2014 Spurs Summer League Thread

[Obstructed_View]

Daye keeps giving glimmers of raw talent which make me say, "Damn, He's 6'11 and if he could do that well and with consistency..." Like making a spin move from outside the arc and driving to the hoop--where he misses a defended short jumper. Or he picks up 9 rebounds in 28 mins without seeming to be in the mix under the basket.

There's talent there--and that's what made him the 15th pick in the draft and intrigues coaches. I think every coach thinks he can mold him into a good NBA player.

Can't imagine watching him practice in person. Scouts probably have visions of Kevin Durant 2.0. First one to make him care and give him a backbone wins the supplemental lottery.

[jsandiego]

If you want to dismiss the one "outlier" game, then shouldn't you also dismiss games where he's playing garbage minutes too?

Last season he played in 6 games where he logged at least 10 minutes of action:
3 were productive:
(28 min, 8/13, 6/10 3FG), (11 min, 4/7, 3/4 3FG), (14 min, 4/6, 1/2 3FG)

3 were terrible:
(14 min, 1/5, 0/2), (17 min, 0/2, 0/1), (14 min, 1/7, 0/3)

So the guy is inconsistent, and had a few flashes of potential. Seems to me that's about all we can derive from his stats because it's such a small sample -- all of it.

[xmas1997]

At this point the unsigned SL players that have probably impressed the staff doing things they would probably be able to do in the NBA would be Green and Morris -- though both need to show more range on their shots.

Cotton has enough raw talent to get in training camp and on the Toros.

Thomas is a classic tweener which is a shame.

I think Daye and Ayres' presence in SL is proof enough they are on the bubble, guaranteed money or not. It's just not that money and the Spurs are flush right now and seemingly anxious to get some cheap projects they can potentially keep into the cap space era next summer.

We are in total agreement about this.

[spurraider21]

Point is, the Spurs were willing to pay a little bit to see if Daye could play. He cain't. Not a huge loss.

if that's the case then i'm totally cool with it, i couldn't care less about Holt's pocket ... but if it turns out that they refuse to dump him due to the $, then its infuriating that they didn't get out of it earlier

[littlecoyotecoin]

You're looking at it as a series of shots. 29 shots.

I'm looking at it as a series of games. 14 games.

I tossed out 1 game, or 7% of the data.

My point is that through 13 games, or 93% of the data, he was only able to shoot 31.5%. In other words, he consistently shoots poorly.

And again, even without eliminating any data, he only shot 38% from the field in all 14 games, and all 55 shots that he took. Hence, the assertion that the statement that he "shot well for us in the RS," while subjective, is wrong.

I'll go even further, for his career he is a 35% 3pt shooter. Not a terrible number honestly, but not a deadeye shooter either. His career FG% is just over 40%. Thats terrible. Especially for a guy that is mostly a spot-up shooter.

This is why I try to stay out of math discussions. They're tedious and boring. You have so many errors in your math and logic that I could not address them at 12:30 in the morning. The other poster that suggests that I (and ChumpDumper, for some reason, I didn't follow that part...) am addressing these errors in order to seek attention doesn't understand the quote:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


-Edmund Burke

Nor:

Someone told me that each equation I included in the book would halve the sales. I therefore resolved not to have any equations at all. In the end, however, I did put in one equation, Einstein's famous equation, . I hope that this will not scare off half of my potential readers.

-Stephen Hawking

I am no Edmund Burke, nor Stephen Hawking. But, they're smart. If I were seeking attention, I would definitely not be using math to do it (Hawking). And, your understanding is so poor, but promoted as legitimate, that I just can't let it stand unchallenged (Burke). While your intent is not to be harmful, it can never be considered good to spread ignorance.


We must first journey back to the original discussion. When things aren't going well for someone, they often tend to stray from the topic at hand. The discussion was Daye's 3 point shooting. You went back and attempted to parse his stats in order to try to prove that he didn't REALLY shoot 41%. An asinine pretense to begin with, as the numbers speak for themselves. Also, you take my quote in reference to "...he shot well for us..." regarding his 3 point shooting percentage, and attempt to extrapolate that to an argument that his overall shooting was poor, so my statement is in error. That's an entirely different argument. I was referring to his 3 point shooting (41%), and because the numbers speak for themselves, you attempt to grey the lines to draw in his other flaws. He has flaws. Again, not the discussion. Moving the goal-posts, etc.

