Originally Posted by
CDu
To follow on this, the questions would seem to be:
1. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically reduce the turnover rate? Given that Thornton's rate is higher than that of Curry, I doubt he'd make things better in the turnover department. Cook's turnover rate has been lower, but that's also in part because he hasn't handled much of the playmaking duties in his limited minutes. So it's unclear whether he'd improve the turnover rate over Curry. Maybe it would cut down on some of the Plumlee turnovers if they got touches in better spots, but I haven't seen much to suggest that Cook (or Thornton) is better at setting the Plumlees up than Curry.
2. Would Cook (or Thornton) at PG dramatically increase the assist rate? Again, I don't think Thornton would do so based on his low assist totals. Because Cook has not played much PG for us this year, it's just hard to say whether he'd make a difference yet.
3. Would an increase in assists lead to a dramatically higher FG%? Despite the lack of assists, we're shooting at a very high percentage on FGA. I guess it's that we could get more easy buckets and fewer foul shots (meaning fewer missed points) for the Plumlees with a better draw-and-dish option. But I doubt we'd see Curry, Dawkins, or Kelly become any more efficient than they have been so far. And Rivers has done most of his scoring as the primary creator, so I doubt a "true PG" would affect his efficiency a lot anyway.
I agree with just about everything you have said here, but would add that there is another side of the court where the team spends 50% of the time and at this point I think Curry is a better defensive player than Cook.
Last edited by NSDukeFan; 11-22-2011 at 04:43 PM.
Reason: terrible sentence that is at least a bit better now
“Those two kids, they’re champions,” Krzyzewski said of his senior leaders. “They’re trying to teach the other kids how to become that, and it’s a long road to become that.”