More overrated: Garnett or Nash

[Navas]

Given that I've seen people argue for Nash over Kidd or Zeke, I'm giving it to Nash. Nice player, but he isn't going to win you anything. Even with the team built around him.

[rrravenred]

Given that I've seen people argue for Nash over Kidd or Zeke, I'm giving it to Nash. Nice player, but he isn't going to win you anything. Even with the team built around him.

Hmmm... round these parts, neither Kidd nor Zeke has an ironclad advantage over Nash (Your Mileage May And Often Does Vary) and the arguments usually come down to personal preference...

[Doctor MJ]

And if you can't clearly spell out your argument the sender is usually at fault.....

The arguments are crystal clear for one very obvious reason: You can't have groupthink (which is what has been alleged) unless the group understands the pro- argument. The only reason why there is a trend of Garnett & Nash putatively being overrated is because some people here listen to others and have their minds changed. Ergo, the sender generally speaking on these boards is not the issue as far as confusion is concerned.

To ElGee's idea in general: If you've never try the approach to figure out where your common ground with someone is, you really should. Has nothing to do with who is right here. It's just plain practical. If we take it on faith that no matter what you're going to think the rest of us are wrong, it would be nice at least after all these years if you would be able to simply state going forward the actual reason why we disagree rather than throwing out wild allegations.

[Doctor MJ]

Given that I've seen people argue for Nash over Kidd or Zeke, I'm giving it to Nash. Nice player, but he isn't going to win you anything. Even with the team built around him.

Nash actually has a considerably better track record to making his team win a ton than Kidd does. You're probably confused because of Kidd's trips to the finals in Jersey where they had to beat <nobody> to get there.

Zeke, well, let's just say that if he didn't have the single greatest playoff defense of the post-Russell era leading the way, his offense wouldn't have earned him any rings.

[ardee]

Given that I've seen people argue for Nash over Kidd or Zeke, I'm giving it to Nash. Nice player, but he isn't going to win you anything. Even with the team built around him.

The gap between Magic and Nash is smaller than the gap between Nash and Isiah. Seriously, Isiah is so overrated it's laughable.

[Okada]

Overrated? All I see is Isiah getting ripped relentlessly around here. I'd take Isiah over Nash in a heartbeat.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Given that I've seen people argue for Nash over Kidd or Zeke, I'm giving it to Nash. Nice player, but he isn't going to win you anything. Even with the team built around him.

Nash actually has a considerably better track record to making his team win a ton than Kidd does. You're probably confused because of Kidd's trips to the finals in Jersey where they had to beat <nobody> to get there.

Zeke, well, let's just say that if he didn't have the single greatest playoff defense of the post-Russell era leading the way, his offense wouldn't have earned him any rings.

Zeke was a basketball savant, an intangible that cannot be measured. Some guys are just born to win and Isiah was that guy. He goes to Indiana and leads the Hoosiers to a national championship as a soph. Next, he leads the Pistons (who had never won anything) past the Bird led Celts, through Magic's Lakers AND Jordan's Bulls before finally succumbing in '91. That's a Herculean achievement. Going through three of the top 10 (top 5?) players ever for his rings. He won two and may have won three straight if not for a phantom foul call on Lambeer (against Kareem) in game 6 of the '88 Finals. He was big time clutch too. 16 points in the last 94 seconds to force game 5 against the Knicks in the '84 playoffs into overtime. 43 points (25 in the 3rd quarter, NBA record) on a bad wheel against the Lakers in game 6 of the '88 Finals. Isiah was the kind of player that would cut your throat in order to win ala MJ or Bird. Nash does not belong in that category. Was Nash a great point guard? Sure. 50/40/90? Absolutely. Better shooter? Without question. Better player? Better winner? Nope. Zeke is the pick and it's not close.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Given that I've seen people argue for Nash over Kidd or Zeke, I'm giving it to Nash. Nice player, but he isn't going to win you anything. Even with the team built around him.

The gap between Magic and Nash is smaller than the gap between Nash and Isiah. Seriously, Isiah is so overrated it's laughable.

The gap between Magic and Nash is only slightly larger than the gap between Mercury and Pluto.

[ardee]

Overrated? All I see is Isiah getting ripped relentlessly around here. I'd take Isiah over Nash in a heartbeat.

Because of what? Rings ?

He does nothing better than Nash. NOTHING.

