NBA All-Star Starters

**Biggin** · January 30th, 2011, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by R13

One more reply and done, another argument way over the top for such a short comment.

Partially? Sure, you're acting like it's some major indicator and it's not at all, it's partial. But by your logic, the Suns are below 500 because of Nash's play? He's what's keeping them from being last, next to last in the league and still have them in playoff contention, Nash is the leader I have no idea where you're getting I said otherwise..I was pointing out that's not the case always, but it is here.

No, Nash isnt fully responsible for his teams record, but he is partially. And since you admit that win/loss is a criteria for PG success, why shouldnt it be discussed when it comes to the All-Star game?

Oh yeah, because Paul has led him 1 time by less than a half of a percent in one category he's close to Nash? We're talking one of the best shooters in the history of the game, so yeah, I'll make that lead and say he's a better shooter.

This isnt comparing careers, this is about the first half of this year, and for you to say that Nash is by far teh better shooter in every way this year is categorically false. Paul leads him in 3 pt shooting %.

I don't think you know how that works, it doesn't just say 8.5 because of their jersey color, they're just an 8.5 game distance between them from the win and loss column, the kings or wolves are 20 games back from them.

No, you dont get it. The Suns are 9.5 games back if the Hornets stand still. If both teams continue at their pace right now, the Suns would need to make up about 20 games to get at the same record NO is. Its pretty simple. The Suns are 3 games under .500, the Hornets 14 over. If the Hornets stopped playing, then the Suns would only need to win 10 games to overtake them, or if the Hornets starting losing at a high rate the Suns could catch them in less games, but if the Hornets continue to win at the % they win at now, the Suns will have to play 17 games better to pass them. Get it?

Uh no he wasn't, Nash had to score more, but the PG is rarely the number one option, Richardson was the entire season which was why he was the leading scorer on the team. Nash is NOW of course because he's the best scorer(he was always the best shooter, but best scorer is different) on the floor now and HAS to be the top option.

Thats all fine and dandy, except its not true. Who led PHX in scoring last year? Hint, its not Richardson. So coming into this season, why would Richardson be expected to lead the team in scoring when he didnt do it last year?

I'm saying Nash is the better pg because he's the better point guard and will always be. He's leading or right next to the other pg's in the league at 37 and we're not talking all-star game right now, we're talking in general and age is taken into consideration when it means less minutes and less games. A lot of people don't even know the guy was born with a back problem, he's in constant pain, hence why he always is laying down on the floor during break.

Im done, because this shows you have no intention of ever realizing that Nash is not the best PG in the NBA every season. So even tho Pauls team is better, he leads in more statistical categories, Nash is still better. That logic only flies in PHX.

I don't get it, you'll say they are razor edge or mirror each other, then say Paul is such an obvious choice? Has to be one or the other, I've not said Nash is head and shoulders above anyone pertaining to the race this year...I've said he's played at top and I think deserves the spot, it's not like his numbers don't make a good case.

THe numbers ARE so close, you have to take win/loss into account. When theres no separation in stats, what else you want to use? Win/loss is the most logical, since both are leaders on their respective teams. And Ill take 14 games over .500 over 3 games under every year.

What's not been addressed? He's leading him in that category. But you fail to realize something, the style of play of the Suns, a run and gun team's TO numbers are always higher as a team and certainly the PG's as he's passing a huge amount in transition. That's actually a pretty good ratio in that system, really good.

Again, thats simply not true. Assist to turnover is not effected whatsoever by pace. If that was true, wouldnt Nash get way more assists than Paul, making his A/TO ratio better? Yes, it would. But since its not, the stat is the best indicator of PG efficiency. The ratio holds true thru any system. Nash gets more possessions per game, so he should have a bigger lead in assists. Nash averages a lil over one more assist per game, and Paul averages a little more than one less turnover per game. The Hornets are at the bottom of pace in the NBA, so PHX gets way more than one more possession per game, yet Paul is only one assist behind Nash. So no, pace does not affect A/TO.

Nash gets looked over his whole career, Paul blew up, Rondo did and that's what any JOURNALIST will talk about. It's also not like the Suns are on Laker/Celtic/Heat status always in the news, they've never been the talk of the town among fans even when stat was there. Hell I've met probably 3 other suns fans in my life. I don't really care what people are yelling, I myself believe he deserves it and his numbers say he should have a great or better shot than anyone in that race.

Jeez now you are making stuff up. Nash has two MVP awards and has consistently gotten all kinds of media attention. How soon you forget. Nash was the most talked about guy in the NBA for a while

**R13** · January 31st, 2011, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Biggin

No, Nash isnt fully responsible for his teams record, but he is partially. And since you admit that win/loss is a criteria for PG success, why shouldnt it be discussed when it comes to the All-Star game?

This isnt comparing careers, this is about the first half of this year, and for you to say that Nash is by far teh better shooter in every way this year is categorically false. Paul leads him in 3 pt shooting %.

No, you dont get it. The Suns are 9.5 games back if the Hornets stand still. If both teams continue at their pace right now, the Suns would need to make up about 20 games to get at the same record NO is. Its pretty simple. The Suns are 3 games under .500, the Hornets 14 over. If the Hornets stopped playing, then the Suns would only need to win 10 games to overtake them, or if the Hornets starting losing at a high rate the Suns could catch them in less games, but if the Hornets continue to win at the % they win at now, the Suns will have to play 17 games better to pass them. Get it?

Thats all fine and dandy, except its not true. Who led PHX in scoring last year? Hint, its not Richardson. So coming into this season, why would Richardson be expected to lead the team in scoring when he didnt do it last year?

Again, thats simply not true. Assist to turnover is not effected whatsoever by pace. If that was true, wouldnt Nash get way more assists than Paul, making his A/TO ratio better? Yes, it would. But since its not, the stat is the best indicator of PG efficiency. The ratio holds true thru any system. Nash gets more possessions per game, so he should have a bigger lead in assists. Nash averages a lil over one more assist per game, and Paul averages a little more than one less turnover per game. The Hornets are at the bottom of pace in the NBA, so PHX gets way more than one more possession per game, yet Paul is only one assist behind Nash. So no, pace does not affect A/TO.

Jeez now you are making stuff up. Nash has two MVP awards and has consistently gotten all kinds of media attention. How soon you forget. Nash was the most talked about guy in the NBA for a while

As a very SMALL piece, you're tagging it as the deciding indicator to the whole argument, you can't go from "it being discussed" to well everything else is close so lets go with this.

I said Nash was the far better shooter, he is, he is again this year and a .4 lead in one shooting category doesn't change that.

Well they're 7.5 now after beating NO now, it's called factoring in the loss column, that's not a 20 game lead...that's a 7.5 game lead like it says, win and loss column says so. The Hornets are just as close to that 8th spot as the Suns on the other side, there's not some long stretch between the two.

Uh yeah, it was Amare, what are you talking about? Amare goes out, the 1-2 punch in a pick and roll offensive is gone, Richard steps into the #1 option and was leading the team in scoring as the 1 option efore he was traded. I think I would know and anyone would just by watching them on a somewhat regular basis for at least the past year to see that you're wrong. Are you just forgetting who played for the suns last year? And who plays for them now? Jesus.

Right, gotcha. You're sitting here saying that style of play does not effect turnover ratio? That teams who run and gun, do not have higher turnover rates to teams that run out of the half-court set? Wow. With more possessions, comes more turnovers, more assists too but more turnovers...can't have it both ways and say he just gets more assists(which means more passing) that leads to more turnovers.

I haven't said that he's some no-name, he's respected highly in the league. What I am saying that among fans and spectators, he is ignored because he's supposed to be past his prime and the Rondo's, Pauls, Williams have came in and are the new superstars. He gets looked over a lot now because of his age and his stats are ignored, which looks like they are this year even with the reserve spots.

**UTVols2** · January 31st, 2011, 07:52 PM

Mine are:

C - Dwight Howard
F - Amare Stoudemire
F - Lebron James
G - JJ Red ick
G - Derrick Rose

No way Wade can start ahead of Red ick. :flagwaver:

West:

C - Kevin Love
F - Blake Griffin
F - Carmelo Anthony
G - Kevin Durant
G - CP3

**Biggin** · January 31st, 2011, 10:02 PM

Right, gotcha. You're sitting here saying that style of play does not effect turnover ratio? That teams who run and gun, do not have higher turnover rates to teams that run out of the half-court set? Wow. With more possessions, comes more turnovers, more assists too but more turnovers...can't have it both ways and say he just gets more assists(which means more passing) that leads to more turnovers.

Pace affects TURNOVER RATIO, of course. More possessions=more turnovers. But PACE DOES NOT AFFECT A/TO ratio. Because both variables (assists AND turnovers) increase with pace, the ratio is not affected by pace.

So even tho Nash has probably 10-15 more possessions a game, he is only one assist ahead of Paul. Thats where the ratio comes in. It evens out BECAUSE the style of play will lead to more turnovers, but it should also lead to more assists. BUT IT DOESNT IN NASHS CASE! A/TO ratio is completely unaffected by pace, ITS A RATIO.

Style of play DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT affect A/TO.
Because, as YOU noted, more possessions create more ASSISTS AND TURNOVERS, so the ratio evens out.

Im gonna explain it as simple as I know how;
The number of possessions is meaningless to A/TO; since its a RATIO. The faster pace creates more possessions, meaning it creates more assists AND turnovers, so the ratio evens out. How do you not get that? Its extremely simple.

Thats why its a better indicator of PGs efficency and success than pure assists.
If a PG has 12 assists but turns the ball over 6 times, he is nowhere near as efficient or successful than a PG who has 8 assists and 1 turnover. The ratio says that PG1 has a ratio of 2:1 and PG2 has a ratio of 8:1, meaning that although PG1 has more assists he was not as effective as PG2.
And thats the case with Nash and Paul.

If Nash was dishing the ball and not turning it over as well as Paul, his ratio would be higher. But he isnt. Even tho the Suns get 10-15 more possessions a game than New Orleans, Nash is only averaging 1 more assist per game. Thats why the ratio>>>>assists, because it TAKES OUT PACE AND NUMBER OF POSSESSIONS and creates an even playing field to compare PGs.
Ima lay it out very simple:

Style of play has absolutley no bearing on assist to turnover. Because with more possessions, it creates more of both categories, assists and turnovers. So the ratio holds true. If style of play only included ONE variable, EITHER assists OR turnovers, then pace would influence the A/TO ratio. But since both variables are included, the ratio holds true. I dont know how to explain it any clearer.

Jeez, its extremely simple and for a person who fancies themselves an intelligent person, the inability to realize that since both variables are factored, the ratio is unaffected is puzzling.

**R13** · January 31st, 2011, 10:30 PM

Jesus Christ. Everyone gets ratio's, I thought. Though I'm pretty sure it's 3:1 to 4:1, don't pretend to give me some lesson on ratio's when you're screwing it all to hell. Nash has 486 assists, with 157 turnovers, that is not a 2:1 ratio, that's 3:1. Paul has 476 to 114, that sure as hell isn't 8:1, that's 4:1. Now try again, that's not going to work when I have the numbers a click away.

Now moving on from that, you're not getting fast pace doesn't equals more possessions, but throwing high-risk passes. This isn't a half court, swing the ball around possessions, this is higher risk transition running/passing, the turnovers are always higher than it normally would be and especially with Nash in that situation when he's running the break 95% of the time and when in the game period he is running everything 99% of the time.

**1inStripes** · January 31st, 2011, 11:31 PM

Phoenix avgs 6 more possessions a game than NO. Also, though you say a fast pace offense takes part in high risk passing. It also leads to easier passing in more advantage situations where you are a man up on the defense versus half court offenses that are 5 on 5.

**1inStripes** · February 1st, 2011, 12:13 AM

Also to prove that that style of play doesn't lead to more turnovers really, Pheonix is near the bottom of the league (22nd) in turnovers, while NO is near the top 4th, but is only seperated on avg by 1 turnover a game. While PHX is 3rd in assists per game, 23 per game, and NO is 19th with 20 a game.

**R13** · February 1st, 2011, 10:52 AM

Uh pretty sure you have that backwards, the stats are who has the least amount to the most, not the other way around. Phoenix is near the bottom, NO near the top in LEAST amount of tpg.

**1inStripes** · February 1st, 2011, 12:08 PM

No, I have right. Since turnovers is not a good thing, you list those with the fewest at the top. NO is 4th, and PHX is 22nd. But, only 1 turnover per game seperates them so it really isnt a big difference.