Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 505 of 549 FirstFirst ... 5405455495503504505506507515 ... LastLast
Results 7,561 to 7,575 of 8229
  1. #7561
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I don't have any issues using my brain when using statistics and understanding while not perfect we can still use things that help. I just provided the Kidd comparison to appease you though which still showed the same things. If it's obvious the guy who scores and shoots/gets to line more will have better PER than the league assist leader than why do you keep pushing the idea passing helps more? It would seem pretty clear now that you get the obvious point if we all agree the ones shooting more benefit to a greater degree than the ones passing more.

    Not as much as the drop in scoring and increase in TO's that came along with those assists though. The point is that being a volume scorer is more beneficial to PER than being one of the greatest passers ever and this all helps show it. You still haven't broken your claim down in any meaningful way while all of these examples seem to keep supporting this main idea.
    I think what is clear is that you didnt read the initial discussion close enough and jumped into this without understanding what was being said.

    I stated that the reason why passing is better for PER is because of the low penalty associated with passing and the lower likelihood of turning it over, whereas as with shooting your chances of incurring a penalty are much higher. That was the reasoning behind the point. Someone who only shoots really high percentage shots is always going to have a significantly higher fg%. You're comparing someone who directly does not meet this criteria. Those said greatest passers all have higher PERs than AI, even with all of the issues that go into that comparison (e.g., the fact that AI was actually a great playmaker and racked up a ton of assists).

    You haven't backed up your point either, as these examples don't support what you are saying. The most direct comparison we have is CP3 vs. AI and CP3 wins out. I'm not going to go and run simulations to show this. You're welcomed to do so if you want. I've provided as much support for what I'm saying as you are.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 09-26-2020 at 04:09 PM.

  2. #7562
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Nope, this is absolutely a horrible comparison and its for all the reasons I noted already. The guys who are scoring more also have a ton more rebounds on the whole and rack up a good amount of assists themselves. In contrast, the guys who are getting assists are not doing all of those things anywhere near the same amount.

    Back to the insults lol sheesh dude
    That is not true. Many of the guys who are getting assists are also getting rebounds, steals, and points. You are wrong.

    But you denying evidence that disproves your point is normal for you.

  3. #7563
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Exactly and this happens every time you break something down in this thread. Notice how I have asked about 5 times now for him to statistically back his claims along with examples (that he would accept from us not some double standard) yet it hasn't been done? It's almost like we are capable of going in depth on our stances including statistics, explaining how they work, articles and comparisons with context considered while he has... "Well this isn't exactly perfect"

    This is what keeps this thread going forever he just nit picks the smallest issues in others posts while ignoring massive issues in his claims despite all evidence provided. Rings though baby (so long as he chooses to count them of course which is arbitrary in how he does even that).
    I played along and the comparison that is most direct does not support your position. In the same year comparisons and across the years.

  4. #7564
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    As ive now noted like a million times, I'm only making these comparisons because you guys want to. You just dont like that your own example doesn't support what you wanted it to so now you resort back to the name calling.
    Except it does. You're just burying your head in the sand to ignore the evidence against you. Like a toddler.

  5. #7565
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I played along and the comparison that is most direct does not support your position. In the same year comparisons and across the years.
    No, you want to use CP3 because he's an outlier for passers and PER. Any actual statistician would never use an outlier to speak for the whole. Which is why you're a charlatan.

  6. #7566
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No, you want to use CP3 because he's an outlier for passers and PER. Any actual statistician would never use an outlier to speak for the whole. Which is why you're a charlatan.
    No, that was just the only pass-first pg that was of similar level of usg% (or in the ball park) as AI and who also played in the same years. You wanted to compare AI to Stockton, which didnt favor the outcome you wanted so now you're back to calling me names.

  7. #7567
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    That is not true. Many of the guys who are getting assists are also getting rebounds, steals, and points. You are wrong.

    But you denying evidence that disproves your point is normal for you.
    With the exception of Magic, most of the guys on the assists list did not fill up the stat sheet, at least nowhere near to the level of the guys who were scorers. The guys who were scorers though usually were also very good to great playmakers. The guys who are getting assists and doing those other things you mentioned are the scorers lol. The guys getting assists though are not really scoring. Magic and CP3 are the only ones who kind of are. In contrast, I think just about all of the scorers are getting a ton of assists. That's a major difference there and it's bizarre that you would use that example given our discussion here.

  8. #7568
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    No, that was just the only pass-first pg that was of similar level of usg% (or in the ball park) as AI and who also played in the same years. You wanted to compare AI to Stockton, which didnt favor the outcome you wanted so now you're back to calling me names.
    First off, AI to Stockton does prove my point. AI's highest seasons of PER are 25.9, 24.0 and Stockton's are 23.9, 23.4 and 23.3. But that's besides the point.

    The only reason you want to use CP3 is because you know CP3 is an outlier. Why can't we use Magic? or Stockton? Or any other PG besides CP3? If your premise is correct, we should see it for all PGs not just CP3.

    And I'm calling you names as an accurate representation of what you are. No statistician would argue using an outlier to make a statement about the majority. So why are you?

  9. #7569
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I think what is clear is that you didnt read the initial discussion close enough and jumped into this without understanding what was being said.

    I stated that the reason why passing is better for PER is because of the low penalty associated with passing and the lower likelihood of turning it over, whereas as with shooting your chances of incurring a penalty are much higher. That was the reasoning behind the point. Someone who only shoots really high percentage shots is always going to have a significantly higher fg%. You're comparing someone who directly does not meet this criteria. Those said greatest passers all have higher PERs than AI, even with all of the issues that go into that comparison (e.g., the fact that AI was actually a great playmaker and racked up a ton of assists).

