Moderators: DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX, 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford
TorontoRapsFan wrote:Wow so much arguing... His shooting % around the basket and 3-10 ft out has dropped by a large margin compared to his numbers for most of his career. That's most of his career. Just getting back to mean at his current play will make him a 18-20 ppg with his new shiny assist numbers. And he's fine on D and even pulls in about 5 rbs.
YogurtProducer wrote:realball wrote:YogurtProducer wrote:If by lengths you mean realizing IQ has an insanely small sample to derive conclusions from then sure... great lengths I have gone
Watch the games man.
Regarding GTJ - what drop off has there been exactly? His TS% by year in TO - 50.1%, 54.6%, 56.0%, and 54.9%. So... where is the drop off? He is shooting and playing less. But he is the exact same meh efficiency 3-point shooter he has been since he got here. There has not been a drop off. Unless of course, you are looking at small samples and simply remember him scoring 30+ in 4 straight games once 3 years ago and that is your new baseline for the guy
And I cannot remain objective? I have not even hyped the guy up, I have simply said he has not been "poor" like you are. You are the ones struggling with objectivity here my guy. There is a reason literally NO ONE is on your side here
Please don't quote me again, you're clearly hysterical.
Can you provide some substance to the conversation rather than name call and attack posters?
Like come on man. This is ridiculous.
realball wrote:YogurtProducer wrote:realball wrote:
Please don't quote me again, you're clearly hysterical.
Can you provide some substance to the conversation rather than name call and attack posters?
Like come on man. This is ridiculous.
You accused me of blind hate LOL. Please don't respond, you're not worth my time.
pingponrac wrote:Quickley's production with the Knicks earlier this season (23/4/4 per36 on 60 TS%) isn't that far off from what he's been doing with us so far (19/5/7 per36 on 55 TS%), especially when you take into consideration that his playmaking has been utilized a lot more – as seen by his AST% increasing from 16% to 27% – as well as the fact that one of his biggest strengths (the floater) hasn't carried over here yet. I feel pretty confident in saying that Quickley's playmaking should continue to at least be solid with us because he has much more opportunity here than with the Knicks (where he was playing behind Brunson and his main role was to score off the bench) while his floater this season in New York (1.28 points per shot on 21% of his FGA) wasn't a fluke and his floater in Toronto (0.83 points per shot on 25% of his FGA) is just a case of a small sample size over his first 12 games. The difference of .45 points per shot on 3.5 attempts per game is a major reason why his scoring and efficiency has dipped a bit while his inside finishing has also dropped off (0.90 points per shot on 2.4 attempts vs 1.12 points per shot on 1.7 attempts) in large part due to the fact that we haven't had a C for the majority of his time in Toronto.
He's hit 2+ threes in 11 of 12 games, he's scored 10+ points in 10 of 12 games, he has dished out 5+ assists in 8 of 12 games and he has grabbed 5+ rebounds in 7 of 12 games while he has done all of those things in the same game a handful of times. He hasn't been inconsistent just because of a few bad shooting nights though. If anything, it should be promising that he's showing flashes of more playmaking ability and his overall numbers still look pretty good despite two of his biggest weapons either not clicking or being utilized enough. Quickley should be taking 8-10 threes per game – and I think he'll get there once everyone on the team is more comfortable with all of the recent/upcoming changes.
pingpongrac wrote:Quickley's production with the Knicks earlier this season (23/4/4 per36 on 60 TS%) isn't that far off from what he's been doing with us so far (19/5/7 per36 on 55 TS%)
realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:Quickley's production with the Knicks earlier this season (23/4/4 per36 on 60 TS%) isn't that far off from what he's been doing with us so far (19/5/7 per36 on 55 TS%)
Those numbers are pretty far off from each other man. 55% is below league average and 60% is above league average. A 5% swing in TS is a huge difference, and so is a 4-pt drop off. 19 ppg per 36 is not great, that puts him the same ranges as bench players like Cole Anthony and Caris Levert. It's nice that Quickley has upped his assists, but we don't need to pat him on the back either for becoming an average play-maker. 7 apg per36 is basically average for a starting PG. Schroeder is averaging 7 apg per36. I don't think anyone's going to accuse Schroeder of being a good play-maker.
IQ clearly has potential as a player from his 3-pt shooting alone, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend like he's more than what he is right now. He's not some blue chip prospect like Scottie who we can truly expect to improve continuously. He's producing at the same level as other high level bench players right now, and if he plays like this next year, then any contract we give him is undoubtedly going to be a huge overpay. Any contract we give him is going to be a gamble on potential, not production.
pingpongrac wrote:realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:Quickley's production with the Knicks earlier this season (23/4/4 per36 on 60 TS%) isn't that far off from what he's been doing with us so far (19/5/7 per36 on 55 TS%)
Those numbers are pretty far off from each other man. 55% is below league average and 60% is above league average. A 5% swing in TS is a huge difference, and so is a 4-pt drop off. 19 ppg per 36 is not great, that puts him the same ranges as bench players like Cole Anthony and Caris Levert. It's nice that Quickley has upped his assists, but we don't need to pat him on the back either for becoming an average play-maker. 7 apg per36 is basically average for a starting PG. Schroeder is averaging 7 apg per36. I don't think anyone's going to accuse Schroeder of being a good play-maker.
IQ clearly has potential as a player from his 3-pt shooting alone, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend like he's more than what he is right now. He's not some blue chip prospect like Scottie who we can truly expect to improve continuously. He's producing at the same level as other high level bench players right now, and if he plays like this next year, then any contract we give him is undoubtedly going to be a huge overpay. Any contract we give him is going to be a gamble on potential, not production.
It's a difference of 4.4 TS% because I was rounding numbers to make it look not so messy with decimals galore. Again, that drop in efficiency as well as his scoring can largely be attributed to his floater suddenly falling off a cliff; if Quickley was producing 1.28 PPS on floaters like he was in NY, his PTS per36 would increase to 20.6 (despite less usage and FGA) and his TS% would increase to 61. You can say "but he's also shooting the three ball much better with us" which is a valid point, but an increase of 0.10 PPS on 6.0 3FGA per game is still significantly less impactful than a decrease of 0.45 PPS on 3.5 floaters per game when it comes to Quickley's scoring and efficiency.
And yet again, as several people have already said, we're working with a very small sample size. Quickley came into the Memphis game putting up 20/5/7 per36 on 57.3 TS% (which is almost exactly league average) with the Raptors then had arguably his worst of 12 games since the trade. If the next time out he has a performance like he did in either LA game for instance (~25 points on ~65 TS%), suddenly he's back up to being a league average efficiency player while nearly doubling his assists and increasing his rebounding numbers as well.
I have no clue how the **** you think he has been terrible or a massive disappointment. You have brought up how he's producing at a similar level as Schroder and pointed to Schroder's MLE contract as a baseline for what Quickley should get next season while ignoring that Quickley is 6 years younger and is still putting up comparable numbers in an entirely new role and system despite his historically good floater game (and historically solid finishing) falling off a cliff over a very small sample size. Not to mention Schroder has severely outperformed his contract to this point and he's arguably one of the best bench guards in the league right now that would be worth more than 12M/year.
realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:realball wrote:
Those numbers are pretty far off from each other man. 55% is below league average and 60% is above league average. A 5% swing in TS is a huge difference, and so is a 4-pt drop off. 19 ppg per 36 is not great, that puts him the same ranges as bench players like Cole Anthony and Caris Levert. It's nice that Quickley has upped his assists, but we don't need to pat him on the back either for becoming an average play-maker. 7 apg per36 is basically average for a starting PG. Schroeder is averaging 7 apg per36. I don't think anyone's going to accuse Schroeder of being a good play-maker.
IQ clearly has potential as a player from his 3-pt shooting alone, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend like he's more than what he is right now. He's not some blue chip prospect like Scottie who we can truly expect to improve continuously. He's producing at the same level as other high level bench players right now, and if he plays like this next year, then any contract we give him is undoubtedly going to be a huge overpay. Any contract we give him is going to be a gamble on potential, not production.
It's a difference of 4.4 TS% because I was rounding numbers to make it look not so messy with decimals galore. Again, that drop in efficiency as well as his scoring can largely be attributed to his floater suddenly falling off a cliff; if Quickley was producing 1.28 PPS on floaters like he was in NY, his PTS per36 would increase to 20.6 (despite less usage and FGA) and his TS% would increase to 61. You can say "but he's also shooting the three ball much better with us" which is a valid point, but an increase of 0.10 PPS on 6.0 3FGA per game is still significantly less impactful than a decrease of 0.45 PPS on 3.5 floaters per game when it comes to Quickley's scoring and efficiency.
