Ok this got me exited:P The statment was from spurs old forums and the first one I found when putting in his name in google. It might be wrong but he did play only one season in nba not doing much in any category. He was drafted after Karl Malone with some better options coming after him but with drafts you never know... He got picked because of his stats not because he hit one of those last second shots. BTW the game you are refering to is the Loyola vs Iona 59:58??? If so then this game loyola should of won eyes closed being the 4-th seed in east, meaning "The Great" almost lost the game for them!!!
Yes stats are not everything in basketball but it gives you the overall picture of who won and why. Only thing not actually showing in stats is defence. Why did your opponent shoot 30% from the floor. Was it great defence with bad selection of shots to take and hand in your face in every shot or did they get open shots not able to hit anything. Luck is the only factor which determins the end result of similar teams and gives weaker teams chance to win.
Stats were exaltly why your "The Great" did not stay in the nba for more than one season. 5.2 ppg for 12.7 minutes seems pretty ok for a sub but he's shot procentages and lousy rebounding compared to his college season were prolly not what SAS was looking for. Now it's a little fuzzy to me what position he played as he was listed as SG in his college but forward in NBA. 6.5 height would put him at SF the most. Why did you bring him up anyway as Loyola got as far as statistics predicted in the start (lost to nr1 east georgetown P.Ewing). If they would have lost the first game to rank13 team it would have been "The Great" failure <- nicely put imo:D
My point is ... you do not want 5 starters in your team that shoot 5% from the floor. No matter how good they are at rebounding. Basically if you as a team leader decide that you will take a great RB+SB with no scoring abilitys on your team you must compensate the lack of scoring on some other position(s) (D.Rodman B.Wallace etc. come to mind).
Also, and far more importantly, what does the level of competition have to do with good or bad performance? An elementary school kid can't have a good game?
If professional basketball players play against amateurs is there a difference in their stats? Now if I play against some 13-14 yo schoolkids I get 10+ in every category if I play 40 mins.
Not being aggressive is a totally valid reason for losing a game. So is not having enough poise. Just ask Chris Webber. Explain why those reasons are just bull.
If you play basketball for a living and love the game then how can you go into a game not being agressive. I understand that with 82 games you tend to use the same dumb lines as an excuse for losing because you have actually no idea what lost you the game until you look at the stats chart... NBA mentality has always been if you have no chance to win it all, they just play hard on your contract year. Well actually it seems there is no point in argueing as NBA is an 1on1 game mostly with isolations and few pick and rolls and no traveling calls. Europe plays more team basketball where offence does not get an advantage on not bouncing the ball on first step or taking 3 steps when dunking the ball as long as it looks nice.