Like I said before, there is a reason JVG plays him the most minutes even though we have Francis, Pike, and JJ to take his spot. Cat is a stud this year and the consumate team player. His only weakness this season is passing and he is definitely improving in that area. In regards to the league average, we have to realize Kobe, Tmac, and Iverson really skew those numbers higher. We also saw what Cat did to Tmac and Iverson also.
I've always liked Cat, he is getting older now; which brings maturity, leadership, etc. He's been a Rocket for several years so he has a growing loyalty to the fans and organization. Mobley is a good fit on this team IMHO.
Should give cat more love. Cat's defense effort should not be overlooked. Another stat is that the number of BASHing posts (including the presence in trading posts) toward him on CC bbs: Cat : 0.26 per game. compare to 6.67 per game last season. This is his biggest boost. Yao: 1.14 per game. Steve: 4.88 per game. ( JVG's postgame quotes not included) But the number of Cat-only-fan is still small , at some single digit.
I don't know if this has been pointed out in the other thread, but this whole statistical head to head matchup against the "average" player is misleading, if not meaningless. The Rockets are a low scoring team, almost by design (though JVG would tell you different, empirical evidence from both here and NY tells us otherwise). Of course their offensive numbers are going to be not so hot compared to the hypothetical "average" player. What is more relevant is the average as compared to performances by the Rockets opponents against us.
I don't know if I'd necessary say misleading or meaningless. You're taking into account our discrepancies - being a so-called 'low scoring team' - while at the same time dismissing the same instances in other teams within that average. There are other 'low scoring teams', there are other high scoring teams, there are teams that wouldn't know defense if it bit them in the ass, there are other top defensive teams, etc. That's the point of the average; the more information you have, hopefully you can minimize the effect of those deviations. Granted, it doesn't always work that way - and I'd imagine there are other more statistically correct ways of comparing - but for the purposes of these threads, I'd say there are points at least worth discussing. Or maybe I'm bored, who knows.
Quoting myself from original Francis thread..." For one thing, I initially intended to do a whole team comparison, given the effects that our team style can have on individual player performance, I felt the most interesting apsect would be to see who among our players measures up relatively better..." However, I disagree that it is meaningless. For one thing there are comparative stats which are improved by a player being on a team with fewer possessions, such as turnovers, and generally %s are improved on low possession teams. But more to the point, there is no iniversail continuum within which we can transpose relative statistics in basketball, as the variables are so immense. Take Vince Carter...for years Raptors fans have been saying what an excellent passer he is, but his numbers didn't reflect that position to any degree. Now that he has legit offensive compliments, he's averaging about 8 assists a game, and his shooting % has skyrocketed since not having to face doubles and triples every play. Which stat line more accurately reflects his ability or worth, that pre or post trade? You see the dilema...basketball is not an indivual sport, and as such any statistical analysis is prone to some blind spots. Baseball lends itself much more readily to statistical accuracy, but within the confines of what we can analyze, relative statistical evaluation is one of the better means by which we can evaluate basketball players with any objectivity.
This thread and the other comparisons of Rox players with player X are interesting but as a wise man once said there is only one statistic that matters. Wins versus losses. I'm not saying this to be facetious but many great teams often aren't composed of a great players at every position but rely on chemistry to win. I don't know the stats of the Rox championship teams but from what I recall outside of Hakeem and Clyde they didn't statistically dominate. The same with the Jordan era Bulls. It just takes the right players playing in the right system for them to win.
I truly believe that this Rox team is void of heart and soul. I hope that answers you question. And oh btw were you trying to imply something silly with the way you structured your q? I hope not.
This guy's mind is in the right place...every player on a winning team thinks like this: "We've got to go into a game knowing, `I'm going to go in to play hard. If I score seven points and we win, that's what it is.' That's what you have to go in saying. You can't go in saying, `I'm going to get 30,' or `I'm going to have 10 boards.' You can't go in like that, worrying about individual plus we're going to win. It's got to be, `We're going to win, and I'm going to play hard on the defensive end, and the offensive end will take care of itself.' And I think that's what San Antonio did, and we didn't." I'm proud of Cat...he's doing it the right way (at least trying to) this year.