Originally Posted by
Above the Rim
People see Gordon's past production when healthy and skill set, and assume he makes a team better than a guy with a lesser skill set (offensively) and past production, but are we sure that is true with THIS SPECIFIC TEAM? You take Gordon away and the shots he takes goes to Tyreke, Jrue, AD, and Ryno. It is not about Austin vs. Gordon in that scenario. You take away the 12-14 shots he would take and maybe you give 5-6 to his replacement- let's say Austin. The other 6-9 shots go to the big dogs.
The team, in that scenario, is as efficient or more efficient. And it gets better defense from Austin. Is this just conjecture or do I have evidence?
Well, the offensive rating was 108.4 without Gordon last year, and 106.4 with Gordon on the court. Advantage - Pels without Gordon.
Defensive rating was 106.7 without Gordon, 112.8 with Gordon on the court. Advantage - Pels without Gordon.
The Pels were + 1.7 without Gordon on the floor last year and -6.2 with him on the court. A staggering 7.9 point difference.
Numbers aren't everything, but you have to at least look at those and wonder if there is some truth to addition by subtraction.