Josh Giddey - Conundrum Killer

[WindyCityBorn]

I don’t why some keep talking like Giddey needs to b a 25 ppg scorer run the offense. That has never a requirement.

Actually it kind of is, as much as we hate to admit it.

I don’t think there’s any recent example of a non-scoring primary ball-handler winning a playoff series… not unless they’re a 4th option (Rondo).

You can win in different ways, but bottom line is that every single successful playoff team in the last 15Y has had their top-2 ball-handlers be 20+ PPG scorers.

This said, his usage is around 20%, which is low. I assume it’s higher with Zach and Vuc out. Feels like Coby is still the primary BH, though. Fwiw it’s refreshing seeing the ball shared pretty evenly. Almost seems like we’re at 5/20% usage since Vuc’s been out, which is a college coach’s dream. Lot of off-ball movement and baseline cuts.

How about, f*** history let's try something new

People ignore that Draymond Green basically acted the lead facilitator for Golden State and he was nowhere near a good offensive player.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

I think it's better not to have your best distributor and scorer in one player ie Luka, Harden, Tre Young - it's better to split the duties up. Let Coby score and never worry about passing, let Giddey be the offense's catalyst - persistentently drive, pass, cut, rebound, cause movement, cause back cuts, cause misdirection. What the Bulls lacked most with Zach/Demar/Vuc is movement. Giddey is a literal catalyst out there. He's not going to score 40 points himself but he's going to cause 60-80 points to be scored by the team while he's out there with his overall decision making, positioning, and attitude. At least that's what I've been seeing this past month.

I don't believe in heliocentricity's effectiveness and more than that, I hate watching it. We're actually playing like a 5 man unit now instead of 1 dude with an audience.

[dougthonus]

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.

Here is a challenge:

Create a championship contender using actual contracts. You can include anyone in the league you want on the team at their actual salary. You get to spend 185M total money.

What is the most you can pay Josh Giddey to be on that team, that I couldn't replace him with players that would better fit that team at a cheaper price.

For the sake of this argument, exclude rookie contract players in primary roles. I think if you go through this exercise, you'll find that the number it makes sense to have him on any contending team is probably sub 20M, possibly sub 15M, because he plays no role on a contending team.

[League Circles]

Saying you can never see him as top 60 player is wild. He is playing like a top 30 player right now at 23.

I strongly disagree. He's a sub par defender and an average scorer who can pass and rebound really well. Don't let counting stats define guys.

No I’m watching him. He is one of the highest IQ players in the league. He is an elite rebounder and passer with elite court vision. Defense is around average and improving. Him not being an elite scorer is really your biggest gripe.

I don't particularly disagree with any of this, but I'll add this huge caveat:

With defense, there is how a guy is playing in his regular games under average circumstances, and then there is how he can play when fully tested in the playoffs against high quality opponents trying to attack a guy. The former is what we're seeing now. The latter is what I'm primarily interested in. And I don't think Giddey has the physical ability to ever, ever be an above average playoff defender. I don't think individual rebounding is quite as critical of a metric as some do. I think a lot of it is noise and opportunity. But I'm not trying to take things away from him. He is indeed very smart and has a number of significant positive skills.

And it's not that he's not an elite scored. He's an average one that draws very little defensive attention. That's a pretty big red flag for a guy who is only useful when he has the ball IMO.

It's also an astonishing red flag that he's somehow been playing ball for as long as he has and has such a terribly ugly form to his shot. Yeah, it's gotten better, but I really wonder what happened from age 10 to 23 that enabled him to ever think that was OK.

[League Circles]

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.

Here is a challenge:

Create a championship contender using actual contracts. You can include anyone in the league you want on the team at their actual salary. You get to spend 185M total money.

What is the most you can pay Josh Giddey to be on that team, that I couldn't replace him with players that would better fit that team at a cheaper price.

For the sake of this argument, exclude rookie contract players in primary roles. I think if you go through this exercise, you'll find that the number it makes sense to have him on any contending team is probably sub 20M, possibly sub 15M, because he plays no role on a contending team.

The bold is a fantastic idea. This weekend we should set up a thread where everyone does this blindly and then after we all vote on who is best or top 5 or whatever.

[League Circles]

I think it's better not to have your best distributor and scorer in one player ie Luka, Harden, Tre Young - it's better to split the duties up. Let Coby score and never worry about passing, let Giddey be the offense's catalyst - persistentently drive, pass, cut, rebound, cause movement, cause back cuts, cause misdirection. What the Bulls lacked most with Zach/Demar/Vuc is movement. Giddey is a literal catalyst out there. He's not going to score 40 points himself but he's going to cause 60-80 points to be scored by the team while he's out there with his overall decision making, positioning, and attitude. At least that's what I've been seeing this past month.

