Why it makes so much sense to trade....

[313 Professor]

Wow.

What I'm simply saying is a scoring guard with not much playmaking ability who isn't even an elite scorer can't be a part of an elite team with a major role. I'm talking about competing at a championship level. I'm not saying we can't be a solid playoff team with Stuckey having a major role, but never at a championship level. It's not just because of his mere presence. In a minor role off the bench it can be helpful (as in Bynum's case) as it's always helps to have a player who can create his own offense off the bench, but if this player is your primary source of offense it leads to offensive inefficiencies if the ball is constantly in this players hands.

And yes, it is true for the person who said it... a team has never won a championship with a player like Stuckey on their roster (as the centerpiece). The closest case was with Allen Iverson with the 76ers when they lost to the Lakers in the Finals. The difference between the two though is that AI was one of the best scorers in the NBA at that time, and I'd say he was also more of a playmaker than Stuckey as well.

LeBron2NY2010, I'm not arguing that Bynum has more potential than Stuck, I'm saying that I'd rather keep Bynum and trade Stuckey considering that Bynum offers the same thing that Stuckey does scoring off the bench in a 6th man type role. If we didn't have Bynum, and Stuckey had his role I'd be all for keeping him. Stuckey is (or should be) more of a 6th man type like a Terry, Barbosa, Bynum, Salmons, Gordon than a franchise combo guard like a Roy or Wade, and I worry that it is leading to the latter.

[Liqourish]

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910DET.HTM

When Rodney Stuckey is on the bench, we are outscored by 11.9 points per 100 possessions. We're nearly even when he's on the floor.

The team scores 9.9 more points per 100 possessions with him on the floor, and gives up 2.2 points fewer on defense per 100 possessions when he's on the court.

I understand people like to have a fall guy when the team is not doing well, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

How dare you use logic.

Don't we all know that all Stuckey does is throw up bricks. He doesn't help the team. He isn't versatile. He doesn't play defense. He doesn't rebound. He's not a playmaker even though he averages over 4 apg playing three positions. He doesn't do anything besides chuck.

He's a disgrace to all the Pistons guards who've played before him.... Flip Murray, Carlos Delfino, Juan Dixon, Carlos Arroyo, Alex Acker, Will Blalock, Tony Delk, Damon Jones, Smush Parker, etc.....

We should move him immediately as he's easily replaced by any small guard in the second round or via FA. I mean look at all the successful gaurds we've had before.

[H20KilledHeat]

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910DET.HTM

When Rodney Stuckey is on the bench, we are outscored by 11.9 points per 100 possessions. We're nearly even when he's on the floor.

The team scores 9.9 more points per 100 possessions with him on the floor, and gives up 2.2 points fewer on defense per 100 possessions when he's on the court.

I understand people like to have a fall guy when the team is not doing well, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

How dare you use logic.

Don't we all know that all Stuckey does is throw up bricks. He doesn't help the team. He isn't versatile. He doesn't play defense. He doesn't rebound. He's not a playmaker even though he averages over 4 apg playing three positions. He doesn't do anything besides chuck.

He's a disgrace to all the Pistons guards who've played before him.... Flip Murray, Carlos Delfino, Juan Dixon, Carlos Arroyo, Alex Acker, Will Blalock, Tony Delk, Damon Jones, Smush Parker, etc.....

We should move him immediately as he's easily replaced by any small guard in the second round or via FA. I mean look at all the successful gaurds we've had before.

fixed. before 313 Professor thinks you are serious

[H20KilledHeat]

Wow.

What I'm simply saying is a scoring guard with not much playmaking ability who isn't even an elite scorer can't be a part of an elite team with a major role. I'm talking about competing at a championship level. I'm not saying we can't be a solid playoff team with Stuckey having a major role, but never at a championship level. It's not just because of his mere presence. In a minor role off the bench it can be helpful (as in Bynum's case) as it's always helps to have a player who can create his own offense off the bench, but if this player is your primary source of offense it leads to offensive inefficiencies if the ball is constantly in this players hands.

And yes, it is true for the person who said it... a team has never won a championship with a player like Stuckey on their roster (as the centerpiece). The closest case was with Allen Iverson with the 76ers when they lost to the Lakers in the Finals. The difference between the two though is that AI was one of the best scorers in the NBA at that time, and I'd say he was also more of a playmaker than Stuckey as well.

LeBron2NY2010, I'm not arguing that Bynum has more potential than Stuck, I'm saying that I'd rather keep Bynum and trade Stuckey considering that Bynum offers the same thing that Stuckey does scoring off the bench in a 6th man type role. If we didn't have Bynum, and Stuckey had his role I'd be all for keeping him. Stuckey is (or should be) more of a 6th man type like a Terry, Barbosa, Bynum, Salmons, Gordon than a franchise combo guard like a Roy or Wade, and I worry that it is leading to the latter.

if we had a real big man, i.e a real post threat, this team would be a contender. i guarantee if we had andrew bynum for example we would be a contender that is all we need. also you cant compare iverson and stuckey, iverson was a #1 overall pick in a very deep draft and went to a good basketball school like georgetown while stuckey was the 15th pick in the draft and went to Eastern Washington

[Warspite]

Wow.

What I'm simply saying is a scoring guard with not much playmaking ability who isn't even an elite scorer can't be a part of an elite team with a major role. I'm talking about competing at a championship level. I'm not saying we can't be a solid playoff team with Stuckey having a major role, but never at a championship level. It's not just because of his mere presence. In a minor role off the bench it can be helpful (as in Bynum's case) as it's always helps to have a player who can create his own offense off the bench, but if this player is your primary source of offense it leads to offensive inefficiencies if the ball is constantly in this players hands.

And yes, it is true for the person who said it... a team has never won a championship with a player like Stuckey on their roster (as the centerpiece). The closest case was with Allen Iverson with the 76ers when they lost to the Lakers in the Finals. The difference between the two though is that AI was one of the best scorers in the NBA at that time, and I'd say he was also more of a playmaker than Stuckey as well.

LeBron2NY2010, I'm not arguing that Bynum has more potential than Stuck, I'm saying that I'd rather keep Bynum and trade Stuckey considering that Bynum offers the same thing that Stuckey does scoring off the bench in a 6th man type role. If we didn't have Bynum, and Stuckey had his role I'd be all for keeping him. Stuckey is (or should be) more of a 6th man type like a Terry, Barbosa, Bynum, Salmons, Gordon than a franchise combo guard like a Roy or Wade, and I worry that it is leading to the latter.

You very well could have a very valid point but the fact is that we are yrs away from a title contender and so the time to trade Stuckey for those assests that will make us contenders is yrs away. If you want to use history as an example then the Pistons never had the talent to win in 04 either. I very well believe that a pure PG would help this team and that I saw about 5 or 6 realy good ones drafted last summer and one has already been traded for cap space. I dont see how Stuckey can get us the all NBA PG like CP3 yet any of ther very good borderline allstar PGs can be had for much less than Stuckey so your in a sbad spot with him. Stuckey doesnt have the value to get you a stud PG yet your overpaying for a good one.

If you think we can trade Stuckey/Kwame/Wilcox and Prince for Okafor and CP3 then yeah I agree with you but we cant so theres no point in tradeing him.

[313 Professor]

Wow.

What I'm simply saying is a scoring guard with not much playmaking ability who isn't even an elite scorer can't be a part of an elite team with a major role. I'm talking about competing at a championship level. I'm not saying we can't be a solid playoff team with Stuckey having a major role, but never at a championship level. It's not just because of his mere presence. In a minor role off the bench it can be helpful (as in Bynum's case) as it's always helps to have a player who can create his own offense off the bench, but if this player is your primary source of offense it leads to offensive inefficiencies if the ball is constantly in this players hands.

And yes, it is true for the person who said it... a team has never won a championship with a player like Stuckey on their roster (as the centerpiece). The closest case was with Allen Iverson with the 76ers when they lost to the Lakers in the Finals. The difference between the two though is that AI was one of the best scorers in the NBA at that time, and I'd say he was also more of a playmaker than Stuckey as well.

LeBron2NY2010, I'm not arguing that Bynum has more potential than Stuck, I'm saying that I'd rather keep Bynum and trade Stuckey considering that Bynum offers the same thing that Stuckey does scoring off the bench in a 6th man type role. If we didn't have Bynum, and Stuckey had his role I'd be all for keeping him. Stuckey is (or should be) more of a 6th man type like a Terry, Barbosa, Bynum, Salmons, Gordon than a franchise combo guard like a Roy or Wade, and I worry that it is leading to the latter.

You very well could have a very valid point but the fact is that we are yrs away from a title contender and so the time to trade Stuckey for those assests that will make us contenders is yrs away. If you want to use history as an example then the Pistons never had the talent to win in 04 either. I very well believe that a pure PG would help this team and that I saw about 5 or 6 realy good ones drafted last summer and one has already been traded for cap space. I dont see how Stuckey can get us the all NBA PG like CP3 yet any of ther very good borderline allstar PGs can be had for much less than Stuckey so your in a sbad spot with him. Stuckey doesnt have the value to get you a stud PG yet your overpaying for a good one.

If you think we can trade Stuckey/Kwame/Wilcox and Prince for Okafor and CP3 then yeah I agree with you but we cant so theres no point in tradeing him.

Thanks for the insightful and respectful post. However, I don't think we need to acquire a CP3 to make ourselves a contender nor do I really think we're that far away.

Like you said we didn't have the talent on paper individual by individual to win the title in 2004, but we did because of how well each guy complemented each other. Not a single guy on that roster was an elite/supremely talented player all-around, but each possessed elite qualities that were all utilized on the floor at the same time. Our problem now is that the talent doesn't complement each other not that we don't have enough of it. So again... I don't think we're that far off. Stuckey along with maybe Tay & Max probably won't fetch us a star, but they definitely can fetch players whose style fit in better and complement other players on our roster. Right now we have 4 players who should be 6th men making up a large portion of our offensive output that don't really complement each other at all (Bynum, Stuckey, Gordon, Villanueva).

[roc]

How many Title teams won because of a great PG anyway? Isaih and Magic back in the late 80s are the closest and they had good bigs. Other than the Bulls, big men are what is needed to get it done in this league and always have been.

Kidd, Nash, CP3 etc are nice but won't get you squat without that solid frontline.

[H20KilledHeat]

How many Title teams won because of a great PG anyway? Isaih and Magic back in the late 80s are the closest and they had good bigs. Other than the Bulls, big men are what is needed to get it done in this league and always have been.

Kidd, Nash, CP3 etc are nice but won't get you squat without that solid frontline.

exactly, stuckey is enough to get us there and win it all IF we have a big man

and why trade him to get players the complement everybody else why not trade away whoever doesnt complement stuckey

[Liqourish]

Who was our elite scoring option during 2004? Rip Hamilton with his 17.6 ppg? Who was our skilled playmaker? Billups with his 5.7 asts or his 39% fg? Who was the Spurs elite scoring options? Parker with his 16 ppg? Manu with his 16 ppg? or Tim Duncan?

Every Championship team of the past 11 years has had very good or dominant big men.

1999- Tim Duncan
2000- Shaquille O'Neal
2001- Shaquille O'Neal
2002- Shaquille O'Neal
2003- Tim Duncan
2004- Ben Wallace/Rasheed Wallace
2005- Tim Duncan
2006- Shaquille O'Neal
2007- Tim Duncan
2008- Kevin Garnett
2009- Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum

Besides last year with the Lakers, every team has been dependant on a big man or big men to get the job done. Dwyane Wade and Kobe Bryant couldn't carry their teams alone. Kobe was the best player on his team last year, but he couldn't get it done until Pau and Bynum were healthy and playing at a high level.

You're right in that Stuckey can't guide a team to a championship by himself. But put a damn good big man with him and a nice surrounding cast and he's very capable of getting a ring. He's averaging 19.0 pts 4.5 rebs 4.3 asts and 1.3 stls. He's leading the Pistons in pts, asts and stls. His fg% and ft% are incresing gradually, his turnovers have decreased and should continue to drop. But he needs players around him. Rip/Tay/Gordon are all hurt/rusty. CV is hurt/getting decreased minutes. Jonas/Wallace aren't scoring options for us (even though Jonas should be).

The answer isn't to trade Stuckey, it's to wait for guys to get healthy and to make trade/s for post players that can help us.

[vege]

Yeah as usual you are 100% right Liqourish. That's why my reaction to this topic was a facepalm. Stuckey is a good player and is getting better. He is young. He have been playing with 0 offense at his side and forcing things. When we have the entire team healthy and playing properly we lack 1 piece, a dominating big man.

Put Al Jefferson on this team and they are contenders.

Big Al / Big Ben
CV / Jonas
Jonas / Daye
Little Ben / Stuckey
Stuckey / Bynum

You can trade Rip/Prince/Wilcox/Kwame/Max and a 1st for Big Al and whatever thrash they want to send and this team would be a contender. Too bad they wouldn't do it. But the point is, this team is 1 piece away from contend.

You don't say your young guard is garbage and he should go because he won't get it done. You don't say your GM who have been contending 8 of the last 9 years is garbage and should be axed. You just try to get the last piece when the opportunity is there.

That's why this topic and the let's fire Joe D topic are so stupid (no offense to the guys who started them ok?).

[313 Professor]

Who was our elite scoring option during 2004? Rip Hamilton with his 17.6 ppg? Who was our skilled playmaker? Billups with his 5.7 asts or his 39% fg? Who was the Spurs elite scoring options? Parker with his 16 ppg? Manu with his 16 ppg? or Tim Duncan?

You don't need an individual elite scoring option to be an elite team in every case, but if you're going to make a rather one-dimensional combo guard your centerpiece he'd better be one (like Iverson was). Stuckey will never be an elite scorer like that. And if you really look at it yes, Rip was our elite scoring option and primary source of offense during our run of conference finals, and he can still be that player. Hear me out.

There is no shortage of guys who can take a defender 1-on-1 create their own offense and consistently get off solid shots in isolation type situations. The problem with most of these guys is that scoring is basically all they are, and while having a guy that can isolate is good, it is generally a low-percentage form of offense (Stuckey is one of these guys). The thing that makes Rip a unqiue player, and an extremely valuable asset to any team is that he can create his offense without the ball in his hands, and when he gets the ball in space he is one of the best scorers in the NBA. This is especially valuable because no matter who has the ball in their hands Rip always has value. He's probably the only high volume scorer (that is not a big man) that has such value without the ball in their hands. In a sport where there is only 1 basketball, players with great value offensively without the ball are priceless. Rip has already proven he can be a primary source of offense on an elite championship caliber team, Stuckey will never be able to do that.

Every Championship team of the past 11 years has had very good or dominant big men.

1999- Tim Duncan
2000- Shaquille O'Neal
2001- Shaquille O'Neal
2002- Shaquille O'Neal
2003- Tim Duncan
2004- Ben Wallace/Rasheed Wallace
2005- Tim Duncan
2006- Shaquille O'Neal
2007- Tim Duncan
2008- Kevin Garnett
2009- Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum

To be elite and at that level a team needs an efficient form of offense, offensive players that complement each other, good defense, a player that can be relied upon to isolate and get off solid looks in isolation appropriate situations (late in games), and rebounding. Not necessarily a big man. The reason good big men are usually apart of elite teams is because most of their scoring is around the basket which is the most efficient form of scoring there is. This is almost always necessary to some extent, but in 2004, Rip's efficient scoring made up for the fact that we didn't really have that one elite efficient big man scorer inside. Okur, Sheed, & Corliss all added something positive offensively, but they collectively weren't even on the level of a Shaq or Duncan. But now, our biggest problem is that our offensive pieces don't complement each other because we have four 1-dimensional scorers scoring a lot of our points as I said earlier in the thread, and our defense isn't too great either. Stuckey is the most tradeable and probably most valuable of the four, and the fact that him at his max potential as the teams best player isn't a winning situation anyway, it just makes sense to trade him. With all the guys in the league who can score he's really not that special.

[Choob]

RIp aint elite at anything... dude has moved further and further away from his bread and butter game (coming off screens, curls etc) to a more ball demanding role. It doesnt suit him as evidenced all of last season and last night. He needs a pure PG who is a good shooter and who will pound the ball for 10 seconds of the clock waiting for him to get free. Stuckey is not any of those things and quite frankly that offense wont get it done in the NBA anymore.

BTW The player closest to elite on our team is Ben Gordon... Can play off the ball, catch and shoot the rock damn well and create his own offense as well...

[Warspite]

When you look at our future you see

Stuckey/Gordon/Daye/CV/2010 pick (Alabi)

I realy think Gordon and Daye fit realy well with Stuckey with there outside ability. CV is that midrange floater and hopefully we can add a big that can bang and get us an easy bucket. I realy think this team doesnt have alot of holes on offense going forward. The future success of this team is going to be in its ability to play defense and that is in big question with Gordon/CV/Daye. The Swede will play the Rodman role and help but we need the shot blocker/space eater to truely be effective.

I just think Dumars is going a great job of finding players that will enter there primes in 2012 and still have growth and potentialy can play off of each other and fit in realy well. Going forward Joe needs to find a def SG (Sefoloshia) to play with Gordon and/or a true PG (Teague) to back up Stuckey. He then needs to find a physical PF to play in a 3 man rotation with CV and 2010 pick. Add water and let them grow. Of course a seasoned vet or 2 in key areas is also needed but Joe is great at finding a Dyses, Soup, Corliss or James.

[313 Professor]

RIp aint elite at anything... dude has moved further and further away from his bread and butter game (coming off screens, curls etc) to a more ball demanding role. It doesnt suit him as evidenced all of last season and last night. He needs a pure PG who is a good shooter and who will pound the ball for 10 seconds of the clock waiting for him to get free. Stuckey is not any of those things and quite frankly that offense wont get it done in the NBA anymore.

BTW The player closest to elite on our team is Ben Gordon... Can play off the ball, catch and shoot the rock damn well and create his own offense as well...

He's moved further and further away from it because of the players he's playing with not because he can't still do it. Too many possessions we have nowadays end in one guy trying to isolate and score, and on the offensive end our team just isn't functioning like a unit. Trying to take matters into your own hands and chuking when you're losing is contagious. If we actually had ball movement, and guys with court vision rather than just scorers, Rip would still be able to do what he does best. Instead we have a team full of scorers first, and have the fewest assists per game of any team in the league.

As far as that offense not working anymore, that's far from true. It definitely shouldn't be your only means of effective scoring (especially late in games), but nothing has changed so much as to where Rip can't still work off the ball, and make plays either scoring or passing the rock to the open man in space. I'll agree that Ben Gordon is an elite shooter and can create his own offense, but what else can he do? You can only have so many players like BG creating their own offense all game and that's IT if you want to win games. We have like 4 which is why we're 11-20 with all the talent we have.

[Choob]

He's moved further and further away from it because of the players he's playing with not because he can't still do it. Too many possessions we have nowadays end in one guy trying to isolate and score, and on the offensive end our team just isn't functioning like a unit. Trying to take matters into your own hands and chuking when you're losing is contagious. If we actually had ball movement, and guys with court vision rather than just scorers, Rip would still be able to do what he does best. Instead we have a team full of scorers first, and have the fewest assists per game of any team in the league.

As far as that offense not working anymore, that's far from true. It definitely shouldn't be your only means of effective scoring (especially late in games), but nothing has changed so much as to where Rip can't still work off the ball, and make plays either scoring or passing the rock to the open man in space. I'll agree that Ben Gordon is an elite shooter and can create his own offense, but what else can he do? You can only have so many players like BG creating their own offense all game and that's IT if you want to win games. We have like 4 which is why we're 11-20 with all the talent we have.

Excuses. Excuses...

Thats two things that Rip cannot do. Gordon is just as good as Rip playing off the ball so that makes Rip redundant. Rip is the odd man out, he needs ppl to get him his own offense while we have guys who can play off and on the ball. The offense stagnates b/c we either have Stuck/Gordon/Bynum pounding the ball at the top of key waiting for Rip/Tay to open up or we give them the ball and let them iso when they're garbage at it. Its the system in place not the players in it. It doesnt help that Rip and Tay cant hit diddly at the moment.

It makes no sense to get rid of one of our youngest, cheapest and most productive players in Stuck to retain an overpaid player in Rip whose game can be replicated and surpassed by Gordon.

We're 11-20 b/c Chucky Atkins and Jason Maxiell each have started more games than Rip and Tay combined, Gordon and Bynum have missed a number of games and CV is playing hurt. The team hasnt played together enough to build chemistry and so they've been losing not b/c we have 2 SGs, a combo guard and a PG.

[Cowology]

I don't get where this idea that Stuckey is our "centerpiece" or "franchise player" has come from. You're making it sound like we're building a team completely around him and he has to be the most dominant player and carry the team. That's simply not true. He is simply one part of the puzzle. He might be one of the cornerstones, but he's not the whole damn foundation. Nor does he need to be.

[thesack12]

I haven't rifled through the majority of this thread, but.....

I don't think that Stuckey should be traded, nor do I necessarily want him to be traded. But as I have put on the record in the past, I am not at all opposed to moving him if he can fetch quality assets.

