Holy shit man. I'm sorry but this is insane. PLAYING TIME AND GAMES PLAYED IN A SEASON ARE DIFFERENT MEASURES. I ALREADY FUCKING SAID THIS. How is this not getting into your head? You're completely missing the point and arguing points that I am not discussing with you.

HOW DOES 31 GAMES OF EMBIID COMPARE TO 82 GAMES OF BROGDON? Statistically. To make that comparison you would need a metric that involves a function of % of GAMES PLAYED in the season * productivity/'value' in these games = ??? For example, had Embiid played 52 games instead of 31, at the same level of productivity, would he be ROY? How about if he had played 73 at the same level of productivity? Would he be more valuable than Brogdon then?

There is no metric that assesses value based on games played. The line that is drawn to say '31 games' is not sufficient for you to be 'valuable' enough, but, say '60 games' is, is entirely arbitrary, and based on how much each analyst feels is sufficient games for your season to be valuable enough. What are you not understanding? Stop explaining basic fucking stats to me they are irrelevant to this argument and to the fucking point

How, statistically, do you decide to make the distinction of value over a season, BASED ON # OF GAMES PLAYED, which no current stat does. Current stats, yes, are rate statistics, assessing value per so many possessions, or so many minutes, etc. That is not what I am talking about.

Holy shit you are either thick as fuck or are master trolling me right now. Personally, I think you want to be right and have absolutely no idea what I'm arguing and are not reading my comments. Either that or I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. I'm inclined to think it's a combination of both. But holy shit this should not be this difficult dude. It's like talking to a fucking wall.