Dat2U wrote:payitforward wrote: then what about the fact that team wins/losses are 100% determined by "numbers/stats"? And that is a fact. It's true of any team sport in fact. So, wouldn't your statement mean that how good a player is -- that judgment -- goes beyond the player's contribution to win/loss record?
Not for me, it doesn't. But I can accept that it might for any number of fans. That's where you get all the hero-style admiration for someone's "heart," for the fact that he "carries the team." Fine. People need heroes, they need things to believe in. It's as true of me as of anyone. I just don't include it in my understanding of basketball. Different strokes for different folks.
I disagree. It's not a fact. Because first off, numbers and stats don't address defense. You can't look at a box score and see who's a complete sieve on defense or which guy can effectively disrupt a team's offense with his defensive effort. You can only infer certain things like defensive boards, steals, blocks and these paint an incomplete picture. A guy like Carlos Boozer was a brutal defender most of his career but got a lot of rebounds. Hassan Whiteside blocks a lot of shots but because he can't/won't defend the P&R, the Heat are far better defensively when he sits.
Offensively certain players dominate the ball and stagnate ball movement and disrupt offensive flow. They may score with relative efficiency but they negatively impact the rhythm of their teammates. Derrick Rose & Jahlil Okafor come to mind. Vice versa, some players attract so much attention, their teammates benefit from their presence. See John Wall which is why comparing low usage limited guards like Beverley or Rubio makes little sense. Finally, some players negatively impact spacing which again makes life harder on their teammates as driving lanes tend to be smaller when the defense is able to focus on a smaller segment of the court. This is why its hard to play poorly skilled 4s & 3s in today's game. This won't show on the stat sheet either.
I didn't make my point clear enough, Dat -- sorry. At the conclusion of a game, the referees don't have to review video to find out who defended the P&R well, etc. in order to declare a winner. All they have to do is look up at the scoreboard. Whoever has the bigger number wins the game.
Those scoreboard numbers are entirely determined by other numbers. That is, how many 2- & 3-pt. shots you got (or gave up if we're looking at defensive numbers) and how many of those shots went in, how many FTAs you got & how many went in: those numbers 100% determine your score. Nothing else has any role. E.g. I read people say how much better Gortat would be if only he dunked more instead of getting layups. But of course, as you and I know, 2 points are 2 points.
What you are talking about is
why the numbers are as they are. Essentially, you are saying that certain kinds of players don't produce good numbers (which is obvious of course) and as well that certain kinds of players create conditions which cause their teammates to produce less good numbers than otherwise they would. Or, conversely, that they create conditions which cause teammates to produce
better numbers than otherwise they would produce. Yet, all the same, in the end it's those numbers that win/lose a game.
E.g., you write: "some players attract so much attention, their teammates benefit from their presence. See John Wall." Evidence for the truth of your claim ought to be easy to find, at least in some cases. For example, Marcin Gortat has now played almost 3.5 years with John Wall. If his numbers in those years are better than in his past career, & especially if he's gotten better as he's played more with John, that would provide evidence that you're right. He would have benefited from John's presence. But, in fact, his numbers as a Wizard are quite consistent with his numbers everywhere he's played in the league. He's quite a good Center. Here as he was in Phoenix.
Another piece of evidence that you are right would be if Paul Pierce was better as a Wizard than he was as a Net his previous year. If all that attention John attracted made it possible for Pierce, good as we know he was in any case, to be even better. Well... he was good. He was about as good as he had been the previous year when the PG he played with was... I don't remember off the top of my head -- do you?
Another piece of evidence would be if Markieff Morris put up more efficient performances than his career average in his now 1600+ minutes as a Wizard. But he hasn't.
Looking at it another way: what if Trevor Booker went down in production once he left the Wizards. I.e. in his years w/ Utah and the Nets. When John Wall wasn't on the court to benefit him by attracting all that attention. But that hasn't happened.
But, maybe there's evidence in other players' productivity numbers, and I simply haven't hit on them. Let me know which players have benefited from John's presence by putting up better numbers than they did either before or after they played with Wall.
The Wizards are a Hell of a lot better with John Wall than without him; we agree on that. Because of what a good player he is. In fact, the Wizards are as good and as bad as they are because of how good and how bad their players are. Period. Add a better player (say Paul Pierce), and we're a better team. Add a worse player (say Markieff Morris or Andrew Nicholson) and we're a worse team.
Why? Because better players put up better numbers -- that's what it means to be a better player. And better numbers win more games, because that's what decides who wins a game: numbers.
