Official Immanuel Quickley Thread

[realball]

You should probably take a few mins to try and figure out why his FG% has dropped a little bit. The sample sizes here are extremely small. The difference between him shooting the same % in Toronto vs. what he was shooting in NY is 3 more makes at the rim, 6 makes from 3-10 feet, 3 makes from 10-16 feet, 1 make from 16-3P and he's hit 4 more 3's than he would have in NY on the same volume of shots he's taken here. Across 12 games. Like we are literally talking about the fact he's missed an extra 0.25 shots per game at the rim, 0.5 shots per game in the lane, 0.25 shots per game from 10-16 feet, whatever the hell 1/12 of a shot is from 16-3P and he's made an extra 1/3 of a shot per game from 3. Less than one extra missed shot per game and he's supposedly "struggling".

I think you should not be worried at all.

I am not making any assumptions on whether his finishing around the rim is going to improve or not. It could go either way, he could improve and become the reliable starter we all want him to be, or he could be the player he is now. He's a fourth year guard, usually guards are starting their prime around this age while bigs take longer to develop. There's no guarantee that he will improve. All I'm saying, based on what we've seen so far, he's not looked like a reliable starter. And we will probably have to pay him a lot regardless.

But you are making assumptions that his finishing around the rim/in the lane in Toronto is his new normal, and not the much larger sample size playing in NY. You are making an assumption that the one extra shot he has missed every 2 games here is something that is going to be his new shooting %. What he did previously over a much larger number of shots no longer matters.

And he has absolutely looked like a reliable starter.

Well yeah, obviously. I am taking his game at face value here, not extrapolating his play in NY. And like I mentioned before, we're not going to be paying him for time in NY as a bench player, are we? We're going to be giving him a starter's salary.

He very much has not been reliable. He's been extremely inconsistent. He's had a couple single digit games, almost no games where he's made most of his shots, and his assists totals have varied wildly from game to game. That screams unreliable.

[ItsDanger]

Maybe IQ needs a C to clear space to finish at the rim? Otherwise, they're about to pay $25M for a 2 level scorer. I still have questions about him scoring while moving left.

[OakleyDokely]

The big problem is a lot of people still think it's a 2009 cap. The cap is going to be 142 million next year. 25 mill into a cap that size is only 17%, which is a very reasonable amount to pay to a solid starting guard.

Vassell just got 5/135. He's averaging 18/3/3 with splits of 46/36/81.
McDaniels just got 5/136. He's averaging 11/2/1 with splits of 51/37/75.

That's the going rate for good young players coming off their rookie deals.

If you don't want to pay that kind of money, you're never going to sign anyone to extension.

[YogurtProducer]

I am not making any assumptions on whether his finishing around the rim is going to improve or not. It could go either way, he could improve and become the reliable starter we all want him to be, or he could be the player he is now. He's a fourth year guard, usually guards are starting their prime around this age while bigs take longer to develop. There's no guarantee that he will improve. All I'm saying, based on what we've seen so far, he's not looked like a reliable starter. And we will probably have to pay him a lot regardless.

But you are making assumptions that his finishing around the rim/in the lane in Toronto is his new normal, and not the much larger sample size playing in NY. You are making an assumption that the one extra shot he has missed every 2 games here is something that is going to be his new shooting %. What he did previously over a much larger number of shots no longer matters.

And he has absolutely looked like a reliable starter.

Well yeah, obviously. I am taking his game at face value here, not extrapolating his play in NY. And like I mentioned before, we're not going to be paying him for time in NY as a bench player, are we? We're going to be giving him a starter's salary.

If the Knicks did not trade him and he played all year out as a bench guy, he would get the same deal as he would get if the season ended today. He was always gonna get a starters salary because he was performing like a starting level PG in NYK, and he is still performing like one here in Toronto.

He was primed for a raise because 24 year olds always end up getting paid more than their 28 year old counterparts because both sides understand there will be likely improvement.

I was discussing the contract he will likely sign, which is going to way higher than the MLE. Do you think he's twice as valuable as Schroeder right now?

Funny, because if you followed the NBA you would know Schroder was offered a 4 year, 84-million dollar contract when he was in LA. He turned it down because he thought he was worth more - but it shows that (at least 1) team valued Schroder pretty heavily at one point in his career. Trying to compare the deal Schroder got at age 30-32 to what Quickley will get from age 24-28 is just a really poor way of looking at the situation.

He very much has not been reliable. He's been extremely inconsistent. He's had a couple single digit games, almost no games where he's made most of his shots, and his assists totals have varied wildly from game to game. That screams unreliable.

Well ****. I guess there are about50 reliable players in the entire NBA. Seriously man. What are you even talking about.

[Fairview4Life]

He very much has not been reliable. He's been extremely inconsistent. He's had a couple single digit games, almost no games where he's made most of his shots, and his assists totals have varied wildly from game to game. That screams unreliable.

