# PGs: Passing is raw talent. Shooting can be learned



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

In a separate thread I asserted that there are natural talents (like court vision), and there are skills that a good athlete can learn (like defense and shooting).

To support this, I started with John Stockton. We all know that he is a HOFer player. But his career did not start that way. He was rejected from the Olympic squad (back when the Olympic teams were all college players).

And most importantly, look at his shooting percentage. To weed out driving layups and the like, I am measuring shooting skill purely by percentage from the 3. I recognize that some players' numbers are low when they take few shots, but I assert that any player who avoids taking a 3 does so because they know they don't have the skills to make the shot.

John Stockton: 
Rookie year: 18%
2nd: 13%
3rd: 18%
4th: 36%

and onward, to a career average of 38% for three-pointers. Not too shabby for someone who was just a playmaker.

Let's take another young player, another gym rat. He shot 33% his rookie year, but ended with an excellent career average of 40%. His name? Mark Price.

Yet another player averaged 28% and 29% his first two years, in heavy minutes. He became known as a shooting specialist purely through hard work. His career average was 40%. Jeff Hornacek.

Another: 19% and then 30%. Fought with numerous issues, but was one heck of an obsessive worker. Chris Mullin shot 38% for his career.

Even Terry Porter averaged 26% his first two years, but averaged 39% for his career.

Joe Johnson did not impress his rookie year. He shot 29%. This year? 48%. Wow. It won't stay that high, but the guy has clearly improved his shot.

Lastly: 17%, 17%, 18%, 14%... this guy had a terrible outside shot. But he was stubborn and worked hard. Despite the lousy start his career averaged 32%. His best year was 42%, FAR BETTER THAN HIS FIRST 4 YEARS. And now, nobody claims that Michael Jordan couldn't shoot the ball.

My point? There are some natural shooters. Ray Allen could always stroke it. So could Glen Rice. So has Redd. These guys were great shooters in college, too. But most of the great players out there had to learn how to shoot, the hard way. It always took a great work ethic. But I am not aware of a single NBA guard who has put in the time but failed to improve their shot. The notoriously bad shooters just refused to work at it; they were lazy.

Let's take Bassy. His rookie year was 25% -- not great, but much better than some HOF guards who became known for having very nice shots from downtown. If he works at it, he can become a good or even a great shooter. 

SHOOTING CAN BE LEARNED, if the player wants to make it happen. It takes a few years. But it can be done. 

And now for the critical attribute for a super point guard. Passing. Assists. Making things happen on the court.

Terry Porter's rookie year: averaged 0.16 assists/minute. By year two he was up to career numbers: 0.26 assists/minute. Career: 0.20.

Steve Nash: 0.20 assists/minute rookie year. Career to date: 0.23 assists/minute.

Kevin Johnson: 0.23 rookie year. 0.31 second year. 0.27 career.

Magic Johnson: 0.20 rookie year. 0.23 2nd year. 0.25 3rd year. 0.29 4th year. And a career average of 0.31. It took Magic longer to get up to speed than most. 

Sam Cassell: 0.19 rookie year. 0.20 career.

Jason Kidd: 0.23 rookie year. Career: 0.25 assists/minute.

Andre Miller: 0.22 rookie year. 0.22 career.

Rod Strickland: 0.23 rookie year. 0.24 career.

The conclusion here should be obvious. Point guards take years to become masters at their craft, but the key skill of making plays is something they come with. Only Magic Johnson, above, took more than 2 years to get to his career average. PASSING IS NOT LEARNED at the NBA level. By year two, a healthy starting point guard's assist numbers are going to be quite close to his career averages.

So let's take Sebastian Telfair. His rookie year was 0.17. Not great. Terry Porter-like numbers. We should probably cut him a little slack, since he joined the league considerably younger than the HOFers given above. And I cut him some slack because he does not have any good catch-and-shoot players to deliver the balls to (with Zach injured and no outside threat on this squad).

But by year two, or perhaps year three, the Bassy we see will be as good a playmaker as he will ever be. All the other skills (reducing turnovers, shooting, defense, etc.) can and will improve. But that critical ability for a point guard to make magic happen is revealed very early, and it does not get markedly better after year 2 or 3.

So in the Paul-Telfair debate, I come down firmly on the Telfair side because I think he has the passing skills. If we draft Paul, I very much hope it is to trade him before the season begins. Great point guards have always been passers first, scorers second.

In the NBA, shooting can be learned. Passing cannot. 


iWatas


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

I approve this research.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

I think it is a great post IW. Could you elaborate more on Paul's passing ability? Are his college numbers bad?


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

I agree with your assertion, but I also think you can't measure passing ability on number or ratio of assists alone. Other factors (how long a given PG has played with his teamates, the talent around him, etc) Also, maybe a guy comes into the league with passing skills, but no "J" so defenders play off him. IF he develops a "J", then the defender has to come out, thus making it easier for him to drive to the basket and dish. I saw raw passing ability from Telfair last year, but often it didn't translate into high assist numbers. Joel P and Theo had a tough time recognizing & handling his passes often (that would have been assists), which not only takes his assists away--but gives him t/o's in the box score.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't really do the whole "rep point" thing, but it's pretty rare that somebody comes on here and fairly conclusively proves something as well as this. I'd never really thought much about this issue, but I definitely have an opinion now. 2000 rep points for you! 

the Magic thing does make me wonder. I wasn't really following the NBA back then, but perhaps his lack of assists might be attributable to not being used properly all the time. he was such a big guy for a guard, maybe they just didn't give him as many responsibilties out of the chute because he was so unconventional....


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

kaydow said:


> I agree with your assertion, but I also think you can't measure passing ability on number or ratio of assists alone. Other factors (how long a given PG has played with his teamates, the talent around him, etc) .


