Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 149
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    My top 25 single season peaks relative to era -

    MJ
    Shaq
    LBJ
    Hakeem
    Kareem
    KG
    Wilt
    Steph
    Duncan
    Russell

    Bird
    Magic
    Robinson
    West
    Walton
    Oscar
    Wade
    Kobe
    Dirk
    Durant


    Giannis
    Nash
    Erving
    CP3
    McGrady

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,017
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Valade - this is all great but not everyone does the work you just did.
    Then ignore those people or debate them and try and change their mind by adding more context.

    Most people just look at things like TS%, eFG%, and, one of my favorites I saw used against AI, 3PT attempts (to say he wasnít a deep ball shooter); then use the uncontextualized stats to knock a guy like AI.

    FWIW, I use AI as the example because I think his career has been ďdamagedĒ the most by fans incorrectly using advanced stats.

    EDIT:
    Basically back to my very original point of cross comparing eras, which was when it comes to lists like this, most (not all) do not contextualize like you just did. Iíve seen in many places these lists use that data and knock a player for not being as good as modern era players.

    So even though we agree that advanced metrics need to be contextualized, we disagree on how widespread itís usage (the contextualization numbers) is. I still think thereís deeper issues with it (like how teammates around them) impact some of these numbers. Going back to my AI example, is there a way to calculate expected TS% if he were surrounded by more and better shooters? Like if you put him in Giannisís spot right now how would that impact his stats? Do you agree or disagree thereís a chance it would be higher because it would be harder to pack the lane and force him to shoot when you have to spread out to defend guys who can hit 3ís? I donít know how much of an impact but I do believe that if you were to put AI in a situation like that he would become a better shooter. And I know the comeback to that is ďAI was a chicken and not a passerĒ, but we canít know the impacts that more floor space would have had on AI. Which makes cross era comparisons a challenge to me.
    Yes I agree that if you put Allen Iverson on a modern team with spacing he could still be a volume #1 scorer but more efficient. Was that so hard?


    But even past that some, do some of these modern players deserve to be that high already? I donít feel that way. I think weíre too quick to throw guys on top 10/20/30 lists and quick to dismiss some older players for a multitude of reasons, advanced stats being a small part of it.
    Here, I would challenge you back. Would you take Iverson over curry? We have already seen Curry do it winning league MVP and be the #1 option on a title team in the modern game. That's why I would take Curry over Iverson. It's fair to make the arguments for older players but we also have to respect what current players have already accomplished.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    lol AI hasn't done anything to warrant be considered in this conversation, and I'm a fan of the dude

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,017
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    You went in depth to just focus on the same thing, ignoring that the question was Lillard vs Iverson.

    You only commented on how they fared in a statistical category (or you could put them all, still irrelevant) against the league, somehow pretending this holds any weight to the initial question:

    Do you pick Iverson over Lillard or Lillard over Iverson. And why?

    What does each player bring to the table, what is their weakness, how do they fare against tougher opposition, how do they fare when they have to carry a team of scrubs, how much that differs from playing in a strong team where they do not need to be as selfish, how coachable are they, in how many ways can a team play using either player on the court, does either player restrict a gameplan in order to highlight his strengths and hide his weaknesses... Those are just basic questions a scout asks himself when compiling a review of a player's report.

    All this TS% stuff is fancy talk for just ignoring the actual question. And all you did now is just prove that you really do not get why gluing yourself into this narrative of advanced statistics is at all relevant to comparing players from different eras, heck, even across a different division in the same season at times.

    You cannot standardize basketball, not within the same season and it's a heck no across different seasons.
    Honestly at this point I just don't even understand your motivation for posting. It seems like all of your posts are just negative. You have such a disdain for peoples' alleged misuse of statistics that you end up trying to tell people on an internet sports forum that they can't compare two players and use statistics. That's not going to happen.

    It's ironic really because this is the one debate thread where the entire premise was to throw the accolades out the window and just debate players based on the strengths and weaknesses of their skills. Stats/awards/team success can help support your case but it's more about a throw back school yard pick and you want the best team. Yet, you disparage someone like Kawhi Leonard. How? What weaknesses do you think hold him back? What skills is he lacking?


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Yet, you disparage someone like Kawhi Leonard. How? What weaknesses do you think hold him back? What skills is he lacking?
    A lot of dumb noise going on in this thread that's not interesting, but Kawhi's placement is something of actual interest.

