"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination."
Had to throw Scully's quote out again because you are using stats and suppositions. Yet you admitted that you don't know who the better passer and ballhandler is. Not knowing and then looking at stats and referencing the 41.5 minutes continuously handicaps your argument. I know who the better ballhandler is...and that is Ellis. I know who is better at distributing the ball...Ellis. If Ellis played 15 minutes a game, I would say the same thing, because I see it. How many players can be used for such comparisons strictly based on statistical referencing without taking into account actually observing HOW these players play ball? Countless examples can be made...
Monta Ellis averages 5.3 assists and 4.2 turnovers. Sorry if that doesn't blow my mind. I watched Ben Gordon for 5 years. Nothing I've seen would make me say he's a bad passer, and nothing I've seen from Ellis makes me thing he's so much better than Gordon.
Better ball handler, fine, you can say Ellis is. I know Ben can over-dribble and be wild sometimes. But that's not the reason your hyping up Ellis. Your hyping him up because he's scoring 25ppg.
I know you like to think you're the only person who watched teams outside of the Bulls, but you're not. And I haven't watched Golden State this year because I don't typically watch teams that are 16-40 unless they're my team. But I've watch plenty of Golden State the last three years and I know the type of player Ellis is.
Then you bring up Golden State's record, where are Gordon's rings? That shouldn't even be a question in this argument...
Record does matter because Golden State sucks. And don't give me the "rings" argument. In that case where's Patrick Ewing's, Charles Barkley's, Karl Malone's, John Stockton's rings? Or any other player better than both Ellis and Gordon.
There is a certain thing as statistical integrity. You can actually go to jail for lack of it under certain circumstances. I can prove night and day with stats who scored the most, rebounded the most, better free throw shooter etc. But, you couldn't prove to me or any GM in the NBA by using those stats that Gordon is a better basketball player.
I never said that Ellis was great...I don't use that word too often...I just said he is better than Gordon. You don't have to be anywhere near great to be better than Gordon.
I disagree, if Gordon played in GS system he'd put up similar numbers to Ellis. Again, the main reason your pumping Ellis is because of his scoring. I highly doubt you'd be arguing so passionately if Ellis was averaging 12ppg.
You just admitted that if a player shoots more he will have better numbers...or worse...what???
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say I'm contradicting myself. I'm not. My point is, which always seems to get lost.
Ben Gordon shoots the ball 10 more times, like Ellis, Gordon SCORING would go up. I agreed with Fritz that if a player shoots more it doesn't mean his SHOOTING PERCENTAGE would be exactly the same. Because if you shoot more there is the chance to miss more. THUS your SCORING would go up but you SHOOTING PERCENTAGE could go down. Or he could shoot the same.
I'll use the same example once again. And I have 5 years of Ben Gordon stats to back it up. You have 38 games in Detroit.
Ben Gordon is shooting the ball 12 times per game, Ellis is shooting 22 (2nd most in the NBA)
If Gordon got to shoot the ball 10 more times a game, based on his CURRENT average of .42% he would make roughly 4 more shots in the game. Assuming that non of them would be 3 pointers that would be 8 points. And if he played more minutes and took 10 more shots it's safe to assume that he would probably get to the FT line for 1 more set of FT's. and based on a career FT% of 85% he would make at least 1. So that would be roughly 9 more points. Add that to his current 15ppg and you got 24. If one f those extra shots is a 3 point then you got 25.
It's pretty clear you don't like numbers for some reason. And I'm not a numbers geek like Hollinger. Although you'll try to make it seem that way to help your argument, because if you disparage the numbers you disparage my argument. But certain numbers mean something. I'm not talking about True Shooting percentage or defensive win shares or even PER. I'm just looking at scoring. And if you give a good scorer 10 more shots per game, he'd score more.
But you think Ben Gordon is an average player. So fine.
I would have expected St. Ben to outplay Hamilton over the course of the season and possibly get more playing time, but that hasn't been the case, has it?
Why would you expect that? You said it before that Rip Hamilton is a better player.
And no, it hasn't been the case because Ben Gordon has played poorly. You can come out now and bash Ben all you want. But you wern't so vocal in your Ben bashing when he was putting up his usual number during the first month.
But now that Ben is playing the worst ball of his career it's more convenient for you to make your argument against him.
Oh but Ben is injured...what happened....his leg hurts! Its a routine injury, lets not act like he had to wrestle an alligator here. And he doesn't have that injury now, its subsided and he is still struggling.
Yeah he's hurt. You don't want to acknowledge that reason because you don't like Ben Gordon. Fine.
But I have 5 years of stats to back up what Ben Gordon is capable of. You have 38 games in Detroit.
Just a quick Edit here. How do you know his injury has subsided?
