The Gradey Dick Thread Part 3

[Godaddycurse]

I have a belief that he's exhausted. He's played in 88% of our games averaging 30 minutes a game.

A guy we know isn't physically fully ready yet. Which takes a meh defensive player into being just flat awful. And likely impacting his 3P% as well.

He NEEDs to work on his conditioning.

yea part of the sophomore wall is an increase in minutes/workload and their stamina don't catch up. His offseason was mostly focused on strength and weight training so im not surprised his conditioning is falling behind. Scottie had this issue in 2nd year too IIRC.

Gradey's game have also expanded alot this year on offense/he is covering a lot more grounds. Hopefully he works on his conditioning this off season and come back more durable and effective

[earthtone]

Scoring is a skill and Gradey is very, very good at it for his age. The only player younger than Gradey scoring who scores more PPG is Wemby.

By what measure? Because right now, we're looking at a dude shooting below average from 3 and scoring considerably below league-average TS%. By what measure is that "very, very good at it for his age?" Like, I don't want to be overly negative on Gradey right now; he seems like he'll be a decent movement shooter if he can figure out how to handle the first hint of defensive pressure, right? But that description seems a little off.

There are only 11 guys in the league 22 and under scoring 14+ ppg over 30+ GP right now. Of them, only 4 are LESS efficient than Gradey, FWIW. He's been horrible finishing in close, below average from 3, weak on the few long Js he takes inside the arc (but obviously, tiny sample), dreadful on the short game and crushing it from 10-16 feet. He's been getting to the rim acceptably well for his style of play, and obviously needs to work on strength to help his finishing.

But "very, very good at it for his age," again, that's pretty hyperbolic.

There are 73 players in the league aged 22 & under who have hit the 30 GP mark this season, and Gradey is 7th in PPG out of all of those players. If you're in the Top 10% in your age group for scoring, I'd say that counts as very good. I'm only seeing nine players, not eleven who have scored 14+ PPG, and Gradey is smack average in terms of efficiency for those guys.

There's a lot of improvement he needs to make to establish himself as a starter longterm - most importantly his body IMO - but he's been very good as a 1st and 2nd year offensive player. He's below league average in efficiency, but he's young. I don't think it's fair to expect 21 year-olds on bad teams to be pillars of efficiency, guys need time to adjust to the NBA and figure out how where they fit into an offence and how they can optimize their game.

[tsherkin]

There are 73 players in the league aged 22 & under who have hit the 30 GP mark this season, and Gradey is 7th in PPG out of all of those players. If you're in the Top 10% in your age group for scoring, I'd say that counts as very good.

I mean, that's not a strong equivalency. He's being given opportunity unequal to that whole group. And volume alone isn't quality.

I'm only seeing nine players, not eleven who have scored 14+ PPG, and Gradey is smack average in terms of efficiency for those guys.

Amen Thompson, Wemby, Mathurin, Ivey, Jalen Green, Shaedon Sharpe, Gradey, Keyonte George, Kuminga, Sengun and Dyson Daniels.

There's a lot of improvement he needs to make to establish himself as a starter longterm - most importantly his body IMO - but he's been very good as a 1st and 2nd year offensive player.

No, he hasn't. He explicitly hasn't been a good offensive player, by any standard. There is potential there, no doubt, but potential and actual quality are not the same thing.

He's below league average in efficiency, but he's young. I don't think it's fair to expect 21 year-olds on bad teams to be pillars of efficiency,

Full stop. He needs to be able to hit his shots. He's been struggling with low-D catch-and-shoots. His archetype is such that he should be efficient on the basis of that alone. Or at least league average, anyway. Not nearly 3% worse than league average when he isn't being tasked with heavy usage or a lot of isolation action. Roleplayer shooters are typically quite capable of managing baseline efficiency, even from early on.

