Since Pek missed that shot Love's stats are empty

[TimmyDuncan]

Love's stats aren't empty but he is clearly not at the level the other guys putting theses stats can have

[kurple]

whats up with the new ISH trend, acting like there is no such thing as empty stats

Love does not have the impact you would think by looking at his stats. And it's been this way for years

and the rest of the minny squad isnt bad. they should do A LOT better if Love was the star people make him out to be

[IGOTGAME]

How many times did Shaq / KG / Duncan drop 30+ / 15+ and still lose the game?


Honest question. Because it seems like it happens to K Love once a week.

Its because of the points he gets in comparison to Shaq and Duncan...i wouldn't put KG in that mix. It is a difference between running your offense through a player constantly creating mismatches and double teams vs a guy very skilled at creating opportunities within an offense. That is why 20 from Duncan on offense is better most nights than 35 from Kevin Love on offense. Maybe empty isn't the best word, they just arent as impactful as other dudes who have done it by drawing doubles and totally distorting defenses.

[Dr.J4ever]

"Empty" isn't really the right word. Love is one of the best rebounders in the NBA, and a good scorer. What he has a problem with is leading his team to wins. And that's a big problem since the point of producing stats is to win basketball games. It has been said----it's not your stats but HOW and WHEN you produce your stats.

Stats can never be taken in a vacuum. All stats have to be taken in context. 20/13/4 by one player isn't always equal to another player's 20/13/4 on another team. Context is the key word. Is the team winning? If they are winning, is the star player responsible for making less heralded players suddenly better? At the end of the day, one of the best measures of a superstar is this-----make your teammates better.

When Minny began the season, correct me if I'm wrong, many thought they had enough talent to be a good Playoff team in the West with Martin, Pekovich, Rubio, and others. What happened? Suddenly these same players are now considered junk. Really?

This is an extreme example, but it makes my point. When Lebron averages 17ppg for Team USA in the Olympics and leads the team to the Gold, is a scrub NBAer playing for Lithuania or Serbia who averages 25ppg in the Tournament a better scorer? The answer is of course no. Team structure and system play such a huge part with stats.

I believe most NBAers, if given the chance, will produce positive stats. The question is----can they make their teams win? Look at Evan Turner of the Sixers..averaging what 19ppg? Is he really a 19ppg scorer if you put him on a contending team? Tony Parker is leading the Spurs with 17ppg. Is Turner a better scorer than Parker? Really?

Only geeks love stats without looking at the team as a whole. Basketball is a team sport, and great players can have an impact beyond just 1/5 of a team at any given point. Anyone who has played the game knows this.

[Doranku]

"Empty" isn't really the right word. Love is one of the best rebounders in the NBA, and a good scorer. What he has a problem with is leading his team to wins. And that's a big problem since the point of producing stats is to win basketball games. It has been said----it's not your stats but HOW and WHEN you produce your stats.

Stats can never be taken in a vacuum. All stats have to be taken in context. 20/13/4 by one player isn't always equal to another player's 20/13/4 on another team. Context is the key word. Is the team winning? If they are winning, is the star player responsible for making less heralded players suddenly better? At the end of the day, one of the best measures of a superstar is this-----make your teammates better.

When Minny began the season, correct me if I'm wrong, many thought they had enough talent to be a good Playoff team in the West with Martin, Pekovich, Rubio, and others. What happened? Suddenly these same players are now considered junk. Really?

This is an extreme example, but it makes my point. When Lebron averages 17ppg for Team USA in the Olympics and leads the team to the Gold, is a scrub NBAer playing for Lithuania or Serbia who averages 25ppg in the Tournament a better scorer? The answer is of course no. Team structure and system play such a huge part with stats.

I believe most NBAers, if given the chance, will produce positive stats. The question is----can they make their teams win? Look at Evan Turner of the Sixers..averaging what 19ppg? Is he really a 19ppg scorer if you put him on a contending team? Tony Parker is leading the Spurs with 17ppg. Is Turner a better scorer than Parker? Really?

Only geeks love stats without looking at the team as a whole. Basketball is a team sport, and great players can have an impact beyond just 1/5 of a team at any given point. Anyone who has played the game knows this.

You should be telling LeBron stans this.

[Dro]

"Empty" isn't really the right word. Love is one of the best rebounders in the NBA, and a good scorer. What he has a problem with is leading his team to wins. And that's a big problem since the point of producing stats is to win basketball games. It has been said----it's not your stats but HOW and WHEN you produce your stats.

Stats can never be taken in a vacuum. All stats have to be taken in context. 20/13/4 by one player isn't always equal to another player's 20/13/4 on another team. Context is the key word. Is the team winning? If they are winning, is the star player responsible for making less heralded players suddenly better? At the end of the day, one of the best measures of a superstar is this-----make your teammates better.

When Minny began the season, correct me if I'm wrong, many thought they had enough talent to be a good Playoff team in the West with Martin, Pekovich, Rubio, and others. What happened? Suddenly these same players are now considered junk. Really?

