Subsequent to that rookie outburst, he's had very little to commend him. I don't know about his defense, or where his shot went. The team no longer wanted him in '08, and the Pistons haven't found any use for him.

I guess I don't distinguish between value and ability (talent), because a skill that doesn't apply to winning isn't a relevant ability. A guy may shoot 96% FT, but if he can't get to the line, it's irrelevant. There's no basketball-game ability in that. It's like saying the ability to spin a ball on your fingertip has some potential; but it doesn't.

Anyway, it's generally good to stick to your guns, and put 'the power of language' to your chosen stats. Sometimes that will keep the door open for the stats' evolution.

I named all the Bobcats’ players down to 1100 minutes; after that, Jake Voskuhl, Primoz Brezec, Alan Anderson ... I mean, this is desperate territory. You haven’t suggested anyone who can come up with better minutes than what Morrison offered.

You left off an important name: Walter Herrmann. Herrmann shot 52.7% from the field and 46.1% from three-point range while averaging 19.5 minutes per game. If the Bobcats had swapped Herrmann's playing time with Morrison's, I believe they would have won more games.

You may be a 30% shooter from the arc. Someone may tell you to never shoot from there, because that's a low-efficiency shot. But having that shot in your arsenal, as an option, cannot hurt your effectiveness; it can only help. If you overuse it, it will help less. You can't replay the season to see if you'd have done better by never shooting it. You probably shot it when it felt comfortable, to avoid the shot-clock expiring, etc.

A low-% shot is clearly better than no shot at all. Sometimes there's a better alternative, and sometimes there's not. A weak player is better than a weaker player. Someone else, given more minutes, may suddenly blossom. I don't see anyone on that '07 Charlotte roster who, even in retrospect, was going to do that.

I named all the Bobcats' players down to 1100 minutes; after that, Jake Voskuhl, Primoz Brezec, Alan Anderson ... I mean, this is desperate territory. You haven't suggested anyone who can come up with better minutes than what Morrison offered.

So to just say, "He's so bad, he's worse than nothing", without offering any alternative that's better, doesn't seem to be especially useful advice. Unless there's some clue in there as to what's not quite right about Win Shares.

"Without [Adam Morrison], I am sure [Charlotte] wins fewer games."

How can you be sure of this?

"Morrison may have been more talented than his backups on Charlotte that year, but ... That behavior was detrimental to winning basketball"

If they don't have better players to take his minutes, then giving more minutes to worse players is more detrimental. They won 30 games; lots of teams have done worse, and it seems you're saying this team should have done worse. But why would they choose to?