Comet wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Before his recent run, Bell was one of the most worthless players in the league. He had the worst FG% in the league, and wasn't scoring anything. If he keeps this up, I guess I'm wrong. But if Bell starts to slow down, which I think he will, then maybe Sessions would be better.
You have no clue what you're talking about. At all.
First of all, you're speculating at best that Sessions would be better than Bango, much less Charlie Bell. Sessions has exactly 0 NBA games under his belt, so nobody, even the Bucks, knows what he could or couldn't do at this level.
Secondly, how long does Bell need to "keep it up" for you to realize that he's been playing better? He's never going to be able to change the extremely poor start to the season, but if you take the 48 games the Bucks have played so far, and cut them into 2 groups of 24 games each, here's what you get:
First 24: 29.5% from the field, 24.5% from 3, 4.4 points, 2 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.1 turnovers
Second 24: 37.3% from the field, 31.7% from 3, 7.9 points, 3.1 rebounds, 3.8 assists, and still 1.1 turnovers. Free throw % is over 80% in each group.
And if you want to go even further and give his stats the Bogut treatment, which is looking only at the 2008 games, you'll get 41.4% shooting, 36.2% from 3 point range, 9.8 points, 3.1 rebounds, 3.4 assists, and 1.2 turnovers.
So, my question to you is: how many games does Bell need to play at a certain level before you will say that he's officially "out of" that crap that played like at the start of the season?
