Rubio Plays Squash (the trade rumors)

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Maybe, but I also think it is simplistic to focus so much on Ricky's shooting percentage, when he does so much more for the team and just one more made shot in 36 minutes of play could label him a very good shooter. For the same reason, people who really understand baseball don't focus much on batting average, because 2 hits a week can mean the difference between an all-star and an average player. Ricky's value is apparent more in on/off stats, or even more simplistically, winning percentage depending on whether he is injured or not. Entirely too much time is spent on this board analyzing Ricky's shooting percentage, as if that is the primary way in which his contribution should be measured.

Is that winning percentage above .500? I think there's a ton more point guards that have higher winning percentages

Being below .500 all that time was Kevin Love's fault, not Rubio's.

[Monster]

Maybe, but I also think it is simplistic to focus so much on Ricky's shooting percentage, when he does so much more for the team and just one more made shot in 36 minutes of play could label him a very good shooter. For the same reason, people who really understand baseball don't focus much on batting average, because 2 hits a week can mean the difference between an all-star and an average player. Ricky's value is apparent more in on/off stats, or even more simplistically, winning percentage depending on whether he is injured or not. Entirely too much time is spent on this board analyzing Ricky's shooting percentage, as if that is the primary way in which his contribution should be measured.

Is that winning percentage above .500? I think there's a ton more point guards that have higher winning percentages

Being below .500 all that time was Kevin Love's fault, not Rubio's.

It was actually neither guy's fault. Our starting lineup in '13-14 had one of the best 5-man +/- of any other starting lineup in the league, except may be Golden State. The Rubio-Martin-Love-Pek-Brewer lineup had a differential of +11.7 points per 100 possessions. To put that in perspective, Atlanta's starting lineup was a +8.6 this season and they won 60 games.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

So nobody believes Ricky's on/off numbers are skewed by the fact we have lacked a competent backup PG pretty much the entire time he's been here? JJ Barea is probably the best backup PG we've had behind Ricky and I don't think he's very close to the top in terms of quality backup PG's. Mo was traded before he really got the chance to be Ricky's backup this season. On/Off numbers are a combination of the guy leaving and the guy coming on. I don't understand how it's a good argument for saying how good a player is when it has to measure the performance of another player. You're essentially arguing Ricky's good because he's way better than our backup PG's. How is that a way to measure a guy against his peers individually? There's way too many factors that go into On/Off (who's replacing him, who's playing with his replacement, who is he playing with, who are they playing against) to use that as an excuse for why a guy is good. Yes good players have good on/off numbers, but they aren't deemed good players just because of their on/off numbers.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I blame it on your Gugliotta-inspired tribal tattoo on your bicep.

[Monster]

So nobody believes Ricky's on/off numbers are skewed by the fact we have lacked a competent backup PG pretty much the entire time he's been here? JJ Barea is probably the best backup PG we've had behind Ricky and I don't think he's very close to the top in terms of quality backup PG's. Mo was traded before he really got the chance to be Ricky's backup this season. On/Off numbers are a combination of the guy leaving and the guy coming on. I don't understand how it's a good argument for saying how good a player is when it has to measure the performance of another player. You're essentially arguing Ricky's good because he's way better than our backup PG's. How is that a way to measure a guy against his peers individually? There's way too many factors that go into On/Off (who's replacing him, who's playing with his replacement, who is he playing with, who are they playing against) to use that as an excuse for why a guy is good. Yes good players have good on/off numbers, but they aren't deemed good players just because of their on/off numbers.

I'd probably go with Ridnour but either way you make a good point plus it wasn't just a couple years ago that our bench sucked it's been mostly terrible for years. Because of injuries to Rubio other players and general lack of talent while he has been here it's a little hard to really know what effect he has for certain. Hopefully we get to find that out more completely this season.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

So nobody believes Ricky's on/off numbers are skewed by the fact we have lacked a competent backup PG pretty much the entire time he's been here? JJ Barea is probably the best backup PG we've had behind Ricky and I don't think he's very close to the top in terms of quality backup PG's. Mo was traded before he really got the chance to be Ricky's backup this season. On/Off numbers are a combination of the guy leaving and the guy coming on. I don't understand how it's a good argument for saying how good a player is when it has to measure the performance of another player. You're essentially arguing Ricky's good because he's way better than our backup PG's. How is that a way to measure a guy against his peers individually? There's way too many factors that go into On/Off (who's replacing him, who's playing with his replacement, who is he playing with, who are they playing against) to use that as an excuse for why a guy is good. Yes good players have good on/off numbers, but they aren't deemed good players just because of their on/off numbers.

I'd probably go with Ridnour but either way you make a good point plus it wasn't just a couple years ago that our bench sucked it's been mostly terrible for years. Because of injuries to Rubio other players and general lack of talent while he has been here it's a little hard to really know what effect he has for certain. Hopefully we get to find that out more completely this season.

Ridnour never really got to be Ricky's backup in my opinion. He was always playing the 2 next to Ricky and JJ it seemed. I think he would have been better than JJ, I just don't think he was played in the role my post was referring to.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Bottom line for me...

We're four years in with Ricky Rubio... and I still don't know how good he is. Not only is he a hard guy to judge because of his uniqueness, but with the injuries to himself and others... I really don't know.

Usually, guys like that eventually end up being jettisoned if the winning doesn't follow. It's just easier to point to their weaknesses... whether that's fair or not, or accurate or not... as a reason for the malaise. Personally, I don't think Rubio has been the glaring problem. But, have we seen enough of him and think highly enough of him to be confident that he's part of the solution?

[Monster]

Bottom line for me...

We're four years in with Ricky Rubio... and I still don't know how good he is. Not only is he a hard guy to judge because of his uniqueness, but with the injuries to himself and others... I really don't know.

Usually, guys like that eventually end up being jettisoned if the winning doesn't follow. It's just easier to point to their weaknesses... whether that's fair or not, or accurate or not... as a reason for the malaise. Personally, I don't think Rubio has been the glaring problem. But, have we seen enough of him and think highly enough of him to be confident that he's part of the solution?

That's a pretty good summation imo.

[Coolbreeze44]

So nobody believes Ricky's on/off numbers are skewed by the fact we have lacked a competent backup PG pretty much the entire time he's been here? JJ Barea is probably the best backup PG we've had behind Ricky and I don't think he's very close to the top in terms of quality backup PG's. Mo was traded before he really got the chance to be Ricky's backup this season. On/Off numbers are a combination of the guy leaving and the guy coming on. I don't understand how it's a good argument for saying how good a player is when it has to measure the performance of another player. You're essentially arguing Ricky's good because he's way better than our backup PG's. How is that a way to measure a guy against his peers individually? There's way too many factors that go into On/Off (who's replacing him, who's playing with his replacement, who is he playing with, who are they playing against) to use that as an excuse for why a guy is good. Yes good players have good on/off numbers, but they aren't deemed good players just because of their on/off numbers.

This is exactly right. It's one thing to spew stats, it's another to know what they actually mean.

[alexftbl8181 [enjin:6648741]]

Abe you keep making my points before I can get to them