Josh Giddey - Conundrum Killer

[dougthonus]

The more I see him, the more it’s clear he has to be the number ONE primary ball handler to be effective. We can all see how much better he looks once the air was cleared after the Zach trade.

Now can you build a successful team around him as that guy? The very real multi million dollar question.

I mean the answer to that sure seems like obviously not. The focal point of your offense needs to be a dynamic scorer that draws double times and scores in high volume above league average efficiency.

I think the more interesting question to me is can he become a good enough and consistent enough shooter where he no longer needs to be the #1 ball handler to be effective. I think it's way more likely he becomes a consistent enough shooter to play off ball than he becomes a dynamic enough offensive player to be the offensive fulcrum.

Partially because it's nearly impossible for him to get good enough to be a the primary ball handler on a good team without improving his shooting, because to be that good, he needs to be a great scoring threat which will involve better and more advanced shooting than just consistent off-ball shooting.

[DuckIII]

This is no longer a conundrum this is great

Looks much less a conundrum now than it did, but that’s because we resolved a huge part of the conundrum: trading Zach and seeing what Giddey can do the rest of the season.

That was not the only concerning factor but it was the main one. We know a lot more now because of it.

[DuckIII]

Giddey can play alongside a player like an SGA. We saw this in his second year when he played with both SGA and Jalen Williams and was putting up 17/8/6. The thing is that Giddey was the second ballhandler that year. However, it became obvious that Jalen Williams was going to be a star, and it already was obvious that SGA was one. So, because Jalen Williams was improving so sharply and because Giddey was less of a sure thing, he was the one forced to make sacrifices.

You can have Giddey as the secondary guy, but you can't put him any lower than that. He isn't a role player/tertiary player.

The Dallas series really cemented his narrative because he didn't get playing time. OKC lost a close series to Dallas but it wasn't because of some kind of deficiency in GIddey.

Dallas being able to put Gafford/Lively on Giddey is a deficiency. The loss wasn't entirely on him but his limitations as a player were visible.

I don’t get it and never did. Even before Giddey being a Bull was even a thought. He got taken off ball because his team had this year’s MVP, top 3 in MVP votes last year, playing his position.

I never understood why what he did playing out of position and off ball in one series mattered so much to so many. And it makes absolutely not sense to me to consider it now.

Why does it matter today?

[DuckIII]

Dallas being able to put Gafford/Lively on Giddey is a deficiency. The loss wasn't entirely on him but his limitations as a player were visible.

That’s the thing, Giddey standing in the corner on offense is without a doubt a negative player.

As the primary ball handler, you clearly can’t put those guys on him for any decent stretch of time.

The more I see him, the more it’s clear he has to be the number ONE primary ball handler to be effective. We can all see how much better he looks once the air was cleared after the Zach trade.

Now can you build a successful team around him as that guy? The very real multi million dollar question.

Depends on what is considered successful. 30 win team? Probably. 40 win team? Maybe in the right circumstances. 45 wins? Highly unlikely. 50 wins? No.

Based off what Giddey's shown so far in his career I wouldn't expect more than 35 wins. Now this isn't a bad thing since most players aren't great floor raisers. The issue comes from Giddey needing to be prioritized. He needs to ball but hasn't shown that he can produce enough offense to warrant the high usage. Different play style but this is fundamentally the same issue Derozan has had throughout his career.

There is no such thing as one player making $25 million a year who caps a team at 35 wins regardless of who his teammates are. Including that player being the primary ball handler and distributor (which Giddey is quite good at).

I don’t like saying hater. But I gotta admit some of these takes are so blatantly illogical that they must be based on some other weird factors like Caruso emotions or that silly Giddey “pedo” nonsense.

[DuckIII]

March has been historically his best month.

Since the minute we traded Lavine he’s 19/8/7 with efficient offense. What is your point?

[sco]

Watching Giddey, "PG" label or not. Dude is a legit forward. He is way more physical in terms banging in the paint on both ends and fighting for RB's than Pat. And the whole, he needs to bulk-up BS needs to go. I don't see him being out muscled. Dude is downright scrappy.

I am much more intrigued than I expected going into next season...predicated on Vuc being gone.

PG: Ball/Carter
SG: White/Ayo
SF: Giddey/Huerter
PF: Buzelis/Williams
C: Collins/Smith

Plus our 1st, Phillips, Terry

[DuckIII]

The more I see him, the more it’s clear he has to be the number ONE primary ball handler to be effective. We can all see how much better he looks once the air was cleared after the Zach trade.

Now can you build a successful team around him as that guy? The very real multi million dollar question.

I mean the answer to that sure seems like obviously not.