Here's Luka's last 5 games:
11/24 with 9 asts
12/30 with 13 asts
12/24 with 10 asts
9/21 with 6 asts
12/26 with 8 asts

Damian Lillard's last 5 games:
8/21 with 4 asts
4/15 with 8 asts
12/22 with 11 asts
7/20 with 5 asts
9/23 with 8 asts

Steph Curry's last 5 games:
7/16 with 8 asts
11/20 with 8 asts
8/24 with 9 asts
4/13 with 6 asts
2/14 with 6 asts

I have highlighted the games where these unreliable starting guards have not made most of their shots.

[realball]

He very much has not been reliable. He's been extremely inconsistent. He's had a couple single digit games, almost no games where he's made most of his shots, and his assists totals have varied wildly from game to game. That screams unreliable.

Here's Luka's last 5 games:
11/24 with 9 asts
12/30 with 13 asts
12/24 with 10 asts
9/21 with 6 asts
12/26 with 8 asts

Damian Lillard's last 5 games:
8/21 with 4 asts
4/15 with 8 asts
12/22 with 11 asts
7/20 with 5 asts
9/23 with 8 asts

Steph Curry's last 5 games:
7/16 with 8 asts
11/20 with 8 asts
8/24 with 9 asts
4/13 with 6 asts
2/14 with 6 asts

I have highlighted the games where these unreliable starting guards have not made most of their shots.

Do you also think IQ is as good as these players? Do you think he deserves the same benefit of the doubt as these players?

I don't know how you thought compare IQ to future HOFers was going to help your argument.

[Fairview4Life]

He very much has not been reliable. He's been extremely inconsistent. He's had a couple single digit games, almost no games where he's made most of his shots, and his assists totals have varied wildly from game to game. That screams unreliable.

Here's Luka's last 5 games:
11/24 with 9 asts
12/30 with 13 asts
12/24 with 10 asts
9/21 with 6 asts
12/26 with 8 asts

Damian Lillard's last 5 games:
8/21 with 4 asts
4/15 with 8 asts
12/22 with 11 asts
7/20 with 5 asts
9/23 with 8 asts

Steph Curry's last 5 games:
7/16 with 8 asts
11/20 with 8 asts
8/24 with 9 asts
4/13 with 6 asts
2/14 with 6 asts

I have highlighted the games where these unreliable starting guards have not made most of their shots.

Do you also think IQ is as good as these players? Do you think he deserves the same benefit of the doubt as these players?

I don't know how you thought compare IQ to future HOFers was going to help your argument.

I am comparing your criteria for judging Quickley - very small sample and missing most of his shots in a game, with other guards you certainly wouldn't make those same arguments about. I am trying to show you that basing your assumptions and judgements on stats like that are not very good metrics.

[anotherhomer]

Maybe IQ needs a C to clear space to finish at the rim? Otherwise, they're about to pay $25M for a 2 level scorer. I still have questions about him scoring while moving left.

22M is more reasonable for quickley

[realball]

Maybe IQ needs a C to clear space to finish at the rim? Otherwise, they're about to pay $25M for a 2 level scorer. I still have questions about him scoring while moving left.

Finally, someone with a level-headed comment.

I think we were all expecting a guard who would be able to get past his defender on his own, but that clearly has not been the case. Do we really want to spend $25 million on another Fred is the question.

[Fairview4Life]

Maybe IQ needs a C to clear space to finish at the rim? Otherwise, they're about to pay $25M for a 2 level scorer. I still have questions about him scoring while moving left.

22M is more reasonable for quickley

That's a difference of ~2% of next year's cap.

[realball]

Here's Luka's last 5 games:
11/24 with 9 asts
12/30 with 13 asts
12/24 with 10 asts
9/21 with 6 asts
12/26 with 8 asts

Damian Lillard's last 5 games:
8/21 with 4 asts
4/15 with 8 asts
12/22 with 11 asts
7/20 with 5 asts
9/23 with 8 asts

Steph Curry's last 5 games:
7/16 with 8 asts
11/20 with 8 asts
8/24 with 9 asts
4/13 with 6 asts
2/14 with 6 asts

I have highlighted the games where these unreliable starting guards have not made most of their shots.

Do you also think IQ is as good as these players? Do you think he deserves the same benefit of the doubt as these players?

I don't know how you thought compare IQ to future HOFers was going to help your argument.

I am comparing your criteria for judging Quickley - very small sample and missing most of his shots in a game, with other guards you certainly wouldn't make those same arguments about. I am trying to show you that basing your assumptions and judgements on stats like that are not very good metrics.

So you thought the same criteria applies to actual superstars? We've seen all these guys excel as starters before, it's not a comparable situation. You don't need to to play stupid to make a point.

[Fairview4Life]

Do we really want to spend $25 million on another Fred is the question.

...I mean, yes? That's excellent value. And he's also much younger than Fred and much better than Fred was at 24.

