RealGM

Carmelo Anthony vs Gilbert Arenas?

i would take Carmelo Anthony personally but it's really close. Both are pretty one dimensional scorers [although both are amazing at that] and I value Carmelo's rebounding more than Arenas' playmaking which isn't very good whereas Melo is a really good rebounder at SF

Give me melo, both when healthy can score at will, however for all the crap Melo catches he is a better defender, a solid passer, and his rebounding makes a huge difference for the team. Add the health to that and Melo is just the better choice.

Give me Melo over the career 42.7% shooter.

easily Anthony, especially with Gilbert's injuries..

Arenas easily.

well since they both like to shoot alot, melo isn't a chucker like arenas tho, especially if arenas is playing PG he could just come down and launch a 3 which is scary, + hes more injury prone

ill take melo

I never understood the "chucker" label. I mean, isn't a chucker, by definition, a player who takes shots that he cannot hit with regularity? Almost every shot Gilbert takes, he has every capability to make consistently.

To whoever said they'd take Carmelo because Gilbert shoots in the lower 40's, why are you using fg% instead of TS% or eFG%? Gilbert shoots a crapload of three point shots, which will hurt his fg%, but doesn't make him any less efficient. Quite the contrary -- he's one of the more efficient players in the NBA.

As for who I'd rather have, if health isn't a factor, give me the guy who puts up 30/6/5/2 with sky-high efficiency on the #1 offensive team in the East.

If Agent0 is 110%, give me Gilbert. . . but it's close

It is close though. Last year Carmelo put up 29/6/4 on 48% shooting, this year 26/7/3 on 49% shooting.

Arenas wasn't healthy last season, but the two years before he put up 28/6/5 on 42% shooting and 29/6/4 on 45% shooting.

Neither are great defenders. Neither team's have had a whole lot of success (although Arenas has more playoff victories, 1-0). Both have had fairly stacked offensive teams and questionable coaches.

I just take Carmelo because he's more efficient, younger, and IMO it'd be easier to build a team around him.

miller31time wrote:I never understood the "chucker" label. I mean, isn't a chucker, by definition, a player who takes shots that he cannot hit with regularity? Almost every shot Gilbert takes, he has every capability to make consistently.

To whoever said they'd take Carmelo because Gilbert shoots in the lower 40's, why are you using fg% instead of TS% or eFG%? Gilbert shoots a crapload of three point shots, which will hurt his fg%, but doesn't make him any less efficient. Quite the contrary -- he's one of the more efficient players in the NBA.

As for who I'd rather have, if health isn't a factor, give me the guy who puts up 30/6/5/2 with sky-high efficiency on the #1 offensive team in the East.

ok but that isn't the BEST shot you can get for your team.

arenas taking a just inside half court shot vs setting brendan haywood up for a dunk

which ones more accurate?

halfHAVOC wrote:

miller31time wrote:I never understood the "chucker" label. I mean, isn't a chucker, by definition, a player who takes shots that he cannot hit with regularity? Almost every shot Gilbert takes, he has every capability to make consistently.

To whoever said they'd take Carmelo because Gilbert shoots in the lower 40's, why are you using fg% instead of TS% or eFG%? Gilbert shoots a crapload of three point shots, which will hurt his fg%, but doesn't make him any less efficient. Quite the contrary -- he's one of the more efficient players in the NBA.

As for who I'd rather have, if health isn't a factor, give me the guy who puts up 30/6/5/2 with sky-high efficiency on the #1 offensive team in the East.

ok but that isn't the BEST shot you can get for your team.

arenas taking a just inside half court shot vs setting brendan haywood up for a dunk

which ones more accurate?

---------------------------------------

I didn't know the Wizards could get Brendan Haywood dunks on every possession. I also didn't know Gilbert was taking "just inside halfcourt jumpshots". In fact, I don't remember him ever taking a just-inside-halfcourt-jumper that wasn't because of the shotclock/gameclock running down, in my life. C'mon, those are two ridiculous scenarios. The fact is that Arenas is our most efficient and effective scoring threat and I'll take most shots with him putting them up vs. anyone else on our roster.