It's VERY fair to expect that from him. No one's asking him to score 20+ at a positive rTS. Of the 11 players, I mentioned, he has the second-lowest scoring average , with Amen Thompson and Dyson Daniels both averaging 14.0 ppg. He's got minimal responsibility, TONS of open looks and he's been not good, objectively.

That isnt a condemnation of his ability to evolve and improve from this point. That's a separate conversation. But you're trying to sell the idea that he has been good, and that isn't accurate.

[earthtone]

There are 73 players in the league aged 22 & under who have hit the 30 GP mark this season, and Gradey is 7th in PPG out of all of those players. If you're in the Top 10% in your age group for scoring, I'd say that counts as very good.

I mean, that's not a strong equivalency. He's being given opportunity unequal to that whole group. And volume alone isn't quality.

I'm only seeing nine players, not eleven who have scored 14+ PPG, and Gradey is smack average in terms of efficiency for those guys.

Amen Thompson, Wemby, Mathurin, Ivey, Jalen Green, Shaedon Sharpe, Gradey, Keyonte George, Kuminga, Sengun and Dyson Daniels.

There's a lot of improvement he needs to make to establish himself as a starter longterm - most importantly his body IMO - but he's been very good as a 1st and 2nd year offensive player.

No, he hasn't. He explicitly hasn't been a good offensive player, by any standard. There is potential there, no doubt, but potential and actual quality are not the same thing.

He's below league average in efficiency, but he's young. I don't think it's fair to expect 21 year-olds on bad teams to be pillars of efficiency,

Full stop. He needs to be able to hit his shots. He's been struggling with low-D catch-and-shoots. His archetype is such that he should be efficient on the basis of that alone. Or at least league average, anyway. Not nearly 3% worse than league average when he isn't being tasked with heavy usage or a lot of isolation action. Roleplayer shooters are typically quite capable of managing baseline efficiency, even from early on.

It's VERY fair to expect that from him. No one's asking him to score 20+ at a positive rTS. Of the 11 players, I mentioned, he has the second-lowest scoring average , with Amen Thompson and Dyson Daniels both averaging 14.0 ppg. He's got minimal responsibility, TONS of open looks and he's been not good, objectively.

That isnt a condemnation of his ability to evolve and improve from this point. That's a separate conversation. But you're trying to sell the idea that he has been good, and that isn't accurate.

I was using NBA.com stats and they have Ivey & Jalen Green listed as 23-year olds which is the cause of the discrepancy there.

My overall point isn't that Gradey doesn't his flaws and inefficiencies to work out, but that he's been a very good scorer for a 21-year old. Volume alone isn't quality, but when you're in a position to take a high volume of shots at such a young age it's a very strong indicator that your organization believes you to have great scoring potential. You can say he's being given opportunity unequal to the rest of his age bracket, but he's also earned it.

No, he hasn't. He explicitly hasn't been a good offensive player, by any standard. There is potential there, no doubt, but potential and actual quality are not the same thing.

The standard I'm using - which I've been pretty clear about - is just PPG and age. By that standard, he's been good. Of course there is a ton of the game that PPG doesn't capture, and opportunity and usage play a huge role in it, but to be able to command the that usage at a young age says something about a prospect. The track record of players that have averaged 14+ PPG at age 21 is very good. Even the lower end outcomes (Dion Waiters, Coby White, Colin Sexton etc) are still 6man calibre players, and to be 21 and have already established yourself with a sixth man floor, is a very good place to be.

Full stop. He needs to be able to hit his shots. He's been struggling with low-D catch-and-shoots. His archetype is such that he should be efficient on the basis of that alone. Or at least league average, anyway. Not nearly 3% worse than league average when he isn't being tasked with heavy usage or a lot of isolation action. Roleplayer shooters are typically quite capable of managing baseline efficiency, even from early on.

It's VERY fair to expect that from him. No one's asking him to score 20+ at a positive rTS. Of the 11 players, I mentioned, he has the second-lowest scoring average , with Amen Thompson and Dyson Daniels both averaging 14.0 ppg. He's got minimal responsibility, TONS of open looks and he's been not good, objectively.

