Terry came into the league distributing the ball very well. His first year as a starter (his second season) he had an A/M of 1.81 for the season. Similar for the next four seasons. Then he changed, started shooting a whole lot more although his scoring average only went up about a point. His assist rate drop 2 to 3 a game and his A/M fell to .78. Then after he left Portland he reverted back to the original TP with super A/M, like 96-97 he had a 1.45 for the season. His career average ended up being 1.13.
You mean to tell me I got to debate the A/M Stat here also? I really thought this place was ahead of that.
I don't recall what Conley was like coming into the NBA, but regardless of APG averages it looked to me like both Parker and Curry had good court vision and play-making abilities as rookies. Of course they're going to improve over time, but it's not like they didn't have that innate ability already. Also, I don't know that I would say Conley has exceptional court vision currently - though I'll definitely be more familiar with him over the next week. What I'm looking at can't really be measured in stats. Lillard's APG average is fine for a starting PG, but that doesn't change the fact that he's merely average when it comes to his court vision. And then we have guys like Walt Frazier (or whatever his name is) or Kendall Marshall who are borderline NBA players, but clearly have superior court vision and play-making abilities. What I'm getting at is that if you were to go down the list of all the great PGs, by and large they had the innate skills prior to entering the NBA. Here's a list: http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/04/the-25-greatest-point-guards-in-nba-history/dennis-johnson Did any of those guys not possess great court vision before they came to the NBA, and then develop that skill after they started their pro career? I'm honestly asking. I really don't see what's so controversial about saying that Dame's play-making ability is average, and questioning the idea that he can develop court vision at this point in his career. I'm not saying he can't better, just that he doesn't have the innate ability to be great as a set-up guy. Good, sure, but probably not going to be great when it comes to creating easy offense.
I get where you are coming from, but I also believe there are other factors involved. The NBA game was much different in the 80's and early 90's. There were way more assists to be had because it was mainly a run and gun type offense. Also, when your offense is predicated around a "pass to an open man" type offense like Stotts has implemented, there are way more "hockey assists" in the game. Our team is one of the top assist teams in the NBA. So the team concept is not individual, but as an entire unit.
I get that - and again, I'm not concerned with APG averages. But if you can't see that Dame doesn't have the court vision of CP3, Curry, Dragic, Frazier (!), etc, then I don't know what to say. (And it does seem like you agree, so I'm not saying you don't see the difference.) Some PGs see plays and passing lanes develop ahead of time and are able to make the pass for the easy bucket - for the most part Dame is not that type of PG and even if he improves in that area I except it to be incremental rather than monumental. None of this is to say that Dame is a bad PG - just that he's probably never going to be the type of PG that creates lots of easy scoring opportunities. He'll be great because of his drive and determination, not because of innate abilities.
Let's look at three western PGs today, Paul, Curry, Lillard. Here is the way the A/M worked out for those guys for the season. Use Porter for a comparison for his good years (1.81=Super) and his career avg. (1.13= good one of PTL best) Paul 1.39 Real good now and historically Curry .89 Not so good but Damn! You have to give that guy the green light shooting the three ball @ .443. and setting a league record. Lillard .66 Really poor now and Historically. That while taking more shots than either of the other two PGs being compared. If lillard were near TPs 1.13 career average I don't think teams would know how to defend him and Portland might have had 60 wins.
Well of course Dame doesn't have the court vision and awareness of Stockton, magic, Thomas and CP3. It doesn't mean that he won't solidify his place in greatness with leadership, scoring and desire to be the best
I don't buy into cherry picked stats without taking into account of all stats associated with distributing the ball.
Well I would call is metadata rather than your term. But here is one for you, Curry is the Cats meow with his .443 with the three ball. Our own Meyers Leonard put them in at a .42 clip. Give me a PM the next time you see Lillard get him the ball for an assist. That last two times I saw him go for pass to Meyers, he bounced it to him, hitting him close to the knee. I really don't want to think about what going on here. Perhaps that is cherry picking, or small sample or what have you.
So explain to me how the three point % has anything to do with your argument about Dame being a facilitator?
Okay I will take Steph's far superior shooting in year 2 over Lillard's third year in the league. eta - Whoops, meant Lillar**
Have you seen Steph play defense this year? Ignoring the 2 steals a game (because that is not a good measure of on ball defense, you can get those picking passing lanes), he is actually a pretty good defender, and far better than Lillar http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12648764/how-stephen-curry-developed-top-flight-defender
Yea iv watched a lot of GS and Curry isnt horrible but he isnt good either. He is miles better then he was last year but I read it as you were trying to make it out like Lillard is what Harden was on D last year and Curry is Courtney Lee. Two things that are very wrong. Also Ethan Sherwood Strauss is about the biggest warriors homer around. Its a lot easir to look compatent on D when you have two all D players and both who have a case for Defensive player of the year and another superb defender oj the floor with you and another great wing defender in Iggy who comes off the bench.
He missed a lot of games his second year too. Also, Lillard had better stats than Curry in his second year
Curry played 74/82 games his second year. His stats were better than Lillar's. I will take 18.6 ppg on 48% shooting and 44.2% from three than Lillar's 43.4% FG and a crappy 34% from three. Curry has always been better than Lillar. It is what it is. Many former players and legends have said Steph is the greatest shooter of all time. I don't expect Lillar to ever shoot like Curry, I'm just disputing your point that Lillar's progression year by year is better than Curry's was. He is not the shooter or has the talent that Curry did and does. What I want to see from Lillar is spending an offseason working on defense technique and also improving his shot selection. 34% is just bad, and the decline in his 3pt% is because he takes bad shots. If he can make these two changes, he could be the second or third best PG in the league. Right now he gets outplayed by guys like Mike Conley who shot like 50% from the field and just under that from 3pt land, while Lillar shot in the 20%s from three against Conley. He is not a top 5 PG RIGHT NOW imo for that reason. You can't lose your position matchup to guys that you are supposedly better than.
Ha! Welcome to the board Roger, but you have to know, Basketball fans are not in demand here, Blazer fanatics are welcome. Basketball fans suffer the same fate as the One Eyed Man in the Valley of the Blind.
