Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 293
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    41,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I have extensive training in statistical analyses and measurement and assessment (Ph.D. across multiple science disciplines) and have taught graduate level courses on these topics to Ph.D. students. I also have extensive training in using predictive math modeling (and use it regularly in my research) so I trust what I have learned in over a decade in a half of training and research. Basketball analytics are not really intended to assess which players are better. They are capturing information for sure, but not really whether Player A is better than Player B. There's some cool stuff out there that is starting to do some of the things I would accept as being more valid in assessing players but nothing that I've come across yet. I don't blame you guys for not believing me. I'm just some random dude on the internet. I probably wouldnt believe me either, but that doesn't change the reality of the matter. I could of course be wrong, as experts are certainly not infallible, but I do believe the issues I've raised against basketball analytics are very much valid. I don't think your positions on how you assess players are unreasonable, but I disagree for reasons I've stated over the past couple of years.
    I was asking about your credentials when it comes to valuing your eye test as it pertains to basketball analysis. I'm familiar with your credentials from previous conversations, though I must say I find it very difficult to believe.

    I buy that a Ph.D. educated statistician would be wary of advanced analytics because they don't feel they are exact enough, but I don't buy them then reverting to an inferior statistical measure with which to base their opinions on.

    It'd be like a medical doctor talking extensively about the flaws in a particular medication in treating cancer and then saying "because of how flawed that medicine is, I use the power of prayer to treat cancer instead".

  2. #272
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    In regards to Kobe, I saw a big difference between 00 kobe and shaq, but think that most of that difference disappeared after that. I basically I viewed Kobe from 01 and on as being in the top 10 all time and then later climbing into the top 5, you don't. We simply aren't going to agree on that so really no need to keep discussing it at this point. Unless some new method of assessment comes about that changes my mind or yours, it's not really worth discussing because we've discussed it pretty extensively at this point.

    I agree that Love definitely didn't get there (at least not for any kind of sustained period), but my point was that if he had just replicated 2014 and kept losing he would've certainly had been thought of as a first ballot HOF and I think would've been considered fairly better than Pippen if that is what had happened because 2014 and 2012 (I think that was the other one) were amazing seasons for him.

    I didn't mean to say that Love was like KG before Boston, I was simply saying if Love had that kind of career of putting up great numbers but not really winning anything or making deep runs and basically replicated his 2014 season over this entire time. I agree that KG was far better than Love and I agree with your entire assessment of KG vs. Love. I was simply making the point that even if you're right about Love, what he was doing was still pretty amazing (and I actually don't think Pippen could replicate that sort of production even if he was featured like Love was; lots of guys are featured and never come close to putting up 26 and 13 on multiple seasons). At the end of the day, we'll never know what might've been of Love's career if not for the injuries and if he stays as the main guy.
    Ya I agree we see that differently then there is no way people think young Kobe and peak Shaq were close/similar. If you want to go by what people said at the time like with love when they broke up people wondered if he could win without Shaq many times over. It wasn't like he was clear top 10 level at all that was a lot of longevity/success/accolades not just peak play and especially not top 10 level all time in 01/02 that is crazy to me for sure. That and the Pippen/Love not Ewing/Drexler have been a couple of the takes that seem really off base and hard to back up.

    Love never making the playoffs as the lead man? I am sorry I didn't mean that you were saying the same I was noting thinking they could have similar careers. The issue is Love was very clearly not good enough or that level of player. That's what was always going to stop him despite the outlier you keep referencing due to basic stats but no team success. Ya he had a couple of great individual scoring years but that isn't really telling overall impact and I noted in detail how/why in his role within context. It isn't about replicating the exact stat line it is that without the stat line Pippen was just the clearly better player. No one is trusting the judgement of someone that can't see that over their careers or the context I note. You being so far off on certain guys within these discussions with the inconsistencies noted in what you look for (Kobe can't match Lebron stats wise either) is going to always be the revolving issue.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,342
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I was asking about your credentials when it comes to valuing your eye test as it pertains to basketball analysis. I'm familiar with your credentials from previous conversations, though I must say I find it very difficult to believe.

    I buy that a Ph.D. educated statistician would be wary of advanced analytics because they don't feel they are exact enough, but I don't buy them then reverting to an inferior statistical measure with which to base their opinions on.

    It'd be like a medical doctor talking extensively about the flaws in a particular medication in treating cancer and then saying "because of how flawed that medicine is, I use the power of prayer to treat cancer instead".
    That last part is where I think you are wrong (although it is a funny analogy). The thing is the brain is highly sensitive at picking up on things that explicit analyses miss because we often don't know what variables to look at or how to weight them appropriately. Research on judgement and decision making shows that although our intuitions are prone to major biases, they are by and large highly accurate the massive majority of the time and there's a ton of work showing that basic intuitions on a ton of different factors often outperform fairly complex and advanced analytics models (but the models are starting to make progress on this front).

