PGs - Field Goal Attempts Per Minute

[ReasonablySober]

Mo's a shoot first PG apparently, not a pure pass-first PG.

Some stats:

In Yahoo.com's list of PGs, he ranks 6th in FGA per game.

1 - Baron Davis - 17.9
2 - Gilbert Arenas - 17.6
3 - Chris Paul - 16.1
4 - Tony Parker - 15.8
5 - Deron Williams - 13.9
6 - Mo Williams - 13.9
7 - Andre Miller - 13.8
8 - Mike Bibby - 12.4
9 - Jamaal Tinsley - 12.4
10 - Steve Nash - 12.2
11 - Beno Udrih - 11.6
12 - TJ Ford - 11.6
13 - Chauncey Billups - 11.5
14 - Rafer Alston - 11.3
15 - Stephon Marbury - 11.0
16 - Jason Kidd - 10.8
17 - Sam Cassell - 10.6
18 - Devin Harris - 10.1
19 - Sebastian Telfair - 9.7
20 - Jameer Nelson - 9.4

If you re-shuffled those twenty players based upon FGA per minute, here's what you'd get:

1 - Davis - .458
2 - Parker - .454
3 - Ford - .449
4 - Arenas - .445
5 - Paul - .431
6 - Cassell - .420
7 - Bibby - .405
8 - Miller - .382
9 - D. Williams - .379
10 - M. Williams - .369
11 - Tinsley - .362
12 - Nash - .357
13 - Udrih - .341
14 - Billups - .338
15 - Alston - .333
16 - Marbury - .328
17 - Harris - .326
18 - Nelson - .324
19 - Telfair - .297
20 - Kidd - .290

There's nothing Earth shattering, but there are some eyebrow raisers. One, you have a few of the elite 'pass first PGs' like Paul and Williams ahead of Mo in both FGA and FGA per minute. Second, you have our former floor general, TJ Ford, coming in 3rd in FGA per minute, ahead of even Arenas. Third, I see a few guys that others here would apparently love to have, Bibby and Miller, ranking ahead of Mo in FGA per minute.

[cam2win]

Hmm, so 1-5 in the first list are all good teams with "chuckers" at the PG spot.

[msiris]

Hmm, so 1-5 in the first list are all good teams with "chuckers" at the PG spot.

But all of them much better Defensive players than Mo.

[1377]

Great find DB,

By my count, he is also 9th in FG% out of starting PG's. Not bad really.

Better than -

Billups anyway.

(I mean his fg% is better, not that he is a better player)

[Rockmaninoff]

-= original quote snipped =-

But all of them much better Defensive players than Mo.

That is the big difference. The other I'm guessing is that they turn the ball over less than Mo.

[raferfenix]

Great post DB. I agree that the way Mo has controlled the ball doesn't indicate he will not develop into a star PG. However, I think it does signal that he is not a good fit with Redd.

We can't have two ball dominating players in the backcourt, both of whom play horrible defense, if we really plan on developing our yougn front court duo of Bogut/Yi.

Whehter Mo or Redd shoudl be the one to go is a real good question, one that I pesonally think should be based mostly on what kind of players we can get in return.

[L&H_05]

But aren't those top guys playing on running teams (transition based buckets incorporated into those stats ?)

The per minute stat is weird.. Especially with Miller and Cassell ahead..

[dogswithbeesintheirmouths]

The problem with Mo isn't that he shoots too much, it's that he doesn't do enough without shooting.

[Rockmaninoff]

Great post DB. I agree that the way Mo has controlled the ball doesn't indicate he will not develop into a star PG. However, I think it does signal that he is not a good fit with Redd.

We can't have two ball dominating players in the backcourt, both of whom play horrible defense, if we really plan on developing our yougn front court duo of Bogut/Yi.

Whehter Mo or Redd shoudl be the one to go is a real good question, one that I pesonally think should be based mostly on what kind of players we can get in return.

If Mo Williams and Michael Redd both shot in the flow of the offense (instead of looking for and forcing their own shots, except when Bogut is on the bench), and if Bogut was the one facililating the offense, we could have a top 5 offense. It's up to Mo and Mike whether or not they want to be winners or losers.

[msiris]

-= original quote snipped =-



That is the big difference. The other I'm guessing is that they turn the ball over less than Mo.

And they are bigger and stronger than Mo.

[bigkurty]

I like these stats a lot. So many guys cut down on Mo saying he is a shoot first guard and its detrimental to the team. Quite frankly its just not true and I have yet to see anyone who supports that claim show me any concrete proof of that. Sure he is not as good as creating for others as say Nash or Paul but not many are. Then people will say just watch him. You know what I do. He needs to get better at feeding the post but at least he does it. And then other guys will be like "yeah Steve Blake is a pass first PG" for example. Why is that exactly? Cause he stands at the top of the key and passes the ball around the horn every chance he gets. For heaven sake, I could guard Blake. Seriously he and other guys like him just aren't that much of a threat to score from that position and those players know they are not very good 1 on 1 so they know they should pass rather then try to be a scoring threat. That doesn't mean he is necessarily creating for his teammates though, it just means he plays enough minutes, gets enough touches, and makes enough passes that by pure number of passes he makes he gets assists.

