Poe

I disagree with both. Westbrook is an All-Star, and Beasley is All-Star-Caliber, and often times the separation is merely by the team record. Both score roughly 22 points per 36 minutes, both shoot below 55% true shooting percentage, and both players are top ten in the league in usage percentage. And both players are 22 years old and have "superstar potential". But regardless of potential, you can't quite compare Beasley or Westbrook to the best ever in their respective positions. At least, that's my point of view. ••Edit: And to clarify, I am saying that I believe LeBron is the best SF in NBA history, and that CP3 is the best PG. Derrick Rose is a long shot from deserving that MVP award.

Strictly looking at the exchange of age and talent, Russell Westbrook for Chris Paul makes about as much sense to me as Michael Beasley for LeBron James.

One of very many.

If you are going to count assists as "helping" the team score, then you need to credit all ways of helping a team score. More specifically, I'm talking about screen setting. There is a reason Joel Anthony has averaged 32 MPG during the playoffs. If screens that lead to scores counted as assists, Joel would have several per game.

It's a dynasty as far as the Heat being on the road to winning multiple championships within the next several years, but I wouldn't call this team unstoppable by any means. Boston created the blueprint, and the Heat were the first to follow. But not likely to be the last. The Knicks have been doing the same thing, except they are getting one piece at a time. It's only a matter of time before they add a third. Also consider the Thunder. They drafted Westbrook and Durant, and both are still young and growing. They are one more star player from being dynasty-esque material.

Not a ridiculous statement IMO. Matchups are very important in the playoffs. The Grizzlies may not be the most talented team, but they are difficult to match up against. For any team. It's part of the reason they were able to beat the Spurs, and a reason they are giving the Thunder such a hard time. That said, 118 - 85 was the score the last time the Heat played the Grizzlies. The Heat won. But the post season may be different. The only player I'm worried about is Tony Allen, since he has the right build to guard someone like Wade. Battier doesn't have the athleticism to be more than a slight challenge for LeBron. Otherwise, to address the focal point of this thread, I don't see the tag team of Gasol and Randolph as too much of a challenge to overcome. I think I good counter-attack is putting LeBron at the 4 and Magloire at the 5. Magloire can wrestle with Gasol, and LeBron has the strength to not let Z-Bo push him around easily, and the athleticism to meet him at the top. Offensively, there is no way Zach can keep up with LeBron. Hollins may be forced to make a line up adjustment at this point. And if the Grizzlies are unable to use their best asset, that is where this potential series would end. Also, while the Grizzlies aren't a bad candidate for "most equipped", I'd say the Thunder are a better option. Not only does Thabo-Durant-Ibaka match up very well defensively with Wade-LeBron-Bosh, but Westbrook is not to be underestimated. Chalmers would have his hands full, and although he's a bit of a defensive pest, he's not THAT good of a defender.

Being that Rose was chosen for MVP, it's not a surprise to me that Allen and Deng weren't chosen for the defensive first team. Media attention is more important than actual play to gain awards in this league.

This is what I mean by statistics rounding out. During Gasol's 82 games played in the regular season, he averaged 18.8 points with a 59% True Shooting Percentage, with 10 boards and a turnover percentage of just 9.8. During his 9 games played in the playoffs, Gasol has averaged 13.4 points in 50% True Shooting, with only 8 rebounds and a TOV% of 12.3. Gasol has statistically underperformed during the past 9 games. Give him 9 more games, and the ODDS are (based on his full season statistics), Gasol is likely to over-perform as a whole, and therefore round out his statistics to his "true" average. When a player averages 20 points, they never score exactly 20 points every single game. There are weeks where the player may average 25 points, and weeks where they may average 15 points. Same for a shooter. A 40% season shooter may average 45% one week and 35% the next. Pau Gasol isn't the only player on the Lakers to statistically under-perform on this team. After a quick glance, Lamar Odom, Shannon Brown, Steve Blake, and Matt Barnes have all had statistics unusually low or inefficient. The only over-performers are Derek Fisher and Andrew Bynum. Taking a look on the Mavericks, Kidd, Terry, Chandler, and Peja have over-performed. Marion is the only statistical under-performer from what I can tell. Once again, give all of these players a set of more games, and the ODDS are, statically, their play will likely be on the other end of the spectrum set by their average performance during the regular season. So if I'm right, based on what I've said above, Pau Gasol may have some pretty good games coming up.

It's possible LA could come back. There are certain players on the Mavericks that are playing unusually well, and players on the Lakers that have played unusually poorly. Statistics tend to round out at some point or another.

