m4gor wrote:(in addition to Abe who has this right)
well what the real question is, can we go deep in playoffs with him?
there is big difference between random regular season game, important and close regular season game, and playoff series. In regular season (in NBA and NHL, where the grind is) all teams play fully within their system, sure they adjust per opponent but there is not much time between games and you do not want to disrupt team flow. It is the playoffs where flaws are going to come back to bait you right in the ass.
Nobody will even think of playing zone defense against us in regular season (unless they want to practice that), they could mess their defense for few more games down the stretch by doing so. .. In playoffs? Why not, 3-2 zone it is, good luck breaking that with PG who cannot shoot or drive to the basket .. free win.
Again, how about DJ. He is definitely great plus player when it comes to season, yet in playoffs he will sit half of the time on the bench, so you have your 20mil+ center out of the game, what now.
If in regular season minor adjustments force coach like Adelman to play 5'9 spark plug instead of your starting PG in 4th quarter. You have some problems to solve. I dare to say that in 90+ perc. of those situations any other average starting PG would be on the floor.
My concern is that we might lose a lot of time with Ricky, with not only health issues, but also trying to make work something which cannot, or is incredibly hard to pull of as you need brilliant Pop level coaching for that to happen.
M4gor, Let's get to the playoffs first, how does that sound! We've already debunked the myth that Rubio is a liability in close game situations during the regular season. Perhaps the same will hold true in the playoffs....or may be not.
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
"Some people would argue it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games."
Only some people? I'd like to meet the people who say it's easier to win 54 games than be mediocre. I can introduce them to my therapist.
"Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him."
Yes! A great benchmark. What is your argument again?
"And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al."
I suppose so, but they still won a title together with Rondo as their point guard. So how did Rondo hold them back?
Abe, you and I are on the same page on most things. You've got me flummoxed on this one.
Is it because you really really like Rubio as a player? Or, my writing. Apparently, you're not the only one struggling following my takes in this thread. I think Rubio is good... but not necessarily good enough to be a key player on a 54+ winning team. Just because a guy has good on/off splits for shitty to poor to mediocre to slightly below average teams doesn't mean he's destined to be a huge difference maker on a team with better players.
Simple as that. We can probably leave it at that.
It's all moot for now anyway. Rubio remains one of the team's best players and definitely one of the team's most important. His trade value is probably too low for a viable trade. He's good enough "for now." I just worry whether that one huge black mark in his game is enough to curb the team's ceiling when games really matter (playoffs).
[Note: It is kind of amusing to wonder if Rubio is good enough for a 54+ win team when the Wolves have only been that good once in 26+ years. I'd welcome the opportunity to whine about Rubio costing us a playoff game. Bring it on!]
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
There's a disconnect somewhere. As you acknowledge, you wrote that stats from the last two seasons don't matter... but ones from 3, 4 and 5 seasons do. Then, you tell me that stats from 3 seasons ago don't. We're just missing each other somewhere here. No big deal, the beauty of a message board...
You don't seem to grasp the concept of More Data > less Data. If you are attempting to trend Rubio's FG%, certainly more weight should be given to seasons where he was relatively healthy and played more games than the last two season which consisted of battling injuries and playing 22 games and now 12 games.
The "clutch" data is no different. You keep going back to an article that was written three years ago - in the middle of a season. The sample size of that data is insignificant. And if you don't understand that, then just use the same process the author used for his other years. Does his "clutch FG%" stay bad? Or does it simply move closer to his overall FG% as you pull in more data? Q already did that - so we know the answer. "Clutch" is nothing more than a small sample. If Rubio's "clutch" numbers were great - I still wouldn't want him to be our "go to guy" because the bigger bucket of data tells me he's not a good shooter.
Let's get to the crux of me using the 5 years of Rubio data that started this...
Somebody compared Rubio favorably with 1st ballot HOFer Jason Kidd. Kidd's worst shooting season early in his career was equivalent to Rubio's far and away best season. In year 5, he had improved to 44.4%. I found the comparison slightly ridiculous and used stats to show that Rubio was not on Kidd's level... even as a shooter. I acknowledged that this year's small sample size should be noted. But I don't think that the last 34 games of Rubio's career should be completely ignored either. Injured or not, that's a decent enough stretch of horrid shooting considering it's not much of a departure from the other 3 seasons.