This is an extreme example, but it makes my point. When Lebron averages 17ppg for Team USA in the Olympics and leads the team to the Gold, is a scrub NBAer playing for Lithuania or Serbia who averages 25ppg in the Tournament a better scorer? The answer is of course no. Team structure and system play such a huge part with stats.

I believe most NBAers, if given the chance, will produce positive stats. The question is----can they make their teams win? Look at Evan Turner of the Sixers..averaging what 19ppg? Is he really a 19ppg scorer if you put him on a contending team? Tony Parker is leading the Spurs with 17ppg. Is Turner a better scorer than Parker? Really?

Only geeks love stats without looking at the team as a whole. Basketball is a team sport, and great players can have an impact beyond just 1/5 of a team at any given point. Anyone who has played the game knows this.

great post....probably the best post on this topic on the entire forum....

[ProfessorMurder]

"Empty" isn't really the right word. Love is one of the best rebounders in the NBA, and a good scorer. What he has a problem with is leading his team to wins. And that's a big problem since the point of producing stats is to win basketball games. It has been said----it's not your stats but HOW and WHEN you produce your stats.

Stats can never be taken in a vacuum. All stats have to be taken in context. 20/13/4 by one player isn't always equal to another player's 20/13/4 on another team. Context is the key word. Is the team winning? If they are winning, is the star player responsible for making less heralded players suddenly better? At the end of the day, one of the best measures of a superstar is this-----make your teammates better.

When Minny began the season, correct me if I'm wrong, many thought they had enough talent to be a good Playoff team in the West with Martin, Pekovich, Rubio, and others. What happened? Suddenly these same players are now considered junk. Really?

This is an extreme example, but it makes my point. When Lebron averages 17ppg for Team USA in the Olympics and leads the team to the Gold, is a scrub NBAer playing for Lithuania or Serbia who averages 25ppg in the Tournament a better scorer? The answer is of course no. Team structure and system play such a huge part with stats.

I believe most NBAers, if given the chance, will produce positive stats. The question is----can they make their teams win? Look at Evan Turner of the Sixers..averaging what 19ppg? Is he really a 19ppg scorer if you put him on a contending team? Tony Parker is leading the Spurs with 17ppg. Is Turner a better scorer than Parker? Really?

Only geeks love stats without looking at the team as a whole. Basketball is a team sport, and great players can have an impact beyond just 1/5 of a team at any given point. Anyone who has played the game knows this.

Way to reuse a post that means nothing.

1. Rubio is on par to be the worst shooter ever. Pek and Love aren't great defenders and they're supposed to protect the paint. Martin is known to be streaky and poor at times. They don't have a great team.

2. The structure of a team doesn't make stats empty or less valid. You have no tangible way to prove a shot affected the outcome of a game unless it's a game winner. LeBron scoring 17 might mean one thing to the US, when a Lithuanian player's 25 means something completely different to his team. The Lituanian could be game planned for if he's the only threat. He could play in garbage time. He could score against the best US defender and energize his team. Who knows?

3. You're saying 'geeks love stats without looking at the team as a whole', yet you're discounting one player for the play of a team. How is that any different? Why do you think Evan Turner's 19 should be compared to Parker's 17 in terms of anything other than numerical value?

4. Love is an elite player. He puts up elite production in scoring and rebounding. Is his team winning the finals? No. Do his points and boards count? Yes. He's a very good player.

5. Just admit that you simply don't like that he puts up good numbers on a bad team. You admitted that a player is a part of a team, so why is one guy fully responsible for the performance of a full team?

[Dr.J4ever]

Way to reuse a post that means nothing.

1. Rubio is on par to be the worst shooter ever. Pek and Love aren't great defenders and they're supposed to protect the paint. Martin is known to be streaky and poor at times. They don't have a great team.

2. The structure of a team doesn't make stats empty or less valid. You have no tangible way to prove a shot affected the outcome of a game unless it's a game winner. LeBron scoring 17 might mean one thing to the US, when a Lithuanian player's 25 means something completely different to his team. The Lituanian could be game planned for if he's the only threat. He could play in garbage time. He could score against the best US defender and energize his team. Who knows?

3. You're saying 'geeks love stats without looking at the team as a whole', yet you're discounting one player for the play of a team. How is that any different? Why do you think Evan Turner's 19 should be compared to Parker's 17 in terms of anything other than numerical value?

4. Love is an elite player. He puts up elite production in scoring and rebounding. Is his team winning the finals? No. Do his points and boards count? Yes. He's a very good player.

5. Just admit that you simply don't like that he puts up good numbers on a bad team. You admitted that a player is a part of a team, so why is one guy fully responsible for the performance of a full team?

