Are the Warriors good passers.....really?

[Mylie10]

I think that might be the real Robert Rowell....he's as salty as the old ROWELL and as negative as Senor Maestro.

[Twinkie defense]

Assist turnover ratio isn't the best measure. Not all turnovers are from bad passes.

Assist to turnover ratio is a great stat for PGs (otherwise it's easy to get stuck on the assist totals) but is a weird metric to be looking at other players, especially frontcourt players. Many passes don't lead directly to assists, but can have a "hockey-assists" affect. Best way to know if a team is a good passing team I think is just watch them play - and especially the front court. Are they black holes? Do they have basic passing skills like kicking the ball out to the perimeter after it is dumped into the post? Or are they passing to cutters as well as the perimeter and having the offense run through them?

[Rob Rowell]

Compared to the Spurs:

Tim Duncan 1:1
Boris Diaw 2:1
Kawhi Leonard 3:2
Manu Ginobili 2:1
Tony Parker 2.5:1

It's really not close. San Antonio is just on a whole other level. This doesn't mean the Warriors don't have passers, many of their players have high assist totals for their positions which means they're adept at creating for others. Unfortunately, they turn the ball over a lot, too. This is nothing we didn't already know.

System basketball will help discipline their games because they'll know what their options are and where the ball should move at all times. None of our players have much experience playing for a good coach.

Aside from what some people say, coaching really does matter.

This is one of the main issues I see in Kerr's game plan. I don't want lesser playmakers to have more opportunities to mess things up. We have players in the starting lineup that can't make up their our damn mind (Barnes) and now you want him to run an option style play? (if he does this, then I make this pass or this pass) No I'm not sold that enough of our players are going to make the right decisions.

[Rob Rowell]

I know this was a not so cleverly designs post to once again say how good Mark Jackson was the last 2 years.... But seriously where do we start.

I'll start at the first one. Bogut is an elite passer at Milwaukee in a team that had a bunch of chuckers like Brandon Jennings who couldn't hit the side of a barn door. If he had poor assists it is because the teammates he was passing to are like my teammates in NBA2K15 when I played as Utah. Unable to finish off my sweet pass to them standing on their own.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Bogut has never been an elite passer or even a good passer. Go back to when Jennings wasn't on the team and they are still weak. Bogut believes he's an elite passer and ball handler and many times last year he would try and run the break into failure. Now Kerr is encouraging him to bring the ball up the court and make plays like he's a PG. Out of everyone in our starting lineup he's the last one I want to dribble the ball or do make that pass where he's not just stationary.

[East Bay Sports]

Compared to the Spurs:

Tim Duncan 1:1
Boris Diaw 2:1
Kawhi Leonard 3:2
Manu Ginobili 2:1
Tony Parker 2.5:1

It's really not close. San Antonio is just on a whole other level. This doesn't mean the Warriors don't have passers, many of their players have high assist totals for their positions which means they're adept at creating for others. Unfortunately, they turn the ball over a lot, too. This is nothing we didn't already know.

System basketball will help discipline their games because they'll know what their options are and where the ball should move at all times. None of our players have much experience playing for a good coach.

Aside from what some people say, coaching really does matter.

This is one of the main issues I see in Kerr's game plan. I don't want lesser playmakers to have more opportunities to mess things up. We have players in the starting lineup that can't make up their our damn mind (Barnes) and now you want him to run an option style play? (if he does this, then I make this pass or this pass) No I'm not sold that enough of our players are going to make the right decisions.

Outside of Barnes who do you think has really low bbiq on our team?

[Rob Rowell]

Assists aren't the only way to measure a good passer or a players skill as a passer. TOs aren't necessarily indicative of only bad passes. Curry is a great passer and arguably the most skilled passer in the league. Iguodala is a very skilled passer as well. Bogut is pretty good passer too. Klay is more of a finisher but a capable passer and Lee the same way. Lee is good with touch passes but not always a major creator

How else would I judge the players playmaking/passing skills other then the stats. I trust 3 guys in our lineup to create for others. Just because Bogut can make a backdoor pass does not mean he is a good passer. Klay and Lee both have tunnel vision passing which works well for Lee since he is usually rolling to the hole. Igoudala and Curry are the dependable and elite passers, thats it.

[Rob Rowell]

Assist turnover ratio isn't the best measure. Not all turnovers are from bad passes.

