The Hawks Backcourt: Trae and Dejounte

[NBASupes]

54 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

  AI was less of a ball hog, more in control, and less wild?  

Allen is less of a ball hog than Trae, he's way more in control on or off the ball of the best scoring decisions and he's far less wild. He takes tough shots but I rarely recall him talking a lot stupid early in the possession shots like Trae does

[NBASupes]

@AHF, it's easy to look good on here, the jury is bias in your favor, do it here where its not

 

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2096741

[AHF]

1 hour ago, NBASupes said:

@AHF, it's easy to look good on here, the jury is bias in your favor, do it here where its not

 

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2096741

The numbers are obvious.  Why would I go somewhere that misinformation and bad takes are the norm to review this?

I was bashing AI's inefficiency on RealGM back when he was at his prime so what do I care if modern RealGMers are as dumb as they were back then?

That kind of bad take is why I no longer post on or read RealGM.

You literally just talked about the need to contextualize for the era and I did that in my post.  I noted what a league average player did and compared AI and Trae against that and noted where their offenses ranked relative to the rest of the league.  It is no contest.

How about coming back to me using your own criteria if you think I am wrong?  By what standard does AI look good compared to Trae other than that most basic PPG by which Antoine Walker and Brandon Jennings and others look like standouts when they are absolute dumpster fires in their most toxic seasons despite their PPG ranking.

You are never going to convince me that scoring 31.4 points on 27.8 field goal attempts is better than 28.4 points on 20.3 attempts.  Like is scoring 3 points on 7.5 attempts supposed to be some great accomplishment?  Is the much worse A/TO ratio supposed to be a good thing?  AI was hot garbage from an efficiency standout in his era and Trae is a standout in efficiency for his era.

[NBASupes]

8 minutes ago, AHF said:

The numbers are obvious.  Why would I go somewhere that misinformation and bad takes are the norm to review this?

I was bashing AI's inefficiency on RealGM back when he was at his prime so what do I care if modern RealGMers are as dumb as they were back then?

That kind of bad take is why I no longer post on or read RealGM.

You literally just talked about the need to contextualize for the era and I did that in my post.  I noted what a league average player did and compared AI and Trae against that and noted where their offenses ranked relative to the rest of the league.  It is no contest.

How about coming back to me using your own criteria if you think I am wrong?  By what standard does AI look good compared to Trae other than that most basic PPG by which Antoine Walker and Brandon Jennings and others look like standouts when they are absolute dumpster fires in their most toxic seasons despite their PPG ranking.

Even the numbers really don't do that. Iverson had nothing but defenders around him. Hardly any spacing even for that era and he still scored and scored at an elite rate. I just feel like Iverson is a superior scorer. Miami would have never locked down Iverson like they did Trae.

[Final_quest]

4 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Even the numbers really don't do that. Iverson had nothing but defenders around him. Hardly any spacing even for that era and he still scored and scored at an elite rate. I just feel like Iverson is a superior scorer. Miami would have never locked down Iverson like they did Trae.

Iverson had 4 of the top 10 least efficient scoring title seasons of all time, including #1.  
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/m75jm3/looking_at_the_most_and_least_efficient_scoring/

From the link: Was the league as a whole less efficient in the early 2000's? Sure. But even accounting for that, AI was still only average to below average in terms of shot efficiency.

*************************************************
That being said, I loved Iverson.  Fun to watch, but not sure how you can say Trae is more of a ball hog.  You have to get really creative with what your words mean to claim someone to be more of a ball hog than Iverson.  

 

[AHF]

1 minute ago, NBASupes said:

Even the numbers really don't do that. Iverson had nothing but defenders around him. Hardly any spacing even for that era and he still scored and scored at an elite rate. I just feel like Iverson is a superior scorer. Miami would have never locked down Iverson like they did Trae.

The difference in W/L record is obvious and the reason you just cited.  Iverson had elite defenders at every position around him while Trae had mostly terrible defenders around him.  When Trae didn't play, Atlanta's offense became grotesque.  When AI didn't play, Philly still had a winning record.

What does "locking down" Iverson even mean?  AI's career playoff TS% in Philly was 49.1%.  That is woeful.  Does not being locked down just mean to keep shooting so you put up solid PPG numbers even if your efficiency is garbage?  He took an average of 27.2 FGA/gm in the playoffs in Philly.  You really expect him to not average a bunch of points taking more than 27 shots a game?  

But AI must have been a superstar of efficiency when he went to Denver and played with Carmelo, Nene, Camby, JR Smith, KMart and others, right?  How does .545% TS% strike you?  That ranked him 8th, just above Earl Boykins' .542% TS% on that Denver team.  Wow.  That is amazing.  

Trae put up a .595% TS% as a second year player on a team that started Damion Jones, had zero productive vets, and relied heavily on a 43 year old Vince Carter but I'm sure Trae didn't get anywhere near the attention on him that AI did with only Melo, JR, and 3 double digit scoring athletic big men as weapons on the court (among others).

But let's contextualize for the league.  Trae was .030% TS% above league average despite his subpar supporting cast.  AI was right near league average at .004% TS% above it. Advantage Trae by a pretty huge margin.

But how about on their team?  Well, Denver was an elite offensive squad all season so AI was actually NEGATIVE .021% TS% relative to the average of his team.  Trae was POSITIVE .041% TS% above his team average.  So AI could barely scrape out league average numbers and barely outdo his 5'5'' fellow point while dragging down his team's average while Trae was way better than league average and way better than the collective average of his team. 

So is it the talent on the rest of the roster that makes Trae so much better even when AI enjoyed much better offensive talent around him than Trae did?  Why can't AI look particularly good even next to his own teammates when he is no longer asked to carry the team?  Why does Trae look so much better even with a much worse supporting cast?

[NBASupes]

6 minutes ago, AHF said:

The difference in W/L record is obvious and the reason you just cited.  Iverson had elite defenders at every position around him while Trae had mostly terrible defenders around him.  When Trae didn't play, Atlanta's offense became grotesque.  When AI didn't play, Philly still had a winning record.

What does "locking down" Iverson even mean?  AI's career playoff TS% in Philly was 49.1%.  That is woeful.  Does not being locked down just mean to keep shooting so you put up solid PPG numbers even if your efficiency is garbage?  He took an average of 27.2 FGA/gm in the playoffs in Philly.  You really expect him to not average a bunch of points taking more than 27 shots a game?  

But AI must have been a superstar of efficiency when he went to Denver and played with Carmelo, Nene, Camby, JR Smith, KMart and others, right?  How does .545% TS% strike you?  That ranked him 8th, just above Earl Boykins' .542% TS% on that Denver team.  Wow.  That is amazing.  

Trae put up a .595% TS% as a second year player on a team that started Damion Jones, had zero productive vets, and relied heavily on a 43 year old Vince Carter but I'm sure Trae didn't get anywhere near the attention on him that AI did with only Melo, JR, and 3 double digit scoring athletic big men as weapons on the court (among others).

But let's contextualize for the league.  Trae was .030% TS% above league average despite his subpar supporting cast.  AI was right near league average at .004% TS% above it. Advantage Trae by a pretty huge margin.

But how about on their team?  Well, Denver was an elite offensive squad all season so AI was actually NEGATIVE .021% TS% relative to the average of his team.  Trae was POSITIVE .041% TS% above his team average.  So AI could barely scrape out league average numbers and barely outdo his 5'5'' fellow point while dragging down his team's average while Trae was way better than league average and way better than the collective average of his team. 

So is it the talent on the rest of the roster that makes Trae so much better even when AI enjoyed much better offensive talent around him than Trae did?  Why can't AI look particularly good even next to his own teammates when he is no longer asked to carry the team?  Why does Trae look so much better even with a much worse supporting cast?

I never said AI was a better offensive player. I said he's a much better scorer and yes, I get your points, they are clear and understandable but Iverson wasn't getting stopped even when he wasn't efficient. Like people said Trae wasn't efficient, sometimes your impact is still massive. Just like teams throw everything to stop Trae's playmaking, teams did the same to A.I.'s scoring. 

[NBASupes]

10 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Iverson had 4 of the top 10 least efficient scoring title seasons of all time, including #1.  
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/m75jm3/looking_at_the_most_and_least_efficient_scoring/

From the link: Was the league as a whole less efficient in the early 2000's? Sure. But even accounting for that, AI was still only average to below average in terms of shot efficiency.

*************************************************
That being said, I loved Iverson.  Fun to watch, but not sure how you can say Trae is more of a ball hog.  You have to get really creative with what your words mean to claim someone to be more of a ball hog than Iverson.  

 

Trae just does a lot of things that throw the offense off. Early shots in the shot clock, random wtf deep range threes and not talking about his in rthymn deep threes, I am talking about just random attempts. He doesn't value every possession offensively. I felt Iverson did to the best of his ability. 

[Final_quest]

2 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Trae just does a lot of things that throw the offense off. Early shots in the shot clock, random wtf deep range threes and not talking about his in rthymn deep threes, I am talking about just random attempts. He doesn't value every possession offensively. I felt Iverson did to the best of his ability. 

Here's my problem with this take.  We had one of the top offenses in the league last year, and Trae was the engine to that offense.  If he is so damaging to an offense how can his team be top 5 in offense?  

[AHF]

9 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

I never said AI was a better offensive player. I said he's a much better scorer and yes, I get your points, they are clear and understandable but Iverson wasn't getting stopped even when he wasn't efficient. Like people said Trae wasn't efficient, sometimes your impact is still massive. Just like teams throw everything to stop Trae's playmaking, teams did the same to A.I.'s scoring. 

I thoroughly disagree.  Under the rules of the NBA, there was no possibility of defending him in Philly like Miami did Trae.  It was literally against the rules. 

He was an ineffective scorer and chucker for his entire career which is why his teams were never good offenses until he moved to Denver which was already a good offense without him.

He was propped up by elite defenses and Larry Brown's elite coaching.  

Look at his Philly team's offensive ratings:

21st

21st

23rd

25th

13th

23rd

11th

26th

24th

15th

26th

11 years of building an offense around AI and they were among the worst offenses in the entire league almost every year.  He was an impossible player to build around because he was such a selfish scorer.  No good offensive players wanted to play with him because he was just going to fire up a ton of shots and miss most of them.

Oh and after getting rid of AI, the team immediately improves from 26th in ORTG to 18th despite the top scorers being defensive first players in Andre Miller and Andre Iguodala.

When he joined Denver, his teams had much more success and he no longer monopolized the ball.  In fact, the less he touched it the better the offense did:

8th (2nd option)

11th (co-1st option - worst season for denver)

7th (best season with AI basically tied for a distant 2nd to 4th option with Chauncey and JR Smith)

Then the season after AI was gone, Denver immediately does significantly better finishing with the league's 3rd best offense.

He was not a good offensive player.  His teams won because of their D, not because of his offense.

 

[Diesel]

26 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Here's my problem with this take.  We had one of the top offenses in the league last year, and Trae was the engine to that offense.  If he is so damaging to an offense how can his team be top 5 in offense?  

I think you make an irrefutable point here.   People just Trae bash because it sounds good.   When you introduce facts, the Trae bashing doesn't stand up so well.   Right now, we're still finding our way.  Especially with Chemistry.   My hope is that we get there fast.   However, I know that it's a journey to get there. 

 

[Final_quest]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

I think you make an irrefutable point here.   People just Trae bash because it sounds good.   When you introduce facts, the Trae bashing doesn't stand up so well.   Right now, we're still finding our way.  Especially with Chemistry.   My hope is that we get there fast.   However, I know that it's a journey to get there. 

 

I don’t know what more people want from Trae.  He basically averages 30 and 10 while shooting 50/40/90.  And they say he needs to mature. Mature into what?  His numbers are all time great worthy.  
People don’t like that he shimmies, nutmegs, shoots too early, etc.  Most of it is an emotional reaction.  

[kg01]

10 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I don’t know what more people want from Trae.  He basically averages 30 and 10 while shooting 50/40/90.  And they say he needs to mature. Mature into what?  His numbers are all time great worthy.  
People don’t like that he shimmies, nutmegs, shoots too early, etc.  Most of it is an emotional reaction.  

Some people just don't like him.  Instead of being honest about it, they try to back into it using flawed or biased aNAlysIs(sic).  Pay them no mind. 

[Diesel]

40 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

I don’t know what more people want from Trae.  He basically averages 30 and 10 while shooting 50/40/90.  And they say he needs to mature. Mature into what?  His numbers are all time great worthy.  
People don’t like that he shimmies, nutmegs, shoots too early, etc.  Most of it is an emotional reaction.  

Most of the people who say that say that because they don't like the logo three. 

If the logo three is what Trae needs to keep him going, I say let him have it.   We're talking about a 30/10 player.   He's a freakin UNICORN.   If he could walk on water, they'd say his shoes be too wet. 

 

He's a freakin UNICORN!!

This fanbase can be ridiculous sometimes.   Trae marks all the boxes for a generational star and the fanbase still have the nerve to criticize. 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[AHF]

1 minute ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

This is based on 3 games in which Trae has been struggled with is shot, right?  Pretty sure if you look over the past few years that Trae has been one of the elites in this metric.

This strikes me as "small sample size" fun like getting excited that Christian Wood has a .438 WS/48 number to go with a 36.6 PER when MJ "only" put up .250 WS/48 and 27.1 PER averages for his career.

Who the **** cares after 3 games?

[JayBirdHawk]

35 minutes ago, AHF said:

This is based on 3 games in which Trae has been struggled with is shot, right?  Pretty sure if you look over the past few years that Trae has been one of the elites in this metric.

This strikes me as "small sample size" fun like getting excited that Christian Wood has a .438 WS/48 number to go with a 36.6 PER when MJ "only" put up .250 WS/48 and 27.1 PER averages for his career.

Who the **** cares after 3 games?

He has also missed a ton of floaters.

[AHF]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

He has also missed a ton of floaters.

Missed a ton of everything so far.  He goes through cold stretches.  He'll snap out of it.

[kg01]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

Missed a ton of everything so far.  He goes through cold stretches.  He'll snap out of it.

Nah, he's trash.  Trade for Jimmer while we still can.

[terrell]

DJM

"I think We took Charlotte lightly with their main guys out and didnt play with enough energy"

 

Trae Young when asked about it..

"Not me personally...Kelly Oubre has been there a while"

smh

Edited October 25, 2022 by terrell