That isnt a condemnation of his ability to evolve and improve from this point. That's a separate conversation. But you're trying to sell the idea that he has been good, and that isn't accurate.

I disagree with quite a bit of this. At the end of the day, young guards are rarely good NBA players. Even fewer are efficient NBA players. If you look at the history of how 21 year olds perform at the NBA level, Gradey Dick is towards the top of tier of those players, I don't see any inaccuracies there.

Even roleplaying shooting specialists take some time to adjust to the league, and the few who do manage to enter the NBA and become efficient right off-the-bat are generally much older. Of course he needs to be able to hit his open shots with more consistency, and his leash will get shorter the older he gets, but if you can't say Gradey has been very good for his age, I'm not sure what your expectations for 1st and 2nd year players are.

[tsherkin]

I was using NBA.com stats and they have Ivey & Jalen Green listed as 23-year olds which is the cause of the discrepancy there.

Fair. I was using age-22 seasons, so there's some slight difference. That makes sense.

My overall point isn't that Gradey doesn't his flaws and inefficiencies to work out, but that he's been a very good scorer for a 21-year old.

We still disagree. His age isn't the problem. His ability to hit open 3s when the defender isn't even within 4 feet has been the main problem. We aren't asking him to support significant volume, or significant self-creation. Those are the things which typically make it challenging to score early on.

Volume alone isn't quality, but when you're in a position to take a high volume of shots at such a young age it's a very strong indicator that your organization believes you to have great scoring potential. You can say he's being given opportunity unequal to the rest of his age bracket, but he's also earned it.

He isn't taking a high volume of shots. He's taking 12.2 FGA/g. That isn't a lot at all. Fully half of those are 3s, which are primarily catch and shoot (4.6 of 6.1 are C+S).

The standard I'm using - which I've been pretty clear about - is just PPG and age.

Yeah, but that isn't a meaningful, or good standard, is my counterpoint. It's entirely meaningless. Raw PPG, even attached to age, isn't a measure of quality. It's a measure of shooting volume, which may remark on how an organization views a player's future potential, but does not describe quality at all.

I disagree with quite a bit of this. At the end of the day, young guards are rarely good NBA players.

No one's talking about total player quality. We're talking about scoring. And indeed, we're talking about low-volume shooting floated by heavy passing support for catch-and-shoot action.

if you can't say Gradey has been very good for his age, I'm not sure what your expectations for 1st and 2nd year players are.

Hitting open C+S shots would be the main thing. Otherwise, "very good" is nothing more than a crap "participation trophy"-level nonsense phrase. If he were taking 18+ FGA/g, I'd be giving him more slack, because supporting focal volume is hard. Especially with an undeveloped physique. But as a shooter, not hitting open shots is a problem, and not a small one.

[ArthurVandelay]

For me Dick has shown enough to still have hope. But of late is the first time doubts are creeping in. Lack of Strength continues to be the biggest issue imo.

Hopefully Dick has a Agbaji like year 2 to year 3 jump. Maybe it’s a Kansas thing?

[tsherkin]

For me Dick has shown enough to still have hope. But of late is the first time doubts are creeping in. Lack of Strength continues to be the biggest issue imo.

He's young, he's slender, he does need time to develop his body and adjust to NBA physicality. He isn't projecting as a star player, so his development arc will quite possibly be slow. He does need to learn how to hit an open 3 when he doesn't have all the time in the world, though.

[earthtone]

I was using NBA.com stats and they have Ivey & Jalen Green listed as 23-year olds which is the cause of the discrepancy there.

Fair. I was using age-22 seasons, so there's some slight difference. That makes sense.

My overall point isn't that Gradey doesn't his flaws and inefficiencies to work out, but that he's been a very good scorer for a 21-year old.