I don’t get this either. The Bulls team Giddey joined was badly suited to his game. There are certainly plenty of rosters that a smart GM can put together with Giddey playing point guard that can contend. He doesn’t have to, and would not expect him to, be scoring 20 ppg on a logically built team.

The GM would have to be smart and particular, I admit today and it’s in my OP which started the thread. But the knee jerk to “obviously not” ignoring all other factors is pretty clearly a significant overstatement.

[League Circles]

Giddey appears to be playing pretty well, but I think it's very important to consider whether it's actually helping out team. Just because it looks pretty good aesthetically and he gets counting stats and yes even with good shooting efficiency - is it improving our offense. I don't know the answer to that because it's too time consuming to break out the data, but it's worth considering that when Russell Westbrook, who was sort of a much better defending version of a pretty best case scenario for Giddey, won the MVP award putting up insane triple double averages, he ran the 16th best offense in the league on a 47 win team.

I'm slowly warming up to the idea of Giddey as our long term point like most people, but I'm very, very hesitant to dive and believe it will be a good thing, certainly for our defense, but also for our offense.

To Doug's point, virtually all great teams seem to have their offense revolve around a high volume, high efficiency scorer that draws defensive attention. Now those guys are obviously very hard to find. And if you can't find one, which we probably can't just due to scarcity and odds, MAYBE an elite distributor is a good enough consolation to proceed with. But it really could absolutely lock us into long term mediocrity in a way that most people won't be able to see, because we could have a 20th ranked offense with Giddey putting up his big counting numbers even on decent efficiency and people might never see that he's a big part of the problem. Now I'm not saying this will be the case, but we should be aware that it certainly could be. Not sure how to track it, but if our offense is below average the rest of the year l, that's enough for me to probably want to sign and trade or let him walk if he won't sign an MLE-ish contract. Yeah, yeah, I know he's not flanked by all stars, but IF he is what we hope he is, IMO this group should be enough for him to at least be in the top 10-15 offensive teams in the league the rest of the year. I'll give him a pass on team defense under the circumstances cause we're far from a finished team, so to speak, but the offense can't simply be dismissed as "Giddey is good, once he has much better players to pass to, the offense won't be bad anymore.

[dougthonus]

The more I see him, the more it’s clear he has to be the number ONE primary ball handler to be effective. We can all see how much better he looks once the air was cleared after the Zach trade.

Now can you build a successful team around him as that guy? The very real multi million dollar question.

I mean the answer to that sure seems like obviously not.

I don’t get this either. The Bulls team Giddey joined was badly suited to his game. There are certainly plenty of rosters that a smart GM can put together with Giddey playing point guard that can contend. He doesn’t have to, and would not expect him to, be scoring 20 ppg on a logically built team.

The GM would have to be smart and particular, I admit today and it’s in my OP which started the thread. But the knee jerk to “obviously not” ignoring all other factors is pretty clearly a significant overstatement.

At his present level, I don't think it is. What contending team do you think would be better if you replaced their 4th starter (or better) starter with Josh Giddey? I don't think any team over 30 wins would swap out whomever their 4th best starter is for Josh because all have way better on ball guys than Josh and he wouldn't help them if he's not on ball.

[League Circles]

At his present level, I don't think it is. What contending team do you think would be better if you replaced their 4th starter (or better) starter with Josh Giddey? I don't think any team over 30 wins would swap out whomever their 4th best starter is for Josh because all have way better on ball guys than Josh and he wouldn't help them if he's not on ball.

Excellent phrasing of your question to put things in perspective.

Side note - you are the master ninja edit guy on this forum lol. Like 50% of the time I quote one of your posts, you've already edited it between the time my page loads your original comment and I hit reply. Just a funny observation that you want to make sure you communicate the way you want, which is good.

[dougthonus]

At his present level, I don't think it is. What contending team do you think would be better if you replaced their 4th starter (or better) starter with Josh Giddey? I don't think any team over 30 wins would swap out whomever their 4th best starter is for Josh because all have way better on ball guys than Josh and he wouldn't help them if he's not on ball.

Excellent phrasing of your question to put things in perspective.

Side note - you are the master ninja edit guy on this forum lol. Like 50% of the time I quote one of your posts, you've already edited it between the time my page loads your original comment and I hit reply. Just a funny observation that you want to make sure you communicate the way you want, which is good.

Haha, this is very true, I often post quickly, then rethink what I am saying for clarity or to remove snark. I think I probably edit like 50% of my posts, often multiple times.

[MrSparkle]

Game score count…

Giddey’s had 19 games with a GmSc under 10 (often with double-digit negative bpm, “very bad” games)… 10 games over 20 (1 rounded up… nevertheless, “very good” games)… and the other 20 in the middle…

He’s been on a roll the last 2 weeks, and he’s a triple-double threat which is a serious quality, but 10 great games in a season should not translate to $30M. Atleast not without further evaluation (so a shorter contract).

