The Upcoming IQ Test (on the trade of Immanuel Quickley)

[Colbinii]

The Lowry parallel's are hilarious.

Memphis drafts Lowry at #24 [Quickley drafted @ #25]. They get Conley is the next draft, move on from Lowry by sending him to Houston. Houston flips him for a 1st which they use to acquire Harden.

[AEnigma]

I think Quickley is a good player with a promising future, but more in the Lowry/Conley vein than in any true superstar sense.

The Raptors, of course, should be very happy to have that type of player next to Barnes (and Siakam?).

How do you view him compared to Maxey?

Quickley Career: 26.7 Points/100, 51% 3PaR, 28% FTR, 19% AST%/9% TOV%
Maxey Career: 27.9 Points/100, 35% 3PaR, 24% FTR, 20% AST%/7% TOV%

Lowry is a fun comparison, and I think where most people land on a realistic outcome for Quickley, which is why, to me, it was weird how under-valued he was in New York. I don't think Lowry is some 99%, High-End outcome for Quickley, which just baffles me how little he was regarded around the league.

I am confident in Maxey as a better postseason scorer. I am reasonably confident in Quickley as a better defender (but still limited by size) and passer.

I do kind-of think Lowry is basically Quickley’s high-end outcome (maybe Billups if you want to go a half step up and really lean into shot profile), but that is still an all-NBA outcome! Maxey’s high end outcome is probably… Bradley Beal? Devin Booker, maybe? And Booker seems to be assessed higher than Lowry for peak, but ultimately that is also just an all-NBA outcome.

Contrast with other young guys. Anthony Edwards, could be Devin Booker… with legitimately good wing defence. Haliburton is settling in now, but a year or two ago visibly had a ceiling as the best shooter and passer in the league. Quickley is not, nor does he profile as potentially being, some transcendent passer, or scorer, or defender. To me his ceiling is of a very good player suited to be the #2 on a title team. That is probably true of Maxey too, but in different ways.

[Colbinii]

I think Quickley is a good player with a promising future, but more in the Lowry/Conley vein than in any true superstar sense.

The Raptors, of course, should be very happy to have that type of player next to Barnes (and Siakam?).

How do you view him compared to Maxey?

Quickley Career: 26.7 Points/100, 51% 3PaR, 28% FTR, 19% AST%/9% TOV%
Maxey Career: 27.9 Points/100, 35% 3PaR, 24% FTR, 20% AST%/7% TOV%

Lowry is a fun comparison, and I think where most people land on a realistic outcome for Quickley, which is why, to me, it was weird how under-valued he was in New York. I don't think Lowry is some 99%, High-End outcome for Quickley, which just baffles me how little he was regarded around the league.

I am confident in Maxey as a better postseason scorer. I am reasonably confident in Quickley as a better defender (but still limited by size) and passer.

I do kind-of think Lowry is basically Quickley’s high-end outcome (maybe Billups if you want to go a half step up and really lean into shot profile), but that is still an all-NBA outcome! Maxey’s high end outcome is probably… Bradley Beal? Devin Booker, maybe? And Booker seems to be assessed higher than Lowry for peak, but ultimately that is also just an all-NBA outcome.

Contrast with other young guys. Anthony Edwards, could be Devin Booker… with legitimately good wing defence. Haliburton is settling in now, but a year or two ago visibly had a ceiling as the best shooter and passer in the league. Quickley is not, nor does he profile as potentially being, some transcendent passer, or scorer, or defender. To me his ceiling is of a very good player suited to be the #2 on a title team. That is probably true of Maxey too, but in different ways.

Yup, I agree with everything here.

I have Quickley/Maxey as a tier below ANT as a prospect, and everything we have seen from ANT so far in the post-season supports that as he has been exceptionally resilient in two series.

I was a large proponent of Quickley++ as the centerpiece for a Karl-Anthony Towns trade. Missed the boat there, unfortunately.

[AEnigma]

Quickley/Edwards/McDaniels/Gobert would have been a wonderful core. I suspect (to whatever extent the idea was ever discussed) that the Wolves and Knicks were never able to agree on draft compensation, with the Wolves wanting to recover the equity sent out for Gobert.