We still disagree. His age isn't the problem. His ability to hit open 3s when the defender isn't even within 4 feet has been the main problem. We aren't asking him to support significant volume, or significant self-creation. Those are the things which typically make it challenging to score early on.

Volume alone isn't quality, but when you're in a position to take a high volume of shots at such a young age it's a very strong indicator that your organization believes you to have great scoring potential. You can say he's being given opportunity unequal to the rest of his age bracket, but he's also earned it.

He isn't taking a high volume of shots. He's taking 12.2 FGA/g. That isn't a lot at all. Fully half of those are 3s, which are primarily catch and shoot (4.6 of 6.1 are C+S).

The standard I'm using - which I've been pretty clear about - is just PPG and age.

Yeah, but that isn't a meaningful, or good standard, is my counterpoint. It's entirely meaningless. Raw PPG, even attached to age, isn't a measure of quality. It's a measure of shooting volume, which may remark on how an organization views a player's future potential, but does not describe quality at all.

I disagree with quite a bit of this. At the end of the day, young guards are rarely good NBA players.

No one's talking about total player quality. We're talking about scoring. And indeed, we're talking about low-volume shooting floated by heavy passing support for catch-and-shoot action.

if you can't say Gradey has been very good for his age, I'm not sure what your expectations for 1st and 2nd year players are.

Hitting open C+S shots would be the main thing. Otherwise, "very good" is nothing more than a crap "participation trophy"-level nonsense phrase. If he were taking 18+ FGA/g, I'd be giving him more slack, because supporting focal volume is hard. Especially with an undeveloped physique. But as a shooter, not hitting open shots is a problem, and not a small one.

I don't know how we can be discussing someone's scoring ability and say that PPG is 'entirely meaningless'. I agree PPG isn't a holistic stat and that shooting volume is the biggest influence, but being able to get shots at the NBA level is a skill in itself. I'd certainly say that PPG is a better holistic measure of offensive capability than catch & shoot percentage, which is the only thing you keep coming back to.

Gradey's catch & shoot percentage certainly needs to improve and it will be a key factor on what his ceiling turns out to be, but you're reducing his entire offensive game to just that one stat. You say we don't rely on him for self-creation, but probably his greatest skill at this level is his ability to create shots without the ball. He's also very good at using his movement and gravity as shooter to create driving lanes to the rim.

PPG isn't everything, but neither is catch and shoot percentage. And If I had to guess which stat better correlates with successful NBA careers for a 21-year old, I'm choosing PPG every time.

[tsherkin]

I don't know how we can be discussing someone's scoring ability and say that PPG is 'entirely meaningless'.

Because you can suck and still put up a scoring average. Especially a sub-20 ppg scoring average. Volume alone isn't a useful data point.

I agree PPG isn't a holistic stat and that shooting volume is the biggest influence, but being able to get shots at the NBA level is a skill in itself.

I would care at all about this if that was what he was doing, but 50% of his shooting volume is 3PA, which require considerably less effort, and over a third of his shooting volume is straight C+S around action initiated by others, so this means nothing to me.

I'd certainly say that PPG is a better holistic measure of offensive capability than catch & shoot percentage, which is the only thing you keep coming back to.

And again, I'd argue that. Raw PPG means nothing. His ability to hit open shots, which is his core utility to the game of basketball, however, is an entirely separate matter.

Gradey's catch & shoot percentage certainly needs to improve and it will be a key factor on what his ceiling turns out to be, but you're reducing his entire offensive game to just that one stat.

Because we're discussing him right now. At age, at this stage of his career. I have agreed several times that his broader potential is interesting, and haven't gone into that in any depth because it isn't salient to what we're discussing.

PPG isn't everything, but neither is catch and shoot percentage. And If I had to guess which stat better correlates with successful NBA careers for a 21-year old, I'm choosing PPG every time.

This is a non-sequitur.

[earthtone]

I don't know how we can be discussing someone's scoring ability and say that PPG is 'entirely meaningless'.