    You haven't backed up your point either, as these examples don't support what you are saying. The most direct comparison we have is CP3 vs. AI and CP3 wins out. I'm not going to go and run simulations to show this. You're welcomed to do so if you want.
    Except that turnovers and not shooting can both be seen as penalties of passing more (like with the AI example you brought up yourself). Are you claiming passing more is likely to lead to less turnovers despite this AI example or Magic having more turnovers in that comparison? This seems quite off if it's what you are claiming. There is no real penalty for shooting though lol we just covered how shooting more actually helps your PER. I did read what was said previously and what you are saying here and all of it goes against the evidence we just covered lol. Having a higher fg% and many more assists doesn't lead to a higher PER as we have been showing, a high volume scorer like 01 AI will win out even over best passers of all time. AI hurt his PER in future years by... PASSING MORE AND SHOOTING LESS lol. Are you even paying attention here? Of course his career numbers look worse than all time greats anyways though especially given the years he passed more bringing down his PER.

    Every example has been able to support the basic idea and the articles I presented did about the stat in general and I have used common sense explanations as well to finally get you to understand and agree with the point Valade initially made. What is clear is you will play this game at all costs to avoid EVER backing up your claims while ignoring actual data/stats and trying to twist and cherry pick when convenient (against standards you hold others too in hypocritical form)

  10. #7570
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    With the exception of Magic, most of the guys on the assists list did not fill up the stat sheet, at least nowhere near to the level of the guys who were scorers. The guys who were scorers though usually were also very good to great playmakers. The guys who are getting assists and doing those other things you mentioned are the scorers lol. The guys getting assists though are not really scoring. Magic and CP3 are the only ones who kind of are. In contrast, I think just about all of the scorers are getting a ton of assists. That's a major difference there and it's bizarre that you would use that example given our discussion here.
    Again, you're wrong. Isiah Thomas got plenty of steals and points. His PER was lower than guys who didn't produce a lot of assists or rebounds yet scored a ton.

    You are wrong and you just deny facts that prove you wrong. Honestly, that is what a child does. It's pretty pathetic you're doing it here.

  11. #7571
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yeah, I would agree that Shaq belongs somewhere in that ranking. I think their egos definitely clashed, but one of the major issues was that there was a major difference in how they approached the game. Kobe was about preparation and taking everything very seriously. Shaq was about having a good time and getting it done when it mattered and this really drove kobe nuts because it was the antithesis to how kobe approached the game. I think personality wise, kobe and Kareem would've clicked much, much better. Magic and Shaq would've also probably clicked better because Shaq has always been kind of sensitive and magic knew how to deal with guys like that.

    It's totally possible that kobe wouldn't have as many rings as he does if he doesn't go to the lakers, but on the flip side, it's totally possible that he has 4-7 great years of solo basketball and then goes to the lakers on his own (along with a buddy, maybe forming a super team) or to a team like the spurs. We don't know what would've happened though so it's just speculation. At the end of the day, I just want to see LBJ win a little bit more before I'm ready to put him in the discussion where you guys want to put him.
    I think if Kobe doesn’t start with the Lakers and immediately Shaq and Phil, he doesn’t have those first three rings. Maybe he winds up on a top team after his first 7 years by way of force or FA but he was basically calling a lot of the shots after Shaq left so that’s what he had: one of the best places to live (for a millionaire basketball player) for one of the most historical franchises in sports where if he threatened to leave the GM pulls whatever strings Kobe needs. And with that, he only got two titles when a former team executive gave what appeared to be a sweetheart deal (kinda what Ainge arranged around the same time time). I wonder how many titles LBJ would’ve had if he would have forced his way to the same situation.

    But it seems that all of this is just blown off by “it’s just speculation so who knows, let’s stick to the facts” while also saying “well, we can’t value stats because every situation is different.”

  12. #7572
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I played along and the comparison that is most direct does not support your position. In the same year comparisons and across the years.
    What comparison is that? The 07 AI being worse than 01 AI because he was passing more?

    The one that ignored AI's increase in turnovers doing so which is why his PER dropped below CP3 who didn't have that problem (the gap in assists was almost 1:1 to the turns which hurts AI and is related to him passing more that year)? That CP3 also rebounded more in the season you compared which you previously noted changes things as well?

    I have been fully capable of talking about all of these comparisons in context while you are trying to focus on one specific year/example while actually ignoring all the actual issues with doing so and problems when looking at things in full.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 09-26-2020 at 04:13 PM.

  13. #7573
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    BigMoves earlier in the thread "tossing out data points is not a practice accepted anymore by statisticians" but also "let me toss out every high scoring season that disproves my point"


  14. #7574
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Again, you're wrong. Isiah Thomas got plenty of steals and points. His PER was lower than guys who didn't produce a lot of assists or rebounds yet scored a ton.

    You are wrong and you just deny facts that prove you wrong. Honestly, that is what a child does. It's pretty pathetic you're doing it here.
    He also wasn't really a pass-first pg, didnt shoot a great percentage, might qualify as a volume scorer some seasons, nor did he rack up a ton of rebounds. Adding IT to the list also doesn't change literally everything else I said here and I think you know that.

  15. #7575
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    BigMoves earlier in the thread "tossing out data points is not a practice accepted anymore by statisticians" but also "let me toss out every high scoring season that disproves my point"

    How am I tossing out data points? You guys are referring to a single instance. I'm not saying toss it out. I am saying that it is a single instance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •