# Shaun Livingston?



## adhir1 (Dec 28, 2004)

What are you thoughts on this kid? I think he would be an amazing player, if we could pry him away from the Clips, the 1+ Joey Graham or Eric Williams could possibly get it done. I mean imaging playing 

Livingston 6'8 /Mopete 6'7/Charlie 6'11/Chris Bosh 6'10/ FA Center, Diaw 6'9? 

WOW, they could run and gun with the best of them, and their all tall and create match up HAVOC on opposing teams....i could see it now...raptors rebound, Livingston on the break alley oop-BOSH with the JJJJJJJAMMMMMM, or Bargnani rebound, livingston on the break, drop pass to Villanueva 3 BALL IN THE AAAAAAAAIR GOOOOOD. All im saying is we should, try to pry this kid from the Clips, it could be showtime in Toronto.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

Not a big fan of Shaun, but if you add Aldridge or Nani to the mix, we would prolly have the tallest line up in the NBA.

That would be sick, very hard to defend too. We would be able to shoot over everybody.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Diaw is not a free agent.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

I love Livingston and when it's all said and done I think he will be one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game.. BUT, passing on a Charlie, Bosh, Aldridge frontcourt would haunt me forever.

Although, here's an idea:

To LA: #1 pick
To Toronto: Shaun Livingston, Quinton Ross

Shaun Livingston
Morris Peterson
Charlie Villanueva
Chris Bosh
Nene 

Not bad, but again.. the Aldridge frontcourt just intrigues me far too much.. With that said, if we are planning on picking Bargnani.. that changes everything.


----------



## icehawk (May 30, 2003)

With Cassell being as old as a rock and possibly leaving, the Clippers have Livingston on their untouchable list. There's not really any good PG prospects in this year's draft or next year's draft and they know it. They have a great front court of Kaman and Brand so there's no reason to add an Aldridge, Bargnani, or Thomas at the expense of your only young PG.

I'd love to see Livingston here but his injuries scare me. Frankly, he's not worth the number one pick but the kid is oozing with so much potential it's got be drooling just thinking how good he could be. COULD be, that is.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

vigilante said:


> I love Livingston and when it's all said and done I think he will be one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game.. BUT, passing on a Charlie, Bosh, Aldridge frontcourt would haunt me forever.
> 
> Although, here's an idea:
> 
> ...


First off.. Aldridge is good, but he's not that good. I mean, I like him. He is a plausable player to take #1 overall. But, just, no.

Secondly.. I don't really think a Livingston trade is plausable. He is the Clippers' best young player, and Toronto doesn't really have the right pieces to make that type of a move.

Looking at your starting 5 with Livingston, who guards the opposing team's SF? Can Villanueva keep up with teams like the Nets (Carter/Jefferson)? And do you really want Shaun Livingston guarding the Chris Pauls, Dwayne Wades, and Allen Iversons of the league? He is a PG, but he's 6'7". Isn't that why Penny Hardaway got all his injury problems?


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> First off.. Aldridge is good, but he's not that good. I mean, I like him. He is a plausable player to take #1 overall. But, just, no.


Okay.



> Secondly.. I don't really think a Livingston trade is plausable. He is the Clippers' best young player, and Toronto doesn't really have the right pieces to make that type of a move.


Don't have the right pieces? #1 pick, Charlie Villanueva, Joey Graham, Mike James, Morris Peterson, rights to Roko Ukic.. what are those?



> Looking at your starting 5 with Livingston, who guards the opposing team's SF? Can Villanueva keep up with teams like the Nets (Carter/Jefferson)? And do you really want Shaun Livingston guarding the Chris Pauls, Dwayne Wades, and Allen Iversons of the league? He is a PG, but he's 6'7". Isn't that why Penny Hardaway got all his injury problems?


Villanueva will have trouble against quicker teams, but he isn't as bad as one would think. He's no worse guarding SF's than a guy like Rashard Lewis..

