Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

A/TO - closer look at the value

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    A/TO - closer look at the value

    First of all, as Rick fan I've always understood the idea of reducing TOs. Sloppy play is bad.

    OTOH, one thing I liked about Tinsley over Best was that he was willing to throw the rock at any time to any one. That kept guys looking to get open and willing to work on offense. They knew it might pay off.

    The downside has always been that he pairs that with risky passes and turns it over a lot. In comes Rick, Tins hits the bench for, IMO, this very reason.

    Obviously this thread is being kicked off with the new Diener A/TO buzz. His number is off the charts lately. And yet as I complained recently he tends to call his own number a lot and often doesn't put up a high assist number.

    So you have a PG with a low risk/low reward style. Efficient, yes, but is ultra efficiency better than a full-on Nash attack complete with extra TOs? I wondered.


    Here is my basic math, it's simplified at this point and has portions to be debated I'm sure. I'm all for adjustments if there is solid reasoning to it.

    Ast - that's a 2 pt possession for certain. Technically I should also consider the and-1 assist here. And there is the "no assist but pass created 2 FTA possession". That's for a rework.

    TO - 0 point possesion. Yes it could mean a break the other way but I haven't yet worked up a "points off TO" factor as a subtraction to the points created total. Another rework item.

    Other possessions - so no assist, no TO, what else do you do? Offensive fouls are TOs. You can get FTAs. You have FG misses. That's it as far as I see. Forget rebounds, those eventually get counted when you take that rebound and either "Ast to FG", "FG w/out ast", "Fouled for FTs", "FG miss", or "TO".

    FG miss - easy enough, 0 point possession

    FG w/out assist - we've got FGM, we've got Assists, easy.

    FTA - well I guessed at 80% FTAs are from 2 shot FTA situations (ie, not and 1). So I took FTA times .8, then divide by 2 to get possesions that resulted in 2 trips to the line. A guess I realize, but probably not way off.


    Total points, take out points on assist possessions to get points on possessions without an assist or TO (zero points on TO).

    Possessions that aren't an assist OR a TO.

    Then you divide the 2 to get a rough guess at how many points you score on every possession without an assist or a TO. My number hit around 1.05 using data from recent games.

    Basically anything around 1.00 means that 50% of the time you score on a possession without an assist. Frankly I'd say that's high, but I did also leave out negative points on TOs.


    WHAT DOES IT MEAN
    Okay, so if assists are 2, TOs are 0 and all others are 1.05 then you get the following:

    Diener
    6 assists, 1 TO, 6.00 A/TO
    Points scored if this was in 20 possessions = 25-26

    Nash
    13 assists, 3 TO, 4.3 A/TO (worse than Diener)
    Points scored if this was in 20 possessions = 30+

    Okay, make it on 40 total possessions
    Diener 46-47
    Nash 51+

    Obviously no matter how many neutral possessions you add in, both guys are going to see the same amount of gain, so the advantage stays the same.


    Mathematically speaking there is a simple key. As long as the A/TO ratio is above the "scoring without assist" ratio it is going to be more beneficial to be "loose" with the ball. For this debate it means your "scoring %" on AST or TO possessions, as AST/(AST+TO) % success when the player "involves" himself in the outcome, compared with that 1.05/2 (to remove the 2 points scored factor, effectively a FG% type of figure).

    13/(13+3) = 83%
    6/(6+1) = 86%
    1.05/2 = 53%

    The "breakpoint" falls around a 1.11 A/TO ratio, if my 1.05 points per unassisted or TO possession estimate was right. If you can pull off a 1.12 A/TO ratio on 100 possesions then by all means go to it every time. And if you are at 2+ on 40 "involvements" (A or TO) a night that's a winner (and a 27 ast per game rate!!!!) despite the 13 TOs per game and only a 2.08 A/TO.

    So even though Diener has a nice A/TO in this example, he's not taken advantage of that enough. Maybe you set the scoring w/out assist to a higher level, I'm fine with that, but even still it's going to be tough to get up beyond the standard decent A/TO rate.

    Yes, if Diener hits the SAME total assists, let alone the same total possessions with either an ast or TO, he will outpace Nash. But ultimately the only time a PG is hurting by being risky is when that risk creates a scoring ratio worse than what you are getting without his input.


