Deeeez Knicks wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:So no issues with RJs TS% now?
I don't see the point you're making.
RJ is bottom of the league in efficiency as a high-usage player.
He was inefficient as a role player the year before.
Could he become more efficient over time, or in a different situation? Yes. Never said the contrary.
Could he reach league-average in TS% in the right role/situation at some point in his career? Yes. Never said the contrary.
All I have said is that a player with this combination of high-usage/bottom-of-the-league efficiency (who's also average on D) is not a good player in his role regardless on the name of the back of the jersey. And that I don't think RJ will ever average 20+ on above-average efficiency.
TS% seemed to be one of your main issues and there has been a lot of discussion on this. We can now agree that situation plays a part. If we were to rate RJs situation out of 10 i would give it maybe a 2. It's a pretty bad team for him given the 2 big dinosaur lineups, offense running thru Randle, Alec Burks at Pg (Elf year before), etc.
I do agree he needs to improve his efficiency and everything can't be blamed on that. RJ needs to get better. But there seems to be a path and some upside for him especially in efficiency. That just seemed to be a main part of the argument, on RJ improving
I probably value scoring efficiency more than most, but it obviously fluctuates over time or depending on the situation.
I don't like high-usage/low-efficiency play. Because there's a finite number of possessions in a game, it inevitably tends to impact winning negatively, especially if a player doesn't contribute much in other key areas of the game. I think it's a pretty obvious statement to make. That is why I am not a fan of
featuring players like Mashburn, Stack, Antoine, RJ, Randle, Westbrook (today), Cousins, or Fox. The name on the back of the jersey is irrelevant to me. It's about the archetype.
I think we can only rate RJ's situation depending on what we want him to develop as. As an on-ball player, his situation was probably a 6, with two reliable 3-point shooters in the backcourt who were willing to take a backseat, and an elite finisher at the rim who also showed some limitations as a roll man away from the rim. As an off-ball player, his situation was probably a 2, with no real point guard since Rose got hurt, and with Randle's complete implosion.
The flip side of that coin is how does he make the situation for his teammates? Because I would say with his play last year - inefficient, selfish, poor shooting from 3, very little passing, mediocre defense - also helped make this a pretty calamitous situation for other players to play in. And that's my beef with this player-centric approach that a lot of us have. As you said, he needs to be held accountable too.
In a different role and situation, where he plays with better players around him and he's not allowed to chuck regardless of whether the ball goes in or not, I think his efficiency could absolutely improve. And it will improve naturally over time regardless. In the short term, his efficiency could be respectable if he were relegated to a 4th/5th option role or a bench role in my opinion. Maybe as a 3rd down the road. As a first or secondary? The results have been gross.
