Statistics are interesting and useful things.  Advanced metrics are often even more interesting and informative, and I've appreciated that terms such as "offensive rating", "effective field goal percentage" and "rebound rate" have entered the vernacular of basketball fans.

Sometimes, though, there's an over-reliance on statistics and metrics that make absolutely no sense.  Analysts who have never watched a player play make conclusions about that play devoid of context.

Case in point, ESPN The Magazine's recent re-organizing of the Basketball HOF based upon Win Shares and "dominance".  We learn that Kareem and Wilt are the most "Hall worthy" players in NBA history.  That's arguable, but fine, but I'm open-minded.  Where I'm not open-minded is the treatment of certain Celtics players.

We learn from ESPN that Bob Cousy is not worthy of the Hall.  Never mind that Bob Cousy was a 13-time All-Star, an MVP, finished in the top-8 in MVP voting seven times, led the league in assists eight straight times, and won five titles.  No, according to ESPN's analysts, he's not HOF worthy.  In fact, he's not even that close to earning induction.  Who did make the cut?  Kevin Johnson, for one.

Same thing for 10-time champion Sam Jones or 8-time all-star Bill Sharman.  I won't quibble too much about the exclusion of K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsay, or Dennis Johnson if we're trying to narrow the standards for inclusion.  However, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that Reggie Miller is more "Hall worthy" than Larry Bird or Magic Johnson, or that Artis Gilmore is more dominant than Bill Russell or Shaquille O'Neal.

Obviously, junk like this is published to generate debate.  However, if the formula used by ESPN comes out with so many off the wall results, they should scrap it and start over.