MIP: Jerami Grant

[tmorgan]

In short (lots of good posts here),

We may have missed an opportunity to trade him for a maximum return, but there might also have been some bad blowback from such a move. Now we need to be patient and see what the team is looking like mid-season next year. A trade to a contender is still possible, or, if the fit looks good, no need. At the very least, he’s a solid two-way piece to have at a reasonable price.

Unless some juicy draft day offer comes up, of course. I don’t think #5, even with Wiggins, will likely be offered. He’s a above average level scorer that isn’t much of a creator. There are quite a few of those around.

[Rodman]

In the short amount of time Grant has been here he's shown he has more to offer than he did when he was with Denver. Now it's time to show he can do other things like post up and make players on his team better. By doing the same old thing all he is showing us is how any inefficient he is on high volume. This year was a good starting place for him now get in the gym and continue to work and develop your game

[SamFlow]

22.4 points, 4.7 rebounds, 2.8 assists in 34 minutes. 43 and 35 and 86% shooting. 34 minutes.

12.0 points, 3.5 rebounds, 1.2 assists in 26.6 minutes, 48 and 39 and 75% shoooting. 26.6 minutes.

Multiply by 1.278
points higher per minute, rebounds lower per minute, assists higher per minute, fg and 3pt shooting is lower. ft shooting is higher.

3 stats higher, 3 stats lower. steals lower, blocks higher. 4/4 turnovers worse. 4/5 , fouls lower. 5/5.
...
so 5 stats are better and 5 stats are worse average per minute. scoring more but at a lower percentage. assists higher with higher turnovers.

really, he's just gotten more minutes but about the same as before. 5 stats better and 5 stats worse.

[mrroboto4889]

Think it's obvious that once teams started planning their D on Grant his efficiency dropped big time.

Assuming we land a top 5 pick AND the kids continue to develop next season Grant should have a better time offensively as he'll no longer be the lone consistent weapon.

For those that believe signing him didn't make sense for a rebuilding team:

We're not a free agent destination. We signed a guy that at his absolute worst was a #3 on a legit contender!

IF we can move him back to a #2 or #3 role the roster is in a very good spot. Weaver has another 12-16 months to make that happen.

Patience is a virtue, or so they say.

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

My issue with that is that 16 months from now, Grant will be heading into the final year of a contract that we probably wont want to renew. So we signed 1 player in his prime to waste his talents on an awful team. And then our window to start turning things around matches up with him turning 30 and needing a new (probably bigger) payday.

Why wouldn't we keep him around?

At that point he's a proven #2 or #3 on the team, has been here the whole time the kids have been and has helped go build the team up from nothing.

You don't overpay but you don't just let him walk.

And we might want to reconsider what we assume to be "prime" years for NBA players. 30 doesn't mean old and washed up

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM mobile app

Sure, 30 is fine. But we're talking about signing him to a multiyear contract at 30. Blake Griffin just turned 32.

[edmunder_prc]

Jerami doesnt fit a future ECF winning organization for a couple reasons and age, contract/talent are some of them.

Look at the 2004 Pistons or the Lakers last year, GSW any of those years. Those were ECF/WCF teams and Champions. Would Grant have been the #1 or #2 player on any of those teams?

Is Grant a 2004 Pistons Billups or Ben Wallace (I think they were tied for as MVP of those teams, you may be different). Is Grant as good as Rasheed? He's more of a Rip Hamilton, who was arguably the #4 on the last Pistons true badass team.

Grant relies on being athletic. He is not a monster like Lebron, Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, or even Kawhi. He's a poor man's Paul George.

No one is building a championship around a poor man's Paul George.

Is Grant going to take less money than he is making now when his contract is up, to stay with the Pistons? He got more than expected with the $20 million for his prime years, he better not expect more on the down slope.

Grant is a good guy, plays hard and hopefully is a good mentor, but this team lacks a #1 and a #2 if they want to be a ECF team year after year.

Boston - Is Grant better than Brown or Tatum
Miami - Bam or Butler
76ers - Embiid or Simmons or even our old friend Tobias
Nets - Haha

NYK - Id take Randle over Grant, but then their 2nd best guy is RJ Barret. Barret is worse but younger and on a rookie deal.

[Manocad]

Man, did you guys spin this one out of control in a hurry. Whether or not Grant is the MIP has nothing whatsoever to do in any way, shape or form with whether or not the Pistons should consider him as part of the long term plan. And if you want to get down to brass tacks it doesn't have anything to do with how you value him relative to another player. In the most literal sense of "Most Improved Player" the only applicable measure is TO HIMSELF. Who made the biggest leap from their play last year to this year--that's it. Granted, part of that certainly will be seasoned by how valuable the player is to the team and the results of the player's improvement, if the "improvement" is just a doubling of the stats due to doubling of minutes played, etc. So if you want to use Julius Randle as the comparison for the competition, consider:
2019-20: 32.5 MPG, 19.5 PPG, 9.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.8 SPG, 0.3 BPG
2020-21: 37.4 MPG, 23.7 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 0.3 BPG
Increase in MPG: 4.9 = +15.1%
Improvements: 4.2 PPG = 21.5%, 0.8 RPG = 8.2%, 2.9 APG = 90.6%, 0.2 SPG = 25.0%

So when accounting for higher minutes, Randle showed a little bump in scoring and a nice improvement in assists. As far as the Knicks improving as a team and how Randle factored into that, here's an easy stat for you--opponent PPG from 112.3 (18th) to 104.5 (1st). That's why the Knicks are somewhat relevant again.

So now Grant:
2019-20: 26.6 MPG, 12.0 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 1.2 APG, 0.7 SPG, 0.8 BPG
2020-21: 34.3 MPG, 22.4 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 2.9 APG, 0.7 SPG, 1.1 BPG
Increase in MPG: 7.7 = +28.9%
Improvements: 10.4 PPG = 86.7%, 1.2 RPG = 34.3%, 1.7 APG = 141.7%, 0.3 BPG = 37.5%

Grant's improvements in all categories outpace the percentage increase in minutes played. So on paper it would certainly appear that Grant has improved as a player more than Randle. That doesn't mean he's a more valuable player than Randle, and it doesn't mean he's more valuable to the Pistons than Randle is to the Knicks. It simply means that Grant made a bigger jump in his quality of play from last year to this year than Randle.

[thesack12]

Man, did you guys spin this one out of control in a hurry. Whether or not Grant is the MIP has nothing whatsoever to do in any way, shape or form with whether or not the Pistons should consider him as part of the long term plan. And if you want to get down to brass tacks it doesn't have anything to do with how you value him relative to another player. In the most literal sense of "Most Improved Player" the only applicable measure is TO HIMSELF. Who made the biggest leap from their play last year to this year--that's it. Granted, part of that certainly will be seasoned by how valuable the player is to the team and the results of the player's improvement, if the "improvement" is just a doubling of the stats due to doubling of minutes played, etc. So if you want to use Julius Randle as the comparison for the competition, consider:
2019-20: 32.5 MPG, 19.5 PPG, 9.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.8 SPG, 0.3 BPG
2020-21: 37.4 MPG, 23.7 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 0.3 BPG
Increase in MPG: 4.9 = +15.1%
Improvements: 4.2 PPG = 21.5%, 0.8 RPG = 8.2%, 2.9 APG = 90.6%, 0.2 SPG = 25.0%

So when accounting for higher minutes, Randle showed a little bump in scoring and a nice improvement in assists. As far as the Knicks improving as a team and how Randle factored into that, here's an easy stat for you--opponent PPG from 112.3 (18th) to 104.5 (1st). That's why the Knicks are somewhat relevant again.

So now Grant:
2019-20: 26.6 MPG, 12.0 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 1.2 APG, 0.7 SPG, 0.8 BPG
2020-21: 34.3 MPG, 22.4 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 2.9 APG, 0.7 SPG, 1.1 BPG
Increase in MPG: 7.7 = +28.9%
Improvements: 10.4 PPG = 86.7%, 1.2 RPG = 34.3%, 1.7 APG = 141.7%, 0.3 BPG = 37.5%

Grant's improvements in all categories outpace the percentage increase in minutes played. So on paper it would certainly appear that Grant has improved as a player more than Randle. That doesn't mean he's a more valuable player than Randle, and it doesn't mean he's more valuable to the Pistons than Randle is to the Knicks. It simply means that Grant made a bigger jump in his quality of play from last year to this year than Randle.

Its not just about counting stats though.

If we are comparing Grant's 19-20 season to this season.

2019-20: 8.9 shots per game, 18.0 Usage, 47.8 FG% 38.9 3PT%, 59.1 TS%, 4.4 win shares
2020-21: 17.3 shots per game, 28.1 Usage, 42.8 FG% 35.4 3PT%, 55.8 TS%, 3.1 win shares

So has Grant really improved all that much, or is he just compiling numbers primarily based on vastly more volume? The analytics sure seem to lean to the latter.

[Manocad]

Man, did you guys spin this one out of control in a hurry. Whether or not Grant is the MIP has nothing whatsoever to do in any way, shape or form with whether or not the Pistons should consider him as part of the long term plan. And if you want to get down to brass tacks it doesn't have anything to do with how you value him relative to another player. In the most literal sense of "Most Improved Player" the only applicable measure is TO HIMSELF. Who made the biggest leap from their play last year to this year--that's it. Granted, part of that certainly will be seasoned by how valuable the player is to the team and the results of the player's improvement, if the "improvement" is just a doubling of the stats due to doubling of minutes played, etc. So if you want to use Julius Randle as the comparison for the competition, consider:
2019-20: 32.5 MPG, 19.5 PPG, 9.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.8 SPG, 0.3 BPG
2020-21: 37.4 MPG, 23.7 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 0.3 BPG
Increase in MPG: 4.9 = +15.1%
Improvements: 4.2 PPG = 21.5%, 0.8 RPG = 8.2%, 2.9 APG = 90.6%, 0.2 SPG = 25.0%

So when accounting for higher minutes, Randle showed a little bump in scoring and a nice improvement in assists. As far as the Knicks improving as a team and how Randle factored into that, here's an easy stat for you--opponent PPG from 112.3 (18th) to 104.5 (1st). That's why the Knicks are somewhat relevant again.

So now Grant:
2019-20: 26.6 MPG, 12.0 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 1.2 APG, 0.7 SPG, 0.8 BPG
2020-21: 34.3 MPG, 22.4 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 2.9 APG, 0.7 SPG, 1.1 BPG
Increase in MPG: 7.7 = +28.9%
Improvements: 10.4 PPG = 86.7%, 1.2 RPG = 34.3%, 1.7 APG = 141.7%, 0.3 BPG = 37.5%

Grant's improvements in all categories outpace the percentage increase in minutes played. So on paper it would certainly appear that Grant has improved as a player more than Randle. That doesn't mean he's a more valuable player than Randle, and it doesn't mean he's more valuable to the Pistons than Randle is to the Knicks. It simply means that Grant made a bigger jump in his quality of play from last year to this year than Randle.

Its not just about counting stats though.

If we are comparing Grant's 19-20 season to this season.

2019-20: 8.9 shots per game, 18.0 Usage, 47.8 FG% 38.9 3PT%, 59.1 TS%, 4.4 win shares
2020-21: 17.3 shots per game, 28.1 Usage, 42.8 FG% 35.4 3PT%, 55.8 TS%, 3.1 win shares

So has Grant really improved all that much, or is he just compiling numbers primarily based on vastly more volume? The analytics sure seem to lean to the latter.

And? Do the analytics present a better case for another player?

[thesack12]

Man, did you guys spin this one out of control in a hurry. Whether or not Grant is the MIP has nothing whatsoever to do in any way, shape or form with whether or not the Pistons should consider him as part of the long term plan. And if you want to get down to brass tacks it doesn't have anything to do with how you value him relative to another player. In the most literal sense of "Most Improved Player" the only applicable measure is TO HIMSELF. Who made the biggest leap from their play last year to this year--that's it. Granted, part of that certainly will be seasoned by how valuable the player is to the team and the results of the player's improvement, if the "improvement" is just a doubling of the stats due to doubling of minutes played, etc. So if you want to use Julius Randle as the comparison for the competition, consider:
2019-20: 32.5 MPG, 19.5 PPG, 9.7 RPG, 3.2 APG, 0.8 SPG, 0.3 BPG
2020-21: 37.4 MPG, 23.7 PPG, 10.5 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 0.3 BPG
Increase in MPG: 4.9 = +15.1%
Improvements: 4.2 PPG = 21.5%, 0.8 RPG = 8.2%, 2.9 APG = 90.6%, 0.2 SPG = 25.0%

So when accounting for higher minutes, Randle showed a little bump in scoring and a nice improvement in assists. As far as the Knicks improving as a team and how Randle factored into that, here's an easy stat for you--opponent PPG from 112.3 (18th) to 104.5 (1st). That's why the Knicks are somewhat relevant again.

So now Grant:
2019-20: 26.6 MPG, 12.0 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 1.2 APG, 0.7 SPG, 0.8 BPG
2020-21: 34.3 MPG, 22.4 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 2.9 APG, 0.7 SPG, 1.1 BPG
Increase in MPG: 7.7 = +28.9%
Improvements: 10.4 PPG = 86.7%, 1.2 RPG = 34.3%, 1.7 APG = 141.7%, 0.3 BPG = 37.5%

Grant's improvements in all categories outpace the percentage increase in minutes played. So on paper it would certainly appear that Grant has improved as a player more than Randle. That doesn't mean he's a more valuable player than Randle, and it doesn't mean he's more valuable to the Pistons than Randle is to the Knicks. It simply means that Grant made a bigger jump in his quality of play from last year to this year than Randle.

