The OVERALL Childress & MW debate.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

Marvin and Chillz both bring something important to our team. Chillz brings the hustle plays that every team needs and Marvin brings a very good mid range game that every team needs but the problem is neither one brings it every night.

Good post. It's actually a luxury that we have both of them, because you can always justify going with the other guy on a nightly basis.

Walter loves the TENDEX rating.

Chill: 14.5

Marvin: 14.3

So in reality, they were pretty much equal this season . . if you swear by what TENDEX tells you.

But then again, TENDEX also tells you that Iggy was a little better than JJ this season. How many Hawk fans would trade JJ for Iggy straight up?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

It seems like people keep forgetting that Childress is also 3 years older than Marvin.

I demonstrated that Childress as a rookie has significantly greater per48 statistics than MW did last year (at the same age).

Let's be clear here. Do I think Childress will always be better than MW? Maybe. Maybe not. However, frankly neither are improving significantly per48 with Childress slightly ahead in even that category. Still, I don't think either are necessarily the answer. What I do think is that while Childress is and has always been slightly better overall statistically and while MW may someday be overall statistically better than him, the difference has been, is, and will never be so great either way to overlook the greater trade value of MW and the higher cost he will demand next year.

In short, MW's #2 pick status and "PO-tential" make him mare valuable in trade and more costly to keep. His "PO-tential" has proven to be not so great as to overtake Childress to the extent that MW remains statistically a lesser overall player per minute or per48 than Childress was AS A ROOKIE despite an equal age comparison and a huge experience comparison in MW's favor!

MW's is and has always been statistically less than Childress including comparing MW today to Childress as a rookie, MW is more costly to keep, and MW has more trade value. That's the whole story.

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I demonstrated that Childress as a rookie has significantly greater per48 statistics than MW did last year (at the same age).

LOL Childress scoring per 48 has never gotten close to what Marvin did this past season.

Quote:

---

However, frankly neither are improving significantly per48 with Childress slightly ahead in even that category.

Childress averaged only 2 pts more per game this year than he did as a rookie. Marvin's scoring is up by 7 ppg.

Quote:

---

the difference has been, is, and will never be so great either way to overlook the greater trade value of MW and the higher cost he will demand next year.

That is a completely separate argument. The question before us now is whether or not to resign Childress. Given what we need, what he brings and the resources available the answer is a clear no.

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to trade Marvin if it was a good deal.

[Guest Walter]

Overall statistics "ignore defense"???????????????

I used TENDEX per48, Roland Rating, EFF. Those do not "ignore defense". Feel free to use PER or whatever and come to the same conclusion.

Note: Childress is ranked 11 among SF (MW is not ranked) in defensive per48 TENDEX.

http://www.dougstats.com/04-05DefensiveTendex.html

Quote:

---

Secondly why don't you find the post where i said Marvin was a better player statistically than Childress.

This is at least disingenuous and regardless, laughable.

At least now we know. Through all his fog of situational, nonsensical, erroneous statistics, Exodus concedes Childress is the better overall player statistically.

W

[exodus]

let me try to simplify it for you.

We have to decide whether or not to resign childress RIGHT NOW. PERIOD. That is the key issue.

Our team needs perimeter scoring Childress is the WORST PERIMETER SCORING WING IN THE NBA. he is also a weak defender. We gave up 4.2 more ppg when he was playing this past season.

We have $51 million in salaries committed for next season before resigning the Joshs and we need more size and more shooting. You do the math.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I demonstrated that Childress as a rookie has significantly greater per48 statistics than MW did last year (at the same age).

LOL Childress scoring per 48 has never gotten close to what Marvin did this past season.

You have stated you believe Childress is the better overall player. Which is more important? Better overall? Better scorer?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However, frankly neither are improving significantly per48 with Childress slightly ahead in even that category.

Childress averaged only 2 pts more per game this year than he did as a rookie. Marvin's scoring is up by 7 ppg.

And still, Childress is the BETTER OVERALL PLAYER.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the difference has been, is, and will never be so great either way to overlook the greater trade value of MW and the higher cost he will demand next year.

That is a completely separate argument.

Of course it is. I never said it was an argument for Chhildress being statistically better. YOU HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THAT! I simply am arguing that in addition to being better, Childress costs less and trading MW would return us more. Sounds good to me.

Quote:

---

The question before us now is whether or not to resign Childress.

You do not decide upon Childress' future with the Hawks without deciding MW's future with the Hawks simultaneously. You cannot haphazardly make decisions like this in a vacuum. I'm arguing take the better player ( you conceed this), that costs less and trade away the player with more trade value despite a slim chance that MW will overtake Childress statistically (something he hasn't done even comparing the MW of today to the rookie Childress).

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

You do not decide upon Childress' future with the Hawks without deciding MW's future with the Hawks simultaneously.

It doen't work like that. Childress is a free agent. Marvin isn't. Even with Marvin here Childress is getting 30 minutes per game. If Marvin wasn't here how many minutes would Childress get with his foot problems?

Quote:

---

You have stated you believe Childress is the better overall player.

Nice dodge and strawman combined. Here is what you said;

Quote:

---

I demonstrated that Childress as a rookie has significantly greater per48 statistics

That is complete BS. Marvin scored 20.89 ppg per 48 this season. Childress has never gotten close to that.

Quote:

---

And still, Childress is the BETTER OVERALL PLAYER.

Yet another dodge. Marvin has improved by 7 ppg in 3 years, Childress only 2 ppg in 4 years.

Make up your mind what point you are trying to make. If you are saying Childress is better or that neither are improving you need to at least stay consistent.

Dont change your argument on every post.

Quote:

---

I'm arguing take the better player ( you conceed this

Again you are just making stuff up.

What i am saying is that given our team needs and Childress' limitations as a player he should be let go. I wonder how many times i have to repeat this for it to sink in.

Quote:

---

that costs less and trade away the player with more trade value

I don't have a problem with trading Marvin but that isn't the issue right now. We don't know what trades are available for Marvin. I would trade Marvin/Bibby for Redd in a heartbeat.

We DO know that Childress is a free agent and his weaknesses are the teams weaknesses.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

let me try to simplify it for you.

We have to decide whether or not to resign childress RIGHT NOW. PERIOD. That is the key issue.

Our team needs perimeter scoring Childress is the

WORST PERIMETER SCORING WING IN THE NBA.

he is also a weak defender. We gave up 4.2 more ppg when he was playing this past season.

We have $51 million in salaries committed for next season before resigning the Joshs and we need more size and more shooting. You do the math.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

What part of this is confusing to you Walter?