BmanInBigD wrote:itlnsunsfan wrote:BmanInBigD wrote:CP3 can give you .210 WS/48 vs Booker’s .156, he can give you you better ORtg AND DRtg, yadda, yadda. Booker may be flashier, but notice that the Suns sucked until CP3 got there. He may be the better player to YOU, but they don’t do crap without Chris Paul. It pains me to say it, cuz I hate the way he acts. But w/o him, Booker is just another really good shooter that won’t REALLY help you win a bunch of games. Being the best (especially marginally) player on a championship team doesn’t put you on some pedestal with all-time greats. IT is the biggest example of being extremely overrated being the marginally best player on a ring team. There’s more nuance and context than that. But if all you care about is rings, there’s no use arguing about it. You’re probably one of those that thought that Nowitzki sucked until 2011.
You maybe had an argument before Booker improved defensively. As a 2 way player, he very much contributes to winning. When Paul missed a month, the Suns didn't miss a beat.
I don't care if the advanced stats back me or not. I've watched practically every game since his rookie year. He was a traffic cone. Now, he's a legitimate stopper when he locks in. Comparing him to IT is egregiously off base.
(I assumed you meant Isaiah Thomas, but he was never on a ring team. If you meant Piston's Isiah Thomas, I'm somewhat dumbfounded by your post. Advanced stats are colors, but they don't paint the entire picture.)
I seem to remember a couple of periods this year where Booker was out also and the Suns didn’t miss a beat. They’re a really balanced team. If you put enough advanced stats in context together along with the eyeball test, you can come pretty damn close to completing the picture.
I agree that advanced stats in context along with watching games is as good as it gets for player analysis.
But advanced stats alone can be misrepresentative, especially when it comes to defensive oriented players. For example, Bill Russell has a career ws/48 of .193 while David Robinson's is .250.
The Admiral was great, but I can't make the argument that he contributed to winning more than Bill Russell.