And yet again, as several people have already said, we're working with a very small sample size. Quickley came into the Memphis game putting up 20/5/7 per36 on 57.3 TS% (which is almost exactly league average) with the Raptors then had arguably his worst of 12 games since the trade. If the next time out he has a performance like he did in either LA game for instance (~25 points on ~65 TS%), suddenly he's back up to being a league average efficiency player while nearly doubling his assists and increasing his rebounding numbers as well.
I have no clue how the **** you think he has been terrible or a massive disappointment. You have brought up how he's producing at a similar level as Schroder and pointed to Schroder's MLE contract as a baseline for what Quickley should get next season while ignoring that Quickley is 6 years younger and is still putting up comparable numbers in an entirely new role and system despite his historically good floater game (and historically solid finishing) falling off a cliff over a very small sample size. Not to mention Schroder has severely outperformed his contract to this point and he's arguably one of the best bench guards in the league right now that would be worth more than 12M/year.
That's the problem with these hypotheticals... what if he has another bad game and his averages drop further? Are you just going to say that he's still adjusting? How much of a sample size is enough? Are we only okay to evaluate him after the season is over? You were ready to anoint Achiuwa as our starting C after half a season, so clearly half a season can't be enough. It's a huge red flag that you have cut down a 12-game sample size even further to make your point.
I am not ignoring that his floater has disappeared, I am just not assuming that it will most definitely return. I specifically said that we would be paying a premium for his age, so obviously I am not ignoring the age difference between him and Schroeder. You are building up strawmen to knock down.
For me, the biggest reason he has been a huge disappointment is not that he shooting poorly, but that he has not been able to get separation on shots. He's not been able to drive past his man and get into the paint on his own. I wasn't expecting him to be efficient, but I was expecting him to step in and be aggressive as scorer, like we've seen from RJ. He's clearly not that guy from what we've seen so far. And if he's not breaking out this year, then asking a fifth year player to breakout after signing a big contract is a tall ask.
How much do you think Schroeder is worth? He was one the best backups in the league last year as well, and he got $12 mill a year. Quickley was also one of the best backups.. was he worth twice as much?
We're obviously going to be paying a premium for perceived potential, but we don't need to act like that potential has been achieved.
realball wrote:That's the problem with these hypotheticals... what if he has another bad game and his averages drop further? Are you just going to say that he's still adjusting? How much of a sample size is enough? Are we only okay to evaluate him after the season is over? You were ready to anoint Achiuwa as our starting C after half a season, so clearly half a season can't be enough. It's a huge red flag that you have cut down a 12-game sample size even further to make your point.
I am not ignoring that his floater has disappeared, I am just not assuming that it will most definitely return. I specifically said that we would be paying a premium for his age, so obviously I am not ignoring the age difference between him and Schroeder. You are building up strawmen to knock down.
For me, the biggest reason he has been a huge disappointment is not that he shooting poorly, but that he has not been able to get separation on shots. He's not been able to drive past his man and get into the paint on his own. I wasn't expecting him to be efficient, but I was expecting him to step in and be aggressive as scorer, like we've seen from RJ. He's clearly not that guy from what we've seen so far. And if he's not breaking out this year, then asking a fifth year player to breakout after signing a big contract is a tall ask.
How much do you think Schroeder is worth? He was one the best backups in the league last year as well, and he got $12 mill a year. Quickley was also one of the best backups.. was he worth twice as much?
We're obviously going to be paying a premium for perceived potential, but we don't need to act like that potential has been achieved.
pingpongrac wrote:realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:
It's a difference of 4.4 TS% because I was rounding numbers to make it look not so messy with decimals galore. Again, that drop in efficiency as well as his scoring can largely be attributed to his floater suddenly falling off a cliff; if Quickley was producing 1.28 PPS on floaters like he was in NY, his PTS per36 would increase to 20.6 (despite less usage and FGA) and his TS% would increase to 61. You can say "but he's also shooting the three ball much better with us" which is a valid point, but an increase of 0.10 PPS on 6.0 3FGA per game is still significantly less impactful than a decrease of 0.45 PPS on 3.5 floaters per game when it comes to Quickley's scoring and efficiency.
And yet again, as several people have already said, we're working with a very small sample size. Quickley came into the Memphis game putting up 20/5/7 per36 on 57.3 TS% (which is almost exactly league average) with the Raptors then had arguably his worst of 12 games since the trade. If the next time out he has a performance like he did in either LA game for instance (~25 points on ~65 TS%), suddenly he's back up to being a league average efficiency player while nearly doubling his assists and increasing his rebounding numbers as well.