People look at his fg% and say "Oh, what a chucker" or "He must take horrible shots", but that's just not true. Yes, he takes questionable shots once in a while, and more than most star players, but the majority of his shots are completely makable. The reason for his fg% being low is very simple -- he takes a lot of 3pt shots. That's going to kill fg%. It doesn't mean he's not efficient. It just means he gets his points in a different way, which is why his eFG% (effective field goal percentage) and TS% (true shooting percentage) are so high. They take into account the fact that a 3 is worth more than a 2 and off-set the difference.

For me, this is and always has been Carmelo. I could spend weeks running down the differences and similarities between the two, but I'll try and keep it pretty concise. They seem like similar players in terms of production and team success, but stylistic differences are where Melo edges out Arenas.

People who prefer Gilbert will argue in favor of his strengths. He is arguably the best in the league at pushing the tempo. Look how much slower the Wizards played this year without him on the court. While not being a superior playmaker, he is somewhat of a better passer and will get his assists. He's an average rebounder at his size and position, so there's no knock on his game there. Gil fans will also favor his point production instead of his actual efficiency in terms of getting baskets. They will argue that Gil's solid three-point shooting and free throw drawing do raise his dismal FG% to respectable TS% amounts. He also keeps his turnovers down for how often he's got the ball in his hands.

However, you have to look at the bad parts of his game with the good. While he might be able to take and make a 40-footer at the buzzer, I'd rather have a guy with a higher FG% giving me a better shot at taking it to overtime or winning. So range comes at the expense of efficiency, and field goal percentage does come into play aside from point production when you get towards the later stages of a game. Additionally, Gil does get a lot of steals, but they are normally while he's gambling for the ball or playing passing lanes. He rarely gets his steals from playing solid man-up defense and having pesky hands. Also, he's ball dominant. Rarely will he spot up to take a three, even with two solid playmaking forwards on his team in Jamison and Butler. Gilbert is always creating his own shots.

Compare this with Carmelo, who is a comparable scorer in terms of volume, but does so in the role of a finisher. This is why I take Melo. Behind Amare, he's the second-best finishing scorer in the NBA. This style allows him to play alongside another ball-dominant superstar like Allen Iverson. Arenas wouldn't be able to get away with this because he spends so much time with the ball in his hands, creating his own shots. But Carmelo can still put up 27-28 points on 48% alongside a balldominant playmaker.

The only argument you used to be able to make here was that while Arenas racked an average number of assists, Melo was a below-average rebounder. Now Melo is probably the league-best at his position for rebounding. The only thing that needs to change is his defense, which he has the size for but lacks the effort. Arenas could use more discipline on his defense, though I'm not sure how effective he actually could become in Eddie's system.

What I get from Carmelo regarding his position is a much more rare and unique contribution than I can get from a combo guard. Even if he's an elite scorer, that's a replacable part. Finding a player that gives Melo's contribution is much harder.

I would take Anthony as well. I wouldn't want any ballhogging cocky dbags on my team so Arenas is out of the question. I'm pretty sure the Wizards actually played better without him last season. (Could be wrong so correct me if I am) It seemed to me like he killed their team chemistry

sixer4ever wrote:I would take Anthony as well. I wouldn't want any ballhogging cocky dbags on my team so Arenas is out of the question. I'm pretty sure the Wizards actually played better without him last season. (Could be wrong so correct me if I am) It seemed to me like he killed their team chemistry

Such a stereotypical post. I love how people take the things Gilbert says seriously. I mean, there's a reason he is so popular in DC and that's because they 'get' his quirkiness. They know he says things for shock-value because it entertains him and he knows it entertains a large portion of NBA fans (thus the blog -- voted the best blog on the internet, or something like that). The part about him being a "dbag", well, there's really nothing I can say about that. That's a low-blow and a mis-characterization. He's a great teammate (every one of his teammates from GSW and WAS all love the guy). He gives back to the community (See: "Gilbert Scores for Schools" where he donates hundreds of thousands of dollars each season to DC/Baltimore schools). Heck, he even adopted a child who's family all burned to death in a DC housefire. What a douche.

As for the Wizards playing better with him, not really. Our offense went from #1 in the East (5th best in the league, and 2nd in the league before Gilbert went down before the last month of the 06-07 season) with a healthy Gilbert to 11th this season.

We didn't really get better on defense either. We gave up fewer points per game, but we played at a M-U-C-H slower pace.

