Opportunity is baked into every total
A player who takes the most shots on a team will usually score the most points on that team. That sentence is close to a tautology, and yet a great deal of argument proceeds as though the points column were a pure measure of quality. It is a measure of quality multiplied by opportunity, and opportunity is handed out by a coach according to a plan.
Move the same player to a team with two established scorers and the column changes without the player changing. Anyone who has watched a role player join a contender and become invisible in the box score has seen this happen in real time.
Different jobs, same column
The player who defends the opponent's best scorer for thirty minutes, sets the screens that free everyone else and takes six open shots is doing a job. So is the player asked to create something out of nothing when a possession breaks down. Both jobs are necessary, and the second one produces far better totals while frequently being done less well.
This is why I find comparisons across roles almost meaningless unless the roles are stated first. Ask instead: given what this player is asked to do, how many teams would prefer someone else doing it? That question is answerable, and it produces far fewer silly arguments.
What to look at instead
Rate over total, wherever possible. What happens per minute or per possession strips out the part of a total that is simply time on the floor. It does not fix everything — a player who is efficient in a small role may not stay efficient in a large one — but it removes the crudest distortion.
Then watch the possessions where the plan breaks. Sport is mostly organised; the moments after the organisation fails are where quality shows. None of this needs a licensed data feed, which is convenient, because Arena does not have one. It needs attention, and a willingness to state what a player was actually asked to do before grading them on it.