I have no clue how the **** you think he has been terrible or a massive disappointment. You have brought up how he's producing at a similar level as Schroder and pointed to Schroder's MLE contract as a baseline for what Quickley should get next season while ignoring that Quickley is 6 years younger and is still putting up comparable numbers in an entirely new role and system despite his historically good floater game (and historically solid finishing) falling off a cliff over a very small sample size. Not to mention Schroder has severely outperformed his contract to this point and he's arguably one of the best bench guards in the league right now that would be worth more than 12M/year.
That's the problem with these hypotheticals... what if he has another bad game and his averages drop further? Are you just going to say that he's still adjusting? How much of a sample size is enough? Are we only okay to evaluate him after the season is over? You were ready to anoint Achiuwa as our starting C after half a season, so clearly half a season can't be enough. It's a huge red flag that you have cut down a 12-game sample size even further to make your point.
I am not ignoring that his floater has disappeared, I am just not assuming that it will most definitely return. I specifically said that we would be paying a premium for his age, so obviously I am not ignoring the age difference between him and Schroeder. You are building up strawmen to knock down.
For me, the biggest reason he has been a huge disappointment is not that he shooting poorly, but that he has not been able to get separation on shots. He's not been able to drive past his man and get into the paint on his own. I wasn't expecting him to be efficient, but I was expecting him to step in and be aggressive as scorer, like we've seen from RJ. He's clearly not that guy from what we've seen so far. And if he's not breaking out this year, then asking a fifth year player to breakout after signing a big contract is a tall ask.
How much do you think Schroeder is worth? He was one the best backups in the league last year as well, and he got $12 mill a year. Quickley was also one of the best backups.. was he worth twice as much?
We're obviously going to be paying a premium for perceived potential, but we don't need to act like that potential has been achieved.
The point I was trying to make with the hypothetical great showing from Quickley next time out is that his numbers are going to fluctuate pretty drastically from game to game due to such a small sample size – as evidenced by his numbers before and after the Memphis game. He could lay an egg which drops his TS% to the low 50s, but that isn't going to make me think he's only worthy of the MLE just like a 30/5/10 game on high efficiency isn't suddenly going to make me think he's worthy of a max.
Schroder put up 15/3/5 per36 on 54.5 TS% last season whereas he's putting up 17/3/7 per36 on 56.6 TS% this season. He wasn't as good last season despite playing beside LeBron and AD which is why he signed with us for the MLE. His value is clearly higher now than it was in the offseason, but he's not worth 25M because we have ~10 years of evidence that shows he is an historically low-impact player on poor efficiency. The major difference with Quickley is that – early in his career – he is already showing to be an impactful player with numbers that are already Schroder's absolute peak in the NBA. You pay for potential in the NBA, but Quickley is also very likely to be worthy of ~25M/year if he's already producing like this a few years into his NBA career.
No one is acting like Quickley's potential has already been achieved except for you who has called him terrible and a disappointment because he's scoring less than you had hoped while missing a few more floaters and layups than expected. You are so hyper focused on his drop in scoring and efficiency – due to reasons that have been pointed out numerous times – that you've lost the plot. Quickley went from primarily being a scoring guard off the bench that created just 6 points off of assists per game in NY to being more of a lead guard that has created 14 points off of assists per game in Toronto. He has been contributing in many ways since the trade and it's incredibly shortsighted to call his play a disappointment just because you wanted him to score more.
RoteSchroder wrote:realball wrote:That's the problem with these hypotheticals... what if he has another bad game and his averages drop further? Are you just going to say that he's still adjusting? How much of a sample size is enough? Are we only okay to evaluate him after the season is over? You were ready to anoint Achiuwa as our starting C after half a season, so clearly half a season can't be enough. It's a huge red flag that you have cut down a 12-game sample size even further to make your point.
I am not ignoring that his floater has disappeared, I am just not assuming that it will most definitely return. I specifically said that we would be paying a premium for his age, so obviously I am not ignoring the age difference between him and Schroeder. You are building up strawmen to knock down.
For me, the biggest reason he has been a huge disappointment is not that he shooting poorly, but that he has not been able to get separation on shots. He's not been able to drive past his man and get into the paint on his own. I wasn't expecting him to be efficient, but I was expecting him to step in and be aggressive as scorer, like we've seen from RJ. He's clearly not that guy from what we've seen so far. And if he's not breaking out this year, then asking a fifth year player to breakout after signing a big contract is a tall ask.
