# Nate's comments on Telfair (insightful)



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

From Olive:



> Before he left town three days ago, I asked Nate McMillan how much he had seen Rodriguez. He said he had only seen Rodriguez on tape. I said that in every highlight I had seen, Rodriguez is making a fancy behind-the-back or no-look pass.
> 
> "He's got a little sugar in his game," McMillan said.
> 
> ...


Hmm. Nate saw Telfair as a scoring point guard, and not a setup guy. I wonder how much that had to do with his departure. I would guess quite a bit.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Reep said:


> From Olive:
> 
> Hmm. Nate saw Telfair as a scoring point guard, and not a setup guy. I wonder how much that had to do with his departure. I would guess quite a bit.


Actually, I don't think Nate - or the Blazers for that matter - really wanted to get rid of Sebastian Telfair. What they saw was an opportunity to nab Brandon Roy - whom they believe will turn out to be a better player long-term - for Telfair. Also, they saw the development and steady play of Jarred Jack making Telfair expendable. But to hear the Blazers' brass tell it, it was very, very hard to part with Telfair.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> Actually, I don't think Nate - or the Blazers for that matter - really wanted to get rid of Sebastian Telfair. What they saw was an opportunity to nab Brandon Roy - whom they believe will turn out to be a better player long-term - for Telfair. Also, they saw the development and steady play of Jarred Jack making Telfair expendable. But to hear the Blazers' brass tell it, it was very, very hard to part with Telfair.


Probably true, but it does appear that Nate is more interested in a pass first point guard, and despite what some of us here thought, didn't see Telfair as one.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Hmmm. Telfair's claim to fame in high school was his incredible passing. Exactly when did he become a shoot-first point guard?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Hmmm. Telfair's claim to fame in high school was his incredible passing. Exactly when did he become a shoot-first point guard?


He averaged 33 pts per game in high school along with 9 assists. That's a great stat in the assist category, but it's not like Shawn Livingston, who averaged something like 18 and 10. 

Telfair IS a shoot first point guard.


----------



## tlongathome (Jul 5, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Hmmm. Telfair's claim to fame in high school was his incredible passing. Exactly when did he become a shoot-first point guard?


He has always been a shoot-first point guard. People just saw a few highlight passes that he made a assumed he was a pass-first point, albeit incorrectly.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Hmmm. Telfair's claim to fame in high school was his incredible passing. Exactly when did he become a shoot-first point guard?



Yah didnt you watch the documentary? He carried the team on his shoulders.....


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Public Defender said:


> Actually, I don't think Nate - or the Blazers for that matter - really wanted to get rid of Sebastian Telfair. What they saw was an opportunity to nab Brandon Roy - whom they believe will turn out to be a better player long-term - for Telfair. Also, they saw the development and steady play of Jarred Jack making Telfair expendable. But to hear the Blazers' brass tell it, it was very, very hard to part with Telfair.


Agreed, if the Celtics would have wanted JJack instead of Telfair for the pick, JJ would
be a Celtic now. Same goes for any other PG we had. We were overloaded at the position,
Telfair was traded because we could get the most for him, IMHO.

That said, I was, and am, a big fan of the trade.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

How do you know we would have traded Jack if the Celtics wanted him? That's the first I've heard that.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Sergio is going to be a better assist man in the NBA than Bassy. Dude averaged something like 5 assists a game playing euro-ball, where assists are much harder to rack up.


----------



## marcola-native (May 15, 2006)

Does anyone still wish we hadn't made the trade that got us Roy? I know you can't judge too much over summer league play but boy he sure looks good!!


----------



## BigDtoPDX (Jun 30, 2005)

a scoring PG who doesnt score? Next...


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

TP3 said:


> How do you know we would have traded Jack if the Celtics wanted him? That's the first I've heard that.


I was offering my opinion on what they'd do. :biggrin:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Fork said:


> He averaged 33 pts per game in high school along with 9 assists. That's a great stat in the assist category, but it's not like Shawn Livingston, who averaged something like 18 and 10.
> 
> Telfair IS a shoot first point guard.


1 more assist makes him a passing point guard? Man..who would have known..


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Speaking Telfair.... I went down to the local Goodwill to check out the record section (yes, I am a record collector) and I happened to notice a nice brand new Telfair Jersey for sale. I walked over to check it out and it was definately brand new. You could tell that it hadn't been washed either at all, or very little. It is the away black from this past season with PORTLAND on the front instead of BLAZERS....so I could tell it was from this year. Then I glanced at the price-tag and noticed it was only 49 cents. 49 cents? Yep. So it is now mine....hehe
But, it made me wonder if someone had given it to Goodwill because he got traded because it wasn't there even a week ago. I guess it is their loss and my 49cents worth of a perfectly fitting part of TrailBlazer history.

