A Stats Thread: What the Numbers Say About Rondo and Gay

[twslam07]

bajaden was asking why some people overlook Rondo's defensive liability. I answered him.

You think it's not about benefiting the big man? Look again at how the Kings do without DMC. When DMC is doing good, the Kings have their best chance to do good. (And yes, I'm well aware of their record so don't even bother going there again.)

You're free to disagree but you're not ever going to change my mind ... and it was my mindset (and that of others who feel the same way) that bajaden was confused about.

I don't think you understand Cousins as well as you think. Cousins cares most about winning hence what is better for the team is better for Cousins. Should we sign a player that makes Cousins happy in the short run but doesn't help us win thus making Cousins unhappy in the long run? Or should we possibly upset him in the beginning, be clear about why we are letting Rondo go, and it turns out that he is happy in the long run because we are winning?

 

[VF21]

I don't think you understand Cousins as well as you think. Cousins cares most about winning hence what is better for the team is better for Cousins. Should we sign a player that makes Cousins happy in the short run but doesn't help us win thus making Cousins unhappy in the long run? Or should we possibly upset him in the beginning, be clear about why we are letting Rondo go, and it turns out that he is happy in the long run because we are winning?

So you think when DMC was asked what he thought about Rondo and he said "my point guard" he was just blowing smoke?

I said you wouldn't agree with me and you don't. That's fine. I'm not going to continue to belabor the point because you're not going to change my mind.

 

[peacelate]

So you think when DMC was asked what he thought about Rondo and he said "my point guard" he was just blowing smoke?

I said you wouldn't agree with me and you don't. That's fine. I'm not going to continue to belabor the point because you're not going to change my mind.

That's great that DMC thinks Rondo is his PG, but how much of that is based on emotion?

 

[VF21]

That's great that DMC thinks Rondo is his PG, but how much of that is based on emotion?

34.368%

 

[peacelate]

34.368%

Is that how much effort Rondo puts on defense?

 

[twslam07]

So you think when DMC was asked what he thought about Rondo and he said "my point guard" he was just blowing smoke?

I said you wouldn't agree with me and you don't. That's fine. I'm not going to continue to belabor the point because you're not going to change my mind.

Who said I need to change your mind or you need to change my mind? Like a presidential debate, it's not necessarily about swaying the candidate you're running against. It's about swaying the rest of the people who haven't made up their minds on the subject. When I see a statement that is wrong in my mind, I call it out. I don't do it with expectation that I will change that person's opinion because it's human nature to be stubborn & think your opinion is 100% correct no matter the evidence that is presented.

With that being said, no, I don't think he was blowing smoke. Cousins said that because he likes Rondo as a friend/brother, likes his knowledge of the game, likes that he gets him easy looks now and then, and most likely thinks he can help him win. As for the latter, just because Cousins thinks this way, it doesn't make it true.

As we have already proven, Cousins (if he indeed feels this way), Brick, & others would be wrong. It's up to the FO to communicate that to Cousins so he understands where they are coming from and so that he doesn't feel like they are going behind his back when they don't resign Rondo. Make Cousins feel heard & explain to him why he & this team is better off moving away from Rondo. The FO should communicate that the data is showing that we are more likely to win with a different type of PG in the lineup. If you're upfront with him & give him logical reasons that are driven by winning, Cousins will be fine. He might be a little upset at first, but he will understand & respect the decision, and if he doesn't, he will at least respect the way the FO communicated the decision to him.

 

[VF21]

As we have already proven, Cousins (if he indeed feels this way), Brick, & others would be wrong. It's up to the FO to communicate that to Cousins so he understands where they are coming from and so that he doesn't feel like they are going behind his back when they don't resign Rondo. Make Cousins feel heard & explain to him why he & this team is better off moving away from Rondo. The FO should communicate that the data is showing that we are more likely to win with a different type of PG in the lineup. If you're upfront with him & give him logical reasons that are driven by winning, Cousins will be fine. He might be a little upset at first, but he will understand & respect the decision, and if he doesn't, he will at least respect the way the FO communicated the decision to him.

You haven't "proven" a thing.

 

[twslam07]

You haven't "proven" a thing.

Scroll up, quote my post, and tell me why I haven't proven it then. Put a little effort into it; otherwise, what's the point in replying to me? You're not bring anything new to the table...