I must have missed the memo that stated your assist numbers told the whole story on how the PG orchestrates the offense. People will give you Stuckey's assist stats and qualify it by saying he is still only a 3rd year player, has been playing with less talent around him, and playing multiple positions. However, here is one assist angle they won't tell you:

2009 season to date:

Rodney Stuckey: 1150 minutes played, 132 assists
Will Bynum: 737 minutes played, 116 assists

Read into the above numbers what you want. But personally I see Willy B pretty much having a year less NBA experience, and playing with the exact same talent around him that Stuckey has had.

Stuckey doesn't have the ability to impact the game without dominating the ball. The effect of that ball domination, is Detroit needing Stuckey to be the main facilitator on offense. Stuckey is a good ball handler but he is a PG by default and/or need. All you have to do is watch the games, and you can easily see Stuckey is not good with orchestrating the offense. If you can't see that just see how well the team played and how many wins they got when Chucky Atkins was infused as the starting PG. The Detroit Piston's record with Rodney Stuckey as the #1 PG option for the past 1 1/3 seasons is not good. I'm well aware of all the factors that play into that record. But no matter how you want to slice it, Stuckey's game and style is not equating to winning basketball games.

All that said, I will repeat that I am not advocating trading Stuckey, but am not opposed to it. IMO if Stuckey stays long term, Dumars should look elsewhere for pure PG to pair with BG (Rip will be gone soon). That way Stuckey becomes a super sub capable of playing combo guard with the second unit, where his attacking mentality can be let loose. If he came off the bench, it would suit all his strengths. If Stuckey can solely concentrate on attacking and scoring, he can be extrememely lethal. But he has to be coming off the bench to afford him the luxury of that mentality.

[7r5ur]

OK, this myth that Rip's "Off-the-ball" game doesn't bog down an offense like pick and roll scorers needs to end here. If anything it is worse. You get 3 dudes standing around setting picks, one guy at the top of the key (Rodney) pounding the ball away, while Rip runs in circles hoping to get open for a 20 foot shot. 75% of the time, he'll be covered and the PG will be forced to scramble late in the clock, or they'll get the pass to Rip, and he'll have to force something. There is no cutting, the defense isn't moving (no easy putbacks as defenders move to help out), and the likelihood of getting to the FT line is slim.

And +1 on Cow's post. Rodney is not the only player we're building on. We're not asking him to be Lebron James. Just because he's not Lebron/Kobe, doesn't mean he can't be a big piece to our puzzle. Make no mistake, a guard who is a mismatch most nights, attacks the rack relentlessly, rebounds like a SF, scores in bunches, can defend 3 positions effectively, and get you 4-5 assists is definitely a piece that will help a championship-caliber team as a major contributer. Not to mention the kid is 23, and only has a little over 2 years of NBA game experience.

[7r5ur]

I must have missed the memo that stated your assist numbers told the whole story on how the PG orchestrates the offense. People will give you Stuckey's assist stats and qualify it by saying he is still only a 3rd year player, has been playing with less talent around him, and playing multiple positions. However, here is one assist angle they won't tell you:

2009 season to date:

Rodney Stuckey: 1150 minutes played, 132 assists
Will Bynum: 737 minutes played, 116 assists

Here's another stat they won't tell you:

http://www.82games.com/0910/09DET4.HTM#bypos

Stuckey has played 7% of the team's PG minutes.
Bynum has played 50% of the team's PG minutes.

Bynum does not play off the ball at all when he's in the game. He should be out-assisting Rodney in those minutes, but he's not.

[thesack12]

I must have missed the memo that stated your assist numbers told the whole story on how the PG orchestrates the offense. People will give you Stuckey's assist stats and qualify it by saying he is still only a 3rd year player, has been playing with less talent around him, and playing multiple positions. However, here is one assist angle they won't tell you:

2009 season to date:

Rodney Stuckey: 1150 minutes played, 132 assists
Will Bynum: 737 minutes played, 116 assists

Here's another stat they won't tell you:

http://www.82games.com/0910/09DET4.HTM#bypos

Stuckey has played 7% of the team's PG minutes.
Bynum has played 50% of the team's PG minutes.

Bynum does not play off the ball at all when he's in the game. He should be out-assisting Rodney in those minutes, but he's not.

7% of minutes @ PG huh?
You also forgot to report that it has BG with 19% of the PG minutes

Sorry dude I don't see these stats holding water. I don't know how they calculate that formula, but its quite obvious Rodney plays much more than 7%, and BG far less than 19% of Detroit's PG minutes.