WEEK 3, DEBATE 2: Luol Deng vs. Paul Millsap

        

VS.

Who would you rather have this season: Luol Deng or Paul Millsap?

DENG'S REP:

"According to Jordan, Luol’s impact on the floor is necessary for the Bulls' success. He averaged 39.1 mins/game, 4th highest in the NBA. Come Playoffs that was upped to 43 mins/game. Luol can lock down defensively some of the NBA’s greatest stars and has shown the ability to create his own shot, as well as step back and hit from the perimeter (career-high 115 3-pointers during 2010-11). Compared to Millsap (a one-dimensional low post player), Luol has demonstrated he can play the post, play the 2, and even play the point for one of the best teams in the NBA. Millsap had 29 double-doubles when starting half of the 08-09 games. As a full-time starter, he only posted 19 double-doubles. When Millsap plays against other team’s starters, he clearly is less effective. Millsap is an awesome bench player, but against the league’s elite his ability becomes 'sapped.'"

MILLSAP'S REP:

"Your problem is that you’re focusing on the quantity of Deng’s minutes, not the quality. Deng may play lots of minutes, but what does he do with that time? Not much. In PER (player efficiency) Millsap clocks in at 19.8 whereas Deng is 15.5 (average is 15). According to the PER guide, it’s the difference between a “Borderline All-Star” and a “3rd Banana.” If Millsap is one-dimensional, then Deng must be no-dimensional, because Millsap dominated Deng in virtually every major statistical category (per 36 minutes) this last season with 2.2 more points, 2.7 more rebounds, and nearly identical assists (which is pathetic since you claim Deng can play PG). Hell, even Millsap’s three-point % is better. Deng, whose only real strength is scoring, was still the third-leading scorer on the Bulls. And how many double-doubles did Deng get last season with all those minutes? Eight. Which is fewer than 19."

DENG'S REP:

"The problem is you use statistics like a drunken man uses lampposts – for support rather than for illumination. Worse still, you spit useless statistics to me. People generally reference Hollinger’s PER formula without even regarding its validity. It’s made-up, and PER gives undue props to a player’s contribution in limited minutes or against a team’s second unit. I never compared Deng’s and Millsap’s double-doubles. They play different positions. Some bench player can come in, hit a shot a game, have an assist, grab two boards, and his “per 36 minutes” would be off the chart. When Millsap starts and plays against 'starters' he gets dominated and is lost. Is there a coincidence as to why the Jazz won with Boozer playing the low post, and when Millsap took over they were nothing close to being the same team (and with Deron)? Deng wins me more games (for the season)."

MILLSAP'S REP:

"At least I am trying to base my argument on something, rather than using unsubstantiated opinions and the musings of Jordan (who is clearly a great judge of talent based on his experience with the Wizards). Millsap was a starter all year and played starter minutes against other superior competition in the West, and still posted better numbers. Also, the Jazz implosion was tied to their veteran coach leaving mid-season and rebuilding with new players, not Milsap posting excellent numbers in the post. And Deng does not win you more games; Derrick Rose does, as was proven last year in their Eastern Conference Finals dismissal. Once Rose was shut down, Deng needed to step up and lead the team when he was most needed, and he failed to do this. While PER doesn’t capture the intangibles, Deng did not display them last year when he was needed most. No stats necessary."

Who won this debate? Go to the right sidebar to cast your vote!