No, its arguing with someone who continues to expose your duncery no matter what retarded gimmick you throw into the mix. I don't blame you for quitting, you weren't winning this battle.
Yea, but your stats compared don't tell the whole story. There is one key stat you are missing for PG, and it is one of the most telling stats of all. Free throws attempted. Mike Conley attempted 197 last year. Steve Blake shot 75. Which one do you think put more pressure on the paint for their team? The job of a PG is to penetrate the paint, cause havok, and based upon defensive reaction, set somebody up or score themselves. When you shoot less than a free throw per game, chances are you are not attacking the paint like a PG needs to in order to be successful at the highest level of play.
Not to mention, Mike really was blowing up in the 2nd half of the season while he wasn't very good in the first. It was after the coaching change that Conley really started playing. Someone should show the averages after all-star break.
Look, I'm viewed as a charter member of the Blake Hate Club, but I see almost identical statistics here. One is viewed as a disappointing, yet up-and-coming PG with some potential who just hasn't broken out yet. (IIRC he's 21) One just had by almost all accounts a career year, and is 29 with 6 years experience in the league.
On the surface you might think they have identical stats, but Conley post-Ivaroni blew up, going for 16/6 to close out the year. But If you want to see the real difference you have to dig a little deeper. Mike Conley advanced stats Shot breakdown: Jumpers: 68% EFG% .495 ASTD: 49% Close: 32% EFG% .509 ASTD: 16% Draw Foul Rate: 9.1% 3PT/2PT ratio 29% of total FGAs were 3s Steve Blake advanced stats Shot Breakdown: Jumpers: 88% EFG% .541 ASTD: 71% Close: 12% EFG% .500 ASTD: 38% Draw Foul Rate: 2.3% 3PT/2PT ratio: 51% of FGAs were 3s So looking at the two players my question to you is, which one looks like a point guard and which one looks like a 3 point set shot specialist ie. a shooting guard you bring in off the bench?
I could be wrong, but I think Brian's main point was that if Blake's "career year" is roughly equal to a mediocre season from an allegedly "disappointing" soph, then that's a pretty big indictment of Blake's value. I believe the two of you are pretty much on the same page (as am I).
That's what I read too. However, myabe Nic's post will show some of the Blake supporters what some of us others see. And again, if you go post Iavaroni the stats aren't even close. Steve Blake should be our Steve Kerr clone. Realiable, competent, steady player off the bench that shouldn't lose you many games.
Whoops, I think you guys are right. I think I focused too much on the "I'm in the Blake hate club, but ..." I misunderstood it to mean that Conley would be a lateral move. EDIT: Ah I see what happened. I should have been responding to Ebott, I didn't catch that it was BrianFromWa's reply to a quote.
Hiesley and Wallace met with Rubio and his family yesterday. All that stuff that his agent is saying is BS. I'll believe it when it comes out of Rubio's mouth.
If Mike Conley does become available, I'd be real interested in adding him to the team. And it would take more than a deal centered around Sergio and Outlaw. Bayless, but more likely Rudy would need to be included or we would need to include a 3rd team to bring them a 4. Josh Smith?.
