Point Guard Contingency Plan - Summer of 2017

[NUMBERICA]

VORP
Hill: 1.7
Teague: 2.1

DRTG
Hill: 106
Teague: 109

ORTG
Hill: 119
Teague: 114

PER:
Hill: 19.7
Teague: 19.4

TS%
Hill: .599
Teague: .573

USG
Hill: 23.6
Teague: 22.1

So, what am I missing? Where is this "Hill is clearly the better player" stuff coming from?

Teague and Hill are very, very similar. Teague is younger and doesn't get hurt as much. Like I said earlier, if you have Teague, you are probably battling for the third seed right now.

I still say that Utah should have went after Teague.

Now, onto another subject, why would Gordon choose Utah over Boston? Especially if the Jazz resign an oft-injured and aging Hill or if Hill leaves?

If Gordon leaves, Utah is completely screwed...well, not completely, but they probably have to tank again. Hood and Favors and Burks aren't taking you anywhere. So, if Hayward leaves, do you sell the ship and tank again, hoping that Exum develops and you get a top pick that pans out before Gobert's extension is up and he bolts as well? IF that is the case, why not sell the farm now, before free agency and go after another All Star to convince Hayward to stay? Hayward, Gobert and another All Star is better than Hayward, Gobert, Hill, Favors, Hood, etc.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PLEASE GO AWAY

Just kidding but not really. This is a team sport, right?

Hill's net on/off court split is an eye-popping +10.3, good for second-best on the team (behind Gobert, another player whose importance somehow eludes you). Teague? +1.7.

And what about matchups? Hill produces 6 PER points better than his opponent. Teague does at 3.6 PER points. I don't care about this measurement as much.

But let's not focus on the numbers, you said they're 'very very similar players'. They aren't. They just aren't. They don't have a similar style of play, a similar relationship between their strengths and their weaknesses, and the way their team's perform with them on the floor vs not is nowhere near the same.

Teague is not better than Hill. It's not really that close. There's a reason such a conversation exists for Hill and not Teague. And I don't hate Teague.

 

[green]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PLEASE GO AWAY

Just kidding but not really. This is a team sport, right?

Hill's net on/off court split is an eye-popping +10.3, good for second-best on the team (behind Gobert, another player whose importance somehow eludes you). Teague? +1.7.

And what about matchups? Hill produces 6 PER points better than his opponent. Teague does at 3.6 PER points. I don't care about this measurement as much.

But let's not focus on the numbers, you said they're 'very very similar players'. They aren't. They just aren't. They don't have a similar style of play, a similar relationship between their strengths and their weaknesses, and the way their team's perform with them on the floor vs not is nowhere near the same.

Teague is not better than Hill. It's not really that close. There's a reason such a conversation exists for Hill and not Teague. And I don't hate Teague.

Let's say Hill is better. How much better? If you put Teague on this team this year, what is Utah's record compared to what Hill has done?

The Jazz have 37 wins right now with Hill missing 25 games. I don't believe Teague has missed a game this year. How many wins do the Jazz have with a healthy Teague this year? 40? 42? 37?

Also, your stats are highly dependent on your teammates. Utah has a better cast than Ind has. How much does Teague's stats improve playing for Snyder? Same with his shooting.

It's fine, I'll give this a rest, but just as I believe the Jazz put this franchise behind by 5-10 years by sticking with Corbin and Jefferson so long, I believe the Jazz messed up big time by not going after Teague and doing what they thought would be the cheaper option in Hill.

What I'd love to ask Lindsey is this (assuming he HAD to tell the truth): If you knew that Hill was going to get max dollars, would you still trade for him or Teague?

 

[David Stern]

I'd see Philly giving him that much money. Their tanking years are over. They will make a push for the playoffs next year. Embiid is elite already. I read an article that Cousins is the only C in his stratosphere offensively and defensively only Gobert can dream of being as good as Embiid.

Embidd, Simmons, Saric is their core. They will look to add a veteran PG (Hill) and another big time player to their core. Their goal next year will be playoffs.

The dude has played 30 games in 3 full seasons now, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Let's say Hill is better. How much better? If you put Teague on this team this year, what is Utah's record compared to what Hill has done?

The Jazz have 37 wins right now with Hill missing 25 games. I don't believe Teague has missed a game this year. How many wins do the Jazz have with a healthy Teague this year? 40? 42? 37?

Also, your stats are highly dependent on your teammates. Utah has a better cast than Ind has. How much does Teague's stats improve playing for Snyder? Same with his shooting.

