting the paint. For a team with several good offensive options like Utah (Hayward, Hill, Hood, Favors, Burks, etc..) they don't need their center to put up around 30ppg, having arguably the DPOY is sufficient, and add on top of the that the best FG% in the league, and he's a perfect fit for us.

I just pulled these up off the top of my head to illustrate.

Per Game:
16-17 Gobert 11.3pts 11.3reb 1.0ast 0.6stl 2.7blk 1.6TO .678TS%
16-17 Jordan 11.0pts 12.8reb 0.6ast 0.5stl 1.7blk 1.6TO .622TS%
11-12 Chandler 11.3pts 9.9reb 0.9ast 0.9stl 1.4blk 1.6TO .708TS%
99-00 Mutombo 11.5pts 14.1reb 1.3ast 0.3stl 3.3blk 2.0TO .621TS%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-17 Cousins 28.8pts 10.6reb 3.4ast 1.1stl 1.4blk 2.7TO .563TS%
98-99 O'Neal 26.3pts 10.7reb 2.3ast 0.7stl 1.7blk 2.5TO .584TS%
79-80 Malone 25.8pts 14.5reb 1.8ast 1.0stl 1.3blk 3.6TO .560TS%


Gobert belongs to an entirely different tradition than does Cousins. And its not a superior tradition. Nobody was saying who needs Shaq, I got Deke. But the Gobert tradition is sort of the next level down. If you don't have an elite center, then the next best thing is to have one of the 10-10-2 type elite defensive anchors instead.

[Dr Spaceman]

Cousins is the better individual talent, but I'd take Gobert 10 out of 10 times. Gobert is a FAR better defensive player, doesn't get his panties in a bunch, techs, massive foul trouble, etc.. Keep in mind that Rudy does what he does on slowest pace team in the NBA, his PER 100 is 18.4ppg 18.5rpg 1.6apg .9spg 4.4bpg, shooting .644 from the field, and .669 from the line aint that bad for a 7'1" center with a freaking 7'9" wingspan. His impact far exceeds what is on paper too, players have to alter their shot tremendously and take terrible shots in the paint, or they just don't attack the basket because he's protecting the paint. For a team with several good offensive options like Utah (Hayward, Hill, Hood, Favors, Burks, etc..) they don't need their center to put up around 30ppg, having arguably the DPOY is sufficient, and add on top of the that the best FG% in the league, and he's a perfect fit for us.

I just pulled these up off the top of my head to illustrate.

Per Game:
16-17 Gobert 11.3pts 11.3reb 1.0ast 0.6stl 2.7blk 1.6TO .678TS%
16-17 Jordan 11.0pts 12.8reb 0.6ast 0.5stl 1.7blk 1.6TO .622TS%
11-12 Chandler 11.3pts 9.9reb 0.9ast 0.9stl 1.4blk 1.6TO .708TS%
99-00 Mutombo 11.5pts 14.1reb 1.3ast 0.3stl 3.3blk 2.0TO .621TS%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-17 Cousins 28.8pts 10.6reb 3.4ast 1.1stl 1.4blk 2.7TO .563TS%
98-99 O'Neal 26.3pts 10.7reb 2.3ast 0.7stl 1.7blk 2.5TO .584TS%
79-80 Malone 25.8pts 14.5reb 1.8ast 1.0stl 1.3blk 3.6TO .560TS%


Gobert belongs to an entirely different tradition than does Cousins. And its not a superior tradition. Nobody was saying who needs Shaq, I got Deke. But the Gobert tradition is sort of the next level down. If you don't have an elite center, then the next best thing is to have one of the 10-10-2 type elite defensive anchors instead.

But again you show absolutely no desire to explore nuance. For example, comparing Shaq and Cousins:

FTR:
Shaq 2001 .684
Cousins 2017 .461

FG% at rim:
Shaq 2001 79.2%
Cousins 2017 61.2%

ORB%:
Shaq 2001 11.3%
Cousins 2017 7.9%

It makes no sense to put these guys in the same "tradition". Shaq was a submarine-sized maniac who was wreaking havoc at the rim and fouling out entire frontlines in the process. He was an automatic two points if he caught it anywhere in the vicinity of the cup. It's night and day when you watch the two on film. Teams were terrified of Shaq in a way they've never been terrified of anyone in history. Cousins creates some matchup problems with his unusual ball handling for a big man, but to say he's anywhere near Shaq's class as an offensive player is actually just insulting.

To put it in perspective, the difference between Shaq and Cousins in terms of finishing at the rim is approximately the difference between Cousins and current Deron Williams.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Cousins is the better individual talent, but I'd take Gobert 10 out of 10 times. Gobert is a FAR better defensive player, doesn't get his panties in a bunch, techs, massive foul trouble, etc.. Keep in mind that Rudy does what he does on slowest pace team in the NBA, his PER 100 is 18.4ppg 18.5rpg 1.6apg .9spg 4.4bpg, shooting .644 from the field, and .669 from the line aint that bad for a 7'1" center with a freaking 7'9" wingspan. His impact far exceeds what is on paper too, players have to alter their shot tremendously and take terrible shots in the paint, or they just don't attack the basket because he's protecting the paint. For a team with several good offensive options like Utah (Hayward, Hill, Hood, Favors, Burks, etc..) they don't need their center to put up around 30ppg, having arguably the DPOY is sufficient, and add on top of the that the best FG% in the league, and he's a perfect fit for us.