Because you can suck and still put up a scoring average. Especially a sub-20 ppg scoring average. Volume alone isn't a useful data point.

I agree PPG isn't a holistic stat and that shooting volume is the biggest influence, but being able to get shots at the NBA level is a skill in itself.

I would care at all about this if that was what he was doing, but 50% of his shooting volume is 3PA, which require considerably less effort, and over a third of his shooting volume is straight C+S around action initiated by others, so this means nothing to me.

I'd certainly say that PPG is a better holistic measure of offensive capability than catch & shoot percentage, which is the only thing you keep coming back to.

And again, I'd argue that. Raw PPG means nothing. His ability to hit open shots, which is his core utility to the game of basketball, however, is an entirely separate matter.

Gradey's catch & shoot percentage certainly needs to improve and it will be a key factor on what his ceiling turns out to be, but you're reducing his entire offensive game to just that one stat.

Because we're discussing him right now. At age, at this stage of his career. I have agreed several times that his broader potential is interesting, and haven't gone into that in any depth because it isn't salient to what we're discussing.

PPG isn't everything, but neither is catch and shoot percentage. And If I had to guess which stat better correlates with successful NBA careers for a 21-year old, I'm choosing PPG every time.

This is a non-sequitur.

I'm gonna leave this here and just agree to disagree on this one

[tsherkin]

I'm gonna leave this here and just agree to disagree on this one

Ultimately, you're impressed by shooting volume translating to PPG. I am not. I do not think this merits any kind of participation trophy commentary about his quality.

Where we do agree, however, is that his potential is interesting. His ability to get to the rim, despite being a movement shooter, is encouraging. He blows donkeys when he gets there, but he's a skinny 21 year-old in his second season, so there's room to see him improve there. He doesn't have overwhelming athleticism, but as he matures his body, he should be able to take contact and finish more effectively.

I think, perhaps, that you believe I think poorly of Gradey. I don't. I'm glad he's on the team, and I'm hopeful that in a couple years, he'll be more useful to us. My only objection here is how you're trying to characterize where he is right now as "good." I do enjoy the potential he has showcased.

[Basketball_Jones]

We’re gonna have Gradey/Kobe/Ochai/Shead/ all off the bench next season hopefully improved. Unfortunately no clear starters in that group yet but they will have to absorb probably 40 missed games between Scottie/BI/RJ. No rush with them and they will have their opportunities.

[earthtone]

I'm gonna leave this here and just agree to disagree on this one

Ultimately, you're impressed by shooting volume translating to PPG. I am not. I do not think this merits any kind of participation trophy commentary about his quality.

Where we do agree, however, is that his potential is interesting. His ability to get to the rim, despite being a movement shooter, is encouraging. He blows donkeys when he gets there, but he's a skinny 21 year-old in his second season, so there's room to see him improve there. He doesn't have overwhelming athleticism, but as he matures his body, he should be able to take contact and finish more effectively.

I think, perhaps, that you believe I think poorly of Gradey. I don't. I'm glad he's on the team, and I'm hopeful that in a couple years, he'll be more useful to us. My only objection here is how you're trying to characterize where he is right now as "good." I do enjoy the potential he has showcased.

I think we're agreeing on more than we're disagreeing on here. I don't think at any point I've said Gradey is a "good" scorer quite yet, just that he's been very good for his age. Just to summarize, I'm impressed by Gradey's PPG because even though it has its flaws as a stat, it's still very useful as a quick gauge of scoring ability.

I don't think you think poorly of Gradey, I think we may just have different expectations for and methods of judging the success of young players.

[tsherkin]

I think we're agreeing on more than we're disagreeing on here. I don't think at any point I've said Gradey is a "good" scorer quite yet,

No, only that you believe he's a good scorer for his age, I realize.

just that he's been very good for his age. Just to summarize, I'm impressed by Gradey's PPG because even though it has its flaws as a stat, it's still very useful as a quick gauge of scoring ability.