    I can see him as high as 19, but I myself have him around 26. My issue with Kawhi is the way his offense translates in the postseason. I'd say 2017 Kawhi is generally the agreed upon peak season for him, and he no doubt put on an all time great scoring performance throughout this run. My thing with his offense though is that it monopolizes the team offense in way that doesn't allow your team to have success if Kawhi's shot isn't falling. He's not going to punish you with playmaking, and wasn't especially weaponized in non-freelance sets.

    Now, his iso data from the regular season in 2017 isn't egregious by any means, partly because of era related trends, partly because of the fluidity of Pop's pass heavy offense.

    https://stats.nba.com/players/isolation/

    However when we look at his playoff Iso data, it increases in volume by quite a bit, but its equity scales down in terms of points per possession. To compound this, Kawhi's playmaking still left a lot to be desired (era adjusted creation: 8.1, passer rating: 4.3), especially when we consider his increased time of possession.

    https://stats.nba.com/players/touches/

    So he's on ball way more in the postseason, and Isos quite a bit more as well. Essentially, this leads to a ton of boom or bust possessions against better and better defenses.

    I think he's also a bit guilty of "Dantley-ing" where you hold on to the ball for the majority of the shot clock to find your spot on the floor, and if you aren't able to get the look you want, you dump the ball off to teammate who then attempts a low quality shot. This jukes a player's TS%, making it seem like they're a high value offensive player when in reality they brick a fair amount of possessions. There's not a great way to quantize this phenomenon, but a semi-decent proxy is time of possession data + Iso data + adjusted plus/minus over large samples. Kawhi's Dantley-ing pops on film a bit, especially in the playoffs when opposing gameplans are more contextualized.

    So we look at his 2017 run and it's awesome. His shot was falling and he put up a great scoring line (29.4 ppg per 75 on +8.4 rTS!!!) on a solid postseason Spurs offense (+2.7 Ortg). Factor in his quality defense, that admittedly scaled back with his increased offensive load, and I 100% understand people's arguments for him being top 20ish.

    But again, my thing with him is how he would add value when his shot isn't falling. My fear is that his value on offense is almost entirely tied to his to the consistency of his shooting, particularly in lower value Iso situations, and that he doesn't have quality playmaking, high level off ball movement, or great offensive rebounding to fall back on to maintain value.

    Somewhat of a nitpicky thing, but I think it's valid.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,017
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    A lot of dumb noise going on in this thread that's not interesting, but Kawhi's placement is something of actual interest.

    I can see him as high as 19, but I myself have him around 26. My issue with Kawhi is the way his offense translates in the postseason. I'd say 2017 Kawhi is generally the agreed upon peak season for him, and he no doubt put on an all time great scoring performance throughout this run. My thing with his offense though is that it monopolizes the team offense in way that doesn't allow your team to have success if Kawhi's shot isn't falling. He's not going to punish you with playmaking, and wasn't especially weaponized in non-freelance sets.

    Now, his iso data from the regular season in 2017 isn't egregious by any means, partly because of era related trends, partly because of the fluidity of Pop's pass heavy offense.

    https://stats.nba.com/players/isolation/

    However when we look at his playoff Iso data, it increases in volume by quite a bit, but its equity scales down in terms of points per possession. To compound this, Kawhi's playmaking still left a lot to be desired (era adjusted creation: 8.1, passer rating: 4.3), especially when we consider his increased time of possession.

    https://stats.nba.com/players/touches/

    So he's on ball way more in the postseason, and Isos quite a bit more as well. Essentially, this leads to a ton of boom or bust possessions against better and better defenses.

    I think he's also a bit guilty of "Dantley-ing" where you hold on to the ball for the majority of the shot clock to find your spot on the floor, and if you aren't able to get the look you want, you dump the ball off to teammate who then attempts a low quality shot. This jukes a player's TS%, making it seem like they're a high value offensive player when in reality they brick a fair amount of possessions. There's not a great way to quantize this phenomenon, but a semi-decent proxy is time of possession data + Iso data + adjusted plus/minus over large samples. Kawhi's Dantley-ing pops on film a bit, especially in the playoffs when opposing gameplans are more contextualized.

    So we look at his 2017 run and it's awesome. His shot was falling and he put up a great scoring line (29.4 ppg per 75 on +8.4 rTS!!!) on a solid postseason Spurs offense (+2.7 Ortg). Factor in his quality defense, that admittedly scaled back with his increased offensive load, and I 100% understand people's arguments for him being top 20ish.

    But again, my thing with him is how he would add value when his shot isn't falling. My fear is that his value on offense is almost entirely tied to his to the consistency of his shooting, particularly in lower value Iso situations, and that he doesn't have quality playmaking, high level off ball movement, or great offensive rebounding to fall back on to maintain value.

