TwinkieFoot

People often define careers based on how successful a person is by the number of wins or loses they have managed to accumulate during that time. In that same breathe, people are quick to state that stats are overrated. Are wins and loses nothing more than a statistic? After all it's just a measure of how many times your team has scored more points than another and how effectively you manage to do so. Isn't it possible that just as points, rebounds, assists, etc do not tell the whole story that wins and loses can not as well? I believe their is a general consensus here that one player can make another more effective, right? Knowing that, isn't it just possible that not matter how much more effective the player becomes next to a star, that their efforts are just not good enough? After all, if "there is no 'I' in team." I'm going to offer my opinion later on in the thread but I'm curious to here what you guys have to say before I state it here in this first post.

Dre™

It depends on what kind of discussion you're having. Player or Player discussions should exclude team success regardless IMO. But when it comes to overviewing retired players' careers, team situation should come into the discussion, because it helps define a player in the big picture. I'll add a longer post later if need be, but I hope my concision worked.

__________________

0oh_S0o_FreSh!!

that is true. Marbury has always been a great player, never a great team, but peeople respect him. i co-sign what dre said. it depends what situation ur in. Not only stats and wins, but what u do, or what u r despised for. garnett is a great player and of course what u said a person cant carry a team by his own, but its mostly team work.. you can have the crappiest players or the best players, but their nothing without passing and helping each other out. the players around you make you the player that are. they all help each otehr out to achieve those stats. they just dont achieve it on theri own.

__________________
MY POCKETS SO HUGE, ITS ON JENNY CRAIG.

New York just doesnt come easy.

Kicks is cool
Knicks are too
Yanks are
Jets are

and food.

TwinkieFoot

I understand what you mean but I just don't agree with it entirely. Regarding retired players, I just feel that it may measure how effectively they were as the head of a CAPABLE team but should they be taken into consideration if their was not a capable team in place during their career's to produce wins? For instance, guys like Shareef Abdur-Rahim has been labeled a loser because of his days with the Hawks and Grizzlies despite being a 20 and 8 guy. What people fail to understand is that it's not all that easy to win games when your starting lineup looks like a young Mike Bibby, Michael D. (forgot his entire name), Othello Harrington, and big country (forgot his name as well). Michael D. did not exactly have a stellar career even when he was healthy, Harrington had only the talent of a career backup, Reeves (big country) ate himself out of the league on his rookie contract I believe and Mike Bibby was just a young pup. With the Hawks, they managed to acquire a rather strong starting lineup but had poor coaching and no bench depth to contribute to them never doing anything of significance. Even the great ones like Jordan had a Pippen at their side and I think that's often lost in the equation when we judge people's career. "There is no 'I' in team."

Dre™

No matter what the case, team success should come into discussion. I don't know what kind of verdicts should be made, but when discussing a career, this should be brought up.

If you feel like that way about SAR, I don't see why this sh/wouldn't come into the discussion when he retires.

__________________

TwinkieFoot

Like any stat, I feel that it should enter the conversation but more often than not, it is the conversation and end all. Just trying to make that point.

Gotham2krazy

No it's not overrated, player stats may be overrated, but not team stats, it just shows you how much a team can mesh and how much chemistry that they may have or even lack of leadership upon a team. Anyhow, this thread's kinda pointless.

Da Grinch

it completely depends on the situation.

was the Big O less of a player in the 60's because his teams couldn't win consistently?

the royals were not a good team most of the time and Robertson couldn't save them he was just 1 guy ...but when he got on a team with a genuine star (Kareem abdul jabbar ) he got a title. elgin baylor, charles barkley karl malone are all very good but i wouldn't be quick to put other top players above them because they won.

likewise just being on a great team and winning as a role player to me doesn't make you better than you are(steve kerr , robert Horry and the like)

__________________
"The country is full of good coaches. What it takes to win is a bunch of interested players."-Don Coryell, ex-San Diego Chargers Coach

0oh_S0o_FreSh!!

not really ,it actullay helps this forum with friendly conversation or heated argument.

__________________
MY POCKETS SO HUGE, ITS ON JENNY CRAIG.

New York just doesnt come easy.

Kicks is cool
Knicks are too
Yanks are
Jets are

and food.

TwinkieFoot

How so? The best teams in the league (who win the championship) usually have one of the best records in the league but never the best. Obviously the wins and losses lie there. Besides that point, I was concerned more from an individuals point of view and not an entire team. Apparently, some can't distinguish the two and totally blame wins or losses on one player. That is what I'd like to address.

TwinkieFoot

Thanks for the respect and understanding.

kconn61686

To the some players, in particularly Stephon Marbury, wins and losses are indeed overrated, and individual stats are underrated.

Pain5155

its all about how many rings u got.

TwinkieFoot