Should Leon target De’Aaron Fox?

[Chanel Bomber]

Bro. You know what the overall point here with that is tho. IQ is not in the same league as Fox as player period. If you even try to act like IQ is a better NBA Player than Fox I might can't take you serious no more in your analysis.

I don't know what the bigger point is, when people make the argument that free throws inflate TS%, when the point of TS% is precisely to integrate FTs (and 3s).

I didn't say that IQ is better than Fox.

What I do know is that he's $153 million cheaper, and that neither player has been a difference-maker in the NBA.

I prefer my inefficient on-ball guards to be cheap and not take up 25% of the cap is all.

Fox so far hasn't proven to drive winning as an on-ball player despite having elite 3-point shooters around him, and his numbers suggest that he can't be effective in an off-ball role. I'm not committing 25% of my cap for the next 4.5 years to a player I hope one day will figure it out and impact winning. That's not a reasonable or smart gamble at all in my opinion.

The POINT is simple. He was using TS% to try to prove that IQ was a better player than Fox. Rob was correct in saying that using that TS% to use as a barometer that IQ is a better player than Fox is misleading.

So yes, you are missing the point and really just typing to type, to say that its not misleading. It TOTALLY is, when used in context of saying IQ is better and here is the stats to prove it. Come on now.

So yes, you are incorrect to your point to Rob that its NOT misleading when it CLEARLY is in that contextual point.

Fox and IQ have different roles - and burdens - so I agree that TS% doesn't decide which player is better in this context.

But rob said that IQ's free throw shooting "greatly inflates" his TS% - as if it artificially skewed his numbers when the point of TS% is to capture the efficiency of free throws (and threes). There's nothing misleading about TS%.

Now can we use TS% to determine who's better between two players who have very different roles is a different question entirely.

But maybe the fact that Fox is so much better in 2P FG% than IQ - especially around the rim - yet his scoring efficiency is lower than a guy shooting 38.8% from the field should serve as a major red flag.

[DOT]

TS is just like any other metric

It's not a be-all-end-all by itself, but it does tell you something very specific, which is how efficient of a scorer someone is

Sabonis and Eric Gordon both have a TS of 65%, significantly higher than LeBron's 61.6% and much higher than Steph's 59.2

Nobody's taking Sabonis or Gordon over LeBron or Steph

Role matters when talking about TS, and you also have to take into account that usage and efficiency are inverse. So you take Fox who has a usage rate of 28.2% and takes 17.2 shots a game compared to Quick taking 8.7 a game on 21.4% usage, their TS being close isn't really indicative of them being close. I also have to be hesitant when people start using cumulative stats like TS/FG Add to compare two guys who play significantly different minutes

TS is a great measure of efficiency, but you can't just use it as a blanket stat.

[TerrenceClarke]

I don't know what the bigger point is, when people make the argument that free throws inflate TS%, when the point of TS% is precisely to integrate FTs (and 3s).

I didn't say that IQ is better than Fox.

What I do know is that he's $153 million cheaper, and that neither player has been a difference-maker in the NBA.

I prefer my inefficient on-ball guards to be cheap and not take up 25% of the cap is all.

Fox so far hasn't proven to drive winning as an on-ball player despite having elite 3-point shooters around him, and his numbers suggest that he can't be effective in an off-ball role. I'm not committing 25% of my cap for the next 4.5 years to a player I hope one day will figure it out and impact winning. That's not a reasonable or smart gamble at all in my opinion.

The POINT is simple. He was using TS% to try to prove that IQ was a better player than Fox. Rob was correct in saying that using that TS% to use as a barometer that IQ is a better player than Fox is misleading.

So yes, you are missing the point and really just typing to type, to say that its not misleading. It TOTALLY is, when used in context of saying IQ is better and here is the stats to prove it. Come on now.

So yes, you are incorrect to your point to Rob that its NOT misleading when it CLEARLY is in that contextual point.

Fox and IQ have different roles - and burdens - so I agree that TS% doesn't decide which player is better in this context.

But rob said that IQ's free throw shooting "greatly inflates" his TS% - as if it artificially skewed his numbers when the point of TS% is to capture the efficiency of free throws (and threes). There's nothing misleading about TS%.

Now can we use TS% to determine who's better between two players who have very different roles is a different question entirely.

But maybe the fact that Fox is so much better in 2P FG% than IQ - especially around the rim - yet his scoring efficiency is lower than a guy shooting 38.8% from the field should serve as a major red flag.

