Lunch time question...who is the better PG

[cycloneSOULja]

Player A averaged 32.5 minutes/game
Player B averaged 34 minutes/game

Let's run this out on a per 40 minute basis and compare.

 

[cycloneSOULja]

No, I'm going to argue that just because you get steals that does not mean you are a great defensive player or that you make up for your turnovers. If all things are equal than yes I want the player with more steals, but just from looking at the steal stats you can't tell if he's making up for his turnovers like you think you can.

That makes no sense.... When you turn the ball over, somebody steals it from you or makes you knock it out of bounds. So, to make up for that, you have to go out and get the ball back. That's exactly what Player A did.

Player A's teams gave up about 66 points/game over the course of those stats. Player B's teams gave up 70.4... Player A did not hurt his team defensivley

Did you ever play sports? Did your coach ever tell you that being aggressive was a bad thing? Nothing wrong with being aggressive, as long as you aren't stupid.

 

[Yes13]

When correcting one...you should make sure you spell correctly yourself...pretty sure it is "spelled" not "spelt" and yes a typo

It can be spelled either way.

 

[CYVADER]

1 is Tinsley.

You be correct. now who is player 2???

 

[CyJack13]

That makes no sense.... When you turn the ball over, somebody steals it from you or makes you knock it out of bounds. So, to make up for that, you have to go out and get the ball back. That's exactly what Player A did.

Player A's teams gave up about 66 points/game over the course of those stats. Player B's teams gave up 70.4... Player A did not hurt his team defensivley

Did you ever play sports? Did your coach ever tell you that being aggressive was a bad thing? Nothing wrong with being aggressive, as long as you aren't stupid.

And you can't tell this just from looking at the steals per game stat. If you know who the players are, sure you can say this. But to think you can just look at the number of steals and say that makes up for the turnovers, is flawed thinking.

 

[cycloneSOULja]

And you can't tell this just from looking at the steals per game stat. If you know who the players are, sure you can say this. But to think you can just look at the number of steals and say that makes up for the turnovers, is flawed thinking.

I know who the players are... I also know getting more steals is better than not at the point guard position.... Turnovers are a percent of possessions is a huge factor in tthe outcome of a basketball game. If you can create turnovers (in the form of steals), it gives you a leg up....

 

[CyJack13]

I know who the players are... I also know getting more steals is better than not at the point guard position.... Turnovers are a percent of possessions is a huge factor in tthe outcome of a basketball game. If you can create turnovers (in the form of steals), it gives you a leg up....

Yeah getting a steal is great, but if you're getting a steal one out of every five times you go for it and getting beat the other four times, you're not helping your team. And you can't tell that just from looking at the steals per game numbers, all I'm saying is that thinking you can just cancel out turnovers with steals per game is not correct.

 

[CycloneJames]

Yeah getting a steal is great, but if you're getting a steal one out of every five times you go for it and getting beat the other four times, you're not helping your team. And you can't tell that just from looking at the steals per game numbers, all I'm saying is that thinking you can just cancel out turnovers with steals per game is not correct.

Too add to your point, I'd rather have a lock-down defender who keeps his man in front of him but rarely gets any steals than a player who can't stay in front of his man but sometimes makes up for it with steals.

Obviously the more steals the better, but you can't look at it in a vacuum, which is what looking at just TO and steal stats is.

 

[clone4good]

Your arugument actually just favored Player A since Tinsley played a slow it down, half court style game. Heck I think Floyd AND Eustacy would send atleast 2 guys back on every offensive possession to eliminate a fast break, thus eliminating Tinsley from ever getting an offensive board, thus making his RPG even more impressive. So add that to the stat list: Team PPG.

Eustacy offense was much more flexible. Macs offense was stricly half court millions of offensive stes, dribble around for 20-30 seconds and not let DG do his thing. Eustacy would let his guys get out and run a lot more than mac ever let his guys do. And I dont really get the sending back two players after an offensive . possession argument because thats what Fred did with his guys also, I think??

 

[jaretac]

Below are stats for two PGs which do people think is the better PG?
I will tell you who the players arelater

player one - two
PPG-12.5 - 13.15 = -0.65
FGA/G-10.8 - 12.1 = -1.3
RPG-4.5 -3.15 = 1.55
TO-4.0 - 2.95 = 1.05
APG-6.3 - 5.5 = 0.8
SPG-2.6 - 1.5 = 1.10
FG%-.388 - .428 = -0.4
3pt%-.327 - .325 = 0.02
FT%-.685 - .749 = -0.06
FTA-4.9/game - 3.7 = 1.20

Since it looks like no one else is willing to stick a leg out I will bite. We can argue leadership, teamwork, defense, but we have to make a decision based on what we actually know and not what we think.

Based on what we actually know,

We are talking about a difference of 0.65 points a game in favor of #2 and 1.5 fewer attempts by #1.

Actually #1 makes more points per attempt than #2 which, again, means fewer lost possessions. Additional, we are looking at 1.10 less processions with #2 because of less steals.

Effectively this means we have 3.65 more processions because of player #1 than we do because of player #2. We are trading off 0.65 points for over 3.5 extra processions.

Last, the Assists indicate that #1 is partially responsible for between 1.6 pts and 2.4 pts per game more than #2. So while #2 is making more points himself, #1 is getting more points for his team.

You deiced, I'm going with #1

edit- fixed mis-calculation

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Statistically, Player 2. Give me more shots, higher FG%, more points, less turnovers and only slightly less assists. Also much better FT%.

 

[jaretac]

Statistically, Player 2. Give me more shots, higher FG%, more points, less turnovers and only slightly less assists. Also much better FT%.

but #1 actually has more free throws per game than #2 because he is able to get to the line more.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

so who are they for real??

from the op...

 

[WalkingCY]

2.6 steals a game? thats huge in a tight game.

I also think a valuable stat would be team W/L, because this would show a PG's leadership and effectiveness to make the players around him better. Much like a QB making is receiver's better. I would say Holloway was one of our best PG's, not because of his numbers, but because of his court awareness, making the players around him better and his leadership.

Well said.

 

[CtownCyclone]

so who are they for real??

from the op...

Yeah, lunchtime is over in the Central Timezone. Out with it!

 

[cyclonedcm]

What were the records of the teams that they played for? Statistics don't win games.

 

[Mamackey04]

You cant tell who is better by numbers for PG's you have to see them play, and how they lead the team, the only number that matters to me for PG's are W/L imo

 

[cycloneSOULja]

Player A's teams won 385% more conference games than Player B's teams over the same period of these stats.

 

[tm3308]

I voted player 1, but looking at the number again I would take #2. I prefer to look at steals and assists against turnovers, rather than just assists. Player 1 accounts for 9 steals and assists per game, compared to 4 turnovers (2.25). Player 2 has 7 S/A and just under 3 turnovers (2.37).

Player 2 has a higher FG%, scores more, higher FT%, 3% is a wash. The only real edge I'd give #1 is rebounding, and that's not as important for a guard.

 

[tm3308]

What were the records of the teams that they played for? Statistics don't win games.

Well if it's Tinsley/Garrett that we're talking about here, that's not fair to Garrett at all. He doesn't have a Marcus Fizer (Brackins wasn't THAT good), and Tinsley's teams were pretty damn good, very well rounded. Garrett hasn't had that benefit, so the wins are heavily skewed.