Dan

we also can't seem to agree that per 48's, the differences are as grand canyonesque that people make it out ot be.

continually complaining about it tho, gets old.

one side see's what happened, and goes "ok, let's go on from here"

the other side see's what happens and goes "man, we should've taken X instead" and disregards anything that the current situation has.

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

Ed O

Per 48's are almost worthless on their own. People who work with basketball statistics for a living like Hollinger have proclaimed Paul's season as incredible, and you're breaking out something to counter it that's about as helpful as their respective heights... not entirely without meaning, but void of real value without further information.

Ed O.

Dan

per minute scoring then (same diff)...

it's not like telfair was averaging 8 points and 3 assists and 4 turnovers in the same amount of time.

seriously tho, can't we ***** about something else for once? at least players *on* the team?

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

Kmurph

He had a very good season, but isn't it a little too early to call him a special plauer? I mean, was Damon a special player after his 1st season?

As for whether or not it was a mistake not to draft Paul, if we only judged by this year, I think you would be 100% correct, but don't we have to wait and see how Webster (specifically) and Jack develop before we definitively answer that question?

__________________
Quit the Webster hate

Blazer Maven

Exactly, KMurph.

The initial returns have Paul>Webster and Jack, but Paul has taken a beating this year, he may not be the same in 5 years.

The fact is, Paul was the man in NO/OK's system last year and I doubt he would have been as successful had the Blazers drafted him and forced him to split time w/Bassy.

I think Jack himself may be nearly as valuable as Paul within 4 years and Webster could be putting up 18 ppg himself in the same timeframe.

__________________
"Luck is the residue of design" - Branch Rickey

Ed O

No, but did Damon have anything CLOSE to the year that Paul had?

And did he have it at age 20?

No, and no.

I would say it's absolutely NOT too early to call him a special player.

Ed O.

e_blazer1

Chris Paul:


Damon Stoudamire:


I guess I have to go with "Yes". Damon was clearly better on PPG, Assists, and 3 pt.%; was about equal on FG%. Paul was better on turnovers and steals, but I don't know that those stats are enough to say he looked better than Damon did his rookie year.

True, Damon was a couple of years older and more experienced, but he certainly looked like a special player his rookie year. There's a reason that Whitsitt targeted him. He just didn't live up to the hype long term.

__________________
Blazermania is BACK!!!

Kmurph

Nice post eblazer

Ed, doesn't it take a few seasons to give him that label though? I mean you could say he had a special\remarkable season, given that he was a rookie and that he was 20yrs old...but I think it is a little early to call him a special player....

I think that is basically projecting similiar\better results for him in the futre, which may be very probable but certainly not a given....

__________________
Quit the Webster hate

Masbee

It is an easy and common mistake to look at stat lines like these and have it seem that the areas where Paul's stats are better (rebounding, turnovers, getting to the line, steals), are countered where they are worse (points, total assists, 3 pt %) and think they sorta even out.

If you study them closely and run some percentages, then you will see that the numbers Paul put up are better overall.

If you want a shortcut, and a system that accounts for minutes played, and a system that accounts for pace - which is essential - look up their PER numbers:

Damon rookie year: 16.7 (not a bad number for a rookie, but it is a low number for a ROY)
Paul rookie year: 22.1

Of course, this doesn't include defense, where we all know Damon suffered.

Reep

Don't these statistics show that a ball-dominating point guard on a team with little talent can generate really good looking stats, even though his team doesn't produce? Damon was on much better teams later, and his numbers reduced dramatically. I'm not sure the best measure of a point guard is points and assists when all one has to do is make sure that they get their own shots and that they do most of the passing. If I recall correctly, in the final four teams, only the Suns had a ball-dominating point guard. Mavericks and Detroit have more ball movement (less focus on the PG) and Miami goes through Wade more.

Paul is a very good player, and will generate great stats, but I'm not sure he will ever lead his team deep into the playoffs. Just like Damon.

Masbee

Who knows what the future holds for any of these players.

What I do know from watching Paul play last season was that he was more a point guard than "the man". He didn't look like a selfish chucker to me. He didn't look like a self absorbed, gotta get my numbers, ballhog to me. He looked like a point guard. Running the offense, setting up plays, breaking down the defense to create havoc and as often as not set up a teammate, and taking enough shots to keep the defense honest.

Damon took 16 shots per game his rookie year and 17.4 his 2nd year. Those are the numbers that might indicate the kind of ball hogging fake point guard that few true fans want on their team.

Paul at 12 shots per game, played a more classic drive and dish style, and also ran a lot of plays for David West.

Adjusted on a per 40 minute basis this is the shots attempted on the Hornets:

West: 16.4
Jackson: 14.9
Smith: 14.8
Claxton: 14.6
Snyder: 13.8
Butler: 13.5
Paul: 13.5
Mason: 13.1
Brown: 9.8

Now that I look at these numbers for the first time, I see a very balanced offensive attack. Everyone got involved. Only PJ Brown seems to have been "shorted", but I doubt he minds, especially with the incredible year West had. Mason held back a bit offensively, but is the least effecient offensive player in the regular rotation. Paul and West tied for most effecient offensively. And yet Paul didn't use that as an excuse to take more shots. If he keeps that mindset, he will be successful for a long time.

Tince

So yeah...Martell finished the season strong didn't he? Good for him.

__________________
2005 & 2006 Back To Back Prediction Game World Champion of the World!!!

Anonymous Gambler

I think Paul is better than Damon- 1st year to 1st year, but it's not a stark difference as the numbers illustrate. Damon just didn't live up to his potential in the years to follow.

Defense is hard to quantify- is there any proof that Paul is really that good as a defender?

With regards to Paul, i'd say don't believe the hype until a couple years have passed.

Webster may yet be the better player.

Reep