>Agreed.. It is not speculation that the team would have lost an effect
>34-35 points with him out. They would have gained the lost turnovers and
>6 out of every ten shots he missed.
The fact that the team still playing him instead of Fennis Dembo
means they value his (contribution - miscues). As long as the team
wins, who are you to question his value to the team?
>>so be it. Stockton hasn't proven that what he can do with better teammates,
>>since we don't want to speculate, or do you want to again?
>So you admit that Isiah does less because he has better teammates... Hmmm.
But then, even if (notice the "if") he has better teammates, so what? Do
you accept that the value of the team > the sum of the individuals.
Do you accept that a good environment makes you more productive towards
the bottom line than a bad one? That's why a player's productivity
cannot be viewed as an independent subject.
>some things well, but he also does many, many things to hurt his team as well.
good things than bad things (this is a fact, simply based on the fact that
he started for the team over those years). Yet how do you describe them?
Good things -- doing some things well
Bad things - many, many things to hurt his team
I am right. Your quantifications of anything, especially your use of the
word "many", has little or no meaning at all.
>my team is able to win I will be considered great..., I can come in, score
>20 points, even if I have to take 30 shots to do it, commit a lot of turnovers,
>and not make many assists, but because my team wins,
and lots of turnovers. Hey, they won. Unless you are William Dividson,
who are you to tell the Pistons whether Isiah is too good or too bad to them?
an all-star team. Now let's rehash your "my all-star team will crush
your Pistons" .....
Sure, you give me an example, which are just a list of numbers with no
stated implications, much like the QB ratings. You can interpret them
one way, I can interpret them the other way.
>player than Stockton. His team wins and he is one of the main reasons they
>do. However, Isiah is NOT a better player than Stockton.
Because unfair situations even out in the long run, when you are "more
valuable" long enough, more so than another player who is not "as valuable"
long enough, that tells you more about the player. Utah has not got
past the 2nd round in 5 years, not even been able to upset a contender
once in a while, say, like Seattle/Milwaukee/GS did. It tells you that
they can only play up to their capabilities, never beyond their capabilities.
So you just think you have a better definition of "better", so what?
>is not speculation.
or really spell everything out for me, as below.
>position, is speculation..
1) he has one of the best net stats (positive minus negative). If you buy
stats, that's a factor (not the lone factor).
2) he won an MVP (that's good for stat or non-stat believers)
3) he was considered the team leader.
4) he is the playmaker.
>TO rate... All are facts.
>Sometimes it happens. But does it mean it has too???