I think I do deserve more than 11 carries. I think I really do.
Somebody has to keep score and I decided I was going to do it. I'm a born score-keeper and I realize, like an umpire, that my decisions may cause distress.
We must have had 99 per cent of the match. It was the other three per cent that cost us.
Sacks shouldn't be the only thing that determines if you had a good year.
In our league, 20 points in the first half isn't anything.
I'd played more right than left in Double-A, I think.
The guys who beat me didn't get 1,000 rebounds. I did. It's not my fault the other guys didn't play as many games.
If you start thinking about stats it can get too complicated and you just have to go out there and play your game.
I get the normal stats, like tackles and pass completion and high-intensity runs. I get them after every game to see how similar they are to every game and to make sure I'm hitting the targets - or not too far away from them.
No rebounds, no rings.
Some games I'm going to get more blocks or they're going to do more mistakes and give up more baskets but some games I get zero blocks and I affect 20 shots.
People say, 'Pep won in Barca, but it was boring,' or, 'Pep won in Bayern, but it was boring.' I understand that. But games won, goals scored, goals conceded, titles... sorry, guys, it was good!
I don't think we'll shoot 76 percent in a half ever again. That's crazy.
Every game, well most of them, come down to turnovers and the turnover battle.
Eighty per cent of teams who score first in matches go on to win them. But they may draw some - or occasionally lose.
You may score 50 points and grab 40 rebounds and have 30 assists, but if I don't make the free throws at the end of the game, and we lose, does that make you not a champion?
When you touch the ball 400 times per game, it's normal that you can lose the ball a couple of times.
I mean, a guy can get 20 points a game. But if you are not winning, who's really paying attention? It's like, 'yeah, his game is nice. But I need to see him do it when it counts, when it really matters and something is on the line.'
It bothers me that the average fan, the average sportswriter for that matter, pays so much attention to what's in a box score. A box score does not properly represent the most important thing - team play. It shows some guy scoring 27 points, but it doesn't show that my 27-point man let his guy score 30.
When I see a game on the television, and you see afterwards 'possession percentage 60-40,' that doesn't say anything for me because it could be that one team is playing the ball between the back four 120 times.
Yeah, that was my best scoreless game ever.
I think a player should be evaluated for what he does on the playing field.
Sometimes I need to look at the scoreboard to figure out whether I'm batting hundred-plus or whether I am on zero.
As I've become a professional, I just feel more pressure to produce, to score goals and get assists. I know I'm a good player, but it gives evidence of how good you are if you're able to look at how many passes you've made in a game or how many chances you create. It's in the books. It's become more about stats as I've become a professional.
If you look at football over the last 50 years there has been a gradual decrease in goals, you don't see too many 10-nils these days, but two, three or four goals per game is a good spectacle.
