Wade/Tmac/Kobe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Actually LeBron warps the floor more than Kobe.

Now how does the discussion proceed? I think LeBron’s basketball skills worp the floor more than Kobe’s, you think the opposite. We cannot use anything objective to measure it. So how do we proceed? Is it just whoever yells their opinion is right louder or?

---

No, we can proceed to discuss why we believe that. There isn't going to be a definitive answer even with statistics. It's okay to not have a definitive answer. I think that's a lot of what the crux of the issue here is that a lot of you don't like the ambiguity of not knowing for sure and you think that using analytics provides some sense of certainty. We don't know for sure either way. There are things we can look at that might provide insight into who warps the floor more, such as how other teammates perform, offensive rebounds, easy second chance points, which might help inform the question better, but the best way to go about it is taking a dynamics systems approach. I've acknowledged that we don't know what the outcome would be if we looked at the data like this. Maybe LBJ its shown to warp the floor more, in which case I would be wrong...and that's okay. My point about stats though is that the present approach is simply not appropriate for assessing what we want to assess.

This is a basketball forum though so let's actually discuss basketball and support our positions with references to basketball. It's okay if we don't agree, we certainly don't have to and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Sure but you’re saying the problem with stats is when analyzing things that haven’t happened they suffer from the same problem as talking basketball skills: conjecture.

---

it's conjecture either way though...but this is basketball forum. Personally, on a basketball forum at least, I would rather discuss how guys play the game than listing off and comparing who has better numbers. If we want to discuss numbers that's cool (I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss them), but let's at least make it secondary to the discussion of basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Moves03

No, we can proceed to discuss why we believe that. There isn't going to be a definitive answer even with statistics. It's okay to not have a definitive answer. I think that's a lot of what the crux of the issue here is that a lot of you don't like the ambiguity of not knowing for sure and you think that using analytics provides some sense of certainty. We don't know for sure either way. There are things we can look at that might provide insight into who warps the floor more, such as how other teammates perform, offensive rebounds, easy second chance points, which might help inform the question better, but the best way to go about it is taking a dynamics systems approach. I've acknowledged that we don't know what the outcome would be if we looked at the data like this. Maybe LBJ its shown to warp the floor more, in which case I would be wrong...and that's okay. My point about stats though is that the present approach is simply not appropriate for assessing what we want to assess.

This is a basketball forum though so let's actually discuss basketball and support our positions with references to basketball. It's okay if we don't agree, we certainly don't have to and there's nothing wrong with that.

---

The problem is you assume we are taking an individual stats as gospel, it's using a multitude of them to augment our opinions.

For instance, if we asked who was a better passer, LeBron or Dominique, it's not that any one of Assists per game, assists per possession, assist to turnover ratio, AST%, TO%, Adjusted Turnovers, Box Creation, Passer Rating, or Offensive Load by itself will tell us whether LeBron or Nique is a better passer.

But when all of them have one player better than the other, and not just by a little bit, but by a massive amount, although it's not 100% irrefutable, it's strong evidence he's better than the other at passing.

If someone looked at all those stats and saw one person was consistently far better at passing, even across different teams, with different teammates, etc., do you think it'd be enough to say that he's probably a better pass than the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

See? This is what I’m talking about. You guys are criticizing stats when you know nothing about them. You guys both realize they actually have stats that take into account their statistical fluctuations with different teammates, lineups, etc.

---

And you have access to them?

Have you ever used this in an argument on PSD? Like an exact argument of how Kobe or Lebron would behave with different teammates? I've never seen you do that. Comparing TS, PER and other random metrics, yes, several times over the last 10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

The problem is you assume we are taking an individual stats as gospel, it's using a multitude of them to augment our opinions.

For instance, if we asked who was a better passer, LeBron or Dominique, it's not that any one of Assists per game, assists per possession, assist to turnover ratio, AST%, TO%, Adjusted Turnovers, Box Creation, Passer Rating, or Offensive Load by itself will tell us whether LeBron or Nique is a better passer.

But when all of them have one player better than the other, and not just by a little bit, but by a massive amount, although it's not 100% irrefutable, it's strong evidence he's better than the other at passing.

If someone looked at all those stats and saw one person was consistently far better at passing, even across different teams, with different teammates, etc., do you think it'd be enough to say that he's probably a better pass than the other?

---

It would be suggestive, sure. One issue though is that when one player is better by a lot across a multitude of metrics, it's not clear to what extent that scales in terms of how much better that player is. For instance, I think we can all agree that LBJ is a more efficient scorer than kobe and the metrics on the surface suggest that this is a large difference...one might therefore conclude that LBJ is a much more efficient scorer than kobe. Except that when we translate this to actual in-game differences, it amounts to about half a shot advantage over their careers that LBJ ends up with over kobe (this is factoring in differences in ft%). That's certainly not entirely trivial, but also very far from being anywhere close to a massive difference between the two, which is what the numbers would suggest. Those numbers can therefore be pretty misleading.