    THIS IS NOT A DIENER BASH. I WAS SIMPLY CURIOUS ABOUT A/TO vs Ast/G, which was "better". A high A/TO is better than a low A/TO when paired with a low Ast/G. Diener is a bench guy showing why he should always get 15-25 minutes even if they get a true starter.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-14-2008, 11:24 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    THIS IS NOT A DIENER BASH. I WAS SIMPLY CURIOUS ABOUT A/TO vs Ast/G, which was "better". A high A/TO is better than a low A/TO when paired with a low Ast/G. Diener is a bench guy showing why he should always get 15-25 minutes even if they get a true starter.
    This is the first season he's really got to play, so he can improve . . . a lot.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

      A couple of questions. How many more assists would Diener have if he had 1 player that could catch and finish w/ a flush, such as Amare and Marian (pre trade)? Also I contend that if basketball had a hockey assist rule Diener would have many more, as he really gets the ball moving as opposed to a Tins type point that tends to pound the ball and look to make "the" play. Also I need to point out that I am not a real numbers study guy so I may be missing something. But are you comparing Travis Diener, a player getting his first extended run to the best point guard in the last 10 years? If so I would think there could be some in between. If I misinterpreted the stats I apologize.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

        The "breakpoint" falls around a 1.11 A/TO ratio, if my 1.05 points per unassisted or TO possession estimate was right. If you can pull off a 1.12 A/TO ratio on 100 possesions then by all means go to it every time. And if you are at 2+ on 40 "involvements" (A or TO) a night that's a winner (and a 27 ast per game rate!!!!) despite the 13 TOs per game and only a 2.08 A/TO.
        I'm a little confused at this, so I'm just asking for clarification.

        I understand and agree with your general hypothesis: That an Assist-to-Turnover Ratio can be too high. To me, it's like the old axiom that says "If you never make any mistakes, you aren't trying hard enough."

        However, I'm not sure I understand your break-even point.

        Also, you're comparing an insanely high A/TO ratio (Diener's) to a ratio that would still be considered outstanding (Nash's 4.3). What is the comparison to say Tinsley during November/December? Or a starter at the league average?

        Is there a way to determine an "optimal" ratio? In other words, is there a point where as the ratio goes up, the points scored actually go down? How do (could) the guys own attempts work into the equation?

        Sorry, this is the type of analysis that I generally work out with guys on a white board, so I'm kind of vomiting up questions. I really think it's great work, and interesting. Also, I don't think you're bashing Diener at all. Only Travis' mom would be insulted by you saying that Steve Nash was better and more productive than Diener.
        Last edited by count55; 03-14-2008, 02:30 PM. Reason: Question Marks

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

          I strongly agree on "hockey" assist, as well as the "assist to a FTA" which I mentioned.

          I'm not trying to reduce Diener, but rather put 2 key stats in comparison to each other since one of the few buzz areas in Pacerland lately has been TD's insane A/TO.

          So let's not sidebar into "yes but Nash has player X" because this is true for all stats and for all players. If only JO was healthy you wouldn't see Dun scoring 30. Does this make Dun better or worse as a player?

          We must accept the limits at hand. For all we know with better players Diener WOULD go for more passes and would end up turning it over more, reducing his A/TO but seeing a nice jump in Ast/Game.

          And as I said above, that would be a GREAT thing. Any PG, not just Nash or Diener, is doing more for his team if he's getting more assists, even if his A/TO isn't great. As long as it stays above the rate his team scores on plays without him assisting or turning it over.


          Am I comparing him to Nash? Um, didn't the Star just do that with his A/TO ratio? Nash is just a known quantity that people identify with, simply a benchmark.

          Again, not directly about Diener, it's about his A/TO stat. Some people are extracting that to show his value. I wanted to investigate some perspective on it, especially when others do compare it to Nash's A/TO (or Kidd, Paul, whatever).


          This is not unlike my post early last season regarding Foster rebounding and FG%. The guy is my favorite Pacer, he was just having a horrible FG% slump and had a game in Denver where he put up 18 boards on about 5 real rebounds.

          Here I am, Mr. Stat, and when I dissect a stat and point out some quirks or subtle nuances behind them the response isn't about the number but instead is "Why don't you like that player, he's good, you don't know".

          I will say that you two (Will, Hoops) were nowhere near the tone I'm talking about, that was in reference to the Foster responses last year.

          But I have no beef with Baldkid. For his pay, great. Still green with room to grow. I said that even if they get a starter here he still deserves quality backup minutes, top 8 in a rotation type stuff.

          If he improves to the point of being a legit starter, so much the better.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

            Plus, gotta love a guy with Phil Lynott as his avi.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

              However, I'm not sure I understand your break-even point.
              Is there a way to determine an "optimal" ratio? In other words, is there a point where as the ratio goes up, the points scored actually go down?
              Break even is the point in which you are sending the team away empty (TO) so much that it actual hurts your team's overall scoring per possession rate. I was surprised to see it so close to 1 frankly. I figured 2-3 at least. That is till I started looking at the math and thinking about what it implied.

              There are the times when you either get the assist or make the TO, and then there's all the other times. This includes your own scoring/FTA, passes that set up passes, and other unmeasured details that help.

              It's simplified. So is the Ast/Game stat and the A/TO stat. That's just how it is, at some point you can't get a perfect measure.

              So the case being made is that if you say to me "coach, on 40 plays I can guarantee that I'll either get the assist or turn it over, and do it at a 1.5 A/TO rate" then I say "here's the ball".

              Again, think about the numbers that implies. 40 possesions isn't a full game, I'm guessing that's less than the average half of a game. But to be involved directly (A or TO) on 40 plays at 1.5 A/TO you'd be getting 24 assists a night!!!

              Yes, you'd also lead the NBA with 16 TOs, but it wouldn't be as bad as if you'd just let your teammates spend all 40 possessions trying to score without your assists. They'd be actually coming away empty more often.

              Remember, an assist means a made FG. 40 possessions with 24 assists means AT MINIMUM, a 60% shooting rate. If you had 16 TOs then it meant that you were shooting 100%!!!

              The assist is the point of 100% success on a play, so clearly you want as much of that as possible. The subtlety here is that TO sounds so horrible that it overshadows just what an assist means.



              Again, points off TOs digs into this and means you probably need a higher A/TO to be over the breakpoint, but I'd bet it's not even 2.0 still.

              The catch is that let's say TD reads this and says "here I go". Well those extra possessions all end up as TOs. No more assists and his A/TO goes below the breakpoint. Now you want him to stop.

              It's a bit like the per minute stats. Sure in 5 minutes a guy can shine, but can he keep it up for 35 minutes. So maybe a PG who only tries 5 passes for scores completes 4 of them, but could he find the other 20 passes at that same rate.

              Staying in a comfort zone and only taking the most clear and obvious assists keeps your A/TO clean but doesn't really help the team as much as the guy that's able to grind out 6-7 more assists at the cost of a decreased A/TO.

              Both players hit the core, the outstanding player also has some (but reduced) success on the margin.

              Plus, gotta love a guy with Phil Lynott as his avi.
              Yeah, I've been in a real Thin Lizzy kick the last 6 months or so. Bad Rep on Guitar Hero didn't hurt either.
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-14-2008, 02:51 PM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                Let me follow this up with a smaller example:

                5 plays, all turnovers lead directly to a slam dunk the other way, the worst possible case.

                PG makes 3 assists, turns it over twice. Is his team winning?

                3 assists = 6 points
                2 TOs = 2 dunks the other way = 4 points for them

                Do that all night long if you want to win. A/TO is 3/2 or an unimpressive 1.50.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                  With all of the bad stuff going on, can't we just be happy with anything positive from a Pacer player? I know that you say your not knocking him, but in a way you are by taking the shine off of his stats by comparing him to an all star pg.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Let me follow this up with a smaller example:

                    5 plays, all turnovers lead directly to a slam dunk the other way, the worst possible case.

                    PG makes 3 assists, turns it over twice. Is his team winning?

                    3 assists = 6 points
                    2 TOs = 2 dunks the other way = 4 points for them

                    Do that all night long if you want to win. A/TO is 3/2 or an unimpressive 1.50.
                    So, wait - the other team never scores on the possession they get after you score? The only scoring is off your PG's assists? There are no fouls?

                    This is way too oversimplified. Sometimes you can isolate variables, sometimes you can't. I think this is one of the latter times.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                      Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                      With all of the bad stuff going on, can't we just be happy with anything positive from a Pacer player? I know that you say your not knocking him, but in a way you are by taking the shine off of his stats by comparing him to an all star pg.
                      I'm with ya on this. Considering everything he's done a pretty great job. You have to admit his play has been a huge suprise and we can use all the good ones we can get.
                      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                        If Travis Diener is being compared to Steve Nash, Travis Diener is doing something right.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                          The only thing Diener and Nash have in common is that they are both relatively short white guys.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            The only thing Diener and Nash have in common is that they are both relatively short white guys.

                            Well lets make this a more fair comparison. Lets compare Steve Nash in his 3rd year to Travis in his 3rd year. If this doesn't give you a warm feeling...

                            Nash

                            Diener

                            Also notice that Nash was a full time starter the entire season in his 3rd year, which I believe was the strike shortened year. Look at the difference in the minutes. Look at the shooting percentages. Look at the A/TO.

                            Let's not forget that Nash didn't become the Nash of today until he got surrounded with all a crap-ton of options when he went back to the Suns. It's not saying a lot, but at the very least we can say that Travis now is every bit as good as Nash was in his 3rd season -- if not better. If we are smart, we will want to develop Diener and get him some strong options like the Suns did with Nash and see what we can make of it. In the pre-season when I saw Travis, his style of play reminded me a lot of a young Steve Nash, but I had no idea the comparison was so close.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: A/TO - closer look at the value

                              You just said that if we are smart, we will build around Travis Diener... BAHAHAHAHA thanks man, everyone needs a good laugh sometimes.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X