This is a good article detailing that...

http://www.realgm.com/src_goaltending/1 ... a_fallacy/

I've learned to tactfully take other players over Gil without drawing the ire of millertime. It's an art, people.

Malinhion wrote:I've learned to tactfully take other players over Gil without drawing the ire of millertime. It's an art, people.

Your assessment seemed fair. If someone were going to take Melo, I can accept them doing so because they perfer a low-post player who doesn't rely heavily on the perimeter jumpshot to get his points (because it's true that, for the most part, perimeter players are more prone to being streaky than post players), and because they think that having a great player at the sf position is more rare than having a great player at the guard spots.

There are a few minor things I'd disagree about. Firstly, Gilbert's long-range penchant doesn't come at the expense of efficiency, it comes at the expense of having the kind of consistency you expect from an upper-tier player. His efficiency is just fine because for every "off" shooting night, there are two or three nights where he just can't miss and the other team has no shot of winning the game. So it sort of goes both ways.

You already mentioned Gilbert having a higher TS% (and eFG%) due to the fact he shoots a lot of 3's, and that he gets to the line a lot, but I'd like to highlight his free throw shooting rather than just glancing over it. He not only gets to the line frequently, he's elite in that category. In his last healthy season (06-07), he went to the free throw line 9.7 times per game and made 8.2 of them. That's basically 10fta's per game, which is ridiculous and shows that he does much, much more than stand around the perimeter and jack up deep shots, which seems to be many peoples' view of Arenas. For comparison purposes, Carmelo, last season, got to the line an average of 7.7 times and made just 6 of those per game.

I'd lastly argue that Arenas is above-average in terms of assists for his position. Why? Because (and I've said this more times than I can count) Arenas isn't a point guard. He's just a guard, as the Wizards' offense doesn't have set positions with the exception of the 5-spot. Just two guards, two forwards and a center. Arenas, if you need to define him, is a combo guard, and when a combo guard can average around 30ppg AND dish the ball out around 6 times per game, it's a huge benefit. I don't think Arenas' assists are better than Carmelo's rebounding, but there isn't as big a difference as it seems.

miller31time wrote:

Malinhion wrote:I've learned to tactfully take other players over Gil without drawing the ire of millertime. It's an art, people.

:D

Your assessment seemed fair. If someone were going to take Melo, I can accept them doing so because they perfer a low-post player who doesn't rely heavily on the perimeter jumpshot to get his points (because it's true that, for the most part, perimeter players are more prone to being streaky than post players), and because they think that having a great player at the sf position is more rare than having a great player at the guard spots.

Yes, but one more thing. I think Carmelo's ability to play the role of a finisher is what really makes him special. He plays more like Amare than your typical wing. Kobe is kind of in-between these two styles, but that's largely a result of the triangle. Most superstar scorers, though, create their own baskets. Look how much McGrady, Wade, Iverson, LeBron, spend creating their own shots and controlling the ball. Carmelo can play alongside these types of players because he's a finisher. He only dropped a few PPG when Iverson came in and immediately dropped 26/7. You put Arenas next to Iverson in the same capacity and you have a disaster.

There are a few minor things I'd disagree about. Firstly, Gilbert's long-range penchant doesn't come at the expense of efficiency, it comes at the expense of having the kind of consistency you expect from an upper-tier player. His efficiency is just fine because for every "off" shooting night, there are two or three nights where he just can't miss and the other team has no shot of winning the game. So it sort of goes both ways.

I meant efficiency in terms of making baskets. You give the ball to Gil and he will make a basket 4 out of 10 times. You give it to Melo he will make it 5 out of 10 times. Both will probably wind up with the same number of points, but if you're in a situation where you *need* a basket, I'm going to the latter guy. That was my point.

You already mentioned Gilbert having a higher TS% (and eFG%) due to the fact he shoots a lot of 3's, and that he gets to the line a lot, but I'd like to highlight his free throw shooting rather than just glancing over it. He not only gets to the line frequently, he's elite in that category. In his last healthy season (06-07), he went to the free throw line 9.7 times per game and made 8.2 of them. That's basically 10fta's per game, which is ridiculous and shows that he does much, much more than stand around the perimeter and jack up deep shots, which seems to be many peoples' view of Arenas. For comparison purposes, Carmelo, last season, got to the line an average of 7.7 times and made just 6 of those per game.

