PDA

View Full Version : What is YOUR red flag?



Jamiecballer
08-16-2018, 12:43 PM
When discussing basketball with someone, whether online or in person, what is YOUR red flag, that belief that tells YOU that the person knows or doesn't know the game or tips you off to the fact that you won't find much common ground?

I realize I am asking a lot of MODS here, because trolling is inevitable, but I think this could lead to some very interesting discussion. So I am asking for everyone to please refrain from inflammatory or personal responses and MODS to hold people to that standard so that the thread has a chance of remaining open.

For me the answer is easy. When someone is impressed by PPG, or treats a players high PPG as undeniable proof of their "goodness", i bristle.

What is yours?

warfelg
08-16-2018, 12:54 PM
Advanced stats ignorance.

And Iím not talking not knowing what they all mean. Iím talking more they throw them out, act like they arenít indicative of anything, and find a way to piss on them.

My other one is ďbut ringsĒ. Jalen Rose was the worst with it today. LBJ doesnít hold a candle to MJ because MJ has 6 rings and 10 scoring titles to LBJs 3 rings and 1 scoring title.

MygirlhatesCod
08-16-2018, 01:07 PM
I would say anyone who thinks AI and Westbrook are talents to build around.

Rivera
08-16-2018, 01:10 PM
blind homerism

TheDish87
08-16-2018, 01:23 PM
I would say anyone who thinks AI and Westbrook are talents to build around.

bite your tounge

mightybosstone
08-16-2018, 01:53 PM
Rings is a good one, but my biggest one is when someone doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand how important scoring efficiency is to a player's success and is quicker to bring up things that don't matter like "heart." When I hear someone praise guys like AI, Kobe or Melo and then I say "Yeah, they're really great at this or that, but they're pretty inefficient when you compare them to guys like...." and then I get this blank look in their eyes and they start to spout off "how much heart" they played with, I immediately know this conversations is destined for failure.

warfelg
08-16-2018, 01:56 PM
Rings is a good one, but my biggest one is when someone doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand how important scoring efficiency is to a player's success and is quicker to bring up things that don't matter like "heart." When I hear someone praise guys like AI, Kobe or Melo and then I say "Yeah, they're really great at this or that, but they're pretty inefficient when you compare them to guys like...." and then I get this blank look in their eyes and they start to spout off "how much heart" they played with, I immediately know this conversations is destined for failure.

My thing thatís a pet peeve in one of those guys that you bring up there is ignoring era.

Yes AI was even inefficient for his era, but he was still not near as bad comparatively as to he would be as he with players now.

Hawkeye15
08-16-2018, 02:04 PM
Rings is a good one, but my biggest one is when someone doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand how important scoring efficiency is to a player's success and is quicker to bring up things that don't matter like "heart." When I hear someone praise guys like AI, Kobe or Melo and then I say "Yeah, they're really great at this or that, but they're pretty inefficient when you compare them to guys like...." and then I get this blank look in their eyes and they start to spout off "how much heart" they played with, I immediately know this conversations is destined for failure.

for sure, agreed. I want to double down on warfelg's post below yours too, not being able to cross era's as well.

Another one that kills me, is the whole, "it was better back in the day" attitude. No, it wasn't. Sports evolve, they get better, and there is nothing that can stop that. Not to say Wilt wouldn't dominate today (rare athletes will dominate any era), but if you just dropped a player from the 70's into todays game, they would be a liability. The same can't be said if you dropped a player from today back into the 70s.

MygirlhatesCod
08-16-2018, 02:27 PM
for sure, agreed. I want to double down on warfelg's post below yours too, not being able to cross era's as well.

Another one that kills me, is the whole, "it was better back in the day" attitude. No, it wasn't. Sports evolve, they get better, and there is nothing that can stop that. Not to say Wilt wouldn't dominate today (rare athletes will dominate any era), but if you just dropped a player from the 70's into todays game, they would be a liability. The same can't be said if you dropped a player from today back into the 70s.

extremely agree with that.
cross era comparison is very grey. I don't mind people doing it for players that they have seen play but for players from the 60's its difficult for me to take seriously because how much video or even first hand viewership was there of said player and others in the league at the same time.

MygirlhatesCod
08-16-2018, 02:30 PM
bite your tounge

between AI or Westbrook who would you rather have to start a team?

ewing
08-16-2018, 02:38 PM
If you are trying to make a bunch of points and I can't tell if you actually watched any games. Stats are cool but at some point I have to hear you say something about Worthy's baseline drop step or how different players effect each other on the floor. If all you do is copy and paste I really don't have interest.

Hawkeye15
08-16-2018, 02:39 PM
extremely agree with that.
cross era comparison is very grey. I don't mind people doing it for players that they have seen play but for players from the 60's its difficult for me to take seriously because how much video or even first hand viewership was there of said player and others in the league at the same time.

well more so that you need to rank players against their era. Duh if you just dropped Bob Lanier into today's game he wouldn't be an all star. But he might be had he grown up in this era, however that isn't the point.

Hawkeye15
08-16-2018, 02:40 PM
If you are trying to make a bunch of points and I can't tell if you actually watched any games. Stats are cool but at some point I have to hear you say something about Worthy's baseline drop step or how different players effect each other on the floor. If all you do is copy and paste I really don't have interest.

for example, if the convo is about Drexler, if it isn't brought up that he dribbled staring at the ball, or he stepped into his shot wrong, you likely didn't watch him.

IndyRealist
08-16-2018, 02:49 PM
Eye test nonsense. The whole reason we track stats is because eyes, attention, and memory are extremely unreliable. The brain isn't designed to remember every nuance of every play, yet people swear up and down that what they remember seeing is more accurate than what the statistics show.

IKnowHoops
08-16-2018, 02:58 PM
Advanced stats ignorance.

And Iím not talking not knowing what they all mean. Iím talking more they throw them out, act like they arenít indicative of anything, and find a way to piss on them.

My other one is ďbut ringsĒ. Jalen Rose was the worst with it today. LBJ doesnít hold a candle to MJ because MJ has 6 rings and 10 scoring titles to LBJs 3 rings and 1 scoring title.

Mine is the opposite but very similar. When people dismiss a particular or group of advanced stats entirely when it goes against there view. Or when they say that stat is pure trash, because the stat has a flaw yet anyone can see that that single flaw isnít enough to dismiss the entire stat.

mightybosstone
08-16-2018, 03:21 PM
My thing thatís a pet peeve in one of those guys that you bring up there is ignoring era.

Yes AI was even inefficient for his era, but he was still not near as bad comparatively as to he would be as he with players now.

I mean.... Is it though? AI's MVP season in 2000-01, he boasted a 51.8% TS%. If we look at the top five guys in that statistic that season, Stockton, Allen, Nash and Dirk all averaged above 60 percent. So the elite players of his era and peers at his position were able to average a full 8-10 percentage points higher in that category in the very year he was named MVP of the league.

So....... Yeah, that's a problem. This isn't the part where you tell me that Iverson played with a lot of heart, is it? Because I think we all know how that conversation is going to go.

aman_13
08-16-2018, 03:25 PM
Eye test nonsense. The whole reason we track stats is because eyes, attention, and memory are extremely unreliable. The brain isn't designed to remember every nuance of every play, yet people swear up and down that what they remember seeing is more accurate than what the statistics show.What's your take on defensive stats? I think for the most part, they are deceiving.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

ewing
08-16-2018, 03:32 PM
for example, if the convo is about Drexler, if it isn't brought up that he dribbled staring at the ball, or he stepped into his shot wrong, you likely didn't watch him.

something that shows me that you watched the game. I fee like this board used to have a better mix of posters that talked about what was happening on the floor and posters that talked about trends and stuff based on a stats. If is all about narrative (whose better, who ranks above who) and stats and no X and Os I get cranky

Scoots
08-16-2018, 03:37 PM
People who equate high individual scoring with great play and conversely low scoring with bad play.

People who say a player who is getting regular minutes is "trash" or "useless" just tell me they don't watch the little aspects of the game. I've never seen a truly terrible player get a lot of minutes. I've seen players who were not good get a lot of minutes, but in every case there were worse players in the league not getting minutes.

People who evaluate a player from a missed shot ... where a "good shot" is one that goes in and a "bad shot" is any miss.

warfelg
08-16-2018, 03:38 PM
I mean.... Is it though? AI's MVP season in 2000-01, he boasted a 51.8% TS%. If we look at the top five guys in that statistic that season, Stockton, Allen, Nash and Dirk all averaged above 60 percent. So the elite players of his era and peers at his position were able to average a full 8-10 percentage points higher in that category in the very year he was named MVP of the league.

So....... Yeah, that's a problem. This isn't the part where you tell me that Iverson played with a lot of heart, is it? Because I think we all know how that conversation is going to go.

I mean. Did you read where I said he was inefficient for his time too?

But yes he earned MVP that year more because that team sucked. Donít make the playoffs without him.

Scoots
08-16-2018, 03:38 PM
something that shows me that you watched the game. I fee like this board used to have a better mix of posters that talked about what was happening on the floor and posters that talked about trends and stuff based on a stats. If is all about narrative (whose better, who ranks above who) and stats and no X and Os I get cranky

Agreed. I could not care less about player rankings, particularly between eras.

Scoots
08-16-2018, 03:40 PM
People who don't realize that one extremely high usage player, even incredible ones, make it nearly impossible to evaluate the team around them. But that one is deeper in to the discussion than the OP implied.

Hawkeye15
08-16-2018, 03:41 PM
something that shows me that you watched the game. I fee like this board used to have a better mix of posters that talked about what was happening on the floor and posters that talked about trends and stuff based on a stats. If is all about narrative (whose better, who ranks above who) and stats and no X and Os I get cranky

yeah, I get it. To me, stats kind of tell us what our eyes might miss, re-affirm what we already believe, and sometimes, show us we might have missed something (good or bad). As fans, we can't possibly watch every game, we can't even watch every play and remember it of a game we just literally watched. Like I don't need stats to tell me Jordan or LeBron dominate. But they can tell me a few things in greater depth. Trends develop, but then we also can't just look at stats and evaluate a player/team without knowing how all the pieces fit together. For instance, a guy like Klay might be way different on a team where he is asked to play a different role. Could he be Reggie? Maybe. But what if he fell apart with a ton of responsibility?

Basketball at its core, is simple. But there is so much to making a great team out of pieces, it becomes very complex.

As far as rankings, I moved to a tier system long ago, because you are right, arguing players on similar levels is just stupid.

MygirlhatesCod
08-16-2018, 03:45 PM
I mean. Did you read where I said he was inefficient for his time too?

But yes he earned MVP that year more because that team sucked. Donít make the playoffs without him.

to be fair the entire east sucked that year.

warfelg
08-16-2018, 03:48 PM
to be fair the entire east sucked that year.

Touchť.

IndyRealist
08-16-2018, 04:25 PM
What's your take on defensive stats? I think for the most part, they are deceiving.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

I don't think any metric is actually deceiving. It says exactly what it was designed to. The fault is generally that the reader does not understand what it is saying and more importantly what it is NOT saying.

For instance I was arguing about offensive rating with someone and they pulled out the actual formula and I realized it didn't say what I thought it said.

PER isn't actually designed to tell you player A is better than player B, even though that's how everyone uses it. It's designed to emulate public perception, i.e. what joe blow off the street who vaguely knows what a pick and roll is, would think if he watched a game. I call PER trash not because it's deceptive but because it doesn't say anything pertinent to basketball analysis.

If we're singling out defensive metrics specifically, I'll say there's a lot of proprietary data out there that smart, successful teams use to make decisions that we may never see. What we have publicly available is like 10 years old.

mightybosstone
08-16-2018, 04:27 PM
I mean. Did you read where I said he was inefficient for his time too?

But yes he earned MVP that year more because that team sucked. Donít make the playoffs without him.

Right, but my point is that, regardless of era, he was remarkably inefficient. It's not like he peaked before the 3-point line or in the 80s when nobody took 3-pointers, so he can't use his era as an excuse. I'm not even talking about today's players, because I would agree comparing the efficiency of an elite scorer in the early 2000s versus players today is apples and oranges.

warfelg
08-16-2018, 04:35 PM
Right, but my point is that, regardless of era, he was remarkably inefficient. It's not like he peaked before the 3-point line or in the 80s when nobody took 3-pointers, so he can't use his era as an excuse. I'm not even talking about today's players, because I would agree comparing the efficiency of an elite scorer in the early 2000s versus players today is apples and oranges.

Which again, I donít disagree with because I said it.

Where I disagree with is someone saying (I forget where this discussion was happening) Kyrie is better because heís more efficient, and then used their number straight up.

Would AI still be inefficient in this era? Sure.

But use how AI did against the average in 2001; and what Kyrie did against the average in 2017. That at least balances something out.

Basically you agree with me all around but decided to pick at the AI thing.

basch152
08-16-2018, 04:36 PM
People who equate high individual scoring with great play and conversely low scoring with bad play.

People who say a player who is getting regular minutes is "trash" or "useless" just tell me they don't watch the little aspects of the game. I've never seen a truly terrible player get a lot of minutes. I've seen players who were not good get a lot of minutes, but in every case there were worse players in the league not getting minutes.

People who evaluate a player from a missed shot ... where a "good shot" is one that goes in and a "bad shot" is any miss.


I mean. Did you read where I said he was inefficient for his time too?

But yes he earned MVP that year more because that team sucked. Donít make the playoffs without him.

and this is exactly what Scots was talking about.

a lot of people think AI carried the Sixers and they would be nothing without him because no one else got a ton of points.

what people that say that never realize or just dont care about so they can keep pimping AI is that the sixers were filled with high end 3&d guys and role players. AI wouldnt have gotten as far on any other team.

that sixers team had the absolute perfect squad around AI to make up for his very numerous weaknesses.

basch152
08-16-2018, 04:40 PM
my red flag is anytime someone thinks players like westbrook and AI are actually elite players.

mightybosstone
08-16-2018, 04:47 PM
Which again, I donít disagree with because I said it.

Where I disagree with is someone saying (I forget where this discussion was happening) Kyrie is better because heís more efficient, and then used their number straight up.

Would AI still be inefficient in this era? Sure.

But use how AI did against the average in 2001; and what Kyrie did against the average in 2017. That at least balances something out.

Basically you agree with me all around but decided to pick at the AI thing.

Actually, dude, you were the one who picked at the AI thing. I was just using him as an example, and you chose to nitpick it and go further down that rabbit hole. If you agreed with me 100 percent, why comment on my post in the first place? :shrug:

COOLbeans
08-16-2018, 05:05 PM
When people only look at data points and advanced stats rather than a specific players overall impact on a game or series from an emotional and leadership standpoint (which canít be measured with math)

warfelg
08-16-2018, 05:06 PM
Actually, dude, you were the one who picked at the AI thing. I was just using him as an example, and you chose to nitpick it and go further down that rabbit hole. If you agreed with me 100 percent, why comment on my post in the first place? :shrug:

Because I was expanding on a point using AI as an example. You made a comment about efficiency; I was expanding with people who use efficiency across era.

ewing
08-16-2018, 05:40 PM
yeah, I get it. To me, stats kind of tell us what our eyes might miss, re-affirm what we already believe, and sometimes, show us we might have missed something (good or bad). As fans, we can't possibly watch every game, we can't even watch every play and remember it of a game we just literally watched. Like I don't need stats to tell me Jordan or LeBron dominate. But they can tell me a few things in greater depth. Trends develop, but then we also can't just look at stats and evaluate a player/team without knowing how all the pieces fit together. For instance, a guy like Klay might be way different on a team where he is asked to play a different role. Could he be Reggie? Maybe. But what if he fell apart with a ton of responsibility?

Basketball at its core, is simple. But there is so much to making a great team out of pieces, it becomes very complex.

As far as rankings, I moved to a tier system long ago, because you are right, arguing players on similar levels is just stupid.

Good post I totally agree. Iíve always thought it was silly parsing out bt two guys that are clearly great by posting stats. The tier system is much better. On the other hand new stats that tell where player are strong on the floor, who excels with who, etc are very interesting and definitely tell things that I would never know watching a game here and there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-16-2018, 05:41 PM
Wow, for a 2018 thread this one is a blazer

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
08-16-2018, 05:49 PM
When people only look at data points and advanced stats rather than a specific players overall impact on a game or series from an emotional and leadership standpoint (which canít be measured with math)

The coaching staff can provide emotion and leadership. The 12th guy off the bench who plays zero minutes can provide emotion and leadership, as can the guy wearing a suit who hasn't played in 3-4 months. Give me the guy who can put the ball in the basket on a consistent, efficient basis and win me basketball games. I've never said "Wow. It was amazing how leadership and emotion helped that guy score 40 points tonight." or "Did you guys see how Lebron used his leadership and emotion to hit that game winning shot?"

Is there something to be said for guys who are leaders in the locker room and on the floor? Sure. But guys lead in different ways. MJ and Kobe weren't exactly seen as friendly guys and were often considered a little standoffish. Chris Paul and Lebron James bark orders like they're middle linebackers and plays cheerleader during timeouts. Who's to say either version isn't considered good leadership? And that ambiguity makes things like "emotion" and "leadership" terrible barometers to judge NBA players.

valade16
08-16-2018, 06:10 PM
and this is exactly what Scots was talking about.

a lot of people think AI carried the Sixers and they would be nothing without him because no one else got a ton of points.

what people that say that never realize or just dont care about so they can keep pimping AI is that the sixers were filled with high end 3&d guys and role players. AI wouldnt have gotten as far on any other team.

that sixers team had the absolute perfect squad around AI to make up for his very numerous weaknesses.

Everyone says this but what they really mean is that he had the theoretical perfect squad around him to make up for his weaknesses. Because the true perfect squad around him would have been a similarly built squad but actually better.

Saying that squad around AI is the "perfect" squad for him is to say that the 2007-2010 Cavs were the "perfect" squad for LeBron because all the players played the roles LeBron didn't which allowed LeBron to dominate. Yes, in that sense they got the role players around LeBron to fit his style, but the perfect squad for him would have been that squad but better.

George Lynch quite literally never played more than 26 MPG in any season with any other team but Philly and he was a 30+ MPG starter for them. The moment he left Philly he disappeared. Eric Snow, same thing. He never got more than 28 MPG with any other team (and that was only once) despite playing 35+ MPG for the 76ers. The moment he left Philly he disappeared. Same thing for Aaron McKie.

Yes, these players were good fits style wise next to AI, but they were clearly bench caliber players that played far more minutes on Philly than they should have or would have played anywhere else. They did not build an amazing team around him and it was by no means the "perfect" squad for AI in terms of talent.

aman_13
08-16-2018, 06:54 PM
I don't think any metric is actually deceiving. It says exactly what it was designed to. The fault is generally that the reader does not understand what it is saying and more importantly what it is NOT saying.

For instance I was arguing about offensive rating with someone and they pulled out the actual formula and I realized it didn't say what I thought it said.

PER isn't actually designed to tell you player A is better than player B, even though that's how everyone uses it. It's designed to emulate public perception, i.e. what joe blow off the street who vaguely knows what a pick and roll is, would think if he watched a game. I call PER trash not because it's deceptive but because it doesn't say anything pertinent to basketball analysis.

If we're singling out defensive metrics specifically, I'll say there's a lot of proprietary data out there that smart, successful teams use to make decisions that we may never see. What we have publicly available is like 10 years old.While that is all true, my issue is what defensive metrics don't tell us. I don't think we are privy to any data that really interprets how responsible a player is when it comes compromising defensive schemes. Or even adding much context to why player x gave up a basket or compromised the defense.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

warfelg
08-16-2018, 07:09 PM
Everyone says this but what they really mean is that he had the theoretical perfect squad around him to make up for his weaknesses. Because the true perfect squad around him would have been a similarly built squad but actually better.

Saying that squad around AI is the "perfect" squad for him is to say that the 2007-2010 Cavs were the "perfect" squad for LeBron because all the players played the roles LeBron didn't which allowed LeBron to dominate. Yes, in that sense they got the role players around LeBron to fit his style, but the perfect squad for him would have been that squad but better.

George Lynch quite literally never played more than 26 MPG in any season with any other team but Philly and he was a 30+ MPG starter for them. The moment he left Philly he disappeared. Eric Snow, same thing. He never got more than 28 MPG with any other team (and that was only once) despite playing 35+ MPG for the 76ers. The moment he left Philly he disappeared. Same thing for Aaron McKie.

Yes, these players were good fits style wise next to AI, but they were clearly bench caliber players that played far more minutes on Philly than they should have or would have played anywhere else. They did not build an amazing team around him and it was by no means the "perfect" squad for AI in terms of talent.

Slayed. Perfect.

You can look at any 5 man lineup in that year thanks to BBR and see how bad it was without AI.

Scoots
08-16-2018, 08:19 PM
While that is all true, my issue is what defensive metrics don't tell us. I don't think we are privy to any data that really interprets how responsible a player is when it comes compromising defensive schemes. Or even adding much context to why player x gave up a basket or compromised the defense.

I think that was part of his point. When it comes to defense, we don't have the data.

aman_13
08-16-2018, 08:41 PM
I think that was part of his point. When it comes to defense, we don't have the data.He was making that point but I wanted to elaborate on my concern with defensive metrics. And I think it also makes the case for eye test being relevant, which goes against the original point Indy was making. It just depends on what we are talking about.


Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Chronz
08-16-2018, 08:46 PM
Tmac

Bruno
08-16-2018, 09:06 PM
fans who are ignorant of advanced statistics, and fans who are only concerned with advanced metrics. if you can contextualize your ideas I can get down.

IKnowHoops
08-17-2018, 02:07 AM
I don't think any metric is actually deceiving. It says exactly what it was designed to. The fault is generally that the reader does not understand what it is saying and more importantly what it is NOT saying.

For instance I was arguing about offensive rating with someone and they pulled out the actual formula and I realized it didn't say what I thought it said.

PER isn't actually designed to tell you player A is better than player B, even though that's how everyone uses it. It's designed to emulate public perception, i.e. what joe blow off the street who vaguely knows what a pick and roll is, would think if he watched a game. I call PER trash not because it's deceptive but because it doesn't say anything pertinent to basketball analysis.

If we're singling out defensive metrics specifically, I'll say there's a lot of proprietary data out there that smart, successful teams use to make decisions that we may never see. What we have publicly available is like 10 years old.

I think it tells you what player is producing at a combination of the highest and most efficient level.

Usually the guy with the higher PER is playing better and scoring more efficiently

TheDish87
08-17-2018, 08:27 AM
and this is exactly what Scots was talking about.

a lot of people think AI carried the Sixers and they would be nothing without him because no one else got a ton of points.

what people that say that never realize or just dont care about so they can keep pimping AI is that the sixers were filled with high end 3&d guys and role players. AI wouldnt have gotten as far on any other team.

that sixers team had the absolute perfect squad around AI to make up for his very numerous weaknesses.

AI was by no means surrounded by high end 3nd D guys not even close. just look at those guys career numbers. There is a very, very short list of players who could have got that team a 1 seed, to the finals, and win a game (on the road) against that dominant Lakers team. The man kinda defies most statistical evaluations and he was like 5'10 170

FlashBolt
08-17-2018, 01:42 PM
Biggest red flag: If someone tells me Kobe is better than LeBron.

Jamiecballer
08-17-2018, 04:10 PM
Everyone says this but what they really mean is that he had the theoretical perfect squad around him to make up for his weaknesses. Because the true perfect squad around him would have been a similarly built squad but actually better.

Saying that squad around AI is the "perfect" squad for him is to say that the 2007-2010 Cavs were the "perfect" squad for LeBron because all the players played the roles LeBron didn't which allowed LeBron to dominate. Yes, in that sense they got the role players around LeBron to fit his style, but the perfect squad for him would have been that squad but better.

George Lynch quite literally never played more than 26 MPG in any season with any other team but Philly and he was a 30+ MPG starter for them. The moment he left Philly he disappeared. Eric Snow, same thing. He never got more than 28 MPG with any other team (and that was only once) despite playing 35+ MPG for the 76ers. The moment he left Philly he disappeared. Same thing for Aaron McKie.

Yes, these players were good fits style wise next to AI, but they were clearly bench caliber players that played far more minutes on Philly than they should have or would have played anywhere else. They did not build an amazing team around him and it was by no means the "perfect" squad for AI in terms of talent.

perfect squad IMO.

you are right, those guys wouldn't get mins anywhere else. that's how hard it is to find guys that do something really well and literally don't give a **** if they ever see the ball. their lack of "goodness", if you understand my meaning, is what makes them perfect for the situation.

i get your interpretation, and i understand that some people share it.

basch152
08-17-2018, 05:34 PM
AI was by no means surrounded by high end 3nd D guys not even close. just look at those guys career numbers. There is a very, very short list of players who could have got that team a 1 seed, to the finals, and win a game (on the road) against that dominant Lakers team. The man kinda defies most statistical evaluations and he was like 5'10 170

and there's an even shorter list of teams that will go very far with a player like AI on it
sixers were one of the few.

COOLbeans
08-17-2018, 05:36 PM
The coaching staff can provide emotion and leadership. The 12th guy off the bench who plays zero minutes can provide emotion and leadership, as can the guy wearing a suit who hasn't played in 3-4 months. Give me the guy who can put the ball in the basket on a consistent, efficient basis and win me basketball games. I've never said "Wow. It was amazing how leadership and emotion helped that guy score 40 points tonight." or "Did you guys see how Lebron used his leadership and emotion to hit that game winning shot?"

Is there something to be said for guys who are leaders in the locker room and on the floor? Sure. But guys lead in different ways. MJ and Kobe weren't exactly seen as friendly guys and were often considered a little standoffish. Chris Paul and Lebron James bark orders like they're middle linebackers and plays cheerleader during timeouts. Who's to say either version isn't considered good leadership? And that ambiguity makes things like "emotion" and "leadership" terrible barometers to judge NBA players.

Just saying. To assume AI isnt an elite player bcause he doesnt fit some model of analytical efficiency (even though he won basketball games by shear talent, determination and ability), is a bit misguided

and I believe analytics in 2018 are changing the sport of basketball that we all grew up loving and watching. Its a different game now, but it doesnt take away a guy like Iverson's greatness or impact as a winner just because he doesnt fit into a mode.

WaDe03
08-17-2018, 05:53 PM
1030243047122952192

When guys argue like this itís a red flag for me and just further proof itís much more to it than just advanced stats. God bless you all!

JAZZNC
08-17-2018, 06:37 PM
When people hate a player so much that they can't logically discuss said player. And they pathetically go out of their way to try and prove that their opinion is anything other than hate based. It's mostly LeBron haters but I've seen other ridiculous opinions on other players.

ewing
08-17-2018, 06:58 PM
People who can give 0 credit to a players they donít like. Guys who make multipe all star teams arenít minus players. Some of them might be miscasted as franchise guys or even overpaid. They arenít trash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scoots
08-17-2018, 07:20 PM
When people hate a player so much that they can't logically discuss said player. And they pathetically go out of their way to try and prove that their opinion is anything other than hate based. It's mostly LeBron haters but I've seen other ridiculous opinions on other players.

When people call any argument against "their" player as invalid because of "hate".

kobe4thewinbang
08-17-2018, 11:06 PM
I have a work buddy that knows enough to be able to carry a conversation about the NBA. Another one knows less, but still enough to casually chat here and there. There's another fellow at work that is also an avid NBA guy but he works in the back and I work up front, so it's not the best for chat opportunities. The time we did "talk" on FaceBook about Demarcus Cousins' injury, it was cool. So basically for me, it's hard enough finding someone that knows enough or cares enough about NBA to be able to talk to about it. I won't get too picky after that point.

I've embraced stats especially the advanced ones since it's neat how people collect all of that data, so much so that it appears to be a feature on 2K18 which I am stoked to try out. It also helps if the person I'm talking to actually watches the game. If I can watch a full NBA game, I'm lucky so I feel a bit exposed there. That avid NBA guy at work buys leaguepass every year, wish I had the time for it. But I'll watch highlights every night or catch up if I get behind, including all analysis on GameTime and other platforms, which I feel gets me almost even.

Just being knowledgeable, basically. I say player 1 is good, you say "well." Like, this other work buddy is fond of Westbrook. I recognize Westbrook's talent, but he would like him no matter what the stats say. Westbrook is cool, but if you look at his stats or watch him actually play (like when he took 20 three-pointers or that horrible shot before Durant skipped town), the sheen starts to tarnish.

Plus, if you look at advanced stats or even a basic stat breakdown for a player, you might discover they're not really good at something you thought they were good at, and vice versa.

Allphakenny1
08-18-2018, 12:35 AM
When people hate a player so much that they can't logically discuss said player. And they pathetically go out of their way to try and prove that their opinion is anything other than hate based. It's mostly LeBron haters but I've seen other ridiculous opinions on other players.

What is funny is I 100% agree with this post, but the exact opposite is true as well.

When people stan a player so much that they can't logically discuss said player. And they pathetically go out of their way to try and prove that their opinion is anything other than stan based. It's mostly LeBron lovers but I've seen other ridiculous opinions on other players.

The more loved a player is and has ridiculous homers, the more hated they are and have ridiculous haters.Wasn't there a thread on LeBron not too long ago on who is worse, his haters or his homers?

JAZZNC
08-18-2018, 02:38 AM
What is funny is I 100% agree with this post, but the exact opposite is true as well.

When people stan a player so much that they can't logically discuss said player. And they pathetically go out of their way to try and prove that their opinion is anything other than stan based. It's mostly LeBron lovers but I've seen other ridiculous opinions on other players.

The more loved a player is and has ridiculous homers, the more hated they are and have ridiculous haters.Wasn't there a thread on LeBron not too long ago on who is worse, his haters or his homers?

Oh I totally agree. The homers that can't let there be any criticism of their guy/team are equally frustrating. They tend to get way more bent out of shape than the haters.

FlashBolt
08-18-2018, 03:38 AM
Just saying. To assume AI isnt an elite player bcause he doesnt fit some model of analytical efficiency (even though he won basketball games by shear talent, determination and ability), is a bit misguided

and I believe analytics in 2018 are changing the sport of basketball that we all grew up loving and watching. Its a different game now, but it doesnt take away a guy like Iverson's greatness or impact as a winner just because he doesnt fit into a mode.

AI was a very good player. But outside of his 2001 Finals appearance, no one realizes he's achieved nothing but is constantly ranked highly by casual fans. If I had to build a team with one player, AI would not even be top 50.

Scoots
08-18-2018, 10:22 AM
AI was a very good player. But outside of his 2001 Finals appearance, no one realizes he's achieved nothing but is constantly ranked highly by casual fans. If I had to build a team with one player, AI would not even be top 50.

AI get the casual fan "little guy" boost. "Look at what he can do! He's half as big as all those other guys so he's twice as good!"

Jamiecballer
08-18-2018, 10:53 AM
People who can give 0 credit to a players they donít like. Guys who make multipe all star teams arenít minus players. Some of them might be miscasted as franchise guys or even overpaid. They arenít trash


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI have to take exception because you seem to be twisting a bunch of things into one.

Guys can make multiple all-star games and be, as you stated, minus players. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by minus players. There have been guys named to all-star teams that we can statistically prove are making their teams worse while they are doing it. I dont want to derail my own thread so their is no need to name names.

Where you are correct is that players can be miscast into roles that make them look worse, and that they are not necessarily trash.



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

aman_13
08-18-2018, 12:05 PM
I have to take exception because you seem to be twisting a bunch of things into one.

Guys can make multiple all-star games and be, as you stated, minus players. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by minus players. There have been guys named to all-star teams that we can statistically prove are making their teams worse while they are doing it. I dont want to derail my own thread so their is no need to name names.

Where you are correct is that players can be miscast into roles that make them look worse, and that they are not necessarily trash.



Sent from my SM-A520W using TapatalkDeMar made his team worst last year? I know you are referring to him.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-18-2018, 12:23 PM
DeMar made his team worst last year? I know you are referring to him.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using TapatalkNo you don't

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
08-18-2018, 12:24 PM
Just saying. To assume AI isnt an elite player bcause he doesnt fit some model of analytical efficiency (even though he won basketball games by shear talent, determination and ability), is a bit misguided

and I believe analytics in 2018 are changing the sport of basketball that we all grew up loving and watching. Its a different game now, but it doesnt take away a guy like Iverson's greatness or impact as a winner just because he doesnt fit into a mode.

His "impact as a winner" resulted in only one Finals appearance, no other conference finals appearances and 71 career playoff games in 14 NBA seasons. Not exactly a stellar postseason resume for someone you claim to be a "winner."

Iverson was a very good NBA player, had a legitimate impact on the NBA over his career and was certainly a superstar and one of the faces of the league at his peak. You can't take that away from the guy, and I enjoyed watching him, personally. But people dramatically overrate him in historical conversations. He's a poor man's Russell Westbrook, except he wasn't remotely as good as Westbrook has been at his peak.

aman_13
08-18-2018, 12:29 PM
No you don't

Sent from my SM-A520W using TapatalkMaybe I don't but you seem to pick on certain players on this board. DeRozan being one of them.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Chronz
08-18-2018, 01:16 PM
1030243047122952192

When guys argue like this itís a red flag for me and just further proof itís much more to it than just advanced stats. God bless you all!
What if he is better tho

Heediot
08-18-2018, 01:26 PM
Embiid gets too cute kinda like DMC. His defense is what separates him from DMC.

Embiid is the more talented and higher upside player. Jokic the more effective offensive player, Embiid the better defensive player.

warfelg
08-18-2018, 01:36 PM
A reminder that Embiid did not practice in season.

warfelg
08-18-2018, 01:47 PM
I've realized a red flag for me is people who want to assume to know who you were talking about; or when you make a statement about the general feelings of a player or situation, and someone assumes you were talking about their post or statement.

Scoots
08-18-2018, 01:49 PM
A thread about concepts can't help but become about individuals and people having age old pissing matches.

ewing
08-18-2018, 01:53 PM
A reminder that Embiid did not practice in season.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
08-18-2018, 02:25 PM
His "impact as a winner" resulted in only one Finals appearance, no other conference finals appearances and 71 career playoff games in 14 NBA seasons. Not exactly a stellar postseason resume for someone you claim to be a "winner."

Iverson was a very good NBA player, had a legitimate impact on the NBA over his career and was certainly a superstar and one of the faces of the league at his peak. You can't take that away from the guy, and I enjoyed watching him, personally. But people dramatically overrate him in historical conversations. He's a poor man's Russell Westbrook, except he wasn't remotely as good as Westbrook has been at his peak.
What if ai was better just in the wrong era

warfelg
08-18-2018, 02:27 PM
What if ai was better just in the wrong era

In what way?

aman_13
08-18-2018, 02:58 PM
I've realized a red flag for me is people who want to assume to know who you were talking about; or when you make a statement about the general feelings of a player or situation, and someone assumes you were talking about their post or statement.Ha!

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

aman_13
08-18-2018, 03:14 PM
A thread about concepts can't help but become about individuals and people having age old pissing matches.Oh did you really think this thread would naturally drift away? I think I have a new red flag :)

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-18-2018, 03:34 PM
Maybe I don't but you seem to pick on certain players on this board. DeRozan being one of them.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using TapatalkIt's not really picking on anyone. Of all the major sports, fans struggle to effectively get separate value from entertainment value more than any other, and it's not even close IMO.

I guess what I'm saying is the league is filled with overrated guys, I chime in on them when they are the subject of discussion. On this site there just arent many discussions anymore [emoji853]

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

aman_13
08-18-2018, 03:58 PM
It's not really picking on anyone. Of all the major sports, fans struggle to effectively get separate value from entertainment value more than any other, and it's not even close IMO.

I guess what I'm saying is the league is filled with overrated guys, I chime in on them when they are the subject of discussion. On this site there just arent many discussions anymore [emoji853]

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

And because the community is getting smaller, it's easier to pick up on trends and narratives.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

nastynice
08-18-2018, 04:20 PM
My red flag is stats guys. People that start building arguments around stats, because eye test should always trump stats

Scoots
08-18-2018, 04:28 PM
My red flag is stats guys. People that start building arguments around stats, because eye test should always trump stats

I have no issue with eye test guys, but the eye test guys need to be reasonable.

Is Kevin Love a top 3 player in the NBA? Eye test guys thought so when he was the only good player on a bad team.

warfelg
08-18-2018, 04:34 PM
Ha!

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Sorry your post just reminded me of it.

nastynice
08-18-2018, 04:43 PM
I have no issue with eye test guys, but the eye test guys need to be reasonable.

Is Kevin Love a top 3 player in the NBA? Eye test guys thought so when he was the only good player on a bad team.

No, haha, it was the stats that had him a top pf in the league, the only arguments against that I remember being eye test arguments

Stats are ok, but when someone goes stat mode I know it means we just see things differently, probably neither will make sense to the other

mightybosstone
08-18-2018, 04:43 PM
My red flag is stats guys. People that start building arguments around stats, because eye test should always trump stats

My red flag is people who call fans that intelligently use stats (you know...facts) to back up their arguments as "stats guys." Because that's ****ing ignorant.

ewing
08-18-2018, 05:08 PM
I have to take exception because you seem to be twisting a bunch of things into one.

Guys can make multiple all-star games and be, as you stated, minus players. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by minus players. There have been guys named to all-star teams that we can statistically prove are making their teams worse while they are doing it. I dont want to derail my own thread so their is no need to name names.

Where you are correct is that players can be miscast into roles that make them look worse, and that they are not necessarily trash.



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Indisputably


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tp13baby
08-18-2018, 05:15 PM
Stop pretending east coast fans watch west coast teams. Smaller market teams don't get the TV time and the comments are so ridiculous its obvious you don't watch the west.

