Any proof behind this typical blind assertion. BG is averaging 20.5 ppg in wins and 20.4 ppg in losses. That's about as consistent as you can get. Starter or player? Hollinger's PER has him as consistently an above average starter. What numbers do you have to the contrary?
Go figure out the standard deviation of his scoring, that'll tell you a lot more about the consistency of his scoring... (Just a tip, you'll need to compare it to the std dev of other scorers.) A PER of 15 is average. BG has fluctuated between 16 and ~17.5 all season. That's slightly above average.
Got a link? Or care to show your calculations? Or am I to assume this is unsubstantiated crap? If it's not, I'd love to see both the per game and the per minute analysis. Thanks in advance. No wonder you claim people don't comprehend your posts. No precision. Big difference in an average to above average starter vs. player. But you can't even bring yourself to equate Gordon's production as a starter.
Straight from the horse's mouth: A Year For the Ages: 35.0 Runaway MVP Candidate: 30.0 Strong MVP Candidate: 27.5 Weak MVP Candidate: 25.0 Bona fide All-Star: 22.5 Borderline All-Star: 20.0 Solid 2nd option: 18.0 3rd Banana: 16.5 Pretty good player: 15.0 In the rotation: 13.0 Scrounging for minutes: 11.0 Definitely renting: 9.0 On next plane to Yakima: 5.0 http://www.alleyoop.com/prates.shtm Looks like Gordon is 1/2 between a 3rd and a 2nd option.
I've got a master's in statistics. Would you like to see my diploma? I understand that you don't understand what I'm getting at. And if you understood what I was getting at, you'd understand how stupid a per minute calculation would be. And I worked it out last year and BG was way behind Deng and about equal with Hinrich. At some point I'll work it out again for this year.
I don't think anyone is saying that Ben Gordon is a first option on a good team. I think most people think Ben Gordon can be the first option in a Pistons model team (this seems to be becoming a thing of a past), or one of the key pieces of a star duo/trio (Gordon/Wade), (Rose/Gordon/Amare). I think Ben Gordon, when all is said and done, will be viewed similarly to Pierce and Ray Allen. Niether are superstars, but both were very good players, and just needed to be around other good players to be part of something special. It could happen here in Chicago with Rose/Gordon/Salmons/Amare (or Bosh).
Your definitions are different than mine, or probably anybody I've ever talked to. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen are both multiple all-stars, both capable of carrying teams at one point. Ray Allen was a lot better than BG at his peak, but toiled in relative obscurity in Milwaukee and Seattle. Similarily, Pierce was an All-Star in Boston on some bad teams. But both were clear number ones on teams that went to the conference finals. All BG can say is that he was the offensive guy in an ensemble cast and has won exactly one playoff series. Unless BG greatly improves over the summer, nobody is going to mistake him with Pierce and Allen.
You don't need do have a masters in statistics to understand standard deviations. Given your extreme anti-Gordon bias, why should people believe your blind assersions? Oh, sure, that study you said you did a year ago... Gee, I would've thunk that someone with a master's in statistics looking at inconsistent scoring would want to understand the effects of varience in minutes played. Maybe I do need to see that diploma.
It's not a bias if it's supported by the facts. I'd say your lack of any factually relevant argument comes a lot closer to bias and fanboism than anything I've said.
Ben has a standard deviation of 7.73095 this season in scoring. The guy ahead of him in PPG, Vince Carter, has a standard deviation of 8.85174. The guy below him in PPG, Caron Butler, has a standard deviation of 8.17528.
Show of hands, would anyone like the bulls to get VC? I'm pretty sure nobody wants VC. And I wouldn't say Caron Butler is anybody's first choice as a scorer either, but he'd be an improvement over Deng. Last year I believe Melo had a scoring average around 28 with a std of less than 4. That's what you want in a number one option. If you want to take it a step further, look at the std dev of fga to see if a guy is just shooting more on an off night to get his points. And to really judge a scorer you want to look at the percentage of points he gets from FT and 3's. BG rates well in 3's, but not so good in points from FT's. Plus, 20 pts a game just isn't that great. The other thing at play is that there aren't a lot of players who are great based on historical standards. So you could make a "best of what's available" argument. But that was basically why the bulls signed BW, and that didn't work out so great did it...
Dwight Howard, the guy above VC: 7.4960307 Paul Pierce, who is below Butler" 7.75299945 Devin Harris: 9.20458004 Dwyane Wade: 8.86633454 Lebron James: 9.29380574 Kobe Bryant: 8.54939031 Done perpetuating the myth that BG is not consistent?
The next statistical fact you post in this thread (other than perhaps Steve Kerr's shooting percentage) would be your first.
Well, considering BG is 18th on the list and I said he wasn't consistent, why don't you do the top 10, where the more consistent guys probably should be instead of all the other guys who are inconsistent.
I just did DWade ~8.9 and Lebron ~9.2 and Roy and ~7.9. Maybe Kobe's better, but it doesn't really matter. Since std dev should get larger as averages increases, BG is right in line with those guys. So it looks like I was wrong. He isn't great by historical standards, but he's definitely improved in this area, the last few games notwithstanding.