Prunetang


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

handclap problematic said:


> Speaking Telfair.... I went down to the local Goodwill to check out the record section (yes, I am a record collector) and I happened to notice a nice brand new Telfair Jersey for sale. I walked over to check it out and it was definately brand new. You could tell that it hadn't been washed either at all, or very little. It is the away black from this past season with PORTLAND on the front instead of BLAZERS....so I could tell it was from this year. Then I glanced at the price-tag and noticed it was only 49 cents. 49 cents? Yep. So it is now mine....hehe
> But, it made me wonder if someone had given it to Goodwill because he got traded because it wasn't there even a week ago. I guess it is their loss and my 49cents worth of a perfectly fitting part of TrailBlazer history.
> 
> Prunetang


Nice. I guess that means the market value for my Randolph jersey will only be about 49 cents when he gets traded?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> 1 more assist makes him a passing point guard? Man..who would have known..


Look at the ratio. If those numbers are accurate, Bassy scored 3.5 points for each assist, while Livingston scored 1.8 for each assist... if you can't see that one is more of a scoring PG while one is more of a passing PG from those numbers, then you're blind.

Ed O.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

handclap problematic said:


> Speaking Telfair.... I went down to the local Goodwill to check out the record section (yes, I am a record collector) and I happened to notice a nice brand new Telfair Jersey for sale. I walked over to check it out and it was definately brand new. You could tell that it hadn't been washed either at all, or very little. It is the away black from this past season with PORTLAND on the front instead of BLAZERS....so I could tell it was from this year. Then I glanced at the price-tag and noticed it was only 49 cents. 49 cents? Yep. So it is now mine....hehe
> But, it made me wonder if someone had given it to Goodwill because he got traded because it wasn't there even a week ago. I guess it is their loss and my 49cents worth of a perfectly fitting part of TrailBlazer history.
> 
> Prunetang


i would have bought it too...

however...


its a rule. you cant wear a jersey of a recently traded player. if they are retired, its fair game. this is mandatory in staying fly. :biggrin: 

i used to be a jersey head, so i got a drawer full of old jerseys that will never be worn again. shareef, walker, ect ect ect.

just curious...is it an authentic, swingman, or replica? if its a replica, you may as well throw it away. i dont know how people wear that bulls**t. if its authentic though, id break the rules and DEFINATELY rock that.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> i would have bought it too...
> 
> however...
> 
> ...



It acutally is authentic. I thought it was a pretty good deal for 49 cents. I didn't know there were so many rules to the art of the jersey...hehe
And I am not too worried about being fly.....not my game. This may be a sin, but I am wearing it right now with black slacks and doc martens. Wearing jerseys isn't really my style, but I buy them when I see them at Goodwill. I like wearing them on hot days when I am not doing anything important.. So far my goodwill collection consists of, My recent Telfair jersey, a Bulls Jordan Jersey from the 90's and an original Shawn Kemp (glory days) from 96 or so in Seattle. 

Prunetang


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

handclap problematic said:


> It acutally is authentic. I thought it was a pretty good deal for 49 cents. I didn't know there were so many rules to the art of the jersey...hehe
> And I am not too worried about being fly.....not my game. This may be a sin, but I am wearing it right now with black slacks and doc martens. Wearing jerseys isn't really my style, but I buy them when I see them at Goodwill. I like wearing them on hot days when I am not doing anything important.. So far my goodwill collection consists of, My recent Telfair jersey, a Bulls Jordan Jersey from the 90's and an original Shawn Kemp (glory days) from 96 or so in Seattle.


I wish I could get that lucky thrifting.

Of course I'd wind up framing a jersey and hanging it on my wall.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

I agree about not wearing recently traded players jerseys unless it makes a statment.
I don't were jersey's, but I would still rock a Dirty 30 Wallace jersey if I had it.

I saw some guy wearing a Sabonis one the other day and was a little jealous, I must admit.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Look at the ratio. If those numbers are accurate, Bassy scored 3.5 points for each assist, while Livingston scored 1.8 for each assist... if you can't see that one is more of a scoring PG while one is more of a passing PG from those numbers, then you're blind.


That seems a bit screwy to me. Why is a lower ratio better when it's comprised of clearly inferior numbers? If Telfair scored 15 less a game and thus had the same ratio, how exactly would that be an improvement in the "pass first" department?

Dan


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> 1 more assist makes him a passing point guard? Man..who would have known..


You just have to watch the way they play to figure it out. Iverson averages more assists than Luke Ridnour, but who's the pure PG? I don't know about Livingston, but Telfair could score at will. Guess if you can take anyone to the hoop, you're better off doing that than passing to another teammate.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Statistics don't tell the whole story. A PG who dominates the ball and passes only when his scoring opportunities run dry will get a lot of assists because he dominates the ball. If you watch an NBA game with Telfair and Livingston playing, I don't think there would be any question as to who is pass first. Living down here in Clipperland, I have seen both and there is no comparison. Shaun needs to work on his scoring to be a starting PG in the league, but the way he runs a team is amazing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> That seems a bit screwy to me. Why is a lower ratio better when it's comprised of clearly inferior numbers? If Telfair scored 15 less a game and thus had the same ratio, how exactly would that be an improvement in the "pass first" department?