Jamiecballer
08-18-2018, 05:15 PM
My red flag is people who call fans that intelligently use stats (you know...facts) to back up their arguments as "stats guys." Because that's ****ing ignorant.That's pretty much how I feel as well. I dont talk a lot about the things we can all see with our own eyes because well, we can all see them with our own eyes. If I had more time to post on this site perhaps I would but why am I going to spend the minute here, minute there that I have to post talking about things that I see with my eyes. We are all watching the game.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

tredigs
08-18-2018, 05:27 PM
Mine is when a guy can recite all the stats, advanced and otherwise, but fail to apply proper context. Be it era/rules, teammates, competition, etc. It's the tell-tale of a stat nerd who hasn't put in the hours and simply doesn't understand the game at a level to grasp the nuance. As an example, Jeffy on the NBA forum.

aman_13
08-18-2018, 05:44 PM
Sorry your post just reminded me of it.No worries, I agree with you, even though my response to Jamie would suggest otherwise. It's just we have had debates on DeMar before and being Raptor fans, I couldn't help but think he had DeMar in mind.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

aman_13
08-18-2018, 05:46 PM
Stop pretending east coast fans watch west coast teams. Smaller market teams don't get the TV time and the comments are so ridiculous its obvious you don't watch the west.Jokic is a great defender.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

tredigs
08-18-2018, 05:56 PM
Jokic is a great defender.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

"Great" is funny. 90's centers rolling over in their graves. I'll say that he's not as bad as his rep. Can't remember the last time a defensively great center anchored one of the worst D's in the league though.

Chronz
08-18-2018, 06:02 PM
I have to take exception because you seem to be twisting a bunch of things into one.

Guys can make multiple all-star games and be, as you stated, minus players. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by minus players. There have been guys named to all-star teams that we can statistically prove are making their teams worse while they are doing it. I dont want to derail my own thread so their is no need to name names.

Where you are correct is that players can be miscast into roles that make them look worse, and that they are not necessarily trash.



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
Huh?

aman_13
08-18-2018, 07:00 PM
"Great" is funny. 90's centers rolling over in their graves. I'll say that he's not as bad as his rep. Can't remember the last time a defensively great center anchored one of the worst D's in the league though.


Yeah I was trolling.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

tredigs
08-18-2018, 07:04 PM
Yeah I was trolling.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Ha ok. I've seen Nuggets fans take the stance that he's very solid (think your Raps but wasn't sure), but yeah.

aman_13
08-18-2018, 07:52 PM
Ha ok. I've seen Nuggets fans take the stance that he's very solid (think your Raps but wasn't sure), but yeah.Yup Raps fan.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Scoots
08-18-2018, 07:53 PM
No, haha, it was the stats that had him a top pf in the league, the only arguments against that I remember being eye test arguments

Stats are ok, but when someone goes stat mode I know it means we just see things differently, probably neither will make sense to the other

I think to get a good evaluation you need both. And the advanced stat guys had a lot of questions about Love away from that team.

goingfor28
08-18-2018, 07:54 PM
Anyone who's even a little bit impressed with what the Warriors have accomplished the past couple years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Scoots
08-18-2018, 07:55 PM
Stop pretending east coast fans watch west coast teams. Smaller market teams don't get the TV time and the comments are so ridiculous its obvious you don't watch the west.

Who are you replying to?

nastynice
08-18-2018, 08:17 PM
My red flag is people who call fans that intelligently use stats (you know...facts) to back up their arguments as "stats guys." Because that's ****ing ignorant.

Don't hate the player, hate the game

I didn't realize I used a slur. My bad

Bostonjorge
08-18-2018, 08:18 PM
When people argue stats are over actual winning the game ďOrĒ arguing numbers over winning.

Example KG winning MVP in Minnesota over KG winning Defensive player of the year in a championship year in Boston. Whatís really more important to KG.

Or having to give players excuses for failing to be great and wanting everyone to forget how they failed.

nastynice
08-18-2018, 08:18 PM
Anyone who's even a little bit impressed with what the Warriors have accomplished the past couple years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Yea, big picture wise this ***** is barely getting started. Sit back and enjoy the show :cool:

nastynice
08-18-2018, 08:23 PM
I think to get a good evaluation you need both. And the advanced stat guys had a lot of questions about Love away from that team.

Sure, I agree with both, tho I must say eye test should clearly be the heavier weighted one here

I'm not sure about what advanced stats said about him, but he was a 25 and 10 guy, lots of people had him in the best pf convo at the time. I was in the he's an empty stats guy camp

JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2018, 09:15 PM
Well... when I see people exclude John Stockton from a list of the best passers of all times but include both Piston Pete and White Chocolate (both of whom I love to watch and respect).

The other thing is a guy who goes on about Iverson being one of the best ever. I'm critical of Iverson, but that doens't mean that I don't recognize his strenghts. His handles, his passing, his abiltiy to get to the rim, his abiliy to draw a foul. All commendable. But his inabilty to shoot, and the size he gave up on defense.... if people say he's one of the best little men... cool... if they say he had some of the best handles... cool... if they say he single handedly carried the Sixers to the finals and is grossly underated and a top five guard or top ten player... then ok... I get that they love hero ball and don't recognize that basketball is inherently a team sport.

CityofTreez
08-18-2018, 09:38 PM
Never ending red flags when youíre a Kings fan.

Jamiecballer
08-18-2018, 09:51 PM
Never ending red flags when youíre a Kings fan.You meant white flags right

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

ewing
08-19-2018, 09:09 AM
Those so intellectually cozy with their narrative and whatever confrontation bias they have collected that they canít fathom any exceptions to the rules they have composed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-19-2018, 10:55 AM
Those so intellectually cozy with their narrative and whatever confrontation bias they have collected that they canít fathom any exceptions to the rules they have composed


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI'm enjoying this hehe

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-19-2018, 11:43 AM
I do have one to add and it is this.

When someone looks at a statistic or formula and even though it spits out a large number of players that most everyone perceives are the games elite players, if there is ANYONE who is included near the top of the list that THEY would not have named as one of the elite players in the game then the data is garbage.

This might be my biggest pet peeve of all. I look at new information as an opportunity to refine and improve my assessment. I know there is no perfect stat but if someone consistently shows higher than I would have expected I want to know what have I missed, what am I undervaluing in my own mental model that perhaps need to be reconsidered? It grows insight.

These people, these individuals wear ignorance like a badge and would rather be ignorant than wrong.



Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

cmellofan15
08-19-2018, 01:47 PM
Stop pretending east coast fans watch west coast teams. Smaller market teams don't get the TV time and the comments are so ridiculous its obvious you don't watch the west.

Exactly this. Stop acting like youíve ever seen Jokic play Philly and Miami fans

warfelg
08-19-2018, 01:53 PM
:shrug: Because league pass isnít a thing?

lakerfan85
08-19-2018, 07:29 PM
My red flag is a bunch of dudes posting on a forum about red flags..

JAZZNC
08-19-2018, 09:06 PM
:shrug: Because league pass isnít a thing?

But typically adults with actual jobs aren't going to stay up to watch a Jokic or player of similar status on a regular basis. There is a LOT of truth to what they are saying.

Raps18-19 Champ
08-19-2018, 09:19 PM
When people assume that you ignore the eye test because you refer to advance stats.

Cal827
08-19-2018, 09:35 PM
When me and Aman have contrasting opinions because I hate fighting Raptor fans other than Jamiecballer :D

Cal827
08-19-2018, 09:55 PM
To me, the worst is absolute hatred for a specific player or team that there's absolutely no appreciation for their game. You see certain people who will just dump on guys like Lebron, Curry, even Durant, to their extent where they can't appreciate their game. As much as they might have annoyed you with their actions or game, you can't ignore their masterful craft. Also goes to the people in the Kobe/Lebron debate. Both of these guys are legends in their own way, there's not really a point to do everything you can to try and bring down what they've done in their careers.

People who either focus too much on the eye test or the stats alone. For example in a game: Kobe hits a game winning shot, Lebron misses a shot on the next play. The people focused on the Eyeball test will say that Kobe's clutch and Lebron isn't.... the Stats guys will go find a stat in the clutch moments (E.g. say shots in the last 20 seconds of a game) and might see that Lebron's numbers are slightly higher... they'll be fixated on that and say that Kobe isn't clutch. Much to the annoyance of people here who just enjoyed this great game between two great players :laugh2:

Finally, people who brush off great games as stat padding almost all the time. E.g. Westbrook. I know that sometimes his teammates might lay off things and give him free rebounds, but some of you act like that happens every game of the season :laugh2:

Scoots
08-19-2018, 10:20 PM
Finally, people who brush off great games as stat padding almost all the time. E.g. Westbrook. I know that sometimes his teammates might lay off things and give him free rebounds, but some of you act like that happens every game of the season :laugh2:

In his MVP season it did happen in literally every game. Not saying he wasn't incredible, but he was stat padding in every game.

But that's not the point of the thread.

Red flag for me, when people talk about the refs being terrible. They are not terrible, they are terribly run, and as currently setup they have an impossible job.

Cal827
08-19-2018, 10:49 PM
In his MVP season it did happen in literally every game. Not saying he wasn't incredible, but he was stat padding in every game.

But that's not the point of the thread.

Red flag for me, when people talk about the refs being terrible. They are not terrible, they are terribly run, and as currently setup they have an impossible job.

PSD: Where the Mods find out what triggers you, then tries to bait you with said knowledge.

Not this time Scoots my friend :laugh2:

I would also add something based off your last note: People who think that the Refs/League are out solely out to screw their team over.

look! big kids
08-19-2018, 11:14 PM
Attribution of team success (esp. playoff) to individual players arbitrarily

cmellofan15
08-19-2018, 11:31 PM
:shrug: Because league pass isnít a thing?

sure it is. so is torrent streaming, yonder.tv, firstrowsports, sportsdevil, etc.. doesn't mean random fans are watching a team with the fourth lowest tv ratings in the entire league until midnight.

or are all of the jokic experts watching all the clippers games too? Lmao get real

warfelg
08-20-2018, 06:42 AM
To the people making comments about staying up late and low ratings on teams:

Streaming does not count towards ratings. The condensed next day league pass version does not count towards ratings and you donít have to stay up late to watch it. DVR the game and you donít count towards ratings AND you donít have to say up late AND you can skip slow parts of the game.

Donít act like since some live on the east coast that weíve never seen a western conference game except for when our team plays them. Some of us enjoy basketball to want to watch these other games.

mightybosstone
08-20-2018, 08:49 AM
Don't hate the player, hate the game

I didn't realize I used a slur. My bad

You kind of missed the point. I was just mocking your post in general. Because people who start an argument with the eye test are ****ing idiots. Almost every good case for a player being good or bad at something starts with a stat.

Nobody says "Hey, did you catch Lebron last night? He looked great!." They say "Dude, did you see Lebron put up 50 last night?"

I dare you to try to make a legitimate case for one player over another or to try to praise a player for a particular skill without some statistic. It's damn near impossible. You could argue that someone has a sweet shooting stroke, but that guy might actually be a 32% 3-point shooter. Stats just corroborate the things we already know watching the games and provide context for what we're watching.

Scoots
08-20-2018, 09:35 AM
To the people making comments about staying up late and low ratings on teams:

Streaming does not count towards ratings. The condensed next day league pass version does not count towards ratings and you donít have to stay up late to watch it. DVR the game and you donít count towards ratings AND you donít have to say up late AND you can skip slow parts of the game.

Donít act like since some live on the east coast that weíve never seen a western conference game except for when our team plays them. Some of us enjoy basketball to want to watch these other games.

If your argument is that the western teams are watched as much as eastern teams by fans in the east you are incorrect. If your point is that the western teams are watched at all? Sure, that happens, but not nearly as much as the eastern people watch the eastern teams.

DVR recordings were included in ratings in the past, I think most metrics used these days include as many viewings as possible so I'd assume league pass and DVR and live are all included when the NBA releases their ratings.

warfelg
08-20-2018, 09:37 AM
You kind of missed the point. I was just mocking your post in general. Because people who start an argument with the eye test are ****ing idiots. Almost every good case for a player being good or bad at something starts with a stat.

Nobody says "Hey, did you catch Lebron last night? He looked great!." They say "Dude, did you see Lebron put up 50 last night?"

I dare you to try to make a legitimate case for one player over another or to try to praise a player for a particular skill without some statistic. It's damn near impossible. You could argue that someone has a sweet shooting stroke, but that guy might actually be a 32% 3-point shooter. Stats just corroborate the things we already know watching the games and provide context for what we're watching.

You hit the nail on the head for me on this. Stats provide the context. How many times do we hear ďOh player X looks greatĒ and upon looking at any stats you see heís typically a bad player who had a good night.

Iím also not a fan (although not a huge red flag TBH) of someone that blames supporting cast for bad play. Because thereís usually someone in there playing better than expected too. Or someone else on the team at the same position as a different effect (this one has its roots in the Noel/Okafor Sixers debate for me).

warfelg
08-20-2018, 09:38 AM
If your argument is that the western teams are watched as much as eastern teams by fans in the east you are incorrect. If your point is that the western teams are watched at all? Sure, that happens, but not nearly as much as the eastern people watch the eastern teams.

DVR recordings were included in ratings in the past, I think most metrics used these days include as many viewings as possible so I'd assume league pass and DVR and live are all included when the NBA releases their ratings.

Not my argument at all. Iím just saying thereís ways to watch, so blanket covering by saying ďno one in the east knows how good Jokic is because they donít watch himĒ isnít right.

DVR is not included in the overnight ratings. They are included in the 1-week ratings.

mightybosstone
08-20-2018, 11:22 AM
Iím also not a fan (although not a huge red flag TBH) of someone that blames supporting cast for bad play. Because thereís usually someone in there playing better than expected too. Or someone else on the team at the same position as a different effect (this one has its roots in the Noel/Okafor Sixers debate for me).

So, this one needs some clarity for me. Are you saying that you get bothered when someone blames the supporting cast for poor individual performance from a particular player or when someone blames the supporting cast for the poor performance of a whole team? Because I can see your point with the former, but not the latter. There's a reason why MJ didn't start winning titles until Pippen hit his stride and why Lebron's Cavs only went to one finals in the early-mid 2000s.

warfelg
08-20-2018, 11:26 AM
So, this one needs some clarity for me. Are you saying that you get bothered when someone blames the supporting cast for poor individual performance from a particular player or when someone blames the supporting cast for the poor performance of a whole team? Because I can see your point with the former, but not the latter. There's a reason why MJ didn't start winning titles until Pippen hit his stride and why Lebron's Cavs only went to one finals in the early-mid 2000s.

The former. Like the early ďdefenseĒ of Okafors defense was there were poor defenders around him. The same group mind you that was borderline top 10 with Noel at the same spot.

warfelg
08-20-2018, 11:32 AM
Oh damn thought of another one:
Continual talk of ďpotentialĒ even for guys part the potential stage of their career. Guys like both Greenís that arenít Dray or Danny. Noah Vonleh. MCW. Nerlens Noel.

They still get talked with potential and upside; but at this point they are what they are.

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 11:37 AM
Oh damn thought of another one:
Continual talk of ďpotentialĒ even for guys part the potential stage of their career. Guys like both Greenís that arenít Dray or Danny. Noah Vonleh. MCW. Nerlens Noel.

They still get talked with potential and upside; but at this point they are what they are.

Andrew.Wiggins.

Just ****ing stop with the "potential" tag already. If you haven't gotten it in 330 games, and 12,000 minutes of being a starter with high usage and a green light at all times, you never will.

mightybosstone
08-20-2018, 11:42 AM
The former. Like the early ďdefenseĒ of Okafors defense was there were poor defenders around him. The same group mind you that was borderline top 10 with Noel at the same spot.
Makes sense.

Oh damn thought of another one:
Continual talk of ďpotentialĒ even for guys part the potential stage of their career. Guys like both Greenís that arenít Dray or Danny. Noah Vonleh. MCW. Nerlens Noel.

They still get talked with potential and upside; but at this point they are what they are.
I both agree with you and kind of disagree with you on this one. I do think people throw around "potential" a lot for players who don't deserve it. If you've gotten a chance with substantial NBA minutes for multiple years in the league and you're 25-26 years oldóyeah, then you probably don't belong in the "potential" conversation. MCW is actually a great example of this. When the Rockets signed him, I had zero delusions of grandeur. I know who he is, and I hope the guy doesn't see the floor a lot.

However, to play devil's advocate, I also think it's unfair to write off a guy as a bust when he's only 23-24 and hasn't really fit in where he's played or how he's been used. Noel is a good example of that for me. I think if you put him on a team that needed a rim-running center where he could play a role similar to what Capela does, the kid could actually thrive.

Also, there are some guys who just peak much later in their careers for whatever reason. I think of guys like PJ Tucker and James Johnson who have come legitimate average-above average NBA starters despite bouncing around the league a lot. Now those guys are more exceptions to the rule, but it does occasionally happen.

warfelg
08-20-2018, 11:47 AM
I think what you are talking about later there is t potential, itís fit.

Noel might finally be in a good fit. Tucker and Johnson, they just found teams that they fit with. They didnít all the sudden tap into unseen potential.

valade16
08-20-2018, 12:12 PM
perfect squad IMO.

you are right, those guys wouldn't get mins anywhere else. that's how hard it is to find guys that do something really well and literally don't give a **** if they ever see the ball. their lack of "goodness", if you understand my meaning, is what makes them perfect for the situation.

i get your interpretation, and i understand that some people share it.

If you think that AI's perfect squad is a bunch of backup caliber players (or out of league caliber players) then how can you possibly denigrate his accomplishments? Name another player that took a team of literal backups as starters to the Finals?

I think your interpretation is meant to be derogatory towards AI but all you've actually succeeded in doing is saying that AI could do something maybe 1-2 other superstars in the history of the league could ever do: take a team of absolute trash to the Finals.

That sounds impressive, despite your intentions to make it sound bad.

nastynice
08-20-2018, 02:44 PM
You kind of missed the point. I was just mocking your post in general. Because people who start an argument with the eye test are ****ing idiots. Almost every good case for a player being good or bad at something starts with a stat.

Nobody says "Hey, did you catch Lebron last night? He looked great!." They say "Dude, did you see Lebron put up 50 last night?"

I dare you to try to make a legitimate case for one player over another or to try to praise a player for a particular skill without some statistic. It's damn near impossible. You could argue that someone has a sweet shooting stroke, but that guy might actually be a 32% 3-point shooter. Stats just corroborate the things we already know watching the games and provide context for what we're watching.

Oh, I got the point, I just didn't realize my post was so offensive to you.

Your first paragraph, MAJOR red flag btw :)

You have been officially flagged moving forward haha

Jordans air time, what you gonna give me hang time numbers? lmao. Clearly enough to get himself squared from almost any angle, meaning that shot is ****in butter. Don't need a single stat for that

I won't lie, I do legitimately look down on people that constantly retort to stats to dismiss what we can all see. In a basketball sense, not a human sense

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 02:53 PM
Oh, I got the point, I just didn't realize my post was so offensive to you.

