Ricky shoot around comments to media
- Thread starter infection
- Start date
NAOS
Well-Known Member
By what/whose standards is Ricky underperforming?
Some of you are so incredibly butthurt that Rubio didn’t instantly transform the day he arrived in Utah; and you’ve consistently looked the other way when it comes to acknowledging all the ways he has improved.
****ing morons.
The mailman
Well-Known Member
I know this is ridiculous but... I think Rubio should shave his damn beard and man-bun, it might do him a world of good.
elan_prodigy
Well-Known Member
This all stems from someone saying R
Rudy (meh), Royce sure but DM is on a rookie deal which is valued differently.
No I agree with that, FOs dont part with positive assets unless upgrading or moving off a negative asset. Bottom line, signing Ricky to a "team friendly" deal ($2-3M below market) won't make him untradable.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You’re mostly right. It’s ****ing ridiculous
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
The jazz don't need to pay him to resign. They can just not re-sign him. If they re-sign him to be a bench player, $10MM sounds about right.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
Yep. Offer him $10, $9, $9 (3rd year team option). Tell him he will likely be off the bench.
Ok, I ran the numbers.
Mitchell w/ Rubio: 1040 minutes w/ 2159 possessions
Effective FG: 49%
TS: 53%
Usage: 28%
PPP: 1.07
PPS: 1.06
Team Offensive Rating: 112.1
Mitchell w/o Rubio: 689 minutes w/ 1427 possessions
EFG: 45.6%
TS: 50.1%
Usage: 35.1%
PPP: 1.03
PPS: 1.00
Team Offensive Rating: 108
I can't provide you any link for this (not that I dont want to, I just dont see the option to save and post searches). Just go to NBAwowy.com and sign up for the site (free) and enter the search yourself.
In regard to the debate over whether a good contract is more or less likely to be traded:
I think what's missing from the arguments thus far is the role and value of the player on his current team. A player on a good contract whose role is redundant on his current team will likely be traded--and quite easily since many other teams would desire his talents given the contract. Thus if both Favors and Rudy were under contract for a few more years and were expected to remain with the team, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Epke traded. But a player on a good contract whose role is hard to reproduce (especially for anywhere near that price level) will likely not be traded because he is too valuable for his current team (i.e., Royce).
I think what's missing from the arguments thus far is the role and value of the player on his current team. A player on a good contract whose role is redundant on his current team will likely be traded--and quite easily since many other teams would desire his talents given the contract. Thus if both Favors and Rudy were under contract for a few more years and were expected to remain with the team, it wouldn't be a surprise to see Epke traded. But a player on a good contract whose role is hard to reproduce (especially for anywhere near that price level) will likely not be traded because he is too valuable for his current team (i.e., Royce).
Last edited:
Curious as to why (in an otherwise plenty good opinion) we're coding a very understandable human reaction to possibly being uprooted and being told over and over again that "you're not really wanted " as a female emotion.
More generally, Ricky's certainly not the first very good pro athlete to appear somewhat unnerved by trade rumors, nor will he be the last. In the end, I think we should be more aware of the way that he's fought through obstacles to turn in very good performances (such as Saturday, in playoff situations, and many others).
It's not possible for everyone to turn into the ideal player, but I have zero reason to doubt Ricky's commitment, ability to contribute to winning basketball, and tendency to show up well when the lights are brightest.
Sandman822
Well-Known Member
Rudy is outperforming his contract I don't get the meh there at all (and if anything all the snubs he's getting makes his contract even more valuable since he's missing incentives), and all star caliber players on rookie deals are like the most valuable type of contracts you can get so just downplaying it as "but they're valued differently" is lazy.
Yea, the shot and play on words towards GH was unnecessary, and it could have been stated in a different way. Underwear in a Haybunch doesn't have the same ring to it.
I get that Ricky is unsettled by the idea. I also get that the FO people have to do their job.
I wonder/hope Ricky gets it after the emotion dies down and realizes that if they don’t do their due diligence to look at all options then they should be fired in just the same way that he should be fired if he stops producing at his craft.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Also, one could look at the positive affect that Rubio has had on probably EVERY guard he’s ever played with.
JFC ain’t care, doe. Has the site ever been this flagrantly wrong about a player? Srs
LoPo
Well-Known Member
The stats show that we play better with Rubio.
However, it's pretty crazy that we can even ask the question of who runs the offense better. Think about it, you have a 14 year professional PG vs a 2nd year pro who has never played PG. And we are even having to ask the question of who runs the offense better. I think it shows that there is so much potential for Donovan that he runs the offense so closely to the same effectiveness as Rubio.
