# Are wins and loses overrated?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

People often define careers based on how successful a person is by the number of wins or loses they have managed to accumulate during that time. In that same breathe, people are quick to state that stats are overrated. Are wins and loses nothing more than a statistic? After all it's just a measure of how many times your team has scored more points than another and how effectively you manage to do so. Isn't it possible that just as points, rebounds, assists, etc do not tell the whole story that wins and loses can not as well? I believe their is a general consensus here that one player can make another more effective, right? Knowing that, isn't it just possible that not matter how much more effective the player becomes next to a star, that their efforts are just not good enough? After all, if "there is no 'I' in team." I'm going to offer my opinion later on in the thread but I'm curious to here what you guys have to say before I state it here in this first post.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

It depends on what kind of discussion you're having. Player or Player discussions should exclude team success regardless IMO. But when it comes to overviewing retired players' careers, team situation should come into the discussion, because it helps define a player in the big picture. I'll add a longer post later if need be, but I hope my concision worked.


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

TwinkieFoot said:


> People often define careers based on how successful a person is by the number of wins or loses they have managed to accumulate during that time. In that same breathe, people are quick to state that stats are overrated. Are wins and loses nothing more than a statistic? After all it's just a measure of how many times your team has scored more points than another and how effectively you manage to do so. Isn't it possible that just as points, rebounds, assists, etc do not tell the whole story that wins and loses can not as well? I believe their is a general consensus here that one player can make another more effective, right? Knowing that, isn't it just possible that not matter how much more effective the player becomes next to a star, that their efforts are just not good enough? After all, if "there is no 'I' in team." I'm going to offer my opinion later on in the thread but I'm curious to here what you guys have to say before I state it here in this first post.



that is true. Marbury has always been a great player, never a great team, but peeople respect him. i co-sign what dre said. it depends what situation ur in. Not only stats and wins, but what u do, or what u r despised for. garnett is a great player and of course what u said a person cant carry a team by his own, but its mostly team work.. you can have the crappiest players or the best players, but their nothing without passing and helping each other out. the players around you make you the player that are. they all help each otehr out to achieve those stats. they just dont achieve it on theri own.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> It depends on what kind of discussion you're having. Player or Player discussions should exclude team success regardless IMO. But when it comes to overviewing retired players' careers, team situation should come into the discussion, because it helps define a player in the big picture. I'll add a longer post later if need be, but I hope my concision worked.



I understand what you mean but I just don't agree with it entirely. Regarding retired players, I just feel that it may measure how effectively they were as the head of a CAPABLE team but should they be taken into consideration if their was not a capable team in place during their career's to produce wins? For instance, guys like Shareef Abdur-Rahim has been labeled a loser because of his days with the Hawks and Grizzlies despite being a 20 and 8 guy. What people fail to understand is that it's not all that easy to win games when your starting lineup looks like a young Mike Bibby, Michael D. (forgot his entire name), Othello Harrington, and big country (forgot his name as well). Michael D. did not exactly have a stellar career even when he was healthy, Harrington had only the talent of a career backup, Reeves (big country) ate himself out of the league on his rookie contract I believe and Mike Bibby was just a young pup. With the Hawks, they managed to acquire a rather strong starting lineup but had poor coaching and no bench depth to contribute to them never doing anything of significance. Even the great ones like Jordan had a Pippen at their side and I think that's often lost in the equation when we judge people's career. "There is no 'I' in team."


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I understand what you mean but I just don't agree with it entirely. Regarding retired players, I just feel that it may measure how effectively they were as the head of a CAPABLE team but should they be taken into consideration if their was not a capable team in place during their career's to produce wins? For instance, guys like Shareef Abdur-Rahim has been labeled a loser because of his days with the Hawks and Grizzlies despite being a 20 and 8 guy. What people fail to understand is that it's not all that easy to win games when your starting lineup looks like a young Mike Bibby, Michael D. (forgot his entire name), Othello Harrington, and big country (forgot his name as well). Michael D. did not exactly have a stellar career even when he was healthy, Harrington had only the talent of a career backup, Reeves (big country) ate himself out of the league on his rookie contract I believe and Mike Bibby was just a young pup. With the Hawks, they managed to acquire a rather strong starting lineup but had poor coaching and no bench depth to contribute to them never doing anything of significance. Even the great ones like Jordan had a Pippen at their side and I think that's often lost in the equation when we judge people's career. "There is no 'I' in team."


 No matter what the case, team success should come into *discussion*. I don't know what kind of verdicts should be made, but when discussing a career, this should be _brought up._ 

If you feel like that way about SAR, I don't see why this sh/wouldn't come into the discussion when he retires.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> No matter what the case, team success should come into *discussion*. I don't know what kind of verdicts should be made, but when discussing a career, this should be _brought up._
> 
> If you feel like that way about SAR, I don't see why this sh/wouldn't come into the discussion when he retires.


Like any stat, I feel that it should enter the conversation but more often than not, it is the conversation and end all. Just trying to make that point.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

No it's not overrated, player stats may be overrated, but not team stats, it just shows you how much a team can mesh and how much chemistry that they may have or even lack of leadership upon a team. Anyhow, this thread's kinda pointless.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

it completely depends on the situation.

was the Big O less of a player in the 60's because his teams couldn't win consistently?

the royals were not a good team most of the time and Robertson couldn't save them he was just 1 guy ...but when he got on a team with a genuine star (Kareem abdul jabbar ) he got a title. elgin baylor, charles barkley karl malone are all very good but i wouldn't be quick to put other top players above them because they won.

likewise just being on a great team and winning as a role player to me doesn't make you better than you are(steve kerr , robert Horry and the like)


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

Gotham2krazy said:


> No it's not overrated, player stats may be overrated, but not team stats, it just shows you how much a team can mesh and how much chemistry that they may have or even lack of leadership upon a team. Anyhow, this thread's kinda pointless.


not really ,it actullay helps this forum with friendly conversation or heated argument.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Gotham2krazy said:


> No it's not overrated, player stats may be overrated, but not team stats, it just shows you how much a team can mesh and how much chemistry that they may have or even lack of leadership upon a team. Anyhow, this thread's kinda pointless.



How so? The best teams in the league (who win the championship) usually have one of the best records in the league but never the best. Obviously the wins and losses lie there. Besides that point, I was concerned more from an individuals point of view and not an entire team. Apparently, some can't distinguish the two and totally blame wins or losses on one player. That is what I'd like to address.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

BiG_DeuCE said:


> not really ,it actullay helps this forum with friendly conversation or heated argument.


Thanks for the respect and understanding.


----------



## kconn61686 (Jul 29, 2005)

To the some players, in particularly Stephon Marbury, wins and losses are indeed overrated, and individual stats are underrated.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

its all about how many rings u got.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Pain5155 said:


> its all about how many rings u got.


Why?


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Wins and Loses are not overrated by anymeans. 

A team WINS because the TEAM fought to Win. 

A Players Stats can be great but is it helping his Team WIN? 

A Player with great stats will be considered overrated if he is not a Closer. 

Finley career stats were great, he had alot of losing seasons however, Finley was a Closer inwhich got overlooked by alot of Fans and teams.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Two words....*

Crunch time. Winners always elevate their play when it matters most. In many instances they "will" their teams to a win. The great ones do this and the very good ones either don't, or don't do it consistently. Because winning takes talent and great heart, guys that have "it", more times than not, compete for a title at some point. When we speak of winners, we most likely are talking about the ultra talented guys that either succeed or fail, and based upon the teams reliance on them, performed at a higher or lower level when needed. Most role players simply do not fit into this category. Since they contribute as a smaller, yet neccessary, part, a rise or dip in their performance can go largely unnoticed.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

Well I wouldn't say you can completely judge a player on their team success just like you can't really judge a player on their personal stats, but it is part of it.

But with that being said, I don't see how winning, which is essentially the ultimate goal when taking part in a sport, can be overrated.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

We should all recall Phoenix 60 Win season. 
There was nothing overrated about the 60 Win Season or any of the Players Nash, Joe, Marion, Amare, and Jim Jackson. 