So, back to the 3 point percentage discussion, when challenged about throwing out his "best game" as an outlier, you give the above argument, that you did not throw out 34% of the data, only 7%. If we were both you, you would be calling me a name, here, for doing something so ignorant, like you did earlier (dense), when confronted with your own ignorance of the situation. You don't even understand what you don't understand. You said you are justified in throwing out 1 game, which is only 7% of the data, then you recalculate his NEW shooting percentage. Do you know how you calculated his new shooting percentage? I do. You used (total 3 point makes/total 3 point attempts) to yield your 31.6%. But, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming that you are doing. That is throwing out the exact 34% of the data that you said you aren't throwing out.

Now, let's calculate 3 point percentage the way you WANT to calculate it, by throwing out ONE GAME, the Philly game. You would have to then look at EACH INDIVIDUAL GAME as your data point. Of course, no one calculates 3 point shooting percentage this way, but it is what you were wanting to do, but you didn't even do your own method correctly. His remaining 13 games would then be weighted equally (weighting them equally is what allows you to throw out an outlier, counting each game as a trial). His 14 games had 3%s of: 1, .6, 0, .75, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, and .5, and four with no attempts. Here's where you take a really random and screwy tack and throw out the outlier .6. .6 is not an outlier, using your methodology, to begin with. 1 and 0 are the outliers, but it doesn't really matter, because no one calculates 3% this way, anyway. It would be moronic to weight the 100% shooting game where he only took 2 shots, equally with the game game where he took 10 shots. You acknowledge this about the 2/2 game against The Heat (that it can't be weighted the same, because it was only two shots), but then you weight all 14 games equally when throwing out his game against Philly. You simply can't do that. And, especially bad, after you DO weight each game equally, to throw out the good game, then you revert back to calculating his 3% the way everyone always does, further confounding the issue:

(total 3 point makes/total 3 point attempts) = 31.6% giving weight to each SHOT and SHOT ATTEMPT, not weight to each game. (You didn't round correctly, but I'm not about picking nits, here. I make arithmetic errors, too. Your other errors are systematic and much more egregious.)

Throwing out a game, and recalculating each game as an individual data point, his new 3% would be: 1.85/9 = 20.6%.

That is a very dumb way to calculate 3%, and that is why no one does it that way. Heck, you didn't even do it that way, and it was your creation. When they DO break down 3% by year, they do not then weight them equally when calculating career 3 point percentage. They do (total 3 point makes/total 3 point attempts).

Now, let's backtrack to the "outlier" game. You have to carefully determine what an outlier is before you just get to disregard it. You did none of that. I don't blame you, that's complex. Also, you don't get to just throw out outliers on the RIGHT side of where you think the mean should be. You also have to throw out any outliers in extreme standard deviation positions to the LEFT of the mean, as well. You, of course, did not throw out any of his outliers in the far left tail. Why wouldn't you do that? It would hurt your argument, of course. Your decision on what was an outlier was arbitrary and capricious. Not allowed. You shouldn't have been throwing out ANY of the data, anyway, but even if you do, you did it wrong.

I guess that's all I have to say regarding your cherry picking of your data. Obstructed View took a much better tack in his argument. He just appealed to authority, namely his own. He said, he doesn't know math, but said that he knows basketball. When someone appeals to authority, and that authority is themselves, you can't really argue with them. That's what's often referred to as an opinion. And, we all are en led to an opinion. Obstructed View's opinion is just the right one. But, when you use math to support yourself, and it's really bad math, you don't have much of a defense.