All of this is true. There are myriads upon myriads of reasons why a given player on a given team in a given year would be a better or worse ballplayer. And there are plenty of intangibles to consider. "Assists" are dodgy things, but they are the best metric we have.

What I think is astonishing is how incredibly consistent the numbers are. Over the course of thousands of games, playmakers find a way to make the scoring pass. And they do it from no later than the second year, on good teams and on bad, with good teammates and with lousy ones. Time and again, the good playmakers rise to the top because they find a way to help the team score points. 

iWatas


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Nice work, Iwatas.

The painfully obvious thing that jumps out of your numbers is that it appears that Bassy just isn't as good a distributor as I'd hoped he'd be. He compares to Terry Porter his rookie season. The sad thing is that Terry Porter hadn't played the point til he donned a blazer uniform. 
It's pretty hard to argue with those numbers. If you were going to rank the best assist men in history, Magic would have to be at the top just like the numbers show he is. The truth hurts!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> The painfully obvious thing that jumps out of your numbers is that it appears that Bassy just isn't as good a distributor as I'd hoped he'd be. He compares to Terry Porter his rookie season. The sad thing is that Terry Porter hadn't played the point til he donned a blazer uniform.


that's true, but you also have to remember Telfair played alongside Damon most of the time he was out there. he spent a lot of his time defering to what the Mouse wanted to do, often not even handling the ball. 

however, Iwatas's main point is that a passer is a passer, and he'll find ways to get it done regardless of who he's paired with. I'll be paying more attention to the assist/48 min or assist/min numbers in October.


----------



## hirschmanz (Jun 3, 2005)

The sole problem I have with this post is that it doesn't account for the fact that part of what all those shooters iWatas mentioned learned was shot selection, not just shooting technique. There are people who simply lack the coordination to shoot well, no matter how they try. Still, there are almost no pgs like this.

Excellent job.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Nice work, Iwatas.
> 
> The painfully obvious thing that jumps out of your numbers is that it appears that Bassy just isn't as good a distributor as I'd hoped he'd be. He compares to Terry Porter his rookie season. The sad thing is that Terry Porter hadn't played the point til he donned a blazer uniform.
> It's pretty hard to argue with those numbers. If you were going to rank the best assist men in history, Magic would have to be at the top just like the numbers show he is. The truth hurts!



I want to be carefull not to sound like I'm disputing what Iwatis suggested, but I still feel we'll see better assist #'s from Bassy. Steve Nash, a 9 year veteran, never averaged more than 8.8 apg (career 6.7) before posting 11.5 this last year playing with Amare, Marion, Johnson, & co. I said it earlier, but there were so many games when Bassy would drop a dime to one of our bigs only to watch it sail through their hands and out of bounds--I think he has the ability to post double digit assist numbers in the right system with the right players. Maybe I'm living in Bassy Myopia.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Just to supplement the above figures:

Damon Stoudamire: 0.19 assists/minute. A considerable drop in talent from the rest of the names mentioned.

Mark Jackson: 0.26 a/m career. Rookie year: 0.27. And this is playing for like 9 different teams over his career.
Kenny Anderson. 0.20. Just a small cut above Damon.
Stephon Marbury. 0.21. Rookie year 0.22. 
Kirk Hinrich: 0.19 first year. 0.18 second year. He is, IMO, overrated as a PG.
Mike Bibby: 0.18 rookie. 0.18 career. Really lousy numbers.
Spud Webb: 0.21
Robert Pack 0.22
Brevin Knight 0.26 career. A great passer: pity about the other liabilities!
Gary Payton: 0.24 rookie year. 0.19 career! A rare PG who gets worse over time as a playmaker (probably because he loves to shoot it himself).
Steve Francis 0.18 rookie year. 0.16 career. A very poor starting playmaker.

The funny thing is, if I had to rank PGs in order, this metric would match my own "gut" feeling almost perfectly. KJ would be lower in my estimation than the numbers suggest, but that is because I never liked the guy. 

Conclusion: any point guard who can hit 0.25 or higher has to be considered elite. And he will show these kinds of numbers by his second year, or he won't get there. 

C'mon, Bassy! Show it in 2005/6!

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

hirschmanz said:


> There are people who simply lack the coordination to shoot well, no matter how they try.


Agreed 100%. That is why I excluded other players besides guards. We all know how hard Shaq has worked on his Free throws, as did other big men like Dudley. Neither big man ever had the natural talent to be able to improve their shot. Contrast with Arvydas, who averaged 38% and 37% on treys his first two years. Sabonis really was very special.

I figure that guards are different than big men, who can lack the natural talent to learn how to shoot the ball. Guards are smaller and they are forced to play with more coordination. Point guards especially should have no problems here: as the primary ballhandlers they are usually the best coordinated players on the court. And we can see from the number of poor athletes who became good shooters. 

To add to the list given above, look at Danny Ainge. He averaged 29%, 17% 27% and 27% before learning how to stroke the 3-ball. Even with such an awful start, he averaged 38% for his career, including 4 seasons above 40%. Danny Ainge, as guards go, was not coordinated. But as NBA players go, he was better than most.

iWatas


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I'm just going to use John Stockton as I don't want to take the time to research the others, but....

Stockton had 11, 15, and 33 attempts from the 3-pt line in his first 3 years. That sample size is too small to draw conclusions from in my opinion. However, his worst FG % was 47.1 % in his rookie year which is not too shabby. I would argue that he was always a pretty good shooter unlike Telfair.

Similarly let's look at Stockton's assists per game in his first 4 years...

