I was watching the interview with Pau Gasol this evening during half-time of the first playoff game, and it occurred to me that while Gasol made a huge statistical impact, his team didn't win because of him (well, duh, you say). The NBA seems unique to me, in that a team just "is" going to score a certain amount of points no matter what happens. No matter how good a defense is, and how bad another offense, they're very rarely going to score less than 70. Someone has to get the points, boards, etc. And the other team might play carelessly, inflating these #'s even more. Abdur-Rahim. Jermaine O'Neal. Andre Miller. Stephan Marbury. All players who have never played on a "good" team, but who put up all-star #'s. I've got a few ideas, but am just not sure. Some of these guys are just playing for bad teams... but others? They seem to be really good. Prime example: Antoine Walker. His Celtics sucked for years, with him as the prime option. Presto, Paul Pierce emerges, and the Celtics are good. But Walker's stats didn't decline this year, as you'd expect if his stats were a function of him being on a bad team. I would just say: hey, nobody can do it alone. Except, that's not true. Some guys, with very similar stats, almost single-handedly carry their teams with, at most, one other guy. Kobe and Shaq, Garnett and Wally, Pierce and Walker, Davis and Mashburn, Stockton and Malone, Duncan and nobody... and some of these guys do have another player putting up good #'s (SAR had some serious help in Memphis, on paper... and he has Terry in ATL, etc) What do you guys think is going on:? A. There are certain players who "contribute well" but lack some sort of ability to cause their team to win. These are the guys you want in support of your franchise player. B. Stat monsters - they're not even really contributing, just putting up #'s. C. Everybody needs help, no matter how good they are. D. something else? explain I probably tend to think it's mainly #1, partly because almost all of these guys seem to be young. Perhaps winning is something you learn, even if you already play just about as well as a vet? Seems like sometimes the light just "Turns on" for players.
I'd have to agree with you here, as well as partially #2. In many ways, they are interconnected. The latter, though, seems to be more a sign of selfishness (or, perhaps, a team cancer) and the former more inexperience. Take, for instance, Penny Hardaway. He's out there putting up numbers, but even with a player in Joe Johnson in Phoenix's lineup who put up lesser numbers, they were just as good (if not slightly better). I think he was just out there to try to prove he could play, but for no other reason. In the end, he proved he really can't play and is simply a cancer to whatever team he is on. Now, move to Stephon Marbury. Through his history, he has contributed and put up some good numbers, but has never done what others have been able to do in getting to the playoffs. Is it his fault? Perhaps in leadership, but he has also lacked some talent in the past as well. You could classify him in that first group of players; maybe it'll click for him, maybe it won't. But, I also subscribe to the thought that no matter how bad a team is, someone has to put up stats, and thus their stats can become inflated just a bit due to the situation. They may be their team's best, but not that good overall....these are the players fantasy and roto geeks love. They could either fall into that first category of player, or just simply don't have the talent around them to succeed, or simply aren't that good. Only time and franchise player movement can tel with these players - such as Gasol.