Its not just about counting stats though.

If we are comparing Grant's 19-20 season to this season.

2019-20: 8.9 shots per game, 18.0 Usage, 47.8 FG% 38.9 3PT%, 59.1 TS%, 4.4 win shares
2020-21: 17.3 shots per game, 28.1 Usage, 42.8 FG% 35.4 3PT%, 55.8 TS%, 3.1 win shares

So has Grant really improved all that much, or is he just compiling numbers primarily based on vastly more volume? The analytics sure seem to lean to the latter.

And? Do the analytics present a better case for another player?

Julius Randle:

2019-2020: 15.7 shots per game, 27.6 usage, 46.0 FG% 27.7 3PT%, 53.8 TS%, 2.7 win shares
2020-2021: 18.3 shots per game, 28.8 usage, 46.1 FG% 40.5 3PT%, 56.8 TS%, 6.3 win shares

Randle's metrics and counting stats are up all the way across the board with his increased role and volume.

[Manocad]

Its not just about counting stats though.

If we are comparing Grant's 19-20 season to this season.

2019-20: 8.9 shots per game, 18.0 Usage, 47.8 FG% 38.9 3PT%, 59.1 TS%, 4.4 win shares
2020-21: 17.3 shots per game, 28.1 Usage, 42.8 FG% 35.4 3PT%, 55.8 TS%, 3.1 win shares

So has Grant really improved all that much, or is he just compiling numbers primarily based on vastly more volume? The analytics sure seem to lean to the latter.

And? Do the analytics present a better case for another player?

Julius Randle:

2019-2020: 15.7 shots per game, 27.6 usage, 46.0 FG% 27.7 3PT%, 53.8 TS%, 2.7 win shares
2020-2021: 18.3 shots per game, 28.8 usage, 46.1 FG% 40.5 3PT%, 56.8 TS%, 6.3 win shares

Randle's metrics and counting stats are up all the way across the board with his increased role and volume.

And since the MIP is not just an analytics award I'll still put my money on Grant getting more votes.

[The Moose]

And? Do the analytics present a better case for another player?

Julius Randle:

2019-2020: 15.7 shots per game, 27.6 usage, 46.0 FG% 27.7 3PT%, 53.8 TS%, 2.7 win shares
2020-2021: 18.3 shots per game, 28.8 usage, 46.1 FG% 40.5 3PT%, 56.8 TS%, 6.3 win shares

Randle's metrics and counting stats are up all the way across the board with his increased role and volume.

And since the MIP is not just an analytics award I'll still put my money on Grant getting more votes.

Julius Randle is the heavy heavy betting favourite to win MIP

[thesack12]

Julius Randle:

2019-2020: 15.7 shots per game, 27.6 usage, 46.0 FG% 27.7 3PT%, 53.8 TS%, 2.7 win shares
2020-2021: 18.3 shots per game, 28.8 usage, 46.1 FG% 40.5 3PT%, 56.8 TS%, 6.3 win shares

Randle's metrics and counting stats are up all the way across the board with his increased role and volume.

And since the MIP is not just an analytics award I'll still put my money on Grant getting more votes.

Julius Randle is the heavy heavy betting favourite to win MIP

As expected, Dude made the all star team afterall. I wouldn't even be surprised if he made the All NBA team this year.

[Manocad]

I guess it’s a good thing I don’t bet on MIP awards then.

[buzzkilloton]

https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/most-improved/

Odds for most improved if anyone is interested. Randle is a lock to get it. He not only improved hes leading a crap Knicks roster to the playoffs. Grant is 2nd but its a long ways from Randle. Wood is 5th fwiw quite a ways away from Grant. It would be more interesting if Wood played more this season to see the odds.

[DBC10]

Julius Randle:

2019-2020: 15.7 shots per game, 27.6 usage, 46.0 FG% 27.7 3PT%, 53.8 TS%, 2.7 win shares
2020-2021: 18.3 shots per game, 28.8 usage, 46.1 FG% 40.5 3PT%, 56.8 TS%, 6.3 win shares

Randle's metrics and counting stats are up all the way across the board with his increased role and volume.

And since the MIP is not just an analytics award I'll still put my money on Grant getting more votes.

Julius Randle is the heavy heavy betting favourite to win MIP

Yeah he's running away with it, that's not a surprise with how he's been so damn steady this season. Being an all star certainly helps along with 6 assists and getting every metric up by a significant amount

That's not to say Grant won't get a few ballots either, he will