The Knicks 15-Man rotation and 43 lineup changes was not overrated either because the conclusion was a 23 WIN SEASON.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

That's not a full breakdown of anything, especially because you forgot to note any players, and their relation/contribution to those teams.

For starters, just about any Suns player can be considered overrated because of the sysstem they run.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kiyaman said:


> Wins and Loses are not overrated by anymeans.
> 
> A team WINS because the TEAM fought to Win.
> 
> ...


So the final minute of a game is valued more than the 47 other minutes during the game? After all, what's the point of a closer if you don't have the guy in the first place that could put you in the situation during those first 47 minutes to win the game? 

And yes I do believe a players stats help his team win because after all they are a measurement of his contributions to that team's effort to do so. At the end of the day, it is not the end all of any argument regarding the play of the player but I don't believe wins are neither. After all, you could have scrubs on your team or poor front office management.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Two words....*



alphadog said:


> Crunch time. Winners always elevate their play when it matters most. In many instances they "will" their teams to a win. The great ones do this and the very good ones either don't, or don't do it consistently. Because winning takes talent and great heart, guys that have "it", more times than not, compete for a title at some point. When we speak of winners, we most likely are talking about the ultra talented guys that either succeed or fail, and based upon the teams reliance on them, performed at a higher or lower level when needed. Most role players simply do not fit into this category. Since they contribute as a smaller, yet neccessary, part, a rise or dip in their performance can go largely unnoticed.


I think the questions at posed at the beginning of this thread went completely over people's head. I just asked whether wins and loses were overrated when it comes to evaluating the quality of an individual player. What does being crunch have to do with this? If your on a garbage team, you won't have the chance to be crunch so does that make you a lesser player? For instance, the Hawks and Grizzlies were regularly stomped by teams throughout the league during Abdur-Rahim's stint with them. The chances to actually win games were far and few in between and this represented a large part of Shareef's career. Because of the fact he's never had the chance to elevate his game in crunch time since it never existed, is he less of a player for it?? Are guys like Robert Horry who have a history of being clutch somehow more valued than a guy like SAR was? Personally, I do not believe so. Guys like Horry have made a name for themselves off the efforts of more talented players who put him in the situation in the first place to win a game by dominating during the course of it and providing him with enough space to hit the shot. Essentially, all this goes back to team's determining wins and loses moreso than individual players (again in my opinion).


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Hell yeah...*

Of course the last few minutes are more important. The games are won and lost in the last half of the last quarter provided you are within striking distance, which most times is the case. If you happen to be a scorer of the elite kind, you should be able to do it when it counts. Defense tightens up at the end...there is no debate about this....the first three quarters are on cruise control. The NBA has been fighting this criticism for years. It has been said that they only play the last 5 minutes. Since that is the case, doesn't it seem reasonable that those that succeed during that time are the true winners?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

ToddMacCulloch11 said:


> Well I wouldn't say you can completely judge a player on their team success just like you can't really judge a player on their personal stats, but it is part of it.
> 
> But with that being said, I don't see how winning, which is essentially the ultimate goal when taking part in a sport, can be overrated.


The question though is winning overrated when evaluating a player. I do believe it's overrated in both cases, teams and players. Concerning teams, wins and loses don't account for injuries or even determine the best team in the league; afterall, when was the last time the team with the best record won the title? This is to a lesser extent. When it comes to evaluating players I think it is wildly and ridiculously overrated. Most of us here accept the fact that teams win games. If that is true, why does wins and loses ultimately enter the conversation when judging players? A better understanding to that question was the purpose of starting this thread.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Hell yeah...*



alphadog said:


> Of course the last few minutes are more important. The games are won and lost in the last half of the last quarter provided you are within striking distance, which most times is the case. If you happen to be a scorer of the elite kind, you should be able to do it when it counts. Defense tightens up at the end...there is no debate about this....the first three quarters are on cruise control. The NBA has been fighting this criticism for years. It has been said that they only play the last 5 minutes. Since that is the case, doesn't it seem reasonable that those that succeed during that time are the true winners?


