Page 1 of 2
Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:02 pm
by 2tough
Stuckey, who is widely hated around here and criticized for being horrible this year (not unjustified) is having a very similar statistical season to Brandon Knight, who people bemoan for losing the starting point guard job to Calderon.
Consider...
Stuckey's PER 12.7
Knight's PER 12.9
Stuckey's Win Shares 1.8
Knight's Win Shares 1.6
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:11 pm
by princeofpalace
Interesting cherry pick.
How similar are these stats?
Stuckey: 11 points/3.5 assists/3 boards on 39%FG, .49TS, .42 eFG, and 28%3PT in 28 minutes
Knight: 13 points/4 .3 assists/2 boards on 41%FG, .52TS, .47 eFG and 37% 3pt in 31 minutes
What about this one:
Knight: +1.7
Stuckey: -3.1
and most importantly, Rodney Stuckey- 6 year vet. Brandon Knight- 2 year sophomore.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:46 pm
by Moose10Fan
They both suck.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:11 pm
by MrBigShot
princeofpalace wrote:Interesting cherry pick.
How similar are these stats?
Stuckey: 11 points/3.5 assists/3 boards on 39%FG, .49TS, .42 eFG, and 28%3PT in 28 minutes
Knight: 13 points/4 .3 assists/2 boards on 41%FG, .52TS, .47 eFG and 37% 3pt in 31 minutes
What about this one:
Knight: +1.7
Stuckey: -3.1
and most importantly, Rodney Stuckey- 6 year vet. Brandon Knight- 2 year sophomore.
Exactly. Stuck has steadily regressed...
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:28 pm
by Strange Clouds
Moose10Fan wrote:They both suck.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:33 pm
by srt4b
Moose10Fan wrote:They both suck.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:04 pm
by detroitKG
The Knight hate continues...are you guys even fans of this team and it's players anymore...yikes..
Yes Stuckey sucks..However I'm not burying a young player like Knight after not even 2 seasons..Get **** real.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:58 pm
by Moose10Fan
Well I haven’t been in support of Knight since we drafted him and im not changing my mind now. I still see everything that had be upset with the pick. Plays to fast, doesn’t have a strong enough handle, telegraphs passes, can’t throw lobs, his shot is such a flick that its impossible to be consistent with it.
Compare that to his positives, solid defender, good worth ethic, competitive, streaky shooter.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:49 pm
by 2tough
princeofpalace wrote:Interesting cherry pick.
How similar are these stats?
Stuckey: 11 points/3.5 assists/3 boards on 39%FG, .49TS, .42 eFG, and 28%3PT in 28 minutes
Knight: 13 points/4 .3 assists/2 boards on 41%FG, .52TS, .47 eFG and 37% 3pt in 31 minutes
What about this one:
Knight: +1.7
Stuckey: -3.1
and most importantly, Rodney Stuckey- 6 year vet. Brandon Knight- 2 year sophomore.
Stuckey had better numbers his sophomore year than Knight does this year.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:50 pm
by menten
2tough wrote:princeofpalace wrote:Interesting cherry pick.
How similar are these stats?
Stuckey: 11 points/3.5 assists/3 boards on 39%FG, .49TS, .42 eFG, and 28%3PT in 28 minutes
Knight: 13 points/4 .3 assists/2 boards on 41%FG, .52TS, .47 eFG and 37% 3pt in 31 minutes
What about this one:
Knight: +1.7
Stuckey: -3.1
and most importantly, Rodney Stuckey- 6 year vet. Brandon Knight- 2 year sophomore.
Stuckey had better numbers his sophomore year than Knight does this year.
who gives a **** about stuckeys 2nd year? he has sucked like bismack this year and doesnt deserve to be starting over knight
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:00 pm
by 2tough
menten wrote:2tough wrote:princeofpalace wrote:Interesting cherry pick.
How similar are these stats?
Stuckey: 11 points/3.5 assists/3 boards on 39%FG, .49TS, .42 eFG, and 28%3PT in 28 minutes
Knight: 13 points/4 .3 assists/2 boards on 41%FG, .52TS, .47 eFG and 37% 3pt in 31 minutes
What about this one:
Knight: +1.7
Stuckey: -3.1
and most importantly, Rodney Stuckey- 6 year vet. Brandon Knight- 2 year sophomore.
