View Full Version : #1 option Artest vs Jackson

03-17-2006, 12:54 PM
I find it interesting people say how Ron Artest is a better offensive player than Jermaine- according to Ron's stats as a King, it appears to me that as an offensive option ,its Stephen Jackson , that he should be compared to not JERMAINE.

Ron Artest --Stephen Jackson
FGA PER GAME------------16-------14
3PA- PER GAME----------4.7-------4.0
3P % -------------------.298-----.346
FTA PER GAME-----------4.6-------4.0
FT %-------------------.706------.785

When you look at stats I don't see where Ron Artest is producing any more effectively than Stephen Jackson , who most here say throws up to many ill advised shots a game. Based on Artest stats as a King it appears his offensive game is a mirror image of Jackson's. Ron scoring average is higher only due to the fact he shoots even more than Stephen and at a slightly lower rate of effectiveness.

Interesting how similar the stats are.

03-17-2006, 01:01 PM
What Ron can do (far be it for me to defend him) that neither JO or SJax can do is score with versatility.

Also, I'd be curious what the TO per game difference was.

Ron can score in a variety of ways but doesn't really shoot high % shots.

SJax can miss open jumpers with the best/ worst of them and turn it over frequently when he puts it on the floor.

Man... I didn't like Artest the nutcase or Artest the cancer.

I just really dislike SJax's game.

JO is a post player, and can score in many different ways there. But he is entirely dependent on somebody getting him the ball. Ron and SJax frequently initiate the offense from the wing. So its really hard to use numbers to compare the effectiveness of all three.

03-17-2006, 01:10 PM
Turn overs per game Artest 2.1- Jackson 2.5

03-17-2006, 01:32 PM
Main difference between the two:
Artest can make shots in the 4th quarter. Stephen on the other hand turns the ball over and launches ill advised 3 pointers when the game matters the most.

03-17-2006, 01:56 PM
The value of a big man is always worth more than a 6'8 beast.
JO should never be compared to Ron for the simple fact their roles
are so different. Its all apples and oranges. Ron is great but
6'8 is common and 6'11 with agility isn't.

03-17-2006, 02:09 PM
The hypothetical question that stands out to me is what would've happened had Artest been the number one option while retaining JO and JO taking on more of a floater role where the game has to come to him by what he makes of it.

Of course, if you factor in Artest's inability to remain sane the issue is moot.


03-17-2006, 03:05 PM
It ain't about stats. If you watch the Kings, you see that Ron has a huge impact on their offense. For good or for bad they have almost completely turned the offense over to him and they let him do as he pleases.