Reply With Quote
Kevin Garnett's 128 million dollar contract when he was 22 set the stage for the lockout and changed the rules preventing Tim Duncan from cashing in after his rookie contract was up. Just do a little bit of research. Damn.
Only recently have their salaries even begun to look close, and there's still an above average role player salary's difference between the two.
Between 2000 and 2004, KG was making $12-16 more than Duncan every year.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...garneke01.html
Kevin Garnett's 128 million dollar contract when he was 22 set the stage for the lockout and changed the rules preventing Tim Duncan from cashing in after his rookie contract was up. Just do a little bit of research. Damn.
I was with you up to that point. But you lost me there.
Are you re ed? Did you actually READ what I posted? Or were you just not paying attention? I'll repeat...
IT'S NOT ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL GAME WHERE BOTH PLAYED 48 MINUTES!!!! THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATISTIC!!! Fatigue is irrelevant because the MEANING derived from per 48's doesn't have anything to do with actually PLAYING 48 minutes. The point of the stat is to make varying statistics proportional. It takes the different amounts of time players spend on the court and EQUALIZES them by accounting for that difference. But you already accept this point. You say "You can just make the (valid) point that Garnett might have slightly better statistics because he played more minutes." THAT'S ALL THAT THE STATISTIC MEASURES!!! Forget about thinking what would actually happen if both of them played every minute of every game. The question is WHO IS MORE PRODUCTIVE IN THE TIME THEY ARE ON THE FLOOR. And you can't figure that out by just comparing raw numbers, because of the (valid) point that some players play more than others.
Anyway, it doesn't mean anything, the scoring stats slightly favor Garnett, assists and blocks moderately favor him, but EVERYTHING ELSE favors Duncan. Boards, fouls, FG%, TOs, wins, rings, whatever.
Drop this argument. It's dumb. You know you're wrong. Just admit it already and move on.
Just to add, you don't have to make it per 48 minutes. You can make it per 40 minutes like basketball-reference does, or per whatever you want.
It doesn't make a difference; if Duncan averages more ______ than Garnett (or vice-versa) per 48 minutes, he averages more per 40, 5 or 1 minute(s). That's the point you seem to be missing.
It got nothing to do with playing 48 actual minutes. Divide that stat by 48 and you can see how points/rebounds/blocks they get per minute.
?? Did I misspell something? What did I do?
I come back the next day and this is still going?
Seriously. Garnett don't compare, come the on already. Apples and oranges.
Man, Amare's stupidness is certainly rubbing off on Sun fans. Tim is already the best PF ever. For KG to even be mentioned, has to win about 4 championship just to catch up....
I would have to agree about the Per 48 Min stat being bull .
(Link removed because I need to read before I post!
You don't measure a player on what they could do, you measure a player by what they actually do.
The most overhyped and worthless stat ever.
Last edited by samikeyp; 06-27-2007 at 12:25 PM.
I agree that you can get some absurd results using the per X minute stats (take David Lee this past year for instance averaged 20 rebounds per 48). Hence, why I said the stat was helpful to compare similar players, i.e. players with similar or comparable raw stat totals. We can all agree that KG and TD are similar/comparable players. Hence, the stat is valid as applied to them.
Plus, you are making the same stupid, ridiculous mistake that Dirt was making. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT THEY COULD DO!!!!!!!!!! GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD!!!!!!! It's about what they ACTUALLY do, just translated into a form that makes the numbers actually meaningful in comparison. It's kinda like a scientific experiment where you CONTROL for a variable so that when you look at the end results, you know any differences had NOTHING to do with the existence of that condition.
Seriously, this concept isn't that difficult to understand.
I think per48 is fine when comparing players who play similar minutes. In the case of KG and Duncan, the difference in minutes is really related to different coaching philosophies... KG's coaches run him as many minutes as possible, Pop likes to rest Tim a lot durng the regular season.
If Tim was playing 35 mpg because he doesn't have the stamina to play 40, then I wouldn't use per48 to compare them, because KG's extra minutes should be accounted for as an advantage. Such is the case with Manu vs. other elite shooting guards. While Manu's production when he is on the court is as high and as efficient as anyone in the league, you wouldn't say he's a more valuable player than someone who puts up slightly inferior per48 stats but plays 41 mpg.
DUMBASS!
You have "rookies" selected from last year.
Here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statis...ll&season=2007
I understand the concept...I just don't agree with it or that particular perameters of measuring players.Seriously, this concept isn't that difficult to understand.
Some people, not you necessarily, use this stat as the holy grail of statistics and I just don't see it that way.
DUMBASS!
You have "rookies" selected from last year.
but I was just using it as an example. My opinion still remains. I don't see the per48 min as a valid or valuable stat. No matter how hard anyone tries to make me change my mind, I have just never bought into that stat.
Im not too dumb to realize that my sig is still valid.
Why do some Suns fans feel their team is above the rules?
No Suns fan will answer my question.
Ah...well Mr. Textbook. Do you also feel that Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended for walking onto the court during an altercation?Im not too dumb to realize that my sig is still valid.
How do you like that every interview Parker's had, he gets asked "do you think you still would have won had the suspensions not happned"?
If there was an altercation, absolutely. If you can point out an altercation during which they walked onto the court, I would like to see it.Ah...well Mr. Textbook. Do you also feel that Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended for walking onto the court during an altercation?
There wasn't an altercation DUMBASS!
I like that fact that winning another le and the Finals MVP has increased Parker's interview requests.How do you like that every interview Parker's had, he gets asked "do you think you still would have won had the suspensions not happned"?
So Duncan and Bowen, for no explicit reason, wandered onto the court?
Seriously? Were they drunk?
How about a Top 10 reasons why Duncan and Bowen did go on the court? Handicap: There was no altercation, dammit!So Duncan and Bowen, for no explicit reason, wandered onto the court?
Seriously? Were they drunk?
Yes, they were just going for a stroll, keeping their leg muscles warmed up!
Elson was undercut and fell to the floor. The guy who undercut him ran away. Duncan and Bowen stepped onto the court. Elson complained to the ref.So Duncan and Bowen, for no explicit reason, wandered onto the court?
Seriously? Were they drunk?
No altercation.
You are drunk.
Seriously.
Yeah, Duncan was concerned about the wet spot on the court after Elson hit the floor. It had nothing to do with any sort of imaginary altercation. (He was even carrying a towel, duh.)Elson was undercut and fell to the floor. The guy who undercut him ran away. Duncan and Bowen stepped onto the court. Elson complained to the ref.
No altercation.
You are drunk.
Seriously.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