My issue is that we could avoid most of this entirely and ground our arguments in terms of basketball. Sure, in some cases the numbers can help show some things, but in other cases they can be way off and often produce misleading conclusions. Personally, I do not believe that for any of the top 10-15 players, there is a massive difference (including MJ) in terms of how much better one is than the other. My position is actually that the differences among that top 10 maybe 15 players is incredibly minuscule. These are all players who came close to maxing out what is humanly possible (within the timeline they had to play) in terms of perfecting basketball as a craft and as such, they are basically near ceiling. For that reason, we aren't going to see massive differences among them. What we will see are differences in accomplishments and on that end, I think MJ has a pretty clear advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYKalltheway

And you have access to them?

Have you ever used this in an argument on PSD? Like an exact argument of how Kobe or Lebron would behave with different teammates? I've never seen you do that. Comparing TS, PER and other random metrics, yes, several times over the last 10 years.

---

I have access to some but not all, but I’ve gotten more access over the years (but the better metrics are generally telling us the same things with more accuracy and specificity than earlier ones, suggesting the underlying hypothesis is correct).

And I have done that. I’ve talked about LeBron’s abilities while on his many different team constructions (same for Kobe). It’s not a hypothetical to ask how they’d do in different situations, they were both in many different situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Moves03

It would be suggestive, sure. One issue though is that when one player is better by a lot across a multitude of metrics, it's not clear to what extent that scales in terms of how much better that player is. For instance, I think we can all agree that LBJ is a more efficient scorer than kobe and the metrics on the surface suggest that this is a large difference...one might therefore conclude that LBJ is a much more efficient scorer than kobe. Except that when we translate this to actual in-game differences, it amounts to about half a shot advantage over their careers that LBJ ends up with over kobe (this is factoring in differences in ft%). That's certainly not entirely trivial, but also very far from being anywhere close to a massive difference between the two, which is what the numbers would suggest. Those numbers can therefore be pretty misleading.

My issue is that we could avoid most of this entirely and ground our arguments in terms of basketball. Sure, in some cases the numbers can help show some things, but in other cases they can be way off and often produce misleading conclusions. Personally, I do not believe that for any of the top 10-15 players, there is a massive difference (including MJ) in terms of how much better one is than the other. My position is actually that the differences among that top 10 maybe 15 players is incredibly minuscule. These are all players who came close to maxing out what is humanly possible (within the timeline they had to play) in terms of perfecting basketball as a craft and as such, they are basically near ceiling. For that reason, we aren't going to see massive differences among them. What we will see are differences in accomplishments and on that end, I think MJ has a pretty clear advantage.

---

As a scientists, surely you know the value of superior production, even if by a little, over a large sample size? Sure in a single game it may not amount to a lot, but over the entirety of LeBron and Kobe’s careers of 1,000+ games it adds up.

It’s the difference for instance, in LeBron having scored more points (34,087 to 33,643) in less games (1,258 to 1,346), shooting nearly identical amounts of FGs (26,654 to 26,200).

In a vacuum the guy who can produce more points per game (27.1 to 25.0) on the same FGA (19.6 to 19.5) produces more value for your team, both in a specific game (even if by a little) and over time (by a lot).

Now, obviously there are a TON of factors that go into Bron and Kobe’s scoring and those numbers are the absolute surface level look, but this isn’t about their scoring, it’s about your assertion that a small but clear efficiency advantage in a game isn’t very impactful.

It absolutely is. To go back to coins, if you had a coin that flipped heads every 49 times and I one that flipped heads 51 times, and we were betting $1 a flip, my advantage on any single flip would be minimal. But over 1 million flips I’d likely be up on you by $20,000.

That $20,000 does not become less significant because it was earned $1 at a time on a slight advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

As a scientists, surely you know the value of superior production, even if by a little, over a large sample size? Sure in a single game it may not amount to a lot, but over the entirety of LeBron and Kobe’s careers of 1,000+ games it adds up.

It’s the difference for instance, in LeBron having scored more points (34,087 to 33,643) in less games (1,258 to 1,346), shooting nearly identical amounts of FGs (26,654 to 26,200).

In a vacuum the guy who can produce more points per game (27.1 to 25.0) on the same FGA (19.6 to 19.5) produces more value for your team, both in a specific game (even if by a little) and over time (by a lot).

Now, obviously there are a TON of factors that go into Bron and Kobe’s scoring and those numbers are the absolute surface level look, but this isn’t about their scoring, it’s about your assertion that a small but clear efficiency advantage in a game isn’t very impactful.

It absolutely is. To go back to coins, if you had a coin that flipped heads every 49 times and I one that flipped heads 51 times, and we were betting $1 a flip, my advantage on any single flip would be minimal. But over 1 million flips I’d likely be up on you by $20,000.

That $20,000 does not become less significant because it was earned $1 at a time on a slight advantage.