I don't believe in heliocentricity's effectiveness and more than that, I hate watching it. We're actually playing like a 5 man unit now instead of 1 dude with an audience.

Decades of nba championship teams and a few years of Tre Young failing didn't teach you about what works and what doesn't?

"Pass first point guards" can be a part of winning, but it's certainly been rare for as long as almost any of us can remember.

[sco]

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.

Here is a challenge:

Create a championship contender using actual contracts. You can include anyone in the league you want on the team at their actual salary. You get to spend 185M total money.

What is the most you can pay Josh Giddey to be on that team, that I couldn't replace him with players that would better fit that team at a cheaper price.

For the sake of this argument, exclude rookie contract players in primary roles. I think if you go through this exercise, you'll find that the number it makes sense to have him on any contending team is probably sub 20M, possibly sub 15M, because he plays no role on a contending team.

You know me, I'm way to lazy to do that calculus.

I will say that if you replaced Ja with Giddey and replaced Clarke with a decent 3-D guy like Divencenzo, I'd roll with that Memphis team.

[jordanwilliams6]

Interestingly I think our current lineup is probably the prototype of the sorts of players that you need to surround Giddey with in a lineup of Lonzo/Coby/Giddey/Buz/Collins.

Lonzo & Coby work because they are high volume shooters who both work better as secondary ball handlers. Lonzo takes the best wing offensive player

The PF needs to be a higher scoring switchable defender that can guard bigger wings. Buz could develop into that player. The C needs to be a rim runner, low usage & a positive rim protector which Collins is as well.

Obviously it’s not going to be a contender in its current form but the types of players seem to make sense. The SG & PF players need to develop into high level scorers to balance our Giddey’s ball handling & playmaking.

[2weekswithpay]

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 fault he was played as a big and was the second tallest player on the floor for OKC. Why would he would br 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?

Chet has the same issues that Porzingis had. He doesn't have the strength to punish teams that guard him with wings/forwards. Now this doesn't mean you can put Kyrie on him, Dallas didn't but it gives defenses matchup flexibility.

You're looking at this the wrong way IMO. Dallas had two bigs but they didn't play together. Giddey isn't being played as a big. OKC didn't ask him to do anything you'd expect from a big besides rebound. Gafford is guarding Giddey because they think he's the least threatening player in OKC's offense. Giddey is a better player on offense than Dort but Dort could make enough 3s to hurt Dallas' if they tried to guard him that way so they picked Giddey.

Every player on the team is flawed but when looking for ways to improve, you look at who's expendable and Giddey is the odd man out.

Let's be real, Luka is PF size too. Like you said, Holgrem being able to be guarded by guards and wings is the only thing that makes that work. If you're not playing two bigs, who's guarding OKC's center while Dallas center is guarding Giddey?

You can say Giddey's not being played as a big. What does that mean? He's not being played as PG or SG certainly. He's the best rebounder, so they need him for that. When you don't play him, you lose rebounding. Second tallest player, so when he sits you lose height. He essentially had PF responsibility in a lineup with 4 guards, imo.

Game 1 Dallas Gafford 27 mins, Lively 13, Washington 25 mins, Powell 5 mins They played 2 bigs a lot. Starting lineup was Gafford and Washington.

Game 2 Gafford 26 minutes, Lively 20 mins, PJ Washington 40 minutes, Two bigs all game

Game 3 Gafford 19 mins, Lively 27, PJ Washington 40 minutes Two bigs all games

Game 4 Gafford 23 mins, Lively 25, PJ Washington 41 minutes Two bigs all game

Then OKC decides to bench Giddey, get even smaller

Either a PF or center was going to be guarding Giddey with SGA, Jalen Williams and Dort short and fast players on the court. PJ Washington isn't guarding them ideally. They put their worst big defender (Washington) on Holgrem and their best defensive big on Giddey.

Coincidence they immediately went and got a big man starter (Hartenstein)?

I don't see what Luka has to do with this. In this series, it was usually DJJ or PJ Washington and sometimes Luka. Kyrie was guarding Dort or Jalen Williams. The Mavs have DJJ or PJ guarding Chet for two reasons. One, both are big enough to not get pushed around, two, when Chet sets a screen for SGA, the Mavs can just switch and OKC's offense doesn't gain any advantage.

They weren't asking Giddey to protect the rim, guard the pick n roll, etc. His role on defense wasn't much different from what it is on the Bulls. On offense, he was an off-ball wing not a big. Giddey isn't being asked to do things one would normally expect from bigs. Against Minnesota last season, the one who had to guard KAT was Jalen Williams, not Giddey. Giddey isn't being asked to play like he's Evan Mobley. Dort isn't asked to dribble the ball and make plays despite being 6'3/6'4. Is he being used as a big too?

Lively and Gafford minutes are staggered which is why their minutes always add up to something close to a full game (48mins). PJ Washington isn't a big. He spends most of his time playing the 3/4, and he rarely plays the 5. Plus PJ is only 6'7. These aren't two big lineups.

Hartenstein isn't a guaranteed starter. OKC is still experimenting with lineups because of Chet's injury. Against the Hawks, Hartenstein came off the bench.

[DuckIII]

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.

That’s an irrelevant question because those teams are already built based on the wide variety of differing factors that went into building them. But I could easily build an imaginary one based on the assumption Giddey signs for 20-30 million.

The only guys you can say “obviously not” are team killers on max contracts who play loser basketball like Melo, Tre and Harden in the day. Giddey at these rates is at less than half a max deal. Hell, in theory you could contend with $30 million in dead contracts.

Sorry Doug, I know you question his game but your arguments aren’t rooted in logic. Challenging and particular to build a contender with him at those rates? Yes. Stating it’s impossible just means you are being impacted by more than logic in reaching your conclusion.

[PJSteven22]

Actually it kind of is, as much as we hate to admit it.

I don’t think there’s any recent example of a non-scoring primary ball-handler winning a playoff series… not unless they’re a 4th option (Rondo).

You can win in different ways, but bottom line is that every single successful playoff team in the last 15Y has had their top-2 ball-handlers be 20+ PPG scorers.

This said, his usage is around 20%, which is low. I assume it’s higher with Zach and Vuc out. Feels like Coby is still the primary BH, though. Fwiw it’s refreshing seeing the ball shared pretty evenly. Almost seems like we’re at 5/20% usage since Vuc’s been out, which is a college coach’s dream. Lot of off-ball movement and baseline cuts.

How about, f*** history let's try something new

People ignore that Draymond Green basically acted the lead facilitator for Golden State and he was nowhere near a good offensive player.

He was also one of the best defensive players of this generation.

[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.

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.

I’m not ignoring it. I’m fully aware of it. Assessing evidence and disregarding it as irrelevant is analysis, not ignorance.

[DuckIII]

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.

And yet it’s exactly what you said. Why?

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?

Why do people keep asking where Giddey, a unique player, would fit on teams that were not built including his game as part of the analysis? It’s a meaningless exercise rendered even more meaningless by limiting it to a one year snap shot of teams.

[DuckIII]

Josh Giddey is not a superstar, but he seems to be a valuable player to even a contender with the right pieces around him. He's like a lot of players, with some serious skills and some reasonable significant flaws. He's a pretty good handler, passer, rebounder. He's a decent 3-pt shooter (37% this year). But he's a bad to mediocre defender, and needs the ball in his hands to be most effective.

But at $25M, he'd be somewhere around the 60th highest paid player (https://hoopshype.com/salaries/players/), probably lower because this is current season salaries, so assuming inflation. Even at $30M he'd be around 50th. Somewhere around 17%-18% of the cap as it increases. That seems entirely consistent with the value above.

And all of that ignores that he's only 22, and if you look for example at 3p%, it's 26%-33%-34%-37% over his first four years. Not out of reasonableness to say he can be a +- 40% 3pt shooter, which makes him more effective off ball. Not an off the dribble, pull-up guy, but a solid spot up guy with another creator on the floor. And he's had flashes of defensive attention. Add a bit more muscle and coaching on that front and he could be at least mediocre.

So there's upside, and if you had him at $25-$30M, shooting 39% from 3, getting you regular double doubles and flirting with triple doubles without being a defensive liability, that seems like a solid value deal for his ages 23-28 years. I get the argument that it's similar to Zach in a potentially "empty calorie" way, but I attribute a lot of that to the piss poor team construction around him.

Basically, my take is that he's worth resigning at $25-30 annually. But that the Bulls will find themselves limited by that deal because they'll be unable to effectively build around him. But the same is true if you let him go - the Bulls will be unable to effectively replace him or improve with the added flexibility. Basically because AK is terrible at his job. But that's not Giddey's fault.

Yikes, I didn't know those salary numbers would put him in the top 50-60 players. I don't think he ever projects to be a top 60 player.

That won’t be a top 60 salary during the life of that deal.

[2weekswithpay]

Actually it kind of is, as much as we hate to admit it.