As someone less committed both to hypothetical assets and to Towns, I think two firsts would have done it for me… maybe could be talked down to one plus swaps, but at that point there could be a better offer elsewhere.

[Dr Positivity]

Quickley has been good from 3 in the two games though missed most of his inside it feels like. He is a good fit with Barnes playmaking if he is more scorer than distributor.

Barrett is an interesting buy low pick up. He seems really strong and his 3pt shooting for his career is more ok than a disaster. The Raptors now have a lot of players who can attack the basket.

[Texas Chuck]

2 games in and he was the leader in +/- for the starters in both game.

Seems like the trend continues!

It's interesting how the most basic statistic and ultimate goal of the game, outscoring your opponent, is always explained away, dismissed or neglected due to a myriad of reasons, including small sample, teammates, line-ups, ect, yet a player scoring 50 points in a game isn't considered a small sample for scoring while it is for +/-.

Huh? I think unless you are Wilt or a couple months here or there for the best scorers ever, people realize 50 is an outlier(and in those months we are looking at less than that).

With all stats we need context. Corey Brewer, Brandon Jennings, and Andre Milller all have 50 point games. Nobody thinks they are elite scorers because of this. Heck Jamal Crawford walked out of the league putting up 50 in Dirk's last home game--but nobody thinks he was that level scorer.

And its not at all always explained away, dismissed, or neglected. But just looking at plus/minus data without context isn't giving us an accurate picture.

Take the West leading Wolves. Towns is barely neutral and Anderson and Reid look bad by plus/minus. But you wouldn't say well these aren't good players. You'd have an explanation for it. Just like on the Mavs Lively, Exum, and Curry look glorious if we just look at that stat, but I can assure you Lively looks like this in part because he gets to play with Luka and because the other Mav centers are who they are.

Context matters. Note: none of this is commentary on IQ. Just on this notion you are expressing here. I disagree with your narrative.

[Colbinii]

2 games in and he was the leader in +/- for the starters in both game.

Seems like the trend continues!

It's interesting how the most basic statistic and ultimate goal of the game, outscoring your opponent, is always explained away, dismissed or neglected due to a myriad of reasons, including small sample, teammates, line-ups, ect, yet a player scoring 50 points in a game isn't considered a small sample for scoring while it is for +/-.

Huh? I think unless you are Wilt or a couple months here or there for the best scorers ever, people realize 50 is an outlier(and in those months we are looking at less than that).

With all stats we need context. Corey Brewer, Brandon Jennings, and Andre Milller all have 50 point games. Nobody thinks they are elite scorers because of this. Heck Jamal Crawford walked out of the league putting up 50 in Dirk's last home game--but nobody thinks he was that level scorer.

And its not at all always explained away, dismissed, or neglected. But just looking at plus/minus data without context isn't giving us an accurate picture.

Take the West leading Wolves. Towns is barely neutral and Anderson and Reid look bad by plus/minus. But you wouldn't say well these aren't good players. You'd have an explanation for it. Just like on the Mavs Lively, Exum, and Curry look glorious if we just look at that stat, but I can assure you Lively looks like this in part because he gets to play with Luka and because the other Mav centers are who they are.

Context matters. Note: none of this is commentary on IQ. Just on this notion you are expressing here. I disagree with your narrative.

I'm talking about Gross +/-, not On/Off.

I'm also looking at large sample sizes, as in Quickley has been big positive in +/- for 4 years now.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm talking about Gross +/-, not On/Off.

Okay so if I'm Lively and get to start and play with Luka, my gross looks good. Powell who used to get that role and looked good, now doesn't and doesn't. Did Dwight Powell suddenly become notably worse at basketball? Maybe, but probably there is a different explanation right?

We've seen other role player gross +/- darlings. Are they really the driving forces? Probably not.

[Colbinii]

I'm talking about Gross +/-, not On/Off.

Okay so if I'm Lively and get to start and play with Luka, my gross looks good. Powell who used to get that role and looked good, now doesn't and doesn't. Did Dwight Powell suddenly become notably worse at basketball? Maybe, but probably there is a different explanation right?

