This isn't some weird magic: it's largely basic math. (In addition, they all are more efficient on the two-pointers they do take.) But the ability to draw fouls is a big reason as to why those guys are a cut above Gay as a scorer. Like Gay, those guys all live in the mid-range area. For his career, Gay averages four free-throw attempts per game. This is to show why other scorers are ranked over Gay.
This isn't to say Gay needs to abandon his game to draw more free throws. More Raptors coverage Submit media day questions Ergo, if Gay gets free throws, history shows he'll convert them at a rate better than he or anyone can dream of converting shots into points from the field. Not even Stephen Curry shoots 53 percent on threes. To earn 1.6 points per shot on three-pointers, Gay would need to shoot 53 percent on them. To earn 1.6 points per shot on two-pointers, Gay would need to shoot a field goal percentage of 80 percent. For every trip to the line for a pair, he earns about 1.6 points. Taking 100 of those long twos and turning them into 100 three-pointers without adjusting the percentages is a swing of 30 points. That extra point gets you closer to a win. If you shoot 3-10 on corner threes, you get nine points on those 10 shots. So if you shoot 4-10 on 18-footers, you get eight points on those 10 shots. A three is worth one more point than a two. Shooting more three-pointers and getting to the line are two of those ways. Here's the disconnect: data has shown us that there are certain ways that make getting the win a lot more feasible. According to analytics, you either to shoot a 3 or get to the foul line, and it's not good for people like me that live in that mid-range area." "When it comes down to it, it's all about winning, and however you get the win. "Honestly, how I view it, a computer can't tell talent, it just can't," Gay told NBA.com. The Grizzlies' move was validated and now it's Gay who is ready to respond. As it turns out, the Grizzlies were better without Gay and got further into the playoffs than ever before. The response to that became a sort of Gay backlash. When statheads took over the Grizzlies' front office and then jettisoned Gay to Toronto in midseason, one of the biggest basketball writers on the planet accused Memphis of choosing money over wins. The reason Gay is at the forefront is two-fold: he makes superstar money and Memphis traded him in the middle of a title run. This debate is not singular or even infrequent: we make the judgments on just about every other player. Those more in tune with advanced stats would disagree. Gay and his backers say he provides a lot of value, maybe an All-Star level of value. (There's also the matter of "advanced stats" not being a single number or set of numbers.)Īll we're really quibbling about is how much value Gay provides. Many advanced stats would place Gay as an above-average player, a good starter. But folks assume that because Gay is not an advanced stats darling, the advanced stats believe him to be a scrub. He's got talent, size and skills in varying levels. That framing has made this a problem because Gay can clearly play basketball. Just because data-driven analysis indicates he's nowhere near as valuable as the "stars" of the game, that doesn't mean the computer believes he has no value. One of the things totally ignored most of the time when Gay is the subject is that even advanced stats find value in his game. The computer takes input and spits out results. If it had the capacity for compassion, it wouldn't owe Gay an apology, because "the computer" has done nothing to Gay.