Yr 1: 5.1
Yr 2: 7.4
Yr 3: 8.2
Yr 4: 13.8

Apparently passing can be learned.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Good post Iwatas... :woot:

you put some good work into it


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Before all the bashing, remember that Telfair came straight from HS. You can try and compare his numbers to all these other players when they were in their first year of college. But then again, that's still comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

tlong said:


> I'm just going to use John Stockton as I don't want to take the time to research the others, but....
> 
> Stockton had 11, 15, and 33 attempts from the 3-pt line in his first 3 years. That sample size is too small to draw conclusions from in my opinion.


As I said, if they are not taking the shots, it is because they do not think they can sink them. For players with larger samples sizes it remains true. One way or another, good players are capable of improving their shots.




> However, his worst FG % was 47.1 % in his rookie year which is not too shabby. I would argue that he was always a pretty good shooter unlike Telfair.
> 
> Similarly let's look at Stockton's assists per game in his first 4 years...
> 
> ...


Please pay SOME attention! My goodness, was my initial post too brief for you to understand? If so, please read it more slowly.

Stockton's assist numbers PER MINUTES PLAYED show that his second year number was 0.32 assists per minute played. His career average was 0.33 assists per minute played. If he plays MORE MINUTES, then he would get MORE ASSISTS.

Yes, Stockton had up years and down years. But I think the numbers are quite clear: the playmaker who has played a year into the league is already at his career average at generating assists. Their shooting percentage can vastly improve.

iWatas


----------



## hirschmanz (Jun 3, 2005)

I still hold that much of the players you cited have improved shooting averages because of a mix of hard work on shooting skills and the know-how of when to shoot and when to pass. This not only improves shooting percentage, but assists as well (because bad shots become good passes).

Passing up a bad shot is as important as making a good one.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

It seems like a well thought out post, but I have some issues...

First, in regards to the shooting percentages. Now those HOFers may not have been good NBA three point shooters early in their careers, but they were all good/great shooters inside the arc. They had good form, so for them it was just a matter of extending that range. That's not the case for someone like Telfair, who doesn't have a consistent jumper from anywhere yet.

Secondly, there are a lot of problems with the ast/min stat. I also don't see how you can say it doesn't change year to year for guards, when there are examples. Nash went from 0.22 in 02-03, to 0.26 in 03-04, to 0.33 in 04-05. Clearly he's improving that number as he gets older. 

My other problem with it, is that each point runs a different system. For example, it's very unfair to compare say, Jamaal Tinsley to Steve Nash in terms of assists per minute. Nash played on the team with the fastest pace in the NBA, while Tinsley played for Carlisle who runs a slow, halfcourt offensive scheme. He's not going to get as many offensive posessions, or chances at assists as Nash. It's also unfair to compare Mike Bibby's assists/min to Nash, as Bibby plays for the Kings who run their offense through the big man at the high post, thus he has less assist opportunities.

Also, each point has different team mates and different strengths/weaknesses as playmakers. Some might be suited to breaking down the defense and kicking it out to shooters, while others might be best at feeding the big man in the post or on the pick and roll. Some might be better leading the break, while others are more adept at directing a halfcourt offense. Clearly what team they are on and what supporting cast they have will make a difference. If you put Steve Francis on a team with poor spot-up shooters that can't punish the defense for sagging on his drives, his assist numbers will be lower than if you put him on a team with lots of good shooters.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> As I said, if they are not taking the shots, it is because they do not think they can sink them. For players with larger samples sizes it remains true. One way or another, good players are capable of improving their shots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The assists data I cited was just an example of using statistics to back up whatever argument you wish to make...nothing more.

I think the more relevant point in the post is the fact that Stockton has *always * been an effective shooter.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Scinos said:


> It seems like a well thought out post, but I have some issues...
> 
> Secondly, there are a lot of problems with the ast/min stat. I also don't see how you can say it doesn't change year to year for guards, when there are examples. Nash went from 0.22 in 02-03, to 0.26 in 03-04, to 0.33 in 04-05. Clearly he's improving that number as he gets older.


Sure, players get better. They go up and down. But Nash's career ast/min is within 0.02 of that for his rookie year. And it is true for the vast majority of PGs. 

To me, that means that if you want to know how a career is going to play out, watch the PG his first year or two. The numbers suggest those assists/minute are going to be his career averages. 

Is the career average everything? No. But if we want, say, Telfair, for his whole career, let's get a good sense of what we should be able to expect. When it comes to his assists, we're going to have a very good idea this time next year. By way of contrast, his shooting percentage is likely to improve if he works on it.



> My other problem with it, is that each point runs a different system.


To some extent, absolutely. Would Stockton have been John Stockton if he didn't have a Karl Malone? I think we'd agree that Stockton was a great PG anyway, but Karl Malone may be the difference between great and HOFer. But I would take either John Stockton quite happily. )

iWatas


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

tlong said:


> I think the more relevant point in the post is the fact that Stockton has *always * been an effective shooter.


Uh, no. The rep years ago was that with John Stockton is that it paid for the defender to defend the passing lanes because he was not a threat from the perimeter.

John Stockton had a very poor jump-shooting reputation in his early career. He could take it to the hole very well, but pull-up jumpers were something he added later. I don't know if there are any figures (besides the 3 point ones which convince me that he almost never even tried to shoot a trey his first 3 seasons). But as an avid fan in Stock's early career who watched a lot of basketball, this is my recollection.

iWatas


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Uh, no. The rep years ago was that with John Stockton is that it paid for the defender to defend the passing lanes because he was not a threat from the perimeter.
> 
> John Stockton had a very poor jump-shooting reputation in his early career. He could take it to the hole very well, but pull-up jumpers were something he added later. I don't know if there are any figures (besides the 3 point ones which convince me that he almost never even tried to shoot a trey his first 3 seasons). But as an avid fan in Stock's early career who watched a lot of basketball, this is my recollection.
> 
> iWatas



Stockton shot 57.7% from the field during his senior year at Gonzaga and averaged 20.9 points per game. I think he had a pretty good jump shot.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

tlong said:


> Stockton shot 57.7% from the field during his senior year at Gonzaga and averaged 20.9 points per game. I think he had a pretty good jump shot.



