When you look at Collison's numbers as a starter this season, he's perhaps the top rookie this year: 18.3 ppg, 9.0 apg, 3.4 rpg, 1.5 spg, 48% FGs, 41% 3ptrs, 85% FTs by comparison, here's Chris Paul's rookie year: 16.1 ppg, 7.8 apg, 5.1 rpg, 2.2 spg, 43% FGs, 28% 3ptrs, 85% FTs
you worded your question in Kingspeed format...not english format...it should be: "WILL Darren Collison ultimately blah blah blah" remember KS, each day isnt a new beginning from scratch...yesterday counts for something
I thought about saying Will but I stand by my final choice. It's perfectly good English and means something entirely different than "will."
I'd take him over Jennings and maybe even Evans at this point. He really should be in the ROY conversation. I don't think he'll be better than CP3 though.
In a history of absurd statements you continue to strive to find the most foolish thing to say about the NBA. Your getting really, really close with this one.
You forgot turnovers. Love the production he gives my fantasy team in all other categories, but kills me in TO and A/TO ratio.
I think it's pretty clear the ROY race is between Curry and Evans...Collison has done a great job but he's got to do it for an entire year in a big role to draw comparisons to anybody.
Absurd. You take Collison's stats from a SECTION of his rookie season and compare them to Chris Paul's entire season. Which is pretty typical of your X vs Y posts. Let me see if I have it down... Step one: wait for an average to bad player to have a career night. (Preferably an ex-Trailblazer.) Step two: make a bold, inaccurate and unsubstantiated proclamation that that player is better that another obviously superior player. (Preferably an ex-Trailblazer.) Step three: collect attention. Comparing their rookie seasons, things you leave out of your 'argument' include: Chris Paul is a MUCH better defender. He came up with 1.5x the steals Collison has had. And his on the ball defense is was light years better than Collison's. Paul is a better passer on a per possession basis. 20% higher in fact. Chris Paul is a MUCH better rebounder. Again, 1.5x the rebounding percentage of Collison. And as others have mentioned, Chris Paul's turnover rate is FAR below Darren Collison's. 20% below. Chris Paul had an historic rookie season. Darren Collison is having a good rookie season.
Not a chance in hell. Don't let the numbers confuse you. Just look at the overall outcomes and the individual the two make. Hint: It's not close.
It's not just one night. He has started 30 games. You can't count the stats he got when he was coming off the bench. How is that fair? All you can compare to Paul is the stats he's gotten when he starts and is in charge of the team. In those 30 games, Collison has been better than Paul was in his rookie season. Oh and Paul didn't have that many more steals than Collison is getting. Collison is getting 1.5 a game. Paul got 2.2 a game.
OH and the Hornets were only 38-44 in Paul's rookie season. Sorry guys. The numbers don't lie. Collison won't win rookie of the year because he didn't start the entire year but that's not his fault. When he has been given the reigns, he has been phenomenal.
Collison was also two years older than Paul was his freshman year, not to mention two more years of college experience. Plus Paul didn't have an all world PG mentoring him from the sidelines. Unless if Speedy Claxton fits your definition of all world. West was also not the scoring threat he is today yet. Also Paul had a better PER and more WS(Win Shares) than Collison. Plus most other advanced statistics are in Paul's favor.
