Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Who is YOUR all-star teams?
Mine are:
East
C-Dwight Howard
PF-Amare Stoudamire
SF-LeBron James
SG-Dwayne Wade
PG-Derrick Rose
West
C-Kevin Love
F-LaMarcus Aldridge
F-Kevin Durant
SG-Kobe Bryant
PG-Chris Paul
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
I agree with you on the East. Aldridge has had a great year, but is banged up now too. I would put Griffin in his place.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Nash should have the starting west spot,.I haven't checked the stats in a bit, but I know Nash has to be leading him in scoring, assists, fg%, double-doubles...I would imagine Paul leading in steals by quite a bit since Paul is excellent at that and Nash isn't at all and maybe 3 pt shooting, Nash's usual numbers are down this year from pure carrying the team, but still the better shooter by far. Guy is 37 and playing at an elite level, as usual underrated but statistically top 3 in the league at that position after 15 years, putting up crazy numbers, a ton of 15+ assist games, really close or leading Rondo I would think but just not talked about as much.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
No way Nash should be the starter over Paul.
Paul:
16.4 points per; 9.7 assists per; 2.6 steals (leads NBA); 4 rebounds per; .462 3pt %; 2.3 turnovers per
leads NBA in assists to turnover ratio.
Nash:
17.3 points per; 11 assists per; 3 rebounds per; .417 3pt %; .6 steals per; 3.5 turnovers per.
Nash scores almost a full point per and has right at a full assists per more, but Paul leads him in everything else plus his team is one of the best in the West with a first year coach. And Nash isnt even in the top 5 in Assists/Turnover ratio, whereas Paul is leading the league.
Nash's team is bad this year, really bad. The Suns are four games under .500 (20-24) while the Hornets are 15 games over .500 (31-16) and are 2nd in the Southwest.
The stats are close, Nash leads some while Paul edges him in others, and since the Hornets are considerably better (probably the biggest surprise in the NBA) Paul def. deserves the spot over Nash.
and Stripes I agree, with Aldridge being hurt Griffin should be a starter. Griffin has been a double double machine and has the NBA season high in points IIRC. He is also near the top of rebounds per game.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Nash leads the league in total assists, second to only Rondo in apg with Rondo having several HUGE assist games but Nash having more 15+ games. Nash also is 6th in the league in double-doubles(just 1 behind Pau for that 5th spot). Nash also with a much better fg%, actually extremely high if you're not a C/PF and shooting from 10 feet on in. He's on his way to his 6th 50, 40, 90 season...I don't think people realize how incredible that feat is, only 5 players to ever do it and the only other one who has done is multiple times was Bird.
Nash is statistically having a better season, Paul is close to Deron more than he is Nash, he completely deserves it this year. Records can't be considered, can we just throw players like Kevin Love out because his team has won like 10 games? Of course not, he's played the best at his position and therefore he gets the spot...Nash has also and it's not like they are bottom of the barrel team, they're like 3-3 1/2 games out. And NO has played great, esp as of later, but they've underperformed in past years too. Nash has a 2nd year coach, just lost the second half of some of the best pick-roll pairs this past decade and loses THIS years team scoring leader to trade and still putting up these numbers. And I know it's not criteria, but this guy will be 37 next month and still putting up these numbers.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R13
Nash leads the league in total assists, second to only Rondo in apg with Rondo having several HUGE assist games but Nash having more 15+ games. Nash also is 6th in the league in double-doubles(just 1 behind Pau for that 5th spot). Nash also with a much better fg%, actually extremely high if you're not a C/PF and shooting from 10 feet on in. He's on his way to his 6th 50, 40, 90 season...I don't think people realize how incredible that feat is, only 5 players to ever do it and the only other one who has done is multiple times was Bird.
Nash is statistically having a better season, Paul is close to Deron more than he is Nash, he completely deserves it this year. Records can't be considered, can we just throw players like Kevin Love out because his team has won like 10 games? Of course not, he's played the best at his position and therefore he gets the spot...Nash has also and it's not like they are bottom of the barrel team, they're like 3-3 1/2 games out. And NO has played great, esp as of later, but they've underperformed in past years too. Nash has a 2nd year coach, just lost the second half of some of the best pick-roll pairs this past decade and loses THIS years team scoring leader to trade and still putting up these numbers. And I know it's not criteria, but this guy will be 37 next month and still putting up these numbers.
his age means nothing in terms of all-star voting, meaningless. how does that hold any relevance to an NBA All-Star team?
And saying team record are irrelevant for a point guard is pretty out there. The point guard is a team leader, and when the rests of the stats are so close, what other criteria should be used?
Nash leads him in points, assists, and FG%.
Paul leads Nash in steals, assists to turnovers (funny how you fail to mention it when thats a huge stat and is just as meaningful as assists per game), 3 pt %, rebounds.
You saying that Nash is having the better statistical season is false. Nash holds three categories, Paul leads him in four. So if anything Paul is having the better statistical season.
And its not like Paul is playing with Jordan or Wilt either, Nash has Vince Carter, Frye, Robin Lopez, Jared Dudley, Grant Hill and Pietrus while Paul has David West, Emaka Okafor, Trevor Ariza, etc... Paul has a slightly better roster but New Orleans is almost 20 games ahead of PHX. The talent gap does not equal 20 games.
You even bolster my argument if you go that route, Nash is the top offensive weapon on his team but Paul is the second leading scorer on his.
Monta Ellis averages more points per game than Nash, does that mean he is a better player?
You are being very selective in the stats, when Paul actually holds more categories over Nash.
Nash=ppg, apg, fg %.
Paul=rebounds per game, steals per game, 3 pt %, assist to turnover ratio.
And one more point; if im a PG and average 12 assists but lose 5 turnovers a game, am I better than a PG who averages 8 assists and 2 turnovers per game?
That is why assists to turnover>>>>pure assists.
So no, Nash does not deserve to start over Paul. All the experts agree that Paul was obviously the West starter at PG, and the stats are razor close.
It boils down to whether you believe that Nash's minuscule lead in PPG (less than 1 point) and APG (right at 1 per game) outweigh Pauls lead in assist to turnover (4.2 for Paul, 3.0 for Nash) and steals and team record.
The Hornets 20 game lead on PHX, plus the fact that Paul averages a full point more in assist/turnover, Paul is the obvious choice.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Did I not specifically say it wasn't criteria for it? Oh yeah I did, I was just mentioning it, guy is old as dirt in NBA years and leading these pg's in their prime. By theory the PG is supposed to run the show, but that's not the case with every team at all. Team record isn't taken into account, that's a bit ridiculous to say when you have Love on your list. It's not criteria, it's about the particular players performance, not the **** cast he has around him.
You're talking about me clinging to small leads when you mention a 0.3 lead in rebounds and a 0.4 lead in 3 pt % - though Nash is by far the better shooter in every way. And you mention double-doubles with griffin and ignore it when it comes to Nash, 37 to Nash's 25 while playing 5 minutes pg less than him and 3 less games.
Yup some real juggernauts there huh? Carter isn't the same dunking over 7 footers Carter, Hill is the 3rd oldest player in the league, the lesser talented Lopez, and Dudley whom I love but 90% of fans have no clue who he is. And where in the world are you getting 20 games? Try 9.5, that's about right with the loss of players do to injury/trade with PHX, Nash was out several games and Lopez missed quite a few.
Correction : Nash is NOW the top weapon on his team, after losing his other 2 leading scorers he is now.
You're clinging to small leads in stats just as much as anyone, then throwing in team record which is not part of the criteria AT ALL yet blast me for mentioning of Nash's age even though I admitted it wasn't either. Nash is playing better, deserves the spot and again, there's no 20 game lead even it that did matter. Nash has done this with lesser talent, less games and about 3 minutes less per game, yeah there's one obvious choice. Though I'm not getting drawn into another dumb argument, stats are there, there's no pretending that Paul is some clear and obvious choice when that's obviously wrong.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R13
Did I not specifically say it wasn't criteria for it? Oh yeah I did, I was just mentioning it, guy is old as dirt in NBA years and leading these pg's in their prime. By theory the PG is supposed to run the show, but that's not the case with every team at all. Team record isn't taken into account, that's a bit ridiculous to say when you have Love on your list. It's not criteria, it's about the particular players performance, not the **** cast he has around him.
So you are trying to tell me that a point guard, the NBA quarterback, is not at least partially defined by his win/loss record? No other person on Earth will support you in that. It might not be the case for ALL teams, but is it not the case for these two teams? Are PHX and NO not PG-led teams? Are you really gonna argue that?? You are trying to say that a teams record is no indicator in PG performance. Do you even believe that?
When the Suns were good, you were sure quick to point out that Nash was the leader. Not Amare, Nash. So whats changed now? Oh thats right, PHX is under .500
Quote:
You're talking about me clinging to small leads when you mention a 0.3 lead in rebounds and a 0.4 lead in 3 pt % - though Nash is by far the better shooter in every way. And you mention double-doubles with griffin and ignore it when it comes to Nash, 37 to Nash's 25 while playing 5 minutes pg less than him and 3 less games.
And Paul has 20 double doubles, only 5 behind Nash. Yes, HUGE gap. :\
If Nash is the far better shooter in every way, why is Paul shooting better from 3 pt than he is??
Quote:
Yup some real juggernauts there huh? Carter isn't the same dunking over 7 footers Carter, Hill is the 3rd oldest player in the league, the lesser talented Lopez, and Dudley whom I love but 90% of fans have no clue who he is. And where in the world are you getting 20 games? Try 9.5, that's about right with the loss of players do to injury/trade with PHX, Nash was out several games and Lopez missed quite a few.
Yeah, David West and Trevor Ariza are Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant. :/
The Hornets, going by the NBA website, are 30-16. 14 games over .500. The Suns, by the same website, are 20-23. Three games under .500. Thats a 17 game swing. The Suns are only 9 games back or whatever, but the Hornets are a full 17 games better at this point in the season. The numbers are right there.
Quote:
Correction : Nash is NOW the top weapon on his team, after losing his other 2 leading scorers he is now.
And your point? Before this season started, Nash was the top offensive weapon. Not J-Rich, it was Nash. You know it, I know it. Dont try to act like he wasnt.
Quote:
You're clinging to small leads in stats just as much as anyone, then throwing in team record which is not part of the criteria AT ALL yet blast me for mentioning of Nash's age even though I admitted it wasn't either. Nash is playing better, deserves the spot and again, there's no 20 game lead even it that did matter. Nash has done this with lesser talent, less games and about 3 minutes less per game, yeah there's one obvious choice. Though I'm not getting drawn into another dumb argument, stats are there, there's no pretending that Paul is some clear and obvious choice when that's obviously wrong.
You say Nash is clearly the better player and IM the one clinging to small leads??
I pointed out that the stats you bragged on, PPG and APG, (Nash leads by .9 in points and 1.3 in assists, HUGE lead)Paul was only slightly behind Nash. So YOU are clinging to small leads. Holy double standard batman.
I pointed out that Paul is FAR ahead in steals, and assist to turnover.
So you are saying that Nash is playing better because he averages more points per game and assists per game.
Monta Ellis averages more points than Nash, is he the better player?
It doesnt matter that Paul rebounds better, has more steals, turns the ball over LESS and guides his team to a better record?
You are right, teh stats are there. They show the two are practically mirror images of each other, EXCEPT in steals and assist to turnover, where Paul holds a big margin lead.
And assist to turnover ratio. Why wont you address that? The ASSIST TO TURNOVER MARGIN IS A FAR BETTER INDICATOR OF PG SUCCESS THAN STRAIGHT ASSISTS.
Ima pose my hypothetical again.
If im a PG and average 12 assists to 5 turnovers, am I a better PG than a guy who averages 8 assists and 2 turnovers?
Oh and if the argument is so dumb, why in the world has every major NBA journalist agreed with Paul being the starter in the West?
If Nash was clearly playing better, as you claim, why wouldnt there be people out there yelling that Nash should be starting?
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggin
So you are trying to tell me that a point guard, the NBA quarterback, is not at least partially defined by his win/loss record? No other person on Earth will support you in that. It might not be the case for ALL teams, but is it not the case for these two teams? Are PHX and NO not PG-led teams? Are you really gonna argue that?? You are trying to say that a teams record is no indicator in PG performance. Do you even believe that?
When the Suns were good, you were sure quick to point out that Nash was the leader. Not Amare, Nash. So whats changed now? Oh thats right, PHX is under .500
And Paul has 20 double doubles, only 5 behind Nash. Yes, HUGE gap. :\
If Nash is the far better shooter in every way, why is Paul shooting better from 3 pt than he is??
Yeah, David West and Trevor Ariza are Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant. :/
The Hornets, going by the NBA website, are 30-16. 14 games over .500. The Suns, by the same website, are 20-23. Three games under .500. Thats a 17 game swing. The Suns are only 9 games back or whatever, but the Hornets are a full 17 games better at this point in the season. The numbers are right there.
And your point? Before this season started, Nash was the top offensive weapon. Not J-Rich, it was Nash. You know it, I know it. Dont try to act like he wasnt.
You say Nash is clearly the better player and IM the one clinging to small leads??
I pointed out that the stats you bragged on, PPG and APG, (Nash leads by .9 in points and 1.3 in assists, HUGE lead)Paul was only slightly behind Nash. So YOU are clinging to small leads. Holy double standard batman.
I pointed out that Paul is FAR ahead in steals, and assist to turnover.
So you are saying that Nash is playing better because he averages more points per game and assists per game.
Monta Ellis averages more points than Nash, is he the better player?
It doesnt matter that Paul rebounds better, has more steals, turns the ball over LESS and guides his team to a better record?
You are right, teh stats are there. They show the two are practically mirror images of each other, EXCEPT in steals and assist to turnover, where Paul holds a big margin lead.
And assist to turnover ratio. Why wont you address that? The ASSIST TO TURNOVER MARGIN IS A FAR BETTER INDICATOR OF PG SUCCESS THAN STRAIGHT ASSISTS.
Ima pose my hypothetical again.
If im a PG and average 12 assists to 5 turnovers, am I a better PG than a guy who averages 8 assists and 2 turnovers?
Oh and if the argument is so dumb, why in the world has every major NBA journalist agreed with Paul being the starter in the West?
If Nash was clearly playing better, as you claim, why wouldnt there be people out there yelling that Nash should be starting?
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.
I believe it's 6 now, but again no one was even comparing it to Paul, I said you ignored it with Nash...it's a big feat when he has 10 years at least on these guys = less games and less minutes.
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.
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.
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.
What? Go back and read that, I said you were first claiming I was clinging to small leads, then I pointed out you were doing it every bit as much? lmao
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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 %.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Quote:
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
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
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Quote:
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
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.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Nevermind, I read your second post all wrong, thought you meant it the other way, my bad definitely.
Re: NBA All-Star Starters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R13
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.
I was using made up numbers genius, thats why I put PG1 and PG2.
I posted the Nash/Paul numbers several times; the numbers I used with PG1 and 2 are made up numbers to pose a hypothetical. The facts are, Paul's A/TO ratio is a whole unit higher than Nashs, as I pointed out several times in my other posts and you pointed out right there.
Quote:
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.
Wrong again. For every hard pass in transition a team gets an easy look with advantage, whether its 2 on 1, 3 on 2, etc..
Theres also no way to substantiate that, so you cant use that as an excuse.
As Stripes pointed out, the TEAMS are only separated by 1 turnover per game. If your theory was right (its not), then PHX would average considerably more turnovers and assists. But since they dont, it throws your theory out the window.
Its a fact dude, assist to turnover ratio is unaffected by pace, since BOTH variables increase when the number of possessions increase.
