I just explained to you how to weigh what impact a main ball-handling PG has on the game. Just because a particular player might be more well-rounded doesn't mean they have more impact. I've already stated in this very thread the "other factors" when comparing players. Except what you're not understanding is that not all surface aspects of the game have equal value, which is why you're having trouble comprehending my position.
That's not how basketball works (especially when comparing PGs). You should be looking at whom has the most impact v their skillset.
First of all, not only is this wrong, but why are we talking about something that is in a sense unquantifiable and near-meaningless to the crux of the argument? You're just proving my theory right of magnifying intangibles to overcompensate for a player's lack of skill in other areas.
I'm afraid I can't take your opinion seriously of his game after you've told me you don't watch enough Raptors games. Going off some of his playoff games last season (where he was still suffering from an elbow injury which was affecting his shot, which obviously you didn't take into account because you weren't watching him before said injury) to argue your position isn't enough. This is half the trouble with this board, they argue until they're blue in the face about players they don't even watch and regurgitate casual fan talking points about that player's game.
Even if you didn't have a high opinion of his game beforehand, and you're not watching the Raptors play regularly, surely you can either say that you're not familiar with his game to the level that would warrant a genuine discussion or/and you could admit that by looking at the surface stats (the difference in their ppg and efficiency) that you're open to changing your views after matching it with the tape. Rather than just sticking your fingers and your ears and not listen to reason.
Why do you keep saying this?
You don't need a "scoring threat" at all positions, you do however need a scoring threat at the PG position because typically (not always, again) they handle the ball more than any other player. If you're handling the ball more than any other player than you need to be an equal threat (because everything revolves around WHAT that player does), else your offense will suffer - it's half the reason why Kidd didn't run an efficient offense in NJ, because of his inability to score/shoot. Regardless of whether or not you think it's a modern trend or not (Kidd's prime was only a decade ago, we're not talking about when Jack Dolph was still in charge) if a player has more 'scoring ability' as a main ball-handler it should be taken into account when comparing players.
i) Whether or not his tear may regress or not, he's already shown over a large enough sample size (80+ games) that this is what his play looks like at its peak. It's not like I'm taking a isolated five-game sample size and using it as the rule.
ii) I'm using last season (up until his elbow injury near the end of the regular season), and this season, because he's backing up his play from last year with arguably better play.
iii) This tear he's on is a better stretch than Kidd ever had. I suggest you actually tune in to see what he's doing.
The scoring and efficiency is, and if you're willing to come to the party of their overall #s not being far apart surely you can entertain the idea that their games aren't either. You're arguing as if Kidd is a galaxy beyond Lowry, and yet the #s are in favor of Lowry. Surely you must realize that your position isn't as grounded in reality as you initially thought.
What specifically do you mean by overall scoring? During his highest PPG season, he took ONE extra shot than Lowry's doing right now and scoring nearly less than THREE points a game. Like I said above, I don't think you truly realize how much of difference that is. And you can get the hell outta here with this "paradigm" nonsense to cover up for Kidd's lack of scoring ability. Not only is this far from the truth, and you're falling victim to romanticizing this emanation of 00's basketball but you had players like Payton, Nash, Cassell, Bibby and Parker (even stretch it out to Marbury) who still managed to be near the top in leading PG scorers while being efficient.
Stop making excuses for his lack of efficient scoring, when other players in similar roles had no trouble doing so.
I don't have a strange defined role for point guards - in fact I don't really have a defined role - it's more about what impact a PG has. It's one of the most accurate impact relays on this board. Dudes are too stuck on some archaic shyt when valuing the position. When you're the main ball-handling for your team at the PG position, your main job is to run the offense and do what's necessary to put the team in the best possible position of scoring is it not? Does that not require you to not just be a scoring threat, but also be an efficient and have a high-end scoring skillset? Does that not require you exploiting and creating weaknesses in the defense? If you're a scoring threat while handling the ball most of the time you don't think that allows your teammates to get easier shots, as opposed to a PG who isn't a threat to score? You can't see how that affects how the offense works? This isn't the same as a center not being able to score in this discussion, because it's MORE important for the player who's handling the ball the most to be a scoring threat - the center isn't running the offense, the center isn't trying to open up the floor by setting up teammates, the center isn't dictating the pace of the offense etc etc. How can you maximize these opportunities for not only yourself but your teammates if you're not an equal threat to score/pass. It's half the reason why Nash ran the best or second best offense from the early 00s until the 2010, on two different teams, with 3-4 different coaches with every type of style of player because he was an equal threat to pass/shoot.
If Nash didn't have his shooting/scoring ability, those offenses wouldn't have been as good as they were. I do not understand how you can not understand this. Again, you have the ball in your hands more than any other player it's more important for you to be a scoring threat, than a position/player that doesn't have the ball in their hands as often.
If Kidd's productivity is behind Lowry's, than how are you arguing that Lowry isn't even close to him? This is what I'm trying to get you to see. I'm not falling back on the stats per say, I'm trying to illustrate to you that this comparison is a lot closer than you're willing to admit, by showing you their stats. You're not watching the games, so the only basis I can use to make you see sense is use the stats. Stats that are in favor of Lowry. Yet here you are arguing as if Lowry's basically a scrub in comparison to Kidd.
And even if I were falling back on simply just the stats, that's a helluva lot more substantial than whatever the fukk it is you're arguing. Same applies to the majority of people in this thread. If the stats were favoring Kidd, they'd be shoving it under your face, but since they favor Lowry they're acting as if these stats don't exist, and that you can't use them as argument because Kidd's play went beyond the box score.
The opinions and views in this thread are absolutely hilarious, and it truly shows how uninformed and casual-thinking this board truly is.
This is why you shouldn't be talking about his game, because you want me to prove (never mind the fact I've already provided an article that talks up his defensive ability, plus corresponding defensive stats while he was on the floor) his defensive worth, rather than actually watching for yourself. You're arguing that Kidd's a better defender, without truly knowing how good Lowry is on that end to make a proper assessment of their abilities.
Wouldn't it be easier for you to just state that you don't have an informed enough opinion of his game and leave it at that?
The irony of that is, I'm the complete opposite of using fixated roles when it comes to positions. Here's the thing that you're still not acknowledging, both Kidd and Lowry have almost identical roles on their respective team's: PGs who're the main ball-handlers and who're one of the main leading scorers. I wondered if you'd be using stats if they were in your favor? I think so. Regardless, you shouldn't just sweep stats in the context under the rug so easily. They matter. Certainly when you're up in here trying to argue there's no comparison between the two.
Lowry missed five games last season, how the hell would that sample size give you a better idea of total value? Do you hear yourself right now? This can't be life. Kidd missed two games in the 2003 season. The problems with even suggesting this are mind-boggling. I don't even know if this statement warrants a proper response. I'm using recursive logic to show you how a main-ballhandler's play affects his team's offense. You can not seriously believe that a player who controls the ball and offense isn't one of, if not the most influential player on offense. Because that's what you're arguing against. Despite all logic and facts staring you right in the face you still want to claim it's some "ill defined internal construct", but then try to use play of their teams over a 2-5 game sample size that doesn't take into account an infinite # of factors. If you actually watched the Raptors play, you wouldn't be arguing against something that is in clear view and basic as this.
If you watched any of these players regularly you'd see their offense goes as they go, and they're the ones who dictate what happens throughout games on offense and how efficient the offense runs. This is basic, rudimentary stuff that isn't worth debating. Why you can not see this, I don't know.
That's exactly what I'm doing. I did this well before this thread was even created. And I did this by actually watching Lowry play. You didn't.
