The Official Mike Conley Thread

[shrink]

So you think PG play is not relevant. You don’t think the team operates better with high BBIQ players who can run the offense? You don’t see the connection between our winning games and using a PG for more than 25 minutes?

DLo was a PG when he was here.

Please elaborate.

I don’t think I can explain it better than Klomp here.

DLo is also a PG. He has a high BBIQ, he can run an offense, and we did NOT win games. So clearly winning games isn’t about PG play. What I think we are both saying is that you may be picking one aspect of Mike (he’s a PG), and correlating that characteristic to be the cause of the wins, when Mike has several other you could choose from.

I don't think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a PG.
I think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a damn good player.

[winforlose]

DLo was a PG when he was here.

Please elaborate.

I don’t think I can explain it better than Klomp here.

DLo is also a PG. He has a high BBIQ, he can run an offense, and we did NOT win games. So clearly winning games isn’t about PG play. What I think we are both saying is that you may be picking one aspect of Mike (he’s a PG), and correlating that characteristic to be the cause of the wins, when Mike has several other you could choose from.

I don't think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a PG.
I think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a damn good player.

Dlo as a Wolf. Tell me does this sound like an effective PG? Did DLO have a good track record playing with Rudy? Was his defense good? Not all PGs are equal. That doesn’t mean a team isn’t better with a good one.

Edit: gonna make this cleaner.

19/20: 6.6 AST/3.8 TO = 1.74 AST/TO
20/21: 5.8/2.7 = 2.15 AST/TO
21/22: 7.1/2.5 = 2.84 AST/TO
22/23: 6.2/2.7 = 2.30 AST/TO


By contrast Mike as a Wolf

22/23: 5.0/1.2 = 4.17 AST/TO
23/24: 5.9/1.3 = 4.54 AST/TO
24/25: 4.3/1.2 = 3.58 AST/TO

If you think iso ball and hero ball are bad (especially end of game,) this helps you to see understand the difference.

[Klomp]

DLo was a PG when he was here.

Please elaborate.

I don’t think I can explain it better than Klomp here.

DLo is also a PG. He has a high BBIQ, he can run an offense, and we did NOT win games. So clearly winning games isn’t about PG play. What I think we are both saying is that you may be picking one aspect of Mike (he’s a PG), and correlating that characteristic to be the cause of the wins, when Mike has several other you could choose from.

I don't think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a PG.
I think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a damn good player.

You explained it perfectly. And the Russell point is spot on.

Basketball IQ, running an offense, being a team leader. Those are qualities of Mike Conley, but not necessarily qualities of all point guards.

[winforlose]

Please elaborate.

I don’t think I can explain it better than Klomp here.

DLo is also a PG. He has a high BBIQ, he can run an offense, and we did NOT win games. So clearly winning games isn’t about PG play. What I think we are both saying is that you may be picking one aspect of Mike (he’s a PG), and correlating that characteristic to be the cause of the wins, when Mike has several other you could choose from.

I don't think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a PG.
I think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a damn good player.

You explained it perfectly. And the Russell point is spot on.

Basketball IQ, running an offense, being a team leader. Those are qualities of Mike Conley, but not necessarily qualities of all point guards.

So you’re saying a bad PG is less valuable than a good PG? I think that speaks for itself. But you look at NAW or DDV who turn the ball over at a rate of 2AST/1TO, whereas a good PG gets you 4 or 5 to 1. If you think lowering turnovers and increasing assists and moving the ball more is exclusive to Mike and could not come from another PG brought in, I don’t know what to tell you.

[shrink]

Please elaborate.

I don’t think I can explain it better than Klomp here.

DLo is also a PG. He has a high BBIQ, he can run an offense, and we did NOT win games. So clearly winning games isn’t about PG play. What I think we are both saying is that you may be picking one aspect of Mike (he’s a PG), and correlating that characteristic to be the cause of the wins, when Mike has several other you could choose from.

I don't think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a PG.
I think the team plays well when Mike plays because he's a damn good player.

Dlo as a Wolf. Tell me does this sound like an effective PG? Did DLO have a good track record playing with Rudy? Was his defense good? Not all PGs are equal. That doesn’t mean a team isn’t better with a good one.

The team would be better with Giannis too.