    Somewhat of a nitpicky thing, but I think it's valid.
    This explains why you have Curry so high.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Honestly at this point I just don't even understand your motivation for posting. It seems like all of your posts are just negative. You have such a disdain for peoples' alleged misuse of statistics that you end up trying to tell people on an internet sports forum that they can't compare two players and use statistics. That's not going to happen.

    It's ironic really because this is the one debate thread where the entire premise was to throw the accolades out the window and just debate players based on the strengths and weaknesses of their skills. Stats/awards/team success can help support your case but it's more about a throw back school yard pick and you want the best team. Yet, you disparage someone like Kawhi Leonard. How? What weaknesses do you think hold him back? What skills is he lacking?
    Of course I'm being negative when I'm surrounded by nonsensical drivel that is unrelated to basketball discussion.

    As for Kawhi, he is very strong defensively, has ridiculous length/wingspan but offensively he lacks the skillset to be in the conversation for top of all time. He lacks the skillset to beat high level defenders, but the fact that he hasn't faced any makes you not even take this into consideration.

    When it comes to top SFs of all time, in terms of peak, I'm struggling to see him over Bird, Lebron, Hill, Nique, Baylor, Erving, King, Durant, Cunningham, Havlicek while I'd put Pippen, Melo, Artest and Pierce possibly ahead of him. He's on the same level as Mark Aguirre, James Worthy, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Rick Barry, Chris Mullin etc in terms of peak. Why? Because offense trumps defense when it comes to peak, otherwise Gary Payton would be the GOAT point guard from the list. That's the unfortunate truth for these guys and peak. Bill Russell as well suffers from this. Scoring is what counts in basketball as valuable as not letting someone score is, he'll still get buckets.
    You will also see that I put him on the same tier as players who were mostly scorers that didn't add much else. That's because offense isn't everything and it's still an all around discussion.

    Kawhi benefits from being a star in this era, gets a lot of shots, as the entire league does these days and has a lot of shots that are just easy to make (hence efficiency goes up), not only because he enables himself to be in that position but because the rules make it too easy for him to get there, as it does with everyone else playing in this era. He's obviously a great player, but he's not one with an extremely high peak.

    Stats do not understand whether a skillset is transferrable, whether they're inflated due to the rules making it easier to score or that assists and steals are not even measured in the same way as it were in the past and they do not give a picture, let alone an accurate one, of how good a player was because stats today are not the same as stats yesterday and they won't be the same tomorrow.

    Comparing Barkley's boxscore numbers with Karl Malone is fine.
    Comparing Barkley's boxscore numbers with Kevin Garnett isn't.
    Comparing Garnett's boxscore numbers with Anthony Davis isn't fine either.
    Comparing Wilt's boxscore numbers with Bill Russell is fine.
    Comparing Wilt's boxscore numbers with Patrick Ewing isn't.

    Advanced stats are made up of boxscore numbers as well in their majority. And from other numbers that also do not translate or even didn't exist.

    It is not only inaccurate to do this, it is irrational. And true, this makes me negative around irrational people.
    Last edited by NYKalltheway; 10-27-2020 at 12:40 PM.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    This explains why you have Curry so high.
    Well yeah, The name of the game is, how do you maintain value offense on better and better teams? I.e. ceiling raising vs floor raising. Curry can lead you to an all time great offense whether he's on or off ball, and is capable of being a passable team defender in the right scheme.

    His combination of being the greatest shooter of all time and attracting more defensive attention than almost any player ever, which elevates and creates easier scoring opportunities for teammates, naturally puts him pretty high on my list of peaks. You can throw him on literally any team historically and he will maintain his all time great value on offense. The same can't be said for a ton of all time greats.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    You can throw him on literally any team historically and he will maintain his all time great value on offense. The same can't be said for a ton of all time greats.
    I also rate Curry very high historically, but this one begs a review.

    Steph Curry with handchecking would have a very hard time. Guys like Mo Cheeks, Sidney Moncrief, Walt Frazier, Gary Payton, Isiah Thomas, Jason Kidd and so on forcing their hands onto this guy's waist? Definitely not gonna always end too good for Steph, but he has the ability due to his quickness to evade these guys on occasions and force fouls upon them.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I also rate Curry very high historically, but this one begs a review.

