FlipTSO wrote:That poster claimed Harden has had better seasons than Stuckey for 2 yrs straight. I was just pointing out that he was wrong, not spinning anything. If you want to demean Stuckey's '11 season by saying he only avg 3 more pts and 3 more asts, the same could be said about Harden's '12 season where he only avg 2 more pts and 2 more rebs. Its all proof of my point at just how close their careers have been thus far.
But you need to look to efficiency to get the story behind those numbers. In 10-11, Harden had slightly worse (but comparable) raw numbers while playing less minutes, having the ball less, scoring at a more efficient clip, and turning the ball over less.
In 11-12, Harden had slightly better number raw numbers, but the huge difference between he and Stuckey cam in all relevant measures of efficiency (raw %s, TS%, eFG%, PER, offensive rating and win shares).
If you're comparing careers, compare apples to apples (Harden has only played 3 seasons prior to this against Stuckey's 5 seasons). What they have done in their first 3 seasons? Comparing each player'ss 3rd season, the statistical advantage goes to Harden in every category but assists (and again, efficiency isn't close).
Again, I'm not trying to demean Stuckey, or what he did in 10-11. But in a season where he played half a quarter more than Harden, and had the ball a lot more, the numbers should have been better if the argument is to have real legs.
If you are predicting he's going to have the better career when its all said and done, your entitled to your opinion, but thats all based on potential. As of now neither have played like All-Stars for a full season, so its kind of foolish to talk like Harden is an all-star and Stuckey some scrub, when the reality is neither are all-stars yet, and their careers up until now have been pretty much even, statisically.
You'll win my apologies if you can find anywhere within this thread where I have called Stuckey a scrub. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that I like Stuck, and think he's a good player. But that's not to say he's better than Harden, because he just isn't.
I never predicted Harden will have a better career, but as I did say, he's certainly on pace. Again, matching the first 3 seasons, Harden has won 6MOY, and Olympic Gold Medal, and posted a full season (11-12) better than any season Stuckey has had. Stuckey has been in the league longer, and boasts accolades like the all-rookie 2nd team.
Add the fact that Stuckey has 200+ starts on his resume, including 3 playoff starts (all wins) vs only 8 reg season starts for Harden, is what gives Stuckey the edge for me right now.
After this season, if Harden has the better year starting a full season, then the edge may go to Harden. He's got to go out and prove it though first. I'm not going to crown a player as an all-star who hasn't even started 10 games yet in his career. Thats objectivity
Number of starts =/= caliber of player. That much should be obvious. Harden has already played starter's minutes (31.4 last season), and if you think his lack of starts shows a need for him to prove himself as a starting player in the NBA, then I won't argue with you, because you've got your mind made up. No one should question the skill or ability of a player on the sole basis of when they first check into the game - we retired the number of this one guy who didn't start. For further reference, please see: Bobby Jackson in Sacramento, Antawn Jamison in Dallas, Manu Ginobili in San Antonio, Jason Terry in Dallas, Lamar Odom on the Lakers, etc.
ppl talk like he's a 25 ppg scorer, yet his highest ppg in a season was 17, same as Stuckey's. I don't get it, but w/e.