“Not all players are equal.” And the team would be better with a better player at any position!

The difference is the talent of the player, not the position.

[winforlose]

I don’t think I can explain it better than Klomp here.

DLo is also a PG. He has a high BBIQ, he can run an offense, and we did NOT win games. So clearly winning games isn’t about PG play. What I think we are both saying is that you may be picking one aspect of Mike (he’s a PG), and correlating that characteristic to be the cause of the wins, when Mike has several other you could choose from.

Dlo as a Wolf. Tell me does this sound like an effective PG? Did DLO have a good track record playing with Rudy? Was his defense good? Not all PGs are equal. That doesn’t mean a team isn’t better with a good one.

The team would be better with Giannis too.

“Not all players are equal.” And the team would be better with a better player at any position!

The difference is the talent of the player, not the position.

I am confused. I think we are talking past each other. I am going to state some simple premises below. If you disagree let me know.

1. Mike Conley is the only PG currently in the rotation.
2. Rob Dillingham when healthy has struggled this season and for these purposes should be excluded.
3. In the games played without a PG we are 0-4.
4. In the games played with Mike under 25 minutes we have 8 wins and 10 losses.
5. In the games played with Mike at or above 25 minutes we have 12 wins and 3 losses.
6. It is your contention that acquiring another successful PG would not boost winning?

[shrink]

I am confused. I think we are talking past each other. I am going to state some simple premises below. If you disagree let me know.

1. Mike Conley is the only PG currently in the rotation.
2. Rob Dillingham when healthy has struggled this season and for these purposes should be excluded.
3. In the games played without a PG we are 0-4.
4. In the games played with Mike under 25 minutes we have 8 wins and 10 losses.
5. In the games played with Mike at or above 25 minutes we have 12 wins and 3 losses.
6. It is your contention that acquiring another successful PG would not boost winning?

I think we are talking past each other too.

Our difference here is that you are attributing the wins to the fact that Mike is a PG, and your #6 extrapolates that it takes another successful PG creates wins.

For 3, 4, and 5, those facts are equally true about having any player named Mike on the roster, and by that standard, you think you’ve proven that an equally talented Michael Porter Jr would create wins.

You are seeing correlation, and thinking that proves causation. It may or it may not.

[winforlose]

I am confused. I think we are talking past each other. I am going to state some simple premises below. If you disagree let me know.

1. Mike Conley is the only PG currently in the rotation.
2. Rob Dillingham when healthy has struggled this season and for these purposes should be excluded.
3. In the games played without a PG we are 0-4.
4. In the games played with Mike under 25 minutes we have 8 wins and 10 losses.
5. In the games played with Mike at or above 25 minutes we have 12 wins and 3 losses.
6. It is your contention that acquiring another successful PG would not boost winning?

I think we are talking past each other too.

Our difference here is that you are attributing the wins to the fact that Mike is a PG, and your #6 extrapolates that it takes another successful PG creates wins.

For 3, 4, and 5, those facts are equally true about having any player named Mike on the roster, and by that standard, you think you’ve proven that an equally talented Michael Porter Jr would create wins.

You are seeing correlation, and thinking that proves causation. It may or it may not.

You are correct that a deeper dive is necessary to prove my point. Likewise a deeper dive is necessary to disprove it. I know we turn the ball over a lot. I know we play hero ball in the 4th quarter a lot. I know that we play a ton of ISO, and that when we do our team’s shooting percentage tend to drop. I know that teams with excellent PG play tend to do better than teams without it. I guess my question for you with limited resources and your current understanding of basketball, do you think getting another PG is beneficial to winning games?

[shrink]

I am confused. I think we are talking past each other. I am going to state some simple premises below. If you disagree let me know.

1. Mike Conley is the only PG currently in the rotation.
2. Rob Dillingham when healthy has struggled this season and for these purposes should be excluded.
3. In the games played without a PG we are 0-4.
4. In the games played with Mike under 25 minutes we have 8 wins and 10 losses.
5. In the games played with Mike at or above 25 minutes we have 12 wins and 3 losses.
6. It is your contention that acquiring another successful PG would not boost winning?

I think we are talking past each other too.

Our difference here is that you are attributing the wins to the fact that Mike is a PG, and your #6 extrapolates that it takes another successful PG creates wins.

For 3, 4, and 5, those facts are equally true about having any player named Mike on the roster, and by that standard, you think you’ve proven that an equally talented Michael Porter Jr would create wins.

You are seeing correlation, and thinking that proves causation. It may or it may not.

You are correct that a deeper dive is necessary to prove my point. Likewise a deeper dive is necessary to disprove it. I know we turn the ball over a lot. I know we play hero ball in the 4th quarter a lot. I know that we play a ton of ISO, and that when we do our team’s shooting percentage tend to drop. I know that teams with excellent PG play tend to do better than teams without it. I guess my question for you with limited resources and your current understanding of basketball, do you think getting another PG is beneficial to winning games?

Personally I’m comfortable with DDV, particularly after our last, low turnover game against ORL. DiVincenzo isn’t a PG, but he is a good player that we want to find more minutes for. Again, correlation, but he’s started the last three games, and they’ve all been wins. I am much more concerned about having no other centers on the roster.

Longterm, I definitely want DDV out there. I hope Ant spends the summer working on his passing and playmaking. With his dangerous three point shooting and explosive first step to the hoop, he will draw defenders and make passing to open teammates easier, once he gets better at finding them. When he can do that, and he’s the primary ball handler, DiVincenzo’s defense and three point shooting will help Ant on both sides of the court.

Finally, I would mention that the whole concept of point guards seem to be declining around the NBA, as many teams put the ball in the hands of their best players more and more.

[winforlose]

I think we are talking past each other too.

Our difference here is that you are attributing the wins to the fact that Mike is a PG, and your #6 extrapolates that it takes another successful PG creates wins.

For 3, 4, and 5, those facts are equally true about having any player named Mike on the roster, and by that standard, you think you’ve proven that an equally talented Michael Porter Jr would create wins.

You are seeing correlation, and thinking that proves causation. It may or it may not.

You are correct that a deeper dive is necessary to prove my point. Likewise a deeper dive is necessary to disprove it. I know we turn the ball over a lot. I know we play hero ball in the 4th quarter a lot. I know that we play a ton of ISO, and that when we do our team’s shooting percentage tend to drop. I know that teams with excellent PG play tend to do better than teams without it. I guess my question for you with limited resources and your current understanding of basketball, do you think getting another PG is beneficial to winning games?

Personally I’m comfortable with DDV, particularly after our last, low turnover game against ORL. DiVincenzo isn’t a PG, but he is a good player that we want to find more minutes for. Again, correlation, but he’s started the last three games, and they’ve all been wins. I am much more concerned about having no other centers on the roster.

Longterm, I definitely want DDV out there. I hope Ant spends the summer working on his passing and playmaking. With his dangerous three point shooting and explosive first step to the hoop, he will draw defenders and make passing to open teammates easier, once he gets better at finding them. When he can do that, and he’s the primary ball handler, DiVincenzo’s defense and three point shooting will help Ant on both sides of the court.

Finally, I would mention that the whole concept of point guards seem to be declining around the NBA, as many teams put the ball in the hands of their best players more and more.

In some cases like OKC and NYK the best player is the PG. In some cases the best player is the SG, and the handling duties are split. But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad PG play, or only one viable PG in the rotation.

[FrenchMinnyFan]

Mike is 3 times smarter than Dlo on the field

[shrink]

You are correct that a deeper dive is necessary to prove my point. Likewise a deeper dive is necessary to disprove it. I know we turn the ball over a lot. I know we play hero ball in the 4th quarter a lot. I know that we play a ton of ISO, and that when we do our team’s shooting percentage tend to drop. I know that teams with excellent PG play tend to do better than teams without it. I guess my question for you with limited resources and your current understanding of basketball, do you think getting another PG is beneficial to winning games?

Personally I’m comfortable with DDV, particularly after our last, low turnover game against ORL. DiVincenzo isn’t a PG, but he is a good player that we want to find more minutes for. Again, correlation, but he’s started the last three games, and they’ve all been wins. I am much more concerned about having no other centers on the roster.

Longterm, I definitely want DDV out there. I hope Ant spends the summer working on his passing and playmaking. With his dangerous three point shooting and explosive first step to the hoop, he will draw defenders and make passing to open teammates easier, once he gets better at finding them. When he can do that, and he’s the primary ball handler, DiVincenzo’s defense and three point shooting will help Ant on both sides of the court.

