From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Reggie Lewis (was Re: 2nd Dream Team)
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:26:18 GMT
Organization: Vmark Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul23.031800.12656@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>Dave Meeks writes:
>>	   PPG  FG%   RPG APG Steals Blks Comments
>>Lewis      20.8 50.3  4.8 2.3 125    105  Tough defender, automatic scorer
>>Hornacek   20.1 51.2  5.0 5.1 158    31   Very close call
>>Miller     20.7 50.1  3.9 3.8 105    26   Not quite
>>Richmond   22.5 46.8  4.0 5.1  92    34   Not quite
>>Sarunas    18.9 53.8  2.9 3.4 116    10   Nope
>>Dumars     19.9 44.8  2.3 4.6  71    12   Nope
>>Malone     20.2 51.1  2.9 2.2  56     5   Nope
>>Hawkins    19.0 46.2  3.3 3.1 157    43   Nope
>
>I know this is sacrilege to the statophiles, but statistics like this suck.
>All the myriad variables that go into each moment of each possession of each
>game influence statistics like these in all sorts of ways.  PPG and the like
>are awfully crude measurements of players.  So, you can either go furthur down
>that road and measaure PPG per 48 minutes, PPG when Kevin Johnson plays point,
>or PPG per 48 when KJ plays and Ed T. Rush is referee, on your home floor, when
>you had eggs for breakfast...  Or, you can recognize that stats don't tell you
>anything nearly as precise as they pretend.
>
>That Lewis' shots go through the net one-tenth of one percent more of the time 
>than Miller's, is meaningless.  If Miller played with Bird, McHale, and Parish,
>maybe he'd shoot 55%--who knows?
>
>Your most significant stat is Lewis' blocks.  105 is a hell of a lot.  And I
>think Lewis is a damn good player.  Just that Hornacek is probably better.
>And the guy in that list that gives Portland fits every year is not Lewis.  It's
>Dumars.  I can't explain for you his 44% shooting, but he plays big.
>
>David Christensen

Well, the only real comment I have is that it is because of your last comments
that people use the stats in the first place.  The stats listed, and all the
stats kept but not listed, are still not enough to completely define a player.
However, they are a very important method of comparison.  In particular, with
some of these players, their statistical measurements are very similar to
each other, so the "other" factors become even more important.  But, as you
state, YOU think Hornacek is "probably" better.  I have no problem with this
statement and can see arguments for it...  But, WHY do you think Hornacek
is better?  What is it that he does that makes you think this??  Not doubting
your reasons, I just want to know.   I think Reggie Lewis is better. Why??
Because he is statistically superior in PPG and blocked shots, where he is
about the same in steals and FG% and rebounds.  Some of the differences in
Rebounds I figure are the types of teams they play for.  And so on.  I can
see someone saying that Hornacek shots and rebounds as well (or better), gets
a few more steals, and is a much better passer.  But again, this is using
statistics.  I think, on a non-statistical side, Reggie is more capable of
raising his game to the level needed to lead a team to victory, as we saw
in the final 20 games of the season and then the playoffs, where I think he
had the 3rd highest ppg average through the playoffs.  I also think Reggie
does a lot more of the little things, like with defense, and hitting the key
shots.  ANd, I think Reggie creates his own shot much better, though Horny
has much better range.   So, this was just my opinion and can be argued,
but comments of "I think he is probably better" do nothing to show me why
he is considered better.

Anyway, later..


-- 
David T. Meeks                    ||" We are jigsaw pieces, aligned on the 
VMark Software, Inc.              ||  perimeter edge, 
uvmark!davem@merk.com             ||  interlocked through a missing piece"
davem%uvmark@merk.com             ||" ...This world is totally Fugazi"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro