Are empty stats a product of what team you're on?

[SacJB Shady]

I hear this term ''empty stats'' been thrown around over the years. One example is David Lee. They always said his stats are empty. But now Lee seems to be getting a bit more respect. His stats were always good, but now he's winning and so it looks better. His stats are more meaningful because they are resulting in wins. But that is largely due to the fact that he has better teammates surrounding him.

Can the same be said about Love? People always said he had empty stats. But what if he played for a good team that needed a power forward? What if he was on Miami playing power forward alongside Bosh? Would his stats be empty then? What if he was on the Spurs alongside Duncan?

Are Kobe and Howards stats empty all of a sudden?

So is there any truth to empty stats? The question is how MUCH of the total stats are empty? 1 extra rebound? half a rebound? Because simply saying someone has empty stats is being very general and you just have to wonder if that notion is a product of the system they are in.

[FireDavidKahn]

Lee is the same player he always was. The only difference is that now he has help. Yeah, sorry Love isn't Lebron and cannot carry a dreadful roster to the play offs but that doesn't mean Love sucks.:oldlol:

[La Frescobaldi]

empty stats used to mean you got your points or rebounds during garbage time.
It was for roll players who were getting 10 and 10 in like 5 minutes because nobody was even playing due to score of 110 - 80

now it seems to have some sinister meaning that I hadn't quite figured out yet

[La Frescobaldi]

Lee is the same player he always was. The only difference is that now he has help. Yeah, sorry Love isn't Lebron and cannot carry a dreadful roster to the play offs but that doesn't mean Love sucks.:oldlol:
Varejao at least clearly was not getting the respect he deserved on those Cavs teams. Many times you only find out what a player can really do AFTER the big numbers guy leaves.
John Havlicek is a classic example after Sam Jones retired but there have been lots of em

[Rake2204]

empty stats used to mean you got your points or rebounds during garbage time.
It was for roll players who were getting 10 and 10 in like 5 minutes because nobody was even playing due to score of 110 - 80

now it seems to have some sinister meaning that I hadn't quite figured out yetI think that's in the same ballpark as my old definition. I think I always referred to empty stats as numbers being put up by a mediocre player who was playing on a team that was bad enough to allow him to shoot more than he ever would on a good team. In that sense, I guess it's always been subjective.

Now, I think the term "empty stats" is being incredibly overused. I do not believe it was ever meant to describe great players playing great basketball. But now it seems to be a blanket term for anyone who happens to play on a team that does not win a lot. And again, in a team sport, it sometimes is not as simple as saying, "Yeah sure, good stats, but how come you're not winning?" Well, maybe because there's 11 other players who are responsible for doing their part as well.

[Qwyjibo]

There is no such thing as "empty stats" when it comes to starting players. It's a stupid term used to blame the better players on the team instead of looking at the acutal problems. It was stupid when KG was putting up "empty stats" on bad Minnesota teams, it was stupid when Kobe was putting up "empty stats" on awful LA teams (post-Shaq, pre-Gasol) and it's stupid now in regards to Kevin Love or any other good player.

Some sports fans (the stupid ones) like to blame the team's best players for a team's failure rather than looking at the actual problems of the team. This happened when Dirk wasn't getting Dallas anywhere in the playoffs for those few years as well.

So yea, you're right. Some fans are simply not smart enough to recognize the actual problem (the players around them) and use this brainless "empty stats" argument. It's strange how suddenly KG's, Kobe's, Dirk's, Bosh's and whoever else's "empty stats" became worthwhile the moment they got better players around them.

The only way this may apply is for inefficient volume scorers who have the green light to chuck because of the lack of talent around them. Guys like Glen Davis or Andrea Bargnani. But the stats aren't "empty". They are simply inefficient in terms of the high usage they get.

[La Frescobaldi]

I think that's in the same ballpark as my old definition. I think I always referred to empty stats as numbers being put up by a mediocre player who was playing on a team that was bad enough to allow him to shoot more than he ever would on a good team. In that sense, I guess it's always been subjective.

Now, I think the term "empty stats" is being incredibly overused. I do not believe it was ever meant to describe great players playing great basketball. But now it seems to be a blanket term for anyone who happens to play on a team that does not win a lot. And again, in a team sport, it sometimes is not as simple as saying, "Yeah sure, good stats, but how come you're not winning?" Well, maybe because there's 11 other players who are responsible for doing their part as well.

Exactly. By the definition being used around here, you can be perfectly correct in saying that Michael Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Bird, Kobe all did empty stats.
They all went years of their careers performing at the highest levels ever seen in basketball, but they weren't ever going anywhere in seasons because their teammates were mediocre or worse. Or injured.

People call MJ the greatest (to me, him and Wilt Chamberlain stand alone above everyone else, and Kareem is just behind those two) and they are quick to point out how bad his teams were in the 80s. Which they were awful.

But Kobe Bryant for example (or Kevin Love, for that matter) gets bashed constantly when clearly his teammates have not always been high quality.

So obviously all those guys are empty stat. 30,000 + points but only 5 rings what a loser.
Look at freaking Karl Malone. Poor guy played 3 or even 2 on 5 basketball for 10 years. The guy is one of the all-time all-time, all-world greats. Or Olajuwan, or whoever it is.

empty stats to ISH.

