Say hello to your #1 pick in the 2008 NBA Draft....

Post #241 » by **Ruzious** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:51 pm

_BBIB_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

So Steve Nash sets Marion up for steals, blocks, and rebounds too?

It went both ways. Nash did set Marion up, but Marion set Nash up for assists by running in transition better and more consistently than any other forward in the game - and by being expert in his cuts to the basket and overall movement without the ball.

j3yuen · Post #242 » by **j3yuen** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:12 am

DaGoodz wrote:A franchise big,either at PF or Center is more important than a franchise PG. Thats why teams rarely pick PG's #1. I just don't see it happening.
I can see Lopez or Beasley easily getting picked ahead of Rose.
Heck Chris Paul dropped to 4th, Rose can easily drop to 2 or even 3

you are an idiot

Post #243 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:52 am

DanTown8587 wrote:Reggie Bush: Incredibly talented college player, high expectations, does his secondary job (catching the ball out of the backfield) much better than his primary one (running the ball), not as good as many would think, still young though, not good at numerous things he needs to be (ball security, blocking, taking what the defense gives him), not top 30 at his position.

Yeah, Derrick Rose wishes he can be that good in the NBA.

He didn't have fumble problems until this year, and a lot of those were missed reverse plays and such.

He's also an excellent blocker, but you are right on that last one.

Post #244 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:14 pm

_BBIB_ wrote:Maybe a little but look at how high Chris Paul ranks.

Dude, he's having the best PER season for a PG in history, and it's still only 35th best among all players. You realize Magic's best season is ranked #70? This for a position arguably more important than anything but a two-way big man. That's an incredibly significant bias my friend.

Post #245 » by **Paydro70** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:10 pm

I would say the only time that PER underrates PGs is in the all-time historic level. The number of guys over 20, which is basically "star" level, keeps pace with other positions.

This is also not to mention that basketball-reference is just doing its best to simulate everything before 1980 when the 3pt shot debuted. If you remove MJ Paul's season is #16, and if you take out Shaq, Paul ranks 8th. If you look only at the very top, guys like that can distort all-time rankings.

It doesn't surprise me THAT much that Magic never had a season above 27... I would think the reason was turnovers. To put it in perspective, Magic's LOWEST turnover season (not coincidentally his highest PER season) would be the highest turnover rate among PGs in the league this year, other than Darrell Armstrong. His highest turnover season surpasses anything that occurred in the NBA this year, by far.

Post #246 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:59 am

Paydro70 wrote:I would say the only time that PER underrates PGs is in the all-time historic level. The number of guys over 20, which is basically "star" level, keeps pace with other positions.

This is also not to mention that basketball-reference is just doing its best to simulate everything before 1980 when the 3pt shot debuted. If you remove MJ Paul's season is #16, and if you take out Shaq, Paul ranks 8th. If you look only at the very top, guys like that can distort all-time rankings.

It doesn't surprise me THAT much that Magic never had a season above 27... I would think the reason was turnovers. To put it in perspective, Magic's LOWEST turnover season (not coincidentally his highest PER season) would be the highest turnover rate among PGs in the league this year, other than Darrell Armstrong. His highest turnover season surpasses anything that occurred in the NBA this year, by far.

You have to factor in pace, usage, etc. Magic's best year by low turnover rate beats out 2-4 in assists (Nash, Deron, and Kidd) this year. Obviously not as good as Paul, but not nearly so extreme.

And of course when factor in how effective his team's were on offense, you'd be hard pressed to actually say he was handicapping his team compared to what other great point guards good do.

Post #247 » by **Paydro70** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:00 am

Pace and usage are both included in turnover rate, because it's based on possessions used. So no, he was still turning the ball over way more than anyone does now.

To be sure he wasn't holding back his teams, the Lakers were obviously great throughout the 80s, in large part due to his awesomeness. But turning the ball over 1/5 of his possessions is kind of a problem no matter what.