[討論] 為何Rubio值得頂薪?
每次西班牙打完Rubio常被討論
看到有些人說Rubio值得頂薪
當然也有很多盧酸出現
想討論一下Rubio真的值得頂薪嗎?
我個人是覺得不值得啦
當然我不否認他對球隊的貢獻
可是得分能力跟頂尖的PG實在差太多了
AST也不算鶴立雞群(我查AST per game > 8)
附上剛剛查的數據(PTS / AST):
Stephen Curry(24 / 8.5),
John Wall(19.3 / 8.8),
CP3(19.1 / 10.7),
Ty Lawson(17.6 / 8.8),
Ricky Rubio(9.5 / 8.6)
然後前四人的FG%當然都高Rubio很多......
都高5%以上
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 140.113.121.91
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/NBA/M.1410059159.A.39A.html
→
09/07 11:06, , 1F
09/07 11:06, 1F
推
09/07 11:08, , 2F
09/07 11:08, 2F
推
09/07 11:10, , 3F
09/07 11:10, 3F
推
09/07 11:10, , 4F
09/07 11:10, 4F
推
09/07 11:11, , 5F
09/07 11:11, 5F
→
09/07 11:11, , 6F
09/07 11:11, 6F
→
09/07 11:12, , 7F
09/07 11:12, 7F
→
09/07 11:13, , 8F
09/07 11:13, 8F
→
09/07 11:15, , 9F
09/07 11:15, 9F
→
09/07 11:15, , 10F
09/07 11:15, 10F
→
09/07 11:16, , 11F
09/07 11:16, 11F
推
09/07 11:17, , 12F
09/07 11:17, 12F
→
09/07 11:17, , 13F
09/07 11:17, 13F
推
09/07 11:17, , 14F
09/07 11:17, 14F
推
09/07 11:18, , 15F
09/07 11:18, 15F
→
09/07 11:18, , 16F
09/07 11:18, 16F
→
09/07 11:20, , 17F
09/07 11:20, 17F
推
09/07 11:22, , 18F
09/07 11:22, 18F
→
09/07 11:36, , 19F
09/07 11:36, 19F
推
09/07 11:40, , 20F
09/07 11:40, 20F
→
09/07 11:40, , 21F
09/07 11:40, 21F
推
09/07 11:44, , 22F
09/07 11:44, 22F
→
09/07 11:44, , 23F
09/07 11:44, 23F
→
09/07 11:44, , 24F
09/07 11:44, 24F
→
09/07 11:44, , 25F
09/07 11:44, 25F
→
09/07 11:45, , 26F
09/07 11:45, 26F
推
09/07 11:47, , 27F
09/07 11:47, 27F
→
09/07 11:48, , 28F
09/07 11:48, 28F
→
09/07 11:51, , 29F
09/07 11:51, 29F
噓
09/07 11:52, , 30F
09/07 11:52, 30F
→
09/07 11:53, , 31F
09/07 11:53, 31F
推
09/07 11:56, , 32F
09/07 11:56, 32F
推
09/07 12:07, , 33F
09/07 12:07, 33F
→
09/07 12:10, , 34F
09/07 12:10, 34F
推
09/07 12:10, , 35F
09/07 12:10, 35F
推
09/07 12:13, , 36F
09/07 12:13, 36F
推
09/07 12:13, , 37F
09/07 12:13, 37F
→
09/07 12:14, , 38F
09/07 12:14, 38F
→
09/07 12:14, , 39F
09/07 12:14, 39F
還有 66 則推文
→
09/07 17:07, , 106F
09/07 17:07, 106F
噓
09/07 17:15, , 107F
09/07 17:15, 107F
→
09/07 17:31, , 108F
09/07 17:31, 108F
推
09/07 17:48, , 109F
09/07 17:48, 109F
推
09/07 19:04, , 110F
09/07 19:04, 110F
推
09/07 19:22, , 111F
09/07 19:22, 111F
→
09/07 19:36, , 112F
09/07 19:36, 112F
→
09/07 19:36, , 113F
09/07 19:36, 113F
→
09/07 19:37, , 114F
09/07 19:37, 114F
推
09/07 20:33, , 115F
09/07 20:33, 115F
→
09/07 20:35, , 116F
09/07 20:35, 116F
→
09/07 20:55, , 117F
09/07 20:55, 117F
→
09/07 20:56, , 118F
09/07 20:56, 118F
推
09/07 21:35, , 119F
09/07 21:35, 119F
推
09/07 21:38, , 120F
09/07 21:38, 120F
→
09/07 21:52, , 121F
09/07 21:52, 121F
推
09/07 22:40, , 122F
09/07 22:40, 122F
推
09/07 22:43, , 123F
09/07 22:43, 123F
→
09/07 22:47, , 124F
09/07 22:47, 124F
→
09/07 22:48, , 125F
09/07 22:48, 125F
→
09/07 22:48, , 126F
09/07 22:48, 126F
→
09/07 22:49, , 127F
09/07 22:49, 127F
推
09/07 23:01, , 128F
09/07 23:01, 128F
→
09/07 23:10, , 129F
09/07 23:10, 129F
推
09/07 23:27, , 130F
09/07 23:27, 130F
→
09/07 23:50, , 131F
09/07 23:50, 131F
推
09/07 23:50, , 132F
09/07 23:50, 132F
→
09/07 23:51, , 133F
09/07 23:51, 133F
→
09/07 23:52, , 134F
09/07 23:52, 134F
推
09/08 00:14, , 135F
09/08 00:14, 135F
推
09/08 01:13, , 136F
09/08 01:13, 136F
→
09/08 01:13, , 137F
09/08 01:13, 137F
→
09/08 01:15, , 138F
09/08 01:15, 138F
→
09/08 01:17, , 139F
09/08 01:17, 139F
推
09/08 02:39, , 140F
09/08 02:39, 140F
→
09/08 02:39, , 141F
09/08 02:39, 141F
推
09/08 03:21, , 142F
09/08 03:21, 142F
推
09/08 09:15, , 143F
09/08 09:15, 143F
推
09/08 13:10, , 144F
09/08 13:10, 144F
推
09/08 14:32, , 145F
09/08 14:32, 145F