How active will the Wolves be before the Feb. deadline?

[TheProdigy]

The poster who didn't know usage had nothing to do with assists, but kept trying to argue it did, is trying to lecture others on common sense. This is a joke right?

I never said usage had anything to do with assists. I said you could compare assists and usage %. Big difference. That hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper.

Ah, so full of it. Just can't admit you didn't know what usage measured.

What was your definition again? That it was used as a measure of scoring efficiency? Read the formula again. Did you miss the part where it takes turnovers into account? LOL

[DaKid]

I asked you to provide some back up point guards to create offense and you gave Napier. Could you clarify your point because Napier isn't good.

Most of the backup pgs in this league don't make near what teague makes. Pick one that you like. Obviously I don't know which ones are actually available but most are without giving up many assets. Then turn around and use Teague's expiring for a 3&d guy

George Hill isn't available but he would be a fantastic fit as a back up.

Yeah he would.

Cleveland has a glut of pgs if we could pry one from them. Maybe Brandon knight could fit here

[Mattya]

Not quite

I asked you to provide some back up point guards to create offense and you gave Napier. Could you clarify your point because Napier isn't good.

Most of the backup pgs in this league don't make near what teague makes. Pick one that you like. Obviously I don't know which ones are actually available but most are without giving up many assets. Then turn around and use Teague's expiring for a 3&d guy

I'm just looking for names of guards who can create offense(not have it created for them) to come off the bench that are actually good that you would go after. Like it would be great if we could get a Lou Williams type to come off the bench, but those guys don't grow on trees.

[DaKid]

I asked you to provide some back up point guards to create offense and you gave Napier. Could you clarify your point because Napier isn't good.

Most of the backup pgs in this league don't make near what teague makes. Pick one that you like. Obviously I don't know which ones are actually available but most are without giving up many assets. Then turn around and use Teague's expiring for a 3&d guy

I'm just looking for names of guards who can create offense(not have it created for them) to come off the bench that are actually good that you would go after. Like it would be great if we could get a Lou Williams type to come off the bench, but those guys don't grow on trees.

Pretty sure every team would love a Lou Williams but unless you draft and develop one, it's tough to get one. Jamal Crawford is still unsigned though

[Mattya]

Most of the backup pgs in this league don't make near what teague makes. Pick one that you like. Obviously I don't know which ones are actually available but most are without giving up many assets. Then turn around and use Teague's expiring for a 3&d guy

I'm just looking for names of guards who can create offense(not have it created for them) to come off the bench that are actually good that you would go after. Like it would be great if we could get a Lou Williams type to come off the bench, but those guys don't grow on trees.

Pretty sure every team would love a Lou Williams but unless you draft and develop one, it's tough to get one. Jamal Crawford is still unsigned though

That is the point. Having that third player for offensive punch is hard to find. Harder to find an offensive punch who can shoot threes and create for others and are actual positive players.

[DaKid]

I'm just looking for names of guards who can create offense(not have it created for them) to come off the bench that are actually good that you would go after. Like it would be great if we could get a Lou Williams type to come off the bench, but those guys don't grow on trees.

Pretty sure every team would love a Lou Williams but unless you draft and develop one, it's tough to get one. Jamal Crawford is still unsigned though

That is the point. Having that third player for offensive punch is hard to find. Harder to find an offensive punch who can shoot threes and create for others and are actual positive players.

Dlo is not a Lou williams

[Mattya]

Pretty sure every team would love a Lou Williams but unless you draft and develop one, it's tough to get one. Jamal Crawford is still unsigned though

That is the point. Having that third player for offensive punch is hard to find. Harder to find an offensive punch who can shoot threes and create for others and are actual positive players.

Dlo is not a Lou williams

Did I say he was? DLo is a great pull up three point shooter who has gravity that creates for cutters and rollers. Lou Williams is just a scorer. But if people don't want to trade assets for players, or take the ball out of Wiggins hands, or spend big money then we have to look at other players.

[Klomp]

My point is that you can find backup pgs that aren't making the max and aren't going to require Teague's expiring to obtain.

Sure, if all you want to do between now and the February deadline is find a backup PG, you can do that for dirt cheap. More often than not though, you get what you pay for.