You put '05-'10 Nash on those Pistons teams and you're looking at an all-time dynasty.

Isiah was an overrated chucker. Those Pistons teams would have still been a strong Playoff team without him. Dumars was an underrated offensive player, Vinnie was one of the best bench igniters ever, and Aguirre could play too. Not to mention, you know, that whole defense thing (which btw, Isiah contributed nothing to). They wouldn't win titles but I could still see them being a CF team at the time.

The '05-'08 Suns without Nash would be a disaster. They were not good defensive teams. Their offense was what they won with and Nash WAS the offense. Look at Amare, Marion, Diaw. How did those guys look with and without Nash?

Nash laughs at Isiah in every way. It's not even close. It's like comparing Kareem, Hakeem or one of the great centers to Bob Lanier.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Overrated? All I see is Isiah getting ripped relentlessly around here. I'd take Isiah over Nash in a heartbeat.

Because of what? Rings ?

He does nothing better than Nash. NOTHING.

You put '05-'10 Nash on those Pistons teams and you're looking at an all-time dynasty.

Isiah was an overrated chucker. Those Pistons teams would have still been a strong Playoff team without him. Dumars was an underrated offensive player, Vinnie was one of the best bench igniters ever, and Aguirre could play too. Not to mention, you know, that whole defense thing (which btw, Isiah contributed nothing to). They wouldn't win titles but I could still see them being a CF team at the time.

The '05-'08 Suns without Nash would be a disaster. They were not good defensive teams. Their offense was what they won with and Nash WAS the offense. Look at Amare, Marion, Diaw. How did those guys look with and without Nash?

Nash laughs at Isiah in every way. It's not even close. It's like comparing Kareem, Hakeem or one of the great centers to Bob Lanier.

Nash is the most overrated player on RealGM (or is it KG?). Nash couldn't get out of the west ONCE in his career and his teams had talent on par with or greater than Isiah had in Detroit. Isiah led his teams past Bird, Magic AND Jordan to get his rings. Do you honestly believe Steve frigging Nash would get through that gauntlet? Get real.

[Quotatious]

He does nothing better than Nash. NOTHING.

I also don't think too highly about Isiah, but to be fair to him, he was a better defender than Nash. It's not like he was an All-NBA caliber defender, but he was about league average, maybe slighly above. He was also better at getting to the rim after beating his defender off the dribble. He could do it even without using a screen because of his amazing ballhandling skills. That being said, Nash is clearly a better player.

[Grandpa Waiters]

He does nothing better than Nash. NOTHING.

I also don't think too highly about Isiah, but to be fair to him, he was a better defender than Nash and was also better at getting to the rim after beating his defender off the dribble. He could do it even without using a screen because of his amazing ballhandling skills. That being said, Nash is clearly a better player.

Dude, I usually agree with your posts but I gotta disagree with you on this one. Isiah was a better ball handler (top 5 all time), scorer, defender, penetrator, passer, clutch player, leader and winner. Nash was a better shooter. Seriously.

[rrravenred]

Nash is the most overrated player on RealGM (or is it KG?). Nash couldn't get out of the west ONCE in his career and his teams had talent on par with or greater than Isiah had in Detroit. Isiah led his teams past Bird, Magic AND Jordan to get his rings. Do you honestly believe Steve frigging Nash would get through that gauntlet? Get real.

Well who did the Suns fail against?

2005 Spurs
2006 Mavs
2007 Spurs
2008 Spurs
2010 Lakers

What would The Bad Boys record be against that group, I wonder.

And FWIW, the averages for each player in Conference Finals are:

Zeke: 20.4 /4.9 / 8.2 @ .495 TS% (3 TO/G)
Nash: 20.4 / 3.5 / 10.9 @ .612 TS% (3.4 TO/G)

Pretty similar, really.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Nash is the most overrated player on RealGM (or is it KG?). Nash couldn't get out of the west ONCE in his career and his teams had talent on par with or greater than Isiah had in Detroit. Isiah led his teams past Bird, Magic AND Jordan to get his rings. Do you honestly believe Steve frigging Nash would get through that gauntlet? Get real.

Well who did the Suns fail against?

2005 Spurs
2006 Mavs
2007 Spurs
2008 Spurs
2010 Lakers

What would The Bad Boys record be against that group, I wonder.

And FWIW, the averages for each player in Conference Finals are:

Zeke: 20.4 /4.9 / 8.2 @ .495 TS% (3 TO/G)
Nash: 20.4 / 3.5 / 10.9 @ .612 TS% (3.4 TO/G)

Pretty similar, really.

I honestly don't get it. Zeke went through the gauntlet of Bird, Magic and Jordan. Nash gets a higher ranking on RealGM, two MVP's and couldn't get out of the west once. I'm not even talking about winning championships. I'm just talking about getting to the finals one time. The law of recency is raping Isiah and he just retired in '94. Give it another twenty years and he'll be pushed off of the top 50. YIKES!

[Quotatious]

Dude, I usually agree with your posts but I gotta disagree with you on this one. Isiah was a better ball handler (top 5 all time), scorer, defender, penetrator, passer, clutch player, leader and winner. Nash was a better shooter. Seriously.

It depends how we look at it. Passing is more or less a wash. Nash is better in terms of executing half-court sets, and he's a more efficient ballhandler (Isiah routinely averaged 4 TPG, year in, year out), but Isiah's edge in terms of ball-handling, if there's any, may lie in his superior ability to beat his man off the dribble and get to the rim, but that's no surprise, considering Isiah's clearly more athletic than Nash.

Where Nash clearly pulls ahead is his impact on his team's offense - Thomas led an elite offensive team exactly ONCE during his career - 1983-84 season. At the same time, they were near the bottom of the league defensively. Zeke's Pistons were never really able to combine playing great offense with great defense. They were more offensive minded early on in Thomas' career, but redefined their identity into the famous 'Bad Boys' in the mid 80s, when they drafted Dumars, Rodman, Salley and acquired Mahorn from the Bullets.

The thing is, Nash led elite, all-time great offensive team pretty much his whole career in Phoenix, and obviously he was a part of great offensive ballclubs in Dallas, as one of these teams' leaders. This is why people are saying that Nash is closer to Magic Johnson than he is to Isiah - he was able to carry an entire team on his back and, although I don't really like this term, 'made his teammates better'. It's unfair to say that Nash isn't a winner, because it was literally NEVER his fault that his teams lost in the playoffs. He never let his team down with poor play. It was always something else that prevented them from winning a championship. Be it Amare's injuries, suspension (against the Spurs in '07, probably the best Nash's Suns team), or Marion struggling to score in the postseason, because he couldn't really create his own shot. Awful defensive presence inside (Amare was the worst defender in the league in his prime) also hurt them as much as anything, especially when they were facing guys like Tim Duncan or Dirk Nowitzki in the playoffs almost every year.

Nash is 11th all-time in terms of Offensive Rating (at little over 118 career ORtg), which is the best measure of efficient an offensive player really is (assuming that he plays starter's minutes), and to evaluate point guards, it's best to look at how high a team led by X or Y point guard is in terms of offensive efficiency. Nash led teams were a fixture for the best offense in the league for 5 seasons or more. Even when Amare and Marion left Phoenix, and Nash had to lead a with 100 year old Grant Hill and Jason Richardson nearing the end of his prime or a washed up Vince Carter as his best teammates, he was still able to lead a top 10 offensive teams in the NBA.

Isiah's career ORtg is 106 - that's actually awful for a point guard, clearly below average, and he's not even in the top 250 of all-time !!! I know that you don't like advanced stats, but they're actually reflective of the actual value of a player. Coincidentally, the best players of all-time are usually also excellent in terms of their advanced numbers. Isiah isn't even better than a guy like Tony Parker. While I'm not gonna say that Parker is a better player than Isiah, it proves my point that Thomas isn't quite as elite as you think. Nash is on the same level as John Stockton and Chris Paul, while guys like Isiah, Kidd and Payton are clearly a level below.

The main responsibility of a point guard, and the main measure of his value to a team, is his ability to lead great team offenses. Nash was not only great at that, but he was also tremendously efficient as an individual player, scoring or otherwise. His decision making ability is one of the very best in the NBA history. Isiah led average offenses and was mediocre in terms of efficiency, in the individual sense. That's really a geat, textbook example of how to evaluate a point guard.

If I had to say more positive thing about Isiah (who's still a very good player, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he's a scrub), it'd be that he was a pretty good playoff performer, at least compared to his regular season play - his career numbers and efficiency went up in the postseason in many categories.

I've seen your notion that basketball is a simple game, but I think you're making it even more simple than it actually is with your superficial analysis. Please don't take it personally - of course you can have your own opinion, it's fine, but if I were you, I'd really try to look at it in a different light if so many people on these forums are disagreeing with you.

[rrravenred]

Nash is the most overrated player on RealGM (or is it KG?). Nash couldn't get out of the west ONCE in his career and his teams had talent on par with or greater than Isiah had in Detroit. Isiah led his teams past Bird, Magic AND Jordan to get his rings. Do you honestly believe Steve frigging Nash would get through that gauntlet? Get real.

Well who did the Suns fail against?

2005 Spurs
2006 Mavs
2007 Spurs
2008 Spurs
2010 Lakers

What would The Bad Boys record be against that group, I wonder.

And FWIW, the averages for each player in Conference Finals are:

Zeke: 20.4 /4.9 / 8.2 @ .495 TS% (3 TO/G)
Nash: 20.4 / 3.5 / 10.9 @ .612 TS% (3.4 TO/G)

Pretty similar, really.

I honestly don't get it. Zeke went through the gauntlet of Bird, Magic and Jordan. Nash gets a higher ranking on RealGM, two MVP's and couldn't get out of the west once. I'm not even talking about winning championships. I'm just talking about getting to the finals one time. The law of recency is raping Isiah and he just retired in '94. Give it another twenty years and he'll be pushed off of the top 50. YIKES!

Once again you sidestep my point. THE PISTONS went through the gauntlet of THE LAKERS, THE BULLS and THE CELTICS. If Zeke matched up directly against any of those players it's a fundamental coaching fail on either side.

You may want to reduce the interactions of 20 odd players, referees, coaches and support staff into a glorified one on one game, but it's a PROFOUNDLY simplistic way to analyze basketball and one that garners zero respect from me.

Sent from my SM-T310 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Grandpa Waiters]

Dude, I usually agree with your posts but I gotta disagree with you on this one. Isiah was a better ball handler (top 5 all time), scorer, defender, penetrator, passer, clutch player, leader and winner. Nash was a better shooter. Seriously.

It depends how we look at it. Passing is more or less a wash. Nash is better in terms of executing half-court sets, and he's a more efficient ballhandler (Isiah routinely averaged 4 TPG, year in, year out), but Isiah's edge in terms of ball-handling, if there's any, may lie in his superior ability to beat his man off the dribble and get to the rim, but that's no surprise, considering Isiah's clearly more athletic than Nash.

Where Nash clearly pulls ahead is his impact on his team's offense - Thomas led an elite offensive team exactly ONCE during his career - 1983-84 season. At the same time, they were near the bottom of the league defensively. Zeke's Pistons were never really able to combine playing great offense with great defense. They were more offensive minded early on in Thomas' career, but redefined their identity into the famous 'Bad Boys' in the mid 80s, when they drafted Dumars, Rodman, Salley and acquired Mahorn from the Bullets.

The thing is, Nash led elite, all-time great offensive team pretty much his whole career in Phoenix, and obviously he was a part of great offensive ballclubs in Dallas, as one of these teams' leaders. This is why people are saying that Nash is closer to Magic Johnson than he is to Isiah - he was able to carry an entire team on his back and, although I don't really like this term, 'made his teammates better'. It's unfair to say that Nash isn't a winner, because it was literally NEVER his fault that his teams lost in the playoffs. He never let his team down with poor play. It was always something else that prevented them from winning a championship. Be it Amare's injuries, suspension (against the Spurs in '07, probably the best Nash's Suns team), or Marion struggling to score in the postseason, because he couldn't really create his own shot. Awful defensive presence inside (Amare was the worst defender in the league in his prime) also hurt them as much as anything, especially when they were facing guys like Tim Duncan or Dirk Nowitzki in the playoffs almost every year.

Nash is 11th all-time in terms of Offensive Rating (at little over 118 career ORtg), which is the best measure of efficient an offensive player really is (assuming that he plays starter's minutes), and to evaluate point guards, it's best to look at how high a team led by X or Y point guard is in terms of offensive efficiency. Nash led teams were a fixture for the best offense in the league for 5 seasons or more. Even when Amare and Marion left Phoenix, and Nash had to lead a with 100 year old Grant Hill and Jason Richardson nearing the end of his prime or a washed up Vince Carter as his best teammates, he was still able to lead a top 10 offensive teams in the NBA.