As for clutch stats from 2 years ago... I found it amusing that seemingly everybody gets blamed for that team's very bad performance in close games more than the star PG who didn't hit a 4th quarter shot in 16 straight games. That has nothing to do with his clutch stats in 2015. As I've noted, it's an example of how Rubio has a lot of excuses handed his way... which correct me if I'm wrong... is a big part of how Pork Chop's frustration with the guy. (Hence, the tongue-in-cheek reference used in the very title of the thread.)
Let's get to the crux of me using the 5 years of Rubio data that started this...
Somebody compared Rubio favorably with 1st ballot HOFer Jason Kidd. Kidd's worst shooting season early in his career was equivalent to Rubio's far and away best season. In year 5, he had improved to 44.4%. I found the comparison slightly ridiculous and used stats to show that Rubio was not on Kidd's level... even as a shooter. I acknowledged that this year's small sample size should be noted. But I don't think that the last 34 games of Rubio's career should be completely ignored either. Injured or not, that's a decent enough stretch of horrid shooting considering it's not much of a departure from the other 3 seasons.
As for clutch stats from 2 years ago... I found it amusing that seemingly everybody gets blamed for that team's very bad performance in close games more than the star PG who didn't hit a 4th quarter shot in 16 straight games. That has nothing to do with his clutch stats in 2015. As I've noted, it's an example of how Rubio has a lot of excuses handed his way... which correct me if I'm wrong... is a big part of how Pork Chop's frustration with the guy. (Hence, the tongue-in-cheek reference used in the very title of the thread.)
Like most things - the truth is generally in the middle some where. I think there are plenty of critics out there (just look no further than this board, this thread). He's not getting a free pass IMO. Of course he shares blame for any losses he was a part of. But we didn't lose all those games exclusively because Rubio didn't hit a shot during the last five minutes of a game either. Rubio has never been a prime scoring option. He only averages about 9 shots a game. His impact comes from other facets. For that season, he was tied with Pek for second in Win Shares which I think is a much better overall indication of his contributions vs. using only FG% during the last 5 minutes of close games as your measuring stick. Bottom line, he makes the team better when he's on the court. But he needs to be on the court more or we have to get a much better back up plan. Perhaps the answer would be adding another starting caliber PG for next year - IDK.
Let's get to the crux of me using the 5 years of Rubio data that started this...
Somebody compared Rubio favorably with 1st ballot HOFer Jason Kidd. Kidd's worst shooting season early in his career was equivalent to Rubio's far and away best season. In year 5, he had improved to 44.4%. I found the comparison slightly ridiculous and used stats to show that Rubio was not on Kidd's level... even as a shooter. I acknowledged that this year's small sample size should be noted. But I don't think that the last 34 games of Rubio's career should be completely ignored either. Injured or not, that's a decent enough stretch of horrid shooting considering it's not much of a departure from the other 3 seasons.
As for clutch stats from 2 years ago... I found it amusing that seemingly everybody gets blamed for that team's very bad performance in close games more than the star PG who didn't hit a 4th quarter shot in 16 straight games. That has nothing to do with his clutch stats in 2015. As I've noted, it's an example of how Rubio has a lot of excuses handed his way... which correct me if I'm wrong... is a big part of how Pork Chop's frustration with the guy. (Hence, the tongue-in-cheek reference used in the very title of the thread.)
Like most things - the truth is generally in the middle some where. I think there are plenty of critics out there (just look no further than this board, this thread). He's not getting a free pass IMO. Of course he shares blame for any losses he was a part of. But we didn't lose all those games exclusively because Rubio didn't hit a shot during the last five minutes of a game either. Rubio has never been a prime scoring option. He only averages about 9 shots a game. His impact comes from other facets. For that season, he was tied with Pek for second in Win Shares which I think is a much better overall indication of his contributions vs. using only FG% during the last 5 minutes of close games as your measuring stick. Bottom line, he makes the team better when he's on the court. But he needs to be on the court more or we have to get a much better back up plan. Perhaps the answer would be adding another starting caliber PG for next year - IDK.
I never came remotely close to making the claim in bold. I don't think anybody else has either. I've been very clear on that issue many times now.
