January 13, 201016 yr Player #1: 17.2 ppg .506 fg .389 3fg .774 ft 3.8 rpg 7.13 apg 2.27 spg 1.78 assist / TO ratio Player #2: 20.1 ppg .458 fg .407 3fg .910 ft 3.5 rpg 6.2 apg 1.2 spg 4.65 assist / TO ratio
January 13, 201016 yr Player #1: 17.2 ppg .506 fg .389 3fg .774 ft 3.8 rpg 7.13 apg 2.27 spg 1.78 assist / TO ratio Player #2: 20.1 ppg .458 fg .407 3fg .910 ft 3.5 rpg 6.2 apg 1.2 spg 4.65 assist / TO ratio Were you supposed to ask us to do something with this or what?:idunno:
January 13, 201016 yr Author #1 Wall #2 Scheyer I'll take Wall... He certainly has more talent no doubt......statistically I see no difference....and when post season accolades are laid out....I think how they team finishes will play a factor....add to that PPatt and Cousins will be taking some attention...and it could be interesting.
January 13, 201016 yr He certainly has more talent no doubt......statistically I see no difference....and when post season accolades are laid out....I think how they team finishes will play a factor....add to that PPatt and Cousins will be taking some attention...and it could be interesting. John Wall doesn't need those stats. He has more around him. He could have those numbers if he needed.
January 13, 201016 yr I would take Wall's numbers as well. Especially because he creates foul troubles for other teams and players. Scheyer, not so much.
January 13, 201016 yr Author John Wall doesn't need those stats. He has more around him. He could have those numbers if he needed. Sure he could. So, you're saying if John Wall wanted to, he could turn the ball over drastically less, and shoot better FT's.....man...ok...sorry.
January 13, 201016 yr I would take Wall's numbers as well. Especially because he creates foul troubles for other teams and players. Scheyer, not so much. ....
January 13, 201016 yr Author Especially because he creates foul troubles for other teams and players. Scheyer, not so much. Wall is 72 of 93 at the foul line.....Scheyer is 81 of 89.....
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.