Quote:
Originally posted by: poohrichardson
Geez, it's a good thing that GMs don't look at 82games.. they'd miss the things that make players like Raja Bell worth having..
"Oh no, some website is able to twist stats so Bell has a negative net +/- per 100 posessions! Shit, why did we have to ink him without making sure of that beforehand?"
Bottom line, if you watched the Jazz last year, and the year before, and the Mavs the year before that, and still think Raja is a defensive liability (as your precious stats seem to infer), I just really have a lot of pity for you.
And Bowen suddenly isn't a great defensive player? Yeah right, pass the bong!
There are ways of twisting stats to make Michael Finley look like this generation's Clyde Frazier (several of which have been prominently featured on these forums), but if you're a basketball fan with two functioning eyes, you'd realize that it simply isn't true. Finley is 50x more likely to get lit up by a great scorer than Bell and Bowen.
Am I the only one who doesn't get the point of per-48 minutes or net +/-, and all of that garbage? That's all stupid shit that's taken out of context. Bell can flat out play great defense. He was a good pickup on a team that needs better defense. That's basketball analysis there, not "omg teh stats sey he's the sux0rz!)
|
Translation: Raja is a good defensive player because he looks like he's playing good defense, even if the facts don't back it up.
Sounds like putting style over substance. The old "it's not whether you win or lose but how you look doing it" argument. I'd rather look like the suck and win the game, than look like the coolest player in the world and go home a loser. If all the effort and style doesn't translate to a positive affect on the score board, then what the hell good is it? Maybe the NBA should go to a system like women's gymnastics or figure skating where judges give style points instead of counting points for making 2pt, 3pt and FT's.
[img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]