[DG88]

Read on Twitter

?t=psYiZyRqRvwzb1ohEhhtXg&s=19

[Fairview4Life]

Do you also think IQ is as good as these players? Do you think he deserves the same benefit of the doubt as these players?

I don't know how you thought compare IQ to future HOFers was going to help your argument.

I am comparing your criteria for judging Quickley - very small sample and missing most of his shots in a game, with other guards you certainly wouldn't make those same arguments about. I am trying to show you that basing your assumptions and judgements on stats like that are not very good metrics.

So you thought the same criteria applies to actual superstars? We've seen all these guys excel as starters before, it's not a comparable situation. You don't need to to play stupid to make a point.

I am applying your very stupid criteria to actual superstars to try and show you how very stupid your very stupid conclusions are.

Quickley has excelled as a starter before as well. His numbers as a starter in NY were fantastic. You are looking at 12 games in Toronto with no practice time and 2 major pieces of the starting lineup being removed in the middle of that time period and deciding that sample is much more predictive than anything else Quickley has done in his career. You are predicting a career forward based on 1 extra missed shot every 2 games. It's dumb.

[realball]

Do we really want to spend $25 million on another Fred is the question.

...I mean, yes? That's excellent value. And he's also much younger than Fred and much better than Fred was at 24.

That's twice as much as Schroeder is being paid. IQ is no worth twice as much as Schroeder based on his play so far. So no, it's not excellent value. We're going to pay a premium because of his age.

[realball]

I am comparing your criteria for judging Quickley - very small sample and missing most of his shots in a game, with other guards you certainly wouldn't make those same arguments about. I am trying to show you that basing your assumptions and judgements on stats like that are not very good metrics.

So you thought the same criteria applies to actual superstars? We've seen all these guys excel as starters before, it's not a comparable situation. You don't need to to play stupid to make a point.

I am applying your very stupid criteria to actual superstars to try and show you how very stupid your very stupid conclusions are.

Quickley has excelled as a starter before as well. His numbers as a starter in NY were fantastic. You are looking at 12 games in Toronto with no practice time and 2 major pieces of the starting lineup being removed in the middle of that time period and deciding that sample is much more predictive than anything else Quickley has done in his career. You are predicting a career forward based on 1 extra missed shot every 2 games. It's dumb.

This criteria I am using is in the context of Quickley's ability. If you want to be stupid and apply to other players without context, don't turn around and blame me for why your argument sounds ridiculous.

[ItsDanger]

IQ on a rookie contract is good value. Paying full market rate is at best neutral. Your objective shouldn't be getting "fair value". That leads to mediocre team building. Otherwise, you must generate value elsewhere. On a limited roster, that is difficult

[Fairview4Life]

So you thought the same criteria applies to actual superstars? We've seen all these guys excel as starters before, it's not a comparable situation. You don't need to to play stupid to make a point.

I am applying your very stupid criteria to actual superstars to try and show you how very stupid your very stupid conclusions are.

Quickley has excelled as a starter before as well. His numbers as a starter in NY were fantastic. You are looking at 12 games in Toronto with no practice time and 2 major pieces of the starting lineup being removed in the middle of that time period and deciding that sample is much more predictive than anything else Quickley has done in his career. You are predicting a career forward based on 1 extra missed shot every 2 games. It's dumb.

This criteria I am using is in the context of Quickley's ability. If you want to be stupid and apply to other players without context, don't turn around and blame me for why your argument sounds ridiculous.

I am not blaming you. I don't blame babies for **** in their diapers. I have been trying, frankly quite patiently, to walk you through how little your very stupid criteria means as a predictive tool and how silly it is to use it when the sample size is so tiny.

[YogurtProducer]

IQ on a rookie contract is good value. Paying full market rate is at best neutral. Your objective shouldn't be getting "fair value". That leads to mediocre team building. Otherwise, you must generate value elsewhere. On a limited roster, that is difficult

Nice. TWO is already hating on anyone who is not on a rookie contract again

Cant wait for y'all to turn on Scottie in 12 months to.

[realball]

I am applying your very stupid criteria to actual superstars to try and show you how very stupid your very stupid conclusions are.

Quickley has excelled as a starter before as well. His numbers as a starter in NY were fantastic. You are looking at 12 games in Toronto with no practice time and 2 major pieces of the starting lineup being removed in the middle of that time period and deciding that sample is much more predictive than anything else Quickley has done in his career. You are predicting a career forward based on 1 extra missed shot every 2 games. It's dumb.

This criteria I am using is in the context of Quickley's ability. If you want to be stupid and apply to other players without context, don't turn around and blame me for why your argument sounds ridiculous.

I am not blaming you. I don't blame babies for **** in their diapers. I have been trying, frankly quite patiently, to walk you through how little your very stupid criteria means as a predictive tool and how silly it is to use it when the sample size is so tiny.

Well then, I don't blame you for failing miserably at stringing together a coherent argument. Not everyone has the intelligence to avoid hyperboles when they argue.