Don't agree with the point guard article.

[GuyClinch@xxxxxxx]

> The primary hangup of the mainstream pundits since the dawn of basketball 
> has 
> been the judgement of ballhandling skills by simply tallying assists. The 
> assist is certainly a positive however its actual value when correlating 
> with 
> wins and losses is highly overrated. Assists are meaningless unless taken in 
> 
> context with turnovers. Turnovers are the true indicator of ballhandling 
> ability 
> since they are a far greater negative than the assist is a positive. In fact 
> 
> assist/turnover ratio for a team correlates much closer to success or 
> failure 
> than does total assists.


Nah..

You can't argue basketball like the statistics in baseball. Baseball 
statistics are far more complete can keep track of every play essentially. In hoops 
though to much is lost with regards to the statistics.

Assists only keep track of good passes that lead directly to baskets. A good 
point will make many excellent passes that lead to guys getting out on the 
break. This leads to baskets indirectly either through slashing baskets (Which 
don't always count) or passes which set guys up to hit another guy for an easy 
dunk. 

Statistically KA usually compared favorably to JKidd. His combined assists - 
turnovers was often better then Kidds. But Kidds ability to uptempo the game 
and change its tone was the key to making him a good point guard. His "defense" 
and "rebounding" aren't really good enough to offset his poor shooting. Its 
his point guards skills that make him a good point. Same with Magic Johnson..

This guy is out to lunch. We all know guys like KA, and  Kevin Ollie aren't 
that good.
They are half court guys for the most part. There is no substitute for the 
eyes when it comes to hoops. Banks was racking up the turnovers but you could 
see that he was a much better point then Bremer..

Pete