Look at how hard Lauri crashed after pay day. Contract year hustle is real. Pay Giddey a contract you won’t cringe at on the bad days (which for him, have so far doubled the great days).

I like how tough he is rebounding, and his passing is contagious. Has some wildly unorthodox crafty old man YMC-Australia moves. Just please don’t handicap the cap with a guy who isn’t a reliable top-2 option. We just went through 7 years of this.

[League Circles]

Game score count…

Giddey’s had 19 games with a GmSc under 10 (often with double-digit negative bpm, “very bad” games)… 10 games over 20 (1 rounded up… nevertheless, “very good” games)… and the other 20 in the middle…

He’s been on a roll the last 2 weeks, and he’s a triple-double threat which is a serious quality, but 10 great games in a season should not translate to $30M. Atleast not without further evaluation (so a shorter contract).

Look at how hard Lauri crashed after pay day. Contract year hustle is real. Pay Giddey a contract you won’t cringe at on the bad days (which for him, have so far doubled the great days).

I like how tough he is rebounding, and his passing is contagious. Has some wildly unorthodox crafty old man YMC-Australia moves. Just please don’t handicap the cap with a guy who isn’t a reliable top-2 option. We just went through 7 years of this.

I like the phrase that his passing is contagious. Tbh, that actually might be his best attribute - not even his personal passing, but just how his gane inspires the other players to pass more and more.

[sco]

I mean the answer to that sure seems like obviously not.

I don’t get this either. The Bulls team Giddey joined was badly suited to his game. There are certainly plenty of rosters that a smart GM can put together with Giddey playing point guard that can contend. He doesn’t have to, and would not expect him to, be scoring 20 ppg on a logically built team.

The GM would have to be smart and particular, I admit today and it’s in my OP which started the thread. But the knee jerk to “obviously not” ignoring all other factors is pretty clearly a significant overstatement.

At his present level, I don't think it is. What contending team do you think would be better if you replaced their 4th starter (or better) starter with Josh Giddey? I don't think any team over 30 wins would swap out whomever their 4th best starter is for Josh because all have way better on ball guys than Josh and he wouldn't help them if he's not on ball.

You make a good point, but when I think about it. It is because they have a guy or guys who do what he does in their top 3, so the need doesn't match what you'd be replacing with the 4th guy.

I do remain skeptical as to what Giddey has done for a month and change, but if I see him keep this up for the rest of the season, I'm good with paying the man. Still that's no small "IF", because his 3 ball has become erratic again, and that's important to his value proposition to me.

[League Circles]

The more I see him, the more it’s clear he has to be the number ONE primary ball handler to be effective. We can all see how much better he looks once the air was cleared after the Zach trade.

Now can you build a successful team around him as that guy? The very real multi million dollar question.

I mean the answer to that sure seems like obviously not.

I don’t get this either. The Bulls team Giddey joined was badly suited to his game. There are certainly plenty of rosters that a smart GM can put together with Giddey playing point guard that can contend. He doesn’t have to, and would not expect him to, be scoring 20 ppg on a logically built team.

The GM would have to be smart and particular, I admit today and it’s in my OP which started the thread. But the knee jerk to “obviously not” ignoring all other factors is pretty clearly a significant overstatement.

I think offensively the team Giddey joined was perfectly well suited to his game. Vuc, Zach, Coby, and even Patrick and Ball are all guys who are perfectly capable at catch and shoot, spacing etc. If the idea is that Zach and/or Coby dominated the ball too much for Giddey to thrive, IMO that would suggest that the narrowly defined team that would thrive around Giddey is basically extreme off ball scorers, like prime Ray Allen, etc. would be very difficult to find those guys.

I mean he's definitely become more aggressive in scoring the ball, with good results in a very short period of time.

[2weekswithpay]

The Dallas series really cemented his narrative because he didn't get playing time. OKC lost a close series to Dallas but it wasn't because of some kind of deficiency in GIddey.

Dallas being able to put Gafford/Lively on Giddey is a deficiency. The loss wasn't entirely on him but his limitations as a player were visible.

I don’t get it and never did. Even before Giddey being a Bull was even a thought. He got taken off ball because his team had this year’s MVP, top 3 in MVP votes last year, playing his position.

I never understood why what he did playing out of position and off ball in one series mattered so much to so many. And it makes absolutely not sense to me to consider it now.

Why does it matter today?

Good players should be capable of playing off of other good players. Few players are so good offensively that they do not have to share the ball. This wasn't a one series thing either, it happened for a good chunk of last season. You don't have to care but I don't see how ignoring what happened benefits anyone.