In basketball, especially when watching out games, we often here the term about a team's ability to "close out games." I think you would agree that the team that knows how to close out games generally are the ones that win at the end of the day. Doesn't the process of establishing that kind of advantage and holding onto that advantage begin at tip off? If your mean priority is to win the game then you certainly don't make the effort to do so in the 4th when the game could already be decided and you don't look for a magic shot or hot streak to ultimately decide your fate. You play a solid 47 minutes then the last minute shouldn't matter. That's why I value players who could dominate through that stretch because those contributions are the ones that will put you in the best situation to win the game.



Games are won or lost from the very tip off. The team that maintains the best poise throughout the game are the ones that usually win. Most of the elite teams, tend to make their presence felt early on in games although it may take time to pick up. In other words, elite teams know how to close out games and doesn't that process begin from the start of the game? Don't you try to gain the complete


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Agree with some*

of your thouoghts such as it takes a fine team to win. But as far as using records as a measuring stick, it doesn't make sense. Some teams cruise throuogh the season waiting for the playoffs just as they cruise through games waiting for the end. Home court is the only REAL incentive....the record means nothing..especially factoring different schedules, injuries on both your team and the opposing team, how who was playing when...etc. So, yes, the win/loss thing is over-rated and very hard to quantify short term. Over a period of years it certainly has much more credibility. People that watch alot usually have an empirical way of analizing which guys have not done enough when they had enough.

I couldn't disagree more about teams that play more poised from the start. In order to be poised, you must be under pressure. There is virtually NO pressure in the first half of an NBA game, unless you are getting blown out. In college, maybe. Pro ball? No way. As far as teams that close out goes, well, the teams that close out well usually have a guy that can close the deal when they need him to. Thats why the ball usually goes to one or two guys when it counts. MJ got the ball...Bird got the ball...Magic got the ball...Clyde.....Jerry West....Billups. Every period has their "winners".


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Hell yeah...*



alphadog said:


> Of course the last few minutes are more important. The games are won and lost in the last half of the last quarter provided you are within striking distance, which most times is the case. If you happen to be a scorer of the elite kind, you should be able to do it when it counts. Defense tightens up at the end...there is no debate about this....the first three quarters are on cruise control. The NBA has been fighting this criticism for years. It has been said that they only play the last 5 minutes. Since that is the case, doesn't it seem reasonable that those that succeed during that time are the true winners?



but really this only applies to game changing defenders and 1st options on offense, at the end of games teams arenn't feeding their 3rd options to get them wins , Miami isn't looking to get antione walker shots in the ast 5 minutes .

generally pg's are excluded too because its usually their duty to get people involved not go shot crazy and because defenses are tightening its alot harder for the smallest guy on the court to take it into the paint than lets say your avg. slashing wingman.

but even then you need a team around you , someone has to rebound missess , try to get the other team to turn the ball over , hit shots when you are double and triple teamed , if not even if your elite scorer is better than their best scorer their *team* will beat you on most nights. look at the top scorers in the league , night in and night out the half the top scorers are usually in the 35-45 win range for the season, proving it takes more than being an elite scorer to win in the nba.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Agree with some*



alphadog said:


> of your thouoghts such as it takes a fine team to win. But as far as using records as a measuring stick, it doesn't make sense. Some teams cruise throuogh the season waiting for the playoffs just as they cruise through games waiting for the end. Home court is the only REAL incentive....the record means nothing..especially factoring different schedules, injuries on both your team and the opposing team, how who was playing when...etc. So, yes, the win/loss thing is over-rated and very hard to quantify short term. Over a period of years it certainly has much more credibility. People that watch alot usually have an empirical way of analizing which guys have not done enough when they had enough.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more about teams that play more poised from the start. In order to be poised, you must be under pressure. There is virtually NO pressure in the first half of an NBA game, unless you are getting blown out. In college, maybe. Pro ball? No way. As far as teams that close out goes, well, the teams that close out well usually have a guy that can close the deal when they need him to. Thats why the ball usually goes to one or two guys when it counts. MJ got the ball...Bird got the ball...Magic got the ball...Clyde.....Jerry West....Billups. Every period has their "winners".



