I understand my citing of stats makes it seem like that is what matters most. In a sense I mean almost the opposite. Defensive stats, advanced or otherwise, will not matter at all, while offensive stats matter in a post hoc fashion.
Certain players start out with a buzz for greatness. They are put on a list and stats provide a post hoc rationale as to whether that buzz os still merited. Observers watch who remains and form opinions not so much on stats but on performance in big games and big moments, with a bunch of “wow” moments thrown in. Stats play a small part, but play an even bigger role in post hoc justification. Had Clark won her freshman year people would say how important her productivity stats were. With Bueckers winning the focus and rationale was on efficiency,
I bring up the 60/50 shooting and 3.0 facilitating not so much because of the value of the stats, but because of what it means for off games. Bueckers may not reach those numbers, but to do so means her “off games” of something like 50/40 and 2.0 will not look like off games to voters. To maintain such high efficiency she will appear great in every single performance no matter the opponent or stakes.
In contrast, Clark will look like she is having an occasional ordinary or off game when/if she dips too far below 50/40 and 2.0 in those games, despite the productivity. “Off games” at the wrong times could make all the difference in the perceptions of voters that matter.
All conjecture, of course, since it is a big question as to whether Bueckers can reach 60/50 and 3.0 type efficiency.
That's at least part of the problem