[Infinity2152]

If the problem is Dallas was able to put Lively/Gafford on Giddey, what the heck was Holgrem doing? Being guarded by Kyrie? Giddey was effectively playing PF with three guards, one of the 4 was going to be guarded by PF/center anyway. It is not Giddey's fault he was played as a big and was the second tallest player on the floor for OKC. Why would he would be guarded by anybody but the PF or center? Jalen Williams is 6'5 or so, and Dort is shorter. Can we please end this narrative, or somebody explain if Dallas plays two bigs, why one wouldn't be put on the 6'8 rebounding guy at all times?

Jus like the narrative that because he was targeted, he's a horrible defender. OKC has the BEST defensive rating in the league. Team full of absolutely great defenders. Any average defender would get targeted. You get targeted regularly, you look worse. Playing four guards, yes, he had the slowest foot speed of the four guards. The times he's getting targeted, a lot of times it's effectively like a PF being targeted to have to guard a PG or SG on the perimeter.

OKC won so many games with Giddey starting, it's wild people ignore what's already happened and say a good team can't start him or win with him starting. OKC isn't even super talented, especially offensively. They could win 57 games with him starting 80 games in 2022-2023, but Denver or Boston or the Knicks couldn't replace their fourth starter with Giddey and win? The Thunder's top three aren't the best top 3 in the league. Many teams, their top two isn't better than the other teams top 2. But teams with superior rosters would play worse with Giddey playing his actual role than the Thunder did shoeing him in off ball?

[2weekswithpay]

That’s the thing, Giddey standing in the corner on offense is without a doubt a negative player.

As the primary ball handler, you clearly can’t put those guys on him for any decent stretch of time.

The more I see him, the more it’s clear he has to be the number ONE primary ball handler to be effective. We can all see how much better he looks once the air was cleared after the Zach trade.

Now can you build a successful team around him as that guy? The very real multi million dollar question.

Depends on what is considered successful. 30 win team? Probably. 40 win team? Maybe in the right circumstances. 45 wins? Highly unlikely. 50 wins? No.

Based off what Giddey's shown so far in his career I wouldn't expect more than 35 wins. Now this isn't a bad thing since most players aren't great floor raisers. The issue comes from Giddey needing to be prioritized. He needs to ball but hasn't shown that he can produce enough offense to warrant the high usage. Different play style but this is fundamentally the same issue Derozan has had throughout his career.

There is no such thing as one player making $25 million a year who caps a team at 35 wins regardless of who his teammates are. Including that player being the primary ball handler and distributor (which Giddey is quite good at).

I don’t like saying hater. But I gotta admit some of these takes are so blatantly illogical that they must be based on some other weird factors like Caruso emotions or that silly Giddey “pedo” nonsense.

I'm not saying he caps a team at 35 wins regardless of teammates. I'm saying that the better the team gets, the more likely it is that Giddey's negatives outweigh the positives. Of the 12 teams that currently are a top 6 seed, how many would Giddey start on? Houston maybe?

[Chi town]

Game score count…

Giddey’s had 19 games with a GmSc under 10 (often with double-digit negative bpm, “very bad” games)… 10 games over 20 (1 rounded up… nevertheless, “very good” games)… and the other 20 in the middle…

He’s been on a roll the last 2 weeks, and he’s a triple-double threat which is a serious quality, but 10 great games in a season should not translate to $30M. Atleast not without further evaluation (so a shorter contract).

Look at how hard Lauri crashed after pay day. Contract year hustle is real. Pay Giddey a contract you won’t cringe at on the bad days (which for him, have so far doubled the great days).

I like how tough he is rebounding, and his passing is contagious. Has some wildly unorthodox crafty old man YMC-Australia moves. Just please don’t handicap the cap with a guy who isn’t a reliable top-2 option. We just went through 7 years of this.

I like the phrase that his passing is contagious. Tbh, that actually might be his best attribute - not even his personal passing, but just how his gane inspires the other players to pass more and more.

I’d add hustle and physicality to that contagion.

How many times did we watch DDR Vuc and Zach just roll over.

Giddey is feisty. I’m loving how’s he in the ears of the ears of the refs now too.

You can see a leader rising and even the early signs of a team identity… which we never had with the Mid 3.

[PJSteven22]

March has been historically his best month.

Since the minute we traded Lavine he’s 19/8/7 with efficient offense. What is your point?

Historically he does well in the back half of the season. I don’t really think these numbers hold much weight. Imo that’s a red flag that he struggled to play with Zach and Shai.

[x]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=yUFGvqPsYa4YnkjaK7zH2w[/x]