By the way, in case it was missed, Rubio went 16 straight games without making a shot at any time in any 4th quarter. How many games did it cost the team? Dunno. But can it be used to maybe sorta kinda acknowledge that his scoring ability maybe sorta kinda could be maybe sorta kinda be a possible problem at times in the past and possibly maybe in the future too. Maybe?
That's all I'm asking. Sorry for being so direct and so unreasonably pessimistic about Rubio in doing so.
[Note: Now, with less sarcasm... you make a good point that goes to the heart of the issue with Rubio. Everybody acknowledges he makes an impact in other ways outside of shooting. The question whether you're 0% Pork Chop or 100% Pork Chop is whether you think a PG with the ball in his hands needs to be a scorer late in games for the team to make huge improvements and be a viable contender.]
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
"Some people would argue it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games."
Only some people? I'd like to meet the people who say it's easier to win 54 games than be mediocre. I can introduce them to my therapist.
"Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him."
Yes! A great benchmark. What is your argument again?
"And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al."
I suppose so, but they still won a title together with Rondo as their point guard. So how did Rondo hold them back?
Abe, you and I are on the same page on most things. You've got me flummoxed on this one.
Is it because you really really like Rubio as a player? Or, my writing. Apparently, you're not the only one struggling following my takes in this thread. I think Rubio is good... but not necessarily good enough to be a key player on a 54+ winning team. Just because a guy has good on/off splits for shitty to poor to mediocre to slightly below average teams doesn't mean he's destined to be a huge difference maker on a team with better players.
Simple as that. We can probably leave it at that.
It's all moot for now anyway. Rubio remains one of the team's best players and definitely one of the team's most important. His trade value is probably too low for a viable trade. He's good enough "for now." I just worry whether that one huge black mark in his game is enough to curb the team's ceiling when games really matter (playoffs).
[Note: It is kind of amusing to wonder if Rubio is good enough for a 54+ win team when the Wolves have only been that good once in 26+ years. I'd welcome the opportunity to whine about Rubio costing us a playoff game. Bring it on!]
Let me just be clear on the On/Off stuff, because you're right, we often cite his net on/off rating, which can include the crappiness of his backup and the team when he's not playing. Indeed those numbers are eye-popping, as we're about 10 points per 100 possessions better when he plays than when he doesn't.
But what about his pure "On" numbers? His career number is +2.8 per 100 possessions. That's basically .500+ basketball when he's on the court and playing.
Now let's compare that to some of his contemporaries' career numbers:
Kyle Lowry +2.0
Chris Paul +5.8
Deron Williams - +2.1
Russell Westbrook +4.6
Damian Lillard +2.6
John Wall -1.5
Mmmm, he compares pretty damn favorably to me and I would argue a few of these guys have had better talent around them for more of their careers.
I get the playoff concerns and I definitely get the health concerns. Time will tell if those ultimately bite us in the ass, but as you say, there really isn't anything we can do about it right now.
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
"Some people would argue it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games."
Only some people? I'd like to meet the people who say it's easier to win 54 games than be mediocre. I can introduce them to my therapist.
"Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him."
Yes! A great benchmark. What is your argument again?
"And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al."
I suppose so, but they still won a title together with Rondo as their point guard. So how did Rondo hold them back?
Abe, you and I are on the same page on most things. You've got me flummoxed on this one.
Is it because you really really like Rubio as a player? Or, my writing. Apparently, you're not the only one struggling following my takes in this thread. I think Rubio is good... but not necessarily good enough to be a key player on a 54+ winning team. Just because a guy has good on/off splits for shitty to poor to mediocre to slightly below average teams doesn't mean he's destined to be a huge difference maker on a team with better players.
Simple as that. We can probably leave it at that.
It's all moot for now anyway. Rubio remains one of the team's best players and definitely one of the team's most important. His trade value is probably too low for a viable trade. He's good enough "for now." I just worry whether that one huge black mark in his game is enough to curb the team's ceiling when games really matter (playoffs).
[Note: It is kind of amusing to wonder if Rubio is good enough for a 54+ win team when the Wolves have only been that good once in 26+ years. I'd welcome the opportunity to whine about Rubio costing us a playoff game. Bring it on!]
Let me just be clear on the On/Off stuff, because you're right, we often cite his net on/off rating, which can include the crappiness of his backup and the team when he's not playing. Indeed those numbers are eye-popping, as we're about 10 points per 100 possessions better when he plays than when he doesn't.
