cucad8 wrote:Wizenheimer wrote:last season on a per36 basis, outlaw shot a better FG% and a better 3pt%. Outlaw was a better rebounder. They were equal in assists, but outlaw had far fewer turnovers. Outlaw blocked more shots, and more then doubled Nocioni in steals. He may be a little better on the defensive end, but I think that's debatable.
I understand if you just want outlaw gone, but to take on a lesser player then him that also destroys the cap-space plan is a bad idea.
This is just a ridiculously biased paragraph. Come on now. Shot a better FG%?? .433 to .432 Yeah, , you win that one. Wow, what a better shooter. 6.2 rebounds to 6.1. Yep, better rebounder. "FAR FEWER" turnovers equals .6 TOs per game. Per 36 minutes, that's not FAR FEWER. Outlaw shot better from 3. Nocioni was abetter FT shooter. Better ball defender. So, to try to make your point, you go to per/36 #s, but you don't tell anyone what those numbers are, you just say one is better than the other, because the actual difference is so small, it really isn't a difference. What's .001 percentage points on a FG for the year? One more missed shot? Maybe two? That's just wrong, and a very weak attempt at proving a point.
Nocioni also got to the lime more times per game than Outlaw, and shot a FAR greater percentage than outlaw. I liek Outlaw, and I am not saying Nocioni is head and shoulders better. you factor in age, salary, and I prefer Outlaw more. But to go about it this way to try to prove your point is fairly pathetic.
what's pathetic is maintaining that Nocioni is a better option then Outlaw, or Webster for that matter, considering the options portland has. I've watched Nocioni play several times, and he's just not any significant kind of upgrade at the SF position. And that's without taking into consideration his contract. Once that's factored in, there's really no logical reason to suggest that having nocioni on the same team that already has webster, outlaw, and batum, (not to mention roy and rudy) is better then having cap-space. IMO, it's just a bad idea...it doesn't make sense.
As to the stats I pointed out, you missed the point, which is surprising because it wasn't an obtuse one. That would be: why in hell make a move for a player that is not arguably better, and perhaps arguably worse, then the one you already have at 1/2 the salary and 1/4 of the total contract. Especially considering, that this non-upgrade of a position wipes out any hope of a once in a decade opportunity for cap-space.