    Steph Curry with handchecking would have a very hard time. Guys like Mo Cheeks, Sidney Moncrief, Walt Frazier, Gary Payton, Isiah Thomas, Jason Kidd and so on forcing their hands onto this guy's waist? Definitely not gonna always end too good for Steph, but he has the ability due to his quickness to evade these guys on occasions and force fouls upon them.
    Payton and Zeke weren't great off ball defenders, the other guys sure, they'd give Steph a tougher time. Although hand checks slowing down off ball action really isn't that great of an angle to take here. If he was a more on ball guy sure. And they key is that Steph would be grabbing these defenders attention, preventing them more time on ball, which is where literally all of them excel.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    Payton and Zeke weren't great off ball defenders, the other guys sure, they'd give Steph a tougher time. Although hand checks slowing down off ball action really isn't that great of an angle to take here. If he was a more on ball guy sure. And they key is that Steph would be grabbing these defenders attention, preventing them more time on ball, which is where literally all of them excel.
    Hm, I'd say that Curry would definitely have to be on ball a lot more, as we've seen in those days, the ball is shared a lot more until it comes up to the post players. Now players just take it up to the three point line almost just being observed unless it's a close 4th quarter match or a tough playoff series.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Hm, I'd say that Curry would definitely have to be on ball a lot more, as we've seen in those days, the ball is shared a lot more until it comes up to the post players. Now players just take it up to the three point line almost just being observed unless it's a close 4th quarter match or a tough playoff series.
    I mean maybe? My biggest issue with this project is that it wasn't made clear if the ranking is relative to era or how each player would scale in the modern era.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,017
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    I mean maybe? My biggest issue with this project is that it wasn't made clear if the ranking is relative to era or how each player would scale in the modern era.
    Sorry if it wasn't more clear but I think most people understood that you would be drafting them for 1 game to be played in the modern era.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Sorry if it wasn't more clear but I think most people understood that you would be drafting them for 1 game to be played in the modern era.
    Having Wilt, Moses, Russell, Ewing, and Erving as high as they are is truly wild with this approach then.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,226
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Valade - this is all great but not everyone does the work you just did. Most people just look at things like TS%, eFG%, and, one of my favorites I saw used against AI, 3PT attempts (to say he wasnít a deep ball shooter); then use the uncontextualized stats to knock a guy like AI.

    FWIW, I use AI as the example because I think his career has been ďdamagedĒ the most by fans incorrectly using advanced stats.

    EDIT:
    Basically back to my very original point of cross comparing eras, which was when it comes to lists like this, most (not all) do not contextualize like you just did. Iíve seen in many places these lists use that data and knock a player for not being as good as modern era players.

    So even though we agree that advanced metrics need to be contextualized, we disagree on how widespread itís usage (the contextualization numbers) is. I still think thereís deeper issues with it (like how teammates around them) impact some of these numbers. Going back to my AI example, is there a way to calculate expected TS% if he were surrounded by more and better shooters? Like if you put him in Giannisís spot right now how would that impact his stats? Do you agree or disagree thereís a chance it would be higher because it would be harder to pack the lane and force him to shoot when you have to spread out to defend guys who can hit 3ís? I donít know how much of an impact but I do believe that if you were to put AI in a situation like that he would become a better shooter. And I know the comeback to that is ďAI was a chicken and not a passerĒ, but we canít know the impacts that more floor space would have had on AI. Which makes cross era comparisons a challenge to me.

    But even past that some, do some of these modern players deserve to be that high already? I donít feel that way. I think weíre too quick to throw guys on top 10/20/30 lists and quick to dismiss some older players for a multitude of reasons, advanced stats being a small part of it.
    To your larger point of not everyone does the in-depth analysis I did I must echo KoB and say: then ignore those who don't.

    As to your specific points: We have the inverse in that we have data that tells us how much better or worse a players' TS% is with a specific player on the floor (for instance, on average player's on the floor with Curry experience an increase in TS%). Additionally, we have statistics that measure someone's impact accounting for who else is on the floor via PIPM/RAPM/etc. (i.e. if your impact is high but you share the court with Kobe and Shaq, it accounts for their impact on your impact). As for AI becoming a better shooter if he has more spacers, this is both true and untrue. His shooting percentages would likely go up because if he has more space, he's likely shooting more open shots and thus his efficiency will increase as a result of taking more open shots, but he won't get any better at the skill of shooting, his efficiency will simply look better. A decent example is Draymond Green and how much better his 3PT% looks as a result of taking wide open 3's when on the court with Curry/Klay/KD as opposed to when he is not.

    So to answer your question, stats can tell us some of what you're asking, but just because a statistic can't give you the 100% irrefutable objective answer doesn't mean they can't tell us things. They can still give us information that makes our answer have a higher degree of certainty (even if not 100%) than if we did not have the numbers.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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