Your first paragraph, MAJOR red flag btw :)

You have been officially flagged moving forward haha

Jordans air time, what you gonna give me hang time numbers? lmao. Clearly enough to get himself squared from almost any angle, meaning that shot is ****in butter. Don't need a single stat for that

I won't lie, I do legitimately look down on people that constantly retort to stats to dismiss what we can all see. In a basketball sense, not a human sense

that isn't what he is referring to though. At the end of the day, a guy like Melo has every tool in the box, but his efficiency is crap compared to a LeBron, who spent his first 4 years in the league doing one freaking thing to score. Another example, is AI, or Nique, or Alex English. If you watch the game with understanding, the stats start to make more sense actually. Sure talking with just stats and no context will get you locked down quick, but stats are a great tool if you understand the game.

Stats won't tell you what athletic traits a player has, duh

nastynice
08-20-2018, 02:56 PM
that isn't what he is referring to though. At the end of the day, a guy like Melo has every tool in the box, but his efficiency is crap compared to a LeBron, who spent his first 4 years in the league doing one freaking thing to score. Another example, is AI, or Nique, or Alex English. If you watch the game with understanding, the stats start to make more sense actually. Sure talking with just stats and no context will get you locked down quick, but stats are a great tool if you understand the game.

Stats won't tell you what athletic traits a player has, duh

You can't pick up on a players efficiency and ability from watching them? You don't need stats unless you are specifically asking for stats, duh

How is that not what he's referring to? Jumping is not a skill..?

Stats are a great tool, no doubt, but not when people use it to oppose what we can all see.

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 02:59 PM
You can't pick up on a players efficiency and ability from watching them? You don't need stats unless you are specifically asking for stats, duh

Stats are a great tool, no doubt, but not when people use it to oppose what we can all see.

Nobody can pick it all up. Nobody. Every team carries a stats department now.

Your eyes aren't as good as you think. It's easy to see LeBron James dominates basketball games. To what degree, you can't tell. Just like Iverson, in a bubble he was an unstoppable machine. In reality, he was a volume scorer.

nastynice
08-20-2018, 03:08 PM
Nobody can pick it all up. Nobody. Every team carries a stats department now.

Your eyes aren't as good as you think. It's easy to see LeBron James dominates basketball games. To what degree, you can't tell. Just like Iverson, in a bubble he was an unstoppable machine. In reality, he was a volume scorer.

In reality he lead a team to the finals that maybe only a handful of players all time would be able to do.

No stat needed to understand his greatness, and matter of fact, beautiful example of where the stat game twists people's perspective of a player, especially in today's hyper efficiency 3 pt shooting basketball

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 03:09 PM
In reality he lead a team to the finals that maybe only a handful of players all time would be able to do.

No stat needed to understand his greatness, and matter of fact, beautiful example of where the stat game twists people's perspective of a player, especially in today's hyper efficiency 3 pt shooting basketball

we don't agree. The NBA doesn't agree with you either. Every team now employs stat nerds.

Again, without context stats are just numbers. But they hold a lot of value depending on the conversation.

nastynice
08-20-2018, 03:14 PM
we don't agree. The NBA doesn't agree with you either. Every team now employs stat nerds.

Again, without context stats are just numbers. But they hold a lot of value depending on the conversation.

How does the NBA employing stat guys mean they disagree with me?

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 03:23 PM
How does the NBA employing stat guys mean they disagree with me?

why bother using stats if they don't matter compared to the eye test?

If you notice, the last teams to actually come around to the idea of the value of advanced stats, are the teams that suck. Meaning, they too shared your archaic view of, "eye test trump the numbers".

nastynice
08-20-2018, 03:58 PM
why bother using stats if they don't matter compared to the eye test?

If you notice, the last teams to actually come around to the idea of the value of advanced stats, are the teams that suck. Meaning, they too shared your archaic view of, "eye test trump the numbers".

Eye test being superior doesn't make stats worthless, just inferior

warfelg
08-20-2018, 04:12 PM
How is measured data inferior to something observed?

mightybosstone
08-20-2018, 04:15 PM
Eye test being superior doesn't make stats worthless, just inferior

Honest question: Not counting Warriors games, how many games combined would you say that you watched significant portions of (at least one full quarter) that included the Kings, Hawks, Mavericks, Suns, Magic, Bulls, Nets and Hornets?

I'm willing to bet you watched less than 5, and almost certainly less than 10-15. But yet, if I asked you a question about how good Aaron Gordon, De'Aaron Fox, Spencer Dinwiddie, Dennis Smith Jr., etc. looks last season, you would probably do your best to formulate an opinion on them. How? Eye test would be a terrible method, because even assuming you watched every Warriors game and caught a few extra games here or there, you caught probably less than 5 percent of their entire season.

So how would you formulate that opinion? Are you going to go watch 30-40 full NBA games of each player to make that determination? Are you going to go watch a 2-3 minute Youtube video showing highlights from the last season? Or are you going to pull up a Basketball Reference page that gives you a full snapshot of their season that takes you 30 seconds to glance over and gives you an honest, unbiased, comprehensive look at how they performed?

If you say the first, then you're a liar. No one has that kind of time. If you say the second, you're an idiot, because a 2-3 minute highlight video is only going to show you the best possible plays of that athlete's season. The only fair way to judge one of those guys is by looking at the stats. Sure, you can formulate an opinion of those 2-3 games you watched against the Warriors, but that sample size is so minor. And what if you watched them 7-8 months ago? You feel confident in being able to relay specific details from a minor regular season game against an inferior opponent from that long ago? I'm guessing not...

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 04:30 PM
Eye test being superior doesn't make stats worthless, just inferior

yeah it's the other way around.

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 04:36 PM
Honest question: Not counting Warriors games, how many games combined would you say that you watched significant portions of (at least one full quarter) that included the Kings, Hawks, Mavericks, Suns, Magic, Bulls, Nets and Hornets?

I'm willing to bet you watched less than 5, and almost certainly less than 10-15. But yet, if I asked you a question about how good Aaron Gordon, De'Aaron Fox, Spencer Dinwiddie, Dennis Smith Jr., etc. looks last season, you would probably do your best to formulate an opinion on them. How? Eye test would be a terrible method, because even assuming you watched every Warriors game and caught a few extra games here or there, you caught probably less than 5 percent of their entire season.

So how would you formulate that opinion? Are you going to go watch 30-40 full NBA games of each player to make that determination? Are you going to go watch a 2-3 minute Youtube video showing highlights from the last season? Or are you going to pull up a Basketball Reference page that gives you a full snapshot of their season that takes you 30 seconds to glance over and gives you an honest, unbiased, comprehensive look at how they performed?

If you say the first, then you're a liar. No one has that kind of time. If you say the second, you're an idiot, because a 2-3 minute highlight video is only going to show you the best possible plays of that athlete's season. The only fair way to judge one of those guys is by looking at the stats. Sure, you can formulate an opinion of those 2-3 games you watched against the Warriors, but that sample size is so minor. And what if you watched them 7-8 months ago? You feel confident in being able to relay specific details from a minor league game against an inferior opponent from that long ago? I'm guessing not...

when I lived in Houston, I was forced to get the league pass to watch my Wolves, from around 2001-2014. I used that pass to watch a LOT of basketball haha. That being said, sure, I caught 20-25 LeBron games, and hit plenty of other stars/teams a year. But at least half the league teams, I watched only when my Wolves played them. Dude I watched basketball 6 nights a week, and that means for 15 teams, I watched 2-4 games a year. it was enough to know every player in the league, and have an opinion on them, but without stats, I wouldn't be able to evaluate a ton of players/teams. Hell looking at stats prior gave me things to specifically watch, and the evolution of advanced stats correlates directly with my knowledge curve of the game in general. The better you understand them, the better you can then apply context to what you are watching. There are a million examples of why we should use them. Look no further than actual defenders researching what they should do to help shut down guys (Shane Battier for example).

At this point, guys who hate stats are like those who think climate change is a myth.

nastynice
08-20-2018, 04:41 PM
How is measured data inferior to something observed?

Too mechanical. Basketball is organic (plus mechanics :cool:)

Jamiecballer
08-20-2018, 04:48 PM
If you think that AI's perfect squad is a bunch of backup caliber players (or out of league caliber players) then how can you possibly denigrate his accomplishments? Name another player that took a team of literal backups as starters to the Finals?

I think your interpretation is meant to be derogatory towards AI but all you've actually succeeded in doing is saying that AI could do something maybe 1-2 other superstars in the history of the league could ever do: take a team of absolute trash to the Finals.

That sounds impressive, despite your intentions to make it sound bad.Because his accomplishments are not that impressive?

You seem to be forgetting that the team was hardly comprised solely of the Eric Snows and George Lynchs that were the subject of discussion also

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

valade16
08-20-2018, 04:53 PM
Because his accomplishments are not that impressive?

You seem to be forgetting that the team was hardly comprised solely of the Eric Snows and George Lynchs that were the subject of discussion

Ah yes, I forgot about Dikembe Mutombo. Well in that case his team was dare I say as talented as the current Warriors.

You just agreed that his team was comprised of players that not only weren't talented, they weren't even talented enough to play on other teams, let alone start. Outside Mutombo, give me the others that don't fall into the "objectively terrible on every other team" designation.

For all Finals teams (restrict to say after 1990), if you take off the teams best player, how many would be as bad as Philly's team? Not from a strategic standpoint (I get the argument they were all cogs around AI), I'm talking about from a talent standpoint. How many teams simply had less talent and went to the Finals? The answer is very few, but I'll allow a lot of generosity for you to try and come up with a list.

nastynice
08-20-2018, 04:55 PM
Honest question: Not counting Warriors games, how many games combined would you say that you watched significant portions of (at least one full quarter) that included the Kings, Hawks, Mavericks, Suns, Magic, Bulls, Nets and Hornets?

I'm willing to bet you watched less than 5, and almost certainly less than 10-15. But yet, if I asked you a question about how good Aaron Gordon, De'Aaron Fox, Spencer Dinwiddie, Dennis Smith Jr., etc. looks last season, you would probably do your best to formulate an opinion on them. How? Eye test would be a terrible method, because even assuming you watched every Warriors game and caught a few extra games here or there, you caught probably less than 5 percent of their entire season.

So how would you formulate that opinion? Are you going to go watch 30-40 full NBA games of each player to make that determination? Are you going to go watch a 2-3 minute Youtube video showing highlights from the last season? Or are you going to pull up a Basketball Reference page that gives you a full snapshot of their season that takes you 30 seconds to glance over and gives you an honest, unbiased, comprehensive look at how they performed?

If you say the first, then you're a liar. No one has that kind of time. If you say the second, you're an idiot, because a 2-3 minute highlight video is only going to show you the best possible plays of that athlete's season. The only fair way to judge one of those guys is by looking at the stats. Sure, you can formulate an opinion of those 2-3 games you watched against the Warriors, but that sample size is so minor. And what if you watched them 7-8 months ago? You feel confident in being able to relay specific details from a minor league game against an inferior opponent from that long ago? I'm guessing not...

Oh my God, DEFINITELY less than five, outside the hornets I have zero draw to any of those teams, if I see any of them its basically automatic channel skip lol.

If you asked me about those guys I really wouldn't formulate much an opinion. We can all point out stats, but what's that mean? I can say this guy averages 19 pts a game, cool, but does that make him a scorer? If Clint Capela averaged that in a playoff series, would you say he's a scorer? What if 90% of his buckets were cuz harden and Paul, (two elite ball handlers and drivers, one arguably approaching kobe level at times) kept sucking in defenders and getting him bunnies? Same stat tho..

You don't look at a stat and then build an argument. You formulate an argument, then look at the stats. Is there any possible scenario where a stat can carry enough weight in a particular argument that it should dictate the answer? Sure, but that's more outlier type a ****

mightybosstone
08-20-2018, 05:22 PM
Oh my God, DEFINITELY less than five, outside the hornets I have zero draw to any of those teams, if I see any of them its basically automatic channel skip lol.
So then you admit the eye test is pretty much a terrible way to judge players on a huge chunk of teams throughout the league?


If you asked me about those guys I really wouldn't formulate much an opinion. We can all point out stats, but what's that mean? I can say this guy averages 19 pts a game, cool, but does that make him a scorer? If Clint Capela averaged that in a playoff series, would you say he's a scorer? What if 90% of his buckets were cuz harden and Paul, (two elite ball handlers and drivers, one arguably approaching kobe level at times) kept sucking in defenders and getting him bunnies? Same stat tho..
You could look at Capela's shooting numbers on the Basketball Reference page, look at a shot chart on NBA.com or check out how many of his field goals were assisted on 82games.net. I know that Capela isn't a great scorer or offensive player, because I watched all or at least large portions of 60-70+ Rockets games last season, not counting the playoffs. But if I hadn't. If I'd only caught a handful, I could still make that determination with stats pretty easily if I knew where to look.


You don't look at a stat and then build an argument. You formulate an argument, then look at the stats.
That's not true at all. As a newspaper guy, I can definitely tell you that you regularly look at the data before you decide you're going to write a story. I might have a hunch about something going on in a city or community and then go look at the data to prove it, but often times in journalism, you seek out data or find a piece of data that informs you about something and you build a story around that piece of data.

The same is true for anything. If you want to make an argument for something, data is a damn fine place to start.


Is there any possible scenario where a stat can carry enough weight in a particular argument that it should dictate the answer? Sure, but that's more outlier type a ****
It depends on the question, dude. If I wanted to know who the better 3-point shooter was between Steph Curry and Andre Roberson, I wouldn't have to watch a single game to be able to answer that question. I could look at the many, many stats that would give me the answer in seconds.

Now maybe the question doesn't have that obvious of an answer. But if that's the case, why would you be looking at one singular stat to prove your point in the first place? If I wanted to argue that Lebron James was a superior offensive player to Kobe Bryant, how could I possibly prove that with a single stat? I couldn't. I'd have to use probably a dozen different numbers to make my case for me.

Would I use things I saw with my eyes as well? Of course. But I also don't think you could just make the case that either guy was better using solely the eye test. A good example is the age-old question of "which guy is more clutch?" For years, I remember people would rip on Lebron for not being clutch, while Kobe got praised for it. But then that stat started circulating showing how much better Lebron was at hitting shots in the final seconds of games than Kobe, and that false narrative slowly started dying off.

Scoots
08-20-2018, 07:29 PM
Honest question: Not counting Warriors games, how many games combined would you say that you watched significant portions of (at least one full quarter) that included the Kings, Hawks, Mavericks, Suns, Magic, Bulls, Nets and Hornets?

I'm willing to bet you watched less than 5, and almost certainly less than 10-15. But yet, if I asked you a question about how good Aaron Gordon, De'Aaron Fox, Spencer Dinwiddie, Dennis Smith Jr., etc. looks last season, you would probably do your best to formulate an opinion on them. How? Eye test would be a terrible method, because even assuming you watched every Warriors game and caught a few extra games here or there, you caught probably less than 5 percent of their entire season.

So how would you formulate that opinion? Are you going to go watch 30-40 full NBA games of each player to make that determination? Are you going to go watch a 2-3 minute Youtube video showing highlights from the last season? Or are you going to pull up a Basketball Reference page that gives you a full snapshot of their season that takes you 30 seconds to glance over and gives you an honest, unbiased, comprehensive look at how they performed?

If you say the first, then you're a liar. No one has that kind of time. If you say the second, you're an idiot, because a 2-3 minute highlight video is only going to show you the best possible plays of that athlete's season. The only fair way to judge one of those guys is by looking at the stats. Sure, you can formulate an opinion of those 2-3 games you watched against the Warriors, but that sample size is so minor. And what if you watched them 7-8 months ago? You feel confident in being able to relay specific details from a minor regular season game against an inferior opponent from that long ago? I'm guessing not...

I was with you up to the bolded. We are missing so much data. If you spend any time on nyloncalculus it's clear how much data we don't have so basketball reference is a long way from comprehensive.

I suppose it's possible to get enough data to "know" a player without ever watching a single minute of them playing, but there is still data our eyes gather that we have no other way to get.

Stats are good, "eye test" is useful, neither is complete at a "fan" level.

mightybosstone
08-20-2018, 07:49 PM
I was with you up to the bolded. We are missing so much data. If you spend any time on nyloncalculus it's clear how much data we don't have so basketball reference is a long way from comprehensive.

I suppose it's possible to get enough data to "know" a player without ever watching a single minute of them playing, but there is still data our eyes gather that we have no other way to get.

Stats are good, "eye test" is useful, neither is complete at a "fan" level.

I shouldn't have used that word and thought twice about it afterward. But I don't really mean "comprehensive" in a literal sense. Obviously you need context and some visual evidence to fully appreciate and understand a player's strengths and weaknesses. I just mean that you get a very good, thorough overview of a player's overall game just glancing a player's BR page.

You won't be able to fully appreciate their game without watching them, and it's not going to tell you how clutch a player is, how they do in man-to-man defense versus help defense, how exactly they're getting shots off within those distance ranges, etc. But you'll know if a guy a is a total dumpster fire on defense and be able to fairly easily recognize a chucker from a guy with a good shot selection, etc.

ewing
08-20-2018, 08:20 PM
yeah it's the other way around.

If its my eyes vs your eyes plus stat analysis of stats you have an edge. I can't say that about everyone around here

nastynice
08-20-2018, 09:06 PM
So then you admit the eye test is pretty much a terrible way to judge players on a huge chunk of teams throughout the league?


You could look at Capela's shooting numbers on the Basketball Reference page, look at a shot chart on NBA.com or check out how many of his field goals were assisted on 82games.net. I know that Capela isn't a great scorer or offensive player, because I watched all or at least large portions of 60-70+ Rockets games last season, not counting the playoffs. But if I hadn't. If I'd only caught a handful, I could still make that determination with stats pretty easily if I knew where to look.


That's not true at all. As a newspaper guy, I can definitely tell you that you regularly look at the data before you decide you're going to write a story. I might have a hunch about something going on in a city or community and then go look at the data to prove it, but often times in journalism, you seek out data or find a piece of data that informs you about something and you build a story around that piece of data.

The same is true for anything. If you want to make an argument for something, data is a damn fine place to start.


It depends on the question, dude. If I wanted to know who the better 3-point shooter was between Steph Curry and Andre Roberson, I wouldn't have to watch a single game to be able to answer that question. I could look at the many, many stats that would give me the answer in seconds.

Now maybe the question doesn't have that obvious of an answer. But if that's the case, why would you be looking at one singular stat to prove your point in the first place? If I wanted to argue that Lebron James was a superior offensive player to Kobe Bryant, how could I possibly prove that with a single stat? I couldn't. I'd have to use probably a dozen different numbers to make my case for me.

Would I use things I saw with my eyes as well? Of course. But I also don't think you could just make the case that either guy was better using solely the eye test. A good example is the age-old question of "which guy is more clutch?" For years, I remember people would rip on Lebron for not being clutch, while Kobe got praised for it. But then that stat started circulating showing how much better Lebron was at hitting shots in the final seconds of games than Kobe, and that false narrative slowly started dying off.


So then you admit the eye test is pretty much a terrible way to judge players on a huge chunk of teams throughout the league?


You could look at Capela's shooting numbers on the Basketball Reference page, look at a shot chart on NBA.com or check out how many of his field goals were assisted on 82games.net. I know that Capela isn't a great scorer or offensive player, because I watched all or at least large portions of 60-70+ Rockets games last season, not counting the playoffs. But if I hadn't. If I'd only caught a handful, I could still make that determination with stats pretty easily if I knew where to look.