 

[whozit]

Scroll up, quote my post, and tell me why I haven't proven it then. Put a little effort into it; otherwise, what's the point in replying to me? You're not bring anything new to the table...

You brought up Presidential debates and later said it's Human Nature is to think one is 100% correct. If one thinks they are 100 percent correct then they are an arrogant egotistical fool. In a Presidential debate and typically most debates both sides have valid concerns and points. It's just a matter of what points and concerns one puts the emphasis on.

For me, it depends on the price.

 

[Amit149]

I have no idea how you got to presidential debates, but it's not even a question of "Cuz first or team first".

If you look at the stats:
1. The team was better when Collison was on the floor than it was with Rondo.
2. When Cousins shared the floor with Collison the team was better than it was when Cousins shared the floor with Rondo.

There aren't two sides to it (and I would mention that the Kings best five in recent memory included DC last year)... even considering the mythical Cousins-Rondo co-operation he is actually better alongside DC and as Gilles pointed out most of the positive in the Rondo-Cousins combination comes from times both of them shared the floor with Collison.

 

[Glenn]

You brought up Presidential debates and later said it's Human Nature is to think one is 100% correct. If one thinks they are 100 percent correct then they are an arrogant egotistical fool. In a Presidential debate and typically most debates both sides have valid concerns and points. It's just a matter of what points and concerns one puts the emphasis on.

For me, it depends on the price.

Some people can think only in terms of black and white. They are hard wired into thinking that way. Unfortunately the world operates in shades of gray and those who can think that way make better leaders.

If I'm totally off base of the discussion, I apologize.

 

[hrdboild]

This has become as pointless as the IT debate. The stats don't "prove" anything. They suggest some things rather strongly but what they actually prove is a matter of interpretation. I think Collison's offensive value is mostly derived from his superb . 591 TS% while Rondo's is mostly derived from his elite 48.0 assist%. I don't think anyone would argue with that (but I'm probably wrong). So which one makes us better on offense depends on whether you think Collison's shooting opening up space in the interior is more or less effective at putting points on the board than Rondo's over the top lobs and bounce passes. The statistical difference could have more to do with how heavily different metrics rate points vs assists.

On the defensive end, every metric we have favors Rondo over Collison so hiding behind "objective application of the numbers" to buoy what is essentially just a flawed eye test is comical. I get that Collison was forced to play a lot of his minutes at SG but you don't get to assume that his numbers would be better than Rondo's if he played the full game at PG. You can imply it and I might agree with you, but you certainly can't state it as a matter of fact.

 

[twslam07]

On the defensive end, every metric we have favors Rondo over Collison so hiding behind "objective application of the numbers" to buoy what is essentially just a flawed eye test is comical. I get that Collison was forced to play a lot of his minutes at SG but you don't get to assume that his numbers would be better than Rondo's if he played the full game at PG. You can imply it and I might agree with you, but you certainly can't state it as a matter of fact.

I didn't imply anything. The stats show the team is better defensively when Collison is playing PG vs. when Rondo is playing PG. I suggest you read my write up again.

 

[twslam07]

You brought up Presidential debates and later said it's Human Nature is to think one is 100% correct. If one thinks they are 100 percent correct then they are an arrogant egotistical fool. In a Presidential debate and typically most debates both sides have valid concerns and points. It's just a matter of what points and concerns one puts the emphasis on.

For me, it depends on the price.

You're missing the point as to why the analogy was brought up in the first place. I have yet to see a presidential candidate concede and switch their line of thinking based on the points made by their opponent. That's the point. When the person you're discussing says that I will never change their mind without them giving any empirical evidence or scoffing at the evidence provided in front of them, that closely aligns with the "arrogant egotistical fool" as you mentioned.

After she said there is no way I will change her mind so why bother replying to her, I said it's not just about her. It's about communicating my point across to everyone who is still considering both sides. I have a stance on the subject and have my evidence to back it up. If I am presented new evidence that proves my stance wrong, I'll switch my stance. But for someone to say "you're not ever going to change my mind" it sounds like that's the type of person you describe.

 

[funkykingston]

One thing that tends to get lost in the Rondo/Collison discussions is that while Rondo was clearly not giving full effort/being effective on the defensive end, it's not as if Collison was much better. Collison was more engaged but he's also more slightly built and without Rondo's freakish wingspan or as high a hoops IQ. And I don't think they are a great tandem at PG and I also don't like them playing as a smallball backcourt. I think the Kings would be better served only having one of them back next season - either using the caproom from not re-signing Rondo to fix other holes or (if Rondo is re-signed) by trading Collison either for a PG that is a better compliment to Rondo or for a wing player.

To me if either one is your starting PG you're going to want a big, defensive PG as either your 2nd or 3rd string guy.

If the Kings decide to re-sign Rondo, then I could see Collison traded - maybe for a mid first rounder to draft Wade Baldwin. Then if Curry is re-signed you have Rondo/Curry/Baldwin with the rookie groomed to be a 3&D PG and Curry providing shooting/scoring off the bench.

If Rondo walks and Collison is the starter then I'd like to see a veteran playmaker who can come in and run the 2nd unit (an Andre Miller type, though not actually Dre) and then a guy like Kris Dunn would make a lot of sense in the draft as a big, athletic PG who should be a good defender in time and could start his career as the third string PG until he's ready to play bigger minutes, hopefully becoming the starter in his second season.

 

[twslam07]

One thing that tends to get lost in the Rondo/Collison discussions is that while Rondo was clearly not giving full effort/being effective on the defensive end, it's not as if Collison was much better. Collison was more engaged but he's also more slightly built and without Rondo's freakish wingspan or as high a hoops IQ. And I don't think they are a great tandem at PG and I also don't like them playing as a smallball backcourt. I think the Kings would be better served only having one of them back next season - either using the caproom from not re-signing Rondo to fix other holes or (if Rondo is re-signed) by trading Collison either for a PG that is a better compliment to Rondo or for a wing player.

To me if either one is your starting PG you're going to want a big, defensive PG as either your 2nd or 3rd string guy.

If the Kings decide to re-sign Rondo, then I could see Collison traded - maybe for a mid first rounder to draft Wade Baldwin. Then if Curry is re-signed you have Rondo/Curry/Baldwin with the rookie groomed to be a 3&D PG and Curry providing shooting/scoring off the bench.

If Rondo walks and Collison is the starter then I'd like to see a veteran playmaker who can come in and run the 2nd unit (an Andre Miller type, though not actually Dre) and then a guy like Kris Dunn would make a lot of sense in the draft as a big, athletic PG who should be a good defender in time and could start his career as the third string PG until he's ready to play bigger minutes, hopefully becoming the starter in his second season.

All valid points but if the stats are showing that Collison helps us win more than Rondo, why would we spend a pretty penny on a player who is going to make our PG play worse when we have other holes that need to be filled?

I'm not saying you disagree with that statement. I just wanted to showcase my point.

 

[VF21]

Scroll up, quote my post, and tell me why I haven't proven it then. Put a little effort into it; otherwise, what's the point in replying to me? You're not bring anything new to the table...

I don't have to scroll up and I don't have to put forth any more effort.

Statistics are NOT proof. They are interesting and helpful but unless everyone involved agrees that a specific statistic (like the score of each team at the end of a defined period of time determining the winner of a game) will be used as the standard for solving a problem or determining a specific answer, they are nothing more than a bunch of numbers that can be interpreted an infinite number of ways.

AGAIN I was responding to bajaden. You thinking I wasn't bringing anything new to the table is irrelevant.

 

[funkykingston]

All valid points but if the stats are showing that Collison helps us win more than Rondo, why would we spend a pretty penny on a player who is going to make our PG play worse when we have other holes that need to be filled?

I'm not saying you disagree with that statement. I just wanted to showcase my point.

"Helps us win" is a pretty relative term when talking about a Kings team that went 33-49 on the season.

I've said I'd lean towards letting Rondo walk and using that caproom on other needs, moving Collison back to being the starting PG. But the stats show a pretty small difference between the two. To the point where if it was Collison looking for a big payday and Rondo with the very reasonable contract, I'd want to let DC walk and keep Rondo.

But here are some arguments for re-signing Rondo.

1. A different coach might use a system where Rondo's skillset works better than Collisons. I don't know if that's the case for Joerger or not, but if he's the coach I'd definitely want him to weigh in on these sorts of roster moves.

2. Neither are good defenders, but with Rondo it seems more mental than physical. Perhaps a defensive minded coach could get him back to being a plus defender, making him a more valuable player than he is now.

3. DC is a a free agent after next season. If he's the starting PG and has a good year under Joerger he's going to want to get paid, and next offseason the cap goes up even more. So it could be the case that Rondo gets $14-16 million this offseason or Collison gets similar money next offseason.

4. What if in this feeding frenzy of an offseason the Kings let Rondo walk and can't get back a player of equal value with their caproom? With all the money that will be flying around I could see this being a possibility. I've liked the idea of Ryan Anderson but (1) there's no guarantee he comes to the Kings and (2) a stretch four is a great piece to have but it doesn't fix the hole at SG. So do you overpay for a guy like Crabbe? And what if you can't even land that type of player? Would it be better to re-sign Rondo and have Collison (on a very team friendly deal vs his production level) be available for trade bait? Is that a more effective route than gambling in free agency? I don't know.

5. Boogie likes Rondo. I don't put much stock in this because this should really be about who helps the team win, but others have thrown it out there and Cousins definitely seems to have bonded with Rajon so there it is.

 

[twslam07]

"Helps us win" is a pretty relative term when talking about a Kings team that went 33-49 on the season.

I've said I'd lean towards letting Rondo walk and using that caproom on other needs, moving Collison back to being the starting PG. But the stats show a pretty small difference between the two. To the point where if it was Collison looking for a big payday and Rondo with the very reasonable contract, I'd want to let DC walk and keep Rondo.

But here are some arguments for re-signing Rondo.

1. A different coach might use a system where Rondo's skillset works better than Collisons. I don't know if that's the case for Joerger or not, but if he's the coach I'd definitely want him to weigh in on these sorts of roster moves.

2. Neither are good defenders, but with Rondo it seems more mental than physical. Perhaps a defensive minded coach could get him back to being a plus defender, making him a more valuable player than he is now.

3. DC is a a free agent after next season. If he's the starting PG and has a good year under Joerger he's going to want to get paid, and next offseason the cap goes up even more. So it could be the case that Rondo gets $14-16 million this offseason or Collison gets similar money next offseason.

4. What if in this feeding frenzy of an offseason the Kings let Rondo walk and can't get back a player of equal value with their caproom? With all the money that will be flying around I could see this being a possibility. I've liked the idea of Ryan Anderson but (1) there's no guarantee he comes to the Kings and (2) a stretch four is a great piece to have but it doesn't fix the hole at SG. So do you overpay for a guy like Crabbe? And what if you can't even land that type of player? Would it be better to re-sign Rondo and have Collison (on a very team friendly deal vs his production level) be available for trade bait? Is that a more effective route than gambling in free agency? I don't know.

5. Boogie likes Rondo. I don't put much stock in this because this should really be about who helps the team win, but others have thrown it out there and Cousins definitely seems to have bonded with Rajon so there it is.

1. It's a fair point and one that should be considered, but we've gone two seasons now where Collison has shown he helps this team rather than hurting it, and that's under 3 head coaches and their different styles.

2. I wouldn't say Collison is a bad defender. I actually think he's pretty good. When he's on the floor at PG, our defense has been better over the last 2 years. You can't say the same about Rondo.

3. If we're seeing signs that Collison is better than Rondo right now, he should be making more than Rondo. Having said that, there are a multitude of free agent PGs next year who can be had when Collison expires: Curry, Westbrook Paul, Lowry, Holiday, G. Hill, Teague, Schroder, Rose, Mills, & Collison. That should give us an opportunity to possibly upgrade or keep the price of Collison down as there will be more heavily sought after PGs.

4. I'd rather overpay a position of need rather than overpay a position that already has a better player at the same position on the roster, but yes I see your point. FA is not always up to the team. It's a two way street. But making a move like that because nobody else will sign with you is not option A (nor is it option B, C, or D), but it's a last resort.

5. Like you, I don't put much stock in it either. I've already given my reasons & recommendations on how to handle the situation so I won't do it again here.

 

[Bricklayer]

1. It's a fair point and one that should be considered, but we've gone two seasons now where Collison has shown he helps this team rather than hurting it, and that's under 3 head coaches and their different styles.

2. I wouldn't say Collison is a bad defender. I actually think he's pretty good. When he's on the floor at PG, our defense has been better over the last 2 years. You can't say the same about Rondo.

3. If we're seeing signs that Collison is better than Rondo right now, he should be making more than Rondo. Having said that, there are a multitude of free agent PGs next year who can be had when Collison expires: Curry, Westbrook Paul, Lowry, Holiday, G. Hill, Teague, Schroder, Rose, Mills, & Collison. That should give us an opportunity to possibly upgrade or keep the price of Collison down as there will be more heavily sought after PGs.

4. I'd rather overpay a position of need rather than overpay a position that already has a better player at the same position on the roster, but yes I see your point. FA is not always up to the team. It's a two way street. But making a move like that because nobody else will sign with you is not option A (nor is it option B, C, or D), but it's a last resort.

5. Like you, I don't put much stock in it either. I've already given my reasons & recommendations on how to handle the situation so I won't do it again here.

Collison is not a better player than Rondo. He's just not.

And because his play is more about his own production, he doesn't open the possibilities Rondo does to buy you roleplayers.

 

[twslam07]

Collison is not a better player than Rondo. He's just not.

And because his play is more about his own production, he doesn't open the possibilities Rondo does to buy you roleplayers.

Saying "he's just not" doesn't make it so.

And I would tend to disagree. Money and/or winning buys you role players. Sure, winning is usually correlated to big name players like a Durant or LeBron, but I wouldn't consider Rondo in that group anymore. Hypothetically, do I want to play on a 30-35 win team with Rondo or a 40-45 win team with Collison? Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't actively go to a worse team because they have a player who used to be an all star caliber player.

 

[Bricklayer]

Saying "he's just not" doesn't make it so.

And I would tend to disagree. Money and/or winning buys you role players. Sure, winning is usually correlated to big name players like a Durant or LeBron, but I wouldn't consider Rondo in that group anymore. Hypothetically, do I want to play on a 30-35 win team with Rondo or a 40-45 win team with Collison? Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't actively go to a worse team because they have a player who used to be an all star caliber player.

No no, you're not understanding.

A big time creative passer allows a team to play really quite limited offensive players next to him, because the creative player can make shots for the limited guys. So you can play defensive specialists and trust Rondo to make their shots for them.

A "scoring PG" doesn't do that for you, or if he does he does it in opposite fashion, largely just ignoring the bad offensive players and trying to score himself.

 

[twslam07]

No no, you're not understanding.

A big time creative passer allows a team to play really quite limited offensive players next to him, because the creative player can make shots for the limited guys. So you can play defensive specialists and trust Rondo to make their shots for them.

A "scoring PG" doesn't do that for you, or if he does he does it in opposite fashion, largely just ignoring the bad offensive players and trying to score himself.

Teams are moving towards having more players who can create. Why you may ask? Because it is less predictable and much more difficult to stop. It makes a team multi dimensional (hint: that's a good thing).

When you already have 2 guys who are best with the ball in their hands, it makes things difficult when adding a PG that is as ball dominant as Rondo. You're better off finding a PG who compliments your core guys which is one of the reasons (defense is another) why the team plays better with Collison at PG.

 

[206Fan]

With the current trend of the NBA, you're better off with a Collison than a Rondo. How many teams in the NBA actually have a natural playmaking PG? Clippers, Wolves, Wizards, and Thunder? How many of those PGs can't shoot from outside 15ft? 1.

This isn't 2008 anymore, and the game has changed. The best PG of 2015 only had 6.7asts compared to Rondo's 11.7.

 

[Tetsujin]

With the current trend of the NBA, you're better off with a Collison than a Rondo. How many teams in the NBA actually have a natural playmaking PG? Clippers, Wolves, Wizards, and Thunder? How many of those PGs can't shoot from outside 15ft? 1.

This isn't 2008 anymore, and the game has changed. The best PG of 2015 only had 6.7asts compared to Rondo's 11.7.

But how many of those teams have a Demarcus Cousins? (The T-Wolves)

 

[Gilles]

With the current trend of the NBA, you're better off with a Collison than a Rondo. How many teams in the NBA actually have a natural playmaking PG? Clippers, Wolves, Wizards, and Thunder? How many of those PGs can't shoot from outside 15ft? 1.

This isn't 2008 anymore, and the game has changed. The best PG of 2015 only had 6.7asts compared to Rondo's 11.7.

Well, Rondo's strength is not shifting the defense, thus creating open shots, but rather using his vision and passing ability to find teammates, who managed to get open by themselves or are on the move in a good position to score. So given Joerger's inclination is to install offense with a lot of movement and player interaction, which should produce a lot open players without the ball, Rondo might be more suited for that scheme, than for anyting Karl managed to establish this past season.

 

[Ron]

...
As we have already proven, Cousins (if he indeed feels this way), Brick, & others would be wrong.
...

Woh, dude - I wouldn't get carried away. We have not yet proven anything of the sort...

You made very good points about the duo of DC & DMC doing better statistically (in terms of on/off Plus-Minus) than the duo of Rondo & DMC.

That is still miles away from proving ANYTHING statistically (just as Brick's initial stat-related observation was in no way proof of anything):

1. The small difference in +/- you noted between the 2 duos would be far from significant, I presume (and none of us has so far attempted to run a significance check).

2. Some of the 4 samples (minutes on and off for both 2-man lineups) were quite small in size, and the samples varied wildly in size, too. For instance, the minutes sample of DC & DMC together on court, without Rondo in the lineup (i.e. DC plays PG) - is actually SO small, and so negligent in comparison to the other 3, that it should never be used at all...

3. Some other variables may have been skewing the picture.
I don't even have to suggest what they may be, as I'm not the one who has to carry the burden of proof, but I may as well mention a few examples:
First, what if the heavy presence of Rudy Gay (heavy in terms of minutes) in the lineups featuring Rondo+DMC had a bad impact on the team's D and fg%, resulting in a drop of our +/-, while in the lineups featuring DC+DMC we had Casspi and Acy in SF, and their grit and 3 point shooting were the factor that tipped the scales in favor of these lineups?
Second - remember Karl's reluctance to give WCS significant minutes earlier in the season? Well, that was exactly the time when Collison was out and Rondo had to play as a single PG. Could it have been that the lack of Willie's great D has painted those long minutes of Rondo+DMC together in darker hues?
And at that same early period - perhaps the very fact that Rondo had to play the full 48 minutes in some games (much of those minutes with DMC) made his production worse?

So... While you certainly casted a well-put shadow of doubt on Brick's argument,
you have not yet proven him neither right nor wrong. Can we agree on that?

 

[King Baller]

All valid points but if the stats are showing that Collison helps us win more than Rondo, why would we spend a pretty penny on a player who is going to make our PG play worse when we have other holes that need to be filled?

I'm not saying you disagree with that statement. I just wanted to showcase my point.

Since you are arguing for letting Rondo walk the hole is at PG. who do you propose to fill the PG roles for the Kings?

 

[ESP47]

With the current trend of the NBA, you're better off with a Collison than a Rondo. How many teams in the NBA actually have a natural playmaking PG? Clippers, Wolves, Wizards, and Thunder? How many of those PGs can't shoot from outside 15ft? 1.

This isn't 2008 anymore, and the game has changed. The best PG of 2015 only had 6.7asts compared to Rondo's 11.7.

Rondo shot 36% from 3 last year. That's just a hair behind Paul, a tick better than Wall and much much better than Westbrooks paltry 29%.

I know what you're getting at but Rondo's offense was not the problem this year. He would be one of the best point guards in the league if he just played average defense to go along with his offense.

 

[206Fan]

But how many of those teams have a Demarcus Cousins? (The T-Wolves)

KAT is going to be better than Cousins in 2 years... that's scary for how good he's going to become.

Rondo shot 36% from 3 last year. That's just a hair behind Paul, a tick better than Wall and much much better than Westbrooks paltry 29%.

I know what you're getting at but Rondo's offense was not the problem this year. He would be one of the best point guards in the league if he just played average defense to go along with his offense.

Numbers don't tell you the entire story. Teams sag and are willing to give him open 3s at the expense of doubling Cousins and everybody else. No one respects his shooting nor scoring. I don't think you can argue that Rondo is a better shooter than Wall/Westbrook... I mean, look at his ft%...

He would not be the best PG even if he had good defense. Not even close. His offensive limitations don't work in today's NBA. Almost everyone in the top 10 of PGs today are scorers. That's just how the league has changed.

2008 Rondo would not be considered a top 5 PG today. Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Lillard, Wall, and Lowry would be above. PGs have different values now.