Which player has more potential

[Fafnir]

I know, I just wanted to throw a bone to TA lovers. Hollinger I think actually says in his rankings (that's where I got these stats) that high - TO rookies tend to have better careers. Interesting.

It is because they tend to be more talented, otherwise the coaches wouldn't let them play with such turnovers. Or even handle the ball when they are on the court.

The cliche joke is, you have to be a really good player to get *insert large number* turnovers. Otherwise the coach would have benched you!

[hwangjini_1]

I'm saying Billy becuase TA is already known as somebody who CANT be counted on down the stretch of a big game. And Green has already played his way from a high potential future star... to a 12th man who doesn't even know if he'll dress one a nightly basis. All three could avg 13-20 points in a starting role for some crap team.

All three have great athleticism and can really jump. Green can shoot but can't play defense. Tony Allen can play defense but can't really shoot Tony Allen and Green both have little basketball IQ, which is what makes me choose Walker.  Walker is strong and will learn how to play good defense, and probably develop his jump shot.

ah, but you didnt address the million dollar question.... is walker a knucklehead along the lines of allen and green, or, does he have a good brain inside that head?

[hwangjini_1]

Seeing that we have seen practically nothing of Billy thus far, it is futile to say he has any more "basketball IQ" (which by the way is a terribly stupid term) than Tony, who has at least shown he understands the game, which is more than we can say for Billy, and it is obviously far, far, far more than we can say about Gerald.

understands how to dribble off his foot, drive towards the rim with no hope of finishing as he turns the ball over, and foul jump shooters taking three's for no reason?

He's shown me a whole bunch of that, not so much anything that proves he knows his backside from a basketball understanding wise.

If you don't like low basketball IQ pc way, i'll do the non-pc way

He's a stupid basketball player who is a 10th man at best. His potential is long gone.

and again, that's not an endorsement of bill walker, its a acknowledgment that TA and GG are pretty bad, and we don't know if this kid walker is good or bad yet. Ergo, he has more potential to turn into something useful.

Too much is made of Tony Allen dribbling the ball off his foot, off his head, off his own hand, etc. Does this kind of thing happen sometimes? Sure, but it's not the end of the world. I see Paul Pierce make many, many bad turnovers during the course of a game. He's not exactly Mister Protective when it comes to the ball, but no one seems to care because it's just not in style to critique Paul right now. Tony averaged 1.67 turnovers a game in 19.3 minutes, whereas Paul averaged 2.81 in 37.5 minutes; hardly any difference there, so what's your gripe about?

well, the turn over difference might be a bit larger than is indicated above. if the turn over rate for TA and pierce are calculated for 40 minutes for each player we get...

TA = 3.5 to/40 minutes
PP = 3.0 to/40 minutes.

1/2 a turn over a game is a noticeable difference.

but also important is that pierce has a large % of the plays run through pierce. he is often the focal point of the offense and is constantly handling the ball, which means more opportunities for turnovers.

but TA, well, i dont think doc has designed a plethora of plays meant to run through his hands.

so, even though pierce and allen may be on the court for 40 minutes each, i am willing to bet that allen has fewer opportunties to handle the ball.

that means that even though TA touches the ball less than pierce, he still turns it over more often.

so the comparison given by the poster above doesnt tell the whole story.