Pat Riley vs Phil Jackson

#51
#51
n_huffhines said:
I'm not trying to talk about replacements for the 2004 team, I'm trying to explain why you should prefer a pass-first PG.

That being said I would have taken Jason Kidd, Andre Miller, Chauncey Billups, Mike Bibby, Sam Cassell and even old ass Gary Payton over AI and Starbury. AI and Marbury weren't bad players, they just went full retard in the olympics.
Click to expand...


As I mentioned I'm fairly certain Kidd elected not to play because of injuries. Miller and Cassell were tough at that time, though Miller had a down asts year by his standards. Chauncey shot 39.4% and had 5.7 apg that year, compared to Stephs 43% and 8.9apg, not exactly efficient. Honestly aside from a 4-5 year stretch he never distributed the ball at a high clip, and had a horrible fg% of 41.6% for his career. I refuse to address taking Bibby over A.I. or Steph.

And if you ever speak negatively of the Glove again there will be blows thrown. Lol FTR he shot 47% and handed out 5.5dimes better than Chauncey. :)
 
#52
#52
Billups shot 55 TS% and only 3.3 top48. Marbury did 51% and 3.7.

The problem with guys like AI is they don't know what to do when they have a poor shooting night. They'll just go 7 for 29 with no regrets. They just keep shooting. Andre Miller can have a bad shooting night and it has little impact on his team's ability to win because it probably only means he's missing 5 shots and he's still playing good D, not making mistakes with the ball, getting assists, and contributing to rebounds.
 
#53
#53
n_huffhines said:
Billups shot 55 TS% and only 3.3 top48. Marbury did 51% and 3.7.

The problem with guys like AI is they don't know what to do when they have a poor shooting night. They'll just go 7 for 29 with no regrets. They just keep shooting. Andre Miller can have a bad shooting night and it has little impact on his team's ability to win because it probably only means he's missing 5 shots and he's still playing good D, not making mistakes with the ball, getting assists, and contributing to rebounds.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume top48 is turnovers? If so I'll taking the guy with 3.7 if he's giving me 8.9apg, instead of the guy getting 3.3 with 5.5apg. But that's just me. Btw you brought up their fg% I was just pointing out Chauncey is worse than they are.
 
#54
#54
BadJerry20 said:
I'm going to assume top48 is turnovers? If so I'll taking the guy with 3.7 if he's giving me 8.9apg, instead of the guy getting 3.3 with 5.5apg. But that's just me. Btw you brought up their fg% I was just pointing out Chauncey is worse than they are.
Click to expand...

Well, that math is kinda sketchy, but your point is good. Marbury was almost 3:1 that year in a:to and Billups was 2.4:1. Billups has the better career number.

So he slightly edged him in passing efficiency that year, but Billups was a better scorer and defender.

Note: We should keep in mind that Marbury played in high octane offenses and Billups played for a dominant defensive team where the strategy was to limit the number of possessions.
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
n_huffhines said:
Well, that math is kinda sketchy, but your point is good. Marbury was almost 3:1 that year in a:to and Billups was 2.4:1. Billups has the better career number.

So he slightly edged him in passing efficiency that year, but Billups was a better scorer and defender.

Note: We should keep in mind that Marbury played in high octane offenses and Billups played for a dominant defensive team where the strategy was to limit the number of possessions.
Click to expand...

How was the math sketchy? There wasn't even math involved I just compared the top48 you gave and the apg I gave.

So Chauncey had almost as many top48 as Marbury in a slower offense. That doesn't exactly help your case.
 
#56
#56
Well, for one Billups averaged 5.7 apg, not 5.5. Marbury played more MPG. Per 36 Billups averaged 5.8 on a slow-paced offense and Marbury averaged 8.0

But I agree with you, more often than not I would want the guy with Marbury's numbers above, but when factoring the other aspects of the game I think Billups was the much better choice.
 
#57
#57
n_huffhines said:
Well, for one Billups averaged 5.7 apg, not 5.5. Marbury played more MPG. Per 36 Billups averaged 5.8 on a slow-paced offense and Marbury averaged 8.0

But I agree with you, more often than not I would want the guy with Marbury's numbers above, but when factoring the other aspects of the game I think Billups was the much better choice.
Click to expand...

O.2? Really Huff? Lol


Shoulda stuck with Cassell and Miller I wouldn't have argued too much there. Billups was still a year or 2 from being at the top of his game.
 
#58
#58
BadJerry20 said:
O.2? Really Huff? Lol

Shoulda stuck with Cassell and Miller I wouldn't have argued too much there. Billups was still a year or 2 from being at the top of his game.
Click to expand...

The point is actually that 5.8 per 36 and 8.0 per 36 are a lot more telling than 5.5 vs 8.9.

Wasn't that the year Billups won finals MVP? I thought for sure Cassell and Miller would have been the guys you objected to.
 
#59
#59
n_huffhines said:
The point is actually that 5.8 per 36 and 8.0 per 36 are a lot more telling than 5.5 vs 8.9.

Wasn't that the year Billups won finals MVP? I thought for sure Cassell and Miller would have been the guys you objected to.
Click to expand...

Yes that was the year he won MVP. Which I always felt launched into he's most productive 5 year stretch.

Nah Cassell was tough and if you want a pure ast guy it doesn't get much better than Miller. Both guys are a little underrated IMO
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top