Stuckey vs Harden

Blkbrd671 · Post #1 » by **Blkbrd671** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:54 am

I like the thank Flip for inspiring this thread, and honestly some ones going to bring it up.

So......

Stuckey

or

Harden

PO: Harden, i previously was on the Stuckey bandwagon, but i like Harden's shooting ability. The one thing that got me is i'm really starting to believe that Stucky's D is overrated, and harden has the ability to be a better player.

Whether i'd pay him 20 mil...............can't say i would

vege · Post #2 » by **vege** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:16 am

Is this thread serious?

Blkbrd671 · Post #3 » by **Blkbrd671** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:24 pm

Just wait until game day.

Mr Peanut · Post #4 » by **Mr Peanut** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:28 pm

Obvious homer thread is obvious.

Post #5 » by **Cowology** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:11 pm

I'm still on the Stuckey bandwagon. I'm probably just a sucker, but IF he's able to ever really put it all together on a consistent basis the dude is a 20-5-3 player who can get to the line and is solid defensively. But if I'm to judge him right now and what he's actually shown then Harden is clearly the better player.

The one major reservation I have about Harden is how horrible he's been in big games/series. Makes a fella a lil nervous.

OneBadMutha · Post #6 » by **OneBadMutha** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:25 pm

Harden would be a better fit in Detroit. But Stuckey has a fair contract and unless you're in a big market, can't max out players like Harden.

sfballa13 · Post #7 » by **sfballa13** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:46 pm

Cant wait to see what happens to Harden's stats when he goes against STARTING caliber SGs every game.

This guy is overrated and quite frankly is a biitch.

The Thunder offered him 6M (2M of which was incentive based) less than the max of 60M.

Harden wasnt willing to sacrifice 3-4M to stay on a young contender that went to the WCF two years ago and to the finals last year? To me thats a fuucking joke and someone who cares more about money than winning.

Harden will be exposed this year...book it

princeofpalace · Post #8 » by **princeofpalace** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:00 pm

Houston can offer him a max deal of 5/78, thats a whole heck of a lot more than the Thunders offer of 4/54.

Also, Harden is a lot better than Stuckey but I wouldnt dare offer him a max contract as it will ensure your team is stuck in mediocrity.

BasedWiseman · Post #9 » by **BasedWiseman** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:03 pm

Harden is better than Stuckey..

Can these kind of threads just die?

Post #10 » by **ajaX82** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:23 pm

vege wrote:Is this thread serious?

Sadly yes. I think most of us know that Harden is the better player by a good little margin, but alas...

FlipTSO · Post #11 » by **FlipTSO** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:27 pm

To me Stuckey/Harden are equal threats off the dribble. Harden is a better 3 pt shooter. Stuckey is a better defender. Stuckey is a below average mid-range shooter. Harden is just plain awful at midrange shots. Both are almost identical career FT shooters as well as FTA's. Difference being Stuckey gets all his FT's from going hard to the basket, whereas Harden gets at least half his off of flops. That'll be something interesting to watch now with the new flop rule. Something that won't have any effect on Stuckey's game, but should have a big effect on Harden's. Also makes you wonder if that played into OKC's decision. Stuckey has been a better playmaker through his career, statistically.

When it comes down to it, their career stats are nearly identical, yet Stuckey has done nearly all of his production as the #1 option on offense through his career, whereas Harden has does his as the #3 option off the bench, with the advantage of playing next to a top 2 SF and top 5 PG. Stuckey has never played with anyone close to that except his rookie year, where he lead the team to the ECF winning 3 straight playoff games as the starting PG sweeping ORL.

Like I've said before, its really not even been a fair comparison, comparing a starting #1 option vs a #3 option 6th man. This will be a fair comparison now though, as Harden is going to essentially the same situation Stuckey has been in the last 3-4 yrs, being asked to carry a bad team as the main guy. Best to revisit this mid-season for a more accurate comparison. Based on everything we know right now though, considering career stats are identical, Stuckey $8 mil/yr >>>> Harden for $16 mil.

Career stats PER 36

Stuckey: 17 pts, 5 asts, 4 rebs, 1 stl, 6 FTAs, 42% FG, 28% 3FG, 84% FT

Harden: 17 pts, 3 asts, 4 rebs, 1 stl, 6 FTAs, 44% FG, 37% 3FG, 84% FT

ComboGuardCity · Post #12 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:28 pm

Real debate is 8million/yr stuckey or 15mill/yr Harden. I'll take Stuckey all day everyday.

Scout Taron · Post #13 » by **Scout Taron** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:32 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:Real debate is 8million/yr stuckey or 15mill/yr Harden. I'll take Stuckey all day everyday.

Yeah this is true. Harden is definitely better than Stuckey. Better shooter/smarter overall player.

But 7 million a year more? No way.

FlipTSO · Post #14 » by **FlipTSO** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:36 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:Real debate is 8million/yr stuckey or 15mill/yr Harden. I'll take Stuckey all day everyday.

yep, a case can be made either way who is better, but there is no case to be made that Harden is TWICE as good as Stuckey. So paying twice as much, for the same production, is not wise.

I know a lot of Pistons fans wanted Harden, and I agree his 3 pt shooting is probably a better fit for our team, but that doesn't make him a better player, and doesn't mean we needed to spend $15 mil/yr in order to get a 3 pt shooter. After the Gordon debacle, where we just got done paying $12 mil/yr for a 3 pt shooter, that should be evident.

FlipTSO · Post #15 » by **FlipTSO** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:42 pm

Scout Taron wrote:Harden...Better shooter/smarter overall player.

In what way is Harden smarter? Stuckey's career 4.4 ast to 2.0 TO ratio vs Harden's 2.5 ast to 1.6 TO ratio says otherwise. Harden is also a gambler on defense, which generally indicates low IQ, whereas Stuckey is a much more fundamentally sound defender, which generally indicates a high IQ.

Really the only thing that Harden is better at than Stuckey is 3 pt shooting. I really don't know what else ppl are referring to when they say he's a better overall player.

Scout Taron · Post #16 » by **Scout Taron** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:43 pm

I really don't get how people can watch Stuckey and Harden and possibly think that Stuckey is better. Just produces more and is significantly more efficient at the same time.

Jodi · Post #17 » by **Jodi** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:55 pm

Most of the people here that think Harden is better than Stuckey are the same ones that thought Henson would be a better fit than Drummond...Harden is going to get exposed just like Lin is...I would have loved Harden to be our 6th man though...Harden will see how hard it is now that he isnt playing with 2 stars...This is going to be a Ben Gordon situation all over again...

FlipTSO · Post #18 » by **FlipTSO** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:04 pm

Scout Taron wrote:I really don't get how people can watch Stuckey and Harden and possibly think that Stuckey is better. Just produces more and is significantly more efficient at the same time.

Did you see their career stats? How can you say he produces more and is significantly more efficient?

He produces the same or less, and he's only 2% more efficient in FG%, and Stuckey avg 2 more shots a game. So that pretty much nulifies the difference is FG%.

If you are referring to more efficient 3 pt shooting, the percentages can be decieving. Stuckey only attempts one 3 pt shot a game for his career. Even if he missed every one that would have little to no effect on his efficiency.

Scout Taron · Post #19 » by **Scout Taron** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:13 pm

FlipTSO wrote:
Scout Taron wrote:I really don't get how people can watch Stuckey and Harden and possibly think that Stuckey is better. Just produces more and is significantly more efficient at the same time.

Did you see their career stats? How can you say he produces more and is more efficient?

He produces the same or less, and he's only 2% more efficient in FG%, and Stuckey avg 2 more shots a game. So that pretty much nulifies the difference is FG%.

If you are referring to more efficient 3 pt shooting, the percentages can be decieving. Stuckey only attempts one 3 pt shot a game for his career. Even if he missed every one that would have little to no effect on his efficiency.

If you want to talk career stats, harden averages 17 ppg per 36 on 60.5 TS%. Stuckey averages 16.7 per 36 on 51.3 TS%

FlipTSO · Post #20 » by **FlipTSO** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:28 pm

^Again, thats only because of the 3 pt shot, which Stuckey rarely ever attempts. So the numbers don't tell the whole story.

FG% is 44% to 42%, and FT% is both 84%.

THAT is what comprises most of their shots. The 3pt % is skewing the TS%. If you are going to base your whole shooting % argument on the one shot that both players take the least - a shot that Stuckey only attempts once per game in his career, then idk what to tell you.

In other words, even if Stuckey only made 1 three pointer every 10 games, if he is only taking 1 a game, thats really not having any effect on efficiency. Yet his 3pt % would be 10% and appear terribly inefficent on the surface. But only missing 1 three point shot a game is not being inefficient. So you can't just base your whole argument on 3pt shooting, a shot that Stuckey only take once a game, and Harden only takes 4 times a game. FG% and FT% are the most important shooting %s and they are near identical, accounting for Stuckey's extra FGA's/gm