Gongxi wrote:ronnymac2 wrote:This is a sad thread......not because it's a bad idea or because it hurts to know how many players "almost" became immortal. It's sad because it's true that we would probably all think about certain players differently based on what OTHER players did.
Great, great thread idea.
It's not too late to make a stand against that type of irrational and arbitrary way of judging players. I mean, sabermetrics changed the way people looked at baseball players and that didn't take off until the game had been played for almost a century.
I know. It's much more difficult though. The shift from using regular stats to using advanced stats in baseball is easier imo because the shift isn't a shift in the way of thinking as much as it is in the tools being used to evaluate. With basketball, people would need to fundamentally think differently.
I'm a person who really does evaluate players based on what they did on the court. Championships are tie-breakers or simple indicators for me. And yet, even I'm not confident that I'd be consistent with my perception of certain players if their resumes were affected by the play of their teammates.
I definitely agree with you though. I try to propagate the "look at the player, not his teammates" logic myself.