That's not true at all. As a newspaper guy, I can definitely tell you that you regularly look at the data before you decide you're going to write a story. I might have a hunch about something going on in a city or community and then go look at the data to prove it, but often times in journalism, you seek out data or find a piece of data that informs you about something and you build a story around that piece of data.

The same is true for anything. If you want to make an argument for something, data is a damn fine place to start.


It depends on the question, dude. If I wanted to know who the better 3-point shooter was between Steph Curry and Andre Roberson, I wouldn't have to watch a single game to be able to answer that question. I could look at the many, many stats that would give me the answer in seconds.

Now maybe the question doesn't have that obvious of an answer. But if that's the case, why would you be looking at one singular stat to prove your point in the first place? If I wanted to argue that Lebron James was a superior offensive player to Kobe Bryant, how could I possibly prove that with a single stat? I couldn't. I'd have to use probably a dozen different numbers to make my case for me.

Would I use things I saw with my eyes as well? Of course. But I also don't think you could just make the case that either guy was better using solely the eye test. A good example is the age-old question of "which guy is more clutch?" For years, I remember people would rip on Lebron for not being clutch, while Kobe got praised for it. But then that stat started circulating showing how much better Lebron was at hitting shots in the final seconds of games than Kobe, and that false narrative slowly started dying off.

I admit that attempting to judge players you have no business judging is a terrible way to go about things.

So what of your assist stat? Klay gets assisted on majority of his buckets too, so he's not a scorer? Or, you could just watch the game and it'll be pretty obvious who's the scorer and who isn't.

I would formulate the argument, then look at the stats. Lebron isn't clutch, he prefers to pass late in close games. He's started becoming more clutch recently, last playoffs was phenomenal for him

mightybosstone
08-20-2018, 09:27 PM
So what of your assist stat? Klay gets assisted on majority of his buckets too, so he's not a scorer? Or, you could just watch the game and it'll be pretty obvious who's the scorer and who isn't.
You can still be a scorer and just be less skilled at creating for yourself. I've always said I thought Klay was overrated because he doesn't create for himself or others with the ball in his hands. He's not going to take someone off the dribble very often and finish at the rim, and he doesn't draw a lot of fouls and get to the line a lot, which really hurts his scoring efficiency.

You can tell all of that by looking at his stats, and all of that is true. But at the same time, Klay does a very good job at crating for himself without the ball in his hands by constantly moving. He and Steph do such a great job at running around screens and moving without the ball to get themselves open looks. That is absolutely a skill, and it's a skill that a basic stats page wouldn't give me. Hence, you need to watch the game sometimes to provide context to the numbers.

And to be fair to a guy like Capela, he's developed into one of the best screen and rollers in the league. His ability to move off of screens and to catch and finish in traffic is pretty fantastic. Again, though, not something I could easily see by looking at his Basketball Reference page.


I would formulate the argument, then look at the stats. Lebron isn't clutch, he prefers to pass late in close games. He's started becoming more clutch recently, last playoffs was phenomenal for him

This was from a Tweet from May 5 of this year:

Game-tying/go-ahead field goals with under 10 seconds left in the postseason:

Michael Jordan: 7/15 (47%)
Kobe Bryant: 5/22 (23%)
LeBron James: 12/23 (52%)
So if he's so not clutch, why do the numbers prove that he is? And that was before he hit two game winners this postseason.

Jamiecballer
08-20-2018, 09:29 PM
Ah yes, I forgot about Dikembe Mutombo. Well in that case his team was dare I say as talented as the current Warriors.

You just agreed that his team was comprised of players that not only weren't talented, they weren't even talented enough to play on other teams, let alone start. Outside Mutombo, give me the others that don't fall into the "objectively terrible on every other team" designation.

For all Finals teams (restrict to say after 1990), if you take off the teams best player, how many would be as bad as Philly's team? Not from a strategic standpoint (I get the argument they were all cogs around AI), I'm talking about from a talent standpoint. How many teams simply had less talent and went to the Finals? The answer is very few, but I'll allow a lot of generosity for you to try and come up with a list.It isnt about talent, and you know that. You dont get to say let's just forget about the composition of the roster and how it fit his strengths and more importantly his weaknesses.

I dont think this is as hard as you are making it seem. We know he was a great scorer, and we also know he was an inefficient one. You know there is a while lot of value coming from somewhere in order for Iverson to make the finals.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Raps18-19 Champ
08-20-2018, 09:36 PM
Andrew.Wiggins.

Just ****ing stop with the "potential" tag already. If you haven't gotten it in 330 games, and 12,000 minutes of being a starter with high usage and a green light at all times, you never will.

I'm curious if you thought Wiggins was going to do better or worse under Thibs. Wiggins just has no drive but I didn't think Thibs was going to benefit him.

Hawkeye15
08-20-2018, 10:44 PM
I'm curious if you thought Wiggins was going to do better or worse under Thibs. Wiggins just has no drive but I didn't think Thibs was going to benefit him.

After year 2 he has stopped attacking and was even worse defensively. I knew by game 10 of the Thibs reign Wiggins was a waste of talent. Just zero fire or effort.

Scoots
08-21-2018, 12:17 AM
I shouldn't have used that word and thought twice about it afterward. But I don't really mean "comprehensive" in a literal sense. Obviously you need context and some visual evidence to fully appreciate and understand a player's strengths and weaknesses. I just mean that you get a very good, thorough overview of a player's overall game just glancing a player's BR page.

You won't be able to fully appreciate their game without watching them, and it's not going to tell you how clutch a player is, how they do in man-to-man defense versus help defense, how exactly they're getting shots off within those distance ranges, etc. But you'll know if a guy a is a total dumpster fire on defense and be able to fairly easily recognize a chucker from a guy with a good shot selection, etc.

I agree, which is why I said the right answer to stats vs eye test is both.

nastynice
08-21-2018, 01:56 AM
You can still be a scorer and just be less skilled at creating for yourself. I've always said I thought Klay was overrated because he doesn't create for himself or others with the ball in his hands. He's not going to take someone off the dribble very often and finish at the rim, and he doesn't draw a lot of fouls and get to the line a lot, which really hurts his scoring efficiency.

You can tell all of that by looking at his stats, and all of that is true. But at the same time, Klay does a very good job at crating for himself without the ball in his hands by constantly moving. He and Steph do such a great job at running around screens and moving without the ball to get themselves open looks. That is absolutely a skill, and it's a skill that a basic stats page wouldn't give me. Hence, you need to watch the game sometimes to provide context to the numbers.

And to be fair to a guy like Capela, he's developed into one of the best screen and rollers in the league. His ability to move off of screens and to catch and finish in traffic is pretty fantastic. Again, though, not something I could easily see by looking at his Basketball Reference page.



This was from a Tweet from May 5 of this year:

So if he's so not clutch, why do the numbers prove that he is? And that was before he hit two game winners this postseason.

Of course you can't see that on Capelas basketball reference page, stats as the basis of an argument is always going to give you a handicapped approach,thats my entire argument. Klays got his streakiness, sure, but the man is more than capable of going offensive nova and sustain it, yet his and Capelas stats tell you they're the same (well, some basic ones, at least the ones in our example, assists on baskets or whatever). This just illustrates the inferiority of stats. They're only good as a supplement to, not a basis for, an argument.

And you follow it up with one of the best examples I could possibly imagine. The stats say lebron is a better clutch scorer or better closer than Jordan. I'm sorry, what person in their right ****in mind is gonna be able to tell me that with a straight face? Clutch is a generic word that can mean slightly different things, but if you're gonna tell me the game is close and it's the last minute and you need someone to go get you buckets, I can't fathom someone who understands both players would take lebron. I'm a take kd before lebron, let alone Michael ****in Jordan, lmao

LeBron is still playing tho, and he is developing that part of his game, so his cement ain't dry. He's so great that these past years he been upping his closing game. But to help make things more lopsided and obvious for argument sake, let's keep this convo pre 2016 finals lebron, let's only consider lebron up to that point. You're taking him over Jordan cuz the stats told you too, oh my God, you get a timeout!

Hawkeye15
08-21-2018, 09:25 AM
Of course you can't see that on Capelas basketball reference page, stats as the basis of an argument is always going to give you a handicapped approach,thats my entire argument. Klays got his streakiness, sure, but the man is more than capable of going offensive nova and sustain it, yet his and Capelas stats tell you they're the same (well, some basic ones, at least the ones in our example, assists on baskets or whatever). This just illustrates the inferiority of stats. They're only good as a supplement to, not a basis for, an argument.

And you follow it up with one of the best examples I could possibly imagine. The stats say lebron is a better clutch scorer or better closer than Jordan. I'm sorry, what person in their right ****in mind is gonna be able to tell me that with a straight face? Clutch is a generic word that can mean slightly different things, but if you're gonna tell me the game is close and it's the last minute and you need someone to go get you buckets, I can't fathom someone who understands both players would take lebron. I'm a take kd before lebron, let alone Michael ****in Jordan, lmao

LeBron is still playing tho, and he is developing that part of his game, so his cement ain't dry. He's so great that these past years he been upping his closing game. But to help make things more lopsided and obvious for argument sake, let's keep this convo pre 2016 finals lebron, let's only consider lebron up to that point. You're taking him over Jordan cuz the stats told you too, oh my God, you get a timeout!

stats won't tell you that MJ isn't giving up the ball with under 24 seconds to go in a one possession game, so he likely had some attempts he had no business taking. LeBron on the other hand, will defer to a player with a better shot. Kinda like guys who won't heave the ball because it will impact their numbers. So no, stats don't tell EVERYTHING, but they tell enough if you watch along with it. So it makes sense that LeBron's shooting numbers are stronger. Kobe was considered clutch for years, hopefully that has been dispelled at this point for the most part (he and his team fall apart in the clutch).

Here is one-the Lakers, during the Kobe reign, dropped over 20 points per 100 possessions in "clutch" situations. Why? Because everyone and their mother knew he was going to shoot it, no matter how many defenders were draped on him. So basically, if you can get the Kobe Lakers in a tight game, you probably beat them. But, people don't remember that. They have selective memories, and we can't possibly remember every single play of every single game that we watched. LeBron's team on the other hand, always stays elite in the clutch. Why? Because they have the best player possible, and he makes the best basketball plays in those situations.

Look, anyone who rides stats as gospel doesn't get it. However, anyone who thinks the pure eye test beats documented numbers and trends doesn't get it at all. You need a comprehensive understanding of basketball to begin with, the stats simply develop a much stronger analytical grasp of a player/team/unit. They can't be ignored, and if they are, you won't last long in a debate, and sure as hell not long in the NBA, unless you are an ex-player and can dupe teams into your "experience".

MJ is the worst ****ing GM the NBA had. Why? Because his utter refusal to listen to anyone, including stat heads.

IndyRealist
08-21-2018, 09:37 AM
There's two types of PSDers: those who change their opinion when facts contradict them, and those that insist their opinion is correct despite all facts to the contrary.

Hawkeye15
08-21-2018, 09:42 AM
There's two types of PSDers: those who change their opinion when facts contradict them, and those that insist their opinion is correct despite all facts to the contrary.

I mean, I get that a person might disregard a poster who runs with "win shares" as a sole reason a player is better or something, but do we have extreme opinions like that here? I don't know, I actually see it the other way around more times than not. A poster that refuses to bend when numbers are put in their face.

valade16
08-21-2018, 11:52 AM
It isnt about talent, and you know that. You dont get to say let's just forget about the composition of the roster and how it fit his strengths and more importantly his weaknesses.

I dont think this is as hard as you are making it seem. We know he was a great scorer, and we also know he was an inefficient one. You know there is a while lot of value coming from somewhere in order for Iverson to make the finals.

And you don't get to say let's just forget about talent. Talent matters. The more talented team wins the majority of the time.

And I agree, it's not as hard as you're making it seem. Talk about all the value coming from elsewhere all you want, but I have a feeling you didn't answer my previous question about which Finals team absent their top player had less talent than AI's supporting cast because you know the answer is very few to none.

So as much as you want to denigrate AI's accomplishment at the end of the day we're still left with the fact that he led the least talented team in recent memory to the Finals. I'm not saying that makes him Top 25, but it is an impressive accomplishment (consider we still aren't off LeBron's nuts for taking an untalented team to the Finals vs the Spurs). Just because you hate one aspect of AI's game (his inefficiency) doesn't mean you must trivialize all of his accomplishments.

I can look at him objectively and say that his TS% and efficiency are horrendous but taking that team to the Finals was impressive. Especially considering people often say that a plethora of SGs could have been substituted for him and made the Finals that year, guys like Reggie Miller, Vince Carter and Ray Allen... literally all 3 guys the 76ers beat on their way to the Finals that year.

nastynice
08-21-2018, 12:57 PM
stats won't tell you that MJ isn't giving up the ball with under 24 seconds to go in a one possession game, so he likely had some attempts he had no business taking. LeBron on the other hand, will defer to a player with a better shot. Kinda like guys who won't heave the ball because it will impact their numbers. So no, stats don't tell EVERYTHING, but they tell enough if you watch along with it. So it makes sense that LeBron's shooting numbers are stronger. Kobe was considered clutch for years, hopefully that has been dispelled at this point for the most part (he and his team fall apart in the clutch).

Here is one-the Lakers, during the Kobe reign, dropped over 20 points per 100 possessions in "clutch" situations. Why? Because everyone and their mother knew he was going to shoot it, no matter how many defenders were draped on him. So basically, if you can get the Kobe Lakers in a tight game, you probably beat them. But, people don't remember that. They have selective memories, and we can't possibly remember every single play of every single game that we watched. LeBron's team on the other hand, always stays elite in the clutch. Why? Because they have the best player possible, and he makes the best basketball plays in those situations.

Look, anyone who rides stats as gospel doesn't get it. However, anyone who thinks the pure eye test beats documented numbers and trends doesn't get it at all. You need a comprehensive understanding of basketball to begin with, the stats simply develop a much stronger analytical grasp of a player/team/unit. They can't be ignored, and if they are, you won't last long in a debate, and sure as hell not long in the NBA, unless you are an ex-player and can dupe teams into your "experience".

MJ is the worst ****ing GM the NBA had. Why? Because his utter refusal to listen to anyone, including stat heads.

If you have a comprehensive understanding of basketball then you actually don't even need stats. Like at all.

MJ was a bad gm before stats had anything to do with anything.

Jamiecballer
08-21-2018, 01:10 PM
And you don't get to say let's just forget about talent. Talent matters. The more talented team wins the majority of the time.

And I agree, it's not as hard as you're making it seem. Talk about all the value coming from elsewhere all you want, but I have a feeling you didn't answer my previous question about which Finals team absent their top player had less talent than AI's supporting cast because you know the answer is very few to none.

So as much as you want to denigrate AI's accomplishment at the end of the day we're still left with the fact that he led the least talented team in recent memory to the Finals. I'm not saying that makes him Top 25, but it is an impressive accomplishment (consider we still aren't off LeBron's nuts for taking an untalented team to the Finals vs the Spurs). Just because you hate one aspect of AI's game (his inefficiency) doesn't mean you must trivialize all of his accomplishments.

I can look at him objectively and say that his TS% and efficiency are horrendous but taking that team to the Finals was impressive. Especially considering people often say that a plethora of SGs could have been substituted for him and made the Finals that year, guys like Reggie Miller, Vince Carter and Ray Allen... literally all 3 guys the 76ers beat on their way to the Finals that year.

I feel like he reason we are having this disagreement is because despite your objective analysis of Iverson's efficiency as being "horrendous", you continue to accidentally type things like "he took that team to the finals". It almost sounds like you believe him to be the most significant factor in their modest success.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
08-21-2018, 01:11 PM
If you have a comprehensive understanding of basketball then you actually don't even need stats. Like at all.

MJ was a bad gm before stats had anything to do with anything.This is sig-worthy.

Do you not think Michael Jordan has a comprehensive understanding?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

nastynice
08-21-2018, 01:18 PM
This is sig-worthy.

Do you not think Michael Jordan has a comprehensive understanding?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Yes, it's the stats holding him back. I'm sure Kawame Browns win shares were off the charts. That's also probably why curry started shooting 3's.

nastynice
08-21-2018, 01:20 PM
All types a red flags in this thread, btw, lol

mightybosstone
08-21-2018, 01:20 PM
Of course you can't see that on Capelas basketball reference page, stats as the basis of an argument is always going to give you a handicapped approach,thats my entire argument. Klays got his streakiness, sure, but the man is more than capable of going offensive nova and sustain it, yet his and Capelas stats tell you they're the same (well, some basic ones, at least the ones in our example, assists on baskets or whatever). This just illustrates the inferiority of stats. They're only good as a supplement to, not a basis for, an argument.
If you factor in defensive impact, who's to say Capela isn't close to being on Klay's level? Would I personally rank Klay higher? Sure. But they play completely different positions, and it's pretty tough to compare two completely different players with completely different skillsets playing completely different roles. If you try to use the same stats to compare a rim-running defensive center and an elite shooter... Yeah, you're probably going to get some weird results that are hard to understand.


And you follow it up with one of the best examples I could possibly imagine. The stats say lebron is a better clutch scorer or better closer than Jordan. I'm sorry, what person in their right ****in mind is gonna be able to tell me that with a straight face? Clutch is a generic word that can mean slightly different things, but if you're gonna tell me the game is close and it's the last minute and you need someone to go get you buckets, I can't fathom someone who understands both players would take lebron. I'm a take kd before lebron, let alone Michael ****in Jordan, lmao
You're kinda making my point for me, dude. Michael Jordan won his last titles more than 20 years ago, but you're sitting here telling me you're 100 percent positive that he was more clutch than Lebron. Based on what? You're going solely off memory, and my guess is that entire memory is based on a handful of games, plays and moments.

If you took the 5-10 best, most clutch moments of any player and looked at them in a vacuum, that player immediately becomes insanely clutch. That's the problem. Few people remember the shots MJ missed or the games he played sub-par. They were 20 years ago, and those moments will always ultimately be overshadowed by the shots he made.

That's not to say that I think Lebron is "more clutch" historically than MJ. But their postseason numbers are damn close, and Lebron has hit way more of that last-minute shots than MJ has. There's at least a case to be made that peak playoff Lebron is on peak playoff MJ's level.


LeBron is still playing tho, and he is developing that part of his game, so his cement ain't dry. He's so great that these past years he been upping his closing game. But to help make things more lopsided and obvious for argument sake, let's keep this convo pre 2016 finals lebron, let's only consider lebron up to that point. You're taking him over Jordan cuz the stats told you too, oh my God, you get a timeout!
Never said I was taking Lebron over Jordan. I'd definitely take Lebron over Kobe, though. Also, I think you're underrating Lebron's playoff performance before 2016 pretty drastically. Take away that Dallas Mavericks finals, and how many black marks does he really have on his postseason resume?

