We gonna act like CP3 doesnt have 63 assists and 5 turnovers

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

really doe:coleman:



























http://www.djstephfloss.com/v1/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Chris-Paul.png

[SpanishACB]

who cares about turnovers?

didn't you get the memo? it's all about fga

[JohnMax]

Now show me evidence of a low turnover rate being a strong indicator of winning basketball

This is the #1 reason people rate Chris Paul so highly, but truth is most great teams have high turnover rates


Let's break it down and look at the turnover rankings for the champions of the last 10 years.

2014 spurs: 12th

2013 heat: 13th

2012 heat: 24th

2011 mavs: 21st

2010 lakers: 5th

2009 lakers: 5th

2008 celtics: 29th

2007 spurs: 10th

2006 heat: 19th

2005 spurs: 12th

2004 pistons: 20th

2003 spurs: 24th

click through each year yourself.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/turnoverRatio


There is no relation between a low turnover rate and winning basketball. Makes a lot of sense when you think of why Chris Paul is overrated and why his teams have constantly disappointed.

There are regularly awful teams that take care of the ball, and great teams who are the worst in the league turning it over. Most great teams are actually in the bottom half of the league, because it requires risks to make big plays

For example tonight turnovers were a large part of what caused Golden State to lose. But that team is also dead last in the league in taking care of the ball and and is 5-1. While the clippers haven't been doing too hot in that time.


Chris Paul's whole claim to fame is his absurdly low turnover ratio. It's the one thing that stands out from other players to move him up the rankings. Unfortunately it is not something that in the long run is an indicator of winning basketball. You don't carry your team to wins by taking care of the ball. It's one of the least important stats in the grand scheme, as evident by the majority of NBA champion teams being mediocre to bad about turning the ball over.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Now show me evidence of a low turnover rate being a strong indicator of winning basketball

This is the #1 reason people rate Chris Paul so highly, but truth is most great teams have high turnover rates


Let's break it down and look at the turnover rankings for the champions of the last 10 years.

2014 spurs: 12th

2013 heat: 13th

2012 heat: 24th

2011 mavs: 21st

2010 lakers: 5th

2009 lakers: 5th

2008 celtics: 29th

2007 spurs: 10th

2006 heat: 19th

2005 spurs: 12th

2004 pistons: 20th

2003 spurs: 24th

click through each year yourself.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/turnoverRatio

There is no relation between a low turnover rate and winning basketball. Makes a lot of sense when you think of why Chris Paul is overrated and why his teams have constantly disappointed.


There are regularly awful teams that take care of the ball, and great teams who are the worst in the league turning it over. Most great teams are actually in the bottom half of the league, because it requires risks to make big plays

For example tonight turnovers were a large part of what caused Golden State to lose. But that team is also dead last in the league in taking care of the ball and and is 5-1.

While the clippers haven't been doing too hot in that time.

Chris Paul's whole claim to fame is his absurdly low turnover ratio. It's the one thing that stands out from other players to move him up the rankings. Unfortunately it is not something that in the long run is an indicator of winning basketball. You don't carry your team to wins by taking care of the ball. It's one of the least important stats in the grand scheme, as evident by the majority of NBA champion teams being mediocre to bad about turning the ball over.
MJs Bulls

and are u Day1086 or u just copying posts:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[Al Thornton]

This is the #1 reason people rate Chris Paul so highly

it's not even close to the #1 reason, it's mentioned because it's impressive and most of the league isn't capable of it.

[SpanishACB]

that's some high grade arbitrary logic bullshit right there

if you put paul in any of those championship teams they would have still won, whilst being amongst the best in T/O

i don't have time to bring up all the stats about counter-attack points, which Heat lived from, it's obvious how much of a big deal points in the break are in today's NBA for anyone that watches is and isn't a retard. By limiting T/O, you limit one of the main strengths of most contender teams nowadays.

It is a big stat. It just cannot be taken out of context and analyzed indipendently, because that's not taking account of the grand scheme of things, like you like to talk about whilst completely ignoring. Of course taking care of the ball is irrelevant if you cannot score more than your opponent. But so is getting more rebounds, getting more steals etc etc

[sportjames23]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/5bd1b2c9bbc5d1cc13478edcd971f6b1/tumblr_mi67uesu2E1qb07d0o1_400.gif

[tgan3]

John Max, its simple you turnover the ball you cost yourself a possession to score while giving an opponent a chance to score.

Thus, the less the turnover the better. This is simple logic. As what another poster has said, your arbitrary reasoning holds no value.

[Uncle Drew]

3rd round virgin.

[blacknapalm]

wait a second, TO rate is being used for championships here? how many of those had elite PGs that didn't turn the ball over much? other than parker, who i'm not even sure was that elite, at least for that timeframe. couldn't hid 3's with regularity and duncan was still really good. parker had a prime matchup. great, but c'mon now. cp3 has been the best PG in the league for years. curry is now second

[I<3NBA]

@JohnMax, wait, so you based off your entire conclusion on the fact that the NBA champions have high turnover rates without even taking into consideration other factors which offset their turnovers thus making them win? (they might be rebounding more, shooting at a higher percentage, have better defense, etc)

while we're at it, isn't it more logical to analyze turnover rates on a per game basis than just those who won the championship years? because you know, for all we know, those champions, while having those turnover rates, defeated teams with higher turnover rates than them. have you even checked?

for example, just last year, i'm willing to bet Miami had more turnovers than the Spurs for the series.

so uh yeah, you might wanna check the soundness of your conclusion, mate.

let's try this on a per game basis. check the head to head games of all teams this season and see if the winning team had more turnovers than the losers. if more winning teams had more turnovers, then i would concede your point.

[SpanishACB]

let's try this on a per game basis. check the head to head games of all teams this season and see if the winning team had more turnovers than the losers. if more winning teams had more turnovers, then i would concede your point.

that would require actual logic, ergo, out of his league

[Kblaze8855]

Chris Paul's whole claim to fame is his absurdly low turnover ratio. It's the one thing that stands out from other players to move him up the rankings.

Please. Most NBA fans have no idea what anyones turnover ratio is. His claim to fame is being a better point guard than the extreme vast majority of them.

You think Isiah Thomas is calling Paul better than he was because of his assist to turnover ratio?

Hes ranked where he is because hes flat out better than all but a small handfull of people ever were at his position.

[Nash-tastic]

While that is an extremely sick A/TO Ratio, he's still too ball dominant for my taste. Just my opinion.

[Rake2204]

Wow, that's an incredible start. Coming from someone who's following a team run by Brandon Jennings, a near 13:1 assist ratio almost makes my head explode.

For those scoring at home, I think Jennings' assist to turnover ratio is currently around 2.5:1.

[rhowen4]

Wow, that's an incredible start. Coming from someone who's following a team run by Brandon Jennings, a near 13:1 assist ratio almost makes my head explode.

For those scoring at home, I think Jennings' assist to turnover ratio is currently around 2.5:1.
That's not that bad

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Wow, that's an incredible start. Coming from someone who's following a team run by Brandon Jennings, a near 13:1 assist ratio almost makes my head explode.

For those scoring at home, I think Jennings' assist to turnover ratio is currently around 2.5:1.
Steph in his last game had 10 turnovers:lol :lol
i wonder how many games itll take CP to get that TOTAL :lol

[Rake2204]

That's not that badYeah, for as erratic of an impression as Jennings tends to give off, I think he's been around 3:1 for a lot of his career. Not too shabby, but crazy to compare that to 13:1.