Because he wouldn't be shooting as much, unless he scored less merely because of poor FG%, which is certainly not the case with Livingston. It's not that complicated.

A PG that scores less leaves (and almost certainly creates) more opportunities for his teammates. Especially when we're talking about McDonald's AA-type players like Shaun and Sebastian, those guys are going to have the ball in their hands a LOT. And they can pass the ball or they can shoot the ball.

"Pass first" or "shoot first" isn't a value judgment. It's the way that a point guard approaches the game.

Telfair scored a LOT in high school. He wasn't a pass-first PG.

Telfair scored much less in the NBA, but was Nate (and many of us here) has said: he wasn't a pass-first PG.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

The reference was to high school numbers, not NBA productivity, so what Nate is commenting on is irrelevant to the discussion.



> Telfair scored a LOT in high school. He wasn't a pass-first PG.


Yet he averaged just as many assists as a presumed pass-first PG, despite your own admission that both had the ball in their hands a lot. Going strictly by the numbers, which was the original assumption, there are a lot of equally plausible explanations:

- Telfair passed just as often and just as well as Livingston.
- Telfair was a much better scorer with equal touches.
- Livingston passed more as a first option, but made passes that often didn't lead to assists (like our complaints with Bassy's NBA stats).
- Telfair had better teammates. Better finishers = more assists.

And probably a lot more if I wanted to continue brainstorming while my breakfast gets cold...

Dan


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> Agreed, if the Celtics would have wanted JJack instead of Telfair for the pick, JJ would
> be a Celtic now. Same goes for any other PG we had. We were overloaded at the position,
> Telfair was traded because we could get the most for him, IMHO.
> 
> That said, I was, and am, a big fan of the trade.


I think the same goes for any player on the team except Martell. We would have given up almost anything to ensure that we got Roy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> The reference was to high school numbers, not NBA productivity, so what Nate is commenting on is irrelevant to the discussion.


So you're saying that he changed from a pass-first PG (who happened to score 33 points a game) to a shoot-first PG once he got into the NBA?

I find that highly unlikely.



> Yet he averaged just as many assists as a presumed pass-first PG, despite your own admission that both had the ball in their hands a lot. Going strictly by the numbers, which was the original assumption, there are a lot of equally plausible explanations:
> 
> - Telfair passed just as often and just as well as Livingston.
> - Telfair was a much better scorer with equal touches.
> ...


Those are all irrelevant of the numbers. You're making stuff up to explain away the clear statistical evidence that Telfair shot a LOT more than Livingston.

Your argument is like saying that a 5'0", 230 pound man can't be fat compared to a 6'0", 225 pound man because they weigh almost the same. It's silly, and you're straining reality bending over backwards to try to disprove the obvious ("Maybe the taller guy is standing on the moon!")

I would love to see any example in HISTORY of a player having almost a 4:1 point to assist ratio and being considered "pass first".

Ed O.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Public Defender said:


> Actually, I don't think Nate - or the Blazers for that matter - really wanted to get rid of Sebastian Telfair. What they saw was an opportunity to nab Brandon Roy - whom they believe will turn out to be a better player long-term - for Telfair. Also, they saw the development and steady play of Jarred Jack making Telfair expendable. But to hear the Blazers' brass tell it, it was very, very hard to part with Telfair.


Yeah, this about sums up the way I think it went.



marcolo-native said:


> Does anyone still wish we hadn't made the trade that got us Roy? I know you can't judge too much over summer league play but boy he sure looks good!!


Yes, but I hope I'm wrong since the trade can't be taken back.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

In my opinion, the Blazers would have traded any of our point guards, whichever one Boston wanted, to get Brandon Roy. I not only think the Blazers valued Roy over any of our PGs, but none of our PGs were so much better than the others that losing a particular guy would have mucked up our offense or our team chemistry or balance. 

At the same time, I do think Telfair is a little more in the $amon, Tiny Archibald mold in that a significant portion of his assists are the result of putting offensive pressure on the defense, setting up the pass. Further, I believe that on balance Nate would rather have a "pass-first" point guard to run his half-court offense; and that he'd rather have a stronger defender at the point; and that Nate would tend to favor Jacks game over Bassy's. 

I watched a lot of Sergio clips at youtube and I tend to agree that, although he's more flashy than I believe Nate will want him to be, he was really focusing on setting guys up, and his shots and drives were the result of opportunity more than his primary objective.

Just my 2 pesos.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Look at the ratio. If those numbers are accurate, Bassy scored 3.5 points for each assist, while Livingston scored 1.8 for each assist... if you can't see that one is more of a scoring PG while one is more of a passing PG from those numbers, then you're blind.
> 
> Ed O.


The numbers don't lie. Telfair typically would focus on breaking the defender down off the dribble and would fail to see open teammates.

I think Jack sees the floor much better than Telfair does and is more of a "pass first" PG. Of course, Jack can score when necessary and is a better defender as well.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Having similar assist numbers doesn't necessarily mean that you passed the ball more - it just means they had a similar amount of passes result directly into buckets.

Take those away and for the HS stats, Shaun took roughly half the shots that Sebastian did, so that means that he passed the ball that many more times than Telfair. 

And not every pass from a PG needs to lead to an assist - sometimes it's good just to get the ball moving around to create openings, which is something PGs like Damon (read shoot-first PGs) don't do that much of...


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> And not every pass from a PG needs to lead to an assist - sometimes it's good just to get the ball moving around to create openings, which is something PGs like Damon (read shoot-first PGs) don't do that much of...


 :clap:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Telfair scored a LOT in high school. He wasn't a pass-first PG.


He's the all-time leading scorer in the history of New York state high school basketball - and that fact was what concerned me most when the Blazers selected him. Based on his HS stats, he definitely looked to score first and pass second. His sophomore year he averaged 29.1 ppg and only 5.0 apg - that's nearly 6 points fpr every assist. His assist numbers improved his junior (28.7 ppg, 8.6 apg) and senior years (33.2 ppg, 9.4 apg), but it's still clear he considered himself the number one option on offense. Given his size, it was inevitable he'd have a much harder time scoring in the NBA than in HS. So, the question then becomes will he continue to dominate the ball and try to force his own scoring, or will he become more of a traditional point guard and look to set-up his teammates? In other words, will he be effective running an NBA offense, or is his game and his style more suited to a less structured type of game. He's very adept at making the occasional highlight reel spectacular pass, but he's far less adept at running a halfcourt offense.

He's still very young and I think Sebastian will eventually become an above average NBA point guard, but I don't think he'll ever be a great one. It will be hard for him to overcome his natural tendancy to try to score first and pass second. If he was bigger and had a physical advantage, he could be very effective in this role, but as he's undersized he needs to look to exploit mismatches and scoring opportunities for his teammates first and look to score only when he has a clear advantage. In this respect, he's almost the exact opposite of Magic Johnson. Magic was huge for a point guard and ALWAYS had a physical advantage and could score at will by posting up smaller point guards, but he excelled at setting up his teammates FIRST and looking to score only when needed and when it benefited the team the most. It's unfair to compare anyone to Magic, especially someone 10" shorter, but the comparison does illustrate the difference between a shoot-first and a pass-first point guard.

BNM


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

If his teammates are a slow, plodding bunch who lag behind him coming down the floor and then stand still when they eventually catch up to him, can't catch a bullet-pass, won't set hard picks to get their teammates free, and refuse to share the ball when they are double-teamed, I think it's pretty stupid to blame ANY of the PG's for the team's lack of success. All 3 of our PG's played fine IMO.

Only Viktor and Joel were worthy of being on the court with them last year.

The rest of the team, including a couple players I really like, never stepped up at all.

It falls on Nate to get results from the rest of this motley crew.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

BBert said:


> I watched a lot of Sergio clips at youtube and I tend to agree that, although he's more flashy than I believe Nate will want him to be, he was really focusing on setting guys up, and his shots and drives were the result of opportunity more than his primary objective.


The thing that impressed me most about the Sergio clips I've seen is that the kid actually knows how to throw a bounce pass and isn't afraid to use it. It seems like the bounce pass is the most underutilized weapon in the NBA today. I guess it's just not flashy enough be followed by a lot of strutting around and chest thumping to get shown over and over on Sports Center. So, none of the kids are interested in using the good old bounce pass. A good bounce pass is both easier to catch and harder to defend than the currently fashionable one-handed bullet pass (which usually ends up in the 10th row - either directly or after ricocheting off the forehead of a stunned seven footer), yet nobody seems to use it these days. In the Sergio videos I've seen, the good old bounce pass is definitely a major part of his arsenal. I look forward to seeing him use it in the NBA. Who knows, maybe he can help restore the bounce pass to it's proper prominence in the game of NBA basketball.

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Telfair needs a big guard who defends, hits at a decent clip from outside, and passes well to be effective. the only decent SG he played with in Portland was Dixon, who is just the opposite of those things. 

ironically, I think the perfect compliment to a guy like Telfair would be Roy.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Interesting article by former coach Charley Rosen which bears on
this conversation.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/5773176

Some Quotes from the article:


> Moreover, history proves that teams led by shoot-first point guards are more pretenders than contenders. No NBA team has ever won a championship when its No. 1 has led the league in scoring. And only three teams have won titles when their point guard was also their leading scorer — Isiah Thomas with Detroit in 1990, Magic Johnson with the Lakers in 1987, and Walt Frazier with New York in 1973.





> For all these reasons, the point position is the most complex, and is therefore the most difficult for young players to master. That's why a young, versatile, intelligent, talented, unselfish No. 1 (the likes of Chris Paul, Kirk Hinrich, and Tony Parker) is so valuable.
> 
> If there's one ultimate yardstick to measure the worth of a point guard it's this: Do his teammates perform at a higher level when he's in the game or on the bench?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> If his teammates are a slow, plodding bunch who lag behind him coming down the floor and then stand still when they eventually catch up to him, can't catch a bullet-pass, won't set hard picks to get their teammates free, and refuse to share the ball when they are double-teamed, I think it's pretty stupid to blame ANY of the PG's for the team's lack of success. All 3 of our PG's played fine IMO.
> 
> Only Viktor and Joel were worthy of being on the court with them last year.
> 
> ...


Some played better than others. I for one, felt the team played better with Jack in the lineup than with Telfair.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> Moreover, history proves that teams led by shoot-first point guards are more pretenders than contenders. No NBA team has ever won a championship when its No. 1 has led the league in scoring. And only three teams have won titles when their point guard was also their leading scorer — Isiah Thomas with Detroit in 1990, Magic Johnson with the Lakers in 1987, and Walt Frazier with New York in 1973.


As usual, Rosen shoots himself in the foot by opening his mouth.

His comment that "No NBA team has ever won a championship when its No. 1 has *led the league in scoring*" is so restrictive it doesn't even deserve comment.

As far as Isiah, Magic and Walt's teams, few fans would be unhappy with that kind of success. In fairness, Jordan's Bulls should be included in that list as he was the guy with the ball in his hands most of the time with Paxson playing the role of SG. Dwayne Wade would also fall into this category since he led the Heat in assists, scoring and time with the ball in his hands.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mook said:


> Telfair needs a big guard who defends, hits at a decent clip from outside, and passes well to be effective. the only decent SG he played with in Portland was Dixon, who is just the opposite of those things.
> 
> ironically, I think the perfect compliment to a guy like Telfair would be Roy.


Isn't Paul Pierce those things?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> As usual, Rosen shoots himself in the foot by opening his mouth.
> 
> His comment that "No NBA team has ever won a championship when its No. 1 has *led the league in scoring*" is so restrictive it doesn't even deserve comment.
> 
> As far as Isiah, Magic and Walt's teams, few fans would be unhappy with that kind of success. In fairness, Jordan's Bulls should be included in that list as he was the guy with the ball in his hands most of the time with Paxson playing the role of SG. Dwayne Wade would also fall into this category since he led the Heat in assists, scoring and time with the ball in his hands.


I guess to further that comment, and to make it useful, you could say that in order to win it all in the NBA you have a greater chance if you have outstanding talent on the perimeter.

Leave it at that. There are lots of ways to get there.

Could be a SuperStar Point. - Magic (I don't think Isiah qualifies. Always thought he was overrated and Dumars underrated. They were both essential to that team)

Could be a SuperStar Wing. - Wade, Kobe, Jordan, Bird, Dr. J

Could be a couple of stars sharing the load - Parker & Ginobili, Billups & Rip, Drexler & Cassell & Smith, Isiah & Dumars

Recent champions that don't fit the profile:

1999 San Antonio Spurs got very little from their perimeter other than defense and getting out of the way of the amazing twin tower attack of Duncan (MVP) and the Admiral, who had an outstanding season despite being at the end of his career.

1994 Houston Rockets was a very balanced team attack revolving around the amazing MVP AND DPOY Hakeem.

There are enough exceptions to the rule of needing outstanding perimeter talent though to indicate there are other options. Namely get an MVP (or 2!) big and surround with complimentary parts.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Isn't Paul Pierce those things?


true enough. I was thinking it was ironic in the sense that if we'd been able to land Roy one year earlier, Telfair might've had a completely different season last year. 

I think he's going to be a nice fit with Pierce. I'm just not sure that their offense is uptempo enough for Telfair's taste.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Could be a SuperStar Point. - Magic


And even in the year (1987) that Magic lead his team in scoring during the regular season AND they won the NBA championship, he was not the Lakers leading scorer during the play-offs (that honor goes to James Worthy). Listing Magic as one of the few exceptions to a team winning an NBA title with a point guard as their leading scorer seems misleading to me. It implies that Magic was a shoot first point guard, when in fact he was the exact opposite. Even when he scored a career high 23.9 ppg during that 1987 season he was still dishing out 12.2 apg and had a points/assists ratio less than 2.

Magic could score when his team needed him to, and he also usually lead his team in minutes played, but only once (1987) did he lead his team in field goal attempts. He was an efficient scorer (52.0% career FG%) and he never lead his team in field goal attempts during the play-offs. He always looked to set up his teammates for easy scoring opportunites as evidence by the fact that during the 10 year prime of his career he never had a points/assists ratio higher than 2 (career pt/a = 1.75). He was even more of a pass first PG during the play-offs (career playoff pt/a = 1.58).

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> And even in the year (1987) that Magic lead his team in scoring during the regular season AND they won the NBA championship, he was not the Lakers leading scorer during the play-offs (that honor goes to James Worthy). Listing Magic as one of the few exceptions to a team winning an NBA title with a point guard as their leading scorer seems misleading to me. It implies that Magic was a shoot first point guard, when in fact he was the exact opposite. Even when he scored a career high 23.9 ppg during that 1987 season he was still dishing out 12.2 apg and had a points/assists ratio less than 2.
> 
> Magic could score when his team needed him to, and he also usually lead his team in minutes played, but only once (1987) did he lead his team in field goal attempts. He was an efficient scorer (52.0% career FG%) and he never lead his team in field goal attempts during the play-offs. He always looked to set up his teammates for easy scoring opportunites as evidence by the fact that during the 10 year prime of his career he never had a points/assists ratio higher than 2 (career pt/a = 1.75). He was even more of a pass first PG during the play-offs (career playoff pt/a = 1.58).
> 
> BNM


I don't understand all this. I never said anything about "leading scorer" anywhere in my post.

I have Magic listed as "SuperStar Point."

Is Magic a SuperStar or not?

Is Magic a Point Guard or not?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> I don't understand all this. I never said anything about "leading scorer" anywhere in my post.
> 
> I have Magic listed as "SuperStar Point."
> 
> ...


Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the Rosen quote that you partially referenced that only three times in NBA history has a team whose PG lead them in scoring won the NBA title.

My whole point is that even when Magic was leading his team in scoring (during the regular season) he was STILL a pass first PG.

Yes, I agree, Magic Johnson was a superstar PG. More specifically (and more importantly, IMHO), he was a pass first superstar PG.

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I think rigidly defining who must do what makes little sense. The best teams win titles, and the best teams are teams that have the best combination of scoring, rebounding, passing and defense.

It doesn't matter where those things come from. If you have a scoring point guard and a center who passes incredibly well and the result is a high-powered, ball-motion offense, that's great.

Trying to rigidly define positional duties is inflexible and limits success. The Bulls didn't force Paxson or Harper to be the quarterback and force Jordan and Pippen to play on the wings off the ball. That would have been extremely silly and a waste of ability. The Bulls simply didn't employ a traditional point guard and let Jordan (shoot-first if ever there was one) and Pippen (more of a passer, but still more shoot-first that a "traditional" point guard) handle the bulk of the ball-handling and decision-making. Because they were supremely good at it.

There's nothing wrong with a scoring point guard. More teams have won championships with a star scoring point guard than a star "traditional" point guard. Should the Spurs dump their shoot-first point guard Tony Parker? He certainly plays more like Marbury than like Stockton.

You try to assemble a talented, balanced team. You're making a mistake if you're only interested in players who fit some 1970s positional archetypes.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> So you're saying that he changed from a pass-first PG (who happened to score 33 points a game) to a shoot-first PG once he got into the NBA?


No, I never said any such thing. You're twisting the conversation back on itself... Let me remind you what you said which I was replying to:

"Look at the ratio. If those numbers are accurate, Bassy scored 3.5 points for each assist, while Livingston scored 1.8 for each assist... if you can't see that one is more of a scoring PG while one is more of a passing PG from those numbers, then you're blind."

That has nothing to do with the NBA. It's purely a comment on what his HS stats indicate about his passing proclivity.



> Those are all irrelevant of the numbers. You're making stuff up to explain away the clear statistical evidence that Telfair shot a LOT more than Livingston.


See, there you go changing it again. It wasn't about whether he shot more, but whether he was less of a distributor. The numbers alone don't support your original argument. He had virtually the same assist stats as Livingston. Whether or not he scored/shot more is a totally different matter. That's why the ratio is misleading to the context.

Dan


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

I'm not arguing that you need a shoot first point guard to win an NBA title, or that players have to fit some specific mold to be effective. What I am saying is:

a) Telfair is not a pass first point guard.

b) Because of his size Telfair will likely never come close to replicating his HS scoring numbers in the NBA.

c) The combination of a) and b) will limit Telfair's effectiveness in the NBA.

I repeat that I think Telfair has the potential to eventually become an above average NBA point guard, but not a superstar or even an all-star. He is currently neither a very efficient scorer nor a very effective passer. He is young and will improve in both areas. I just don't think he'll improve either enough to ever reach superstar status (whatever that is). It's just my opinion, but I see him becoming an above average starting NBA point guard - nothing more; nothing less.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dkap said:


> No, I never said any such thing. You're twisting the conversation back on itself... Let me remind you what you said which I was replying to:
> 
> "Look at the ratio. If those numbers are accurate, Bassy scored 3.5 points for each assist, while Livingston scored 1.8 for each assist... if you can't see that one is more of a scoring PG while one is more of a passing PG from those numbers, then you're blind."
> 
> That has nothing to do with the NBA. It's purely a comment on what his HS stats indicate about his passing proclivity.


Without the context of the NBA, the discussion about the players' high school careers is entirely worthless, or (at best) entirely off-topic.

Given that we HAVE NBA evidence (even if not much of it) your suppositions of how Telfair managed to score so much more without shooting more clearly are flights of fancy... some odd argument to prove a situation that doesn't currently exist and almost certainly has NEVER existed (i.e., Telfair is not a shoot-first PG).



> See, there you go changing it again. It wasn't about whether he shot more, but whether he was less of a distributor. The numbers alone don't support your original argument. He had virtually the same assist stats as Livingston. Whether or not he scored/shot more is a totally different matter. That's why the ratio is misleading to the context.


Bull.

"Shoot first" or "Pass first" have to do with whether a player is more likely to shoot or to pass... how they seek to help their team win.

Telfair scored a LOT more than Livingston. That he got nearly the same number of assists, too, doesn't diminish the fact that he shot a LOT more.

The ratio of points:assists gives a pretty rough, but accurate in the extremes, of whether a point guard is pass-first or shoot-first.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I'm not arguing that you need a shoot first point guard to win an NBA title, or that players have to fit some specific mold to be effective. What I am saying is:
> 
> a) Telfair is not a pass first point guard.
> 
> ...


I don't see what (A) has to do with (C)'s conclusion. He may not be a "pass-first" point guard, but he's a very talented passer. You don't need to be pass-first in order to be an extremely valuable passer.

As for (B), while I think size will limit him, I'm not convinced that it means he cannot be a premium scorer at the point guard position. He certainly needs a jumpshot, but so has virtually every prep-to-pro player who has entered the league, except Martell Webster. His quickness and incredible ball-handling ability has frequently been shown to allow him to get the hoop consistently. For now, his finishing ability has been lacking, but these are the very overcomeable sorts of obstacles that one would expect from a very, very young player.

If he becomes a good finisher and a reliable jump shooter, he could very easily average 20+ PPG. It's not guaranteed that he will, but he's shown plenty of flashes of greatness and is blocked by only a couple of weaknesses that can be, and by other players have been, fixed.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> As for (B), while I think size will limit him, I'm not convinced that it means he cannot be a premium scorer at the point guard position. He certainly needs a jumpshot, but so has virtually every prep-to-pro player who has entered the league, except Martell Webster. His quickness and incredible ball-handling ability has frequently been shown to allow him to get the hoop consistently. For now, his finishing ability has been lacking, but these are the very overcomeable sorts of obstacles that one would expect from a very, very young player.


Those seem to be two HUGE question marks.

IF he can learn to shoot and IF he can learn to finish, he could be a great scorer. 

Reminds me of an old saying: If I had some peanut butter and jelly I could make a sandwich if I had some bread.

Allen Iverson and Isiah Thomas seem to be the maximized potential of a guy like Telfair. The difference is, both were GREAT finishers from the very beginning. AI, in large part due to a tremendous vertical leap and Thomas, because he had hall of fame talent. AI has never improved on his poor FG% at any point in his time in the league. Isiah Thomas had a bad year shooting his rookie year, and was as good as he'd ever get by his second season. Telfair has had two bad seasons shooting the ball and finishing at the rim. He's a poor man's Allen Iverson and I see no evidence that any amount of time in the league will change that. 

But I give him one more season. If he can't shoot better this season, he never will.

And you mention that other players have fixed these problems. Who? I can't think of too many players who shot as badly as Telfair and improved to the point that they were even average.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I think Telfair was improving his shot and has a good chance at becoming a decent shooter. However, I agree about the finishing aspect. I don't see Telfair adding 6"-12" onto his vertical, which is a big part of his failure at the rim. It also effects his ability to get his jump shot off in traffic (see avatar). His quickness was great if he gets past everyone, like he did often last year. But, he has a very limited ability to score in traffic at the rim, as he is rarely above it, and doesn't have the size/strength (and likely never will) to go through people. At best, Telfair learns to just pull up and not go at the traffic. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry "A man's got to know his limitations.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Those seem to be two HUGE question marks.
> 
> IF he can learn to shoot and IF he can learn to finish, he could be a great scorer.
> 
> ...