Man I am all over the map here but its true, you want your PG to be a scoring threat and you want him to be able to put the ball in the hole when possible. And just because he can do that pretty good and scores at a decent clip does not mean he is a shoot first pg.

[Rockmaninoff]

-= original quote snipped =-

And they are bigger and stronger than Mo.

True dat. That's why like a guy like Ivey starting and finishing, and Mo as a 6th man.

[fam3381]

By my count, he is also 9th in FG% out of starting PG's. Not bad really.

Better than -

Billups anyway.

(I mean his fg% is better, not that he is a better player)

Mo is 16th out of 62 qualified PGs in true shooting percentage, which also accounts for free throws and three pointers. He's way up this year at 56%, I think he has been below 52% in previous years. Shooting close to 40% from three has definitely helped, and his overall FG% is also very solid.

Nash is first w/64.3% while Billups is second at 62.8%. Billups gets to the line twice as often as Mo, while both guys take more threes and shoot a higher %.

[trwi7]

-= original quote snipped =-



True dat. That's why like a guy like Ivey starting and finishing, and Mo as a 6th man.

Oh dear God why the hell are we still talking about Ivey starting? Did you see Nash own his ass and the dazzling 0 assists and 2-7 shooting he just put up?

[msiris]

-= original quote snipped =-



Oh dear God why the hell are we still talking about Ivey starting? Did you see Nash own his ass and the dazzling 0 assists and 2-7 shooting he just put up?

Ivey is not the answer either. If he was he would have stuck with some of the other teams he played for. Session should be tried if Mo is traded.

[Rockmaninoff]

Man I am all over the map here but its true, you want your PG to be a scoring threat and you want him to be able to put the ball in the hole when possible. And just because he can do that pretty good and scores at a decent clip does not mean he is a shoot first pg.

I want Mo to be a point guard that can shoot, rather than a shoot first point guard. He can be very valueable to us in that capacity. If that will happen, then I wouldn't hesitate to do Redd for Kirilenko/Almond. As long as our paint defense is good, and we are not switching on everything, Mo's defensive issues can be minimized.

Williams/Ivey (Sessions if needed)
Bell/Almond (Sessions if needed)
Simmons/Mason (Wright if needed)
Kirilenko/Yi (Ruffin if needed)
Bogut/Yi (Voskuhl if needed)

We would probably have the best paint defense in the league with that lineup. Almond projects to be a good pro based on win score, and the guy is known for being a lights out perimeter shooter. Perfect. Bell guards the point if needed and do backdoor cuts. Bell and Simmons can both make the entry pass. Kirilenko and Bogut can both pass out of the post. Rebounding would suffer and that isn't a very beefy 4/5, but Ruffin and Voskuhl are there if you need them. If we are hitting our shots, we wouldn't need them. I would also do Villanueva and Gadz to New Jersey for Wright and Collins (his deal is the same as Gadz but 2 years shorter). Yi is our 6th man. That's top 10 offense, top 15 defense right there. A deep playoff team.

Like someone said earlier in the thread, I'm for trading either one (Mo or Redd) contingent upon which one nets the best deal.

[jerrod]

these negatives people are bringing up have nothing to do with the point of the thread

[Chapter29]

I really have been pretty pleased with Mo's PG play.

I don't think he is a chucker and has indeed swung his game from a SG type mentality to a PG mentality. Outside of the final couple minutes of the game, of course, where he reverts back to his old ways.

Many good PG's are also good scorers. Not sure that these stats show me anything of interest.

Good PG's know when to score and when to pass. Mostly get your teammates involved and when they struggle, go get it yourself.

Mo is pretty decent PG at this point, but sadly he is a joke on defense and the reason I don't want him as our starting PG.

[paulpressey25]

Mo's not a chucker this year. Mo has done a good job of following the coaches directive and taking less shots and forcing things less.

But Tony Smith's comment a few weeks back on Mo was that he felt Mo was actually a far less effective player and PG by being restrained. Felt Mo is only an effective PG in a running offense where he is aggresively looking for his shot.

And none of this addresses the defensive issues.

[Chapter29]

No question that I agree with that Press.

I think Mo's best usage is as a backup PG & and SG where he can take advantage of his best gift. Scoring.

I know many think of that as a slam on Mo, but it is not meant to be that way. I just think he would excel in that role and be a more valuable player to us.