So what you are suggesting is this? http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=3fcywj8 The Lakers may be giving up too much value there. Not only do the Magic exchange the combined contracts of Hedo and Arenas (equaling $30M/year for 3 more years) for Pau and Odom, both core pieces of championship teams, but they also exchange Howard for Bynum, which is not only saving even more money, but you are getting a player that may become almost equal in talent. Here's a different suggestion: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=3bwruc7 Luke Walton's talent and ability at this point may be a non-addition from all angles, but what he brings is a contract $5M/year less than Hedo, AND it's a year shorter. Basically, the trade changes from the Magic not only losing one bad contract in Arenas, but two with Hedo gone. While they may not gain the talents of Odom, they save a lot more money, and from the Lakers perspective, LA gets to keep a core piece that was integral to their championships. Offering cap space worked to gain Pau for the Lakers. It may work to gain Howard as well, plus adding the addition of the size, length, and skill combo of Pau and Bynum to the table.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=3rxn3oq Discuss.

I called this at least a couple months ago. I knew that if the Mavs would face the Lakers in the playoffs, the Mavs would have a great chance to win. They match up very well. Heat.

Tracy McGrady. Not only do I believe him to be the better overall player, but he is an easier player to build around because: 1) He's more versatile, you can stick him in 3 or 4 different positions. So he's your man for a big or small line-up. 2) His skill-set is also versatile. You can put him in different roles. You can make him a ball handler and set up the offense, or you can have him iso on the wing. Perhaps have him post up as well. 3) He does more. He can defend multiple positions, plus add more elements other than scoring/creating such as rebounding and adding defensive length. Plus he keeps turnovers to a minimum with a career turnover percentage of just 10.2%. Also, if you look throughout NBA history, teams that win championships are usually teams with multiple ball handlers, or multiple decision makers with the basketball (like Tim Duncan, though while he won't bring the ball up, he can make reads in the post). Teams that revolve around a single decision maker like Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, and LeBron James (in Cleveland) may win games in the regular season, but when more heavily scouted and gameplanned against in the playoffs, things become much more difficult. For further examples, look at the Lakers with Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, and Pau Gasol. The Spurs with Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Tim Duncan. Also notice the Celtics. When they won a championship, Rondo was just one of the team's decision makers. Pierce and Garnett being the others. Ever since they changed their gameplan to have Rondo dominate the ball, they have won 0 championships. So my main point here is that T-Mac brings something rare and much needed for championship teams. 6 foot 8 (reliable) ball handlers aren't that common. Bringing him on the team ensures that you have at least one-third of a crucial element needed to win championships. To properly build around him, the next step is to bring the other two-thirds. Then fill the rest of the needs, such as rebounding. With that point made, I'm NOT saying Nash can't be a part of a championship team. HOWEVER, it's more difficult to do so with him (remember, for a championship team, not necessarily a volume winning team in the regular season). While T-Mac can play four positions and fill up many elements, Nash plays one position and brings only two elements - scoring and creating (although he greatly excels in these areas). Not only does this mean you've limited options, say, in the draft (like having an elite PG available using a high draft pick, whereas having an elite SF available isn't an issue with T-Mac), but you also need to put more effort into filling many other elements, like perimeter defense, interior defense, rebounding, screen-setting, players that create turnovers defensively, etc. While T-Mac brings a majority of these elements. Now that I think I've exhausted what there is to argue on Nash vs T-Mac as far as building a team, I will make one last point about Nash, and this doesn't have to do with vs T-Mac, but more to do on what *I* would do differently to build a championship team than what the Phoenix Suns did. This goes back to my earlier point on the need of having multiple ball handlers and decision makers in the offense. Having Nash run around with the ball until somebody is open may be successful up to a point, but it has its limits. You need to have more variety than that, and therefore be less predictable. If I was running the Suns, I would have done what I could to have guys like T-Mac and Tim Duncan around Nash, rather than have Amar'e and Marion. And for the #1 reason: Turnover percentage. Steve Nash has a career TOV% of 19.1. The reason for that is not because he is a bad ball handler by any means, but because his teams have relied FAR too much on him to handle the ball. It's FAR too much pressure to make only ONE out of FIVE offensive players handle the ball 50% of the time, and make FOUR players handle it roughly 10% each. For Nash, it needed to be decreased to no more than, say, 33%. As a result, his TOV% may have decreased from his very high 19.1%, down to more towards T-Mac's range of 10.2%, or maybe Kobe's range of 11.4%, or Chauncey Billups of 13.5%. Had the Suns done this, they may have come that much closer to an NBA championship, if not actually won one.

Same meaning basically. I think it should be apparent by now that I take very little priority in the impression I give of myself. Either way, you will look at all this in a different light in time. Also, I am no longer sharing results on this forum. There was a reason I did this before, but at this point, I no longer see the personal benefit in doing so. I will also eventually be deleting my previous results, since they are somewhat inaccurate and there is no reason for me to leave out false information.

