why is a player not considered as good because he has good stats on a bad team
this topic just popped in my head and i thought id share it and see what peopel think...this came about because of danny granger. me and one of my friends were talking about how good he is and his point was " well granger played on a bad team so his stats should be good" yea that could be tru but you could also say that it would be harder for him to put up thoses numbers because he is the main focus for each teams defense as well as getting the best defender matched up on him unless the other teams best defender is a center. personally i think a good player is goona be a good player if hes on a good or bad team. i know jordan is jordan but he was still putting up good numbers when his team was bad. same with kobe when the lakers werent that good. paul gasol put up good numbers on a bad memphis team but when he went to a lakers team he ends up on all nba second team. i think its unfair to say a player isnt as good as another because of how bad there team is. in rare cases it makes sense. when a team really doesnt have a superstar like the knicks for example. where david lee puts up good numbers but every one knows hes not a superstar
Because, they are losing. I mean, history shows a couple cases where guys where doing well on bad teams, went to good teams and were not that good.
Charles Smith comes to mind
Danny Granger, Devin Harris, Kevin Martin
I think granger is a amazing player sometimes makes stupid shot attempts.......but he did have alot of scoring options on his team last year. Jack, Ford, Murphy, Daniels........and even a healthy dunleavy, but players should only be judged based on how they play on a day to day basis with their team not with another team.
If people really thought that they were "not as good" why would they sign them to monster contracts. We saw this with rashard lewis , Kevin Garnett, and Elton Brand. All these guys were great players on horrible teams, if they were really that bad they wpould have not got the contracts they deserved.
I just don't think alot of people think that good players on a bad team aren't that great if they were put on a better team.
Yeah those are good examples. I'm sure someone will put a list of the ones who were successful on other teams and weren't so great.
One point on Grainger... his team played uptempo, which I think is more responsible for inflated stats than playing on a bad team... look at the Knicks...
I can't believe some people were saying Jefferson was better then Yao last season...that's just ridiculous. He had no other real weapons on that team so of course he'd score alot. Yao had to share his touches with plenty of quality players and our Point Guards, mainly Brooks have trouble getting him the ball or don't care to
dude, how many times have u seen al jefferson play? i'm not sure if he's better than yao, but he's definitely in the conversation
Its all about the right system, quincy is right about Gasol, if this forum topic was 3 years ago Gasol would have been at the top of the list. Granger, Martin, and others are talented players that just need the right coach or system to flourish, Granger probably wouldn't drop 26 a game for a team like lets say New Orleans, but he'd still be a 18-20 ppg guy who is a valuable asset to the team. In my mind the players who benefit from playing for a bad system or are overrated because of this are the guys who wouldn't get playing time anywhere else. Beno Udrich wouldn't have averaged 11 and 5 for any other team than the Kings, if you know his situation you'd know he didn't work out and is overrated, but if you strictly look at his stats you might say he had a pretty good year. Classic example, Dickey Simpkins averaging 9 and 5 for Chicago in the post apocalyptic era in the strike year, he wouldn't have averaged more than 10 mpg for any other team, but the Bulls were so depleted he got time.
Basically, the better team a player is on, the worse his stats are. There's no doubt about it. Ask Ron Harper or everyone mentioned in this post.
Granger's a really good player. But he's not the kind of guy you can build around and compete for a title. Not even close.
Remember, only three team has ever won an NBA Championship without a player who either was actually named to the 50 Greatest Players Ever list or clearly would be now as one of its two best players. Those three teams: 2004 Detroit Pistons, 1979 Seattle Supersonics and 1951 Rochester Royals.
Basketball is a sport where it's hard to imagine the best players not winning consistently, so long as their teammates aren't completely awful. As a result, it's hard to imagine a player really being THAT good when his team struggles to win with him.
What's your take on Chauncey from that 2004 Pistons squad?
I agree with SpencerIsHawesome. It's not an automatic thing. I think if you get too much into the stats, sometimes you will miss the bigger picture. Watching the games is crucial. I think it is usually easier to put up big numbers on a bad team though. If you are losing no one expects anything and you hardly play any meaningful game, meaning no pressure to succeed. Al Harrington is the first guy I think of when I think of this. I loved watching the Bulls growing up, but I always wonder what kind of numbers would Scottie Pippen have put up if he was paired with a guy that was not as dominate of a scorer.
Anyways, I think if you look at the Celtics and their big 3, that is an example of when guys stats are lower because they are on a good team. All of these guys averages have been going down. Sure they are older, but I think they are playing basketball the right way. When Pierce was scoring like crazy, it was during the time that they were not competitive. The one thing to point out though, is that even though a lot of their points went down, all of the guys became much more efficient. Also, with a good team, these guys can rest and don't have to play as much because there is a greater emphasis put on guys getting and staying healthy. Look how much they have decreased Garnett's minutes over the years...
I went ahead and did the math for you and basically calculated that in Garnett's last year in Minny he played a total amount of minutes that equaled 62 games. His first year in Boston his total minutes equaled 48 games. That's just by decreasing his minutes by 7 per game.
players like Grnger are all stars no matter where they go, but i dont think K-mart would be that good on a better team, hes a number two option on a good team, number one on a bad team.
Kmart was only good because jason kidd made him look good.......now he is mediocre because he doesn't have that run and gun PG and his injuries made him worse
im talking Kevin Martin.
not much of a defender and doesnt create for his teammates, i think hes a good 20 point second option scorer but doesnt create enough to be as number one option.
oo lol.......kevin martin is a #1 option well on his team he is, but i think if he goes to a good team he will be a delonte west type of player at best. Its simply because of all the things birdzilla said
he can score but superstars do more than core they create for their teammates and play d.
i agree hes better than West West is a role payer whil K-Mart is a good second option scorer, the closest person you can compare him to on that team is Moe Williams.
i have to agree with spencer on this...no way in hell that martin is dwest on a good team..come on now..i also think he can be a 1# scoring option on a good team with no problem. he would be a reggie miller type scorer...thats one player whos basic skills were to just score and knock down threes