Finally, I would mention that the whole concept of point guards seem to be declining around the NBA, as many teams put the ball in the hands of their best players more and more.

In some cases like OKC and NYK the best player is the PG. In some cases the best player is the SG, and the handling duties are split. But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad PG play, or only one viable PG in the rotation.

But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad SG play, or only one viable SG in the rotation
But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad SF play, or only one viable SF in the rotation
But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad PF play, or only one viable PF in the rotation
But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad C play, or only one viable C in the rotation

None of these questions are any more appropriate than you locking in on point guards. Good overall PLAYERS make top 16 teams - they don’t have to be point guards! The correlation that Mike is a good player and a point guard does not mean point guards are particularly valuable, as I demonstrated with DLo, even though he met all your criteria. The difference is Mike is a better PLAYER than DLo, not that he’s a PG and DLo is not.

My opinion is DDV is fine, and provides advantages that a lesser player, even a PG, does not.

[FrenchMinnyFan]

I'm sure only about 2 things :

Having a good ratio Assists/TO is crucial for any team wanted to win.
If we could afford to trade Fox for Randle, we will be a contender immediately even if he TO the ball more than Mike ( but give also a bit more assists and score much more).

[shrink]

The point guards that continually lead the NBA in AST/TO ratio year-after-year are Tyus and Tre Jones, and Monte Morris, and I don’t think they have more losses attached to their names than wins. Yes, getting more assists is good. Getting less turnovers is good. But AST/TO ratio isn’t highly correlated with winning teams.

Fox makes more than Randle, so it’s illegal for us to make that trade because we’re above the first apron (can’t take back more in salary) and the second apron (can’t aggregate salaries). And of course, we don’t have the assets.

[TimberKat]

The point guards that continually lead the NBA in AST/TO ratio year-after-year are Tyus and Tre Jones, and Monte Morris, and I don’t think they have more losses attached to their names than wins. Yes, getting more assists is good. Getting less turnovers is good. But AST/TO ratio isn’t highly correlated with winning teams.

Fox makes more than Randle, so it’s illegal for us to make that trade because we’re above the first apron (can’t take back more in salary) and the second apron (can’t aggregate salaries). And of course, we don’t have the assets.

We may have the asset now, as SAC seems to be better off without him

[BlacJacMac]

The point guards that continually lead the NBA in AST/TO ratio year-after-year are Tyus and Tre Jones, and Monte Morris, and I don’t think they have more losses attached to their names than wins. Yes, getting more assists is good. Getting less turnovers is good. But AST/TO ratio isn’t highly correlated with winning teams.

The high AST/TO ratio guys are safe players that don’t necessarily drive winning. They’re caretakers, but rarely are they winners.

Look at the finals last year. Luka, Kyrie, Holliday, White. All guys closer to 2/1 ratio.

Jokic is between a 2/1 and 3/1 annually.

[minimus]

The point guards that continually lead the NBA in AST/TO ratio year-after-year are Tyus and Tre Jones, and Monte Morris, and I don’t think they have more losses attached to their names than wins. Yes, getting more assists is good. Getting less turnovers is good. But AST/TO ratio isn’t highly correlated with winning teams.

The high AST/TO ratio guys are safe players that don’t necessarily drive winning. They’re caretakers, but rarely are they winners.

Look at the finals last year. Luka, Kyrie, Holliday, White. All guys closer to 2/1 ratio.

Jokic is between a 2/1 and 3/1 annually.

That's close to my understanding as well. Guys like Tyus and Monte are not breaking defenses like scoring guards, they usually execute low pressure passes. Although I don't correlate it with winning, more with coaching implementation of offense. For instance, Tyus replaced Ja in MEM for a significant stretch of games and MEM still won many of them. In WAS Tyus had same elite AST:TO, but overall offense was low.

[TheZachAttack]

I think we are talking past each other too.

Our difference here is that you are attributing the wins to the fact that Mike is a PG, and your #6 extrapolates that it takes another successful PG creates wins.

For 3, 4, and 5, those facts are equally true about having any player named Mike on the roster, and by that standard, you think you’ve proven that an equally talented Michael Porter Jr would create wins.

You are seeing correlation, and thinking that proves causation. It may or it may not.

You are correct that a deeper dive is necessary to prove my point. Likewise a deeper dive is necessary to disprove it. I know we turn the ball over a lot. I know we play hero ball in the 4th quarter a lot. I know that we play a ton of ISO, and that when we do our team’s shooting percentage tend to drop. I know that teams with excellent PG play tend to do better than teams without it. I guess my question for you with limited resources and your current understanding of basketball, do you think getting another PG is beneficial to winning games?

Personally I’m comfortable with DDV, particularly after our last, low turnover game against ORL. DiVincenzo isn’t a PG, but he is a good player that we want to find more minutes for. Again, correlation, but he’s started the last three games, and they’ve all been wins. I am much more concerned about having no other centers on the roster.

Longterm, I definitely want DDV out there. I hope Ant spends the summer working on his passing and playmaking. With his dangerous three point shooting and explosive first step to the hoop, he will draw defenders and make passing to open teammates easier, once he gets better at finding them. When he can do that, and he’s the primary ball handler, DiVincenzo’s defense and three point shooting will help Ant on both sides of the court.

Finally, I would mention that the whole concept of point guards seem to be declining around the NBA, as many teams put the ball in the hands of their best players more and more.

I don't really think Ant's playmaking is an issue. I think his biggest issue is his lack of consistent midrange/floater. If Ant was able to get into the middle of the floor and score consistently, he would be able to be a lot better at drawing fouls as well. The majority of the issues with Ant as a playmaker come from the Wolves inability to punish teams putting 2 on the ball and still keeping players at the rim. I think what needs to happen is that Gobert needs to improve on catching passes on the short role and figuring out how he can consistently make reads to the corner and score. And McDaniels and the other wings need to become more consistent at making open 3 point shots from the corner.

If Ant were able to score more consistently in the between spaces of the floor, this would allow him to play at his own pace more, and make it easier for him as a passer as well.

I also disagree that Rob has struggled this year. To me, there has been games where Rob has missed shots but every time he's on the floor the ball moves really well, the team plays with more pace, and generates good looks. I think Rob has also been the best Wolves ball handler at not struggling with physicality when teams pressure the full length of the floor. When we talk about point guard play, that's the most important skill from that position. The elite point guards also score consistently, which Rob has shown flashes of doing but is still figuring out (and hasn't really had enough playing time) to figure out how to get to his spots and score inside against NBA length.

I also don't think Rob has been bad at the defensive end of the floor. I think he executes the defensive scheme well, has good hands, and moves laterally really well to stay in front of defenders. He can struggle to get through screens and can get backed down but teams shooting contested mid range shots is fine and funneling shooters into McDaniels/Gobert and length is fine as well.

I think it's important that the Wolves get another PG given Conley's decline this year, but I think a player like a Ty Jerome, Mcconnel, or Tyus Jones is really what the Wolves need. Given Ant's scoring ability and ability to draw probably the most aggressive defensive coverage of any scorer in the league, I don't think we need an "elite" PG.

Again, in my opinion Rob has actually consistently shown PG skills that I think actually are the best on the time as of now. The reason for this is his speed, ability to get by the first defender, and his ability to create pace is better than what Conley can do at this stage in his career. And I think the Wolves issues are not Ant as a playmaker, but the structure of what the Wolves can do when teams sell out on Ant and Ant's inconsistency in his ability to score in the middle of the floor.

When you watch players like Fox, Ja, Brunson, Maxey, Kyrie, Garland, and other "good" PGs all of these players don't need to get all of the way to the rim. They shoot >50% from the short mid-range and floater area and when they drive they are trying to get to spots that aren't trying to out athleticism players at the rim. This is one of the biggest reasons why the Wolves offense goes cold too often. In addition, to the Wolves playing ball-handlers who are not "1's" and struggle with ball pressure in the backcourt and up to the half court line that makes it hard for the Wolves to get into sets early and causes a lot of turnovers.

I don't really see Wolves fans or even media like Dane Moore talking about this much. In fact, a lot of the time I hear fans and media talking about how they can get to the rim more and saying it's great that Ant is taking more 3's instead of midrange shots. I want Ant shooting 10+ 3's, but I also think he needs to drive to get to spots on the floor and become consistent in those areas so he's not so reliant on needing to get all of the way to the rim.

