The Offical Sam Vincent Appreciation Thread
Moderators: fatlever, JDR720, Diop, BigSlam, yosemiteben
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
....right. Just for fun, lets compare him to Gerald Wallace:
Wallace: .449 FG%---.731 FT%---.547 TS%---12.1 TO%---22.9 USG%---9.0 Reb Rate---2.9 STL%---1.9% BLK%.
Gay: .462 FG%---.785 FT%---.547 TS%---10.3 TO%---22.5 USG%---9.3 Reb Rate---1.9 STL%---1.9% BLK%.
In other words, on a much worse team, shouldering just as much of the load, Gay was exactly as effective at scoring, rebounded slightly better, and equalled his blocks, but with fewer turnovers. All Wallace had on Gay this year was steals and assists (leading to a .06 higher PER).
He's still pretty bad on defense, but he's way above average on the offensive end. The kid is a stud, and Ammo will never reach that level. I'd be thrilled if Ammo has one season in his career to equal what Gay just did as a 21 year old.
Wallace: .449 FG%---.731 FT%---.547 TS%---12.1 TO%---22.9 USG%---9.0 Reb Rate---2.9 STL%---1.9% BLK%.
Gay: .462 FG%---.785 FT%---.547 TS%---10.3 TO%---22.5 USG%---9.3 Reb Rate---1.9 STL%---1.9% BLK%.
In other words, on a much worse team, shouldering just as much of the load, Gay was exactly as effective at scoring, rebounded slightly better, and equalled his blocks, but with fewer turnovers. All Wallace had on Gay this year was steals and assists (leading to a .06 higher PER).
He's still pretty bad on defense, but he's way above average on the offensive end. The kid is a stud, and Ammo will never reach that level. I'd be thrilled if Ammo has one season in his career to equal what Gay just did as a 21 year old.
-
fatlever
- Senior Mod - Hornets
- Posts: 58,844
- And1: 15,437
- Joined: Jun 04, 2001
- Location: Terrapin Station
-
not saying gay isnt much better than ammo right now... just saying that gay still has ways to go. i dont think he is as good as his stats indicate.
like wallace, gay will have trouble being "the man" simply because he does not have the type of game that elevates his teammates. gay, also like wallace, is best suited for a 2nd or 3rd option role. if people in memphis are expecting gay to carry their team and be the man, they will be disappointed.
like wallace, gay will have trouble being "the man" simply because he does not have the type of game that elevates his teammates. gay, also like wallace, is best suited for a 2nd or 3rd option role. if people in memphis are expecting gay to carry their team and be the man, they will be disappointed.
-
floppymoose
- Senior Mod - Warriors
- Posts: 59,230
- And1: 17,329
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Trust your election workers
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
He's bad on defense, no dobut, but when a player played literally 3/4 of every minute the Grizzlies did, it's difficult to say with authority that he hurts the team. Who is supposedly helping the defense when Gay is off the court? 19 of their top 20 lineups involve him, the one that doesn't (Lowry-Navarro-Miller-Warrick-Gasol) played great defense... in 54 minutes, and both Miller and Warrick are overall "negatives" on defense too.
The answer? Casey Jacobsen, Darko, and Brian Cardinal. Jacobsen had an opponent PER of over 18, and Darko of 22. Cardinal, amusingly, does have an opponent PER of 15, which is quite good.
This is basically why I only very cautiously use +/-, despite my general affinity for numbers. Subs and situation play such a crazy role in the numbers, particularly on really good and really bad teams, and with players who play very many or very few minutes, that I have a great deal of trouble taking conclusions from them. For instance, Gerald Wallace supposedly hurt the Bobcats' defense last year, Bruce Bowen and Tim Duncan do almost nothing to the Spurs' D, Chauncey Billups is worse on defense than Rodney Stuckey and hurts his team, and so does Deron Williams.
The answer? Casey Jacobsen, Darko, and Brian Cardinal. Jacobsen had an opponent PER of over 18, and Darko of 22. Cardinal, amusingly, does have an opponent PER of 15, which is quite good.
This is basically why I only very cautiously use +/-, despite my general affinity for numbers. Subs and situation play such a crazy role in the numbers, particularly on really good and really bad teams, and with players who play very many or very few minutes, that I have a great deal of trouble taking conclusions from them. For instance, Gerald Wallace supposedly hurt the Bobcats' defense last year, Bruce Bowen and Tim Duncan do almost nothing to the Spurs' D, Chauncey Billups is worse on defense than Rodney Stuckey and hurts his team, and so does Deron Williams.
-
floppymoose
- Senior Mod - Warriors
- Posts: 59,230
- And1: 17,329
- Joined: Jun 22, 2003
- Location: Trust your election workers
Paydro you raise some good points. The point about a limited pool of minutes for the "off court" part of the +- is especially relevant, and one I have brought up myself in different discussions. The defense of Duncan and Bowen is actually of less interest to me, because I don't think that data is as wacky as most probably do, but I do understand how it could turn you off of +-.
But there is one important counter-argument here: players who can't help bad teams in the +- department seldom end up as very good players. Whatever problems +- has, it hasn't had that one. So Gay is going to have to buck the trend if he's going to end up being good.
But there is one important counter-argument here: players who can't help bad teams in the +- department seldom end up as very good players. Whatever problems +- has, it hasn't had that one. So Gay is going to have to buck the trend if he's going to end up being good.
-
Paydro70
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,805
- And1: 225
- Joined: Mar 23, 2007
I would be interested to know if that's true. You'd have to find very high minute, high PER players on bad teams, who have a negative plus/minus, who are subsequently recognized to be "good" players, however that is measured (probably not PER). I would imagine this would be a rather tough project to prove, because the number of people who meet the first three requirements is going to be low.