---

Yes, I certainly agree about small differences adding up over a large sample size. We've actually had this discussion before, but my point was more to the fact that on the surface, the raw scoring efficiency numbers can easily lead someone to the conclusion that LBJ is WAY more efficient scorer than kobe, but in reality the difference is pretty minor. Sure, it adds up over about 2 decades of basketball, but in any single game, we're still getting about a half shot difference. That can certainly be the difference between winning and losing, so it is meaningful, but maybe not nearly as meaningful as the numbers on the surface would suggest. And that's the point of the example, is that even if the numbers do show an advantage for a given player, it's not clear how that advantage translate or scales up to who is better on that attribute,

How is Tmac an option here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Moves03

We could literally take a kid who has never seen basketball before and tell them to look up numbers on a spread sheet and they would be able to draw very similar conclusions to the things you guys say on here.

---

As someone who was born in 83, I grew up in the 90s and loved watching the Knicks. It was a very exciting time to be a basketball fan. I feel very confident talking about players from that era up until the present. However, if you ask me to wax poetic about Oscar Robertson I'm at a loss. But because of numbers I knew he was a legend. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50ppg? How could do it?
I've done a lot of reading and watching old clips of the Russell/Wilt/West generation of players because the numbers got me curious and I wanted to see what those players were like before my time. Mikan, however, he can still go **** himself, I'm not watching that basketball. But the era before me I tried my best. In your world, every 20 years a generation of basketball would be lost because kids can't look up numbers and form opinions. At least if they are wrong, it starts a conversation. What a bummer.

Quote:

---

That says a lot. If you want to use the available stats, that's totally your prerogative, but at least discuss some actual basketball when doing so.

---

That's the beauty of sports. Everyone gets to step up to the table and debate. Imagine this scenario:

Kid: "Rings and points per game!! KOBE is the GOAT!"
Old man (just finished telling the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn): "You don't know what you're talking about. You never saw Elgin Baylor. He was the greatest player ever."

There are no 7 year old kids on this forum doing the things that you complain about. Valade/Chronz/others all want to get the full picture. Numbers are part of that picture. Arguing purely objective opinion is pointless and circular. Stats help tell a story and pretty convincingly. That's why that kid on the street with the spreadsheet of stats, if he knows how to read it, is still going to be right an awful lot. That's a good thing. There are exceptions of players whose stats over/under rate them but for the most part if you want to see a lot of the greatest players of all-time looking at the right advanced statistics is a great way to start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnicksorBust

Valade/Chronz/others all want to get the full picture. Numbers are part of that picture.

---

Feels more like numbers are in front of the picture for most of these guys and it's all they see to the extent that they think that's the actual picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYKalltheway

Feels more like numbers are in front of the picture for most of these guys and it's all they see to the extent that they think that's the actual picture.

---

Disagree but let's assume you're right.

Am I allowed to talk about Oscar Robertson? He retired in 1974. I wasn't even born until 1983.

I hate to live in a world where every 20 years an entire generation of basketball can't be talked about anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Moves03

What I substantiated was how flawed and misleading the present metrics can be and why they should carry very little weight. Sure, I didn't empirically demonstrate that what I was proposing was better, but that's also not my responsibility. We've had this discussion before: If something is broken, it's not up to others to fix it simply because they recognized that it was broken.

I primarily talk about basketball when I post. And for the record, all of this is conjecture, analytics is very, very far from a science and will never come close to being one either. Its very essence is conjecture. We don't have any way to directly assess who is truly better than who. It's not baseless conjecture, but it certainly is conjecture.

The difference is that I at least focus on basketball related topics, whereas many of you typically post numbers and say this guy is better than that guy here are the stats to support that with no real explanation (as far as basketball goes) to explain why. Whether you agree with my takes or not is different, but I am talking about basketball. There are also quite a few on here who agree with my posts (even some who disagree with my conclusions). It's problematic that a large chunk of the posts in here could be replaced by simply referring to other players and statistics from other sports. It strongly suggests there is very little substance being posted and a gross over reliance on the numbers doing the work for them (statistics sure get mentioned a lot in here, especially if they aren't the holy grail).

---

You've done zilch to prove it, just flawed conjecture was given. I know the numbers enough to know you're full of ****.

Show me a post. U talk zero ball and ur complaints don't pass the sniff test.

They're mentioned because they will ALWAYS be a part of the debate, none of your unsubstantiated whining will ever change that. Just straws about stats not being the end all when we already know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYKalltheway

What makes the "numbers" even stupider is the fact that any player would have had different stats playing for another team or under a different system or with different teammates. They take it as gospel when it can be the most abstract thing about the game.

---

See what I mean about straws, gospel lmfalololol
Different doesn't mean radically so (iirc, indyrealist referenced a study done a few years back showing just how more consistent basketball stats are vs other sports). Nobody ever took them as gospel, we just know they're more important than you wish and the game has already agreed. You lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Moves03

Yep, this 1000%. A player in one system might put up completely different numbers in a different system or role. That's a critical factor to consider and something that typically gets completely ignored on here.

---

Its literally never ignored. we just do a better job of quantifying roles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JordansBulls

How is Tmac an option here?

---

Peep their performances on similar teams with similar roles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYKalltheway

Feels more like numbers are in front of the picture for most of these guys and it's all they see to the extent that they think that's the actual picture.

---

A picture painted with both stats and the eye test is going to be more complete than a picture painted with just the eye test.