The Rage Monster wrote:The constant Rubio bashing is so annoying. He couldn't shoot yesterday, he can't shoot today, and guess what he probably won't be able to tomorrow. He is who he is, a poor shooter but does basically everything else at a high level. He helps the team win, it's been posted how much better the team's winning percentage is with Rubio vs without him. He played 33 minutes and was +22 which means in the 20 minutes he didn't play the team was -21, we are clearly a better team with him and it's not even close.
Yup, that's been demonstrated time and again.
In defense of the bashers, I think there are legitimate concerns about a) his ability to stay healthy, and b) how his shooting would affect the offense in a 7-game playoff series.
I'd like to actually get to the playoffs for once so that we can find out! Given the state of our current roster, no Ricky = no playoffs. The sooner he isn't our best player anymore, the better. It would be nice to be able to depend on Wiggins, LaVine, and KAT to carry the vast majority of the load, with Rubio as the conductor. None of those guys are there yet, although KAT seems to be the closest, which is pretty damn amazing.
Agree with this 100% and even the legit concerns the bashers have.
The health thing I get, it's frustrating but this team isn't winning a championship this year so I'm fine with the cautious approach and having Rubio sit if something comes up. Next season will be the big one as far as Rubio being able to play every game. When we get to the playoffs it would be worthwhile to revisit how his shooting affected the offense. For now the bashers need to realize we aren't in the playoffs and wait to see what happens.
Ditto. I agree completely with this analysis of Ricky.
Did Belly really airball that free throw? I'm thinking he had to and was embarrassed a bit because he flew like a bat out of hell the next couple of times down the court, seemingly trying to do something/anything to erase that awful sight.
The guy's field goal percentages are solid. 47/38. Every once in a while, he misses really badly and he's apparently never been a great guy from the line. I just haven't seen many "decent" shooters miss a free throw that badly before and found it interesting.
Abe -- Thank you for taking this thread in a different direction. The Ricky debate is getting silly. He makes the team better overall. That's demonstrated statistically and by any reasonable eye test. Yet, he's a very poor shooter who doesn't appear to be improving in that area and he has a hard time staying healthy. As Q pointed out, his shooting could be a major liability in a playoff series and it definitely prevents Ricky from improving from a good PG to an elite one. I don't think you'd disagree with any of this and I've never considered you a Ricky basher.
Yes, Belly really did airball that FT. :) He also airballed a three attempt. He's an interesting player. He looks like he could become a really good perimeter and three-point shooter on a consistent basis, but just when you think he's there, he puts up a really bad shot that's not even close. On the other hand, I've been surprised by how well he rebounds and defends. And he really hustles. I'm glad we signed him and he's signed to a really reasonable contract given what I see him contributing over the next few seasons.
khans2k5 wrote:
Those 5 losses without Ricky were against Memphis, Charlotte, GS, Indy and LAC aka all teams with better than 56% winning percentages right now and LAC beat us with Ricky anyway. We're 4-5 with Rubio against teams with a .500 record or better. So it was a combination of starting a backup PG and playing 5 playoff teams out of the six games (we beat the only non-playoff team we played without Ricky in Sacramento). Ricky does make the team better when he plays, but let's not act like we would have automatically won 53% of those games he didn't play. We still very likely could have lost every game with him anyway given the competition.
Nobody is acting like we'd have swept those 5 games. The point is that Rubio makes the team better when he plays which you've acknowledged.
So a question is, who doesn't make the team better when they play? I could argue like 8 different guys on this roster who make the team better when they play
khans2k5 wrote:
Those 5 losses without Ricky were against Memphis, Charlotte, GS, Indy and LAC aka all teams with better than 56% winning percentages right now and LAC beat us with Ricky anyway. We're 4-5 with Rubio against teams with a .500 record or better. So it was a combination of starting a backup PG and playing 5 playoff teams out of the six games (we beat the only non-playoff team we played without Ricky in Sacramento). Ricky does make the team better when he plays, but let's not act like we would have automatically won 53% of those games he didn't play. We still very likely could have lost every game with him anyway given the competition.
Nobody is acting like we'd have swept those 5 games. The point is that Rubio makes the team better when he plays which you've acknowledged.
So a question is, who doesn't make the team better when they play? I could argue like 8 different guys on this roster who make the team better when they play
The central argument all along was that some of us are tired of people using only Rubio's FG% or inability to make shots as their measuring stick for determining his value. EVERYONE concedes Rubio is not a good shooter. So to answer your latest question, guys like Andre Miller, Zach LaVine (as a PG) do not make the team better when they play. Same as Mo Williams and Lorenzo Brown last year. All those guys have or had higher FG% than Rubio - yet the team has performed better with Rubio at PG. In other words - Scoring is only one part of the overall job description. And replacing Rubio with better shooting PG doesn't necessarily make the team better. So if you are going to critique Rubio, doesn't it make sense to consider his overall impact on the game vs. how many shots he hits?