It's fine, I'll give this a rest, but just as I believe the Jazz put this franchise behind by 5-10 years by sticking with Corbin and Jefferson so long, I believe the Jazz messed up big time by not going after Teague and doing what they thought would be the cheaper option in Hill.

What I'd love to ask Lindsey is this (assuming he HAD to tell the truth): If you knew that Hill was going to get max dollars, would you still trade for him or Teague?

You obviously don't understand how +/- works, one could make a (much) stronger argument that since there is a larger disparity between each teams' starters/benches - and likely lineups that they play in - that Teague's built-in +/- value is higher than Hill's. Your argument has also essentially shifted to that Hill is too good to keep but that Teague is the better player not because he's better, but because 'he's more durable'* (not really that borne in evidence previous to this season). Yeah, sorry, you're not making a convincing argument to the superiority of Teague here.


*Hill plays 69 games per year on AVERAGE which is skewed by two seasons out of eight where he missed significant stretches, which you could see as in the territory of an outlier, but his MEDIAN** games played is 76, where Teague on AVERAGE plays 74 games a year but whose MEDIAN games played (73) is actually fewer than Hill. What I think the data shows is that sometimes people just get hurt, but despite the data being skewed in such a negative way for Hill, in a given season, you can expect about as many games from one as the other; they're both reliable players, historically. Just because Hill ended up being injured after the fact doesn't change the methodology or the results as to the durability of Hill prior this season, and again, sometimes people just get hurt.
**median values are worth considering because they are resistant to extreme figures in the data set

 

[green]

You obviously don't understand how +/- works. Your argument has also shifted to that Hill is too good to keep and that Teague is the better player not because he's better, but because 'he's more durable'* (not really that borne in evidence previous to this season). Yeah, sorry, you're not making a convincing argument to the superiority of Teague here.


*Hill plays 69 games per year on AVERAGE which is skewed by two seasons out of eight where he missed significant stretches, which you could see as in the territory of an outlier, but his MEDIAN** games played is 76, where Teague on AVERAGE plays 74 games a year but whose MEDIAN games played (73) is actually fewer than Hill. What I think the data shows is that sometimes people just get hurt, but despite the data being skewed in such a negative way for Hill, in a given season, you can expect about as many games from one as the other; they're both reliable players, historically. Just because Hill ended up being injured after the fact doesn't change the methodology or the results as to the durability of Hill prior this season, and again, sometimes people just get hurt.
**median values are worth considering because they are resistant to extreme figures in the data set

You didn't answer my question. What do you think Utah's record would be with Teague this year? Better? Worse?

 

[NUMBERICA]

You didn't answer my question. What do you think Utah's record would be with Teague this year? Better? Worse?

Since we're playing in hypotheticals? Teague could've gotten injured is my answer. Your belief that each player exists in some vacuum where external variables don't affect them is a much further reach than that a human being might get injured (or might not, for that matter).

In other words, the heart of your points seem to (now) be that the Jazz should've somehow known Hill would be injured (and Teague wouldn't be) which is plainly fallacious and absurd.

 

[NUMBERICA]

If you pay Hill that much, he will become untradeable.

How can someone have a market-value that dictates such a salary and then be untradable? Notwithstanding that his play regresses, which is a risk for any new-contract player (although more pointed for older players).

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Just curious... if your choice is Hill for 4/100 or Dwill 2/15 what do u pick?

 

[The Midnight]

Just curious... if your choice is Hill for 4/100 or Dwill 2/15 what do u pick?

Dwill...

 

[fishonjazz]

VORP
Hill: 1.7
Teague: 2.1

DRTG
Hill: 106
Teague: 109

ORTG
Hill: 119
Teague: 114

PER:
Hill: 19.7
Teague: 19.4

TS%
Hill: .599
Teague: .573

USG
Hill: 23.6
Teague: 22.1

So, what am I missing? Where is this "Hill is clearly the better player" stuff coming from?

Teague and Hill are very, very similar. Teague is younger and doesn't get hurt as much. Like I said earlier, if you have Teague, you are probably battling for the third seed right now.

I still say that Utah should have went after Teague.

Now, onto another subject, why would Gordon choose Utah over Boston? Especially if the Jazz resign an oft-injured and aging Hill or if Hill leaves?