Well I am glad you agree that its misleading in that context. I personally don't think his point was to say that TS% in general was misleading. I just think he was saying that in the case of IQ vs D. Fox that because IQ shoots a very high FT% that it greatly inflates his eFg etc to make it look like then even close or that IQ is the better player, when we know that is not the case at all.

I know you dont like Fox, but anyone using stats to say IQ is the better player should not be cosigned by anyone is really what it boils down for me which that poster was doing.

This is when stats are used incorrectly to make points about one player vs another ,when the eye test and proper context proves everything the opposite of that.

[DOT]

But also, if you don't want to include free throws, look at eFG%

Fox is .484 and Quick is .489, so it isn't just free throws, Fox has an efficiency deficiency because he can't shoot from 3. Mid range game is elite, somehow. It's just the 3pt shooting that's the issue with him.

[Chanel Bomber]

The POINT is simple. He was using TS% to try to prove that IQ was a better player than Fox. Rob was correct in saying that using that TS% to use as a barometer that IQ is a better player than Fox is misleading.

So yes, you are missing the point and really just typing to type, to say that its not misleading. It TOTALLY is, when used in context of saying IQ is better and here is the stats to prove it. Come on now.

So yes, you are incorrect to your point to Rob that its NOT misleading when it CLEARLY is in that contextual point.

Fox and IQ have different roles - and burdens - so I agree that TS% doesn't decide which player is better in this context.

But rob said that IQ's free throw shooting "greatly inflates" his TS% - as if it artificially skewed his numbers when the point of TS% is to capture the efficiency of free throws (and threes). There's nothing misleading about TS%.

Now can we use TS% to determine who's better between two players who have very different roles is a different question entirely.

But maybe the fact that Fox is so much better in 2P FG% than IQ - especially around the rim - yet his scoring efficiency is lower than a guy shooting 38.8% from the field should serve as a major red flag.

Well I am glad you agree that its misleading in that context. I personally don't think his point was to say that TS% in general was misleading. I just think he was saying that in the case of IQ vs D. Fox that because IQ shoots a very high FT% that it greatly inflates his eFg etc to make it look like then even close or that IQ is the better player, when we know that is not the case at all.

I know you dont like Fox, but anyone using stats to say IQ is the better player should not be cosigned by anyone is really what it boils down for me which that poster was doing.

This is when stats are used incorrectly to make points about one player vs another ,when the eye test and proper context proves everything the opposite of that.

I don't think either player's performed well within their role this year. IQ certainly wouldn't be better than Fox as a starting PG. And Fox wouldn't be better than IQ as a floor spacer who comes off the bench.

So for me the conversation about who's better between Fox and IQ is irrelevant, because neither player has been good in their role, and at this point it doesn't *seem like they would be more competent in a different role (Fox in a lesser role, IQ in a bigger role).

But it also comes down to projection. Because if someone told me IQ would develop into a better player than Fox - albeit in a different role - in two years, I wouldn't be shocked at all. Although I don't have an opinion on the matter.

And then there's the price point factor, which is more tangible.

All things considered, I'd rather have IQ on the books at $10 million for three years (including this one) than Fox at $163 million for the next five (including this one). Could Fox prove me wrong as early as next year? Maybe. Right now he doesn't look like a winning player to me - despite getting paid like an All-Star.

[nedleeds]

Bro. You know what the overall point here with that is tho. IQ is not in the same league as Fox as player period. If you even try to act like IQ is a better NBA Player than Fox I might can't take you serious no more in your analysis.

I don't know what the bigger point is, when people make the argument that free throws inflate TS%, when the point of TS% is precisely to integrate FTs (and 3s).

I didn't say that IQ is better than Fox.

What I do know is that he's $153 million cheaper, and that neither player has been a difference-maker in the NBA.

I prefer my inefficient on-ball guards to be cheap and not take up 25% of the cap is all.

Fox so far hasn't proven to drive winning as an on-ball player despite having elite 3-point shooters around him, and his numbers suggest that he can't be effective in an off-ball role. I'm not committing 25% of my cap for the next 4.5 years to a player I hope one day will figure it out and impact winning. That's not a reasonable or smart gamble at all in my opinion.

The POINT is simple. He was using TS%, eFG% etc to try to prove that IQ was a better player than Fox. Rob was correct in saying that using that TS% to use as a barometer that IQ is a better player than Fox is misleading.

So yes, you are missing the point and really just typing to type, to say that its not misleading. It TOTALLY is, when used in context of saying IQ is better and here is the stats to prove it. Come on now.

So yes, you are incorrect to your point to Rob that its NOT misleading when it CLEARLY is in that contextual point.

FOX Makes Plays!!!

[TerrenceClarke]

Fox and IQ have different roles - and burdens - so I agree that TS% doesn't decide which player is better in this context.

But rob said that IQ's free throw shooting "greatly inflates" his TS% - as if it artificially skewed his numbers when the point of TS% is to capture the efficiency of free throws (and threes). There's nothing misleading about TS%.

Now can we use TS% to determine who's better between two players who have very different roles is a different question entirely.

But maybe the fact that Fox is so much better in 2P FG% than IQ - especially around the rim - yet his scoring efficiency is lower than a guy shooting 38.8% from the field should serve as a major red flag.

Well I am glad you agree that its misleading in that context. I personally don't think his point was to say that TS% in general was misleading. I just think he was saying that in the case of IQ vs D. Fox that because IQ shoots a very high FT% that it greatly inflates his eFg etc to make it look like then even close or that IQ is the better player, when we know that is not the case at all.

I know you dont like Fox, but anyone using stats to say IQ is the better player should not be cosigned by anyone is really what it boils down for me which that poster was doing.

This is when stats are used incorrectly to make points about one player vs another ,when the eye test and proper context proves everything the opposite of that.

I don't think either player's performed well within their role this year. IQ certainly wouldn't be better than Fox as a starting PG. And Fox wouldn't be better than IQ as a floor spacer who comes off the bench.

So for me the conversation about who's better between Fox and IQ is irrelevant, because neither player has been good in their role, and at this point it doesn't like they would be more competent in a different role (Fox in a lesser role, IQ in a bigger role).

But it also comes down to projection. Because if someone told me IQ would develop into a better player than Fox - albeit in a different role - in two years, I wouldn't be shocked at all. Although I don't have an opinion on the matter.

And then there's the price point factor, which is more tangible.

All things considered, I'd rather have IQ on the books at $10 million for three years (including this one) than Fox at $163 million for the next five (including this one). Could Fox prove me wrong as early as next year? Maybe. Right now he doesn't look like a winning player to me - despite getting paid like an All-Star.

The Rest of us Deserve Burks as our PG.

You on the other hand deserve Fox as your PG

[Meat]

Well I am glad you agree that its misleading in that context. I personally don't think his point was to say that TS% in general was misleading. I just think he was saying that in the case of IQ vs D. Fox that because IQ shoots a very high FT% that it greatly inflates his eFg etc to make it look like then even close or that IQ is the better player, when we know that is not the case at all.

I know you dont like Fox, but anyone using stats to say IQ is the better player should not be cosigned by anyone is really what it boils down for me which that poster was doing.

This is when stats are used incorrectly to make points about one player vs another ,when the eye test and proper context proves everything the opposite of that.

I don't think either player's performed well within their role this year. IQ certainly wouldn't be better than Fox as a starting PG. And Fox wouldn't be better than IQ as a floor spacer who comes off the bench.

So for me the conversation about who's better between Fox and IQ is irrelevant, because neither player has been good in their role, and at this point it doesn't like they would be more competent in a different role (Fox in a lesser role, IQ in a bigger role).

But it also comes down to projection. Because if someone told me IQ would develop into a better player than Fox - albeit in a different role - in two years, I wouldn't be shocked at all. Although I don't have an opinion on the matter.

And then there's the price point factor, which is more tangible.

All things considered, I'd rather have IQ on the books at $10 million for three years (including this one) than Fox at $163 million for the next five (including this one). Could Fox prove me wrong as early as next year? Maybe. Right now he doesn't look like a winning player to me - despite getting paid like an All-Star.

The Rest of us Deserve Burks as our PG.

You on the other hand deserve Fox as your PG

either way, still gonna be watching knicks lose games

[Chanel Bomber]

Well I am glad you agree that its misleading in that context. I personally don't think his point was to say that TS% in general was misleading. I just think he was saying that in the case of IQ vs D. Fox that because IQ shoots a very high FT% that it greatly inflates his eFg etc to make it look like then even close or that IQ is the better player, when we know that is not the case at all.

I know you dont like Fox, but anyone using stats to say IQ is the better player should not be cosigned by anyone is really what it boils down for me which that poster was doing.

This is when stats are used incorrectly to make points about one player vs another ,when the eye test and proper context proves everything the opposite of that.

I don't think either player's performed well within their role this year. IQ certainly wouldn't be better than Fox as a starting PG. And Fox wouldn't be better than IQ as a floor spacer who comes off the bench.

So for me the conversation about who's better between Fox and IQ is irrelevant, because neither player has been good in their role, and at this point it doesn't like they would be more competent in a different role (Fox in a lesser role, IQ in a bigger role).

But it also comes down to projection. Because if someone told me IQ would develop into a better player than Fox - albeit in a different role - in two years, I wouldn't be shocked at all. Although I don't have an opinion on the matter.

And then there's the price point factor, which is more tangible.

All things considered, I'd rather have IQ on the books at $10 million for three years (including this one) than Fox at $163 million for the next five (including this one). Could Fox prove me wrong as early as next year? Maybe. Right now he doesn't look like a winning player to me - despite getting paid like an All-Star.

The Rest of us Deserve Burks as our PG.

You on the other hand deserve Fox as your PG

[thebuzzardman]

Half the RealGM Knicks posters when a real PG is discussed:

[Deeeez Knicks]

Even if you want to use TS%, Fox was at 55.8% and 56.5% the last 2 years. That is good for a pg. He’s down this year a little but it will probably bounce back. Avg TS% for PGs this season is 53.6%

I mean Fox put up 25/7 on 56.5% TS last year. Are we really pretending those are not great numbers?

[Deeeez Knicks]

But also, if you don't want to include free throws, look at eFG%

Fox is .484 and Quick is .489, so it isn't just free throws, Fox has an efficiency deficiency because he can't shoot from 3. Mid range game is elite, somehow. It's just the 3pt shooting that's the issue with him.

Part of it is also that Fox is also down this year. The previous 2 years his efficiency numbers were fine for a pg even with pour 3 point shooting. It’s really just the 3 point shooting.

[DOT]

Even if you want to use TS%, Fox was at 55.8% and 56.5% the last 2 years. That is good for a pg. He’s down this year a little but it will probably bounce back. Avg TS% for PGs this season is 53.6%

I mean Fox put up 25/7 on 56.5% TS last year. Are we really pretending those are not great numbers?

Yeah, I think the worry is the on/off +/- numbers

For his career, the Kings have been 1.4 pp100 worse with him on than off

And it's not like the usual curve, where damn near everyone is negative their rookie years, then get better, Fox has been

-5.8
+5.7
-4.0
-2.1
-3.7

So he's only been a positive once, his sophomore year

That's the number that worries me, less so the TS or raw stats. It's similar to Sexton, in a way. Great numbers, good efficiency, bad team regardless but always does better when he sits.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Even if you want to use TS%, Fox was at 55.8% and 56.5% the last 2 years. That is good for a pg. He’s down this year a little but it will probably bounce back. Avg TS% for PGs this season is 53.6%

I mean Fox put up 25/7 on 56.5% TS last year. Are we really pretending those are not great numbers?

Yeah, I think the worry is the on/off +/- numbers

For his career, the Kings have been 1.4 pp100 worse with him on than off

And it's not like the usual curve, where damn near everyone is negative their rookie years, then get better, Fox has been

-5.8
+5.7
-4.0
-2.1
-3.7

So he's only been a positive once, his sophomore year

That's the number that worries me, less so the TS or raw stats. It's similar to Sexton, in a way. Great numbers, good efficiency, bad team regardless but always does better when he sits.

Yea, there are concerns for sure. Personally, i dont put a ton of stock in the plus/minus numbers, especially on a team like the Kings.

It really all depends on the deal for me. I would rather have Fox then Randle so if we can work some kind of deal, even if we throw in more I would strongly consider it

[BowlRips]

Upside to Fox is he reaches his max potential and is our first young all-star PG in 3 decades.
I don't see the downside. His value isn't going to deteriorate overnight.
Worse case he headlines the SnT package for a star in 2023/2024.
I think the Reddish move indicates that is somewhat Leon's plan

[Chanel Bomber]

Fox is basically an upside play. You hope that he gets better in terms of impact and efficiency to be your lead guy, because nothing suggests he could move to an off-ball role and be effective.

It's a reasonable gamble from that perspective.

Issue is, that gamble costs $163 million or 25% of your cap for the next 5 years.

And that's where I find it unreasonable.

He doesn't make the leap and you're stuck with one of the worst contracts in the NBA. Double the size of Fournier's (not comparing them as players).

