Should playoff stats count towards a player’s numbers?
Kobe Bryant, Dime #39Why is it that, across the board in pro sports (and college, if I’m not mistaken), postseason stats are kept in some different category than regular-season stats? That means the 38,387 number that stands as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s all-time NBA scoring mark doesn’t include a single one of the buckets he got in more than 230 playoff games. It means that if Wilt had scored 100 points in a playoff game, Kobe would have the “official” record for single-game scoring. It means that if A.C. Green had gotten hurt and missed a playoff game, it wouldn’t have counted against his NBA-record consecutive-games-played streak.
I’ve never understood this. I get that the point is to have fairness and have everyone working on the same 82-game scale, but at the same time you’re punishing guys for playing on good teams. Shouldn’t this be rewarded? Wouldn’t Robert Parish’s record for career games played (1,611) be even more impressive if you tacked on his 184 postseason games? A couple weeks ago when I posted the NBA’s top single-game records and asked if they’d ever be broken, I actually broke the rules and listed Bob Cousy as the record-holder for most free throws made in a game, because Cousy’s 30-freebie performance was in a playoff game. The official record is 26, which Wilt did in a regular season game. That’s wrong to me. It’s minor, I know, just something that’s always bugged me.
Do you think postseason stats should be included along with regular-season numbers?
August 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
chekmate says:
first
August 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
David Brandon says:
b/c the post season are when things matter THAT much more. its an even deeper way to analyze a player. i.e., how does pega be 2nd in scoring in the L only behind Mac in the regular season and then come the playoffs, turns into casper? only one example, but the point is made. you want someone who at least remains consistent when you have 7 games to decide if you advance or Houston Rocket the postseason (read: go home. sorry GEE…)
August 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Prof. TX says:
If playoff games are excluded, shouldn’t overtime stats be left out too? If anything, playoff records seem more important, because then you know it wasn’t done against some last-place squad who put in a d-league squad to play in tank mode. (I’m looking at you Miami)
Setting records is alot harder with a playoff-level defender chasing you around and a team that has something to fight for.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
JHov says:
I agree with the stats being separated. I mean they do the same thing in the MLB and the NFL why should the NBA be different? The whole reason to separate them is to evaluate the athlete on that level..only great players excel in the playoffs ask Reggie Jackson, Michael Jordan, and Tom Brady!
Some “superstars” can’t take the pressure on the grand stage!
August 28th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
ERIC says:
playoffs are just a small sample size. leagues rank their players/stats etc based on the # of regular season games (82 for NBA, 16 for NFL, 162 for MLB, etc) and to have stats for players who play many more games and more opportunities to score more, etc, u just separate the 2 for the sake of avoiding confusion.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Ian the statboy says:
yeah but its like prof tx said
overtime and extra innings shouldnt count then
i rather see everything count
August 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Jack says:
JUST CAUSE THE SPURS ARE ALWAYS IN THE PLAYOFFS DOESNT MEAN THEY SHOULD GET EXTRA GAMES 2 RACK UP STATS
August 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Austin Burton says:
I look at somebody like Fred McGriff, who retired from MLB stuck on 493 “official” home runs. If you counted his 10 postseason homers, McGriff is in the 500-HR club and is a Hall of Famer. As it stands, he may not get in with that 493. That’s silly to me.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Bond says:
What about the number of women Wilt slept with during the playoffs. Imagine how big the number would be then.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
loganlight says:
Because the playoff stats ARE that much more important, I can see the reasoning for keeping them separate. AND by keeping the official stats on the 82 game scale, you are allowing for great players on not-so-great teams a chance to keep their names in the record books…
With that said, there should be some consolidation with the numbers. Maybe 3 categories – Regular Season, Playoffs, and Total…
Good question though, it never entered my mind before now.
LL
August 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
BALLZ says:
If A.C. Green had gotten laid during the playoffs, would this have snapped his virginity streak? Would pundits still praise his “regular-season virginity?” It’s a question worth asking…
August 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
ERIC says:
i like that idea LL
and Austin, great point and that sucks for McGriff – but at least he got paid from those tutorial videos!
August 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
hahns says:
i would assume the logic behind this is to keep all players on an even playing field. the nature of playoff games are that much more different, so shoudl not be compared w/ regular season stats. also, players fortunate enough to have playoff experience have a leg up on their non-playoff counterparts so that they have a better statistical legacy.
ie: stephon marbury (only example i could think of right now) has not been in the playoffs much in his career, but someone like kobe bryant, who is in the playoffs constantsly, will have “inflated” career stats bc hes played in more games.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Jim says:
I like the difference because it lets you see who steps their game up, for one thing. But it also isn’t fair to people who aren’t consistently in the playoffs…though I totally get why that isn’t a great argument.
When you hear about Clemente, the most impressive stats are his World Series stats. If you just lump everything in together it doesn’t mean as much.
Also, NCAA Football DOES keep the stats together and it throws off lots of records, though not as much as playing 2 extra regular season games. But if you play in conf. champ game and a bowl game, it’s not fair to compare your stats to some old timer who didn’t go bowling.
Let’s take a Dallas perspective:
1. If Emmit’s postseason stats are included…I won’t even say it because I don’t need YOUNGFED taking my chain.
2. By keeping NBA stats separate you can see that Dirk improves dramatically in the playoffs, and then people won’t just talk out of their neck…ok, bad example.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Jim says:
…though Hans’ example is the perfect argument against keeping them separated, I would say.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Diego says:
What bothers me sometimes is that a lot of the playoff records get busted these days, like most career playoff games, career playoff scoring, etc. because all of the damn series are best of 7 now, unlike for many years in the league when the playoff scrubs got sent packing in best of 5s.
The playoffs are a season unto themselves.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
srb says:
I guess I’m missing the point of the argument against separating them. The second season has its own stats. There are the stats that matter, and the stats that matter more. We all know the difference between regular season and playoff stats, and which we can put more weight on. I don’t think people are missing the importance of playoff stats so it doesn’t seem like a problem to me to have them separated.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Dave says:
I like having the stats separate. I like playoff records being different from regular season records.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
GEE...the twalet (toilet) is a wonderful and amazing thing! says:
Yea Dave I like it that way too. You dealing with a whole different thing in the playoffs. No more grapefruit games. You got to bring it.
Plus that 82 helps when comparing cats strickly based on the season. If you mix that with the playoffs things get murky.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Shannequa says:
Cuz that’s how the NBA rollz, y’all. Get wid da program.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Homeless J says:
I agree partially with the NBA separating regular-season stats from postseason stats because it helps accentuate how certain people perform even better and some people choke when the games really count. I also, to an extent, understand separation of regular season and playoff records, because it’s a lot harder to perform well in the playoffs than it is in the regular season.
What I really don’t agree with is not counting the playoff games themselves in their career totals, and the fact that the emphasis is on the regular season records instead of the postseason records.
I never understood how, in football, they don’t just tack on stats from the postseason on their full season record. I mean it’s usually one or two more games (or three if you get to the super bowl), why not give them the credit for it. For instance if a team gets to the superbowl and a guy starts 19 games, he’ll only get historical credit for starting 16. It’s the same as it is in the NBA in this regard but NBA teams play a lot more games. It would skew the numbers more to add the NFL games together to a player’s stats, but it’s usually only one or two more games, why not just give em to the guy.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
doc says:
I like it how it is.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:35 am
karan says:
i agree with dime here.
postseason stats should be counted as normal… great players play in greater games, and their statistics in these games are what really shape their greatness
August 30th, 2008 at 1:13 am
tealish says:
Separated stats make for easier analyzing, but why they can’t be combined when looking from a career standpoint, completely boggles my mind. Everything should be included if you refer to CAREER points, CAREER ppg, CAREER games played because after all, playoff games are played in one’s career, no?