Bernman wrote:BigO wrote:And the bolded part, my friends, sums up all the net rating arguments ever made on this board.
No, you're just too stubborn or old-fashioned to understand them. The point of team sport is to make your team better. If they're much worse w/ you on the court for 3 years, and only mediocre w/ you on it when they were perennial contenders, then you've proven at that point to fail at the objective.
You're cherry picking priority. The priority to you was to remind you of Bob Pettit, when the game was about long 2's in the post. Now it's to not admit you were wrong or move w/ new info, as I have as a former Bobby fan to now be "anti-Bobby". Not one of the good soldiers in the pro-Bobby army. I'm a Bucks' fan. I thought this was a Bucks' forum.
I plead guilty to loving Bob Pettit.
Here's my big picture of using stats to prove one's point (I'm guilty also):
Organizations like the Bucks have used stats in a big way for at least a decade.
Their analysis is much more nuanced than anyone on this board.
If analyzing a player was simply looking at their plus/minus or net rating, then based on the stats provided by some posters, guys like BP shouldn't be playing. He should be riding the bench and have no trade value.
Guys like BP are playing because the front office and the coaching staff think he's a valued player based on what the stats show them and what they see on the court. My eyeballs tell me the same thing.
Is he indispensable to winning a championship, like I think Middleton is? No.
So I respect your eyeballs telling you something different. But I don't value simplistic random stats based on an already determined narrative.
