Josh and Al without Joe

[Kimsey]

1st 8 games when Joe was out.

JS

ppg - 18.5

rpg. - 6.6

ast. - 3.4

14.6 attempts

48.7%

Al

ppg - 18.6

rpg. - 10.6

ast. - 3.9

15 attempts

51.6%

They were ready to set flight on their own, keep in mind an underwhelming bibby and evans backcourt.

[ngc7]

yep, joe stalls our offense with slow pass outs and over dribbling. he's a great player but stuck in old woody habits.

[niremetal]

Wow. They had more attempts and scored more points. I'm shocked.

It's hilarious that you arbitrarily stopped with the first 8 games, which just (coincidentally, I'm sure) left off the game against Boston where Josh and Al disappeared. Factor that game in and you get:

JS

ppg - 16.6

rpg - 6.3

apg - 3.3

13.9 attempts

45.6%

AH

ppg - 17.4

rpg - 10.2

apg - 3.7

14.1 attempts

52.0%

Edited March 11, 2011 by niremetal

[Admin]

Those are much different than their avg season #'s, shown in parentheses.

JS

ppg - 18.5 (16.6)

rpg. - 6.6 (8.7)

ast. - 3.4 (3.4)

14.6 attempts (13.6)

48.7% (48%)

Al

ppg - 18.6 (16.1)

rpg. - 10.6 (9.9)

ast. - 3.9 (3.6)

15 attempts (12.3)

51.6% (57%)

The ball probably does move better without Joe but neither of these guys really stepped up all that much without Joe, certainly not enough to where I wouldn't want to have Joe.

[Kimsey]

Wow. They had more attempts and scored more points. I'm shocked.

It's hilarious that you arbitrarily stopped with the first 8 games, which just (coincidentally, I'm sure) left off the game against Boston where Josh and Al disappeared.

Joe and Jamal were out that game, in my book 26.4 million missing is a mulligan. :good:

Edited March 11, 2011 by Kimsey

[niremetal]

Joe and Jamal were out that game, in my book 26.4 million missing is a mulligan. :good:

Um...if games where key players are missing are mulligans, then what exactly is the point of this thread?

Sorry, but you're being more than a little disingenuous if you post a "sample" that just happens to exclude the game that most damages your argument.

[DJlaysitup]

...Sorry, but you're being more than a little disingenuous if you post a "sample" that just happens to exclude the game that most damages your argument.

Yep nir...as Mark Twain said.."figures don't lie..but liars figure" :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong Kimsey...I'm not calling you a liar by any means...just making the point that folks have known for a long time that one can be selective in the facts they use and promote their own point of view.

Scientists have this down to a science :stirthepot:

Edited March 12, 2011 by DJlaysitup

[Kimsey]

16.5 and 6.3

17.4 and 10

doesn't exactly damage my argument at all. The money would have been better served for this offseason(barring lockout) and 2012. Now that it looks like a lockout unavoidable, it adds another year to the 6 years of his contract.

[thecampster]

But to be fair, the 16 million a year Joe eats in salary could be being used on a player that fits better with them.

that's a consideration .

[AHF]

16.5 and 6.3

17.4 and 10

doesn't exactly damage my argument at all. The money would have been better served for this offseason(barring lockout) and 2012. Now that it looks like a lockout unavoidable, it adds another year to the 6 years of his contract.

Based on what was posted on this thread, Josh's numbers while Joe was out are worse than his numbers with Joe so how does that support your argument?

Josh without JJ (Josh on the season)

ppg - 16.6 (16.6)

rpg. - 6.3 (8.7)

ast. - 3.3 (3.4)

14.6 attempts (13.6)

45.6% (48%)

It seems like that is an argument that Josh is not improving his play while JJ is out.

[Kimsey]

JS - 16.5 and 6.3

AH - 17.4 and 10

are 9 games joe missed, I omitted the boston game because they had bad games and jamal was out. My argument is they didn't need to sign johnson simply to make the playoffs like some here seem to disagree with. Also they would have had enough money to sign howard or paul outright without having to past the luxury tax.