I made one last adjustment to the rating. I think this may be the 6th adjustment I've made total since coming up with the concept. The changes of the ratings now from before are slight, but more accurate. This is appears to be it, it's all I can do, and I trust the results. BTW, some new results: Eddie House - 60.042 Mike Bibby - 50.308 Shannon Brown - 66.497 Lamar Odom - 65.439 Andrew Bynum - 62.127 Which means, comparing all necessary scoring factors in their statistics and weighing them properly, Brown is the best scorer in this group, and Bibby is the worst. I trust the rating enough to believe that. Some may have the opinion that Bynum is better at scoring than Brown, or Bibby is better at scoring than House, or that LeBron (now a 78.064) is better at scoring than Kobe (now a 79.417), but I go as far as to believe the rating to show the facts. This season, House is a better scorer than Bibby, Brown is better at scoring than both Odom and Bynum, and Kobe is better at scoring than LeBron, and is probably still the best at it in the league. That is now the fact. Edit: BTW, it may sound arrogant for me to say things like "this shit I just made up is fact", but once I am able to explain the process, it will make much more sense.

Derrick Rose?

The Hornets committed only 3 turnovers...

You can't expect perfection. Though I'm open to the possibility that Williams may be better at scoring the ball than Ginobili this year.

Better. Thank you. As a Heat fan, I can say that while Bibby is better at finishing around the rim, he needs much more room to get his outside shot off than House. Actually, the majority of players in this league don't compare to House's quick trigger. He is one of the best in the league at it taking shots with an inch of room. Also, Bibby isn't nearly as effective using off-ball screens as House. Actually, he is almost never used in such a way while on the Heat team. So overall during the regular season, I would have to say House was better at scoring, though Bibby was the better overall basketball player. But I'm sure Bibby's rating exceeds House's earlier in his career. Actually, I'll check now. ... Back in 05-06, Bibby's SAR was 77.895.

I didn't ask you to repeat the same points. I'm asking you to be more in-depth. What specifically in Brown's IQ makes him unable to handle as many scoring situations as Odom or Bynum, and how does that harm his rate of success? So if that means rating his spin moves, then by all means. Does he attempt them often? Do they work as often as, say, Bynum's shimmy-hookshot? Is it as effective? Does it work against as many defenders? And regarding House, in my mind, using screens is part of the ability to create a shot. How you use your teammates to score the ball is part of your scoring game. Maybe what you mean by create is by isolating and going strictly one-on-one against a lone defender? Perhaps this is a weaker area in House's game. But you also have to consider that perhaps his ability to use screens and be able to get shots off with the slightest breathing room, in the end, outweighs his inability to score one-on-one, and as a result he winds up with a better rating than the rest of the Heat's role players

There you go. That's a bad call. It shouldn't have been a foul on the D, and maybe you are right about it being offensive. But one example doesn't prove much. You need to show consistency. That the refs consistently make bad calls to give star players the advantage simply because they are stars. At least 15% of calls made for superstars that shouldn't have been fouls. Likewise, also prove that the refs don't miss any foul calls against superstars. That there is a no-call less than 15% of times where the star player gets enough contact from the D where there should have been a foul call. And lastly, prove that the percentages are actually different between stars and non-star players. That stars get 30% of non-fouls called AS fouls, and that non-stars get only 5% (for example). THEN, and only then, will I be listening. Otherwise, I'll only agree with you as far as the idea that NBA refs simply suck at their job, and it needs improvement overall.

If you are going to convince people that your conspiracy is true, at least give a good example. Jones' arm was moving downward, not out. Young clearly fell out of his own momentum.

Maybe because superstars are SO good at scoring, teams play them extra physically - particularly around the basket - to attempt to slow down their production and as a result, the superstar gets to the free throw line. Imagine that! Ever considered the ability to get to the free throw line a skill as well? That players have an inherent ability to know how to draw more contact from their defender? Like pumpfaking to get a defender to jump into you? Imagine that! Yet, somehow the average player is supposed to get to the free throw line at the same rate? That when they aren't as much of a scoring threat and are far more likely to take spot-up jumpers and easier finishes around the basket than anything else, teams will look play them just as physically, waste a limited number of fouls, and risk getting a low option scorer a free chance to score at the strike? ESPECIALLY when the odds of the average player scoring is FAR less than a SUPERSTAR?? Sorry, I can't imagine that.

The Pacers and the Sixers were taking long jumpers, while the Bulls and the Heat were attacking the basket into traffic. If free throw distribution was always even no matter where shots are coming from or how they are defended, THEN the NBA would be a joke.

You make a good point. As far as looking at Brown's and House's individual scoring game, I still feel you are being too general. If that's as specific as you can get, then that's all I ask of you.