On Steve Francis and 20-6-6

Your analysis does not make sense. First, even going with your assumptions exactly as stated, you would be making the argument that we can't envision a "pretty good scorer" and "damn good rebounder" on the path to superstardom! Those stats alone WOULD suggest a special player. The ability to throw in six dimes which you absurdly label as "bad" passing would actually be incredible icing on the cake.

More than anything, Steve Francis was derailed by injuries. If he averaged 20-6-6 a year continuously for 10 yrs as a point/shooting guard, he would have every claim to superstardom.

As a Kings fan, I think the importance of last night's milestone was the securing of a ROY award. For many awards voters who rely heavily on stats to make their decision, 20-5-5 is hard to ignore. I personally don't need to know his points, rebounds, and assists to tell you his amazing potential. He has the dribbling ability, strength, body control, and touch to go end to end by himself for a score. I don't think there is a single player other than LeBron (of course) who I would feel comfortable taking the ball and barreling into the lane to get his own shot (others like Manu and Chris Paul may be in the discussion too, I suppose).

Curry may be the true ROY (love his creativity and focus under pressure), but the Kings marketing department has been shoving 20-5-5 down our throats for weeks, so I can forgive the fans for thinking it's more important than it really is. I mean, when the season has been over for months, 20-5-5 was really the main thing that kept everybody interested and excited for next season.

I think the point is that 6 rpg for a PG doesn't really mean anything in terms of winning games. Think about his, if a center had the same stat line 20-6-6, would you think he is a great center? of course not. A center who only average 6 rebounds a game is not a great center. So what if he has 6 assists per game?

Numbers are just numbers without context. Many players get their own numbers while the team suffers because the guy with numbers isn't making his teammates better. In his prime, Steve was fun to watch, nothing short of amazing at times. But, he was not a superstar.

Tyreke's scoring average would be somewhat lower if they were calling his extra steps right now. Yeah, he's damn good but not in the company of MJ, Big-O, and other superstars. At least, not yet. Let's talk about him in a few years maybe.

Steve was a real joy in his day on the court, but pure numbers never tell the whole story. If we're going to talk about stars and the Rockets, let's start with Olajuwon........

I think you've drawn a few too many conclusions from as bare a statistical line as 20-6-6. Six assists per game does not necessarily mean he's a bad passer (or a good one, for that matter). He may be selective. The offense may not be conducive to him getting double-digit assists. Without other statistics like turnover rate (per usage) or some measure of shooting accuracy, it's practically pointless to characterize his playmaking ability using "six assists" as a milestone.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that 20-6-6 means what we think it means, and that there are no unusual factors hiding in there. I still say that this milestone, however arbitrary, is easy to give short shrift, because it's a conjunction. For instance, suppose a team ranks, oh, fifth in team defense, measured in terms of points per possession. Without knowing anything about how well they play offense, you might guess that they're a pretty good team, probably top ten or so. The same would follow if they were fifth in team offense, but you knew nothing about how well they played defense. The reason is that although there's some correlation between team offense and team defense, there's not enough to say firmly where they fall in an overall ranking--say, in point differential per possession.

But now suppose you knew that they ranked fifth in both team offense AND team defense. You'd be virtually guaranteed they'd be one of the top two or three teams in the league, and for the same reason: The correlation between the two is small enough that very few teams--possibly no others--will be simultaneously that good in both.

In the same way, even if individually the numbers in 20-6-6 meant what you attribute to them, collectively they are a more impressive achievement. Because if 30 percent of starting guards score better than he does, and 65 percent of them make plays better, and 15 percent of them rebound better, there's probably in the neighborhood of 5 percent who do all three better than he does, and let's guess 10 to 15 percent who have a better PER (or pick your favorite, or least unfavorite, arbitrary stat combiner) than he does. That's nothing to sneeze at.

On the other hand, let's not make more of this stat than there really is: Stevie Franchise's superstardom was born of his flashy playing style. The stats were just used in an attempt to substantiate that. Players become superstars because they are memorable, over and over again, not because their stats are impressive; impressive statistics merely bolster a case and make it more defensible, but they're not the reason the player became a superstar in the first place.

Your analysis does not make sense. First, even going with your assumptions exactly as stated, you would be making the argument that we can't envision a "pretty good scorer" and "damn good rebounder" on the path to superstardom! Those stats alone WOULD suggest a special player. The ability to throw in six dimes which you absurdly label as "bad" passing would actually be incredible icing on the cake.