What is a better measure please tell. I agree that not all turnovers are from passing but the more a player usage goes up the higher their Turnovers will go. In this offense everyones usage will go up except Curry and Igoudala who happen to be our two best usage players.

[hamncheese]

How else would I judge the players playmaking/passing skills other then the stats.

By watching the players play?

[Rob Rowell]

It's true that Klay is (or was) the worst passer of the lineup but it's something he seems to be focused on, and the mentality teamwide is going to make a difference.

Raw stats are a pretty poor way of judging passing ability, because if you want to go down that road, then the Warriors have the worst passers in the league last season. That's obviously not true. What's more likely is obviously the system they played in.

One can be in denial about the team's passing ability for only so long. I think the facts will bear out past any bad takes or agendas soon enough.

That doesn't make any sense, I gave you their career ratio's unless you mean to say everyone coach any of our players have played for are bad. There's no denial if they can prove they are better in this system I will be shockingly happy. I just don't think they will, I prefer a system based around our actual playmakers.

[Rob Rowell]

Compared to the Spurs:

Tim Duncan 1:1
Boris Diaw 2:1
Kawhi Leonard 3:2
Manu Ginobili 2:1
Tony Parker 2.5:1

It's really not close. San Antonio is just on a whole other level. This doesn't mean the Warriors don't have passers, many of their players have high assist totals for their positions which means they're adept at creating for others. Unfortunately, they turn the ball over a lot, too. This is nothing we didn't already know.

System basketball will help discipline their games because they'll know what their options are and where the ball should move at all times. None of our players have much experience playing for a good coach.

Aside from what some people say, coaching really does matter.

This is one of the main issues I see in Kerr's game plan. I don't want lesser playmakers to have more opportunities to mess things up. We have players in the starting lineup that can't make up their our damn mind (Barnes) and now you want him to run an option style play? (if he does this, then I make this pass or this pass) No I'm not sold that enough of our players are going to make the right decisions.

Outside of Barnes who do you think has really low bbiq on our team?

I think there are 2 legit playmakers and four other players I feel comfortable with the ball in their hands and make a smart decision. Other then that everyone else is either a shooter/scorer or a defender rebound( bad ball handling or passer).

[Rob Rowell]

How else would I judge the players playmaking/passing skills other then the stats.

By watching the players play?

Yep, and when you see one thing and another person see's something different, you can always fall back on I see the game the right way and you see it the wrong way.

[Twinkie defense]

I know this was a not so cleverly designs post to once again say how good Mark Jackson was the last 2 years.... But seriously where do we start.

I'll start at the first one. Bogut is an elite passer at Milwaukee in a team that had a bunch of chuckers like Brandon Jennings who couldn't hit the side of a barn door. If he had poor assists it is because the teammates he was passing to are like my teammates in NBA2K15 when I played as Utah. Unable to finish off my sweet pass to them standing on their own.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Bogut has never been an elite passer or even a good passer. Go back to when Jennings wasn't on the team and they are still weak. Bogut believes he's an elite passer and ball handler and many times last year he would try and run the break into failure. Now Kerr is encouraging him to bring the ball up the court and make plays like he's a PG. Out of everyone in our starting lineup he's the last one I want to dribble the ball or do make that pass where he's not just stationary.

I think that is a very minority opinion around the League. He may not look like a great passer when you compare him to point guards, compare him to other centers - off the top of my head I would say Bogut and Marc Gasol are the best passing centers in the League? [Edit: also, Joachim Noah]. And Duncan if you want to call him a center. Who's better? A lot of center are really bad passers - Dwight comes to mind as a good example of this.

Bogut has looked just fine to me grabbing the rebound and starting the break by passing or dribbling. It's not like he's getting pressed in the backcourt. By having whoever grabs the rebound initiate the transition offense you are more likely to get the defense on their heels and get an easy look in transition. If instead, you're trying to find a guard to give the ball to, then waiting for the guard to bring it up, you're just letting the defense get back and get set. The easiest baskets there are are transition baskets - fast breaks, 2 on 1, 3 on 2, where you can get to the rim or get an open three pointer while the defense is still coming up the court.

[BScoreez]

Assist turnover ratio isn't the best measure. Not all turnovers are from bad passes.

What is a better measure please tell. I agree that not all turnovers are from passing but the more a player usage goes up the higher their Turnovers will go. In this offense everyones usage will go up except Curry and Igoudala who happen to be our two best usage players.