Check back, I actually did say using records as measuring sticks does not make sense as you did. I also agree somewhat that it would be more accurate to use it over the course of several years but what about if your teams suck for that long? Thats how long teams like the Nets, Grizzlies and Hawks but people still judge guys like Marbury and SAR have been on. Does that mean they are the root of the problem or that management's inability to surround them with talent is? As far as the theory about teams that close out well, I could think of none better than the Spurs yet they do not have an individual player I'd consider to have guys that are clutch. They just work a strong team game and let the rest flow freely. I just don't believe in the winner or loser concepts but maybe clutch depending on the player.


As far as the whole poise thing, most of the time the Knicks lost was a lack of poise that was contributed to by several problems. I recall the a majority of the time we'd dig ourselves into a hole and then make a late game push only to see it fall short. Remember the comeback squad that always use to be out on the court when we fell behind big and brought us back? I do and it included Robinson, Ariza or Woods, Butler, Crawford and Lee. Maybe if we put ourselves in a situation to first try to win the game, we wouldn't have this problem.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*I agree...*

But I have watched SAr and Marbury (much more so for Marbury) and they have never been closers, except on occassion. That is what i meant by "empirical analysis". Marbury has also been a consistent polarizer of lockerrooms, which automatically diminishes him, in my opinion. Ewing was an interesting example. There is no question that he was a true warrior and a #1 option during his career. All good, so far. The problem is that many times he failed to hit the key FT when needed, or failed to connect on the game winning shot. Instead of elevating his game, he many times struggled to maintain his level. IMO, he was not a closer, but I hesitate to say he was not a winner based on his heart and competitive nature that drove him and the team to challenge for titles.

Closers most definately can be PGs, or any position, really(for Grinch), and if Walker was adept at finishing with games on the line, he would be getting the ball. Coaches are not dumb(as a rule) and they want the guy who has the best chance of getting something done to have the ball, whether it is driving and making something happen(Kidd, Magic), or drawing the foul(Wade), or making the shot (MJ, Bird). Everybody knows who scares them with 10 seconds left and the ball in their possession (AI), and guys like SAR and Walker don't top the list. Stats be damned.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I agree...*



alphadog said:


> Marbury has also been a consistent polarizer of lockerrooms, which automatically diminishes him, in my opinion.


I don't know of any examples but if that was the case, so what. The Knicks were definately a polarized team back in the days of Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell. There was the Christian group and the non-Christian group which was kind of alienated. Allan Houston, Mark Jackson and Charlie Ward represented the Christians while Latrell, Camby and Rick Brunson represented the heads of the opposing fraction. This rift existed even before some of the key players entered the picture during the Ewing Era and still managed to have some very successful seasons. The Kobe-Shaq Lakers was another great example of guys who caused a rift in the locker room yet still managed to earn themselves 3 championship rings together.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Your full of crapola...*

Yes, there were differences but the team was far from fractured with Ward and Houston, and Sprewell. The team respected the other players differences and played together. If you haven't ever read about the feelings of teammates on SMs other teams and the ill feelings because of his comments and actions, then you are not reading enough. This includes his current team. He is a prima donna.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Right Back At You*



alphadog said:


> Yes, there were differences but the team was far from fractured with Ward and Houston, and Sprewell. The team respected the other players differences and played together. If you haven't ever read about the feelings of teammates on SMs other teams and the ill feelings because of his comments and actions, then you are not reading enough. This includes his current team. He is a prima donna.


And how is are the personalities on this Knicks team fractured? The point is that neither team is or was fractured because people always tend to fall into a certain click. It's just that certain people mesh much better with some than others and I think there is nothing personnel from that. On the court none of that matters or at least should matter because you both have the same objective at hand. So I'd like for you to supply me with the damning evidence against Marbury because I been up to date with them. Fact of the matter is, not everyone is going to like you all the time. Besides, it's all too easy to blame things on someone else rather than taking responsibility for your own shortcomings (Keith Van Horn anyone?).


----------