His TS% relative to other PGs is a good point, amd encouraging, but let's not forget he has had great floor spacers in Sacramento.

[thebuzzardman]

Upside to Fox is he reaches his max potential and is our first young all-star PG in 3 decades.
I don't see the downside. His value isn't going to deteriorate overnight.
Worse case he headlines the SnT package for a star in 2023/2024.
I think the Reddish move indicates that is somewhat Leon's plan

I too, fell into the trap that the Reddish trade means something or is part of some good, larger plan.

It doesn't really mean anything.

In a nutshell, Knicks were going to lose Knox and his salary slot for nothing. In addition, a pick they hoped would convey in 2023 has a strong chance of conveying in 2022. They looked at these two concepts and decided to convert the 2022/23 1st rounder and Knox's salary slot into a 1st round talent controlled until 2023 for sure, and the mediocre 2nd round pick that is the value of Kevin Knox the player.

Probably went something like this:

Scott Perry: "I think we need a wing with some size. It's always great to try the 2nd draft market, It's my favorite thing. We can trade Grimes and Knox for Cam Reddish, since Cam is available.

Leon Rose: "uhhh, sure. Hey, Brock. Can you make this trade work the best for us in terms of $ value but also protecting my awesome plan to hit big on a disgruntled star in 2023?"

Brock Aller (sighing loudly) "Sure boss"

There is no other "move". There is no other "plan", other than the magical star fairy who asks off his team in 2 years.

Leon and WWW selling Dolan hope 2 years down the road as the continue to cash checks.

It's sort of NBA owner catfishing.

[thebuzzardman]

Fox is basically an upside play. You hope that he gets better in terms of impact and efficiency to be your lead guy, because nothing suggests he could move to an off-ball role and be effective.

It's a reasonable gamble from that perspective.

Issue is, that gamble costs $163 million or 25% of your cap for the next 5 years.

And that's where I find it unreasonable.

He doesn't make the leap and you're stuck with one of the worst contracts in the NBA. Double the size of Fournier's (not comparing them as players).

His TS% relative to other PGs is a good point, amd encouraging, but let's not forget he has had great floor spacers in Sacramento.

It only makes sense in the context of getting rid of Randles nearly as crappy contract. Thanks Scott Perry! You're the best!

But that won't happen, because idiocy is only available in small doses in the NBA and usually located at 34th street and 7th avenue.

All this stuff is a waste of time and keystrokes, of which I'm very guilty of as well.

Knicks aren't doing any more moves. They aren't trading for any PG. They have two PGs under contract to the tune of 23 million a year for two years, lolz. So much more valuable than Lonzo Ball. Money so much better spent than throwing those dollars at a Trent Jr or Norman Powell.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Fox is basically an upside play. You hope that he gets better in terms of impact and efficiency to be your lead guy, because nothing suggests he could move to an off-ball role and be effective.

It's a reasonable gamble from that perspective.

Issue is, that gamble costs $163 million or 25% of your cap for the next 5 years.

And that's where I find it unreasonable.

He doesn't make the leap and you're stuck with one of the worst contracts in the NBA. Double the size of Fournier's (not comparing them as players).

His TS% relative to other PGs is a good point, amd encouraging, but let's not forget he has had great floor spacers in Sacramento.

It only makes sense in the context of getting rid of Randles nearly as crappy contract. Thanks Scott Perry! You're the best!

But that won't happen, because idiocy is only available in small doses in the NBA and usually located at 34th street and 7th avenue.

All this stuff is a waste of time and keystrokes, of which I'm very guilty of as well.

Knicks aren't doing any more moves. They aren't trading for any PG. They have two PGs under contract to the tune of 23 million a year for two years, lolz. So much more valuable than Lonzo Ball. Money so much better spent than throwing those dollars at a Trent Jr or Norman Powell.

Yea, i look at it as a possible way out of Randles contract. 4 more years of Randle making 20-25% of the cap is worse. Knicks save face by adding Fox plus fill a huge need. Kings may be the only chance. I would throw in more. Even the kings may hang up the phone at the mention of Randle. But they are the kings and interested in Sabonis... they even thought about bringing back Perry.

Might as well make it Fox for Randle and Perry... we can even throw in his guy Fournier

[prophet_of_rage]

Y’all didn’t want Booker and Lavine for that very same reason

They can shoot.

Would you rather have a young point guard who can give you 20 and 8 or Burks at pg

I'd rather havr a W.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk