The Coli Where we rank Kyle Lowry over Jason Kidd.. Scust @malta

[hayesc0]

This is why I can tell you don't know what you're talking about, same goes for the majority of posters in this thread. When you're the main ball-handler you control the offense, therefore you have the most influence on how successful the offense is, therefore your scoring ability (and offense in genera) is more important than practically everything else. It's not a point system where you get one point for being a better scorer, one point for being a better rebounder, one point for being a better passer etc etc.

Using Rodman as a reference point makes no sense whatsoever since he never controlled the offense.

I will just say this rebounding has alot to do with controlling an offense. My point about Rodman is he had a unique impact on the game Kidd is another one of those types of players and scoring had nothing to do with it.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

This is where Gil Scott's analysis is way off. He's not accounting for the fact that Kidd was a very smart player who adjusted to his teammates, his offense, and the opponent. Of course, I can't accurately assess Gil Scott's opinion until he provides all documents that he believes supports his contention that Jason Kidd is worse than Kyle Lowry.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Hell no..

See this is what happens when you're TOO high on today's NBA. Doing the same shyt old heads do with Curry except in reverse

no way hes that stupid
seriously, there's noooooo way some of you guys say the dumb shyt u be saying on here in public lmaooo

U are a good poster, but u are garbage as fukk when the convo is about somebody u are dikkriding. shyt is straight up status. I can see why nikkas be on your head on here. Straight garbage ass stanning for nikkas u whip out the pom poms for. fukk outta here with EVERYTHING concerning this topic. Lowry better than Kids ever was . fukkin retarded

Lowry is a 36% FG shooter in the post season for his career..

That's why I said this forum has gone full Trump.. N1ggas will say absolutely anything.. And Malta is one of the most respected basketball minds on here...


When the lights are the brightest this n1gga Lowry is pretty much Ricky Rubio with an inflated sense of self confidence..

This place is no longer a place for serious basketball conversation.. I'm going full mode from here on...

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Lowry is a better scorer and thats it

You say that like there isn't a considerable difference between their scoring abilities. You say that like scoring isn't one of, if not the most important aspect when comparing two main ball-handlers (who play at the 1).

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

You say that like there isn't a considerable difference between their scoring abilities. You say that like scoring isn't one of, if not the most important aspect when comparing two main ball-handlers (who play at the 1).

Is that how I said it?

 

[Goatpoacher]

Even old man kidd was better than Lowry this is stranger than eye cues obsession with dion waiters

 

[Goatpoacher]

I know you and @Malta have a working theory that PG's that are not scoring threats are useless. I admit there is some data that would tend to support the theory, but I don't see the conclusion you are drawing as natural or necessarily firm. Fact is, there are limited possessions in a basketball game. In a vacuum, if everybody on a team shot 50 percent from the field, it would not matter who took the shots. Now, it could be argued that having a non-scoring threat ANYWHERE on the floor is a problem, not just at point guard, But your assertion that a point guard who is not a scoring threat hinders an offense.... Is that any more true than a center who is not a scoring threat?

More importantly, isn't it the modern NBA paradigm that a lack of offensive ability from any player on the floor is a problem? I don't think this was the case in the 90's and '00's as there were elite teams with 1) mediocre points guard and/or 2) non scoring threats at various positions.

GIven that only 1 player on a team can take a shot per each possession, increasing the quality of the possession, increasing the number of possessions is what matters. So your working theory about point guards has to somehow increase the quality of possessions (since it can't have any bearing on the number of possessions).

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I know you and @Malta have a working theory that PG's that are not scoring threats are useless.

They're not necessarily useless, they have their [limited] place. The crux of it is this: the ones who have high-level scoring ability + the appropriate shot/pass balance that maximizes their offense's productivity and efficiency, are the most conducive type to winning. This goes beyond the #s, and you don't even need some amodal basketball perception - just basic common sense.

I admit there is some data that would tend to support the theory, but I don't see the conclusion you are drawing as natural or necessarily firm. Fact is, there are limited possessions in a basketball game. In a vacuum, if everybody on a team shot 50 percent from the field, it would not matter who took the shots. Now, it could be argued that having a non-scoring threat ANYWHERE on the floor is a problem, not just at point guard, But your assertion that a point guard who is not a scoring threat hinders an offense.... Is that any more true than a center who is not a scoring threat?.

We shouldn't be looking at this in a vacuum. The fact of that matter is, how many points and how efficiently an offense scores those points are mostly influenced by the player whom controls the ball the most, in this conversation that would be the PG. It's not just about how many points the PG scores, or how efficient the PG is (because that it all depends on the context of the game, the personnel and scheme), it's about how the opposing defense is treating the PG and therefore how they're treating the offense as a unit, and the opportunities this gives the offense to score. Just look at some of the things it affects:

the spacing (how a PG pulls in defenders all across the court and gives their teammates more room to operate with)
the help defense (how a PG pulls in defenders, rips defensive schemes and gives teammates easier scoring opportunities and/or mismatchups)
defenders rotating (how a PG forces teams to rotate)
the rhythm, confidence and belief of defenses (how a PG can get a strangehold on the control of possession flow, limit the defense's confidence by making it harder and less predictable for them to defend)
defensive matchups (how a PG can get a defense to mentally and physically overcompensate by being an equal shot/pass threat - teams using better guard/wing defenders and how it affects the awareness of other defenders of where the PG is and what they're going to do, and how it affects their mental ability of being concerned about another player while their own defensive assignment)
the mental and physical strain (how a PG can break a defense mentally and physically and the domino effect it has on the opposing team's offense, how much energy and willpower they have throughout the game, how the opposing team's gameplan changes and lineup changes etc etc)

The list is much deeper than that. You then apply all those things to how they affect the PG's personnel on offense/defense, and their offense/defense as a whole.

But your assertion that a point guard who is not a scoring threat hinders an offense.... Is that any more true than a center who is not a scoring threat?

Again, just to touch on this briefly - typically a center isn't the main ballhandler whereas the PG is, so therefore a PG influences the offense more than a center does. Just as a center is typically the main defensive anchor whereas the PG isn't, so therefore a center influences the defense more than the PG does. Take a look at Magic for instance, he wasn't a great defender by any measure (often was hid on defense and put on lesser offensive threats), yet he arguably had more impact on the game than any other PG in history and is the consensus GOAT PG, simply for his offensive impact (maximizing his offense's productivity and efficiency by balancing when to shoot/pass).

More importantly, isn't it the modern NBA paradigm that a lack of offensive ability from any player on the floor is a problem? I don't think this was the case in the 90's and '00's as there were elite teams with 1) mediocre points guard and/or 2) non scoring threats at various positions.

Nah, this is constant throughout NBA history. It's only more realized now because of the data/information available and the improvement of defenses/offenses, and how teams are more concerned about results and forsaken the archaic plot of traditional basketball.

GIven that only 1 player on a team can take a shot per each possession, increasing the quality of the possession, increasing the number of possessions is what matters. So your working theory about point guards has to somehow increase the quality of possessions (since it can't have any bearing on the number of possessions).

See above.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Even old man kidd was better than Lowry this is stranger than eye cues obsession with dion waiters

Now see friend, this is just patently ridiculous and I question whether or not you actually watch Raptors games and/or know how the game works.

 

[Broke Wave]

Is there a single team you could put Kidd on and they'd become better in the NBA right now outside of like Phoenix and lottery squads?

 

[Goatpoacher]

They're not necessarily useless, they have their [limited] place. The crux of it is this: the ones who have high-level scoring ability + the appropriate shot/pass balance that maximizes their offense's productivity and efficiency, are the most conducive type to winning. This goes beyond the #s, and you don't even need some amodal basketball perception - just basic common sense.

We shouldn't be looking at this in a vacuum. The fact of that matter is, how many points and how efficiently an offense scores those points are mostly influenced by the player whom controls the ball the most, in this conversation that would be the PG. It's not just about how many points the PG scores, or how efficient the PG is (because that it all depends on the context of the game, the personnel and scheme), it's about how the opposing defense is treating the PG and therefore how they're treating the offense as a unit, and the opportunities this gives the offense to score. Just look at some of the things it affects:

the spacing (how a PG pulls in defenders all across the court and gives their teammates more room to operate with)
the help defense (how a PG pulls in defenders, rips defensive schemes and gives teammates easier scoring opportunities and/or mismatchups)
defenders rotating (how a PG forces teams to rotate)
the rhythm, confidence and belief of defenses (how a PG can get a strangehold on the control of possession flow, limit the defense's confidence by making it harder and less predictable for them to defend)
defensive matchups (how a PG can get a defense to mentally and physically overcompensate by being an equal shot/pass threat - teams using better guard/wing defenders and how it affects the awareness of other defenders of where the PG is and what they're going to do, and how it affects their mental ability of being concerned about another player while their own defensive assignment)
the mental and physical strain (how a PG can break a defense mentally and physically and the domino effect it has on the opposing team's offense, how much energy and willpower they have throughout the game, how the opposing team's gameplan changes and lineup changes etc etc)

The list is much deeper than that. You then apply all those things to how they affect the PG's personnel on offense/defense, and their offense/defense as a whole.

Again, just to touch on this briefly - typically a center isn't the main ballhandler whereas the PG is, so therefore a PG influences the offense more than a center does. Just as a center is typically the main defensive anchor whereas the PG isn't, so therefore a center influences the defense more than the PG does. Take a look at Magic for instance, he wasn't a great defender by any measure (often was hid on defense and put on lesser offensive threats), yet he arguably had more impact on the game than any other PG in history and is the consensus GOAT PG, simply for his offensive impact (maximizing his offense's productivity and efficiency by balancing when to shoot/pass).

Nah, this is constant throughout NBA history. It's only more realized now because of the data/information available and the improvement of defenses/offenses, and how teams are more concerned about results and forsaken the archaic plot of traditional basketball.

See above.

You keep talking about the PG being the primary ball handler and thus needing to score without any explanation as to why. I am not accepting this assertion without more.

You're also asserting your assertion has been true throughout history without proving it. I'm not saying you have not provided proof, I'm saying its nothing beyond a working theory.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You keep talking about the PG being the primary ball handler and thus needing to score without any explanation as to why. I am not accepting this assertion without more.

I just explained in my post prior on why you need a PG ball-handler to be an equal threat to score/pass, in order to maximize the team's offensive potential. How can you not see this?

You're also asserting your assertion has been true throughout history without proving it. I'm not saying you have not provided proof, I'm saying its nothing beyond a working theory.

It's using common sense of how the game works.

 

[Goatpoacher]

I just explained in my post prior on why you need a PG ball-handler to be an equal threat to score/pass, in order to maximize the team's offensive potential. How can you not see this?

It's using common sense of how the game works.

It's not enough to give vague statements about "and there's more!" I want to see the totality of your case. Your position remains deficient because of the following:

1. You have not sufficiently drawn a distinction between the PG and any other position. Can't I just as easily say that a Center should be a scoring threat? Or a PF needs to have the ability to pass or shoot a 15 footer?
2. You have not convincingly shown there is a difference in how the game is played today and how the game was played in the 00's or any other era. Specialized players with limited offense were very popular up to around 2012. The Spurs and Warriors have changed that paradigm.
3. Citing "common sense" is the same as saying "just because". Common sense dictates that Kidd >> Lowry. See the problem?
4. What If I said, "Every team needs a defensive 3 that can pass and cut to the basket" ???

Finally, how are you going to argue that a PG 's ability to score is important because they handle the ball the most when Lowry doesn't have the highest usage rate on his own team?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It's not enough to give vague statements about "and there's more!" I want to see the totality of your case.

You don't need to see the "totality" of it, you can simply see the list I gave and use the same reasoning for the other areas/aspects of the game I didn't mention. And I mean the list I gave is the core of it, the unlisted factors are offshoots from those. You simply just need to use your brain to work out the rest:

It's not just about how many points the PG scores, or how efficient the PG is (because that it all depends on the context of the game, the personnel and scheme), it's about how the opposing defense is treating the PG and therefore how they're treating the offense as a unit, and the opportunities this gives the offense to score. Just look at some of the things it affects:

the spacing (how a PG pulls in defenders all across the court and gives their teammates more room to operate with)
the help defense (how a PG pulls in defenders, rips defensive schemes and gives teammates easier scoring opportunities and/or mismatchups)
defenders rotating (how a PG forces teams to rotate)
the rhythm, confidence and belief of defenses (how a PG can get a strangehold on the control of possession flow, limit the defense's confidence by making it harder and less predictable for them to defend)
defensive matchups (how a PG can get a defense to mentally and physically overcompensate by being an equal shot/pass threat - teams using better guard/wing defenders and how it affects the awareness of other defenders of where the PG is and what they're going to do, and how it affects their mental ability of being concerned about another player while their own defensive assignment)
the mental and physical strain (how a PG can break a defense mentally and physically and the domino effect it has on the opposing team's offense, how much energy and willpower they have throughout the game, how the opposing team's gameplan changes and lineup changes etc etc)

Remember in this discussion the PG has the ball in his hands more than any other player, he's the one directing traffic, he's the one responsible for setting players up and he's doing this by opening up and creating opportunities either for himself or his teammates by being an equal shoot/pass threat.

I can see that you're looking at this and applying it to every other position, DON'T.. just look at if from the view of who's actually controlling the offense and handling the ball the most.

Your position remains deficient because of the following:

1. You have not sufficiently drawn a distinction between the PG and any other position. Can't I just as easily say that a Center should be a scoring threat? Or a PF needs to have the ability to pass or shoot a 15 footer?

A PG typically handles the ball more than any other position, therefore they influence the offense more than any other position. How many times do I need to state this?

2. You have not convincingly shown there is a difference in how the game is played today and how the game was played in the 00's or any other era. Specialized players with limited offense were very popular up to around 2012. The Spurs and Warriors have changed that paradigm.

The aim of the game on offense is to put the ball in the hoop is it not? And this has always remained the same ever since basketball's existed, has it not? Therefore the player that handles the ball the most, and is responsible for the workings of the offense influences and impacts the potential of the team's offensive productivity/efficiency more than any other player.

3. Citing "common sense" is the same as saying "just because". Common sense dictates that Kidd >> Lowry. See the problem?

The common sense part of this is looking at how a PG (who's the ball-handler) can maximize a team's offensive potential.

4. What If I said, "Every team needs a defensive 3 that can pass and cut to the basket" ???

That's an entirely different argument altogether, and has virtually no relevance when comparing PGs.

Finally, how are you going to argue that a PG 's ability to score is important because they handle the ball the most when Lowry doesn't have the highest usage rate on his own team?

The fact you brought this up basically confirms that you either didn't read my post properly or you simply don't understand how the game works. The formula of USG% is based on FGA, FT and TOV against the time they're on court - not how the offense is run, not how long a player has the ball in his hands, not who's running the offense, not who's playmaking/passing the ball/setting players up and getting assists, not who's feeding the hot hand, not who's directing his offensive personnel in the halfcourt, not who's running the fastbreak, not who's dictating the tempo etc etc. DeRozan has the higher USG% basically because he's the higher volume shooter v the time he's on the court. CP3 is 3rd in USG% on his own team (2nd as a starter), yet he still has the most influence on the offense and handles the ball the most.

It's what they do with the ball in hand - again meaning that a player who's an equal threat to shoot/pass needs to balance it in accordance to what the team needs in order for them to maximize their offensive potential (see: list of factors above). Again, take CP3 for instance, the Clippers offensive potential with their current squad is predicated on his aggressiveness and ability as a scorer (while balancing when to pass) because he's the one whom controls the offense.

It's all about finding that balance throughout the course of a game, relative to what your team needs in order to reach their utmost potential on offense. It's why you see Westbrook (who hasn't mastered it yet) and Curry warp defensive schemes the way they do.

The fact you're even arguing this shows you're not watching Raptors games either. A simple look at this:

Lowry is 12th in the league in time of possession (behinds the likes of Harden, Westbrook, Wall, Lillard, Kemba, CP3, Conley, I.Thomas etc etc - basically you see the trend of main ball-handlers who're the PGs of their respective teams) - the next ranked Raptors player is near 50th (DeRozan)

Lowry is 8th in the league in passes made with 62.8 per game (behind the likes of Paul, Harden, Bledsoe etc etc - again, you see the trend of main ball-handlers who're the PGs of their respective teams) - the next ranked Raptors player is near 100th (Patterson with 36.8 per game)

The player that has the ball in his hands the most and is making the most passes is typically the player who has the most influence on the offense - there can be exceptions but this is a general rule.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@Goatpoacher the most simplest way I make you see this is just imagine how less effective the Warriors offense would be if Curry had the same scoring ability and threat of being one as Rubio specifically over the last two seasons - think about all the things and players it would affect on offense (and the opposing defense) and think about the effect it would have on the team as a whole.

Would the Warriors have won as many games as they did, been in back-to-back Finals and won a title?