- Thread starter
- #1
MHSL82
Well-Known Member
- 16,736
- 888
- 113
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 500.92
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
Switched the order of you post in the quote above and cut it down to what I'm responding to.
The fact that you say that McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo was a short-term fix tells me that even in assists, they weren't like Stockton. I don't know how to say it differently, so I don't mean to be rude, but I really, REALLY don't think you can take team stats to discuss individual skills, even when isolating one area like assists. So say our teams are similar, but any reference that players x, y, or z could do it like Stockton, is a stretch unless that's Kidd, Nash, Magic, etc. If Mcleod, Arroyo, or Lopez could produce Stockton's numbers (talking just assists, here) and the remaining team could produce the rest, amounting to the same as the Stockton years (in total, not league rank), I'd say for that stretch, sure. Sloan would have rolled with them. But if McLopOyo do it by committee, I don't agree. The systems and teams could be similar, and in fact were, but that was the system's compensatory abilities.
Excuse me for the rough analogy but David Locke from a local radio stations was talking about how Jefferson's scoring in Minnesota was not that impressive on a losing team because the total points for the T'Wolves was a certain level, well below what was necessary to win. Even the Bobcats averaged a certain number, it was bound for one to carry the load. You could arrange a certain number of professionals randomly and someone would have to average a lot because the team is bound to score 90 or 80 or whatnot (number is just illustrative) and one player is bound to play a long time and take a lot of shots - he could be good at it, but number wise wasn't impressive to Locke. What he does when there are other talented players, speaks a lot more to him. With Favors and Millsap, etc., we're getting a look at Jefferson. (Love was starting to play better like Favors could, etc. so there was some overlap of situations.)
I understand the same can't be said about assists, when you are top 5 team, but a certain number of team assists are a given - the amount above that minimum is impressive, but in regards to individual floor generals, I feel it has to come from one PG to make a comparison. If the flex system was so conducive and Stockton left, someone else would have filled his shoes and replaced the assists (forget about points and defense for a moment) - team scoring from all those assists and team assists outside of the PG would compensate. But it didn't. Stockton wasn't there for his scoring or defense primarily, it was for running the point and he did it better than any other Jazz man, even removing everything but assists. The scoring and defense was a plus.
Maybe Sloan didn't give another PG a chance until we got Deron, but that just speaks to how those others couldn't make up for it - even if just discussing assists. I think Sloan looked primarily for a passer.
I have to say, I know you weren't saying that these guys were the same as Stockton, even when just comparing assists, but I had to discuss what I thought about such hypothetical belief. Obvious when adding scoring and defense, but still true when not considering those.
About the Einstein question, yes, in a way, but the overall assessment of results does not change. Doing it faster or with more style, doesn't speak to effectiveness in a test setting - moving it to on the court, if McLeod gets 10 assists, it's same as Stockton getting 10 assists. The 99 Jazz getting 25 assists, to me, is not the same as the 2004 team getting 25 assists, unless McLeod got the 10 assists, too. I don't mind PG by committee, but I don't like equating them when naming individuals or looking for context to Stockton's record (or anyone else's record).
Some teams scored more than Jordan's team, but no player got more than Jordan, if the 1999 Bulls scored the same, I wouldn't be saying, maybe Jordan was a product of the system - unless one player scored the same with comparable supporting cast and it produced similar results - I know I'm mixing two areas - scoring and winning, which is not fair, but as Locke said, how you score matters (garbage points or real competitive scoring). Yes, the defense factor does remove the analogy a bit and so does level of competition. Making a nexus between flex offense assisting and garbage points could be made, because it isn't the PG driven assist, but I think there's too many factors going on here.
My whole analogy is messy, but my belief is clear - team stats can compare teams, not individuals, IMO. It can shed light on some things, but when comparing individuals in the same system, a lesser statistical output is informative. The decision by Sloan to play one PG less, may be effected by Sloan's belief in his ability to do it like Stock, assists or otherwise.
