this is a red herring that is used just to dismiss qoc completely, though, and the fundamental mistake they keep making.
1. Of course quality of teammate matters, which is why have always used team-relative stats from the get go.
2. This question is "regression on WHAT data?". the whole mistake comes from early experiments using guesses at proxies for qoc and qot, not actual hard data. as well as a massive assumption that using the same number for both proxies makes sense. of course teammates will show a bigger correlation than opponents - all looking at qot says is that "this line did X together", whereas looking at qoc means something completely different - i.e. how did this player due against hundreds of opponents. what's worse is that qot teammate data is already influenced by qoc but we ignore it - playing on a matchup line vs playing on a sheltered line can mean a massive amount of qoc influence on your numbers, but that will always have the same impact on your teammate's numbers, so this will be interpretated as qot influence when it's really qoc influence.
3. even saying "qot is more important than qoc" is like saying "apples are more important than oranges". it's a nonsensical statement that makes major faulty assumptions from the get go, and they know that it's a nonsensical statement designed to just ignore qoc completely instead of actually trying to deal with it.