We've seen other role player gross +/- darlings. Are they really the driving forces? Probably not.

Quickley makes a lot more on-court decisions than Lively. Plus, Quickley has 4 years of his career screaming "I impact winning in a positive way".

The point is +/- is directly correlated to outscoring your opponents, other statistics aren't.

[Texas Chuck]

Quickley makes a lot more on-court decisions than Lively. Plus, Quickley has 4 years of his career screaming "I impact winning in a positive way".

The point is +/- is directly correlated to outscoring your opponents, other statistics aren't.

Lively actually makes a lot of on court decisions because teams double Luka, who pulls them out high and hits Lively at the FT line who then plays the Draymond role.

but this isn't about him or IQ specifically. Just trying to point out why some of us don't just start and end with gross +/-. That isn't being dismissive though. It's like with any measure, it requires context. Just like scoring points requires context.

[Colbinii]

Quickley makes a lot more on-court decisions than Lively. Plus, Quickley has 4 years of his career screaming "I impact winning in a positive way".

The point is +/- is directly correlated to outscoring your opponents, other statistics aren't.

Lively actually makes a lot of on court decisions because teams double Luka, who pulls them out high and hits Lively at the FT line who then plays the Draymond role.

but this isn't about him or IQ specifically. Just trying to point out why some of us don't just start and end with gross +/-. That isn't being dismissive though. It's like with any measure, it requires context. Just like scoring points requires context.

Sure, everything requires context. What exactly are we doing here?

[Texas Chuck]

Quickley makes a lot more on-court decisions than Lively. Plus, Quickley has 4 years of his career screaming "I impact winning in a positive way".

The point is +/- is directly correlated to outscoring your opponents, other statistics aren't.

Lively actually makes a lot of on court decisions because teams double Luka, who pulls them out high and hits Lively at the FT line who then plays the Draymond role.

but this isn't about him or IQ specifically. Just trying to point out why some of us don't just start and end with gross +/-. That isn't being dismissive though. It's like with any measure, it requires context. Just like scoring points requires context.

Sure, everything requires context. What exactly are we doing here?

IDK. I didn't make the statement that plus minus is always explained away, dismissed or neglected but scoring 50 points isn't.

I guess if you want to make blanket statements that have no real basis, I'll just let you in the future?

[VanWest82]

I don't get the Lowry comparisons. Same with Conley. Those guys were QBs who floated line ups. Quickley doesn't look like he has the play making chops for that, and most guys don't just develop the passing gene part way through their career. Hope I'm wrong because that would be awesome but IQ looks more like a quality two way, instant offense type who's been in some great situations coming off the bench. Better Ben Gordan.

[Colbinii]

Lively actually makes a lot of on court decisions because teams double Luka, who pulls them out high and hits Lively at the FT line who then plays the Draymond role.

but this isn't about him or IQ specifically. Just trying to point out why some of us don't just start and end with gross +/-. That isn't being dismissive though. It's like with any measure, it requires context. Just like scoring points requires context.

Sure, everything requires context. What exactly are we doing here?

IDK. I didn't make the statement that plus minus is always explained away, dismissed or neglected but scoring 50 points isn't.

I guess if you want to make blanket statements that have no real basis, I'll just let you in the future?

Oh it happens plenty.

Here is an example:

Relying on plus-minus that much is what doesn't make sense to me. There is nothing in Manu's box score that screams mega value. A box score giant with a poor plus-minus footprint is obviously not something to dismiss but a huge plus-minus without the box score to go along with it (which is Manu's case) is also a red flag.

But, you are right, it isn't always explained away or dismissed--just more often than many other indicators. And, maybe, all these people who only buy-into +/- do so when it supports their narrative [I am sure the person who brought up Manu's +/- has been all over the Jordan/Pippen +/- threads, using +/- to support Jordan ] are people I remember more often than others.

So, my apologies for using such deterministic words and not alloying lee-way. I would never want anyone on here, especially you, to think I am concrete in one way of thinking.

[Colbinii]

I don't get the Lowry comparisons. Same with Conley. Those guys were QBs who floated line ups. Quickley doesn't look like he has the play making chops for that, and most guys don't just develop the passing gene part way through their career. Hope I'm wrong because that would be awesome but IQ looks more like a quality two way, instant offense type who's been in some great situations coming off the bench. Better Ben Gordan.

The Lowry/Conley comps are for total-impact and/or level of play, not that he is going to play like a 2010's guard to a T.

I think Quickley is a good player with a promising future, but more in the Lowry/Conley vein than in any true superstar sense.

Clearly talking about level of play of Lowry/Conley vs a Superstar level player

I think it unlikely that Quickley will have a career that matches either Lowry or Conley, but of course those guys were definitely all-star level guys who were great for a long time, and if Quickley is anywhere near that range, I think the Knicks are going to be asking themselves why the hell they never used him as more than a back-up.

Again, this poster is clearly talking about Quickley ending up [and whether he does] within a range of level of play [All-Star Level]. No Direct comparison of how he plays on-court.

And then I compared him directly to Maxey.

How do you view him compared to Maxey?

Quickley Career: 26.7 Points/100, 51% 3PaR, 28% FTR, 19% AST%/9% TOV%
Maxey Career: 27.9 Points/100, 35% 3PaR, 24% FTR, 20% AST%/7% TOV%

[VanWest82]

I don't get the Lowry comparisons. Same with Conley. Those guys were QBs who floated line ups. Quickley doesn't look like he has the play making chops for that, and most guys don't just develop the passing gene part way through their career. Hope I'm wrong because that would be awesome but IQ looks more like a quality two way, instant offense type who's been in some great situations coming off the bench. Better Ben Gordan.

The Lowry/Conley comps are for total-impact and/or level of play, not that he is going to play like a 2010's guard to a T.

Wasn't Kyle's 5 year rapm signal circa 15-20 like 5th best in the league?

[Colbinii]

I don't get the Lowry comparisons. Same with Conley. Those guys were QBs who floated line ups. Quickley doesn't look like he has the play making chops for that, and most guys don't just develop the passing gene part way through their career. Hope I'm wrong because that would be awesome but IQ looks more like a quality two way, instant offense type who's been in some great situations coming off the bench. Better Ben Gordan.

The Lowry/Conley comps are for total-impact and/or level of play, not that he is going to play like a 2010's guard to a T.

Wasn't Kyle's 5 year rapm signal circa 15-20 like 5th best in the league?

Yeah.

Quickley has a +/- footprint that puts him on a trajectory to that level, so a RAPM statistic also probably would love Quickley when he enters his prime and on a team maximizing his strengths.

[VanWest82]

The Lowry/Conley comps are for total-impact and/or level of play, not that he is going to play like a 2010's guard to a T.

Wasn't Kyle's 5 year rapm signal circa 15-20 like 5th best in the league?

Yeah.

Quickley has a +/- footprint that puts him on a trajectory to that level, so a RAPM statistic also probably would love Quickley when he enters his prime and on a team maximizing his strengths.

I hope so. I'm always a little guarded with bench guys. I'd be more convinced of that kind of ceiling if his actual BBIQ was better but maybe that will come. He certainly does a lot of things well.

[Colbinii]

Wasn't Kyle's 5 year rapm signal circa 15-20 like 5th best in the league?

Yeah.

Quickley has a +/- footprint that puts him on a trajectory to that level, so a RAPM statistic also probably would love Quickley when he enters his prime and on a team maximizing his strengths.

I hope so. I'm always a little guarded with bench guys. I'd be more convinced of that kind of ceiling if his actual BBIQ was better but maybe that will come. He certainly does a lot of things well.

I'd consider him a high IQ player. Excellent Turnover economy and he developed a varied skill-sets which works on/off ball.

He isn't Tyrese Haliburton, but Quickley has a lot of indicators which scream High IQ to me.

I'd also look at two major samples from 2023 where he averages ~30 MPG over 2 separate 20 game samples where his numbers essentially scaled to the higher minutes and higher usage.