+++++++++++++++++++



If you want to say that he is a horrible shooter inside the arc, etc. Different arguments. His numbers are not great. I don't think I would care to mount much of a defense, there. Could be his weight hurting him. Bad shot selection, etc. But, I don't think it's his shooting touch. I think his 3 point shooting at Gonzaga, and some of it in Detroit, is probably a closer reflection of what his true 3 point percentage will be over the long haul with us, as opposed to what he has shot in the last two games, as a rookie in Detroit, or as a spare being shuffled in and out of Toronto and Memphis. The fact that the line is 3 feet further in the NBA is mitigated by a more mature physique. He will get wide open looks, here. And, if he is covered by the power forward, all the better, because that's also what he would be in for. Whether his numbers will equal those numbers from Gonzaga and Detroit, those are the large samples, and the large samples is where he actually shot higher percentages. If you have to pick between the small sample percentages or the large ones, we would rather look at the large samples. I don't know, but I seriously doubt that 3 feet drops him into the 20% ranges, from 41-42%. That would be very unrealistic to expect. You can argue that it is compe ion level that is causing the drop, but these last two summer league games have been pretty wide open looks against pretty bad compe ion, so I don't know if the compe ion being poor is having much of an effect on the percentage, and he has demonstrated some good shooting from the 3 point line outside of summer league against NBA compe ion. As a matter of fact, his second year with Detroit was against NBA compe ion, and it was the largest pro sample of 3 point shooting, and the second highest 3 point percentage at right around what he shot for us: 40-41%. His second largest sample of shots was his highest shooting percentage at, again, right around what he shot for us: 41-42%. So, if anything, when he is in a more stable situation and is getting regular minutes, his shooting percentage is at its highest...as a rookie, or when he was benched, and shuffled around the league, those are the situations when his shooting percentage from the 3 point line begins to suffer. So, all evidence still points to him being a good shooter from behind the arc, despite the two turds he has put up in summer league, thus far.

After reviewing his career number, despite all the shuffling around, you even admit that 35% isn't too shabby. I didn't call it 'dead-eye', but like Belinelli, I could see him possibly making improvement in our system, if he gets regular looks. It happens to a lot of bad shooters, much less one like Daye that has some flashes of brilliance in his shooting career. He shot 62/138 = 44.9% the year he was shipped out of Detroit, and finished in Toronto. I doubt they shipped him out because he couldn't shoot the three that year. He was 52.5% that year in Detroit before leaving. They probably, primarily, shipped him due to other flaws.

[littlecoyotecoin]

Good news is he doesn't hurt anything being on the team. Used in spots, he absorbs minutes and does no real damage. Expensive? Probably, but not RJ expensive.

Daye costs so little that, as a fan, I could give a . The Spurs are paying to see him in summer league. It's an electric bill to them. No biggie.

if that's the case then i'm totally cool with it, i couldn't care less about Holt's pocket ... but if it turns out that they refuse to dump him due to the $, then its infuriating that they didn't get out of it earlier

Chinook recently pointed out we cut someone and they were owed even more than Daye (Thomas). Someone else also said that the NBA pays part of the salary if a team cuts a minimum salary guy. That surprised me, but it appears to be true. So, I doubt that they are too worried about the $750k if they don't think that he will work out. He was owed 250k of 1 million, anyway. So, it is only an additional $750k, minus whatever the league might pay. Mel or Chinook, or the other guy that told me about league reimbursement will have to elaborate on that. I am confident that they will make a good decision. They hit more than they miss.

[Seventyniner]

Chinook recently pointed out we cut someone and they were owed even more than Daye (Thomas). Someone else also said that the NBA pays part of the salary if a team cuts a minimum salary guy. That surprised me, but it appears to be true. So, I doubt that they are too worried about the $750k if they don't think that he will work out. He was owed 250k of 1 million, anyway. So, it is only an additional $750k, minus whatever the league might pay. Mel or Chinook, or the other guy that told me about league reimbursement will have to elaborate on that. I am confident that they will make a good decision. They hit more than they miss.

The league reimburses teams for any minimum contract for the amount that it exceeds the rookie minimum (the min increases with experience in the league). So if the vet minimum for player A is $1.2M and the league rookie min is $400k, the league pays for $800k of the salary. The point is so that teams don't choose rookies over veterans for min contracts.

Btw this is regardless of a team keeping said player for the whole season or cutting him along the way.

I don't know if min contracts all count the same on the salary cap, though. That is, would player A above count for $400k or $1.2M?

[littlecoyotecoin]

The league reimburses teams for any minimum contract for the amount that it exceeds the rookie minimum (the min increases with experience in the league). So if the vet minimum for player A is $1.2M and the league rookie min is $400k, the league pays for $800k of the salary. The point is so that teams don't choose rookies over veterans for min contracts.

