tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:JayPat wrote:tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:32 wrote:tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:32 wrote:- Baron Davis unquestionably outplayed Gilbert Arenas. Gilbert's crazy ass, in equal time, netted 5 less points, 5 less rebounds, 2 less assists, and shot 20% worse from the field than Baron. Health aside, NOBODY should ever question who the better player is between those two. Crunch time was the best example: Gilbert tried to pick his team up by carrying them on his own, whereas Baron picked his team up by getting everyone into it (and sustaining the team's energy). Clearly, we're in better hands with Baron.
I disagree. This was Baron's best game of the season and just an average game for Arenas.
You don't think that Baron, in equal minutes, is the better player?
Arenas might be the better scorer (by a hair, thanks to his 3-point range), but Baron is a much better team general, playmaker, tempo-changer, and defender. All of the reasons that Arenas is considered "better" than Baron all have to do with issues that don't relate to their games (ie, Baron's injury prone, Baron can't play as many minutes).
I believe, in equal time, Baron Davis is the better player. Without question.
Well, first of all, if it's more than a season or two than being injury prone is part of how good a player you are.
Second, Gilbert is a leader, and Baron isn't. That's the biggest difference. Baron chooses his spots to be a leader, whereas Gilbert tries to will his team to win every game.
Gilbert Arenas is a FAR BETTER SCORER. It isn't even close. Gilbert is better at everything that is scoring related.
By the same vein, Baron is a far better passer. I won't try to debate that.
But that is where Baron's advantages end. They're equal rebounders. I don't think either of them are very good or very bad defenders. Their turnovers and fouls this year are the same, more or less, per minute.
Baron has a far better supporting cast than Gilbert's and wins less games, but a lot of that is due to injury and being in the west, so that is cancelled out.
It basically depends on what you want for your team. Gilbert is reliable and one of the best scorers in the league and one of the most clutch players in the league. Baron is unreliable and a choker. Baron is one of the best passers in the league. Gilbert is a ballhog.
Overall, I go with Arenas. When fully healthy, they're pretty damned even the first 46 minutes of the game, but Arenas is far more clutch and, ironically, passes it more in the clutch than baron does.
I mostly agree, especially since Arenas is my favorite player. But, Baron is a better rebounder (equal rebounding stat but Baron gets 5 less minutes a game), and a better stealer (same reason)/defender. Also, Arenas is a below-average passing PG, while Baron is an above-average scoring PG and an excellent passing PG.
Even if Gilbert has an edge on leading the team, it's not by much and Baron is a good leader in my opinion.
the rebounding difference is like .05 boards per 48 minutes. It is equal.
Steals are slightly ahead for Baron, but steals are not the only indicator of defense, or the warriors wouldn't be a godawful defensive team.
And Gilbert is one of the five clutchest players in the league. Baron is not good in the clutch. Both of their ideas of "leadership" is taking the game into his own hands. The difference is that it works for Gilbert
I'll drop the rebounding argument, but Baron is a better defensive player, even counting out steals. And Baron is good in the clutch, although Gilbert is better in that area.