In this world, the Wolves need a ball-handler who can create pace and isn't phased by ball-pressure and can also beat their man off the dribble to get into the middle of the floor and cause defenses to get out of their shell and start to rotate. Again, I would argue that Rob is better than anyone else on the team at this. They also need a big who can attack defenses on the short roll and wings who can make corner 3's.

[winforlose]

Personally I’m comfortable with DDV, particularly after our last, low turnover game against ORL. DiVincenzo isn’t a PG, but he is a good player that we want to find more minutes for. Again, correlation, but he’s started the last three games, and they’ve all been wins. I am much more concerned about having no other centers on the roster.

Longterm, I definitely want DDV out there. I hope Ant spends the summer working on his passing and playmaking. With his dangerous three point shooting and explosive first step to the hoop, he will draw defenders and make passing to open teammates easier, once he gets better at finding them. When he can do that, and he’s the primary ball handler, DiVincenzo’s defense and three point shooting will help Ant on both sides of the court.

Finally, I would mention that the whole concept of point guards seem to be declining around the NBA, as many teams put the ball in the hands of their best players more and more.

In some cases like OKC and NYK the best player is the PG. In some cases the best player is the SG, and the handling duties are split. But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad PG play, or only one viable PG in the rotation.

But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad SG play, or only one viable SG in the rotation
But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad SF play, or only one viable SF in the rotation
But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad PF play, or only one viable PF in the rotation
But for the sake of conversation please point out three top 16 NBA teams with either bad C play, or only one viable C in the rotation

None of these questions are any more appropriate than you locking in on point guards. Good overall PLAYERS make top 16 teams - they don’t have to be point guards! The correlation that Mike is a good player and a point guard does not mean point guards are particularly valuable, as I demonstrated with DLo, even though he met all your criteria. The difference is Mike is a better PLAYER than DLo, not that he’s a PG and DLo is not.

My opinion is DDV is fine, and provides advantages that a lesser player, even a PG, does not.

1. You are absolutely correct that Mike can be out there an not be playing PG. You could post him up every possession, make him guard exclusively the opposing bigs, and instruct him never to dribble. I am sure that Mike at 6’1 would make a fantastic PF or C .

2. You are getting hung up on position and losing sight of role. PGs don’t only make safe passes. Good point guards play PNR with bigs. Good PGs use their handle to get inside and kick outside. Good PGs find the shot pocket with their passes, and good PGs act as floor generals helping to overload the zone or tweak the offense to expose the defense. When Mike is off ball in the corner he isn’t doing these things. I know because Mike said so.

3. There are definitely trade offs to using DDV or Mike. For one DDV is a better defender. Another is DDV is a better rebounder. Rather than list them all, I will point out that DDV has his own flaws like driving into traffic and live ball turning it over. Just two per game that lead to open transitions 3s is between a 6 and 12 point swing. You see a correlation and say not so fast on the causation. But, if the correlation isn’t new, if it is something that is common in basketball, and often is proven as causation, then extrapolation is more acceptable. Good PG play makes everyone else better. That is why the NBA still has PGs and why the good ones are more valuable than you want to admit. You don’t often see teams with bad PGs late in the playoffs.

[Klomp]

I don’t think I can explain it better than Klomp here.

DLo is also a PG. He has a high BBIQ, he can run an offense, and we did NOT win games. So clearly winning games isn’t about PG play. What I think we are both saying is that you may be picking one aspect of Mike (he’s a PG), and correlating that characteristic to be the cause of the wins, when Mike has several other you could choose from.

You explained it perfectly. And the Russell point is spot on.

Basketball IQ, running an offense, being a team leader. Those are qualities of Mike Conley, but not necessarily qualities of all point guards.

So you’re saying a bad PG is less valuable than a good PG? I think that speaks for itself. But you look at NAW or DDV who turn the ball over at a rate of 2AST/1TO, whereas a good PG gets you 4 or 5 to 1. If you think lowering turnovers and increasing assists and moving the ball more is exclusive to Mike and could not come from another PG brought in, I don’t know what to tell you.

But is a bad PG more or less valuable than no PG?