Another player that will go unnamed for purposes of being redundant averaged 53.4% his final year before the draft and also shot 45% from 3pt. range. He also averaged 33.2 pts and 9.2 asts per game. Yet some people on this board seem to think he sucks and was a horible pick by the team that picked him....even though he showed in his rookie season that he really could play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Another player that will go unnamed for purposes of being redundant averaged 53.4% his final year before the draft and also shot 45% from 3pt. range. He also averaged 33.2 pts and 9.2 asts per game. Yet some people on this board seem to think he sucks and was a horible pick by the team that picked him....even though he showed in his rookie season that he really could play.



Sounds like *high school * statistics...


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Does anybody who has watched more than 60 games from each player really think that Paul is better? I've got hundreds of hours of footage on each and while Paul is nice, Telfair he is not. No sir. No sir.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

BBALLSCIENCES said:


> Does anybody who has watched more than 60 games from each player really think that Paul is better? I've got hundreds of hours of footage on each and while Paul is nice, Telfair he is not. No sir. No sir.


Okay, since you opened the door, I call. Tell us your observations about the strengths and weaknesses of each in running a team, scoring and defending.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

BBALLSCIENCES said:


> Does anybody who has watched more than 60 games from each player really think that Paul is better? I've got hundreds of hours of footage on each and while Paul is nice, Telfair he is not. No sir. No sir.



I've been given the opportunity to watch a couple of scouting tapes on Paul. I agree with you 100% I think Paul will be good, but Telfair has "it" That extra something that leaders are made from.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> I've been given the opportunity to watch a couple of scouting tapes on Paul. I agree with you 100% I think Paul will be good, but Telfair has "it" That extra something that leaders are made from.


that is something that is important. Telfair already has the respect of his teammates. 

I'd wager a safe bet, that he's already a leader on the team. and changing that already, could back-fire.


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Reep said:


> Okay, since you opened the door, I call. Tell us your observations about the strengths and weaknesses of each in running a team, scoring and defending.


Paul, very good scorer has a nice floater that he uses to finish over big men. He has a nice fake spin move, kinda like Steve Smith, where he fakes he's gonna spin one way but then he plants his leg and powers toward the opposite direction. His passing is good, but not great on a pick and roll as he will often give the ball up a half second too late, but he can deliver a bullet pass through traffic pretty well. He throws a nice oop as well, giving it just the right amount of lob neccessary. I don't think I've ever seen him miss on more than two alley oop passes. Has a very nice handle and long arms that allow him to keep the ball wide of his body if the defender tries to reach. As nice as his handle is his right is far beyond his left. He can go left, but almost exclusivley goes right when in scoring mode and finishes with the right hand a little too much. I would've liked to have seen him try to finish with the left a lot more.

As far as running a team, he has to be effective as a scorer, he passes well but not creatively enough that you have to worry so much about him getting other teammates involved and making them beat you. He is a confident leader but as the pressure mounts he doesn't execute as well as he should. Games against Saint Josephs and West Virginia proved that. Against St. Joe's he was intimidated by the strength of the opposition and the situation and only started to play as he could when desparation set in. Against WV he became frustrated and committed a lot of silly fouls had a two bad turnovers and quick shots. Even in high school he failed to lead his team to a state championship. He can be very tempremental when he gets frustrated. He often gets into uneccessary skirmishes with opponents to try to establish his presence when all he needs to do is play ball and execute. 

His defense isn't bad, he just needs more focus. On the college level he seemed comfortable giving guys a lot of space when he should have got up in them and tried to manhandle them. His long arms help him get a lot of steals , he can play passing lanes pretty well and his speed allows him to come around post players and pick their pockets if they aren't looking. His problem is that he gambles too much on defense looking for the steal instead of staying hoome and trying to shut his man down. Going to the NBA he's going to have to up his effort on defense about 3X at least.

Sebastian Telfair is primarily a scorer but his passing ability can be relied on to make things happen if he's having trouble scoring. In the McDonald's game he took 2 shots but doled out 11 assists. In the USA Festival game he was one of ten fromt he field but still managed six assists not to mention a few nice looks to the free man who converted the bucket. In the USA developmental Festival he didn't score as much but he did manage to lead the camp in assists, may have come in second, but did manage to get the record for most assists in a game 14 I believe. He can work on a pick and roll pretty well either with a bounce pass the no look pass or the lob pass if the man is open. He can pass with the left hand probably the best I've ever seen. Bounce pass, no look pass, chest pass, cross court pass, whatever. The speed he possesses really allows him to blow by his defender, causing the defense to collapse where he can then kick it out to the open man. He can get carried very away in trying to force passes that aren't there, but he usually bounces back. In several games this season he'd have four or five turnovers in the first half and none in the second, especially when he became the starting pg. Running a team he is very confident and plays through his mistakes and almost never looks upset on the court. He'll show him moments of frustration b*tching at a ref while the D is running downcourt, but that doesn't happen too often. One game it did hurt him, the second to last game of the season vs. Denver. He felt he'd been mugged by Earl Boykins on two successive posessions and proceeded to let the ref have a piece of his mind, all the while Earl ran downcourt and drained a jumper. Didn't say a word to the refs the rest of the game.

As far as scoring goes he can get to the bucket and score, but his jumper is not reliable yet at the NBA level so he goes to the paint, at times succeeding, but often gets his shot blocked a lot. He can finish with either hand though when attacking the basket. Doesn't have a floater move yet, but usually relies on an old fashion layup off the glass, or once in a while a finger roll. Increasing his strength would help him finish better around the rim, but that jumper must come if he wants to be very successful in this league. 

Defensively he can be a pest as his footwork and speed allow him to stay and pressure his defender, but he doesn't yet have the stamina to keep it up nor the strength to not get barreled through or blasted when the pick comes. Doesn't gamble too much on defense, but can lose sight of his man once a shot goes up often just standing there assuming that the bigs will grab the rebound. In the latter part of the season he did however start to attempt more steals as his speed and quick hands really allow for him to come around and slap the ball away from players in the post. His hand size is uncanny for someone 5'11" as he can palm the ball with both hands, something that Rasheed Wallace can't do at 6'11". His focus on defense really needs to be upped as well, because on this level anybody can go for 30 on any given night. 

These two haven't really had the opportunity to go head to head much at all over the years but against similar competition I would have to say that Sebastian has the upper hand. At adidas camp as an 8th grader going to his freshman season he was the best at camp. Outdueling TJ Ford, Raymond Felton, Anthony Roberson, Sean Dockery and every other pg that was in attendance. He also played Felton at his home court and Sebastian stole the show and the game once again. Paul has had mostly good games against other pg's in the nation but too often he can take himself out of the game at critical times with silly fouls or just plain overagressiveness going to the hoop forgetting about his teammates. Sebastian had a bad year at the camp at which Darius Washington got the better of him, but at next year's camp Washington was destroyed, finishing with more points than turnovers while Sebastian had 12 pts 6 assists to zero turnovers. Paul has some summer highlights of his own, he scored close to forty I believe in the championship game of the 17 under AAU championship in florida, besting Drew Lavender of Oklahoma now soon to be Wolverines. In the tournament he had finished in fourth and third place, but finally got his first place finish. I saw him play in person and admired his ball handling and scoring abilities but didn't see him do too much in the way of passing.

All in all this easily goes to Telfair. He's quicker, faster, better ballhandler, more dynamic scorer, more vocal and overall a better leader. The thing that really seperates him from Paul is his passing and speed. He manages to keep full control of the ball while moving around like a hummingbird with the ability to let loose a pass no one saw coming at any moment. At the Rucker he was easily the best pg in that tournament, didn't get to go against his cousin' though in the championship game as Jay-Z and Fat Joe couldn't settle a dispute as to who would be sitting on the home side, the team with the best record in the league or the defeinding champions. Anyway I think I've seen enough from both, good and bad, to declare that Sebastian is the superior player. Some might disagree and I may even be wrong, but I'm 100% right.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Another interesting thing:
I compared career assists per minute for a player in college as well as the NBA, and they usually stay consistent.

Of all the point guards drafted in the last 9 years (I mostly looked at the first round, so I'm sure I missed plenty), 38 in all, the following improved their college APM by .05 or more:

Devin Harris, .09 college, .14 NBA
Gilbert Arenas, .07 college, .15 NBA
Brevin Knight, .21 college, .26 NBA
Stephon Marbury, .12 college, .21 NBA
Steve Nash, .15 college, .23 NBA

Dajuan Wagner is the only non-rookie who regressed from his college ratio, and he isn't really a PG anyway. There probably are more, as I might've missed the bust PGs.

College APM increased by an average of .017.

Essentially, assists per minute in college are usually the same in the NBA. Even in the cases of significant changes, you can find an explanation.

And finally, 

Telfair - .17 NBA
Chris Paul - .19
Deron Williams - .19
Raymond Felton - .20
Jarret Jack - .14
Nate Robinson - .12
Aaron Miles - .22

A bit tired of all the numbers, so I won't go through year by year except for Paul:
.18 freshman year
.20 sophmore year


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Ben Gordon
Devin Harris
Sebastian Telfair
*Jameer Nelson*
Delonte West
Tony Allen
Beno Udrih
Chris Duhon

Dwayne Wade
Kirk Hinrich
TJ Ford
Luke Ridnour
Leandro Barbosa

Jay Williams
Dajuan Wagner
Frank Williams
Dan Dickau

Jamaal Tinsley
Tony Parker
Gilbert Arenas

Jamal Crawford
Speedy Claxton
Eddie House

Steve Francis
Baron Davis
Andre Miller
Jason Terry

Mike Bibby
Jason Williams
Tyronn Lue

Chauncey Billups
Antonio Daniels
Brevin Knight
Bobby Jackson

Allen Iverson
Stephon Marbury
Steve Nash
Derek Fisher


All the players that I've entered in. I can't seem to find minutes played for Jameer Nelson for his first two seasons, anyone have those numbers?
Also, anyone know a site for international stats? If anyone has players that I've missed, please tell me.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Wow. Impressive work, Number 10!

What were Bassy's Assists/minute in high school? Since we don't have college numbers for him....

Thanks

iWatas


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Iwatas said:


> Wow. Impressive work, Number 10!
> 
> What were Bassy's Assists/minute in high school? Since we don't have college numbers for him....
> 
> ...


Can't seem to find any high school numbers.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> In a separate thread I asserted that there are natural talents (like court vision), and there are skills that a good athlete can learn (like defense and shooting).
> 
> [post snipped, showing improvement in shooting % over time]
> 
> ...



I did that analysis for Bassy, and the conclusion held true. Telfair was not, and (so far at least) has not noticeably improved his passing game. He averages 0.16 assists/minute in Boston. Telfair become a good NBA player, or even a star -- but he will never be a star PG because he does not excel at creating scoring for his teammates.

But Sergio.... wow. The star PGs listed above hit 0.23 assists/minute their rookie years.

Sergio is at a blistering pace indeed. 0.32 assists/minute. This is production like Magic Johnson at his very best. *0.32 assists/minute is seemingly better than any other rookie PG in the history of the game since assist numbers were recorded. *

It is one heck of a start....

iWatas


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

wow that is impressive


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

This is not an insignificant stat..... and when you factor in that Magic Johnson had allstar teamates he was passing to....., and Sergio is passing to.. who? (a bunch of rookies and run o' the mill veterans). Sergio!:yay:


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I've been given the opportunity to watch a couple of scouting tapes on Paul. I agree with you 100% I think Paul will be good, but Telfair has "it" That extra something that leaders are made from.


 MM, judging from this assessment and your assessment of Nate... can we assume that you don't know diddley squat about leadership? :lol:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> I did that analysis for Bassy, and the conclusion held true. Telfair was not, and (so far at least) has not noticeably improved his passing game. He averages 0.16 assists/minute in Boston. Telfair become a good NBA player, or even a star -- but he will never be a star PG because he does not excel at creating scoring for his teammates.
> 
> But Sergio.... wow. The star PGs listed above hit 0.23 assists/minute their rookie years.
> 
> ...


This thread is interesting. I think the numbers used to support the hypothesis are probably cherry picked, and thus not representative, but I agree with the conclusion. Plenty of players learn to shoot, but both the ability and the tendency to make good passes seems more inherent.

In that Sergio is looking great so far. He's putting the ball in people's hands. I don't think that stat alone tells how good a point guard is though, even at passing. The assists per minute stat can be inflated if the point guard dominates the ball. Guys like Marbury and Iverson aren't great passers, but they rack up the assists because they control the ball on every possession. That's not necessarily bad, Steve Nash also does that, but I'm just saying it isn't necessarily good either. Sergio seems to dominate the ball when he is in the game. He usually does good things with it though, so right now I'm pretty optimistic about the player he could someday be.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

* iWatas said:*
"Sergio is at a blistering pace indeed. 0.32 assists/minute. This is production like Magic Johnson at his very best. 0.32 assists/minute *is seemingly better than any other rookie PG in the history of the game since assist numbers were recorded. *"

Um guys.. try and wrap your brains around this. Read it, read it again..... let it sink in.

Assists are a skill that you don't develope, you either have it or you don't. Sergio has it in spades.... early indications are that he has the potential to be the best in the history of the game.

His league leading stats per 48 are with the Blazers, a team with virtually no shooters at the moment.

He is a rookie kid, only 20 yrs old can't be very familiar with the other players yet.

Team him up with Brandon Roy...... okay, now you can smile....:biggrin:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> * iWatas said:*
> "Sergio is at a blistering pace indeed. 0.32 assists/minute. This is production like Magic Johnson at his very best. 0.32 assists/minute *is seemingly better than any other rookie PG in the history of the game since assist numbers were recorded. *"
> 
> Um guys.. try and wrap your brains around this. Read it, read it again..... let it sink in.
> ...


I don't agree with the idea that the quality of a player's teammates leads to more assists. For example, if we team Sergio up with Brandon Roy, instead of whoever we are throwing out at SG now, his assist numbers will probably go down, since Roy will be doing more of the ball handling. Right now Sergio's assist numbers are benefitting from the fact that none of the guys he is playing (everyone on the team but Zach and Roy) is any good at scoring in isolation.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> This thread is interesting. I think the numbers used to support the hypothesis are probably cherry picked, and thus not representative


I assure you I did NOT cherry pick the numbers. As you can see, I compared a LOT of the best point guards in modern NBA history. Some improved their shooting, some did not. None of them, save for Magic, vastly improved their assist totals from the second year as compared to their career average. And for most of them, this was true even for their rookie seasons

I agree with the assertion that a lot of assists depend on your teammates, circumstances, etc. Still, while there are a lot of players who are not great playmakers, the cream does tend to rise to the top. The best assists/minutes players in the league right now (besides Sergio) are 
Steve Nash 
Andre Miller
Jason Kidd
Chris Paul
Deron Williams

Of these, 3 are probably future HOFers.

So there probably is some correlation between the Assists/minute stat and excellence.

iWatas


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> I assure you I did NOT cherry pick the numbers. As you can see, I compared a LOT of the best point guards in modern NBA history. Some improved their shooting, some did not. None of them, save for Magic, vastly improved their assist totals from the second year as compared to their career average. And for most of them, this was true even for their rookie seasons
> 
> I agree with the assertion that a lot of assists depend on your teammates, circumstances, etc. Still, while there are a lot of players who are not great playmakers, the cream does tend to rise to the top. The best assists/minutes players in the league right now (besides Sergio) are
> Steve Nash
> ...


Well, I don't know how you selected which data points to use. I guess it's just the scientist in me that is a stickler for proper data collection methods.

You started with a hypothesis that shooting, as measured by 3pt FG% was more likely to increase over given years than assists/min. 

In the first post, instead of taking a sampling of PGs and comparing their increases in each of those two stats, you instead chose to pick one set of PGs to examine the 3pt % increase, and another set to look at the change in their assists/min rate. That right there is non-random sampling, but you also tried to show a trend by comparing the rookie and second year assist/min numbers, but you only did it for certain players. I don't know if you did that to exclude data that argues against your point, but I guess since 3 out of the 8 pgs you mentioned actually did show large increases after their first year, it seems you probably didn't.

You followed it up by posting assist data for other numbers, again inexplicably with some including first or second year data, some not.

If you really wanted to provide evidence to support the hypothesis that assist/min is a less variable number than 3pt FG% for NBA pg's, measuring variance as the change between rookie and career numbers, then you would just simply pick a set of point guards and look at all those numbers for each of them. The set would depend on what population you intend to make a conclusion about. It could be the population of all point guards, in which case you would take a random sampling of all PGs. It could be all really good point guards, in which case you could take a list like the Hall of Fame or NBA top 50 players list and just use every player from that list. Or you could just take every point guard playing now who has been active more than a certain number of years.

I don't know that you were cherry picking the data. I just reflexively conclude that when someone collects a sample that inexplicably excludes relevant data points. It doesn't appear to be the case here, but usually when that happens it's because someone is trying to manipulate the data to conclude what they want it to.

Now if you want to talk about a different hypothesis, that assist/min is a measure of "excellence", that is more subjective. I think you're being presumptuous putting Chris Paul in the HOF, but I think it's natural that great point guards will end up dishing out a lot of assists. I'm not sure if I'd conclude causality there though. Does the ability to make assists make the player excellent, or does the fact that they are excellent (relative to their teammates) mean they have the ball in their hands more often, which gives them more opportunities to get assists. I think it's a little of both. Steve Nash is an example of the former (who by the way is destroying his rookie and career A/min averages this year), TJ Ford (6th on the qualified A/min list right now) and Baron Davis (8th) are examples of the latter, IMO.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Well, I don't know how you selected which data points to use. I guess it's just the scientist in me that is a stickler for proper data collection methods.


Thank you for the thoughtful response!




> You started with a hypothesis that shooting, as measured by 3pt FG% was more likely to increase over given years than assists/min.
> 
> 
> In the first post, instead of taking a sampling of PGs and comparing their increases in each of those two stats, you instead chose to pick one set of PGs to examine the 3pt % increase, and another set to look at the change in their assists/min rate.


Actually, I was not just doing point guards. Those numbers included various players. I was not looking for a random sampling. I was looking for players who gained a reputation for excellent shooting (like a Mark Price), but who did not shoot well early in their careers. 

The reason I did not do averages of all players is because I did NOT assert that shooting improves over time, but assists do not. I was making the slightly subtler point that shooting *can* improve over time, and dramatically -- because many players have done it. But assists in year 2 are almost never dramatically topped by the career assists average.



> That right there is non-random sampling, but you also tried to show a trend by comparing the rookie and second year assist/min numbers, but you only did it for certain players. I don't know if you did that to exclude data that argues against your point, but I guess since 3 out of the 8 pgs you mentioned actually did show large increases after their first year, it seems you probably didn't.


Please read a little more carefully. My assertion was that by Year 2 (and in many cases rookie year), the player's assists/minute were not going to dramatically improve during their career. It was an analysis of whether Telfair's rookie season was going to be indicative of poor playmaking. My conclusion was that if he did not post impressive numbers in Year 2, then he would almost certainly never vastly improve his playmaking. 






> If you really wanted to provide evidence to support the hypothesis that assist/min is a less variable number than 3pt FG% for NBA pg's, measuring variance as the change between rookie and career numbers, then you would just simply pick a set of point guards and look at all those numbers for each of them. The set would depend on what population you intend to make a conclusion about. It could be the population of all point guards, in which case you would take a random sampling of all PGs. It could be all really good point guards, in which case you could take a list like the Hall of Fame or NBA top 50 players list and just use every player from that list. Or you could just take every point guard playing now who has been active more than a certain number of years.


Yes, I could do that. I don't have the time, though. I think the ones I used included all the great PGs I could name off the top of my head, and the case looks extremely strong to me. But I'll accept that without more work it is not 100% definitive.

iWatas


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> I don't agree with the idea that the quality of a player's teammates leads to more assists. For example, if we team Sergio up with Brandon Roy, instead of whoever we are throwing out at SG now, his assist numbers will probably go down, since Roy will be doing more of the ball handling. Right now Sergio's assist numbers are benefitting from the fact that none of the guys he is playing (everyone on the team but Zach and Roy) is any good at scoring in isolation.


 Huh? Could you restate that so that it makes sense please?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> Huh? Could you restate that so that it makes sense please?


Sure. I'm saying that the number of assists a point guard gets will not always be proportional to the quality of his teammates. The reason is that better teammates will usually demand more touches where they initiate the offense. This is especially true of Brandon Roy. You think Sergio's assists would be higher playing next to Roy? I think they will be much lower, because Roy will be doing more of the ball handling, reducing Sergio's chances to get assists. If Sergio spends a lot of time playing with Zach, which until now he hasn't, then the same effect will take place. Sergio will get fewer assists per minute because in more of the possessions the offense will be initiated through the post. I hope that's clear enough to make sense for you.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Sure. I'm saying that the number of assists a point guard gets will not always be proportional to the quality of his teammates. The reason is that better teammates will usually demand more touches where they initiate the offense. This is especially true of Brandon Roy. You think Sergio's assists would be higher playing next to Roy? I think they will be much lower, because Roy will be doing more of the ball handling, reducing Sergio's chances to get assists. If Sergio spends a lot of time playing with Zach, which until now he hasn't, then the same effect will take place. Sergio will get fewer assists per minute because in more of the possessions the offense will be initiated through the post. I hope that's clear enough to make sense for you.


 Duds, you've got a few shorts in your logic circuits. Simply put, to get an assist you have to pass the basketball to someone who makes the shot. Better players make the shot, poorer ones don't. While that seems obvious to most of us, you seemed to have overooked that little bit of info in that pearl of hogwash you just laid on us.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> Duds, you've got a few shorts in your logic circuits. Simply put, to get an assist you have to pass the basketball to someone who makes the shot. Better players make the shot, poorer ones don't. While that seems obvious to most of us, you seemed to have overooked that little bit of info in that pearl of hogwash you just laid on us.


Yes, the recipient of the pass needs to make the shot for an assist to be scored. What I'm telling you is that a player needs to have the ball in his hands to have the opportunity to make the pass that leads to the assist. There is only one ball, and that provides finite opportunities for players on a team to initiate the offense and make passes that lead to assists.

A guy like Roy is very good at initiating the offense himself, without any assistance from or assists for the PG. A guy like Zach works mostly in isolation in the post, creating his own offense and creating no assists for the PG. Every possession where those guys are controlling the ball is one fewer possession for the point guard to have a chance at making an assist. In the units Sergio has been playing with, there aren't any other guys who do much ball handling or initiating. Webster and Ime mostly stand around waiting for a pass. Mags sets the pick for Sergio to pick and roll. Sergio almost always has the ball in his hands up until the point where he passes off for someone to immediately shoot, which maximizes his assist opportunities. If Sergio plays with Roy and/or Zach, that will not be the case because on many possessions he will just end up giving the ball up to them to let them create. Roy and Zach I think can be considered better players than any other PF or SG we have, but playing with one or both of them will lead to fewer assists per minute for Sergio.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Both are true. You can't really say that good players = fewer or more assists. depends on the type of players. although i think Nash will have lots of assists even if he played with lots of ball handlers.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Yes, the recipient of the pass needs to make the shot for an assist to be scored. What I'm telling you is that a player needs to have the ball in his hands to have the opportunity to make the pass that leads to the assist. There is only one ball, and that provides finite opportunities for players on a team to initiate the offense and make passes that lead to assists.
> 
> A guy like Roy is very good at initiating the offense himself, without any assistance from or assists for the PG. A guy like Zach works mostly in isolation in the post, creating his own offense and creating no assists for the PG. Every possession where those guys are controlling the ball is one fewer possession for the point guard to have a chance at making an assist. In the units Sergio has been playing with, there aren't any other guys who do much ball handling or initiating. Webster and Ime mostly stand around waiting for a pass. Mags sets the pick for Sergio to pick and roll. Sergio almost always has the ball in his hands up until the point where he passes off for someone to immediately shoot, which maximizes his assist opportunities. If Sergio plays with Roy and/or Zach, that will not be the case because on many possessions he will just end up giving the ball up to them to let them create. Roy and Zach I think can be considered better players than any other PF or SG we have, but playing with one or both of them will lead to fewer assists per minute for Sergio.


 Duds, you're sounding like an O.J. lawyer. Great at agueing, but just plain wrong.
Better passing plus better scorers equal more assists. Plain & simple and indisputable, unless you're an OJ lawyer. Then you can argue that up is down and green is blue.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Mateo said:


> Both are true. You can't really say that good players = fewer or more assists. depends on the type of players. although i think Nash will have lots of assists even if he played with lots of ball handlers.


He would have lots on any team, but Steve Nash is a great example of what I'm talking about. Look at how his assists jumped when he went from Dallas to PHX. He went from averaging 8.8 to 11.5 apg, despite averaging only 1 more minute and taking two more FGA per game himself (which of course don't result in an assist for him). A part of that is the result of PHX just playing a faster pace, but that's only a small part. I don't think one could really argue that Nash's teammates in PHX are that much better than the ones in Dallas, since both are top level teams. The main difference I think is that in the PHX offense Nash has the ball in his hand almost all the time, whereas in Dallas he was passing off to guys like Nowitzki, Howard, Jamison, Finley, who could create for themselves rather than just trying to get open for a pass from Nash. The guys in PHX, Stoudemire, Bell, Marion, those guys are far better at getting open for a pass than creating offense for themselves. Diaw and Barbosa can create offense for themselves and others, but when Nash is on the floor the offense still mostly defers to him.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> Duds, you're sounding like an O.J. lawyer. Great at agueing, but just plain wrong.
> Better passing plus better scorers equal more assists. Plain & simple and indisputable, unless you're an OJ lawyer. Then you can argue that up is down and green is blue.


Ok, you remain unconvinced. Let's just watch and see what happens. Right now I think Nate has made sure that Sergio and Zach mostly aren't on the floor together because he knows they negate each others' ability to create offense, but with how well Sergio has been playing I think that we will see him get more minutes and thus their minutes will be overlapping more. Also, Roy is bound to come back eventually and also share minutes with Sergio.

If I'm right, then we will see Sergio's per minute assist rate decline when he starts sharing minutes with those other guys. I think the decline will be dramatic. You seem to think it's not true. As the year progresses, I think we'll get the chance to find out empirically which one is correct. Right now Sergio is making 4.5 apg in 13:48 mpg.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

graybeard said:


> Duds, you're sounding like an O.J. lawyer. Great at agueing, but just plain wrong.
> Better passing plus better scorers equal more assists. Plain & simple and indisputable, unless you're an OJ lawyer. Then you can argue that up is down and green is blue.



I see your point, but you have to keep in mind that "better quality player" doesn't always mean a complimentary skill set. I don't recall any PG on the Jordan Bulls who had impressive assist numbers, simply because Jordan and Pippen dominated the ball.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> Duds, you're sounding like an O.J. lawyer. Great at agueing, but just plain wrong.
> Better passing plus better scorers equal more assists. Plain & simple and indisputable, unless you're an OJ lawyer. Then you can argue that up is down and green is blue.


You should be the lawyer, spewing nonsense to confuse the issue. You are confusing scorers with shooters.

Roy and Zach are better players. True.
Roy and Zach are better scorers. True.
Roy and Zach are better shooters. Not true.

Look it up. At least so far this season, Roy and Zach's shooting percentage is not better than Ime and Outlaw (for Roy) or Aldridge (for Zach). Even if Sergio plays with Roy and Zach instead of Ime, Outlaw and Aldridge, AND dominates the ball to maximize his assist opportunities as he does now, why do you think the assists are guaranteed to go up?


----------

