Originally Posted by 'trane
a 30% increase in wins isn't meaningful? i would agree if you objection was about sample size, but 30% is clearly a fairly big jump for one guy.
the point i was making was that the statistic is flawed and shouldn't be used to make any points.
chicago has a 0.731 winning percentage, without rose the winning percentage would still be above 0.431
lakers are 0.706, without kobe there winning percentage would be above 0.406
so are u to say Bargnani
is a bigger factor to his team than rose or kobe is to theirs becuz the raps take a 0.3 dip and the bulls and lakers don't dip as much without their best player?