Originally Posted by metaldude26
I'd have to say that Dyz's selected timelines for each players' stats seem a bit too selective. Miller gets three years worth but Anderson only gets two? But I think the general point is that Miller has produced a stronger baseline of production for a longer period than Anderson. Basically, the worst case scenario for Miller is a much better scenario than the worst case scenario for Anderson, which is just an elaborate way of saying Miller carries less risk.
Not really fair to compare starter vs. non-starter numbers as the sample of games is drastically different. Anderson has only been a starter for 3 years, with one of them being his career year.