I'm talking about acquiring someone who I believe would be a core piece of the franchise going forward. A young, growing player who would be locked into a deal here for a long time. A player who I believe could elevate this team from just sneaking into the playoffs to making a deeper run in the postseason. You're not finding all of that in a backup PG bought for dirt cheap.

This team has shown it can win games when the defense isn't up to par, 5-5 when allowing over 110 points. However, if the offense doesn't show up it's much worse, as we're 0-6 when we don't score 110 points. This team needs to score in order to win. This team cannot overcome scoring struggles. We need guys who can score in bunches.

[ClarkeW]

What are people’s thoughts on Fred VanVleet? He’s become a cult hero in Toronto for what he’s been able to provide the Raptors off the bench at PG and he’s a UFA this offseason. Not sure what it would take to sign him (don’t think he’d be available via trade at all) but do you think he fits here?

[Crazy-Canuck]

I think Saunders and co are going to give teague every shot to prove that he can be that scoring threat off the bench. Once napier comes back, I think we'll see them together in the backcourt for sretches when we need offense.

[DaKid]

My point is that you can find backup pgs that aren't making the max and aren't going to require Teague's expiring to obtain.

Sure, if all you want to do between now and the February deadline is find a backup PG, you can do that for dirt cheap. More often than not though, you get what you pay for.

I'm talking about acquiring someone who I believe would be a core piece of the franchise going forward. A young, growing player who would be locked into a deal here for a long time. A player who I believe could elevate this team from just sneaking into the playoffs to making a deeper run in the postseason. You're not finding all of that in a backup PG bought for dirt cheap.

This team has shown it can win games when the defense isn't up to par, 5-5 when allowing over 110 points. However, if the offense doesn't show up it's much worse, as we're 0-6 when we don't score 110 points. This team needs to score in order to win. This team cannot overcome scoring struggles. We need guys who can score in bunches.

I'm saying that you trade Teague's expiring for a 3&d wing that can be part of the future and then go after a backup pg that can help off the bench.

[Klomp]

Worth noting that 3/D wings do not come cheaply. If you're trading just Teague for one, it's probably not going to be a very valuable one....like think Minnesota-era Brandon Rush in terms of return value. Likely the only way you get one of better value is taking back a bad contract with them.

[DaKid]

Worth noting that 3/D wings do not come cheaply. If you're trading just Teague for one, it's probably not going to be a very valuable one....like think Minnesota-era Brandon Rush in terms of return value. Likely the only way you get one of better value is taking back a bad contract with them.

Dlo isn't any cheaper though

[old school 34]

Worth noting that 3/D wings do not come cheaply. If you're trading just Teague for one, it's probably not going to be a very valuable one....like think Minnesota-era Brandon Rush in terms of return value. Likely the only way you get one of better value is taking back a bad contract with them.

Dlo isn't any cheaper though

If your getting a true 3rd star regardless of position....Teague isn't going to be enough....hopefully, we understand that? And I can understand the argument that if you believe DLo is so rigid & uncoachable to adjust his game &/or still improve....yep, he's the wrong guy. But you do have Pablo & KAT that should have significant knowledge of what they feel he can do on this team...keeping Wiggs successful as well...so that's encouraging that improves our chances of making the right call there. I do lean towards that 3rd guy being more of a playmaker & shooter vs. than a straight 3D guy (say even in the Roco mold)....if I'm going to spend that much to get a 3rd guy....I don't want to rely &/or wait for Culver to develop to get there (which probably is a 2 yr process from what I'm seeing)?

I'm fine w/ getting a D. Murray or Nkitilina---maybe on the cheaper & then another playmaking wing--but who do you think becomes available....@ the end of the day---I'm looking to replace 2 starters (one may be internal--depending on who makes most sense after trade)?

Last point, it was said earlier in thread that lots of teams would love to get Teague & his expiring....not buying that....don't think he's valuable to anyone unless their trying to get off an overpaid contract--which hopefully we're not interested in (understanding that ultimately their all overpaid to a certain degree---so it's a subjective deal)...GSW maybe interested just because they were interested in collecting the other assets in turning DLo (essentially he's a more expensive version of Bayless from last year)--just financial filler.

[Mattya]

I never said usage had anything to do with assists. I said you could compare assists and usage %. Big difference. That hole you're digging just keeps getting deeper.

Ah, so full of it. Just can't admit you didn't know what usage measured.