More than anything, Steve Francis was derailed by injuries. If he averaged 20-6-6 a year continuously for 10 yrs as a point/shooting guard, he would have every claim to superstardom.

As a Kings fan, I think the importance of last night's milestone was the securing of a ROY award. For many MVP voters who rely heavily on stats to make their decision, 20-5-5 is hard to ignore. I personally don't need to know his points, rebounds, and assists to tell you he amazing potential. He has the dribbling ability, strength, body control, and (most importantly) touch to go end to end by himself for a score. I don't think there is a single player other than LeBron (of course) who I would feel comfortable taking the ball and barreling into the lane to get his own shot.

Curry may be the true ROY (love his creativity and focus under pressure), but the Kings marketing campaign has been shoving 20-5-5 down our throats for weeks, so I can forgive the fans for thinking it's more important than it really is. I mean, when the season has been over for months, 20-5-5 was really the main thing that kept everybody interested and excited for next season.

I think the point is that 6 rpg for a PG doesn't really mean anything in terms of winning games. Think about his, if a center had the same stat line 20-6-6, would you think he is a great center? of course not. A center who only average 6 rebounds a game is not a great center. So what if he has 6 assists per game?

What did it mean that former Houston Rockets guard Steve Francis ...: Tyreke Evans became just the fourth player i... http://bit.ly/b6y3hP

Numbers are just numbers without context. Many players get their own numbers while the team suffers because the guy with numbers isn't making his teammates better. In his prime, Steve was fun to watch, nothing short of amazing at times. But, he was not a superstar.

Tyreke's scoring average would be somewhat lower if they were calling his extra steps right now. Yeah, he's damn good but not in the company of MJ, Big-O, and other superstars. At least, not yet. Let's talk about him in a few years maybe.

Steve was a real joy in his day on the court, but pure numbers never tell the whole story. If we're going to talk about stars and the Rockets, let's start with Olajuwon........

I think you've drawn a few too many conclusions from as bare a statistical line as 20-6-6. Six assists per game does not necessarily mean he's a bad passer (or a good one, for that matter). He may be selective. The offense may not be conducive to him getting double-digit assists. Without other statistics like turnover rate (per usage) or some measure of shooting accuracy, it's practically pointless to characterize his playmaking ability using "six assists" as a milestone.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that 20-6-6 means what we think it means, and that there are no unusual factors hiding in there. I still say that this milestone, however arbitrary, is easy to give short shrift, because it's a conjunction. For instance, suppose a team ranks, oh, fifth in team defense, measured in terms of points per possession. Without knowing anything about how well they play offense, you might guess that they're a pretty good team, probably top ten or so. The same would follow if they were fifth in team offense, but you knew nothing about how well they played defense. The reason is that although there's some correlation between team offense and team defense, there's not enough to say firmly where they fall in an overall ranking--say, in point differential per possession.

But now suppose you knew that they ranked fifth in both team offense AND team defense. You'd be virtually guaranteed they'd be one of the top two or three teams in the league, and for the same reason: The correlation between the two is small enough that very few teams--possibly no others--will be simultaneously that good in both.

In the same way, even if individually the numbers in 20-6-6 meant what you attribute to them, collectively they are a more impressive achievement. Because if 30 percent of starting guards score better than he does, and 65 percent of them make plays better, and 15 percent of them rebound better, there's probably in the neighborhood of 5 percent who do all three better than he does, and let's guess 10 to 15 percent who have a better PER (or pick your favorite, or least unfavorite, arbitrary stat combiner) than he does. That's nothing to sneeze at.

On the other hand, let's not make more of this stat than there really is: Stevie Franchise's superstardom was born of his flashy playing style. The stats were just used in an attempt to substantiate that. Players become superstars because they are memorable, over and over again, not because their stats are impressive; impressive statistics merely bolster a case and make it more defensible, but they're not the reason the player became a superstar in the first place.

But its one thing to draft a guy, another to call him a "superstar." Francis was a very good player, but not a great player. I think Rahat's point is that distinction is very important, and some stats mislead us into overrating certain players.

There is not a team in the NBA that wouldn't draft a guy if they thought he would average 20/6/6...

What did it mean that former Houston Rockets guard Steve Francis ...: Tyreke Evans became just the fourth player i... http://bit.ly/b6y3hP