Quote:
Originally Posted by crc21209
I think the same can be said about Robert Horry a time or two. But he made it count when it mattered like Artest tonight, right?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by crc21209
I think the same can be said about Robert Horry a time or two. But he made it count when it mattered like Artest tonight, right?
Artest defended great at the right moments and knocked down some huge 3pt shots through out the entire playoffs. You can make a case that he was their #3 guy these playoffs.
Out of their 8 rotation players for the playoffs, Artest was literally #8 in efficiency, even trailing Shannon Brown..his PER was barely better than Fisher and Brown, and his WS was #8 again out of the 8 rotation players..
I'll give him credit for his D, and he was obviously a bigger factor than guys like Brown and Farmar, but Artest was clearly worse than Kobe and Gasol, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that he was worse than Odom, Bynum and Fisher..
He had a good game 6 and 7, but he clearly sucked in the playoffs, there's no argument otherwise IMO..
I don't agree at all with the idea that Artest had a crappy playoffs-- in the first round he was primarily responsible for holding the best young scorer in the NBA to 35% FG shooting and 28.6% 3 pt shooting. That alone earned him his salary. In the deciding game against Phoenix, he went for 25 pts, 4 rebounds, 3 steals, and 2 assists. Most importantly, Phil Jackson trusted him enough to play him more than 40 minutes in 11 playoff games.
Compare the '10 Ron Artest to the '07 Bruce Bowen...
Points per game
Artest 11.0
Bowen 6.2
Rebounds per game
Artest 4.3
Bowen 2.7
assists per game
Artest 3.0
Bowen 1.4
Steals per game
Artest 1.4
Bowen 0.8
FG%
Artest 41.4%
Bowen 40.5%
3 pt%
Artest 35.5%
Bowen 40.5%
The idea that Artest is a low PER scrub is just ridiculous. He's a premiere defender who also contributes in multiple ways on the court. Most of all, he never backs down from a challenge.
:lol Who is saying Artest is a scrub?..
The purpose of this thread was that it was good news that the Lakers picked him instead of Ariza and signed him up for 5 years..
I pointed out those stats to show how his numbers were significantly worse than Ariza's, and were overall disappointing in comparison to the expectations for Artest..Artest wasn't supposed to be Bruce Bowen, he was supposed to be a much better player than that, a combination of Bowen-like D, except with competent offense..
Also, Bowen had 3-point %s 45%, 43% and 44% for the Spurs title runs, all extremely high..he not only provided the elite D, but he didn't hurt the Spurs offense like Artest hurt the Lakers offense..
Bruce's advanced stat numbers do show that he was a poor offensive player, something every Spurs fan realizes, but he was at least able to make 3-pointers at a high level, something Artest couldn't even do..
Overall, I'll say that acquiring Artest was a success, because they won the title..my point that it was a downgrade from Ariza is still clearly true though..Ariza was #4 in PER, #2 in overall efficiency(!!!) and #4 in Win Shares for the Lakers playoff run last year..incredible numbers, all while playing very good to great defense..
Artest's FG% for the finals (against an outstanding defensive team) was 39.8%, which was slightly below his season FG% of 41.4%. Ariza's FG% this season was 39.4%. Ariza's 3pt% for the season was 33%. Artest's was 35.5%.
I believe there was some contention that this is going to be a bad deal for the Lakers long-term, but for now it certainly didn't cost them, as Artest was pretty damn good when it mattered.