Btw this is regardless of a team keeping said player for the whole season or cutting him along the way.

I don't know if min contracts all count the same on the salary cap, though. That is, would player A above count for $400k or $1.2M?

Thanks!

[Mel_13]

The league reimburses teams for any minimum contract for the amount that it exceeds the rookie minimum (the min increases with experience in the league). So if the vet minimum for player A is $1.2M and the league rookie min is $400k, the league pays for $800k of the salary. The point is so that teams don't choose rookies over veterans for min contracts.

Btw this is regardless of a team keeping said player for the whole season or cutting him along the way.

I don't know if min contracts all count the same on the salary cap, though. That is, would player A above count for $400k or $1.2M?

The specifics per Larry Coon:

When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, 10-day or rest-of-season contract at the minimum salary, the league reimburses the team for part of his salary -- any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran3. For example, in 2011-12 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $854,389, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,352,181, the league would reimburse the team $497,792. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive than younger veterans.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

As to Austin Daye, he was on a two year minimum contract, so the league reimbursement does not apply.

[Seventyniner]

The specifics per Larry Coon:

When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, 10-day or rest-of-season contract at the minimum salary, the league reimburses the team for part of his salary -- any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran3. For example, in 2011-12 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $854,389, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,352,181, the league would reimburse the team $497,792. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive than younger veterans.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

As to Austin Daye, he was on a two year minimum contract, so the league reimbursement does not apply.

Thanks for the correction. Again my memory was around 75% right. I remembered the part about the reasoning behind the rule correctly at least.

[Mel_13]

Thanks for the correction. Again my memory was around 75% right. I remembered the part about the reasoning behind the rule correctly at least.

Yeah, I stopped relying on my memory a long time ago. I have Coon's FAQ bookmarked.

[Seventyniner]

Yeah, I stopped relying on my memory a long time ago. I have Coon's FAQ bookmarked.

I need to put that bookmark on my phone. A lot of what I get wrong about the CBA is because it's not readily accessible there. That and posting a well thought-out response (including things like copy and paste) are just a pain on a phone.

[littlecoyotecoin]

I need to put that bookmark on my phone. A lot of what I get wrong about the CBA is because it's not readily accessible there. That and posting a well thought-out response (including things like copy and paste) are just a pain on a phone.

Ditto on the phone beef.

[Obstructed_View]

By the way, if anyone has an interest in a specific player or team, I have the SL app on my iPad and wouldn't mind watching. I just watched a Jazz game because I was interested in if Exum looks like an NBA player. He does. Utah's SL team looks like an actual basketball team at times. I'm a bit envious of the teamwork, if not the talent level.

[ChumpDumper]

Looking forward to seeing the Toros' Courtney Fells play the Spurs team. He's getting older but his improvement in scoring since leaving college is impressive.

[xmas1997]

Looking forward to seeing the Toros' Courtney Fells play the Spurs team. He's getting older but his improvement in scoring since leaving college is impressive.

27 year old SG 6'5" undrafted in 2009 out of N.C. State.
Has he played any PG?

[ChumpDumper]

27 year old SG undrafted in 2009.
Has he played any PG?

No he's a pure SG.

Holds no interest for the Spurs presently. Would be nice to see him get an invite from some team.

[xmas1997]

No he's a pure SG.

Holds no interest for the Spurs presently. Would be nice to see him get an invite from some team.

Thanks.

[Solid D]

LOL Daye is straight up dollar movies...

...or "straight-to-video".

[Emperor]

Derrick Williams playing for Kings summer squad lol

[Emperor]

Kings got some dude who looks like Giant Gonzales lol and as tall also

[TheyCallMePro]

For the love of God can someone please find a decent link to this game?

Not on NBAtv....

[FireMicoHalili]

Casspi expected to be waived. Long shot the Spurs waive Daye in favor of Casspi but it's safe to say most of us here would rather have Casspi than Daye.

[ChumpDumper]

For the love of God can someone please find a decent link to this game?

Not on NBAtv....

Spend five bucks, moneybags.

Otherwise I think it's tape delayed.

[TheyCallMePro]

Found a link.


http://www.stream2u.me/watch/40032/1...nio-Spurs.html