I don’t think there’s any recent example of a non-scoring primary ball-handler winning a playoff series… not unless they’re a 4th option (Rondo).

You can win in different ways, but bottom line is that every single successful playoff team in the last 15Y has had their top-2 ball-handlers be 20+ PPG scorers.

This said, his usage is around 20%, which is low. I assume it’s higher with Zach and Vuc out. Feels like Coby is still the primary BH, though. Fwiw it’s refreshing seeing the ball shared pretty evenly. Almost seems like we’re at 5/20% usage since Vuc’s been out, which is a college coach’s dream. Lot of off-ball movement and baseline cuts.

How about, f*** history let's try something new

People ignore that Draymond Green basically acted the lead facilitator for Golden State and he was nowhere near a good offensive player.

Draymond as a lead facilitator only works because of Curry. Lineups with Draymond and without Curry were bad offensively. From 2019-now



This is still true if you look at the years the Warriors had KD.

Spoiler:

[DuckIII]

What is the most you can pay Josh Giddey to be on that team, that I couldn't replace him with players that would better fit that team at a cheaper price.

You would always be able to because of your subjective opinion of him as a player, which is very low. So you will easily identify “better” options. Another pointless exercise.

It also wouldn’t mean the hypothetical team is not a contender

[MrSparkle]

Actually it kind of is, as much as we hate to admit it.

I don’t think there’s any recent example of a non-scoring primary ball-handler winning a playoff series… not unless they’re a 4th option (Rondo).

You can win in different ways, but bottom line is that every single successful playoff team in the last 15Y has had their top-2 ball-handlers be 20+ PPG scorers.

This said, his usage is around 20%, which is low. I assume it’s higher with Zach and Vuc out. Feels like Coby is still the primary BH, though. Fwiw it’s refreshing seeing the ball shared pretty evenly. Almost seems like we’re at 5/20% usage since Vuc’s been out, which is a college coach’s dream. Lot of off-ball movement and baseline cuts.

How about, f*** history let's try something new

People ignore that Draymond Green basically acted the lead facilitator for Golden State and he was nowhere near a good offensive player.

Wait a minute… are we comparing a DPOY to Giddey?

Also Draymond was kinda underpaid on a value deal those first few rings due to the absurd cap jump right after he signed. They had him at $16M when $28M became the new max. Also helped that Curry had his “bad ankles” extension (10M!), along with Klay getting paid on the old CBA. Great timing. Unique situation to have such a power trio signed for about half their salary cap. Kinda like when Pippen signed for a dollar every 7Y while the cap exploded exponentially. It could happen, but paying Giddey 30M sounds the opposite of that potential scenario.

Anyway, think we’re getting in the weeds here. I want Giddey to stay. He needs to be signed under $20M or we’ll regret it.

[Infinity2152]

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.

Here is a challenge:

Create a championship contender using actual contracts. You can include anyone in the league you want on the team at their actual salary. You get to spend 185M total money.

What is the most you can pay Josh Giddey to be on that team, that I couldn't replace him with players that would better fit that team at a cheaper price.

For the sake of this argument, exclude rookie contract players in primary roles. I think if you go through this exercise, you'll find that the number it makes sense to have him on any contending team is probably sub 20M, possibly sub 15M, because he plays no role on a contending team.

What team is contending at <$185 mill without a rookie contract player in a primary role right now? Who are the legit contender's now:
OKC: Holgrem and Jalen Williams rookie contracts, at $165 mill
Celtics: $199 mill
Knicks: $188 mill
Cavaliers: Mobley on rookie contract, $$178 mill
Bucks: $195 mill
Lakers: $201 mill
Suns: $228 mill
Nuggets: $192 mill

Is the question could you build the cheapest legit contender in the league with Giddey on his second contract? Because OKC and Cavs money goes way up when they have to pay Jalen Williams, Chet Holgrem and Evan Mobley. Looks like average payroll of a contender is around $200 mill right now, if you factor second contract numbers for Williams, Holgrem and Mobley, like you're doing for Giddey.

[AhUtopian]

Scottie Barnes 38M (next year)
Evan Mobely 38M(next year)
Naz Reid 14M
Anthony Edwards 42M
Jaden McDaniels 23M
Chris Paul 10M
Malik Beasley 6M
Jalen Smith 9M

It's total 180 M

Sent from my SM-S9160 using RealGM mobile app

[2weekswithpay]

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.

I’m not ignoring it. I’m fully aware of it. Assessing evidence and disregarding it as irrelevant is analysis, not ignorance.

You weren't but others were which is what I was initially responding to.