IKnowHoops
08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
Just wondering. Can anyone show me a scenario where a guy is 2 points higher in PER than another player, yet is playing worse. Or even a single point. If not, PER is fine and people need to stop with there ďif thenĒ scenarios

valade16
08-21-2018, 01:29 PM
I feel like he reason we are having this disagreement is because despite your objective analysis of Iverson's efficiency as being "horrendous", you continue to accidentally type things like "he took that team to the finals". It almost sounds like you believe him to be the most significant factor in their modest success.

It's not accident, he was the leader of the team and flat out carried them offensively. Your argument is going to be that 11 other players carried him defensively. Cool, name another team that made the Finals that was literally carried on the offensive side of the ball by a single player? The list is again, exceedingly rare.

And all of this is discounting the fact you've already said that AI's teammates were so bad they wouldn't even crack rotations on other teams, but you justify your admittance of the obvious by saying talent doesn't matter, which is a positions far removed from reality.

This is the NBA, of course it's about talent.

nastynice
08-21-2018, 01:34 PM
If you factor in defensive impact, who's to say Capela isn't close to being on Klay's level? Would I personally rank Klay higher? Sure. But they play completely different positions, and it's pretty tough to compare two completely different players with completely different skillsets playing completely different roles. If you try to use the same stats to compare a rim-running defensive center and an elite shooter... Yeah, you're probably going to get some weird results that are hard to understand.


You're kinda making my point for me, dude. Michael Jordan won his last titles more than 20 years ago, but you're sitting here telling me you're 100 percent positive that he was more clutch than Lebron. Based on what? You're going solely off memory, and my guess is that entire memory is based on a handful of games, plays and moments.

If you took the 5-10 best, most clutch moments of any player and looked at them in a vacuum, that player immediately becomes insanely clutch. That's the problem. Few people remember the shots MJ missed or the games he played sub-par. They were 20 years ago, and those moments will always ultimately be overshadowed by the shots he made.

That's not to say that I think Lebron is "more clutch" historically than MJ. But their postseason numbers are damn close, and Lebron has hit way more of that last-minute shots than MJ has. There's at least a case to be made that peak playoff Lebron is on peak playoff MJ's level.


Never said I was taking Lebron over Jordan. I'd definitely take Lebron over Kobe, though. Also, I think you're underrating Lebron's playoff performance before 2016 pretty drastically. Take away that Dallas Mavericks finals, and how many black marks does he really have on his postseason resume?

I'm not leaving defensive impact out of the equation, but in my example I'm showing how the stats are misleading, that's why I talk of scoring and assists on those buckets. Your last sentence of that paragraph only seems to agree with me, so I'm not sure where our disagreement is.

Jordan played 20 years ago, and I remember him getting six titles as the games elite closer. Whatever missed clutch moments Jordan had, he has six titles on the other side of that scale... It's a no contest. He closed the deal. He's a closer. Mariano Rivera. LeBron be looking for teammates, and God bless his soul that's very thoughtful of him, but he's not a closer the way Jordan was. Maybe it's a good thing, who knows, maybe getting your teammates a good look is the way to go, I don't know but that's a different discussion. Jordan being superior at going and getting you that bucket you need really shouldn't be much a discussion.

Of course you'd take him over kobe, Kobes a chucker, you gonna have to always roll the dice wether he in closer mode or chucker mode. LeBron is the safer bet. He has very few black marks on his resume, what of it?

Hawkeye15
08-21-2018, 01:46 PM
If you have a comprehensive understanding of basketball then you actually don't even need stats. Like at all.

MJ was a bad gm before stats had anything to do with anything.

again, NBA teams don't agree with you. Hence why they all have stats departments/coaches now.

False on part 2. MJ was a bad GM when the stats movement was getting in gear. He refused the help of anyone, because he knows all, right?

nastynice
08-21-2018, 01:57 PM
again, NBA teams don't agree with you. Hence why they all have stats departments/coaches now.

False on part 2. MJ was a bad GM when the stats movement was getting in gear. He refused the help of anyone, because he knows all, right?

Professional teams will spend money to cover every base, as mentioned stats do have value and hold weight, I am arguing that they should take a clear back seat to the eye test, not that they have no value. I just mean like people like use talking on a forum, you really don't need them

What is the stats movement and how did it get in gear? And are you suggesting if MJ were a gm in the 90's he would have been successful? Based on what?

valade16
08-21-2018, 02:05 PM
Just wondering. Can anyone show me a scenario where a guy is 2 points higher in PER than another player, yet is playing worse. Or even a single point. If not, PER is fine and people need to stop with there ďif thenĒ scenarios

LMA had a PER of 25.0 this year and Embiid had a PER of 22.9 and I think Embiid was better.

Rudy Gobert had a PER of 20.7 this year and Andre Drummond had a PER of 22.9 and I think Gobert was better.

It happens all the time.

FlashBolt
08-21-2018, 02:12 PM
I'm not leaving defensive impact out of the equation, but in my example I'm showing how the stats are misleading, that's why I talk of scoring and assists on those buckets. Your last sentence of that paragraph only seems to agree with me, so I'm not sure where our disagreement is.

Jordan played 20 years ago, and I remember him getting six titles as the games elite closer. Whatever missed clutch moments Jordan had, he has six titles on the other side of that scale... It's a no contest. He closed the deal. He's a closer. Mariano Rivera. LeBron be looking for teammates, and God bless his soul that's very thoughtful of him, but he's not a closer the way Jordan was. Maybe it's a good thing, who knows, maybe getting your teammates a good look is the way to go, I don't know but that's a different discussion. Jordan being superior at going and getting you that bucket you need really shouldn't be much a discussion.

Of course you'd take him over kobe, Kobes a chucker, you gonna have to always roll the dice wether he in closer mode or chucker mode. LeBron is the safer bet. He has very few black marks on his resume, what of it?

How are stats misleading? It's quite solid in what it's representing. PPG stands for Points Per Game. Simple enough, right? The problem is people (you), misinterpret a stat and believe others are using them unjustly when they aren't. Stats aren't used to measure players but simply a record of how they have contributed using a specific formula. If you're trying to measure a player and how good they are, you use various factors. To say stats are misleading is quite obvious, due to your misinterpretation of them. For example, you say: MJ and Durant are more clutch than LeBron. Well, prove it to me. Simply telling me to watch YouTube videos is a sureshot depiction of you refusing to use statistical evidence. It happened with Kobe and it's how he generated this "clutch" label despite statistical evidence showing he wasn't as clutch as people have made him to be. His reputation for being clutch survived that long because there wasn't a widespread focus on stats in the media and the internet was not yet widely available for people to double-check Kobe's "clutch" reputation. Anyways, your logic doesn't correlate with facts. The fact is, stats work better than eyes because our eyes only see what we want to see. If you dislike LeBron, you're already convinced that regardless of what he does, you will find some fault in his game and try to justify it.There just has to be a proper usage of both of them before one makes an opinion. It's why despite D.Robinson having better stats than Hakeem, Hakeem is universally recognized as the better player because when it mattered, Hakeem dominated and led his team.

FlashBolt
08-21-2018, 02:18 PM
Just wondering. Can anyone show me a scenario where a guy is 2 points higher in PER than another player, yet is playing worse. Or even a single point. If not, PER is fine and people need to stop with there ďif thenĒ scenarios

To shut this argument down, Kanter was ranked 16th in PER last year and has consistently ranked anywhere from top 8-20 in the past few years (I believe). PER isn't really a good stat when used alone to rank a player.

kdspurman
08-21-2018, 02:26 PM
LMA had a PER of 25.0 this year and Embiid had a PER of 22.9 and I think Embiid was better.

Rudy Gobert had a PER of 20.7 this year and Andre Drummond had a PER of 22.9 and I think Gobert was better.

It happens all the time.

Agreed on Gobert/Drummond, but LMA might've had the better year than Embiid last year.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=LaMarcus+Aldridge&player_id1_select=LaMarcus+Aldridge&y1=2018&player_id1=aldrila01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Joel+Embiid&player_id2_select=Joel+Embiid&y2=2018&player_id2=embiijo01&idx=players

IKnowHoops
08-21-2018, 03:14 PM
LMA had a PER of 25.0 this year and Embiid had a PER of 22.9 and I think Embiid was better.

Rudy Gobert had a PER of 20.7 this year and Andre Drummond had a PER of 22.9 and I think Gobert was better.

It happens all the time.

Man, I think you just made my point, and the point of advanced stats.

I just looked at Lamar and Embiidís #ís

Lamar had better more efficient numbers than Embiid. So while you think Embiid is better, and I agree, my question was who played better. And the answer is Aldridge

Chronz
08-21-2018, 03:21 PM
If you have a comprehensive understanding of basketball then you actually don't even need stats. Like at all.

MJ was a bad gm before stats had anything to do with anything.
Meh. I don't really need to watch anymore tbh. The stats tell me enough and I'll still crush your eyes

Chronz
08-21-2018, 03:22 PM
Just wondering. Can anyone show me a scenario where a guy is 2 points higher in PER than another player, yet is playing worse. Or even a single point. If not, PER is fine and people need to stop with there ďif thenĒ scenarios
Yes. Any chucker vs efficient team guy

Chronz
08-21-2018, 03:24 PM
Agreed on Gobert/Drummond, but LMA might've had the better year than Embiid last year.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=LaMarcus+Aldridge&player_id1_select=LaMarcus+Aldridge&y1=2018&player_id1=aldrila01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Joel+Embiid&player_id2_select=Joel+Embiid&y2=2018&player_id2=embiijo01&idx=players

It's not meant to measure defense but embiid needs to cut the turnovers before he's a better offensive player than lma.

mightybosstone
08-21-2018, 03:25 PM
If you have a comprehensive understanding of basketball then you actually don't even need stats. Like at all.

:facepalm:

C'mon man. You can't possibly believe that nonsense. That's totally asinine.

IKnowHoops
08-21-2018, 03:35 PM
To shut this argument down, Kanter was ranked 16th in PER last year and has consistently ranked anywhere from top 8-20 in the past few years (I believe). PER isn't really a good stat when used alone to rank a player.

Thanks for that. And I agree. Great example

IndyRealist
08-21-2018, 04:03 PM
Thanks for that. And I agree. Great example

Hassan Whiteside is another one, with a PER of 24. Would a single person take him over Gobert at PER 20?

Greg Monroe at 21 over Paul George at 19 and Otto Porter at 18?

IKnowHoops
08-21-2018, 04:08 PM
Yes. Any chucker vs efficient team guy

So Gobert > Kobe?

Based on this statement you have to have Admiral > Kobe

Jamiecballer
08-21-2018, 04:09 PM
It's not accident, he was the leader of the team and flat out carried them offensively. Your argument is going to be that 11 other players carried him defensively. Cool, name another team that made the Finals that was literally carried on the offensive side of the ball by a single player? The list is again, exceedingly rare.

And all of this is discounting the fact you've already said that AI's teammates were so bad they wouldn't even crack rotations on other teams, but you justify your admittance of the obvious by saying talent doesn't matter, which is a positions far removed from reality.

This is the NBA, of course it's about talent.

No, you are completely misreading or trying to fill in blanks on my behalf.

I didn't characterize his teammates at any point in time as being "so bad". Those are your words. I agreed with you that some, for instance guys like Lynch and Snow, probably would not have found a rotation spot in most places and were desirable as much for what they didn't or wouldn't do (demand the ball, gripe about lack of touches) as what they did or would do (went after it on defense, physical gritty hard nosed play, fairly cerebral). You cant take that put of the equation - that gave them more value than they would have anywhere else. It's not an accident they landed there, ynow?

You took my agreement to mean that these players are no good, but you are missing something. I have always felt that guys who brought excellent effort, played physical, tough defense, and did not force the game on the offensive end were tremendously undervalued, particularly in that era where the 3 was not nearly as prevalent.

Even better than talent is fully utilized talent, this is what every coach is trying to achieve, no? To have a team where every player can bring their full talents to bear on a nightly basis? That team was a masterful example of how to use what you've got to the fullest. They utilized Iversons predictability beautifully and in a conference without a great team they rode it to the finals.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

IKnowHoops
08-21-2018, 04:11 PM
Hassan Whiteside is another one, with a PER of 24. Would a single person take him over Gobert at PER 20?

Greg Monroe at 21 over Paul George at 19 and Otto Porter at 18?

I know PER doesnít take defense into account. Which prob volts Drob up to #1 all-time if we take into account offense and Defense.

MygirlhatesCod
08-21-2018, 04:17 PM
And you don't get to say let's just forget about talent. Talent matters. The more talented team wins the majority of the time.

And I agree, it's not as hard as you're making it seem. Talk about all the value coming from elsewhere all you want, but I have a feeling you didn't answer my previous question about which Finals team absent their top player had less talent than AI's supporting cast because you know the answer is very few to none.So as much as you want to denigrate AI's accomplishment at the end of the day we're still left with the fact that he led the least talented team in recent memory to the Finals. I'm not saying that makes him Top 25, but it is an impressive accomplishment (consider we still aren't off LeBron's nuts for taking an untalented team to the Finals vs the Spurs). Just because you hate one aspect of AI's game (his inefficiency) doesn't mean you must trivialize all of his accomplishments.

I can look at him objectively and say that his TS% and efficiency are horrendous but taking that team to the Finals was impressive. Especially considering people often say that a plethora of SGs could have been substituted for him and made the Finals that year, guys like Reggie Miller, Vince Carter and Ray Allen... literally all 3 guys the 76ers beat on their way to the Finals that year.

I think you are leaving out the fact that all those teams from the east that year were horrible. by default whoever got to the finals would have been in the same boat you say AI is in.

the shiniest turd is still a turd.

Chronz
08-21-2018, 04:25 PM
So Gobert > Kobe?

Based on this statement you have to have Admiral > Kobe
Kobe was too efficient to be labeled a chucker in my book. Im thinking guys not good enough to lead offenses.

Nah admiral dropped off severely when the games mattered.

IndyRealist
08-21-2018, 04:25 PM
I know PER doesnít take defense into account. Which prob volts Drob up to #1 all-time if we take into account offense and Defense.

Whiteside is ranked higher because he shoots almost 2x as frequently for an extremely marginal 4 points per 36 more. Esstentially 7 more shots per 36 and making 2 of them. Because PER rewards shooting more, rather than shooting well.

Scoots
08-21-2018, 05:26 PM
stats won't tell you that MJ isn't giving up the ball with under 24 seconds to go in a one possession game, so he likely had some attempts he had no business taking. LeBron on the other hand, will defer to a player with a better shot. Kinda like guys who won't heave the ball because it will impact their numbers. So no, stats don't tell EVERYTHING, but they tell enough if you watch along with it. So it makes sense that LeBron's shooting numbers are stronger. Kobe was considered clutch for years, hopefully that has been dispelled at this point for the most part (he and his team fall apart in the clutch).

Here is one-the Lakers, during the Kobe reign, dropped over 20 points per 100 possessions in "clutch" situations. Why? Because everyone and their mother knew he was going to shoot it, no matter how many defenders were draped on him. So basically, if you can get the Kobe Lakers in a tight game, you probably beat them. But, people don't remember that. They have selective memories, and we can't possibly remember every single play of every single game that we watched. LeBron's team on the other hand, always stays elite in the clutch. Why? Because they have the best player possible, and he makes the best basketball plays in those situations.

Look, anyone who rides stats as gospel doesn't get it. However, anyone who thinks the pure eye test beats documented numbers and trends doesn't get it at all. You need a comprehensive understanding of basketball to begin with, the stats simply develop a much stronger analytical grasp of a player/team/unit. They can't be ignored, and if they are, you won't last long in a debate, and sure as hell not long in the NBA, unless you are an ex-player and can dupe teams into your "experience".

MJ is the worst ****ing GM the NBA had. Why? Because his utter refusal to listen to anyone, including stat heads.

Blame youtube highlights. Search for "clutch Kobe" and he probably hits every shot.

Scoots
08-21-2018, 05:31 PM
There's two types of PSDers: those who change their opinion when facts contradict them, and those that insist their opinion is correct despite all facts to the contrary.

But that just means you chose the wrong facts.

If someone "knows" a player is superior, every stat that supports that is right, and every one that doesn't is wrong or you don't understand it.

Scoots
08-21-2018, 05:32 PM
Just wondering. Can anyone show me a scenario where a guy is 2 points higher in PER than another player, yet is playing worse. Or even a single point. If not, PER is fine and people need to stop with there ďif thenĒ scenarios

That is a loaded question. PER essentially ignores defense like most stats we have access to for one thing.

valade16
08-21-2018, 05:43 PM
I think you are leaving out the fact that all those teams from the east that year were horrible. by default whoever got to the finals would have been in the same boat you say AI is in.

the shiniest turd is still a turd.

While I agree, they were no more horrible than AI's 76ers. Basically, for that run, AI was the shiniest turd of all of the great SGs he faced that year.

ewing
08-21-2018, 06:06 PM
Man, I think you just made my point, and the point of advanced stats.

I just looked at Lamar and Embiidís #ís

Lamar had better more efficient numbers than Embiid. So while you think Embiid is better, and I agree, my question was who played better. And the answer is Aldridge

Thatís not what the stat means and I donít think it is true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
08-21-2018, 07:16 PM
While I agree, they were no more horrible than AI's 76ers. Basically, for that run, AI was the shiniest turd of all of the great SGs he faced that year.

Bucks were a pretty talented group- Big dog, Sam Cassel, Ray Allen, Tim Thomas, Ervin ďnot magicĒ Johnson

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heediot
08-21-2018, 09:06 PM
For all you guys disrespecting AI. How hard do you think opposing teams and coaches game planned for him when he had Snow, Lynch, Mt. Mutombo, A. Mckie and co?? Mutombo was washed up anyway IMO. Sure he could gold his own defensively but he wasn't close to prime Mutombo. The other three were lifetime bench warmers.

The guy is flawed, but don't underestimate the pressure he put on opposing teams that forced them to game plan a specific way.

Heediot
08-21-2018, 09:11 PM
As for the eye tests and stats. Even teams that are stat heavy like Hou, GS, SA would lick their chops in adding guys like R. Gay, Melo, Cousins, Kyrie etc.. Guys that u stat geeks hate.

I think the amount of pressure a guy is able to put on defenses comes before metrics IMO. Metrics have their merits and usefulness no doubt, but I would build a team around how much pressure a guy could put on a defense to go along with chemistry over metrics. Defensively how well the guy can hold his own against his man and also how well one could learn the team defensive scheme over metrics. There is a balance between the two, but metrics comes after what I just mentioned.

Scoots
08-21-2018, 10:12 PM
As for the eye tests and stats. Even teams that are stat heavy like Hou, GS, SA would lick their chops in adding guys like R. Gay, Melo, Cousins, Kyrie etc.. Guys that u stat geeks hate.

I think the amount of pressure a guy is able to put on defenses comes before metrics IMO. Metrics have their merits and usefulness no doubt, but I would build a team around how much pressure a guy could put on a defense to go along with chemistry over metrics. Defensively how well the guy can hold his own against his man and also how well one could learn the team defensive scheme over metrics. There is a balance between the two, but metrics comes after what I just mentioned.