[jlip]

It's beyond just how stats are viewed. Often the perception of a player's value and "greatness" is linked heavily to his team's success. I can understand that to an extent, because ultimately you would like to think that a player's primary goal is to contribute to his team winning, but many times he is no better while playing in a winning situation than he was while playing in a losing situation.

I hear so often about star players that when they actually start winning, now they've supposedly "finally figured it out", "learned how to be a winner", "improved their game so much", or some other impulsive front running cliche'. Sometimes it is true. The player has improved. Many other times they just are in a better situation with a better coach and teammates, and their game is basically the same. I will admit that actually winning can change a player's mentality and affect their game positively though.

[k0kakw0rld]

There is no such thing as "empty stats" when it comes to starting players. It's a stupid term used to blame the better players on the team instead of looking at the acutal problems. It was stupid when KG was putting up "empty stats" on bad Minnesota teams, it was stupid when Kobe was putting up "empty stats" on awful LA teams (post-Shaq, pre-Gasol) and it's stupid now in regards to Kevin Love or any other good player.

Some sports fans (the stupid ones) like to blame the team's best players for a team's failure rather than looking at the actual problems of the team. This happened when Dirk wasn't getting Dallas anywhere in the playoffs for those few years as well.

So yea, you're right. Some fans are simply not smart enough to recognize the actual problem (the players around them) and use this brainless "empty stats" argument. It's strange how suddenly KG's, Kobe's, Dirk's, Bosh's and whoever else's "empty stats" became worthwhile the moment they got better players around them.

The only way this may apply is for inefficient volume scorers who have the green light to chuck because of the lack of talent around them. Guys like Glen Davis or Andrea Bargnani. But the stats aren't "empty". They are simply inefficient in terms of the high usage they get.

Great posters are rare. I appreciate you my man. :cheers: Kids this is for y'all to read.

[I<3NBA]

i brought up that empty stats argument and asked about Kobe's years post Shaq and pre-Gasol. no Kobe fan boy answered.

i guessed if you're looking mean and acting tough, your stats are not empty and you're just "trying your hardest even when losing."

it's funny to think that 42 points can be considered "empty" when your team loses by a couple of points. it's as if, it was better for you to not have scored those points so your team can be down even more.

empty stats used to refer only to those stats acquired in garbage time.

now it's used to demean a player who has actually piled up monstrous stats but his team loses. as if the loss is only on that player and ignore the other players on his team, plus the coach and the staff.

[Rameek]

People that claim "empty stats" prove they have "empty IQ".

[atljonesbro]

Empty only exist when you score and it does t matter.

I've noticed that people will say stats are empty based on:

1. If you just so happen to be on a bad team
2. If you're more quiet on the court and do t scream or show a ton of emotion after a big play
3. If you don't take bad shots you're stat padding and the people who take bad shots have the will to win.

I'd say those idiotic reasons are most associated with empty stats

[BoutPractice]

If stats are empty, it will show in plus/minus.

[Lebron23]

Yes

Some guys are really good at putting stats on bad teams, but they cannot lead their team into victories. Not even an improvement in their regular season record.

I played against some guys who are like that. They rather put up stats than concentrate on winning.

[Riks]

I still think Love is mostly empty stats. You put him on a bad team and he will get his stats but the team will still be bad. You put him on a good team and that team will still be good, whether his stats are or aren't. Empty is not necessarily a negative, but more of a neutral.

[iamgine]

empty stats used to mean you got your points or rebounds during garbage time.
It was for roll players who were getting 10 and 10 in like 5 minutes because nobody was even playing due to score of 110 - 80

now it seems to have some sinister meaning that I hadn't quite figured out yet
It can also mean getting good stats that doesn't translate to better team basketball.

For example, you're scoring 30 points a night but you neglected your defense and doesn't pass well. You still got some assists off those passes since the offense ran through you but your passes doesn't lead to easier shot for your team and your lack of defense is really a buzzkill. The team might as well replace you with a few team oriented player and do just as well if not better.

[ralph_i_el]

I still think Love is mostly empty stats. You put him on a bad team and he will get his stats but the team will still be bad. You put him on a good team and that team will still be good, whether his stats are or aren't. Empty is not necessarily a negative, but more of a neutral.

His Minnesota teams were bad outside of him, but with him on the floor they actually had a good point differential. They lost more overtime and close games than any other team by a large margin. Records in close games are pretty much always fluky and up to luck.

If Love's Twolves were in the East, they make the playoffs. If they were a bit luckier they would have made it in the West.

The problem with Love is that one of his best skills is his ability to create offense from the 4 position, and space the floor for other good scorers. When he is called on to be a role player, you aren't using one of his best features. This makes his bad D stand out.

If love had a team with good role players, he could be the man.

Wall
Beal
Porter
Love
Gortat

is a contender, and Love is the #1 option on that squad.


Love is not a good defender.....but he's an elite shooter, passer, post player, and rebounder. If you don't let him post-up or create on the perimeter, then you aren't using him well and you're just wasting him.

[swagga]

empty stats are gaudy numbers that don't tell the whole story of a player's impact.

example: harden has stellar stats but has putrid defense because he doesn't give a shit about anything but his stats, which more often than not makes his OVERALL impact quite low. Moreover his long term impact is negative because he alienates teammates.