As for Shaun guarding those elite backcourt players, did you not notice that Morris Peterson - a bonafide defensive stopper with the quickness to guard point guards was in the lineup? And anyways, one of Shauns stronger assets is his defensive ability and quickness for such a long player.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

The Clippers are not trading Livingston unless it's for guys like Lebron James or Dwayne Wade. There is no way he will be traded for the number 1 pick, they wouldnt even trade him last year for Pierce.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

vigilante said:


> Don't have the right pieces? #1 pick, Charlie Villanueva, Joey Graham, Mike James, Morris Peterson, rights to Roko Ukic.. what are those?


You just don't get it.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> You just don't get it.


Why don't you explain it to me? 

Wait.. I don't think you can, because you just got proved wrong.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

How can you say Shaun Livingston "will be one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game", and then bring up "#1 pick, Charlie Villanueva, Joey Graham, Mike James, Morris Peterson, rights to Roko Ukic.."? It's inconsistent. If Shaun Livingston is as good as you say he is, then none of those guys would come even close in a trade offer.

Shaun Livingston is probably the 2nd best player in the NBA under 21 years old (after Dwight Howard, IMO). And you are talking about trading Roko Ukic to L.A.? You just don't get it.


----------



## Team Mao (Dec 17, 2005)

Shaun Livingston is the most overrated player on these boards. He's good, but for people to say that greatest point guard of all time is a bit much. First, greatest of all time would require him to play a full season.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> How can you say Shaun Livingston "will be one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game", and then bring up "#1 pick, Charlie Villanueva, Joey Graham, Mike James, Morris Peterson, rights to Roko Ukic.."? It's inconsistent. If Shaun Livingston is as good as you say he is, then none of those guys would come even close in a trade offer.


Him being as good as I say he is (potentially) is my opinion. My opinion doesn't matter when it comes to trades in the NBA though, if you didn't know.



> Shaun Livingston is probably the 2nd best player in the NBA under 21 years old (after Dwight Howard, IMO). And you are talking about trading Roko Ukic to L.A.? You just don't get it.


Yeah. Because clearly when I added Roko to that list of potential trade candidates for Livingston, I was saying it would be a 1 for 1 deal. Your the one who obviously doesn't get it.. learn to read a little better son.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Do you really believe that the Clippers would trade Shaun Livingston for the #1 pick, Charlie Villanueva, and Mike James? I mean, c'mon.. Clippers just had a good playoff run. Shaun Livingston is still so young. They going to get rid of all that for Mike James, who Raptor fans don't even want back, and Charlie Villanueva, who some posters want traded? Your trade proposal is extremely unrealistic.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

let me get this straight, someone would have to think twice about trading livingston for villanueva,james and bargnani, are you freaking kidding me. i'd take bargnani by himself over livingston and wouldnt even look back.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> Do you really believe that the Clippers would trade Shaun Livingston for the #1 pick, Charlie Villanueva, and Mike James?


I'm almost 100% sure the Clips would take it and run.. As for the Raptors perspective on that trade, I won't even say anything.


----------



## icehawk (May 30, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> Do you really believe that the Clippers would trade Shaun Livingston for the #1 pick, Charlie Villanueva, and Mike James? I mean, c'mon.. Clippers just had a good playoff run. Shaun Livingston is still so young. They going to get rid of all that for Mike James, who Raptor fans don't even want back, and Charlie Villanueva, who some posters want traded? Your trade proposal is extremely unrealistic.


I like Livingston but give me a break. You wouldn't trade Livingston for ALL that? Now he's officially one of the most overrated players on this board. Last year's ROY runner-up, the top pick in this year's draft, and a 20/6 vet combo guard isn't enough? Wow... just wow. 

The Clippers do this without even thinking.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

vigilante said:


> Why don't you explain it to me?
> 
> Wait.. I don't think you can, because you just got proved wrong.


Livingston is untouchable...
he has to much potential and clips really really want him to flourish.
he's vastly improved since last year and will simply be amazing if sam leaves next year


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

vigilante said:


> I'm almost 100% sure the Clips would take it and run.. As for the Raptors perspective on that trade, I won't even say anything.


they wouldnt


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

pmac34 said:


> Livingston is untouchable...
> he has to much potential and clips really really want him to flourish.
> he's vastly improved since last year and will simply be amazing if sam leaves next year


2004-05:
30 games, 27.1 MPG, .414 FG%, .000 3PT%, .746 FT%, 3.0 RPG, 5.0 APG, 2.5 TOPG, 1.1 SPG, 7.4 PPG

2005-06:
61 games, 25.0 MPG, .427 FG%, .125 3PT%, .688 FT%, 3.0 RPG, 4.5 APG, 1.8 TOPG, 0.8 SPG, 5.8 PPG

I don't want to fall onto the "Shaun Livingston is so overrated" crew but I can't stand having people constantly talk about how he's the next greatest PG since Magic Johnson. Thus far Shaun has shown nothing but being a one-dimensional player (passer) and a questionable work ethic as a reason for his long stretches of injuries over a two-year span.

Will he pan out? Maybe. He is still young after all and has alot of room for growth. But he isn't playing like an all-star (yet) nor does it look like he'll come close to it in the near future so please spare the "Shaun Livingston is untouchable" crap.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jan 16, 2003)

trick said:


> 2004-05:
> 30 games, 27.1 MPG, .414 FG%, .000 3PT%, .746 FT%, 3.0 RPG, 5.0 APG, 2.5 TOPG, 1.1 SPG, 7.4 PPG
> 
> 2005-06:
> ...


agreed....the guy has talent without doubt, however he isnt worth the amount of talent that previous posters have suggested....what i get a kick out of is the fact that he has only shown flashes of talent during his short career, yet people would be willing to bet the bank in order to get him....its ironic that if a Euro 7 footer were to perform the exact same way, people would already be using the "BUST" title alongside his name....just some food for thought...

PS: Trick, add me to the Bargnani club...please and thank you...


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

The #1 pick and the Clippers is not a good fit given Brand / Kaman.


----------



## Team Mao (Dec 17, 2005)

pmac34 said:


> Livingston is untouchable...
> he has to much potential and clips really really want him to flourish.
> he's vastly improved since last year and will simply be amazing if sam leaves next year


They'll hold on to him claiming his vast potential and 'Magic Johnson-like' qualities (he's tall, black and plays PG) for a few years. Because of his age, this will work. This will drive up his value well beyond his actual worth, then they will absolutely rob a team in a trade. 

That is my prediction for Shaun Livingston and the Clippers.

What was the deal again, Charlie, Mike James and the #1 overall. And the Clippers wouldn't take it? There are maybe 10 players in the league who wouldn't be traded for that package, and Shaun Livingston isn't one of them. At this point, I wouldn't trade Charlie straight up for him, Charlie has shown more, has played a full season and is only one year older.


----------



## VTRapsfan (Dec 5, 2004)

vigilante said:


> I love Livingston and when it's all said and done I think he will be one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game.. BUT, passing on a Charlie, Bosh, Aldridge frontcourt would haunt me forever.
> 
> Although, here's an idea:
> 
> ...


I think you're overrating Livingston a little, but I agree that he has some serious potential. Like Calderon, he just needs to extend his range and get some more experience. Also, if we passed on Aldridge and took the Livingston trade, we could always sign a free agent like Joel Przybilla. Sure, the Thrilla Vanilla Gorilla isn't an All-Star center, but he blocks and rebounds and we'd have 3 potential All-Stars in Bosh, Villanueva and Livingston. Not to mention good roleplayers in MoPete, Graham, Calderon, Ukic, and Bonner.

I can't tell you how many potential lineups I've done in this forum, especially since we got the #1 pick...

PG: Livingston/Calderon
SG: Peterson/Ukic
SF: Villanueva/Graham
PF: Bosh/Bonner
C: Przybilla/Sow

Actually, that team reminds me of the current Clipper squad.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

Shaun Livingston to the raptors makes no sense. Its about as probable as tayshawn prince to the raptors.


