So by your logic, a player having the median average fouls among total players is a good defender... The point is, there is no correlation between total fouls committed and that being a barometer of how good of a defender a player is. It's an ignorant statement. If a specific instance was brought up where a foul should have been committed to save a sure 2 points, then that is another thing (like the Toronto game where Jamario Moon broke away for an easy layup and Tmac gave the ole' defense). But to bring up general NBA foul stats to make a comment about a player's defense, that is laughable.
I don't agree with a lot of what leonking is saying, but I think there's something to his argument about lack of fouls indicating lack of defensive effort. Some players are very good at playing defense while not fouling. McGrady happens to just not play defense very often. He rarely is assigned to a good offensive player, and I would bet he's near the bottom on the team in contested shots per minute.
First, foo82 and durvasa say it all. Second, it's not total fouls. There are like 8 NBA players never got a call this season because they averaged like 5mins in 5 games. Thirdly, it's not judging how GOOD a player's defense is by the number of fouls he gives, it's how BAD his defense is if he basically never tries to touch his opponent.
That's because they clearly explained their opinion about TMac's apparent lack of effort, unlike you who basically made a ridiculous correlation between Tmac's foul average per game and his defensive effort, as if averaging more fouls per game would deem him a better defender. That's too bad I gave you an out with me typing total fouls instead of your average fouls per game stance, either way it's still a ridiculous argument. You're the one who brought up the foul average argument, now your backpedaling away from it. You could have made your argument without the average foul stat, bringing that up actually made the argument comical. How do you measure a player's defensive effort with him touching his opponent enough anyways? By avg foul per game? How does "touching his opponent" enough times correlate to avg foul per game? So [not touching opponent enough = bad defense = low avg foul per game] therefore [grope and molest opponent - high avg foul per game + median avg foul per game = good defense] ???? DOES NOT COMPUTE
play deke, it's that simple. i don't know how stubborn adelman is but if he had a normal person's eyes, he would have seen that deke dominated the interior moreso than any of our big man in the entire season in 2-3 minutes of play. seriously adelman OPEN UP YOUR EYES. you have an intimidating defensive presence, play him.
lol, so you agree with what foo82 says "commiting the least amount of fouls shows lack of effort on defense. "?
Actually he was just interpreting your original comical argument. His explanation was just more thorough and well thought out, as opposed to your avg fouls per game = the rating of a player's defense statement. Me, I'm just replying incredulously to your "the measure of a player's defense is by looking at his avg fouls per game" stance.
If the idea was to take a stat that does not correlate to your argument yet use it anyway to make your point, then yeah everyone got your idea. Next argument from you: Player's height = blocked shots avg per game
