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.