I'm not a Telfair fan by any means.

He proved he can shoot better in his second season, improving on his 3 point percentage by over 10 points. His FG% isn't great but certainly isn't great but to think at only 20 years of age that he won't improve on his shot in the league is absurd. If he can improve that much on his 3 point shot he can easily make progress on the rest of his offensive game.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> Those seem to be two HUGE question marks.
> 
> IF he can learn to shoot and IF he can learn to finish, he could be a great scorer.
> 
> Reminds me of an old saying: If I had some peanut butter and jelly I could make a sandwich if I had some bread.


Shooting and finishing aren't the only elements to being a very good scorer. Great ball-handling and the ability to get to the hoop are just as important, if not moreso.

So, it's more akin to saying that if you had some jelly, you could make a sandwich, seeing as how you have the bread and peanut butter. You have a lot of what you need, but you need the final ingredient(s).

I don't think they're as huge question marks as you. Coming out of high school, scouts said he had a very good shooting form and that he had a good chance of significantly improving his shooting. I think Telfair has plenty of athleticism to improve upon his finishing at the hoop as he becomes more experienced.



> AI has never improved on his poor FG% at any point in his time in the league.


FG% is a poor measure of efficiency. Iverson has always been an efficient scorer, despite not being a very consistent perimeter shooter, because a lot of his shots count for three and he generates a lot of free throws. Telfair could well be similar in that respect.



> And you mention that other players have fixed these problems. Who?


McGrady, Bryant and James all had "questionable jump shot" as a knock against them coming in. James and Bryant have become legitimate shooters and McGrady has become one of the most dangerous mid-range shooters in the game.

Gary Payton was knocked for having a poor shot coming into the league, as were Scottie Pippen and Michael Redd. Payton and Pippen both overcame horrible shooting early in their careers to become very good mid-range shooters and legitimate three-point shooters in their prime. Michael Redd has become one of the best jump-shooters in the league.

Those are examples that occur to me off the top of my head.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Shooting and finishing aren't the only elements to being a very good scorer. Great ball-handling and the ability to get to the hoop are just as important, if not moreso.


Getting to the hoop doesn't accomplish much if you can't finish. Telfair has shown the ability to get by his defender, but is constantly stopped by the help defense. He's never going to get any bigger and I doubt if he's going to suddenly become a great leaper. So, he'll always have difficulty finishing at the rim in traffic. He'll also have difficulty getting his jump shot off aganinst taller defenders. No matter how much he improves his jump shot, he will be limited by his inability to elevate above the defense - both inside and on the perimeter.



Minstrel said:


> McGrady, Bryant and James all had "questionable jump shot" as a knock against them coming in. James and Bryant have become legitimate shooters and McGrady has become one of the most dangerous mid-range shooters in the game.


And all are 6'7 or 6'8" and great leapers. They have absolutely NO difficulty getting their jump shots off against anyone - a luxury Telfair will NEVER have.



Minstrel said:


> Gary Payton was knocked for having a poor shot coming into the league, as were Scottie Pippen and Michael Redd. Payton and Pippen both overcame horrible shooting early in their careers to become very good mid-range shooters and legitimate three-point shooters in their prime. Michael Redd has become one of the best jump-shooters in the league.


And Payton is 6"4" and Pippen is 6'8" and both were excellent leapers. Again comparing them to Telfair is applesranges.



Minstrel said:


> Those are examples that occur to me off the top of my head.


Do you have any examples of guys under 6' tall with average (or lesser) hops that improved their shooting AND finishing ability enough to deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph with five future hall of fameras who are all 5" - 9" taller?

BNM


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, he'll always have difficulty finishing at the rim in traffic.


Parker is an example of a player who's athletic like Telfair but without elite jumping ability. In fact, Avery Johnson with lesser athleticism and jumping ability was very good at finishing. He simply was not as adept at reaching the hoop as Telfair is.

Forcing the help defender to come over and challenge is also valuable to open up teammates for easy scores off passing, plus leads to more free throws.



> He'll also have difficulty getting his jump shot off aganinst taller defenders. No matter how much he improves his jump shot, he will be limited by his inability to elevate above the defense - both inside and on the perimeter.


Telfair's quickness and first step will force defenders to play off him. If they play right up on him, he may have trouble getting his shot off, but he'll go by his man with ease, which will force the defense into scramble mode, leading to opportunities for scores off ball-movement.



> Do you have any examples of guys under 6' tall with average (or lesser) hops that improved their shooting AND finishing ability enough


Do I have a large group of players exactly like Telfair to illustrate? No, because Telfair is historically unique, as a very small, exceptionally quick prep-to-pro point guard. Only a few players are even vaguely similar, so there's really no way to use a population of similar players to determine anything about him.


----------