Sandman822
Well-Known Member
That's simply not true though lol. Mitchell made the offense look good for the most part because he went absolutely nuclear shooting wise during that stretch, he did a pretty poor job of running the offense for the most part but made the Jazz' offense go because he was making a ton of shots.
His stats were much better when Rubio was out. I think he showed he can handle PG. He was definitely better without Rubio though. Much better.
OK, so how were Mitchell's numbers with the rest of the starters but no Rubio? Most of those numbers are from playing with the second unit as the PG. Mitchell was definitely much better as the PG when Rubio was injured. His efficiency plummeted once Rubio returned
Sandman822
Well-Known Member
I ran the impact stats for Mitchell vs Rubio and dated it from Jan 8th (Rubio injury) to now here, and advanced metrics here - some points about things that interested me but feel free to check the stats yourselves.
- Mitchell has shot the 3 better with Rubio on the floor vs when he's off, but Mitchell has a slightly higher TS% with Rubio off the floor.
- The Jazz' offense is significantly better with Rubio on the floor vs when he's off. A common misconception during the Mitchell at PG stint is that the offense improved when in reality the offense kinda got worse except for Mitchell's individual offense which obviously was at an all star level during that stretch, but the defense was significantly better during that stretch. I would argue that's more to do with the schedule at that time than any defensive deficiencies that Rubio might have, but the Jazz DRTG with Rubio on/Mitchell off might suggest otherwise.
- To add further to the last point, the Jazz as a team are significantly more efficient with Rubio/Mitchell on the floor vs when Mitchell is on but Rubio is off. All of the other starters + Crowder and O'Neale get more inefficient when you take Rubio off the floor but leave Mitchell on, Favors in particular suffers badly going from a 59.7TS% to a 49.8TS%.
- Mitchell becomes more ball dominant/ball stopping and chucks more with Rubio on the floor going off AST%s vs when he's off, which is something I think Mitchell could do a better job of when playing next to another playmaker. He doesn't need to ball stop just because Rubio is in the lineup to playmaker.
- The Jazz' ORTG with Mitchell on the court and Rubio off is actually worse than the Jazz' ORTG with Rubio on and Mitchell off since January 8th. The Mitchell on/Rubio off Net Rating is higher because the Jazz have been significantly better defensively in those minutes, whereas they've been kinda bad defensively with Rubio on/Mitchell off (another stat that suggests the "offense is better with Mitchell at the point" narrative is a myth).
- Mitchell has shot the 3 better with Rubio on the floor vs when he's off, but Mitchell has a slightly higher TS% with Rubio off the floor.
- The Jazz' offense is significantly better with Rubio on the floor vs when he's off. A common misconception during the Mitchell at PG stint is that the offense improved when in reality the offense kinda got worse except for Mitchell's individual offense which obviously was at an all star level during that stretch, but the defense was significantly better during that stretch. I would argue that's more to do with the schedule at that time than any defensive deficiencies that Rubio might have, but the Jazz DRTG with Rubio on/Mitchell off might suggest otherwise.
- To add further to the last point, the Jazz as a team are significantly more efficient with Rubio/Mitchell on the floor vs when Mitchell is on but Rubio is off. All of the other starters + Crowder and O'Neale get more inefficient when you take Rubio off the floor but leave Mitchell on, Favors in particular suffers badly going from a 59.7TS% to a 49.8TS%.
- Mitchell becomes more ball dominant/ball stopping and chucks more with Rubio on the floor going off AST%s vs when he's off, which is something I think Mitchell could do a better job of when playing next to another playmaker. He doesn't need to ball stop just because Rubio is in the lineup to playmaker.
- The Jazz' ORTG with Mitchell on the court and Rubio off is actually worse than the Jazz' ORTG with Rubio on and Mitchell off since January 8th. The Mitchell on/Rubio off Net Rating is higher because the Jazz have been significantly better defensively in those minutes, whereas they've been kinda bad defensively with Rubio on/Mitchell off (another stat that suggests the "offense is better with Mitchell at the point" narrative is a myth).
Lakers_Slapper
Well-Known Member
I can't believe that this conversation is happening. Do you people (the ones that want to crucify Rubio and have Mitchell be the PG) understand the job of a Point Guard? I'm not some huge fan of Rubio, but having Mitchel as the PG is not the answer. A PG should have the capability of distributing the ball, and Mitchell's talents is to score. Of course Mitchell's efficiency plummeted when Rubio returned, but the efficiency of the rest of the team balanced out. Mitchell is no Point guard nor does he want to be. Nor should we want him to be. We want him moving without the ball because that's when he's the most productive contributing to the teams win shares.