1. I never said Minny was ever considered a "great" team. I said many thought that they could be a good team, after looking at their opening day roster. While Rubio is a bad shooter, he's a decent PG and showed a lot of promise in his rookie season. Pek looked like he was developing into a good center. Martin is a very versatile scorer and Minny looked like they had a bench with Schved, Williams etc. All I'm saying is there are tools on that team and a superstar can lift them to be at the very least a PLAYOFF TEAM, and maybe more than that.
2. I only used the Olympic example to prove my point that stats can never be taken in a vacuum. That they can change drastically depending on your team's structure. We all know Lebron's a 30ppg scorer for the Heat, but on a team like USA, he will only need to average 17ppg to make sure team USA is firing on all cylinders. Also, I didn't say stats are "empty", but I said it's not how many you score or assist on or rebound, but WHEN and HOW. There are also many things unaccounted for in stats, like passes that lead to assists, contested rebounds vs uncontested rebounds, and the TYPE of scoring you do( do you draw double teams and make your teammates more of a threat than they normally would be?)

3. Evan Turner is an example because his ppg and free throw attempts are so different from last season. Doug Collins believed the Sixers had a chance to be a Playoff team, and so ET was more of a complimentary player since the Sixers had "better" options. This year, basically, Brett Brown said to ET--just take it to the hole and we don't care if you make mistakes cause we're goin nowhere anyway. So ET is scoring 19ppg and Tony Parker is scoring 17ppg for a contending team. That's the context again. Okay, ET can score in the NBA, but in no way has he proven that he is REALLY a 19ppg scorer for a good team which is really another thing entirely.

4. Love is a good player. He may yet become a great player, but he isn't right now. You yourself said Love has not "protected" the paint. I'm not talking about blocked shots either, but just position defense. Moses Malone almost never blocked shots, but he defended well enough to win a Chip. You can't ever be considered elite until you can affect the outcome of your team enough to win most of the time. The whole point is to win, not to put up double doubles.

5. No, I like Kevin Love. I happen to think that he would be boarding just as much on a contender than on Minny. Scoring, I still don't know if he is a first option on a contender because he is most comfortable taking wide open threes(if you are a Minny fan I defer to you on this if this is correct).

To summarize, stats are never meaningless or "empty". Stats always mean something, but it isn't always positive. It really isn't just all Math, wherein you just plug in the data, and get the answer. A 20ppg scorer on a bad team may only really be a 10ppg scorer for a contender. Sometimes production might even increase since he may get opportunities from the increased efficiency of the better team, but we won't know until he turns his team to become a good team.

I really believed this is common knowledge. Why this is even disputed here in ISH is a mystery to me. Some people I guess are so concerned with their idols personal stats that you lose track of the whole point of the thing. I know because I used to be this way with my idol, Dr.J. I followed him and his stats, and sometimes didn't care about the team, my Sixers. I now have evolved a more mature view of Julius Erving, and it is taken in a context of winning wherever the Doc has been, from Virginia, to New York, and to the Sixers. Doc has been the focal point of numerous contenders.

Doc and other greats are living proof that greats affect the outcome of their teams far more than the 1/5 that stats would indicate. It's a team game, but 1 player can directly affect the outcome far more than in other sports whether it is with stats that are tangible or things not in the box score like picks, position defense, passes that lead to assist passes, and leadership .

[ZOMG]

The trouble with Kevin Love is that he can never be counted on to put a team on his shoulders in crunch time, willing it to victory by producing baskets despite the defense doing everything it can to stop him. He simply does not have the physical tools. That's what separates him from the superstar tier of the league.

Love has pretty much optimized his (very average) physical gifts, but that only takes him so far - working efficiently within what the defense gives him. His only truly game-changing skill/ability is rebounding. He's also a very good passer and spot-up shooter, but neither of those is a skill you need to absolutely take over a game. He needs help with that. Have you seen Love trying to get enough separation to get a shot off on the wing, if he's being defended by a long and mobile player? It's hopeless and usually leads to a desperate step-back jumper.

And that's why Kevin Love is the ideal second or third banana in a championship-caliber team.

[LakersForlife]

they should trade rubio. hes the weak link. hes no scoring threat

[Mr Exlax]

Somebody needs to post Love's season averages alongside those of his teammates and where they rank in the NBA. I don't think it's all on him. They have to step up.

[Frozen1]

You guys talking about teamates.

Is there a team worse than the lakers when you account individual players?

But yet, they have the same record as minnesota.

In this team, kevin love puts empty stats, because he can

[DMAVS41]

Nobody is asking him to win the title or even make a playoff run. But the excuses have to stop for a player in his 6th year with a good team around him.

Superstars don't miss the playoffs with that kind of help. They just don't.

[ZOMG]

Whenever the talking heads on TV are saying that "Kevin Love took over", I look what's actually happening.... and there's Love, making his way to the 3 point line through several staggered screens, getting a pinpoint pass and then making the shot.

More often than not, it takes SEVERAL Minnesota players to get Love in a position where he can score. This is not the sign of a superstar. A superstar makes his teammates better, while at the same time imposing his will on the game.

With Love it's the other way around. His teammates make him better.

[robert de niro]

they should trade rubio. hes the weak link. hes no scoring threat

wolves are 4th in points per game, they need defense above all else