What was your definition again? That it was used as a measure of scoring efficiency? Read the formula again. Did you miss the part where it takes turnovers into account? LOL

Keep trying to pound that square peg in the round hole. Just further demonstration of your lack of understanding of how stats work.

[Mattya]

Imagine thinking a stat that only tracks percentage of teams FG, FT and turnovers is a measure of assisting. Like you could legit find Usage stats that take into account assists, but nope not DaKidKG, that would require that common sense he thinks others lack.

[TheProdigy]

Imagine thinking a stat that only tracks percentage of teams FG, FT and turnovers is a measure of assisting. Like you could legit find Usage stats that take into account assists, but nope not DaKidKG, that would require that common sense he thinks others lack.

Reading comprehension is a struggle for you - I get it now. Go back and quote me where I ever said usage % is a measure of assisting. I explicitly stated that usage % should be used with other stats in order to determine any efficiencies.

Once again from basketball reference: "
Usg% - Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP/ 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."

Interesting that the definition says nothing about scoring efficiency. Perhaps you had it wrong all along.

[Mamba4Goat]

Imagine thinking a stat that only tracks percentage of teams FG, FT and turnovers is a measure of assisting. Like you could legit find Usage stats that take into account assists, but nope not DaKidKG, that would require that common sense he thinks others lack.

Reading comprehension is a struggle for you - I get it now. Go back and quote me where I ever said usage % is a measure of assisting. I explicitly stated that usage % should be used with other stats in order to determine any efficiencies.

Once again from basketball reference: "
Usg% - Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP/ 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."

Interesting that the definition says nothing about scoring efficiency. Perhaps you had it wrong all along.

Typically the one that starts taking personal shots is the one that's wrong.

This isn't my board, but let's play nice, not be rude, and just talk about baskethoops. There's nothing wrong with ignoring someone if arguing with them becomes too frustrating.

[TheProdigy]

Imagine thinking a stat that only tracks percentage of teams FG, FT and turnovers is a measure of assisting. Like you could legit find Usage stats that take into account assists, but nope not DaKidKG, that would require that common sense he thinks others lack.

Reading comprehension is a struggle for you - I get it now. Go back and quote me where I ever said usage % is a measure of assisting. I explicitly stated that usage % should be used with other stats in order to determine any efficiencies.

Once again from basketball reference: "
Usg% - Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP/ 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."

Interesting that the definition says nothing about scoring efficiency. Perhaps you had it wrong all along.

Typically the one that starts taking personal shots is the one that's wrong.

This isn't my board, but let's play nice, not be rude, and just talk about baskethoops. There's nothing wrong with ignoring someone if arguing with them becomes too frustrating.

It's not a personal shot. He's either not reading what I write or he can't comprehend it. Thanks for stepping in though - I'll let it go.

[Mattya]

Imagine thinking a stat that only tracks percentage of teams FG, FT and turnovers is a measure of assisting. Like you could legit find Usage stats that take into account assists, but nope not DaKidKG, that would require that common sense he thinks others lack.

Reading comprehension is a struggle for you - I get it now. Go back and quote me where I ever said usage % is a measure of assisting. I explicitly stated that usage % should be used with other stats in order to determine any efficiencies.

Once again from basketball reference: "
Usg% - Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP/ 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."

Interesting that the definition says nothing about scoring efficiency. Perhaps you had it wrong all along.

Have you researched anything about the stat to see if it is considered reliable especially the way you use it? Or is it that the first thing you read during research must be the right answer. Especially when you are even now muddy the waters on what the definition says. You could try looking at Hollinger's usage stat that tracks assists. But hey "they define it as tracking plays so the stat that doesn't take into account assists, passes, touches, because hey it says it tracks plays."

But what do I know, up until yesterday you didn't even know how the formula was calculated so you must be the expert on it.

Reading comprehension is a struggle for you - I get it now. Go back and quote me where I ever said usage % is a measure of assisting. I explicitly stated that usage % should be used with other stats in order to determine any efficiencies.

You literally brought up base APG along with usage percentage and said that this showed Teague was better. That is the miss use of the stat. You literally said that Usage wasn't a perfect stat but then went on to say how it helped show how Teague was better at assisting by using base APG. We have moved past out right denial of the stat to denial and lies. Impressive.