Right, and our disagreement centers around the use of PPG as a proxy for quality.

I don't think you think poorly of Gradey, I think we may just have different expectations for and methods of judging the success of young players.

Yes. I expect the shooter to able to hit open shots spoon-fed to him, since it's his primary skillset. If that's not translating, I don't consider him "good for his age." I consider him in need of heavy improvement, but that the potential is there. *shrug* But that's a semantic divide over which we have agreed to disagree.

Where we can circle back to is that he at least projects well with some strength and conditioning training, provided that his shooting comes along. Year two is usually where we see an actual shooter starting to overcome the challenges of his first season, but there is a usage difference, more minutes, it's possible he's gassed and all that, sure. But we can be patient with him. We aren't trying to make him into a first-option scorer, so I'm content to see how he works around RJ and Scottie and BI next year.

[Thaddy]

PPG isn't a way you define player or determine how effective they are in 2025. Gradey is below a mid tier prospect when it comes to offense and he's the worst prospect when it comes to defense. I don't think he's worthy of starting or getting the minutes he is. We would be best off replacing him with a talent like VJ and trading him for another pick to get a stretch big that we can play with and without Poeltl.

[tsherkin]

PPG isn't a way you define player or determine how effective they are in 2025.

It was never a good policy, but it took half a century (perhaps longer) for people to clue into that.

Gradey is below a mid tier prospect when it comes to offense and he's the worst prospect when it comes to defense.

See, this is hyperbole. He moves well, he gets to the rim pretty well for a movement shooter, he has elite shooting ability in him. No one is projecting him as a focal piece, but more like a #3. And that's well within his potential.

[MoneyBall]

Gradey has increased his offensive effeciency while taking on a greater share of the offense, mostly against starters. That's a pretty significant improvement over last year. He still has a ways to go, though.

[Thaddy]

PPG isn't a way you define player or determine how effective they are in 2025.

It was never a good policy, but it took half a century (perhaps longer) for people to clue into that.

Gradey is below a mid tier prospect when it comes to offense and he's the worst prospect when it comes to defense.

See, this is hyperbole. He moves well, he gets to the rim pretty well for a movement shooter, he has elite shooting ability in him. No one is projecting him as a focal piece, but more like a #3. And that's well within his potential.

No point in him getting to the rim when he can't finish. His elite shooting ability isn't there he has a problem with NBA range and he has conditioning issues on top of being weak.

A contender can be forgiving to a number 1 or 2 option that's weak on defense but a number 3 should be better. I don't know of any contender that has a weak defensive player like Dick.

[tsherkin]

Gradey has increased his offensive effeciency while taking on a greater share of the offense,

No, he hasn't. His current 54.6% TS is identical to his efficiency from last season.

No point in him getting to the rim when he can't finish.

Sure, but speaking from the perspective of looking at him as a prospect, that's atypical for a movement shooter and promising for his future development.

His elite shooting ability isn't there he has a problem with NBA range

Well, no. He's been consistently showing the range. His problem is dealing with NBA level defensive pressure compared to how things went down in college. Not the same thing. He's still shooting 43.6% on 2.3 wide open 3PA/g, remember. His issue is more with the defender getting closer.

[canz55]

PPG isn't a way you define player or determine how effective they are in 2025. Gradey is below a mid tier prospect when it comes to offense and he's the worst prospect when it comes to defense. I don't think he's worthy of starting or getting the minutes he is. We would be best off replacing him with a talent like VJ and trading him for another pick to get a stretch big that we can play with and without Poeltl.

Trading a former Gatorade player of the year who's only in his second season as a 21 year old is incomprehensible.

You're entitled to your opinion obviously but no GM in NBA history would trade a player that prematurely under the same circumstances. It doesn't matter how you feel about Gradey as a player, its risk-management malpractice of the highest order.

It wouldn't happen in a million years.