Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkNasty
Assani,
You have a habit of using per 36 minutes in incorrect ways to make arguments. e.g. Ginobili is awesome because of his per 36, or Wilt's overrated because of his per 36. I know that you know that Ginobili has less value than others because of his inability to play more, and that Wilt has more value because he's an iron man. Yet for some reason, you still like to skew discussion with those meaningless stats. I don't get it.
Clark, if two players have similar bulk stats but one plays less minutes, then which one is more valuable? Obviously you'd like to have more info(such as efficiency stats), but solely based upon that given info, you'd have to say that the one who plays less minutes is more valuable, no?
So you're thereby admitting that heavy minutes can skew bulk stats. Thats all I was saying. Yes obviously its good to play more minutes. However, my point is that the gap between Wilt's bulk stats and the others isn't as big as it appears since to get a true measure you'd have to add the others bulk stats to the average bulk stats of a bench player who replaces them up to the amount of minutes Wilt played.