sc8581 wrote:Snakebites wrote:sc8581 wrote:
You said "best possible performance", that more than suggests you're speaking of one game. He shot about 40% from 3 the first half of the season, that's a decent sized sample and enough for me to believe he has a reasonable chance to shoot 37-38% over the next several years. His ball handling and playmaking continue to improve and he still takes care of the ball, combine that with his defense and hustle and I don't believe "a lot of guys" have that type of potential impact.
I've always argued that his problem is consistency. Always.
Maybe "best possible" wasn't the best choice of individual words but I believe I've been very consistent in my position throughout this entire discussion.
Splits aside, he's never had a year where he was close to a 55 TS%. Never. Not even remotely close. His efficiency has actually hovered pretty consistently between 50 and 52 TS% in all but his rookie year, and its because he's simply never been able to have enough good games to make for a good season overall.
Even if he hit 40% in the first half of the season, the reality is that his overall scoring efficiency did not improve on iota last season relative to the previous one. In other words, his second half was more than terrible enough to cancel out what happened in the first.
Why invest 20 mill per year in a guy who is well below average in efficiency, has been there for the last 3 years, and has made no meaningful forward progress from one season to another?
If you like the guy and feel in your gut that he can be better that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But the data doesn't support that unless you look at it selectively, as you have been. I'm looking at it wholesale. And wholesale the numbers don't say this guy is worth that. They just don't.
You can't look at a single player on the Pistons individually and say they are efficient yet somehow we still were in the playoff hunt until that awful streak toward the end, we were actually in the hunt for the 5th seed. Our defense certainly wasn't the reason for this, a bad conference helped but again not the only reason. If you judge simply off of typical offensive and defensive efficiency stats we should have been a bottom 3 team in basketball, there are so many other factors that can make a player efficient.
But that terrible stretch towards the end COUNTS. You can't just throw it out, look at the good part, and say that's what a player can be. The bad stretches have to impact where we evaluate a players ceiling.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2017.html
Our expected W/L based on our overall defensive rating was 38-44. The advanced stats pretty much correctly predicted our W/L for the season. So I have no idea what you were getting at with that last paragraph.
And you know what? None of this matters. If you're going to claim KCP is a good enough player to warrant 20 million dollars per year, the burden of proof is on you, not on me to prove otherwise.
Show me something concrete that shows that KCP is good enough for 20 mill per year. I'm still waiting for it. Because there's no numbers that show it unless you're being selective. None whatsoever. The numbers paint him as a below average starter or solid bench player. And they're what we have to go by.
If the market says overpay, to hell with the market. This is NOT a group we want to get stuck in luxury tax territory with. And if KCP was worth the money I'd say pay the man and figure out how to get under the LT some other way. But the data says he's not. And to my mind it says that pretty loudly.