How much do you think Schroeder is worth? He was one the best backups in the league last year as well, and he got $12 mill a year. Quickley was also one of the best backups.. was he worth twice as much?
We're obviously going to be paying a premium for perceived potential, but we don't need to act like that potential has been achieved.
Compared to Schroder, Quickley has a better 3 point shot, is more of a scorer, has better D, is younger, is worse at getting to the rim, but has potential to improve near the paint if he solidifies his floater game. On top of that, he's relatively inexperienced taking on a lead PG role.
Career-wise Quickley's underperforming based on advanced stats due to his increased role (Ortg/Drtg of 118/119 and BPM of -0.1 with Toronto). Schroder is overperforming compared to his numbers in recent years (Ortg/Drtg of 120/121 and BPM of -1.5 with Toronto).
As is, Quickley can be a #4 or 5 guy on a contending team in today's league and would likely look much better in that role compared to being a #2-3 guy. A 23-25 M/year contract certainly isn't unpalatable. Comparable contracts include Derozan (28), Tobias Harris (39), Tyler Herro (27), Rozier (23), Bruce Brown (22), Aaron Gordon (22), Wiggins (24), Draymond Green (22), Jrue Holiday (37), Brook Lopez (25), Middleton (29), Norman Powell (18), Michael Porter (33), Deandre Ayton (32), Jordan Poole (28), Kyle Kuzma (25), Jordan Clarkson (23), GTJr (18)
We're not getting a steal with a 20-25 M/year contract, but it seems like fair value to me.
realball wrote:RoteSchroder wrote:realball wrote:That's the problem with these hypotheticals... what if he has another bad game and his averages drop further? Are you just going to say that he's still adjusting? How much of a sample size is enough? Are we only okay to evaluate him after the season is over? You were ready to anoint Achiuwa as our starting C after half a season, so clearly half a season can't be enough. It's a huge red flag that you have cut down a 12-game sample size even further to make your point.
I am not ignoring that his floater has disappeared, I am just not assuming that it will most definitely return. I specifically said that we would be paying a premium for his age, so obviously I am not ignoring the age difference between him and Schroeder. You are building up strawmen to knock down.
For me, the biggest reason he has been a huge disappointment is not that he shooting poorly, but that he has not been able to get separation on shots. He's not been able to drive past his man and get into the paint on his own. I wasn't expecting him to be efficient, but I was expecting him to step in and be aggressive as scorer, like we've seen from RJ. He's clearly not that guy from what we've seen so far. And if he's not breaking out this year, then asking a fifth year player to breakout after signing a big contract is a tall ask.
How much do you think Schroeder is worth? He was one the best backups in the league last year as well, and he got $12 mill a year. Quickley was also one of the best backups.. was he worth twice as much?
We're obviously going to be paying a premium for perceived potential, but we don't need to act like that potential has been achieved.
Compared to Schroder, Quickley has a better 3 point shot, is more of a scorer, has better D, is younger, is worse at getting to the rim, but has potential to improve near the paint if he solidifies his floater game. On top of that, he's relatively inexperienced taking on a lead PG role.
Career-wise Quickley's underperforming based on advanced stats due to his increased role (Ortg/Drtg of 118/119 and BPM of -0.1 with Toronto). Schroder is overperforming compared to his numbers in recent years (Ortg/Drtg of 120/121 and BPM of -1.5 with Toronto).
As is, Quickley can be a #4 or 5 guy on a contending team in today's league and would likely look much better in that role compared to being a #2-3 guy. A 23-25 M/year contract certainly isn't unpalatable. Comparable contracts include Derozan (28), Tobias Harris (39), Tyler Herro (27), Rozier (23), Bruce Brown (22), Aaron Gordon (22), Wiggins (24), Draymond Green (22), Jrue Holiday (37), Brook Lopez (25), Middleton (29), Norman Powell (18), Michael Porter (33), Deandre Ayton (32), Jordan Poole (28), Kyle Kuzma (25), Jordan Clarkson (23), GTJr (18)
We're not getting a steal with a 20-25 M/year contract, but it seems like fair value to me.
Thank you for a collected, level-headed response.
For me, the comparison with Schroeder is interesting because he was also one of the best backup guards before he got a starting opportunity, and eventually he got pushed back to the bench. IQ's play style is very similar, except he's a much better shooter.
I think IQ's contract is unfortunately going to end up in the $25-30 range, pushing into unfair value territory. I feel like Detroit is going to be throwing money left and right this off-season and Quickley is going to be one of their targets. Spurs too.
realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:realball wrote:
That's the problem with these hypotheticals... what if he has another bad game and his averages drop further? Are you just going to say that he's still adjusting? How much of a sample size is enough? Are we only okay to evaluate him after the season is over? You were ready to anoint Achiuwa as our starting C after half a season, so clearly half a season can't be enough. It's a huge red flag that you have cut down a 12-game sample size even further to make your point.
I am not ignoring that his floater has disappeared, I am just not assuming that it will most definitely return. I specifically said that we would be paying a premium for his age, so obviously I am not ignoring the age difference between him and Schroeder. You are building up strawmen to knock down.
For me, the biggest reason he has been a huge disappointment is not that he shooting poorly, but that he has not been able to get separation on shots. He's not been able to drive past his man and get into the paint on his own. I wasn't expecting him to be efficient, but I was expecting him to step in and be aggressive as scorer, like we've seen from RJ. He's clearly not that guy from what we've seen so far. And if he's not breaking out this year, then asking a fifth year player to breakout after signing a big contract is a tall ask.
How much do you think Schroeder is worth? He was one the best backups in the league last year as well, and he got $12 mill a year. Quickley was also one of the best backups.. was he worth twice as much?
We're obviously going to be paying a premium for perceived potential, but we don't need to act like that potential has been achieved.
The point I was trying to make with the hypothetical great showing from Quickley next time out is that his numbers are going to fluctuate pretty drastically from game to game due to such a small sample size – as evidenced by his numbers before and after the Memphis game. He could lay an egg which drops his TS% to the low 50s, but that isn't going to make me think he's only worthy of the MLE just like a 30/5/10 game on high efficiency isn't suddenly going to make me think he's worthy of a max.
Schroder put up 15/3/5 per36 on 54.5 TS% last season whereas he's putting up 17/3/7 per36 on 56.6 TS% this season. He wasn't as good last season despite playing beside LeBron and AD which is why he signed with us for the MLE. His value is clearly higher now than it was in the offseason, but he's not worth 25M because we have ~10 years of evidence that shows he is an historically low-impact player on poor efficiency. The major difference with Quickley is that – early in his career – he is already showing to be an impactful player with numbers that are already Schroder's absolute peak in the NBA. You pay for potential in the NBA, but Quickley is also very likely to be worthy of ~25M/year if he's already producing like this a few years into his NBA career.
No one is acting like Quickley's potential has already been achieved except for you who has called him terrible and a disappointment because he's scoring less than you had hoped while missing a few more floaters and layups than expected. You are so hyper focused on his drop in scoring and efficiency – due to reasons that have been pointed out numerous times – that you've lost the plot. Quickley went from primarily being a scoring guard off the bench that created just 6 points off of assists per game in NY to being more of a lead guard that has created 14 points off of assists per game in Toronto. He has been contributing in many ways since the trade and it's incredibly shortsighted to call his play a disappointment just because you wanted him to score more.
That's exactly why you don't make up hypothetical situations and take the numbers at face value. If he suddenly starts dropping 30/5/10 games, then you ca re-evaluate. But until then, don't make up dream scenarios for yourself, that doesn't serve any purpose except for you to feel better about your team.
It seems like you are not familiar with Schroeder at all. He had a very similar path as IQ... he was backing up Teague and was one of the premier backups. Eventually he got a starting opportunity and was putting up 18/6 at the age of 23. Which is why the comparison between Schroeder and IQ is extremely interesting.
Once again, you are building up strawmen to knock down. Point to where I specifically said IQ's potential has already been achieved? I quite literally said the opposite. Just goes to show how much you are grasping for straws to make a point. It's honestly pathetic that you misquote me and rage on about me losing the plot.
pingpongrac wrote:The comparison between Schroder and Quickley isn't "extremely interesting" and I am very familiar with Schroder. He has always been an inefficient scorer (career 53 TS% while posting a sub 55 TS% in 9 of 11 seasons) that doesn't make much of a positive impact (-1.4 BPM for his career with ZERO seasons above 0.0). Quickley has already been much more efficient and impactful early in his career.