But what about his pure "On" numbers? His career number is +2.8 per 100 possessions. That's basically .500+ basketball when he's on the court and playing.
Now let's compare that to some of his contemporaries' career numbers:
Kyle Lowry +2.0
Chris Paul +5.8
Deron Williams - +2.1
Russell Westbrook +4.6
Damian Lillard +2.6
John Wall -1.5
Mmmm, he compares pretty damn favorably to me and I would argue a few of these guys have had better talent around them for more of their careers.
I get the playoff concerns and I definitely get the health concerns. Time will tell if those ultimately bite us in the ass, but as you say, there really isn't anything we can do about it right now.
So, did the Wolves simply have the worst bench in the L for the past 4 years?
[Note: I'm not being sarcastic. I bet the bench ranks extremely low during that timeframe.]
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
I never came remotely close to making the claim in bold. I don't think anybody else has either. I've been very clear on that issue many times now.
By the way, in case it was missed, Rubio went 16 straight games without making a shot at any time in any 4th quarter. How many games did it cost the team? Dunno. But can it be used to maybe sorta kinda acknowledge that his scoring ability maybe sorta kinda could be maybe sorta kinda be a possible problem at times in the past and possibly maybe in the future too. Maybe?
That's all I'm asking. Sorry for being so direct and so unreasonably pessimistic about Rubio in doing so.
IMO, the "16 straight games without making a shot at any time in the 4th quarter" is sort of sensationalism. It's something a blogger type might want to post for effect. But what does it really mean in the whole scheme of things? Rubio averaged 8 shots a game that year. That's averages to two shots a quarter based on my 3rd grade math flash cards. Our primary scorers that year were Love (18.5 shots/game), Martin (15 shots/game) and Pek (13 shots/game). Rubio's job was to get them the ball.
And for transparency - what stretch of games was that? How many shots did he actually take? Did he draw any fouls? Make any free throws? Did he have other stats in the 4th quarter i.e. assists, rebounds, steals in the 4th quarter of those games? Because all those things matter just as much as if he made a basket.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
I never came remotely close to making the claim in bold. I don't think anybody else has either. I've been very clear on that issue many times now.
By the way, in case it was missed, Rubio went 16 straight games without making a shot at any time in any 4th quarter. How many games did it cost the team? Dunno. But can it be used to maybe sorta kinda acknowledge that his scoring ability maybe sorta kinda could be maybe sorta kinda be a possible problem at times in the past and possibly maybe in the future too. Maybe?
That's all I'm asking. Sorry for being so direct and so unreasonably pessimistic about Rubio in doing so.
IMO, the "16 straight games without making a shot at any time in the 4th quarter" is sort of sensationalism. It's something a blogger type might want to post for effect. But what does it really mean in the whole scheme of things? Rubio averaged 8 shots a game that year. That's averages to two shots a quarter based on my 3rd grade math flash cards. Our primary scorers that year were Love (18.5 shots/game), Martin (15 shots/game) and Pek (13 shots/game). Rubio's job was to get them the ball.
And for transparency - what stretch of games was that? How many shots did he actually take? Did he draw any fouls? Make any free throws? Did he have other stats in the 4th quarter i.e. assists, rebounds, steals in the 4th quarter of those games? Because all those things matter just as much as if he made a basket.
I've written Rubio was "PART" of the problem (but NOT THE PRIMARY PROBLEM) and used that stat to support it about 12 times now.
I don't know what else you want from me. I wrote nothing sensational. I wrote a fact directly related to the argument. I tempered every response with caveats and platitudes to support Ricky to avoid any undue criticism or hurt feelings about a favorite player. And I supported my take with tangible evidence.
And I still get ripped. No wonder PorkChop gets frustrated by Rubio talk. Good god man.
[Note: Earlier in this thread I posted percentages for "clutch" moments in close losses. Rubio shot something like 12.5% or something for the first half of the season as the Wolves went through one of the zaniest half-seasons in NBA history. Barea shot worse but didn't have any of the intangibles Rubio brings... making him an even worse option at the time.]
The Rage Monster wrote:I still like Rubio, despite the things he can't do he still helps this team win games. If I'm looking at this right Rubio has played in 214 games so far and of those games he's played in the Wolves have won 93. That's a winning percentage of .434, during that same stretch the team's winning percentage is only .336. That's 10 percentage points higher and nearly a 30% increase.
