One last thought on this matter; science is based on experimentation, the purpose of which is to provide falsifiable results for a givern theory. So results do matter, and odd results may indicate a methodological shortcoming. And advanced stats (of any kind) have no predictive value (like EMH) so they aren't falsifiable. So there's no way to show that your methodology is actually the best way to interpret stats

Does a guy like Horace Grant give his teammates' better stats? He helps them win games, no doubt. But he's not a great passer. He doesn't draw help attention. He spaces the floor, but he's not a Robert Horry where you absolutely can't leave him on the perimeter, and he's not a Shaq where you can't help off him around the rim. So if Pippen or Jordan or Penny or Kobe drove to the paint, and Grant was there, would he in any way make it easier for them to score? He would grab an offensive rebound if they missed, but that goes back to my Clyde / Hakeem example.

He's an absolute beast at taking advantage of every instance where his teammates create opportunities. When his man does rotate because he's not Shaq or Horry, he gets that offensive board or hits that 16 foot jumper. Which is exactly what a team needs but not necessarily going to make a teammate's metrics pop, especially given the paltry importance that is placed on the assist.

I just wonder over the course of a career if he gives as many opportunities to amass stats to others as he receives from them. Of course the simple fact that he's low usage generally gives opportunities to others, but you know what I mean. It's not an important question, just a question.

And I didn't mean to imply that I actually thought the Clyde / Dream dynamic was such that Hakeem's presence dramatically changed Clyde's efficiency. I actually think of all the Rockets that year, Drexler was probably the least impacted by Olajuwon (or maybe Cassell). I just thought it should be considered.

Science is not monolithic; different scientists come up with different theories, and often disagree with each other vehemently. You remind me of the economists who worshipped EMH even as the economy collapsed...

I know how science works; this isn't about me rejecting objective stats, it's about rejecting your SUBJECTIVE interpretation of those stats; when a supposedly scientific metric produces a result that is clearly wrong to anybody who understands objective stats, that metric needs to be tweaked.

These are the stats I trust:
33.0 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.8 bpg, .531 fg%, .681 ft%

One thing that is starting to annoy me is people claiming a 53% shooter from the field was "inefficient". Are you kidding me? Does the fact that Dream had a sub-par PO from the line matter more than his overall dominance? I don't think so, not when he still shot FT better than Shaq ever has

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=5519

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
In fact the whole argument is about the playoffs and while doing some research I noticed something: over the last 19 playoffs for all of the players who have won an NBA title and averaged at least 30 points (I'm going to include Kobe's 2001 because he averaged 29.4 a game), not one of them had a true Shooting Percentage as high as Drexler's. Here is the numbers (note: I'm not correcting for the pace because the shot attempts are pretty much the same)

Jordan 1992: 34.5 points per game/ 57.1 TS%
Jordan 1993: 35.1 PPG/ 55.3 TS%
Jordan 1996: 30.7 PPG/ 56.4 TS%

Shaq 2000: 30.7 PPG/ 55.6 TS%
Shaq 2001: 30.4 PPG/ 56.4%
Kobe 2001: 29.4 PPG/ 55.5%

Kobe 2009: 30.2 PPG/ 56.4%

also lets add more to the mix: D-Wade's 2006 was 28.4 and his True Shooting percentage was 59.3.

Also because of his greatness in the postseason and his higher average in the first two titles, Tim Duncan
Duncan 2003: 24.7 PPG/ 57.7%
Duncan 1999: 23.2 PPG/ 57.3%

So here is the breakdown: For all the ones that averaged at least 29 points per game not one of the max is 57.1 held by Michael Jordan. After that the rest were hovering around 55.5-56.5 percent. Then we had Duncan, who was less than thirty points, but had a higher average than Drexler, his percentage was in the 57%. There is only one player who had a higher scoring average, won a title, and had a higher TS% and that was Wade (and that was fueled by an absolutely crazy efficient final two series). But the point is this: in the playoffs when the average reaches the mid 20s, and certainly nearing 30 points, the drop in TS% is precipitous.

This is why I am so surprised that there isn't so much skepticism when it comes to Drexler's high efficiency and just because of that he'd continue to be anywhere near effective with more shots. The data we have suggests that the likelihood of that happening when you're facing the very best teams in the league in a seven (well back then the first rounds were 5) game elimination is very, very, very low. It is very difficult to maintain that kind of productivity when you're shooting that often in the playoffs. Plus ask yourself that question: do you honestly, in your mind, feel that at his age Drexler was as athletically dominant as all of those all-time greats (and if Wade's body doesn't fall apart he will certainly join those ranks)? I think that answer is a definitive no.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

We could also search through players who played significant numbers of games in the postseason too. I don't have the time now, but I would love to see it.