If Gordon leaves, Utah is completely screwed...well, not completely, but they probably have to tank again. Hood and Favors and Burks aren't taking you anywhere. So, if Hayward leaves, do you sell the ship and tank again, hoping that Exum develops and you get a top pick that pans out before Gobert's extension is up and he bolts as well? IF that is the case, why not sell the farm now, before free agency and go after another All Star to convince Hayward to stay? Hayward, Gobert and another All Star is better than Hayward, Gobert, Hill, Favors, Hood, etc.

I asked you this before and never got an answer.
Were teams offering the jazz both players and the jazz simply got to pick which one they wanted and they picked hill?

 

[fishonjazz]

If Hill's market is that strong, maybe you look at signing him and trading him once it's time to put that cap space towards retaining other players. This way, you don't totally lose an asset.

I think it's weird that people are often just like "we can always just trade him later" as if trades happen really frequently and easily and you always get good value back in every trade.

 

[fishonjazz]

How can someone have a market-value that dictates such a salary and then be untradable?

I don't know the specific answer to your question but what I do know is that it happens.

 

[fishonjazz]

Just curious... if your choice is Hill for 4/100 or Dwill 2/15 what do u pick?

D will.
Dante should be ready in 2 years to take over and I would not like to pay an older back up point guard (one of the deepest positions in the nba) 25 million.

 

[green]

Since we're playing in hypotheticals? Teague could've gotten injured is my answer. Your belief that each player exists in some vacuum where external variables don't affect them is a much further reach than that a human being might get injured (or might not, for that matter).

In other words, the heart of your points seem to (now) be that the Jazz should've somehow known Hill would be injured (and Teague wouldn't be) which is plainly fallacious and absurd.

That's not my point at all. My point is that if the Jazz had traded for Teague instead of Hill, the Jazz would have been a better team.

I was right when the trade happened and I'm right now.

They are remarkably similar players when it comes to value to a team. Teague is younger, and has been healthier.

Had the Jazz traded for Teague, they'd be a better team than they are today with a better shot at a better future.

That has been my point all along.

Hill is a very good player. But Teague gives you a better LONG TERM shot at being good than Hill.

BUT, Teague was more expensive, at the time, so the Jazz went cheap and it has cost them 4-5 wins this year and if they extend Hill, it will probably cost them 5-10+ wins a season moving forward, and potentially more if Hayward bails.

 

[green]

I asked you this before and never got an answer.
Were teams offering the jazz both players and the jazz simply got to pick which one they wanted and they picked hill?

The Jazz moved the 12 pick to Atl. It's a safe bet to think if Utah wanted Teague they could have him.

 

[r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t]

... Dante should be ready in 2 years to take over...

He's now played over 2,600 minutes in the NBA and has a cumulative PER of 6.7. Here's a list of every player in NBA history that played 2,500 minutes in their first three seasons and put up a PER of 9.0 or less:

https://bkref.com/tiny/KIoS5

Every player there busted. Maybe Exum will be "ready in 2 years" but what are the odds now of that really happening? Isn't it more likely he's just been exposed for the player he really is/isn't?

 

[Game6Conley]

I think it's weird that people are often just like "we can always just trade him later" as if trades happen really frequently and easily and you always get good value back in every trade.

I've made several suggestions over the years, usually on players that seemed overpriced at the time (or extreme 'overbids' on RFA's)and added that they could be traded later..

Now I never claimed they could get great value back if things go awry but I do think at the very least you can get expirings for a certain type of player that can help a playoff rotation and clear the mistake..

To name a few; Jeff Teague, DeMar DeRozan, Al Farouq Aminu, Mo Harkless, Patty Mills, Tobias Harris and most recently the soon to be MIP Harrison Barnes(many took umbrage with this last summer and it's absolute nonsense)..


Kentavious Caldwell-Pope is likely to be a big $ contract this summer that will remain VERY tradeable.

YOu can definitely pull value 'out of thin air' and trade it away. It's definitely not as difficult a task as some might assume. Gotta be done with extreme precision tho or else you could end up with Joakim Noah..

 

[Game6Conley]

I'd take Ray Felton on the squad for the vet min before Deron 2yrs/15MM.. These stop-gap moves suck *** compared to going after one of the PG's in the draft..


Lettuce not forget that in the last great PG draft Jeff Teague fell sorta like Rudy did in his draft.. There's so many seemingly viable options IMO..

 

[green]

I've stated this before but drafting outside of the top 10 is the biggest crap shoot in the world and no way to build a team.

 

[Game6Conley]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but resigning Joe Ingles COULD have some effect on the PG position next season.Same with Hayward,u got both of them and Exum/Burks/Neto it works because they still have ammo to fire at an upgrade if needed.