The metrics are a result of the play, so of course they come after. The problem with eye test only people is that they are too easily fooled by the best of a player and thinking that is what they can do all the time. The problem with the stats only guys is they don't see how the player interacts with the team and how they achieve the stats.

It has to be both, so anybody arguing one is superior, or worse, the only thing needed, needs to re-think their position.

nastynice
08-22-2018, 05:28 AM
How are stats misleading? It's quite solid in what it's representing. PPG stands for Points Per Game. Simple enough, right? The problem is people (you), misinterpret a stat and believe others are using them unjustly when they aren't. Stats aren't used to measure players but simply a record of how they have contributed using a specific formula. If you're trying to measure a player and how good they are, you use various factors. To say stats are misleading is quite obvious, due to your misinterpretation of them. For example, you say: MJ and Durant are more clutch than LeBron. Well, prove it to me. Simply telling me to watch YouTube videos is a sureshot depiction of you refusing to use statistical evidence. It happened with Kobe and it's how he generated this "clutch" label despite statistical evidence showing he wasn't as clutch as people have made him to be. His reputation for being clutch survived that long because there wasn't a widespread focus on stats in the media and the internet was not yet widely available for people to double-check Kobe's "clutch" reputation. Anyways, your logic doesn't correlate with facts. The fact is, stats work better than eyes because our eyes only see what we want to see. If you dislike LeBron, you're already convinced that regardless of what he does, you will find some fault in his game and try to justify it.There just has to be a proper usage of both of them before one makes an opinion. It's why despite D.Robinson having better stats than Hakeem, Hakeem is universally recognized as the better player because when it mattered, Hakeem dominated and led his team.

I just gave you an example of how they were misleading because someone used that as an example of how stats are superior and so I poked a hole in that argument by bringing up another player with similar stats but is a completely different type of player.

And if you notice, what you seem to be doing is watching the game and then trying to fit the stats to what you see. So I guess even you agree with my take of eye test being better :)

Hawkeye15
08-22-2018, 09:41 AM
Blame youtube highlights. Search for "clutch Kobe" and he probably hits every shot.

humans have selective memory. I don't remember the 1000 girls that told me "no", but I remember most of the 70 that said "yes"

Hawkeye15
08-22-2018, 09:43 AM
As for the eye tests and stats. Even teams that are stat heavy like Hou, GS, SA would lick their chops in adding guys like R. Gay, Melo, Cousins, Kyrie etc.. Guys that u stat geeks hate.

I think the amount of pressure a guy is able to put on defenses comes before metrics IMO. Metrics have their merits and usefulness no doubt, but I would build a team around how much pressure a guy could put on a defense to go along with chemistry over metrics. Defensively how well the guy can hold his own against his man and also how well one could learn the team defensive scheme over metrics. There is a balance between the two, but metrics comes after what I just mentioned.

right but when do teams add these guys? The smart teams that is....they add them for minimum/low deals many times later in their career when humbleness has set in, and you will notice with roles that don't feature them. Look a volume scorer has value, IF used right. When Melo is your top dog, your team is ****ed. When Kyrie is your best player and featured, your team sucks. But that doesn't mean they can't contribute to winning if used right, and if they have the right frame of mind.

IndyRealist
08-22-2018, 11:19 AM
As a resident stat geek, I'd like to say I don't hate Gay, Cousins or Kyrie. That's the difference between us. I DID hate those players, but they all had good seasons the last year or two. Because when PRESENTED WITH NEW INFORMATION, I can change my opinion.


"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -John Kenneth Galbraith

WaDe03
08-22-2018, 01:12 PM
Whenever they try to touch my sphincter, god bless them but no!!!!

mightybosstone
08-22-2018, 01:24 PM
right but when do teams add these guys? The smart teams that is....they add them for minimum/low deals many times later in their career when humbleness has set in, and you will notice with roles that don't feature them. Look a volume scorer has value, IF used right. When Melo is your top dog, your team is ****ed. When Kyrie is your best player and featured, your team sucks. But that doesn't mean they can't contribute to winning if used right, and if they have the right frame of mind.

Exactly. The smart teams aren't the ones who max out guys like that. The smart teams are the ones who bring those guys in, maximize their strengths by getting them to play specific roles and pay them pennies on the dollar what they think they should be making.

Rudy Gay is the perfect example. As a primary scorer, the guy is just not a good NBA player. But if you need an energy guy to come in and give you 20 minutes a night give you some energy and good all-around production, Gay is great for that role. His minutes and field goal attempts were cut dramatically last season in San Antonio, and many of his advanced numbers shot up sharply. That's not a coincidence.

I think you'll see similar approaches with Melo in Houston and Cousins in Golden State. Those guys are not going to be the same players they were in OKC and New Orleans, respectively. They're going to come in and play the role they're asked to play, and if it doesn't work out, it's a low-risk signing for those teams.

Also, how did Kyrie somehow get brought into this conversation? The dude's advanced numbers are pretty legit, especially when you factor in his postseason advanced numbers. I don't know a lot of big stats supporters who are anti-Kyrie anymore.

ewing
08-22-2018, 01:30 PM
As a resident stat geek, I'd like to say I don't hate Gay, Cousins or Kyrie. That's the difference between us. I DID hate those players, but they all had good seasons the last year or two. Because when PRESENTED WITH NEW INFORMATION, I can change my opinion.


"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -John Kenneth Galbraith

Some guys stats are less reflective then there impact. Some are more. A lot are pretty damn accurate. Cousins is a good case of a guy that is not reflective bc his numbers might have been better but the team still improved with him off the court. Cousins numbers have always been inflated relative to his impact


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WaDe03
08-22-2018, 01:52 PM
As a resident stat geek, I'd like to say I don't hate Gay, Cousins or Kyrie. That's the difference between us. I DID hate those players, but they all had good seasons the last year or two. Because when PRESENTED WITH NEW INFORMATION, I can change my opinion.


"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -John Kenneth Galbraith

Iím glad to see this and thank you for standing up for this. As long as they donít come at me with it I donít have a problem with it. We live in a world where everyone needs to be united and have each otherís backs but thatís a whole other discussion. God bless everyone here!!!!

Hawkeye15
08-22-2018, 02:13 PM
Exactly. The smart teams aren't the ones who max out guys like that. The smart teams are the ones who bring those guys in, maximize their strengths by getting them to play specific roles and pay them pennies on the dollar what they think they should be making.

Rudy Gay is the perfect example. As a primary scorer, the guy is just not a good NBA player. But if you need an energy guy to come in and give you 20 minutes a night give you some energy and good all-around production, Gay is great for that role. His minutes and field goal attempts were cut dramatically last season in San Antonio, and many of his advanced numbers shot up sharply. That's not a coincidence.

I think you'll see similar approaches with Melo in Houston and Cousins in Golden State. Those guys are not going to be the same players they were in OKC and New Orleans, respectively. They're going to come in and play the role they're asked to play, and if it doesn't work out, it's a low-risk signing for those teams.

Also, how did Kyrie somehow get brought into this conversation? The dude's advanced numbers are pretty legit, especially when you factor in his postseason advanced numbers. I don't know a lot of big stats supporters who are anti-Kyrie anymore.

I am, but more so because of his defensive negative, and style of play. But there is no doubt he can help you win. He just isn't on the star level most paint him to be.

Scoots
08-22-2018, 04:34 PM
Whenever they try to touch my sphincter, god bless them but no!!!!

I think a week was about right it turns out :)

WaDe03
08-22-2018, 04:49 PM
I think a week was about right it turns out :)

Sir Iím still here and god bless you, I havenít changed and never will. :worthy: Hope all is going well for you partner/neighbor! :hope;

Heediot
08-22-2018, 06:55 PM
right but when do teams add these guys? The smart teams that is....they add them for minimum/low deals many times later in their career when humbleness has set in, and you will notice with roles that don't feature them. Look a volume scorer has value, IF used right. When Melo is your top dog, your team is ****ed. When Kyrie is your best player and featured, your team sucks. But that doesn't mean they can't contribute to winning if used right, and if they have the right frame of mind.

Celtics and Spurs were interested in Kyrie as the main or one of the main focal points of an offense. Teams were chasing Melo when he was a FA 5 years ago. Teams would have chased cousins more if he were healthy too.... These guys would still be sought after due to the respect they command on offense and how they force to teams to game plan against them. I'll give you Rudy Gay, lolol, Memphis was a heavy analytics team and they let him go for Calderone lol.

FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 02:32 AM
For all you guys disrespecting AI. How hard do you think opposing teams and coaches game planned for him when he had Snow, Lynch, Mt. Mutombo, A. Mckie and co?? Mutombo was washed up anyway IMO. Sure he could gold his own defensively but he wasn't close to prime Mutombo. The other three were lifetime bench warmers.

The guy is flawed, but don't underestimate the pressure he put on opposing teams that forced them to game plan a specific way.

That's not what anyone is denying. Iverson was great for that system but that system doesn't win you championships. And anyone who thinks that Eastern Conference was remotely competitive in terms of winning a title are delusional. Raptors and Bucks took the Sixers to seven games, each. Can anyone tell me which players on the Raptors and Bucks were significantly better than Iverson's teammates? In fact, Iverson was OUTPLAYED by Vince and Ray Allen in both series. Check the data and games, it'll support what I say. And what I say is this: That system was built around AI because he couldn't play any other way.

Dikembe Mutombo not being in his prime can be interpreted in several ways. He had his most accomplished season playing in Philly. Here's what he achieved:

ēDPOY
ēRebound leader
ēDefensive 1st team
ēAll-NBA 3rd team
ēNBA All-Star

So if that wasn't prime Mutombo, well, he sure damn well was still an absolute beast. How many players today could do that all in one season? Rudy Gobert might be the only player capable and yet, he's got ways to go.

I like AI and he was great culturally for the league in that his style generated lots of viewers but let's just face the goddamn truth. He didn't win anything, he didn't change his game, his style of play was a detriment to his team at times, and he just isn't in the level of other guys who get way less credit than AI but are just better players.

Hawkeye15
08-23-2018, 10:22 AM
Celtics and Spurs were interested in Kyrie as the main or one of the main focal points of an offense. Teams were chasing Melo when he was a FA 5 years ago. Teams would have chased cousins more if he were healthy too.... These guys would still be sought after due to the respect they command on offense and how they force to teams to game plan against them. I'll give you Rudy Gay, lolol, Memphis was a heavy analytics team and they let him go for Calderone lol.

Kyrie has his deficiencies, but is an excellent player. The C's knew they could cover his defensive liabilities up, cause they have like 23 guys that are perimeter defenders. The Spurs seem to make everyone fit their system, not sure how. Cousins, I feel like over half the league would avoid him at this point.

You get what I mean though. Teams will go after those guys, but if they aren't doing it at the right time, for the right cost, it will backfire.

ewing
08-23-2018, 11:09 AM
That's not what anyone is denying. Iverson was great for that system but that system doesn't win you championships. And anyone who thinks that Eastern Conference was remotely competitive in terms of winning a title are delusional. Raptors and Bucks took the Sixers to seven games, each. Can anyone tell me which players on the Raptors and Bucks were significantly better than Iverson's teammates? In fact, Iverson was OUTPLAYED by Vince and Ray Allen in both series. Check the data and games, it'll support what I say. And what I say is this: That system was built around AI because he couldn't play any other way.

Dikembe Mutombo not being in his prime can be interpreted in several ways. He had his most accomplished season playing in Philly. Here's what he achieved:

ēDPOY
ēRebound leader
ēDefensive 1st team
ēAll-NBA 3rd team
ēNBA All-Star

So if that wasn't prime Mutombo, well, he sure damn well was still an absolute beast. How many players today could do that all in one season? Rudy Gobert might be the only player capable and yet, he's got ways to go.

I like AI and he was great culturally for the league in that his style generated lots of viewers but let's just face the goddamn truth. He didn't win anything, he didn't change his game, his style of play was a detriment to his team at times, and he just isn't in the level of other guys who get way less credit than AI but are just better players.

Sure Mount and AI were all the sixers had in terms of legit talent. Tortono had Antonio Davis, Charles Oakley, Alvin Williams, Chris Childs, Mo Pete (not stars but not Eric Snow) The Bucks also had 3 legit players in Ray Allen, Sam, and Big Dog. Both team had more surrounding talent IMO. I agree that AI is overrated historically and his ball dominate style did cause team issues at times still he did have a nice run and he beat more talented teams that year to come out of the East.

Bruins2012
08-23-2018, 11:19 AM
When people say they smoke weed and/or fornicate with loose women.

FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 12:37 PM
Kyrie has his deficiencies, but is an excellent player. The C's knew they could cover his defensive liabilities up, cause they have like 23 guys that are perimeter defenders. The Spurs seem to make everyone fit their system, not sure how. Cousins, I feel like over half the league would avoid him at this point.

You get what I mean though. Teams will go after those guys, but if they aren't doing it at the right time, for the right cost, it will backfire.

That's a bit unfair to Kyrie. I think Cleveland not having Kyrie was very evident of Kyrie's value. He's one of the best ever at his position in scoring the ball but if you're looking for defense, you wouldn't even look at him or Curry. When the lights are on, Kyrie is money. The value that provides simply isn't more highlighted when talking about Kyrie. Is he the best playmaker or defender? Nope. But with how the league is played today, being a defender isn't really as much of a requirement to be elite and as for playmaking, we've seen that great teams who can move the ball don't require a dominant playmaker.

valade16
08-23-2018, 12:39 PM
That's not what anyone is denying. Iverson was great for that system but that system doesn't win you championships. And anyone who thinks that Eastern Conference was remotely competitive in terms of winning a title are delusional. Raptors and Bucks took the Sixers to seven games, each. Can anyone tell me which players on the Raptors and Bucks were significantly better than Iverson's teammates? In fact, Iverson was OUTPLAYED by Vince and Ray Allen in both series. Check the data and games, it'll support what I say. And what I say is this: That system was built around AI because he couldn't play any other way.

Dikembe Mutombo not being in his prime can be interpreted in several ways. He had his most accomplished season playing in Philly. Here's what he achieved:

ēDPOY
ēRebound leader
ēDefensive 1st team
ēAll-NBA 3rd team
ēNBA All-Star

So if that wasn't prime Mutombo, well, he sure damn well was still an absolute beast. How many players today could do that all in one season? Rudy Gobert might be the only player capable and yet, he's got ways to go.

I like AI and he was great culturally for the league in that his style generated lots of viewers but let's just face the goddamn truth. He didn't win anything, he didn't change his game, his style of play was a detriment to his team at times, and he just isn't in the level of other guys who get way less credit than AI but are just better players.

First Bolded: Both Ray and Vince had better supporting casts, especially when your argument centers around only Mutombo, because:

Second Bolded: Of course Dikembe got those accolades, there was 1 other good Center in the entire league. D-Rob was playing 29 MPG and a shell of himself at 14/9, Alonzo Mourning got hurt for the year, Hakeem and Ewing were 38 years old averaging 10 PPG. Who was he actually competing against to be considered the top defensive Center? Shaq was the only other top C in his prime at the time.

FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 12:50 PM
First Bolded: Both Ray and Vince had better supporting casts, especially when your argument centers around only Mutombo, because:

Second Bolded: Of course Dikembe got those accolades, there was 1 other good Center in the entire league. D-Rob was playing 29 MPG and a shell of himself at 14/9, Alonzo Mourning got hurt for the year, Hakeem and Ewing were 38 years old averaging 10 PPG. Who was he actually competing against to be considered the top defensive Center? Shaq was the only other top C in his prime at the time.


1) Raptors definitely did not have a better roster. They weren't a very good team.
2) Bucks were a good offensive team but poor defensive team. Depends on what you're looking for but switching roles, both teams would suffer. I wouldn't say definitively Bucks had a better roster because both teams were completely different in how they were assembled.
3) Your second bolded is irrelevant. Dikembe got all those accolades = he's elite for that year. Is it Dikembe's fault the rest of the centers weren't up-to-par? That gave the Sixers an advantage. If the Bucks had Dikembe, they'd be an infinitely better team.

No one can deny it: East was very weak and the real contenders were on the West. Sixers were elite at defense and rebounding - two things Allen Iverson could not do. They were built to cover his deficiencies and through his long career and stint with Sixers, it never amounted to much other than 2001.

valade16
08-23-2018, 01:35 PM
1) Raptors definitely did not have a better roster. They weren't a very good team.
2) Bucks were a good offensive team but poor defensive team. Depends on what you're looking for but switching roles, both teams would suffer. I wouldn't say definitively Bucks had a better roster because both teams were completely different in how they were assembled.
3) Your second bolded is irrelevant. Dikembe got all those accolades = he's elite for that year. Is it Dikembe's fault the rest of the centers weren't up-to-par? That gave the Sixers an advantage. If the Bucks had Dikembe, they'd be an infinitely better team.

No one can deny it: East was very weak and the real contenders were on the West. Sixers were elite at defense and rebounding - two things Allen Iverson could not do. They were built to cover his deficiencies and through his long career and stint with Sixers, it never amounted to much other than 2001.

3). That is not irrelevant at all. If you want to say he was elite in the context of a single season because everyone else was so bad, I guess... I just don't subscribe to the logic that a 70% on a test is elite because everyone else scored a 60%. Elite is elite, it is not dependent on your opponents ability. Either you're elite or you're not.

I agree, the East was pitifully weak that year, the Sixers were elite at defense and rebounding, two things Iverson didn't do much of. But they were also 13th in Offensive efficiency that season, and their entire team with the exception of AI and Aaron McKie was garbage at scoring. They were built to cover his deficiencies, something any smart GM and coach is going to do (so I don't know why that's such a negative only with AI. I guess we should talk about how bad Dirk is because his coach and GM covered for his deficiencies. Or Bron). Yes it never amounted to much success other than 2001, but discounting the highest level of success is always going to make something sound less impressive lol. It's more success than T-Mac, CP3, Ray Allen, or Vince Carter could ever do as the man. I'm not saying that makes him better than them, but if you're going to the argument of lack of success, be prepared to explain your hypocrisy on why it matters for AI but not for those you think are better than him.

I've heard the argument a thousand times. They built around AI with only defense and rebounding and that's why they won. OK, but there's still the other entire side of the ball, which they basically gave to a single man and told him to score more than the other team. There are precious few players you could do that to in history. Many superior players to AI couldn't single handedly carry an offense, especially with zero offensive support. Ray Allen certainly couldn't do it, that's why the Bucks tried to surround him with so much more scoring. They traded Tyrone Hill, who was a defensive player, to the 76ers for Tim Thomas.

If the 76ers are a team designed around their star, so too were the Bucks around theirs. They deliberately chose to trade away defense for offense.

FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 01:49 PM
3). That is not irrelevant at all. If you want to say he was elite in the context of a single season because everyone else was so bad, I guess... I just don't subscribe to the logic that a 70% on a test is elite because everyone else scored a 60%. Elite is elite, it is not dependent on your opponents ability. Either you're elite or you're not.