Stuckey had better numbers his sophomore year than Knight does this year.
who gives a **** about stuckeys 2nd year? he has sucked like bismack this year and doesnt deserve to be starting over knight
Dude, Knight sucks this year as much as Stuckey does. Knight doesn't deserve to start over anyone either.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:24 pm
by Kyrama
Two guys who shouldn't be PGs but are also below-average SGs. Awesome.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:34 pm
by russkopp
Kyrama wrote:Two guys who shouldn't be PGs but are also below-average SGs. Awesome.
Exactly. Knight gets one more season to prove himself as far as I'm concerned unless a great deal comes along that involves him.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:05 pm
by kurtis48239
russkopp wrote:Kyrama wrote:Two guys who shouldn't be PGs but are also below-average SGs. Awesome.
Exactly. Knight gets one more season to prove himself as far as I'm concerned unless a great deal comes along that involves him.
This is how I feel,if he cant show us improvements in ball handling,decision making,consistency then its time to move on and pick someone up who can get the job done and concentrate on sg,sf and backups.I know it takes awhile for some people to get the hang of pg and catch on but we dont have 3-4 yrs for knight to do that.We have our c (and pf depending on who you talk to) so finding someone like calderon with better defense and younger would do the trick.Imho I dont see knight being a starter,in the event he proves me wrong than I will be the first to say I was wrong,but I just dont see it.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:06 pm
by Blkbrd671
Moose10Fan wrote:They both suck.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:55 pm
by Goldtop
I remember watching Knight at UK thinking he was Stuckeys part 2. They just reminded me a lot of each other even back then. When we had a chance to draft him, I thought even if Knight makes the same mistakes as Stuckey, at least he's only 19 and you can chalk it up to just being young, whereas Stuckey was making those mistakes at 24 still. So I thought it was worth taking a chance on Knight, but I was wrong. The "Stuckey" mistakes that he made at 19 in college weren't just youth, because he still makes all the same mistakes 2 yrs later. Its as simple as nether player really has a feel for the game, thus they force plays when they should slow it down, and slow it down when they should be aggressive. PG is all about controlling the pace of the game, and if you don't understand the game, you can't control the pace of it. Thats why neither make good PGs
Knight can shoot, so you'd think he could transistion to SG, which Stuckey has proven unable to. But even though Knight is a better shooter, he's almost just as inconsistent shooting it as Stuckey. When you look at these stats and see how similar they are to each other, it only backs up what you see in person - two inconsisent combo guards.
Knight is still young, so he deserves another year to prove himself, but thats it. If he's still the same player at the end of next year that he is right now, then we need to either find a longterm role for him on the bench lke Jason Terry, or look to get something for him in a trade.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:55 pm
by StickAndMove
They have both sucked this year.
But this is the main difference:
Stuckey is 26 years old, and we are paying him $17M combined between this year and next (if we opt out of next year it would still be around $12.75M). To boot, he can't and never could hit threes. Stretching the defense will be crucial if the plan is to build around Monroe and Drummond.
Knight is 21, and is on his rookie contract through 2014-15. So we'll pay him $5.4M for this year and the next. With a team option at $3.55M after that.
Knight's slow development is cause for concern; however, he still has a lot of talent and potential, along with an impressive work ethic. He'll still be younger than some rookies next year. At this point, I think it's pretty clear that Stuckey will never be more than a borderline starter in the league. With Knight, his ceiling is harder to project.
To an extent, I think the animosity towards Stuckey is because he is not an asset to the franchise. It's frustrating to watch the franchise you root for throw away money and cap space the way the Pistons have in recent times.
Finally, compare their character and coachability.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:05 am
by vege
Moose10Fan wrote:They both suck.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:38 am
by Mr Peanut
Haha, you guys are the same fans who would've given up on Chauncey in his 2nd season in the league but then turn around and cheer him on when he was the Finals MVP in our 2003/04 championship.
Simple answer: Stuckey's had 6 years in the league, Knight's had 2. Not comparable.
Re: Here's a funny fact
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:57 am
by rock digger
If you really want to wait 5 more years for Knight to have any chance (an extremely low chance at that) of becoming Billups, be my guest.
I think everyone who makes the Billups reference has to let go of it. We are always going to love Billups for what he did, but for every Billups that excels after 6 years of mediocrity, there are literally hundreds of players that fail to improve. Knight shouldn't be seen as any different if he doesn't show improvement.