Horford: 10.2pts 9.7rebs 50%FG 1.5ast 1blk 8FGA L.Aldridge: 17.7pts 7.4rebs 48%FG 1.6ast 1.2blks 15FGA IMO Horford is more of a banger down low, while Aldridge has a finesse game(we know how annoying that gets) game. Yes he averages 7 more pts, but takes almost twice as many shots as Horford.
The Hawks rank 18th in NBA Pace, the Blazers are 29th. Offensively speaking, it would seem that Aldridge is more efficient per possession on a better team that plays in the West. I'd give Aldridge the edge right now.
Really hard to choose between these two. Aldridge is a lot more skilled but not as much of a banger, defender, or rebounder. Aldridge has the slight edge in shotblocking, hes also a few inches taller. Ultimately I'd probably take Aldridge. Its a lot harder to find skilled big men who can score 17+ ppg than it is to find defensive minded rebounding specialist type PF/Cs. Aldridge has the skill in the post, outside shot, size, athleticism, etc. Hes a little finesse/perimeter oriented at times but you have to take the good with the bad.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Apr 7 2008, 07:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Horford: 10.2pts 9.7rebs 50%FG 1.5ast 1blk 8FGA L.Aldridge: 17.7pts 7.4rebs 48%FG 1.6ast 1.2blks 15FGA IMO Horford is more of a banger down low, while Aldridge has a finesse game(we know how annoying that gets) game. Yes he averages 7 more pts, but takes almost twice as many shots as Horford.</div> Here's a question.. why compare Horford to Aldridge's 2nd year and not his rookie? who's to say Horford won't improve drastically in his 2nd year like Aldridge did? granted his scoring won't take off with JJ, J-Smith and Bibby around to share the scoring load but his rebound and defense could pick up and his scoring most likely will raise a little. anyways, Aldridges rookie numbers vs Horford's 9 ppg, 5 rpg, 50%FG, 0.4 apg and 1.2 bpg 7.6 FGA gimme Horford's rookie numbers over Aldridges anyday.
Aldridge certainly put up fine numbers, but he seems on the soft side to me. Portland had a great spurt for part of the season, but it wasn't sustainable. For whatever reason, for whatever excuses you might want to make for him, I don't think he contributed as much to Portland's success as Horford did to Atlanta's. As Celtic Fan wrote, Horford could have an even better sophomore season. Horford is clearly the better as a rookie.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 8 2008, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Aldridge certainly put up fine numbers, but he seems on the soft side to me. Portland had a great spurt for part of the season, but it wasn't sustainable. For whatever reason, for whatever excuses you might want to make for him, I don't think he contributed as much to Portland's success as Horford did to Atlanta's. As Celtic Fan wrote, Horford could have an even better sophomore season. Horford is clearly the better as a rookie.</div> Since when did we all become so psychic? This question is about right now. It certainly seems like a close call though, but I don't see the empirical evidence to suggest Horford is better. +/_ numbers are not gospel either, but they would not suggest Horford has a better overall impact.