I agree, the East was pitifully weak that year, the Sixers were elite at defense and rebounding, two things Iverson didn't do much of. But they were also 13th in Offensive efficiency that season, and their entire team with the exception of AI and Aaron McKie was garbage at scoring. They were built to cover his deficiencies, something any smart GM and coach is going to do (so I don't know why that's such a negative only with AI. I guess we should talk about how bad Dirk is because his coach and GM covered for his deficiencies. Or Bron). Yes it never amounted to much success other than 2001, but discounting the highest level of success is always going to make something sound less impressive lol. It's more success than T-Mac, CP3, Ray Allen, or Vince Carter could ever do as the man. I'm not saying that makes him better than them, but if you're going to the argument of lack of success, be prepared to explain your hypocrisy on why it matters for AI but not for those you think are better than him.

I've heard the argument a thousand times. They built around AI with only defense and rebounding and that's why they won. OK, but there's still the other entire side of the ball, which they basically gave to a single man and told him to score more than the other team. There are precious few players you could do that to in history. Many superior players to AI couldn't single handedly carry an offense, especially with zero offensive support. Ray Allen certainly couldn't do it, that's why the Bucks tried to surround him with so much more scoring. They traded Tyrone Hill, who was a defensive player, to the 76ers for Tim Thomas.

If the 76ers are a team designed around their star, so too were the Bucks around theirs. They deliberately chose to trade away defense for offense.

So you want me to penalize what we already know was a weak offensive team that was DESIGNED to fit the needs of Allen Iverson? I mean, the same Allen Iverson who admittedly stated that him practicing with his team doesn't help them get better? Well, of course it does. And that's part of why Allen Iverson can't be a winner as a first option. He just never adapted because he wouldn't or couldn't accept any other style other than Allen Iverson. You're just repeating what I said. I already stated that Sixers sacrified offense for defense and Bucks chose offense instead of defense. As for the success argument involving CP3, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, and T-Mac:

1) I have Allen Iverson above Ray Allen, Vince, and T-Mac as an individual player but I would rather pick any of those three to build a team around than AI.
2) CP3's success is evident in that he's led his team to a lot of wins consistently and has done so for over a decade while being an elite defender and one of the most efficient players. He's also played in the West for his entire career so if you're going to try and compare, be proper and ask yourself: What would AI achieve playing in the West during his peak years?
3) If the rest of the centers suck and you're one of the best centers, you're an elite center. Your definition of being elite is more of an All-Time status measurement. Dikembe was an elite center in his Philly years because you couldn't find many centers better than him.
4) Are you seriously comparing Dirk and LeBron's deficiencies to AI? Listen, this doesn't have to be a generic statement. When I say the team was built to cover AI's deficiencies, it's to explain the team built around AI. The teams built around Dirk and LeBron were more fluid. LeBron could play well with elite offensive players and elite defensive players. Dirk could play well with anyone because he didn't need the ball. AI's problems were his mentality towards the game, his size, and inability to do anything at an elite level other than score the ball (with an insane amount of shot attempts to "score" the ball.) These are just terrible comparisons with no merit. Every team is built around their star player(s) but in AI's sense, because of every deficiency I mentioned about him, it was not a case where it was going to be successful.

ewing
08-23-2018, 01:52 PM
Good post Vlade. Bad rebuttal Flashbolt

Hawkeye15
08-23-2018, 02:30 PM
That's a bit unfair to Kyrie. I think Cleveland not having Kyrie was very evident of Kyrie's value. He's one of the best ever at his position in scoring the ball but if you're looking for defense, you wouldn't even look at him or Curry. When the lights are on, Kyrie is money. The value that provides simply isn't more highlighted when talking about Kyrie. Is he the best playmaker or defender? Nope. But with how the league is played today, being a defender isn't really as much of a requirement to be elite and as for playmaking, we've seen that great teams who can move the ball don't require a dominant playmaker.

Kyrie is a bucket getter. That always has value. I simply don't like his style (too playground), and think he is such a liability defensively that it drops him below the first tier of PG's, easily. That doesn't mean he isn't valuable. He was perfect for LeBron. Took some of the shot creating responsibilities away, and Irving is usually very good in late game scoring situations.

He was ideal next to LeBron. Would he be with the Warriors for instance? Meh, not nearly as much as Curry for example.

valade16
08-23-2018, 02:50 PM
So you want me to penalize what we already know was a weak offensive team that was DESIGNED to fit the needs of Allen Iverson? I mean, the same Allen Iverson who admittedly stated that him practicing with his team doesn't help them get better? Well, of course it does. And that's part of why Allen Iverson can't be a winner as a first option. He just never adapted because he wouldn't or couldn't accept any other style other than Allen Iverson. You're just repeating what I said. I already stated that Sixers sacrified offense for defense and Bucks chose offense instead of defense. As for the success argument involving CP3, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, and T-Mac:

1) I have Allen Iverson above Ray Allen, Vince, and T-Mac as an individual player but I would rather pick any of those three to build a team around than AI.
2) CP3's success is evident in that he's led his team to a lot of wins consistently and has done so for over a decade while being an elite defender and one of the most efficient players. He's also played in the West for his entire career so if you're going to try and compare, be proper and ask yourself: What would AI achieve playing in the West during his peak years?
3) If the rest of the centers suck and you're one of the best centers, you're an elite center. Your definition of being elite is more of an All-Time status measurement. Dikembe was an elite center in his Philly years because you couldn't find many centers better than him.
4) Are you seriously comparing Dirk and LeBron's deficiencies to AI? Listen, this doesn't have to be a generic statement. When I say the team was built to cover AI's deficiencies, it's to explain the team built around AI. The teams built around Dirk and LeBron were more fluid. LeBron could play well with elite offensive players and elite defensive players. Dirk could play well with anyone because he didn't need the ball. AI's problems were his mentality towards the game, his size, and inability to do anything at an elite level other than score the ball (with an insane amount of shot attempts to "score" the ball.) These are just terrible comparisons with no merit. Every team is built around their star player(s) but in AI's sense, because of every deficiency I mentioned about him, it was not a case where it was going to be successful.

When you say winner you mean actual champion right? Because while he didn't win a title, I don't think anyone could say he wasn't a winner by going to the Finals. As to that point, can you name a player that could have taken that team and beat the 00 Lakers? If so, what exactly are you saying? AI on a team where virtually nobody would be a champion on wasn't a champion? Suddenly the critique doesn't sound so bad.

1). I understand that sentiment and I agree I'd pick all of those 3 to build around over AI.
2). What would AI achieve playing in the West during his peak years? With those 76ers teams? Not much... but neither would CP3. I think AI would still have experienced success playing on the Clippers, though whether to the same degree as CP3 I can see why not (and I do think CP3 is superior to AI).
3). I understand your premise. But if we're going to say that a player is elite due to his relative value of everyone in the league at the time, does that not also apply to teams? Even though the East was garbage that year, using this logic we must conclude that the 76ers were a good to great team because of how good they were relative to the league.
4). Dirk could play well with anyone... but he couldn't win until they brought in a lot of defensive players who covered up his total lack of defense... sound familiar? And again, when you say not a case where it was going to be successful you mean win a title right? Because going to the Finals is successful. Which I'd again ask, what player could you have substituted on that 76ers team and believe they would have defeated the 00 Lakers?

I think we agree on more than we disagree concerning this subject.

FlashBolt
08-23-2018, 03:18 PM
When you say winner you mean actual champion right? Because while he didn't win a title, I don't think anyone could say he wasn't a winner by going to the Finals. As to that point, can you name a player that could have taken that team and beat the 00 Lakers? If so, what exactly are you saying? AI on a team where virtually nobody would be a champion on wasn't a champion? Suddenly the critique doesn't sound so bad.

1). I understand that sentiment and I agree I'd pick all of those 3 to build around over AI.
2). What would AI achieve playing in the West during his peak years? With those 76ers teams? Not much... but neither would CP3. I think AI would still have experienced success playing on the Clippers, though whether to the same degree as CP3 I can see why not (and I do think CP3 is superior to AI).
3). I understand your premise. But if we're going to say that a player is elite due to his relative value of everyone in the league at the time, does that not also apply to teams? Even though the East was garbage that year, using this logic we must conclude that the 76ers were a good to great team because of how good they were relative to the league.
4). Dirk could play well with anyone... but he couldn't win until they brought in a lot of defensive players who covered up his total lack of defense... sound familiar? And again, when you say not a case where it was going to be successful you mean win a title right? Because going to the Finals is successful. Which I'd again ask, what player could you have substituted on that 76ers team and believe they would have defeated the 00 Lakers?

I think we agree on more than we disagree concerning this subject.

We do agree more than disagree and that's because it's just undeniable that Allen Iverson is not a winning player. I'll clarify what a winning player is.

2) It depends on the team you build around CP3. Clippers weren't that bad of a team and though they underachieved, that much could be contributed to injuries and Blake Griffin never progressing as a player. The great part about CP3 is he can be a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd option on a championship team. He doesn't have to score to help his team win games. His defense and playmaking abilities to get others involved while being able to shoot the ball is something you just won't find in Allen Iverson. I always felt that Allen Iverson was a very good passer but he didn't show quite enough of it for the team to rely on it consistently. Would CP3 lead that Philly team to the Finals in the West? No way. But that is not how I would build a team around CP3, anyways. That might be the WORST way to build around CP3.

3) I still think Dikembe was an elite player. He was great in the playoffs as well. I mean, this is a guy with a proven track record of being a great rebounder, shotblocker, and defender who can finish around the rim. If this was an isolated year, I would agree but it isn't. Dikembe was a top center for many years and his two Philly seasons (one and a half, really) were indicative of that. In terms of the team aspect, well, I never took Philly to be an elite team during those years. They were very good but it was always the team out of the West that would have beaten them. It wasn't until the Pistons came along that we saw things start to even up in the Finals.

4) Mavericks were a very good defensive team ranking anywhere from 5-10 (I believe) during their best years. Their defense certainly helped them against the Miami Heat but let's face it: LeBron James massively underperforming was the reason they lost. I'm not buying into Mark Cuban's argument that they "zoned" LeBron out. While that may play a part, it was 100% mental on LeBron's part. Dirk won because LeBron lost and I will stand by that. Which player on that 76ers team substituted for Allen Iverson would have defeated the Lakers? None. But that's precisely my point: That team was built so far down, top to bottom, for Allen Iverson because Allen Iverson needed the ball to be his best. Could you imagine Allen Iverson during his prime years being a 2nd option? I don't. And his game doesn't fit the catch-and-shoot style as well. Which system would you have built around AI? It would have been very difficult to figure out. Quite honestly, I thought they did the perfect job getting the most out of AI and the team with their players. As you said yourself, you would rather build around Ray Allen, T-Mac, and Vince Carter despite Allen Iverson being a better individual player. It's got everything to do with what AI can't do that the others can do in a team aspect.

So what is a winning player? It might sound silly but they don't have to actually win a title or 60+ games. They just have to be in a system where you believe you can fit various styles with and compete every night. It's why I don't see Cousins, Love, DeMar, etc., as winning players. It's evidenced because I have zero faith in each of those guys to dominate when given a role where they might not be comfortable in but is required for the sake of the team. CP3 can fit on ANY team. There is no question that this Houston Rockets season was major evidence to that. LeBron can fit on ANY team. Contrary to belief about him needing shooters, that wasn't always the case. He led his team to the Finals with an average shooting team in 05-06. The reason his team is usually pro-shooting is due to the fact that LeBron is so good at creating attention that it's quite silly not to have shooters on the team as a vocal point in your offense. LeBron has played with bad, good, and elite players. He's done very well in all aspects.

I just don't see AI being a winning player. Making that lone Finals appearance was great and all but the reality is, it was a free-for-all in which Sixers escaped two grueling series by an inch of a hair. There wasn't the stance that there was a super dominant EC team that Philly had to get through. Outside of that Finals appearance, it's tough to find where AI truly dominated and won. Nuggets did much better with Billups replacing Allen Iverson and when Iverson was shipped to Memphis, he refused to come off the bench despite evidence pointing towards the fact that Memphis was clearly trying to build over Conley and that Allen Iverson was much better suited to be an off the bench scorer. Allen Iverson reminds me a lot of a miniature Carmelo Anthony in how his career has turned out. Melo has a huge following like AI but has never won anything nor has been regarded as a winning-type player in his career. Deep into their career, both are reluctant to change their game for the betterment of their team. Both are great scorers but depend on volume to do so. Neither are great at anything else.

valade16
08-23-2018, 03:49 PM
We do agree more than disagree and that's because it's just undeniable that Allen Iverson is not a winning player. I'll clarify what a winning player is.

2) It depends on the team you build around CP3. Clippers weren't that bad of a team and though they underachieved, that much could be contributed to injuries and Blake Griffin never progressing as a player. The great part about CP3 is he can be a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd option on a championship team. He doesn't have to score to help his team win games. His defense and playmaking abilities to get others involved while being able to shoot the ball is something you just won't find in Allen Iverson. I always felt that Allen Iverson was a very good passer but he didn't show quite enough of it for the team to rely on it consistently. Would CP3 lead that Philly team to the Finals in the West? No way. But that is not how I would build a team around CP3, anyways. That might be the WORST way to build around CP3.

3) I still think Dikembe was an elite player. He was great in the playoffs as well. I mean, this is a guy with a proven track record of being a great rebounder, shotblocker, and defender who can finish around the rim. If this was an isolated year, I would agree but it isn't. Dikembe was a top center for many years and his two Philly seasons (one and a half, really) were indicative of that. In terms of the team aspect, well, I never took Philly to be an elite team during those years. They were very good but it was always the team out of the West that would have beaten them. It wasn't until the Pistons came along that we saw things start to even up in the Finals.

4) Mavericks were a very good defensive team ranking anywhere from 5-10 (I believe) during their best years. Their defense certainly helped them against the Miami Heat but let's face it: LeBron James massively underperforming was the reason they lost. I'm not buying into Mark Cuban's argument that they "zoned" LeBron out. While that may play a part, it was 100% mental on LeBron's part. Dirk won because LeBron lost and I will stand by that. Which player on that 76ers team substituted for Allen Iverson would have defeated the Lakers? None. But that's precisely my point: That team was built so far down, top to bottom, for Allen Iverson because Allen Iverson needed the ball to be his best. Could you imagine Allen Iverson during his prime years being a 2nd option? I don't. And his game doesn't fit the catch-and-shoot style as well. Which system would you have built around AI? It would have been very difficult to figure out. Quite honestly, I thought they did the perfect job getting the most out of AI and the team with their players. As you said yourself, you would rather build around Ray Allen, T-Mac, and Vince Carter despite Allen Iverson being a better individual player. It's got everything to do with what AI can't do that the others can do in a team aspect.

So what is a winning player? It might sound silly but they don't have to actually win a title or 60+ games. They just have to be in a system where you believe you can fit various styles with and compete every night. It's why I don't see Cousins, Love, DeMar, etc., as winning players. It's evidenced because I have zero faith in each of those guys to dominate when given a role where they might not be comfortable in but is required for the sake of the team. CP3 can fit on ANY team. There is no question that this Houston Rockets season was major evidence to that. LeBron can fit on ANY team. Contrary to belief about him needing shooters, that wasn't always the case. He led his team to the Finals with an average shooting team in 05-06. The reason his team is usually pro-shooting is due to the fact that LeBron is so good at creating attention that it's quite silly not to have shooters on the team as a vocal point in your offense. LeBron has played with bad, good, and elite players. He's done very well in all aspects.

I just don't see AI being a winning player. Making that lone Finals appearance was great and all but the reality is, it was a free-for-all in which Sixers escaped two grueling series by an inch of a hair. There wasn't the stance that there was a super dominant EC team that Philly had to get through. Outside of that Finals appearance, it's tough to find where AI truly dominated and won. Nuggets did much better with Billups replacing Allen Iverson and when Iverson was shipped to Memphis, he refused to come off the bench despite evidence pointing towards the fact that Memphis was clearly trying to build over Conley and that Allen Iverson was much better suited to be an off the bench scorer. Allen Iverson reminds me a lot of a miniature Carmelo Anthony in how his career has turned out. Melo has a huge following like AI but has never won anything nor has been regarded as a winning-type player in his career. Deep into their career, both are reluctant to change their game for the betterment of their team. Both are great scorers but depend on volume to do so. Neither are great at anything else.

First Bolded: I disagree. I don't think CP3 being your 1st option would ever win a title, nor do I believe that CP3 could be the best player on your team (or the Alpha) and the team would win a title unless he had an incredible supporting cast or a 1B and several other strong players. Houston showed that he's a 2nd option, he has completely deferred to Harden in terms of 1st option/best player/Alpha status. People think he could be because of his versatility, but I think that's exactly but I don't buy it. I think the fact he's so willing to pass and defer and not score a ton is exactly why he won't ever be the best player on a championship team.

Second Bolded: Well they were 8th in 2011 with Chandler. They were 12th in 2010, 17th in 09, 9th in 08. They were Top 10 level from 05-07. My point was they realized they were never going to win a title unless Dirk had a top level defensive player next to him that could essentially cover for his weakness. I agree, Dirk's weakness isn't as debilitating as AI's, but my point was every coach is going to gameplan around a star player's weakness. The 76ers did that, but they did that with the available talent they had. If they could have game planned around it with superior players they absolutely would have. Like if they had their pick of every role player in the league to build around AI that year in a free draft, they would not have picked Snow at PG, Lynch at PF, Hill, etc. They built the best fitting team they could around AI with the maximum talent they could, but that doesn't mean that was the perfect team for AI, it was the perfect team they could actually acquire around AI.

I agree, AI's career mimics Carmelo Anthony's career in a lot of ways.

Hawkeye15
08-23-2018, 03:55 PM
First Bolded: I disagree. I don't think CP3 being your 1st option would ever win a title, nor do I believe that CP3 could be the best player on your team (or the Alpha) and the team would win a title unless he had an incredible supporting cast or a 1B and several other strong players. Houston showed that he's a 2nd option, he has completely deferred to Harden in terms of 1st option/best player/Alpha status. People think he could be because of his versatility, but I think that's exactly but I don't buy it. I think the fact he's so willing to pass and defer and not score a ton is exactly why he won't ever be the best player on a championship team.

Second Bolded: Well they were 8th in 2011 with Chandler. They were 12th in 2010, 17th in 09, 9th in 08. They were Top 10 level from 05-07. My point was they realized they were never going to win a title unless Dirk had a top level defensive player next to him that could essentially cover for his weakness. I agree, Dirk's weakness isn't as debilitating as AI's, but my point was every coach is going to gameplan around a star player's weakness. The 76ers did that, but they did that with the available talent they had. If they could have game planned around it with superior players they absolutely would have. Like if they had their pick of every role player in the league to build around AI that year in a free draft, they would not have picked Snow at PG, Lynch at PF, Hill, etc. They built the best fitting team they could around AI with the maximum talent they could, but that doesn't mean that was the perfect team for AI, it was the perfect team they could actually acquire around AI.

I agree, AI's career mimics Carmelo Anthony's career in a lot of ways.

and they both mimic Nique.

WaDe03
08-23-2018, 04:10 PM
Wow!!!!! Great discussion going on in here by a few of PSDs finest in Ewing, Flashbolt, Hawkeye, and Valade!!!!! Keep it up fellas, youíre encouraging me to become better!