Isiah's career ORtg is 106 - that's actually awful for a point guard, clearly below average, and he's not even in the top 250 of all-time !!! I know that you don't like advanced stats, but they're actually reflective of the actual value of a player. Coincidentally, the best players of all-time are usually also excellent in terms of their advanced numbers. Isiah isn't even better than a guy like Tony Parker. While I'm not gonna say that Parker is a better player than Isiah, it proves my point that Thomas isn't quite as elite as you think. Nash is on the same level as John Stockton and Chris Paul, while guys like Isiah, Kidd and Payton are clearly a level below.

I've seen your notion that basketball is a simple game, but I think you're making it even more simple than it actually is with your superficial analysis. Please don't take it personally - of course you can have your own opinion, it's fine, but if I were you, I'd really try to look at it in a different light if so many people on these forums are disagreeing with you.

I think some of you guys are guilty of stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. In other words, I'm talking about playing in the finals and leading your team to back to back championships and you're talking about offensive ratings. Don't take this the wrong way but who gives a s--- about offensive ratings? Would you rather have a PG who led his team to a middle of the pack offensive rating and championships or a PG who leads their team to the best offensive rating year after year and wins nothing? Seriously. Again, you're making things too complicated. It's not about the numbers. It's about winning. Isiah was a winner, at every level. Nash never sniffed the finals. To claim that Nash can't be blamed at all for his teams playoff failures is ridiculous. He's the quarterback, the two-time MVP. If you're not going to blame him for losing than you can't credit him for winning. Can't have it both ways. Again, Zeke went through the gauntlet of Bird, Magic and Jordan to get his two titles (almost three). That's three of the top 10 (or top 5) players ever and he was the man, the leader of those teams. How can anyone claim Nash over Zeke when he couldn't even make it out of the west just once in a nearly twenty year career? Basketball isn't all about stats. You've heard the term "winning ugly" right? Well winning ugly is better than losing pretty in my book. If you want offensive ratings or 50/40/90 than Nash is your man. If you want a stone cold killer, a guy who'll cut your heart out to win, a guy with enough moxy to do what it takes to get the better of Bird, Magic and Jordan at various stages of his career than Isiah is your man. My two pennies.

[Quotatious]

I think some of you guys are guilty of stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. In other words, I'm talking about playing in the finals and leading your team to back to back championships and you're talking about offensive ratings. Don't take this the wrong way but who gives a s--- about offensive ratings? Would you rather have a PG who led his team to a middle of the pack offensive rating and championships or a PG who leads their team to the best offensive rating year after year and wins nothing? Seriously. Again, you're making things too complicated. It's not about the numbers. It's about winning. Isiah was a winner, at every level. Nash never sniffed the finals. To claim that Nash can't be blamed at all for his teams playoff failures is ridiculous. He's the quarterback, the two-time MVP. If you're not going to blame him for losing than you can't credit him for winning. Can't have it both ways. Again, Zeke went through the gauntlet of Bird, Magic and Jordan to get his two titles (almost three). That's three of the top 10 (or top 5) players ever and he was the man, the leader of those teams. How can anyone claim Nash over Zeke when he couldn't even make it out of the west just once in a nearly twenty year career? Basketball isn't all about stats. You've heard the term "winning ugly" right? Well winning ugly is better than losing pretty in my book. If you want offensive ratings or 50/40/90 than Nash is your man. If you want a stone cold killer, a guy who'll cut your heart out to win, a guy with enough moxy to do what it takes to get the better of Bird, Magic and Jordan at various stages of his career than Isiah is your man. My two pennies.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Pistons winning these titles wasn't actually a credit to Isiah nearly as much as you think. Basketball is a team game, and the Pistons had everything that's needed to win. Suns did not. Pistons would've been better with Nash, Suns worse with Isiah. I feel pretty sure of this statement because the advanced stats are a tool with enables you to able to predict these things.

I'll second Raven's sentiments here.

That's the end of this discussion for me, right here. That's a classic no-win situation. No one's gonna be swayed towards a different point of view than they're actually looking at it from right now.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Well who did the Suns fail against?

2005 Spurs
2006 Mavs
2007 Spurs
2008 Spurs
2010 Lakers

What would The Bad Boys record be against that group, I wonder.

And FWIW, the averages for each player in Conference Finals are:

Zeke: 20.4 /4.9 / 8.2 @ .495 TS% (3 TO/G)
Nash: 20.4 / 3.5 / 10.9 @ .612 TS% (3.4 TO/G)

Pretty similar, really.

I honestly don't get it. Zeke went through the gauntlet of Bird, Magic and Jordan. Nash gets a higher ranking on RealGM, two MVP's and couldn't get out of the west once. I'm not even talking about winning championships. I'm just talking about getting to the finals one time. The law of recency is raping Isiah and he just retired in '94. Give it another twenty years and he'll be pushed off of the top 50. YIKES!

Once again you sidestep my point. THE PISTONS went through the gauntlet of THE LAKERS, THE BULLS and THE CELTICS. If Zeke matched up directly against any of those players it's a fundamental coaching fail on either side.

You may want to reduce the interactions of 20 odd players, referees, coaches and support staff into a glorified one on one game, but it's a PROFOUNDLY simplistic way to analyze basketball and one that garners zero respect from me.

Sent from my SM-T310 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm not sidestepping anything. The Pistons went through the gauntlet of the Celts, Lakers and Bulls? No kidding. Isiah was the heart and soul of those Pistons. It was his ego, his will that made them into winners. Isiah was a winner in a way that Nash could never be. Do you really think it's a coincidence that Isiah goes to Indiana and wins a title as a sophomore and then leads Detroit to glory in the NBA? Jordan steps foot on campus and delivers Dean Smith his first NCAA title and then leads Chicago to glory. Magic leads Michigan State to the NCAA title and the Lakers to glory. Bird leads a little unknown college to the NCAA final and once he leaves they're never heard from again. It's not a coincidence. Those guys had winning encoded in their DNA. You may think its a profoundly simple way to analyze basketball but basketball is a profoundly simple game. Five guys trying to score more points than the five guys they're competing against. Doesn't sound like quantum mechanics to me. Lastly, I'm here to engage in a friendly and spirited debate with others about the game we all love. I'm not really interested whether or not my opinion garners your respect. No disrespect.

[Grandpa Waiters]

I think some of you guys are guilty of stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. In other words, I'm talking about playing in the finals and leading your team to back to back championships and you're talking about offensive ratings. Don't take this the wrong way but who gives a s--- about offensive ratings? Would you rather have a PG who led his team to a middle of the pack offensive rating and championships or a PG who leads their team to the best offensive rating year after year and wins nothing? Seriously. Again, you're making things too complicated. It's not about the numbers. It's about winning. Isiah was a winner, at every level. Nash never sniffed the finals. To claim that Nash can't be blamed at all for his teams playoff failures is ridiculous. He's the quarterback, the two-time MVP. If you're not going to blame him for losing than you can't credit him for winning. Can't have it both ways. Again, Zeke went through the gauntlet of Bird, Magic and Jordan to get his two titles (almost three). That's three of the top 10 (or top 5) players ever and he was the man, the leader of those teams. How can anyone claim Nash over Zeke when he couldn't even make it out of the west just once in a nearly twenty year career? Basketball isn't all about stats. You've heard the term "winning ugly" right? Well winning ugly is better than losing pretty in my book. If you want offensive ratings or 50/40/90 than Nash is your man. If you want a stone cold killer, a guy who'll cut your heart out to win, a guy with enough moxy to do what it takes to get the better of Bird, Magic and Jordan at various stages of his career than Isiah is your man. My two pennies.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Pistons winning these titles wasn't actually a credit to Isiah nearly as much as you think. Basketball is a team game, and the Pistons had everything that's needed to win. Suns did not. Pistons would've been better with Nash, Suns worse with Isiah. I feel pretty sure of this statement because the advanced stats are a tool with enables you to able to predict these things.

I'll second Raven's sentiments here.

That's the end of this discussion for me, right here. That's a classic no-win situation. No one's gonna be swayed towards a different point of view than they're actually looking at it from right now.

I hear what you're saying but I still think you're missing my point. It's like an NFL draft combine. Some players have great advanced stats (6'4", 240lbs, 40" vert, 4.3 40 time etc) but the problem is they can't play. Or a CEO with an Ivy League pedigree who's not a leader. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were college drop outs yet they ran circles around guys who had much better numbers in college or pedigrees (advanced stats). You can't always break it down to a mathematical equation or use advanced stats because it's not an exact science. That's all I'm trying to say....that and pick Isiah. LOL. Take it easy.