Reply With Quote
There are different ways of evaluating players. You can measure them individually, you can measure how they fit in a team concept, how they play offense, defense, in the clutch, per 48 minutes, etc... No one way to look at a player will ever tell you the whole story because every stat has its flaws.
The only reason I brought up the +/- thing today is it bothers me like crazy when Spurs fans use points as the sole measure of whether a guy played well or poorly. They don't look at any other facet of the game and it's like such a dinosaur way of looking at the game it drives me nuts.
You're right, Bruce was probably our best player today, and he scored 13 points, a great number for him, but not an overwhelming amount. Horry was probably our best player in Game 2, and he only had 5 points. For some reason casual fans can accept that a role player can contribute without setting the world on fire, but for our big three, the rules don't work that way. I will never understand this. If Horry or Barry or Bruce can "have a good game" without scoring a lot, than why can't Tim or Manu or Tony? It makes no sense to me.
Personally, I thought the most dominant half Tony had the whole year was the 1st half he played against the Clippers in some game this year. He only took one shot, but he had 12 assists and our team had 63 points in the half. He was the best player on the floor and had the Clips at his mercy.
