Quote:
No, I don't think so. Not necessarily, anyway. Let's say we have Michael Jordan in his prime. Let's magically add him to the Blazers this year. The Blazers get better. A whole hell of a lot better. Maybe they even make the playoffs.
Now let's go back in time and add him to the Pistons. The Pistons get better, too. They win 70 instead of 65, or whatever it is.
Jordan was still the same Jordan, on both teams. But he helped the lesser team a lot more, in terms of absolute games won.
I'm just saying that there is some way, even if it's not precise, to take this sort of thing into account. In other words, in a perfect system Jordan may not be penalized for playing on the Pistons rather than the Blazers, if voters understand that five additional games to the Pistons means more than all those additional games to the Blazers.
|
ok, I see what your saying. That's actually a pretty rigorous exercise. First you have to quantify how many wins the player is worth to his team. Then, and this is the hard part, you have to develop a scale where 25 Laker additional losses=15 additional Mavs losses= 22 additional Cav losses etc. If a voter is willing to put that much thought into it I'm all for it. Usually, when I hear writers talk about a players value to his team they don't adjust for the fact that marginal wins are harder to come by for good teams.