Indeed, he is a phenomenal slasher. The problem I have is that he doesn't tend to look for it enough when his shot is struggling. He needs to learn to start drawing contact when he's struggling. That way, instead of trying to shoot himself out of a slump he can go to the FT line and get his touch without the pressure of defense.

I'd lastly argue that Arenas is above-average in terms of assists for his position. Why? Because (and I've said this more times than I can count) Arenas isn't a point guard. He's just a guard, as the Wizards' offense doesn't have set positions with the exception of the 5-spot. Just two guards, two forwards and a center. Arenas, if you need to define him, is a combo guard, and when a combo guard can average around 30ppg AND dish the ball out around 6 times per game, it's a huge benefit. I don't think Arenas' assists are better than Carmelo's rebounding, but there isn't as big a difference as it seems.

You and I have had this argument before, so I'll do what I normally do--deny.deny.deny. Sure, Arenas isn't technically a point guard because of the Princeton offense that Eddie Jordan runs. But he is a guard, he does bring the ball up the court, he has the ball in his hands more than anyone else, he's the primary playmaker, and he dictates the entire team's tempo. He fills so many roles of a point guard. Just because he's not a pure facilitator doesn't mean that he's not in that role. He just decides to score more. Not having a specific label doesn't really account for it because he has the ball in enough "point guard-like" situations to justifiably compare his assist totals. I will agree, though, that for his scoring he is a decent assist man. I'll still take Melo's new rebound total over Gil's passing, though.

EDIT: My nested quotes are getting all garbled on this new message board.

Malinhion wrote:Yes, but one more thing. I think Carmelo's ability to play the role of a finisher is what really makes him special. He plays more like Amare than your typical wing. Kobe is kind of in-between these two styles, but that's largely a result of the triangle. Most superstar scorers, though, create their own baskets. Look how much McGrady, Wade, Iverson, LeBron, spend creating their own shots and controlling the ball. Carmelo can play alongside these types of players because he's a finisher. He only dropped a few PPG when Iverson came in and immediately dropped 26/7. You put Arenas next to Iverson in the same capacity and you have a disaster.

Eh, I'm sort of 'iffy' about this statement. I tend to give more credit to Allen Iverson than anyone else. Iverson went through the biggest metamorphosis, including improving his shot selection while picking and choosing when to be aggressive and when to back off. It was Iverson who sacrificed a lot of possessions for the good of the team.

In 05-06 while playing for Philadelphia, Iverson had a usage rate of 35.8. In Denver, he decreased that to 27.1 in 06-07 and 26.7 in 07-08. That's basically a decrease of 1/4th of his possessions.

In 05-06, Carmelo had a usage rate of 32.0. Now, when Iverson came on-board, that actually increased in 06-07 to 33.2 (in fact, I remember many Nuggets fans posting how Anthony wasn't giving anything up and how Iverson was doing the sacrificing). To Anthony's credit, he did reduce his usage rate this season to 30.2, but that's still pretty darn high. He didn't change all that much. It was really Iverson, who in my opinion, doesn't get enough credit for how he's improved his play in Denver.

I meant efficiency in terms of making baskets. You give the ball to Gil and he will make a basket 4 out of 10 times. You give it to Melo he will make it 5 out of 10 times. Both will probably wind up with the same number of points, but if you're in a situation where you *need* a basket, I'm going to the latter guy. That was my point.

Once again, this just seems a bit fishy. And instead of me trying to explain my point of view, I'll let nate33 do it, since he is able to actually make sense out of it. This is from a Gilbert debate in a thread a while back on the General NBA Board, discussing Arenas' efficiency and the pros to shooting 3's....

nate33 wrote:Shooting three pointers is actually more advantageous than what is credited by the eFG% calculation.

Consider two players. Player A makes 3 out of 6 shots from 2 point range. He scores 6 points on 6 shots for an eFG% of .500. Player B makes 2 out of 6 shots from 3 point range, scoring 6 points on 6 shots for an eFG% of .500.

By your assessment, Player A is more effective than Player B because there are fewer long rebounds or whatever other "intangibles" you attribute to 2-point shots. In reality, Player B is more effective than Player A because Player B's shots resulted in 4 opportunities for offensive rebounds. Player A's shots resulted in just 3 opportunities for offensive rebounds. Offensive teams grab the offensive board roughly 30% of the time. Effectively, Player B gives his team an extra possession once every 20 shots relative to Player A. That ultimately translates in Player B being roughly 2% more efficient offensively per shot attempt. Player A has a "true eFG%" of 50%; Player B has a "true eFG%" of 52%.

Indeed, he is a phenomenal slasher. The problem I have is that he doesn't tend to look for it enough when his shot is struggling. He needs to learn to start drawing contact when he's struggling. That way, instead of trying to shoot himself out of a slump he can go to the FT line and get his touch without the pressure of defense.

I agree, completely. That's one of my gripes about him.

You and I have had this argument before, so I'll do what I normally do--deny.deny.deny. Sure, Arenas isn't technically a point guard because of the Princeton offense that Eddie Jordan runs. But he is a guard, he does bring the ball up the court, he has the ball in his hands more than anyone else, he's the primary playmaker, and he dictates the entire team's tempo. He fills so many roles of a point guard. Just because he's not a pure facilitator doesn't mean that he's not in that role. He just decides to score more. Not having a specific label doesn't really account for it because he has the ball in enough "point guard-like" situations to justifiably compare his assist totals. I will agree, though, that for his scoring he is a decent assist man. I'll still take Melo's new rebound total over Gil's passing, though.

That's where we'll just have to disagree. I view the term "point guard" as having a certain role -- to get his team into their offense and to put distribution of the basketball above all else. I don't think that "having the ball in his hands" a lot dictates his position. I am a firm believer that both system and role dictate position. Gilbert's role is to score, and the variation of the Princeton Offense that Eddie Jordan runs is predicated on one-on-one play and isolation sets, making set positions irrelevant.

Let's start by the numbers:

First, because Arenas plays more minutes than Gil, let's ratchet everything back to per-36 minutes for a level playing field. Then, let's look at Gil's 06-07 season for his primary numbers, and Carmelo's 07-08 season (their last full seasons, respectively).

Arenas: 25.8 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 5.4 apg, 8.8 FTA/g, 2.9 tpg, 41.8% FG, 35.1% 3P, 84.4% FT

Peak a little closer now.

56.5% TS, 45.4% eFG on Jumpers, 15.5% DrawF, assisted on 36% of his baskets, 4.3 assists per bad pass, ~ 44% of his turnovers are bad passes...

Anthony: 25.4 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 3.3 apg, 7.6 FTA/g, 49.2% FG, 35.4% 3P, 78.6% FT

56.8% TS, 42.6% eFG on Jumpers, 13.1% DrawF, assisted on 59% of his baskets, 3.8 assists per bad pass, ~ 27% of his turnovers are bad passes.

Statistically speaking, there isn't much separating these two players. They both score at a very efficient rate, they both draw fouls very well, they both have a nice inside-out game, they both hit their free throws well, they are both good jump shooters they don't throw the ball away as often as people think...

The differences between these two are primarily stylistic.

Arenas is streakier than Anthony because he shoots too many 3-pointers for his own good. If he even limited himself to 5 3PA/g instead of the 5.7+ he's averaged over his last four full seasons, his percentage would go up. He takes heat checks, he takes pull-ups in transition, he takes ill-advised threes at all times... and sometimes they go. He's not an especially good three-point shooter in terms of consistency. He's not Ray Allen, he can't really get away with it quite as well as real shooters because he's a rhythm shooter but when his shot is on, Hell if I want to guard him. And it works. He pushes the ball very well, he passes well for a scoring guard (and make no mistake, he's a small 2, not a 1) and he's an extremely dangerous scoring threat.

'Melo is a 3/4; he's a better rebounder, he evidences greater floor efficiency, he's more consistent in his scoring... and he's also not as explosive a scorer as is Arenas and is typically more reliant on the offense to get him a shot. Remember, almost 3/5s of his buckets are assisted, compared to a little more than 1/3 of Arenas' shots. That's fairly significant. Melo likes to work out of the high post, facing up from the elbows or backing down ala Pierce, that sort of thing. His offense tends to take a little longer than Arenas', as well, so there's a difference in tempo.

So let's take an even closer look:

Carmelo Anthony's standard deviation for his scoring was 7.2 this past season (07-08); in 06-07, Arenas' was 10.7. This seems to bear out the notion that Arenas fluctuates a lot more readily than does Melo in terms of his scoring output. Melo was therefore generally around 19 to 33 points most nights, with anything outside of that range existing as a significant departure from his average performance.

Arenas, however, could generally be found roughly between 17 and 39 points.

Carmelo had 23 games of 30+ this year, 7 of 35+ and a pair of games in the 40s.

In 06-07, Arenas put out 35 games of 30+, 19 of 35+, 9 40+ games and 3 games at or above 50 (including a 60-point performance).

Conversely, Melo didn't score 10 or under all year, scored 15 or less only 6 times and scored 20 or fewer points only 17 times in 77 games. Arenas, in 74 games (which includes that bunk last game of the season for him), scored 10 or less 5 times (less than 10 4 of those times), at or under 15 6 times and was also at or under 20 17 times (in 3 or 4 fewer games, depending on how you view that final game).

Much more explosive but much more prone to going cold and being more of a detriment than a help to his team. It's a trade-off and I don't want to characterize the one or the other as more valuable because they each have their advantages. More to the point, Arenas is more valuable to the offense when he's not scoring because he's a better passer (though he doesn't seem to understand what being cold is and continues to shoot regardless most nights).

Comparing further:

Arenas: 31.4% USG, 11.2% TOV, 115/111 (ORTG, DRTG), 28 OWS, 4.6 DWS, 10 WSAA, 33/13 WS/LS
Anthony: 30.2 USG, 12.7 TOV, 109/107 ORTG/DRTG, 14.5 OWS, 9.1 DWS, 2.5 WSAA, 24/19 WS/LS

Anthony's touching the ball less but that's hardly a surprise given Iverson's presence on his team. His ORTG is considerably lower than Arenas', as are his Offensive Win Shares, though his DWS and DRTG are notably superior. Arenas exhibits a Win Shares Above Average rating 5x greater than 'Melo's and superior Win Shares and Loss Shares numbers.

In theory, the statistics technically favor Arenas.

In practice, who do you want?

That brings us to stylistic commentary.

Arenas freelances a lot, he takes shots you don't want him to but he's actually a pretty good passer when he sets his mind to it and for those of us counting, in his games of 40+ in 06-07 (9 games), he had 4 assists twice and never had fewer than 7 assists besides that. That's pretty impressive; while he's posting those big scoring numbers, he's still dishing the ball at a rate far beyond what you can expect Anthony to do. 'Melo hit 8 assists only twice this season (8 and 9) and they were 4+ months apart.

Neither of these guys are defensive stalwarts and Melo benefits a lot from his team defensive rating and his defensive rebounding, the former of which is heavily benefited by the presence of stat-padded extraordinaire, Marcus Camby, as well as Iverson's steal numbers.

Melo tends to stall ball movement and takes a long time to iso. He's improving a bit every year but Arenas definitely facilitates superior ball movement.

Melo is a high post scorer, Arenas from the perimeter. That means Arenas' value tends to begin in the backcourt, where he can push the action, while Melo (who is a very good shooter from the international 3 and in... and lately, from NBA 3) isn't quite as valuable because his best moves actually come facing the basket from triple threat on the elbows or backing down in the mid/low post.

Having touched on this, Malinhion has raised an interesting point: Melo fits well alongside another high-volume scorer. He does pretty well against AI, who traditionally doesn't mesh with other scorers because he's so ball-dominant. Melo works screen and rolls from either side, can finish in transition, can be the dump-in guy working in the post, that sort of thing. He's a finisher, that's true, and that fills a certain role that has its own value.

He also raises the basket-efficiency argument, which is an interesting one; Arenas' inconsistency does tend to make him slightly less valuable in an end-game scenario because he doesn't put the ball in the hole as often and Melo did lead the league in clutch shooting over the last few years.

And I am obliged to agree with miller; Arenas isn't a point guard. He's too much like Oscar Robertson in that he dominates the ball but he isn't a distributor, he's a scorer first who also distributes.

Do you call Kobe a point guard? He often fills the same roles; advancing the ball up the court, initiating the offense (especially when he's filling the 3-slot in the triangle), that sort of thing. Arenas is one of the select few players who scores at an incredibly high volume and manages to still produces 5+ apg. You're talking mainly about Kobe, Lebron, AI and Wade in that category.

I think I have to go with Arenas here.