I just pulled these up off the top of my head to illustrate.

Per Game:
16-17 Gobert 11.3pts 11.3reb 1.0ast 0.6stl 2.7blk 1.6TO .678TS%
16-17 Jordan 11.0pts 12.8reb 0.6ast 0.5stl 1.7blk 1.6TO .622TS%
11-12 Chandler 11.3pts 9.9reb 0.9ast 0.9stl 1.4blk 1.6TO .708TS%
99-00 Mutombo 11.5pts 14.1reb 1.3ast 0.3stl 3.3blk 2.0TO .621TS%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-17 Cousins 28.8pts 10.6reb 3.4ast 1.1stl 1.4blk 2.7TO .563TS%
98-99 O'Neal 26.3pts 10.7reb 2.3ast 0.7stl 1.7blk 2.5TO .584TS%
79-80 Malone 25.8pts 14.5reb 1.8ast 1.0stl 1.3blk 3.6TO .560TS%


Gobert belongs to an entirely different tradition than does Cousins. And its not a superior tradition. Nobody was saying who needs Shaq, I got Deke. But the Gobert tradition is sort of the next level down. If you don't have an elite center, then the next best thing is to have one of the 10-10-2 type elite defensive anchors instead.

But again you show absolutely no desire to explore nuance. For example, comparing Shaq and Cousins:

FTR:
Shaq 2001 .684
Cousins 2017 .461

FG% at rim:
Shaq 2001 79.2%
Cousins 2017 61.2%

ORB%:
Shaq 2001 11.3%
Cousins 2017 7.9%

It makes no sense to put these guys in the same "tradition". Shaq was a submarine-sized maniac who was wreaking havoc at the rim and fouling out entire frontlines in the process. He was an automatic two points if he caught it anywhere in the vicinity of the cup. It's night and day when you watch the two on film. Teams were terrified of Shaq in a way they've never been terrified of anyone in history. Cousins creates some matchup problems with his unusual ball handling for a big man, but to say he's anywhere near Shaq's class as an offensive player is actually just insulting.

To put it in perspective, the difference between Shaq and Cousins in terms of finishing at the rim is approximately the difference between Cousins and current Deron Williams.

You continue to have this odd tint to your argument that suggests that if Cousins is not equal to peak Shaq (and that is where you got that FT draw rate from, it was the only time in his prime he was even over .600), then...Rudy Gobert!

I remain unconvinced the history of the NBA center position runs Kareem --> Wilt --> Shaq -->Gobert.

I listed some of Gobert's peers above. Those are his peer group. Cousins peer group are the great physical scoring centers. Shaq, a Top 10 player all time, may be the dean of that group. That does not mean he is the only member.

[Atmanne]

Up.

This guy's a damn monster. http://www.espn.com/blog/nba/post/_/id/27460/best-nba-big-man-rudy-gobert-right-now-i-think-its-me

During Utah’s 11-2 run, Gobert has averaged 15.1 points, 12.9 rebounds and 3.2 blocks while shooting 76.5 percent from the floor and 71 percent from the line. The Jazz have outscored opponents by 130 points with Gobert on the floor in those 13 games.

It’s not like the French big fella has just been feasting on the weak, either. Far from it. Gasol, who outplayed Gobert in the Grizzlies' road win last month, is the latest on a list of premier centers whom Gobert has gotten the best of recently.

Miami’s Hassan Whiteside, Atlanta’s Dwight Howard, Minnesota’s Karl-Anthony Towns, Sacramento’s DeMarcus Cousins and Gasol have averaged 11.2 points on 30.1 percent shooting in their matchups with Gobert over the last month. Gobert’s numbers in those five games, four of which Utah won: averages of 14 points, 13.2 rebounds and 4.0 blocks, hitting 77.4 percent of his field goal attempts. Utah was plus-66 with him on the floor.

[E-Balla]

As a follow up to the conversation I had earlier in this thread I started watching more of Utah and paying attention to their offense and specifically Gobert and he is definitely not a net negative. Not that it has to do with his screen setting but he just gets 5 easy buckets a night which is pretty valuable. He's not as good offensively as DeAndre but he reminded me of Tyson without the great offensive rebounding which is pretty decent. Still don't think he's better than Demarcus and after watching them I think Gordon Hayward is the best player on their team (I was thinking of starting a thread about him and Bradley Beal because recently I've been watching Utah and Washington and those two stood out to me) but Gobert is playing at a top 30 level right now. He's the best defender in the league and at the same time average offensively (still don't think he's a positive on offense just that he's not a negative).

[eminence]

27 and 25 for Rudy tonight. On 11 FGA.