because it's the usal knee jerk posters like you +reektown doing a train on the same threads, jumping to say some sly comment. we get it, lin belongs in the dleague. It's just annoying. Yes, I'd rather have magic johnson at point if we could build a time machine.
Pretty much the response I was expecting. You have nothing to defend your position so you fabricate things. Keep getting all riled up over absolutely nothing. May I suggest a brisk walk?
i don't know if he likes me to answer your question or not. you pointed out it is a nonsense and pointless thread but you kept jumping in. only logic and reasonable answer for your weird behavior is you're nothing but LOH.
Not now with Lin's improving jumpshot... Lin's size also gives him significant advantages considering he is just as quick
Kept jumping in? I responded twice with the same thing before he replied Your opinion is meaningless anyways. I saw you complaining when we were winning in the game threads. You're not a Rockets fan
Lawson ($12 mill next 4 years): 35.1 MPG, 16.7 PPG, 7.1 AST, .449 FG, .356 3PT, 1.6 STL, 2.7 TO, 17.41 PER Lin ($8.3 mill next 3 years): 32.5 MPG, 12.8 PPG, 6.2 AST, .436 FG, .324 3PT, 1.9 STL, 2.9 TP, 14.91 PER Lawson isn't exactly 50% better than Lin, with less upside, smaller body...
I was going to laugh at everyone in this thread for being homers, but man, Lawson is really having a down year. If you disregard past performance and look at the here and now, I think they're about equal - same scoring and passing efficiency, but Lawson has far fewer turnovers and Lin plays far better defense. I think Lawson is certainly the better player, but for the cheaper price Lin holds up okay I suppose. I guess my answer is yes, I'd prefer Ty Lawson, but marginally. Player Age G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48 Ty Lawson 25 61 2143 17.4 .534 .490 1.7 6.9 4.4 30.5 2.3 0.3 14.8 22.6 111 109 4.1 1.3 5.4 .122 Jeremy Lin 24 61 1985 14.9 .528 .481 1.6 9.9 5.8 29.0 2.9 0.9 19.3 20.1 105 107 2.0 1.8 3.8 .092 </pre>