Isiah and what David Meeks doesn't want to talk about (was Re: Stockton)

Isiah and what David Meeks doesn't want to talk about (was Re: Stockton)

Post by edward.l » Sat, 23 Nov 1991 07:24:27


>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.  

But then the team would have lost an effect 34-35 points with him out.
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?

>>Well, if Isiah can afford to do less because he has better teammates,
>>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.

That is still to be decided. Well, maybe your illogical mind can't see
a proposition.

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.

>Isiah has a habit of doing
>some things well, but he also does many, many things to hurt his team as well.

Geez, you are really a master of words.  Isiah certainly has done more
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.

>"Who cares whether I suck or not, since I am the star of the team, if
>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,

Yes, then apparently, the Pistons value his 20 points more than his 40 misses
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?

>By this logic, we should send John Sally or Bill Laimbeer..

Maybe they should, that's what I said about sending the champions or
an all-star team. Now let's rehash your "my all-star team will crush
your Pistons" .....

>No.. You just wanted examples that rate players based on statistical categories

>and not just as statistical leaders.. I gave it too you...

Then where did it say that this computer rating == the ranking of players?
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.

>Stats don't rule... Neither do total wins..  Michael and magic are very, very

That's speculation and opinion. How "very" is very?

>Isiah is a more valuable
>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.  

That's how I view "better" -- more valuable.
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?

>>>His contribtion to the Pistons, speculation,

>Sorry, maybe I have to spell everything out to you... The fact he contributed
>is not speculation.  

Well, maybe you have to reread what you wrote, write more carefully,
or really spell everything out for me, as below.

>What that contibution is, and what someone else could do in the same
>position, is speculation..

That's more like it.  But the facts are:

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.

>Nope.. Not speculation.. Neither are his poor FG% or poor APG, or his poor
>TO rate...  All are facts.

Yep, but the net result is still good enough for Daly to start him.

>>So? Stockton guarded a 6'9 guard just the previous year.
>Sometimes it happens.  But does it mean it has too???  

But when your team is being swept, why not? you can't get any worse.

                                          Edward Lor