You've been going on for half a dozen pages about how terrible Quickley has been and writing off any potential improvements for him to make in the short term to bring his numbers up to a standard that you see fit. It seems to me like you think he has reached his potential with remarks like that and saying he's only worth the MLE.
realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:realball wrote:
That's the problem with these hypotheticals... what if he has another bad game and his averages drop further? Are you just going to say that he's still adjusting? How much of a sample size is enough? Are we only okay to evaluate him after the season is over? You were ready to anoint Achiuwa as our starting C after half a season, so clearly half a season can't be enough. It's a huge red flag that you have cut down a 12-game sample size even further to make your point.
I am not ignoring that his floater has disappeared, I am just not assuming that it will most definitely return. I specifically said that we would be paying a premium for his age, so obviously I am not ignoring the age difference between him and Schroeder. You are building up strawmen to knock down.
For me, the biggest reason he has been a huge disappointment is not that he shooting poorly, but that he has not been able to get separation on shots. He's not been able to drive past his man and get into the paint on his own. I wasn't expecting him to be efficient, but I was expecting him to step in and be aggressive as scorer, like we've seen from RJ. He's clearly not that guy from what we've seen so far. And if he's not breaking out this year, then asking a fifth year player to breakout after signing a big contract is a tall ask.
How much do you think Schroeder is worth? He was one the best backups in the league last year as well, and he got $12 mill a year. Quickley was also one of the best backups.. was he worth twice as much?
We're obviously going to be paying a premium for perceived potential, but we don't need to act like that potential has been achieved.
The point I was trying to make with the hypothetical great showing from Quickley next time out is that his numbers are going to fluctuate pretty drastically from game to game due to such a small sample size – as evidenced by his numbers before and after the Memphis game. He could lay an egg which drops his TS% to the low 50s, but that isn't going to make me think he's only worthy of the MLE just like a 30/5/10 game on high efficiency isn't suddenly going to make me think he's worthy of a max.
Schroder put up 15/3/5 per36 on 54.5 TS% last season whereas he's putting up 17/3/7 per36 on 56.6 TS% this season. He wasn't as good last season despite playing beside LeBron and AD which is why he signed with us for the MLE. His value is clearly higher now than it was in the offseason, but he's not worth 25M because we have ~10 years of evidence that shows he is an historically low-impact player on poor efficiency. The major difference with Quickley is that – early in his career – he is already showing to be an impactful player with numbers that are already Schroder's absolute peak in the NBA. You pay for potential in the NBA, but Quickley is also very likely to be worthy of ~25M/year if he's already producing like this a few years into his NBA career.
No one is acting like Quickley's potential has already been achieved except for you who has called him terrible and a disappointment because he's scoring less than you had hoped while missing a few more floaters and layups than expected. You are so hyper focused on his drop in scoring and efficiency – due to reasons that have been pointed out numerous times – that you've lost the plot. Quickley went from primarily being a scoring guard off the bench that created just 6 points off of assists per game in NY to being more of a lead guard that has created 14 points off of assists per game in Toronto. He has been contributing in many ways since the trade and it's incredibly shortsighted to call his play a disappointment just because you wanted him to score more.
That's exactly why you don't make up hypothetical situations and take the numbers at face value. If he suddenly starts dropping 30/5/10 games, then you ca re-evaluate. But until then, don't make up dream scenarios for yourself, that doesn't serve any purpose except for you to feel better about your team.
It seems like you are not familiar with Schroeder at all. He had a very similar path as IQ... he was backing up Teague and was one of the premier backups. Eventually he got a starting opportunity and was putting up 18/6 at the age of 23. Which is why the comparison between Schroeder and IQ is extremely interesting.
Once again, you are building up strawmen to knock down. Point to where I specifically said IQ's potential has already been achieved? I quite literally said the opposite. Just goes to show how much you are grasping for straws to make a point. It's honestly pathetic that you misquote me and rage on about me losing the plot.
realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:The comparison between Schroder and Quickley isn't "extremely interesting" and I am very familiar with Schroder. He has always been an inefficient scorer (career 53 TS% while posting a sub 55 TS% in 9 of 11 seasons) that doesn't make much of a positive impact (-1.4 BPM for his career with ZERO seasons above 0.0). Quickley has already been much more efficient and impactful early in his career.
You've been going on for half a dozen pages about how terrible Quickley has been and writing off any potential improvements for him to make in the short term to bring his numbers up to a standard that you see fit. It seems to me like you think he has reached his potential with remarks like that and saying he's only worth the MLE.
Clearly it's not interesting to you, because you would rather throw a hissy fit than actually make a proper comparison. I already mentioned that IQ is like Schroeder with better shooting, but apparently to you that's an insult to IQ.