Hmmm not sure. Maybe subtract out offensive foul, ball handling, and other turnovers? The problem with just looking at a players assist-to-turnover ratio is that players tend to have different roles on different teams with different offensive systems.

For example Bogut has a high amount of turnovers that have nothing to do with passing (~57% are non-passing related). That's because his role last season was to set a lot of picks which caused him to get moving screens (offensive fouls) which would increase his turnovers even though he never had a chance at an assist because he did not get the ball often. So if you only look at his assist-to-turnover ratio you will get misinformation on his actual passing ability. If Bogut sets less screens and gets the ball more than his assist to turnover rate will increase automatically unless he all of a sudden becomes a much worse passer.

[Twinkie defense]

Assists aren't the only way to measure a good passer or a players skill as a passer. TOs aren't necessarily indicative of only bad passes. Curry is a great passer and arguably the most skilled passer in the league. Iguodala is a very skilled passer as well. Bogut is pretty good passer too. Klay is more of a finisher but a capable passer and Lee the same way. Lee is good with touch passes but not always a major creator

How else would I judge the players playmaking/passing skills other then the stats. I trust 3 guys in our lineup to create for others. Just because Bogut can make a backdoor pass does not mean he is a good passer. Klay and Lee both have tunnel vision passing which works well for Lee since he is usually rolling to the hole. Igoudala and Curry are the dependable and elite passers, thats it.

Lee is another very good passer for his position - in fact I think he was a point guard in high school. What kind of stats are basing these opinions on? Assist/turnover ratio is not the right measure for individual big men. If you want to compare team-wide # assists, percentage of baskets that are assisted, and teamwide assist/turnover ratio for teams with a lot of ball movement vs. ball dominant PG teams, off the top of my head I would think those are some indicators that would give you a better idea of which are the good/bad passing teams. Player-by-player assist/turover ratio for the roster seems like a horrible indicator - is there anyone using this stat in their advanced offensive metrics?

[Twinkie defense]

How else would I judge the players playmaking/passing skills other then the stats.

By watching the players play?

Haha, yeah...

This should be an indicator as to why you're going about trying to measure a big man's passing skills the wrong way: if you go to ESPN's NBA Player Assists Statistics for 2013-14 and try to sort assist/turnover ratio by position, it will only list three centers for all of last season - everyone else failed to qualify. If 98% of players are falling in a really tight range it's just not telling you much. You can have just one assist per game but never turn the ball over (maybe all you do is stand at the perimeter and catch and shoot) and that will give you a great ratio, but it certainly doesn't say you're a good passer.

And if you want to have a simple measure for big man passing APG would be much better. Leave the turnovers aside. And for Bogut and Lee you might want to also disregard their numbers under Mark Jackson (especially for Bogut), because that was just not his role on this team.

The assist/turnover ratio makes a lot of sense for point guards as they are generally ball-dominant, and their job is to deliver the ball to other players so they are in position to score.

[Mylie10]

Compared to the Spurs:

Tim Duncan 1:1
Boris Diaw 2:1
Kawhi Leonard 3:2
Manu Ginobili 2:1
Tony Parker 2.5:1

It's really not close. San Antonio is just on a whole other level. This doesn't mean the Warriors don't have passers, many of their players have high assist totals for their positions which means they're adept at creating for others. Unfortunately, they turn the ball over a lot, too. This is nothing we didn't already know.

System basketball will help discipline their games because they'll know what their options are and where the ball should move at all times. None of our players have much experience playing for a good coach.

Aside from what some people say, coaching really does matter.

This is one of the main issues I see in Kerr's game plan. I don't want lesser playmakers to have more opportunities to mess things up. We have players in the starting lineup that can't make up their our damn mind (Barnes) and now you want him to run an option style play? (if he does this, then I make this pass or this pass) No I'm not sold that enough of our players are going to make the right decisions.

Barnes will be making less decisions and more reacting....with a motion and cutting style he won't have to make decisions, if he's cutting he'll just have to catch and finish. If the ball is being swung around he may just have to catch and shoot. No longer will he be asked to post someone up, or face up and try to make a one on one move. (Of course there will be moments, but fewer) This style will be more reactionary and less forced.

This style should definitely make things a little easier for him. He will just have to hit his open shots at a better rate.

[Rob Rowell]

How else would I judge the players playmaking/passing skills other then the stats.

By watching the players play?

Haha, yeah...

This should be an indicator as to why you're going about trying to measure a big man's passing skills the wrong way: if you go to ESPN's NBA Player Assists Statistics for 2013-14 and try to sort assist/turnover ratio by position, it will only list three centers for all of last season - everyone else failed to qualify. If 98% of players are falling in a really tight range it's just not telling you much. You can have just one assist per game but never turn the ball over (maybe all you do is stand at the perimeter and catch and shoot) and that will give you a great ratio, but it certainly doesn't say you're a good passer.

And if you want to have a simple measure for big man passing APG would be much better. Leave the turnovers aside. And for Bogut and Lee you might want to also disregard their numbers under Mark Jackson (especially for Bogut), because that was just not his role on this team.

The assist/turnover ratio makes a lot of sense for point guards as they are generally ball-dominant, and their job is to deliver the ball to other players so they are in position to score.

Interesting view that I haven't taken a look at. Although I did list their career Assist average I believe the turnover rate correlates with their ability to be used more in the offense. Since I specified as strictly how good of passers instead of decision making with the ball you have a solid point( the first legit one I've seen).

I'm still plan on waiting for the first 10 games before I go fully in on Kerr or admit I was wrong.

[Rob Rowell]

Compared to the Spurs:

Tim Duncan 1:1
Boris Diaw 2:1
Kawhi Leonard 3:2
Manu Ginobili 2:1
Tony Parker 2.5:1

It's really not close. San Antonio is just on a whole other level. This doesn't mean the Warriors don't have passers, many of their players have high assist totals for their positions which means they're adept at creating for others. Unfortunately, they turn the ball over a lot, too. This is nothing we didn't already know.

System basketball will help discipline their games because they'll know what their options are and where the ball should move at all times. None of our players have much experience playing for a good coach.

Aside from what some people say, coaching really does matter.

This is one of the main issues I see in Kerr's game plan. I don't want lesser playmakers to have more opportunities to mess things up. We have players in the starting lineup that can't make up their our damn mind (Barnes) and now you want him to run an option style play? (if he does this, then I make this pass or this pass) No I'm not sold that enough of our players are going to make the right decisions.

Barnes will be making less decisions and more reacting....with a motion and cutting style he won't have to make decisions, if he's cutting he'll just have to catch and finish. If the ball is being swung around he may just have to catch and shoot. No longer will he be asked to post someone up, or face up and try to make a one on one move. (Of course there will be moments, but fewer) This style will be more reactionary and less forced.

This style should definitely make things a little easier for him. He will just have to hit his open shots at a better rate.

I'm sorry but I'm not a believe in any of Barnes abilities on the court. Even wide open for shot or leading a 2 on 1 I just don't think he's above average at anything which is why I didn't bother putting him in my main post. He's the player I'd rather not use as an example because I think he's horrible in any offense with any coach.

[TaylorMonkey]

It's true that Klay is (or was) the worst passer of the lineup but it's something he seems to be focused on, and the mentality teamwide is going to make a difference.

Raw stats are a pretty poor way of judging passing ability, because if you want to go down that road, then the Warriors have the worst passers in the league last season. That's obviously not true. What's more likely is obviously the system they played in.

One can be in denial about the team's passing ability for only so long. I think the facts will bear out past any bad takes or agendas soon enough.

That doesn't make any sense, I gave you their career ratio's unless you mean to say everyone coach any of our players have played for are bad. There's no denial if they can prove they are better in this system I will be shockingly happy. I just don't think they will, I prefer a system based around our actual playmakers.

Our players are good passers for their positions. Their actual assist numbers get affected by the system especially when they are not the primary ball handler. Just look at Lee's drop off when we started going more Isos last year. That's a clear case of a player getting less assists because of both coaching, system emphasis, and wanting to get his numbers I suppose.

TOs aren't as good a measure for non primary ball handlers or bigs as many of their TOs don't come from pass attempts.

A system that emphasizes ball movement, assists, and good shots means higher assists overall, and our players are capable of performing in such a system. Just watch them play. Who else do you think has a better passing starting 5?

[shazam_guy]

Statistics are magic. They can do anything.

Yes, look at all these teams who had a better assist to turnover ratio last year than Golden State. Like New York. Which totally proves the point, because everybody knows New York is a better passing team than Golden State.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/as ... 2014-06-15