PDA

View Full Version : How Important is a Team's Record



arkanian215
01-23-2010, 02:25 PM
when deciding whether a guy should go to the All-Star Game?

I keep hearing how lots of former coaches do not want to see a guy who does well on a "terrible" team (ex: Brook Lopez, Danny Granger, Antawn Jamison, Monta Ellis) get to go to the All-Star Game.

bosox3431
01-23-2010, 02:32 PM
It shouldn't matter at all. If a guy's putting up impressive number on a ****** team, thats more impressive then someone doing it on a good team. I can tell in these forums when comparing players, people credit rings and team success to much.

RocketsRule
01-23-2010, 02:34 PM
when deciding whether a guy should go to the All-Star Game?

I keep hearing how lots of former coaches do not want to see a guy who does well on a "terrible" team (ex: Brook Lopez, Danny Granger, Antawn Jamison, Monta Ellis) get to go to the All-Star Game.

They shouldn't make it. Why would the coaches reward them for losing? Even if they are putting up huge numbers.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 02:36 PM
It shouldn't matter at all. If a guy's putting up impressive number on a ****** team, thats more impressive then someone doing it on a good team. I can tell in these forums when comparing players, people credit rings and team success to much.

Pretty much.
Stats are stats. They will be good regardless, and if they are good you deserve it. And I don't mean raw stats.

topdog
01-23-2010, 02:46 PM
I think if you're going with a tie-breaker or something record matters but generally I think it's b.s. that good, deserving players can't get in and then better teams get an extra guy or two who don't belong there.

As far as the argument that crappy teams lead to gaudier stats, you could argue conversely that it actually is more difficult to get stats on a bad team because the opponent only has to focus on one or two players and if guys can't make shots you can't get assists.

Chronz
01-23-2010, 02:56 PM
Not as important as efficiency and pace. Thats the real issue people cant seem to get by when dissecting players games. MONTA IS NOT A STAR PEOPLE

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 03:22 PM
Not as important as efficiency and pace. Thats the real issue people cant seem to get by when dissecting players games. MONTA IS NOT A STAR PEOPLE

Ya no kidding.
Maybe if it was 07-08 Monta, but this year he has been FAR from a star.

MiamiHeat
01-23-2010, 03:51 PM
it shouldn't matter IMO
all about stats

JayAllDay
01-23-2010, 03:51 PM
It's a popularity vote

Undeserving people get ton of votes.

Like Yi Jianlian. He had 3 times as many votes as Paul Pierce past two years.

JayAllDay
01-23-2010, 03:51 PM
it shouldn't matter IMO
all about stats

not even

it's notoriety

bostncelts34
01-23-2010, 04:00 PM
It does matter IMO. A guy like Granger, and Brook Lopez put up sexier stats then Paul Pierce and Perkins, but when your the #1 option on a team, and get more shot attempts per game, of course your stats are gonna be better. Does not mean you deserve to be an all star. If you cant make your team at least a DECENT(playoff) team it should hurt you when it comes to playoff voting. Lets say Pierce was on Indiana, as you saw when Pierce had mediocre teams he averaged 25-27 ppg. Put him on INDY this year, and he would get bigger numbers. It depends alot of the teams these players play for.

kozelkid
01-23-2010, 04:51 PM
It does matter IMO. A guy like Granger, and Brook Lopez put up sexier stats then Paul Pierce and Perkins, but when your the #1 option on a team, and get more shot attempts per game, of course your stats are gonna be better. Does not mean you deserve to be an all star. If you cant make your team at least a DECENT(playoff) team it should hurt you when it comes to playoff voting. Lets say Pierce was on Indiana, as you saw when Pierce had mediocre teams he averaged 25-27 ppg. Put him on INDY this year, and he would get bigger numbers. It depends alot of the teams these players play for.

Difference is that Pierce is also putting those stats very efficiently, and beyond the raw stats, he still has been VERY good.

heathonater
01-23-2010, 10:35 PM
its not the mvp race. the best nba players sometimes play on bad teams. record should not factor at all in selecting all star players.

td0tsfinest
01-23-2010, 11:18 PM
I'd like to see variety of players from different teams in the allstar game.

In a perfect world, we would have one player representing each team in the nba. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

Last year in the 9 teams that were represented in the east and west, each. That's 18 teams out of 30.

ko8e24
01-23-2010, 11:41 PM
My thing is... if you're putting up monster numbers on a 3-win Nets team, or a 9-win T'wolves team, or a 13-win Warriors team at the halfway mark of the regular season, then despite the beastly numbers, there is some point where you just have to draw the line.

You want all-stars who are leading their teams to "respectable" records at the mid-way point.

So guys like Harris, Brooke, Al Jeff and Monta should not make it by those standards.


PS: nothing against those players and nothing against the Wolves, Warriors or Nets

SteveNash
01-24-2010, 12:26 AM
It shouldn't matter at all. If a guy's putting up impressive number on a ****** team, thats more impressive then someone doing it on a good team. I can tell in these forums when comparing players, people credit rings and team success to much.

How is it more impressive to put up better stats on a garbage team?

The whole team record thing is simple. If the player was that good, his team would have a better record.