Horford vs. Scola

[JoshB914]

uh Scola is the rocket's role player. Horford is suppose to be Hawk's franchise player. It'd be pretty sad if a franchise player is worse than our role player.

This post doesn't make any sense. No Horford is a role player with the potential to be a franchise player in the future.

[Alex_De_Large]

Joe Johnson and Josh Smith over Horford? Really?? I don't watch the Hawks alot, but I always thought Horford is going to take over as the face of the franchise in a few years.

Maybe in a future, right now Johnson and Smith are much more important for them.

[Malinhion]

There post games are not close. Scola could be a prime option in the post on most teams. After Yao injury he became the Rockets best post player and like I said earlier to me he under utilized. Horford post game is below average to bad right now. He pretty much turnarounds and a jump hook against smaller guys. Nothing with any consistency.

Okay, you just don't know what you're talking about. Not only does Horford have at least comparable post moves, he has superior touch around the basket.

He not only better offensively he better defensively. The problem is Horford out of position so perhaps he be better defensively if he had Yao next to him. Even if we concede that we still have to say as of right now Scola a better defender against PFs than Horford against C as of this moment.

You are just a homer, face it.

[richboy]

-= original quote snipped =-



It does. Hollinger even says that you shouldn't compare guys who play different minutes. Otherwise Carl Landry should be getting more than 17 minutes a game, right?

Hollinger also thought the Celtics couldn't win more than 50 games.

This has been studied on the stat boards. There has been zero correlation found to playing more minutes and less production.

Landry just getting 17 minutes his first year is a indicator of nothing except the depth on the Houston front line. Horford would not play 32 minutes a game on many teams in the NBA. The idea that Horford plays this much because he this good is ridiculous. Atlanta has the 25th rank center position in the NBA. They are 28th in the NBA in PER at the C spot. Houston's combination of Landry and Scola gives them the 11th best PF position.

http://www.82games.com/BYPOS13.HTM

[conleyorbust]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hollinger also thought the Celtics couldn't win more than 50 games.

This has been studied on the stat boards. There has been zero correlation found to playing more minutes and less production.

Landry just getting 17 minutes his first year is a indicator of nothing except the depth on the Houston front line. Horford would not play 32 minutes a game on many teams in the NBA. The idea that Horford plays this much because he this good is ridiculous. Atlanta has the 25th rank center position in the NBA. They are 28th in the NBA in PER at the C spot. Houston's combination of Landry and Scola gives them the 11th best PF position.

http://www.82games.com/BYPOS13.HTM

Right, well 51, but that doesn't have anything at all to do with you using a stat that he made up in a way that he says it shouldn't be used.

[richboy]

OH he went up to 51. I had argument with JH on why he said early on the Celtics wouldnt even win 50 games.

JH is not a god. He admits of plenty of mistakes in PER. The only thing I'm saying is there no proof that less minutes equal higher PER or vise versa. Its just something to say. You really think we can't compare someone playing 24 minutes to someone 32 minutes. You really think if Horford played 24 minutes then he just pack all his stats into 24 minutes and have a higher PER.

[conleyorbust]

OH he went up to 51. I had argument with JH on why he said early on the Celtics wouldnt even win 50 games.

JH is not a god. He admits of plenty of mistakes in PER. The only thing I'm saying is there no proof that less minutes equal higher PER or vise versa. Its just something to say. You really think we can't compare someone playing 24 minutes to someone 32 minutes. You really think if Horford played 24 minutes then he just pack all his stats into 24 minutes and have a higher PER.

Either don't use his stat or use it within the constraints he lays out. You don't have to agree with the stat itself, thats fine, but you can't take his stat and use it in a way that he says not to.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Per minutes stats don't vary usually when minutes go up 30-40%, unless the player has some very obvious limits like stamina or foul trouble, but that's not the case.

Nobody implies you can compare a guy playing 15 minutes to someone playing 45.

[richboy]

-= original quote snipped =-



Either don't use his stat or use it within the constraints he lays out. You don't have to agree with the stat itself, thats fine, but you can't take his stat and use it in a way that he says not to.

Where does he say this?

That whole statementis ridiculous. Its like saying oh i discovered electricity so don't use it in ways that I don't like. Its not like John H came up with some magicial formula that no one knows how to use it.