For me, a PG is judged in large part by the success of his team. This doesn't mean he needs to work out in the summer, though. As for Miller's postseason success, I'll point out that Rafer Alston had his best series against Philly. I'm not sure if that means anything, but Alston's team won the series with him going 15/5.
Proving a correlation is rather easy. Proving causation is impossible in this instance, and I'm not even insinuating that I feel there is a causal relationship. Weren't you questioning my logic? Correlation is not causation.
So by that rationale, Chris Paul isn't the best point guard in the league. He probably isn't even the third best point guard in the league, because his team got creamed in the playoffs by the Nuggets.
Where did Chris Paul come from? "By that rationale"? What rationale. I pointed out a fact pertaining to Miller's postseason success last year. I didn't judge it or 'rationalize' it.
You're not insinuating a causation? Then what were you trying to do when mentioning that Miller has never had any team success in the playoffs?
And what relevance did the fact have? Other than to tie in his team success, and his offseason approach.
To illustrate correlation. I already said that, repeatedly. You and others illustrated Blake's own correlation pertaining to his summers. The difference is that I accept that correlation without judgement, for whatever it is worth. The correlation that I pointed out has led to pages of posts. Why is that?
What relevance is the correlation if there is no causation, and if theer is no implied causation, as you say you didn't even try to do?
The relevance is the correlation. People can draw their own conclusions from it, as you have done yourself.
Yeah, Fisher been a very successful PG in terms of winning, but is limited in what he is asked to do for the Lakers. Paul is very successful statistically, and is asked to carry the primary role for his team. Both are successful in different ways. Depends on what barometer you're using, I suppose.
It's an obviously implied conclusion, but you can pretend there was no intention in that if it makes you feel better.
So from this frame of logic, you can imagine how some are trying to compare Blake to Fisher's situation and Miller to Paul's situation?
No, I can't, because Blake hasn't won either. He comes in 3rd behind Paul and Miller in terms of being a pure PG IMO, at least in the non-winner group. Fisher is the winner of the bunch. Doesn't mean he's the best of the four, just means he's had the most team success. Hence, it's hard for me to say he hasn't been successful. Paul also stands out from this group. He's an incredible talent. Miller and then Fisher/Blake are somewhere beneath Paul.
