And yes, there are examples of SGs that had great boxscore stats (like Jordan, Wade, Bryant). Those guys generally play a different role. They handle the ball way more often and are able to score and accumulate assists too. They are generally teamed with non traditional PGs who play off of them instead of being the dominant playmaker.

So in terms of the Knicks, if Ntilikina had a reliable three point shot, would pairing him with, say, THJ, give us this sort of combination?

What about the complex idea that KP being a poor rebounder puts extra strain on his teammates to go for these rebounds, making the game harder for them? How about KP’s inability to shoot at an above-average rate makes his guards look worse because they get less assists from his bricks? How about KP’s lack of an inside game forcing his fellow big men to bang inside with opposing bigs on the offensive paint all game long makes them more tired and less effective overall? How about maybe, just maybe, his production is actually subpar and he needs to improve in a lot of areas to actually deserve the contract he’ll eventually get?

And yes, there are examples of SGs that had great boxscore stats (like Jordan, Wade, Bryant). Those guys generally play a different role. They handle the ball way more often and are able to score and accumulate assists too. They are generally teamed with non traditional PGs who play off of them instead of being the dominant playmaker.

The boxscore is in large part a a reflection of the talent and skills of the player, but it is also in part a reflection of the role of the player on a team trying to maximize the whole with other players that have different or overlapping skills.

ruruland called, he wants his argument about 2011-12 Carmelo Anthony back

1. I hope you aren’t arguing that PFs playing on the perimeter don’t get fewer rebounds than they would in they played in a more traditional role. You would be wrong on that.

2. If you are arguing they get fewer rebounds but the extra spacing from being an outside threat does not impact the offense positively enough to offset the loss of rebounding, that’s at reasonable position. However, you are then arguing that every team in the NBA has been foolish for moving in that direction and is compounding the foolishness by now asking Cs to play the same way.

I’m not buying it.

It’s hard to measure the value of anything in basketball properly (quite easy to pretend you can though) but it’s obvious that when KP has to guard some small sharp shooting PF on the perimeter, it’s having a positive impact on the other team’s offense given that KP won’t be in the paint swatting away shots by their slashers, cutters, and drivers. He’s also getting fewer rebounds. Same when he’s dragging some big outside.

The same phenomenon makes SGs look weak on many boxscore models.

SGs tend to be small, play on the perimeter, and don’t get to handle the ball as often as PGs. So it’s kind of tough to accumulate a lot of positive boxscore stats. What they do tend to well is shoot and space the floor. That’s why despite advanced stats models saying most of them aren’t very good, coaches keep playing them. Their value accrues to their teammates boxscores in the same way a great pass adds to the efficiency of the player receiving it. The thing is, we have assists in the boxscore to measure passing value. We don’t have spacing and defense in the boxscore to measure just how good Klay Thompson is.

because the lower rebounding rate that results from being on the perimeter more often on both sides of the ball is offset (and probably exceeded) by the better spacing they provide for teammates

ruruland called, he wants his argument about 2011-12 Carmelo Anthony back