I will take all his flaws, injuries aside, if he's making that kind of difference.
Sure. I think we all will. And I think all (most of us at least) realize Rubio makes the team better. Where we might differ is whether 43.4% is good enough. Or, whether Rubio can help a team win 63.4% of its games.
That's where it gets dicier. Rubio is pretty good while playing for pretty bad teams. Let's hope we get to see how good he is playing for a good team.
I don't get your logic. If Rubio helps a poor team at least play mediocre to average, why wouldn't he help a good team even more?
"Average" is stretching it. Remember, Rubio on a decent team was still under .500.
We just don't know. He hasn't been close to it. I don't think it's quite that clearcut of an argument. Some people could argue that it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games. It's all conjecture. We've never seen a guy shoot as poorly as Rubio. Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him. And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al. Outside of that... it's sort of uncharted waters.
I certainly wouldn't run with "A = A" so "B = B."
[Note: Philosophy aint my bag. So excuse my example.]
"Some people would argue it's easier to be a mediocre team than one that wins 54 games."
Only some people? I'd like to meet the people who say it's easier to win 54 games than be mediocre. I can introduce them to my therapist.
"Boston had Rondo... and he offers at least some similarities with outside shooting. They won at a high rate 3 times with him."
Yes! A great benchmark. What is your argument again?
"And you'll get varying opinions about how much of that was Rondo, Garnett, defense, coaching, Pierce, Allen, et al."
I suppose so, but they still won a title together with Rondo as their point guard. So how did Rondo hold them back?
Abe, you and I are on the same page on most things. You've got me flummoxed on this one.
Is it because you really really like Rubio as a player? Or, my writing. Apparently, you're not the only one struggling following my takes in this thread. I think Rubio is good... but not necessarily good enough to be a key player on a 54+ winning team. Just because a guy has good on/off splits for shitty to poor to mediocre to slightly below average teams doesn't mean he's destined to be a huge difference maker on a team with better players.
Simple as that. We can probably leave it at that.
It's all moot for now anyway. Rubio remains one of the team's best players and definitely one of the team's most important. His trade value is probably too low for a viable trade. He's good enough "for now." I just worry whether that one huge black mark in his game is enough to curb the team's ceiling when games really matter (playoffs).
[Note: It is kind of amusing to wonder if Rubio is good enough for a 54+ win team when the Wolves have only been that good once in 26+ years. I'd welcome the opportunity to whine about Rubio costing us a playoff game. Bring it on!]
Let me just be clear on the On/Off stuff, because you're right, we often cite his net on/off rating, which can include the crappiness of his backup and the team when he's not playing. Indeed those numbers are eye-popping, as we're about 10 points per 100 possessions better when he plays than when he doesn't.
But what about his pure "On" numbers? His career number is +2.8 per 100 possessions. That's basically .500+ basketball when he's on the court and playing.
Now let's compare that to some of his contemporaries' career numbers:
Kyle Lowry +2.0
Chris Paul +5.8
Deron Williams - +2.1
Russell Westbrook +4.6
Damian Lillard +2.6
John Wall -1.5
Mmmm, he compares pretty damn favorably to me and I would argue a few of these guys have had better talent around them for more of their careers.
I get the playoff concerns and I definitely get the health concerns. Time will tell if those ultimately bite us in the ass, but as you say, there really isn't anything we can do about it right now.
So, did the Wolves simply have the worst bench in the L for the past 4 years?
[Note: I'm not being sarcastic. I bet the bench ranks extremely low during that timeframe.]
Yeah, I don't think we've had a particularly good bench for years, although this year they look a bit better. But even a halfway decent backup PG doesn't provide what Rubio does. One of the reasons we were so crappy was because he missed a lot of games.
We talk a lot about the disappointment of the '13-14 team underachieving despite having a dominant starting 5 on paper. That then leads to the discussion of how Rubio did or didn't contribute to that underachievement via all the close losses.
What we don't talk about is Ricky's rookie year where his wing running mates were Luke Ridnour and Wes Johnson. That team was 21-20 before he went down - a winning record! I would submit to you that they overachieved. Then it all collapsed like a house of cards once he got hurt.
I very much look forward to the day when Ricky Rubio is not our best player and we can win games without being totally dependent on him.