I haven' written off any potential improvements, I have acknowledged all of them. You instead have dismissed any criticism with "small sample" and "he's adjusting". It's completely possible for IQ to be playing very poorly, shooting 10% worse from 2 than he normally shoots, and also continue to improve in other areas. It's very possible that he's playing like an MLE player right now, but could improve in the future. It's also very possible that he doesn't improve and perhaps continues to regress. Your tiny little head is just unable to comprehend any nuance beyond good and bad, so any criticism causes you to turn into a raving lunatic.
This is just like that time I said Precious was undersized and not a starter, and you basically lost your mind.
realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:The comparison between Schroder and Quickley isn't "extremely interesting" and I am very familiar with Schroder. He has always been an inefficient scorer (career 53 TS% while posting a sub 55 TS% in 9 of 11 seasons) that doesn't make much of a positive impact (-1.4 BPM for his career with ZERO seasons above 0.0). Quickley has already been much more efficient and impactful early in his career.
You've been going on for half a dozen pages about how terrible Quickley has been and writing off any potential improvements for him to make in the short term to bring his numbers up to a standard that you see fit. It seems to me like you think he has reached his potential with remarks like that and saying he's only worth the MLE.
Clearly it's not interesting to you, because you would rather throw a hissy fit than actually make a proper comparison. I already mentioned that IQ is like Schroeder with better shooting, but apparently to you that's an insult to IQ.
I haven' written off any potential improvements, I have acknowledged all of them. You instead have dismissed any criticism with "small sample" and "he's adjusting". It's completely possible for IQ to be playing very poorly, shooting 10% worse from 2 than he normally shoots, and also continue to improve in other areas. It's very possible that he's playing like an MLE player right now, but could improve in the future. It's also very possible that he doesn't improve and perhaps continues to regress. Your tiny little head is just unable to comprehend any nuance beyond good and bad, so any criticism causes you to turn into a raving lunatic.
This is just like that time I said Precious was undersized and not a starter, and you basically lost your mind.
We're not trying to win this year. You want another FVV? What Darko is doing is fine, get IQ to that next level.Tor_Raps wrote:Think it's pretty obvious that Darko is trying to make IQ a lead guard. This has taken away IT'S chucking which is actually his best attribute. He's been benched anytime he's gotten shot happy.
Personally, I think the right approach is letting IQ do what he does best BUT also try to add to his game. Limiting his shots for a team that desperately needs his offense isn't smart.
pingpongrac wrote:realball wrote:pingpongrac wrote:The comparison between Schroder and Quickley isn't "extremely interesting" and I am very familiar with Schroder. He has always been an inefficient scorer (career 53 TS% while posting a sub 55 TS% in 9 of 11 seasons) that doesn't make much of a positive impact (-1.4 BPM for his career with ZERO seasons above 0.0). Quickley has already been much more efficient and impactful early in his career.
You've been going on for half a dozen pages about how terrible Quickley has been and writing off any potential improvements for him to make in the short term to bring his numbers up to a standard that you see fit. It seems to me like you think he has reached his potential with remarks like that and saying he's only worth the MLE.
Clearly it's not interesting to you, because you would rather throw a hissy fit than actually make a proper comparison. I already mentioned that IQ is like Schroeder with better shooting, but apparently to you that's an insult to IQ.
I haven' written off any potential improvements, I have acknowledged all of them. You instead have dismissed any criticism with "small sample" and "he's adjusting". It's completely possible for IQ to be playing very poorly, shooting 10% worse from 2 than he normally shoots, and also continue to improve in other areas. It's very possible that he's playing like an MLE player right now, but could improve in the future. It's also very possible that he doesn't improve and perhaps continues to regress. Your tiny little head is just unable to comprehend any nuance beyond good and bad, so any criticism causes you to turn into a raving lunatic.
This is just like that time I said Precious was undersized and not a starter, and you basically lost your mind.
Throwing out personal attacks sure helps your case. And Achiuwa's lack of success with us last year has nothing to do with this. I'll let the next person tag in and try to reason with you.
Los_29 wrote:realball wrote:You need to dig a lot deeper and not just look at boxscore stats. As a bench player, Schroder was still super inefficient. His TS% was in the low 50’s. IQ’s TS% in the same role with even more starts was in the high 50’s. He’s a far more dynamic player than Dennis.
The hope is that IQ can get back to his efficient ways while having an increased role here. Given his age and skillset that should be possible.