A letter to a friend

I wrote the following in an email to my friend Phillip. He's writing an article about NBA stats being completely objective. (his argument is that Abdul-Jabbar has the most points of all time, but he isn't considered the greatest scorer of all time). He asked me for my input, and this is what I wrote him:



You are absolutely right.

Don MacLean scored more points than any other basketball player at UCLA. Does that make him better than Lew Alcindor, Bill Walton, Syndey Wicks, Marques Johnson, Walt Hazzard, or Reggie Miller?

of course not. Pete Maravich averaged like 44 points a game during his entire college career, but he's never considered the best college player of all time. (the argument there is between walton and alcindor)

I think in basketball, your measure of success ultimately comes down to the success of your team. That is why ANY NBA executive would pick Tim Duncan over Kevin Garnett. It's why Malone isn't even a top 25 player of all time, even tho he's #2 on the all time points list.

On a basketball court, you have 5 guys on a court. on a baseball and football team, you have 9 to 11 guys on the court. You have a much bigger impact on a team of 5 than on a team of 10. You are expected not just to score points, but to win.

That is why Lebron and Kobe need to be commended this year - they make the most with the least talented supporting cast. (So what if Joe Johnson and Michael Redd average 23 points a game...their teams fucking suck!) Shareef Abdur-rahim has nearly a 20 point career average...and he will never, ever be mentioned outside of the 5-person fanbase of the already forgotten Vancouver Grizzlies.

But some stats are objective. Assists - John Stockton. he was the greatest passer of all time. Blocks - Hakeem. 3 point shooting - Reggie Miller.

But scoring is the most untelling statistic of all. Mitch Richmond outscored Magic Johnson by somthing like 4000 career points - but that doesnt mean shit. Johnson is the greatest point guard of all time, and there is no argument whatsoever. I dont give a fuck if Iverson goes on to score 35000 career points - he will never surpass Johnson.

I think you've got a great point, and I dont know if I helped, but I had a great time writing all that. This a very interesting topic, but I don't know if you can say that basketball is the only sport where the stats are objective.

As a soccer player, I find stats overrated. Just cuz Brett Favre has the most passing yards doesnt mean he's the greatest QB of all time. I would take Joe Montana in a heartbeat. Barry Bonds may have the most home runs, but would you take him over Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, or Lou Gehrig? (one sport that cant be argued is hockey - that's why they call wayne gretzky 'the great one')

I think you may want to focus your story on ALL sports. Stats dont man a fucking thing. All stats are objective. I dont care what people tell me, but Randy Moss isnt the best reciever in the NFL. I dont care how many TD's he had. I would take Reggie Wayne, Stever Smith, and Chad Johnson all before I took Randy Moss.

All stats are objective Phil. That's why John Hollinger comes up with a PER stat. That's why a "______ per 40 minutes" stat appears. its not all about the PPG, RPG, and APG. its about the rings.

You can call it the Karl Malone Law. Just give me credit when you make it big one day.

Hope I helped some.

ps the best news I heard all last week was the Philadelphia Inquirer demoting Stephen A. Smith from columnist to reporter. So he quit. fucking priceless.