----------



## adhir1 (Dec 28, 2004)

mo76 said:


> Shaun Livingston to the raptors makes no sense. Its about as probable as tayshawn prince to the raptors.


Why exactly does it not make sense to you? Some insight would really help....


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

adhir1 said:


> Why exactly does it not make sense to you? Some insight would really help....


hes a young player with potential that the clippers have no intention to move. Cassel isnt going to be around forever. I wouldnt have posted something so blatenly obvious, but you asked for it!!! What motivation would the clippers have to do this deal. Trade livingston and then look for a PG with less potential to develop behind cassel. There plan is to let livingston develop under cassel, not trade him when his trade value isnt even that high.


----------



## adhir1 (Dec 28, 2004)

mo76 said:


> hes a young player with potential that the clippers have no intention to move. Cassel isnt going to be around forever. I wouldnt have posted something so blatenly obvious, but you asked for it!!! What motivation would the clippers have to do this deal. Trade livingston and then look for a PG with less potential to develop behind cassel. There plan is to let livingston develop under cassel, not trade him when his trade value isnt even that high.


so it doesnt make sense for the Clippers, but this isnt the Clippers forum this is the raptors forum, last time i checked....i simply thought that you meant it did not make sense from the Raptors perspective.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Boy needs to eat. He's anorexic.


----------



## The_Notic (Nov 10, 2005)

ShamBulls you have the best avatar I have Ever seen!! ROFL


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

i think shaun livingston will become a sensational player in this league. he's already shown tools, but that's not it- he's already knocking on the door of potential. i wouldn't be surprised to see him as a star very soon (next year?). 

anyway, with respect to the raptors getting him, i just don't understand- why would the clips even consider... anything right now? i mentioned it somewhere else but it probably bears repeating: the clippers are in an excellent position at the moment. i think their team is destined for competitive glory with the roster it currently has. why would they unnecessarily jeopardize that future? if i were them, i'd just... sit on it. no need to turn it on its head- or change direction at all.

after we get through the next few months, i think we'll be in a similar position (albeit at an earlier stage). the clips, though, have already made some strides and earned some achievements, and their future is looking mighty bright already (imo). even in the case of a 'good deal', i don't know whether i'd be on the trade market _at all_ if i were elgin baylor. things is good- so why risk it?

peace


----------



## Flush (Jul 25, 2005)

The clippers will only trade Livingston for a proven star, not more potential. They are on the brink of being an excellent team, and there is no value to trading an up and coming star for other unproven commodities.

The Raptors aren't able to provide ANYTHING to the clippers that will help them become the top team in the west. Even Bosh would be redundant on that roster.

I'd love get get Livingston, but it would take a miracle.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

adhir1 said:


> so it doesnt make sense for the Clippers, but this isnt the Clippers forum this is the raptors forum, last time i checked....i simply thought that you meant it did not make sense from the Raptors perspective.


Ya, my point is it would never happen, so why worry about it. \

I hate fans that post unrealistic trades that favor their team also.


----------



## icehawk (May 30, 2003)

When I said Shaun Livingston is untradeable, I said it loosely like I always said it. Bosh is untouchable but if we could trade him for LeBron or Wade I wouldn't hesitate. In that same manner, I believe Livingston is untouchable. The Clippers wouldn't trade him for fair value (which I think is either Villanueva or the 1st pick, maybe less). However, if a package like the 1st overall pick, CV, and James came along, they would jump all over it and find another young PG somehow.

It just bothers me that some people think Livingston couldn't be had for that package. Like someone else mentioned, there's only a handful or two of players who wouldn't go to us for that package.

Don't get me wrong though, a trade between the two teams is unrealistic at best. LAC won't give up Livingston for CV or the 1st (or in any combination package not involving Bosh) and TOR won't ante up any more than that.


----------



## Benis007 (May 23, 2005)

i haven't watched very much of Livingston for no other reason than he plays for the Clippers.

From what I have seen, I like his game a lot. Of note is his great ability to get his nose dirty and rebound, I like to see that out of a PG. He is still raw, but i think he has the physical tools to make a difference in the NBA.


----------



## open mike (Jan 3, 2003)

Charlie Villanueva > Shaun Livingston


----------



## Benis007 (May 23, 2005)

open mike said:


> Charlie Villanueva > Shaun Livingston


obviously...

but livingston was drafted straight outta high school and Charlie had a couple years at UConn.. at this point in their careers i don't think its a fair comparison.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Shaun is a year younger, with one more year's NBA experience (sort of).

Shaun may be fragile. He has missed nearly half his games with injuries, and is very skinny. However, with maturity he MAY get more durable. CV3 played 81 games as a rookie.

Shaun is a GIFTED pg with tremendous court vision and passing ability. OTOH, CV3 scored 48 in a game as a 21-year old rookie.

I would still go for Shaun - he is even more special than a 6-11 guy with handles and trey-shooting.

But it is close.


----------



## NOBLE (Apr 10, 2005)

SMH at this thread.


----------



## Team Mao (Dec 17, 2005)

Benis007 said:


> obviously...
> 
> but livingston was drafted straight outta high school and Charlie had a couple years at UConn.. at this point in their careers i don't think its a fair comparison.


Perhaps God (by God I mean Shaun Livingston, but I guess thats obvious) should have gone to college then. I would say that two years in the bigs should be time enough, but I guess not. There is a year's difference in their ages, guess that's too much. Do people use the college excuse with all high school players or only when they haven't backed up the hype?

Wait... in those 2 years, Livingston has managed to play in only 10 more regular season games than Charlie. Wait.... Charlie has actually played more regular season minutes than Livingston. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on the kid, although he's been in the league for a season more than Charlie, doesn't necessarily mean he's played more in the league.

People are quick to compare him to Magic, but if you look at Magic's stats as a 20 year old rookie, (not a 20 year old in his second year), they are unbelieve, 18,7 and 7 and shooting 53%. Shaun Livingston better start stepping up if people are going to keep calling him the next Magic Johnson, or God as people around this board seem to think he is.


----------



## Benis007 (May 23, 2005)

Team Mao said:


> Perhaps God (by God I mean Shaun Livingston, but I guess thats obvious) should have gone to college then. I would say that two years in the bigs should be time enough, but I guess not. There is a year's difference in their ages, guess that's too much. Do people use the college excuse with all high school players or only when they haven't backed up the hype?
> 
> Wait... in those 2 years, Livingston has managed to play in only 10 more regular season games than Charlie. Wait.... Charlie has actually played more regular season minutes than Livingston. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on the kid, although he's been in the league for a season more than Charlie, doesn't necessarily mean he's played more in the league.
> 
> People are quick to compare him to Magic, but if you look at Magic's stats as a 20 year old rookie, (not a 20 year old in his second year), they are unbelieve, 18,7 and 7 and shooting 53%. Shaun Livingston better start stepping up if people are going to keep calling him the next Magic Johnson, or God as people around this board seem to think he is.


all true, agree 100%.

lets talk about livingston in a year or two though, he showed a lot this year in the playoffs:

7.5 pts / 4.8 *** / 4.7 rbs / .58 stl / .50 blk / 1.92 to in 27 minutes.

for someone with as much experience as a rookie, thats a solid line for a backup point guard in the playoffs.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

hes not magic.
he will be putting up #s like 18/10ast/5rebs/2stl soon enough, along with great Defense,
and i think thats better than what charlie will bring, due to lack of rebounding skrillz


----------



## Team Mao (Dec 17, 2005)

pmac34 said:


> hes not magic.
> he will be putting up #s like 18/10ast/5rebs/2stl soon enough, along with great Defense,
> and i think thats better than what charlie will bring, due to lack of rebounding skrillz


Since we're wildly predicting stats with no basis whatsoever, I say that Charlie will average 20 and 10 before Livingston ever reaches that level. What's my basis for this? None, I just pulled those numbers out of my poop chute, similar to where you found your Livingston stats.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

based on his playoff performance, livingston's per48min projections come out to this:

13.5pts/8.5assists/8.5reb/1stls/1blks per 48 min

seems decent enough to me.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

bootstrenf said:


> based on his playoff performance, livingston's per48min projections come out to this:
> 
> 13.5pts/8.5assists/8.5reb/1stls/1blks per 48 min
> 
> seems decent enough to me.


I don't really have an opinion to lend to this thread, but one steal per 48 minutes?


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

speedythief said:


> I don't really have an opinion to lend to this thread, but one steal per 48 minutes?


2.15 in the first round, but only .24 in the second against Nash and the Suns. 1.44 in the reg season. 2.2 last year during the reg season.


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

bootstrenf said:


> based on his playoff performance, livingston's per48min projections come out to this:
> 
> 13.5pts/8.5assists/8.5reb/1stls/1blks per 48 min
> 
> seems decent enough to me.


Per 48 minute projections...arguably the dumbest thing anyone can use to support their case.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

trick said:


> Per 48 minute projections...arguably the dumbest thing anyone can use to support their case.


They aren't used as "projections" per se. They give you a measurable stat that says how productive the player is on the court. It's not saying that if a player played 48 minutes, those would for sure be his stats. It's a measure of productivity, which is definitely not worthless.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Per-48's shouldn't be used to see what somebody could do "as a starter" or "if they got more minutes". I think that is the problem when people use them. When you look at a guy like Reggie Evans, who goes in, grabs a bunch of rebounds, then either gets into foul trouble or gasses out, you can't project "per-48" or even "per-40" because he'd never get there, and if he did, his production would degrade as the game wore on, and these numbers don't account for that.

Hoffa averages 12 rebounds and 8 fouls per-48.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

speedythief said:


> Per-48's shouldn't be used to see what somebody could do "as a starter" or "if they got more minutes". I think that is the problem when people use them. When you look at a guy like Reggie Evans, who goes in, grabs a bunch of rebounds, then either gets into foul trouble or gasses out, you can't project "per-48" or even "per-40" because he'd never get there, and if he did, his production would degrade as the game wore on, and these numbers don't account for that.
> 
> Hoffa averages 12 rebounds and 8 fouls per-48.


Agreed. But you could use those 48-min stats to say, "Hoffa has been an efficient rebounder when he was on the court." Or you could compare it to someone with maybe 10rp48 and say that Hoffa has been more efficient that the other guy.

Therefore, when talking about Shaun. He was passing and rebounding very well when out on the court, but not scoring a whole lot.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> Agreed. But you could use those 48-min stats to say, "Hoffa has been an efficient rebounder when he was on the court." Or you could compare it to someone with maybe 10rp48 and say that Hoffa has been more efficient that the other guy.
> 
> Therefore, when talking about Shaun. He was passing and rebounding very well when out on the court, but not scoring a whole lot.


Andre Barrett averages 8.8 assists per-48 minutes.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

speedythief said:


> Andre Barrett averages 8.8 assists per-48 minutes.


I don't think Barrett played enough games/minutes to make that number mean much. Plus, you'd need to know who else was on the court. Other scrubs, or starters?

But yeah, 8.8 isn't great. If you take into account the amount of time that Livingston had the ball in his hands in that series (not a lot), it was still pretty good. Posting up Brand isn't going to get you a ton of assists. Cassell by comparison was at 7.8. I'm not sure if that's you meant to imply though.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

I think what I'm trying to get at is that you can use imaginary stats like per-48 and per-40 to justify pretty much any opinion.

There are different kinds of assists. The raw numbers don't account for players like Baron Davis who get around 9 assists per game but often spend more than half the shot clock dribbling. They also don't account for players who are put into games within the framework of a certain team strategy, or with specific tasks at hand.

Keeping with assists, there are also players out there like Stephon Marbury, who will use one-pass plays for scoring much more often than two- or three-pass plays, because it increases the chances he'll get an assist. He'd rather pass it once to set a player up for a regular shot than work a swing to set someone up for an open one, and lose the assist in the process.

Steve Nash is an example of a guy who would have 25 assists a game if the NBA recorded assists like the NHL (two passes, score). Guys like Francis wouldn't have much of a shift in numbers.

If Livingston is a good passer it should be evident with or without stats. The "this is what he would have if..." argument, at least in my eyes, shows an inherant weakness in the original point being made. Shouldn't have to resort to extraneous statistics to make a point.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

speedythief said:


> I think what I'm trying to get at is that you can use imaginary stats like per-48 and per-40 to justify pretty much any opinion.
> 
> There are different kinds of assists. The raw numbers don't account for players like Baron Davis who get around 9 assists per game but often spend more than half the shot clock dribbling. They also don't account for players who are put into games within the framework of a certain team strategy, or with specific tasks at hand..


I don't see the harm in using stats to support an argument. I do see the harm in bending the stats to support an argument that would otherwise be illogical. But only a simpleton would be fooled by such an argument, so I suppose I don't see the harm in that either. Stats should be used in conjuction with eye-witness accounts. Telling someone that Andre Barrett averages 8.8 assists per 48 minutes is not going to make anyone get on the phone and seek out Andre Barrett to run their team's offense. Only an idiot would come to, or support, such a conclusion.



speedythief said:


> Keeping with assists, there are also players out there like Stephon Marbury, who will use one-pass plays for scoring much more often than two- or three-pass plays, because it increases the chances he'll get an assist. He'd rather pass it once to set a player up for a regular shot than work a swing to set someone up for an open one, and lose the assist in the process.
> 
> Steve Nash is an example of a guy who would have 25 assists a game if the NBA recorded assists like the NHL (two passes, score). Guys like Francis wouldn't have much of a shift in numbers.


And this is where if one brings up the assists stat for Marbury, the other person brings up Marbury's style of play and how from watching him play it can be argued that his assist numbers are inflated. Others would probably chime in and agree with that assessment. Therefore, based on empirical evidence, the stats lose the argument. Still, I see it as a good argument to have. Sometimes, the stats tell a better story. Not everyone has the chance to watch every team, and therefore the statistics give them a basic measure of performance. Someone could come and tell me that Jerry Stackhouse is one of the best scorers in the NBA. I'd have to remind them that his FG% has hovered around the 40% range for a long time now. I then suspect that maybe the person's eyes are fooling them, and that Stackhouse has good games only once in awhile and is more streaky than a great scorer. This exact argument has happened to me.



speedythief said:


> If Livingston is a good passer it should be evident with or without stats. The "this is what he would have if..." argument, at least in my eyes, shows an inherant weakness in the original point being made. Shouldn't have to resort to extraneous statistics to make a point.


Was someone making the argument that "this is what he would have if...", or is this just taking a different turn? I agree, stats never tell the entire story. But they do tell a part of it in my opinion. If Shaun Livingston pulls off a lot of great passes, he can be called a great passer. He threads the needle and get guys wide open dunks, awesome. Great passer. But then I look at the stats after several games and realize that he is averaging five or six turnovers per game? That highlights something I'd want to look out for when analyzing him as a player. Then I would watch him play and see why the turnovers are happening. If they are his fault, the statistic is valid and he is turning the ball over too much...more than I realized when watching.


----------



## The_Notic (Nov 10, 2005)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> I don't think Barrett played enough *games/minutes* to make that number mean much.


Andre Barrett with Raptors: 17 games & 16 mpg
Shaun Livingston in playoffs: 12 games & 28 mpg


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

The_Notic said:


> Andre Barrett with Raptors: 17 games & 16 mpg
> Shaun Livingston in playoffs: 12 games & 28 mpg


Yeah. 28 minutes in the big time is a little bit more important than the regular season. Just a tad. If Barrett played well in a handful of playoff games, I'd take notice.


----------

