wigglestrue wrote:leevii wrote:wigglestrue wrote:He actually does have the stats.
People have eyes, too, if they bothered to watch the playoffs.
This thread = hilarity, sorry, I can't help being entertained.
I'll toss off whatever emoticons and acronyms I feel like, thanks son.
He has the stats? Is it the 10.6/5.1/4.2 in the regular season or 10.2/6.6/4.1 in the playoffs that screams future all-star to you? Am I supposed to be impressed by his Mike James-esque stats?
Mike James, eh?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... sde01.html (note the years 1984 and 1986)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... eto01.html (note the years 2003 and 2005)And I did watch the playoffs. He seemed more inconsistent than a prostitute's period, and teams were more than happy to leave him wide freakin open and he couldn't take advantage of it.
He didn't always take advantage of it, true. Couldn't? No, he could. That's what was frustrating.
Let me summarize...
Me: Rondo doesn't have the stats
You: Yes he does
Me: No, really, 10/5/4 is nothing special
You: But look, Dennis Johnson and Tony Parker had similar stats!!! That obviously means every young pg with mediocre stats is going to follow the same growth curve and eventually have great success!!!
Whoopdifreakindoo. One of the most flawed arguments I see in consistent use on realgm. Who cares if other successful players once posted mediocre stats. Does it make Rondo's stats any less mediocre? Dajuan Wagner posted better stats his rookie year.Charlie Frye posted Peyton Manning stats his first two years. Exactly, so what?