    My basic reasoning is that until the methodology is better, I will continue to trust my intuitions when it comes to assessing basketball because our brains are very sensitive at processing a ton of highly complex information and weighting that information fairly accurately. Now, to be fair, it is certainly possible that my biases (which of course I like everyone else have) are clouding my intuitions on this matter, but at this stage in the analytics game, I don't think the analyses are well developed enough to put any trust them so I basically look at it as the eye test still the best we have). This may change in the future and if it does I will certainly change my position on the matter.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    41,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    That last part is where I think you are wrong (although it is a funny analogy). The thing is the brain is highly sensitive at picking up on things that explicit analyses miss because we often don't know what variables to look at or how to weight them appropriately. Research on judgement and decision making shows that although our intuitions are prone to major biases, they are by and large highly accurate the massive majority of the time and there's a ton of work showing that basic intuitions on a ton of different factors often outperform fairly complex and advanced analytics models (but the models are starting to make progress on this front).

    My basic reasoning is that until the methodology is better, I will continue to trust my intuitions when it comes to assessing basketball because our brains are very sensitive at processing a ton of highly complex information and weighting that information fairly accurately. Now, to be fair, it is certainly possible that my biases (which of course I like everyone else have) are clouding my intuitions on this matter, but at this stage in the analytics game, I don't think the analyses are well developed enough to put any trust them so I basically look at it as the eye test still the best we have). This may change in the future and if it does I will certainly change my position on the matter.
    And this would be like saying I won't use statistical outcomes of a medicine's effectiveness and instead simply go with my gut on what medicine to take because it's usually more accurate.

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,342
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Ya I agree we see that differently then there is no way people think young Kobe and peak Shaq were close/similar. If you want to go by what people said at the time like with love when they broke up people wondered if he could win without Shaq many times over. It wasn't like he was clear top 10 level at all that was a lot of longevity/success/accolades not just peak play and especially not top 10 level all time in 01/02 that is crazy to me for sure. That and the Pippen/Love not Ewing/Drexler have been a couple of the takes that seem really off base and hard to back up.

    Love never making the playoffs as the lead man? I am sorry I didn't mean that you were saying the same I was noting thinking they could have similar careers. The issue is Love was very clearly not good enough or that level of player. That's what was always going to stop him despite the outlier you keep referencing due to basic stats but no team success. Ya he had a couple of great individual scoring years but that isn't really telling overall impact and I noted in detail how/why in his role within context. It isn't about replicating the exact stat line it is that without the stat line Pippen was just the clearly better player. No one is trusting the judgement of someone that can't see that over their careers or the context I note. You being so far off on certain guys within these discussions with the inconsistencies noted in what you look for (Kobe can't match Lebron stats wise either) is going to always be the revolving issue.
    As for people questioning whether Kobe could win without Shaq, that's a natural thing to question and also a headline that is going to generate discussion. Up until Shaq finally won in 2000, there were several who boldly argued that Shaq didn't have what it took to ever win a title and proclaimed that he would never win as the #1. Going into 02, there were also some lists that ranked Kobe ahead of shaq. I'm not using that as evidence that this was the case, because I don't think it was, but more to point out that it wasn't some outlandish idea. There were talks of Kobe being the best player in the league in 01 and the best on the lakers. These were minority opinions, but they also were discussed and debated at the time. There have even been several posters on the other thread arguing that 01 kobe was the best of his entire career and others who've argued 03 kobe was the best of his career. Kobe's 03 season is generally ranked as one of the top 1-3 seasons so it really isn't outlandish at all to me that he was close to his peak during that time. Again, we just aren't going to agree here. I think he became a much smarter and disciplined player and more polished, but he wasn't too far off of what his peak eventually turned out to be in 01. I would say kobe became moderately better, but it wasn't some major improvement where he was all of a sudden top 10.

    I didn't say that Pippen wasn't better than Love career wise, he clearly was. I've been referencing the 2014 season because that was my point of comparison when I made the comparison.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,342
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    And this would be like saying I won't use statistical outcomes of a medicine's effectiveness and instead simply go with my gut on what medicine to take because it's usually more accurate.
    Not exactly because there are things that our intuitions are not as accurate about. Things like medicine and things we have to discover through careful study are one of them. That's why science is so important. The issue is that analytics are not science based. They involve nice formulas but math and science are different. Once we actually see more science-based analytics where we explicitly compare the eye test to these different models, I will feel a lot more comfortable going with analytics, should they beat out those using the eye test. Until then though, I'm happy to look at analytics but they will continue to take a backset to the eye test for me.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 06-16-2021 at 10:22 PM.

  7. #277
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    As for people questioning whether Kobe could win without Shaq, that's a natural thing to question and also a headline that is going to generate discussion. Up until Shaq finally won in 2000, there were several who boldly argued that Shaq didn't have what it took to ever win a title and proclaimed that he would never win as the #1. Going into 02, there were also some lists that ranked Kobe ahead of shaq. I'm not using that as evidence that this was the case, because I don't think it was, but more to point out that it wasn't some outlandish idea. There were talks of Kobe being the best player in the league in 01 and the best on the lakers. These were minority opinions, but they also were discussed and debated at the time. There have even been several posters on the other thread arguing that 01 kobe was the best of his entire career and others who've argued 03 kobe was the best of his career. Kobe's 03 season is generally ranked as one of the top 1-3 seasons so it really isn't outlandish at all to me that he was close to his peak during that time. Again, we just aren't going to agree here. I think he became a much smarter and disciplined player and more polished, but he wasn't too far off of what his peak eventually turned out to be in 01. I would say kobe became moderately better, but it wasn't some major improvement where he was all of a sudden top 10.

    I didn't say that Pippen wasn't better than Love career wise, he clearly was. I've been referencing the 2014 season because that was my point of comparison when I made the comparison.
    Of course there will be outliers for every topic basically but some lists ranking Kobe over Shaq is different than saying it was some sort of toss up most couldn't decided. 08 was the first time Kobe ever was top 2 in MVP voting and that was closer to his peak. His peak was arguably outside the top 10 outside and as even you note he at least grew some, I think most believe he developed the ability to be the man/focus of the defense while playing at that very top production level still (yes due to certain qualities like those you mention). Again though the idea Kobe was best in the league and close to Shaq just seems way off base to most especially when the other option of what is close where you say that term can't apply is Drexler where many think Scottie better not just outliers and Ewing where it is more mixed and less. Kobe getting moderately better from 01-2 and to most being around top 10 level all time due to longevity/success (aka peak level is not necessarily reason for this high from the start) it just becomes a small small group that would agree. We won't agree but the issue again has been the inconsistencies of terms and what you call close.

    I mean looking at their actual impact on the court over time to get the best judge of the overall impact/ability. You keep trying to focus on a perception and basic stats that have been covered. Love never lead a team like that and you seem to disingenuously be looking at a couple years where context has been explained to focus on a perception of him at one time (unrelated to said impact exposed overall throughout his career). Again many players were thought to have been on the way then got exposed or injured or various things happened. Love even when healthy hasn't been nearly that impactful or productive Lebron next to him or not (and those stats weren't leading to winning/inflated). Again Lebron statistically has the advantage compared to Kobe if we can be consistent and look at evidence of stats like this he definitely is better. The inconsistencies remain the issue.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,342
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Of course there will be outliers for every topic basically but some lists ranking Kobe over Shaq is different than saying it was some sort of toss up most couldn't decided. 08 was the first time Kobe ever was top 2 in MVP voting and that was closer to his peak. His peak was arguably outside the top 10 outside and as even you note he at least grew some, I think most believe he developed the ability to be the man/focus of the defense while playing at that very top production level still (yes due to certain qualities like those you mention). Again though the idea Kobe was best in the league and close to Shaq just seems way off base to most especially when the other option of what is close where you say that term can't apply is Drexler where many think Scottie better not just outliers and Ewing where it is more mixed and less. Kobe getting moderately better from 01-2 and to most being around top 10 level all time due to longevity/success (aka peak level is not necessarily reason for this high from the start) it just becomes a small small group that would agree. We won't agree but the issue again has been the inconsistencies of terms and what you call close.

    I mean looking at their actual impact on the court over time to get the best judge of the overall impact/ability. You keep trying to focus on a perception and basic stats that have been covered. Love never lead a team like that and you seem to disingenuously be looking at a couple years where context has been explained to focus on a perception of him at one time (unrelated to said impact exposed overall throughout his career). Again many players were thought to have been on the way then got exposed or injured or various things happened. Love even when healthy hasn't been nearly that impactful or productive Lebron next to him or not (and those stats weren't leading to winning/inflated). Again Lebron statistically has the advantage compared to Kobe if we can be consistent and look at evidence of stats like this he definitely is better. The inconsistencies remain the issue.
    I've noted that Kobe and Shaq both warped the floor tremendously (kobe more than anyone in the league outside of shaq during this time, imo). You've disagreed with this (again I don't know why you keep trying to discuss something that I've noted over and over I don't want to rehash, but you refuse to let it go so I will one last time explain it again and thereby rehash this again lol). Kobe and Shaq were very close in scoring both 01 and 02 (and kobe outscored him in 03) and kobe was the best lockdown guy on the team and the guy who the offense was ran through in the 4th and the closer and best playmaker on the team.

    The thing I value the most is ability to warp the floor, because that opens everything else for everyone else and guys who can do that allow a team to run an offense through them. Pippen did not have those abilities, like at all, and it's because of how offensively limited he was. Because of this, imo, that takes him out of the running to really be compared to guys like Ewing and to a lesser extent Drexler (regardless of any other stats). There's no inconsistency there in how I'm assessing players. With Kobe and Shaq, we can look at their numbers on the other things I mentioned because an offense can be run through each of them and both warped the floor to tremendous and historic levels (and this was during the 3-peat that I'm referring to).

    When we look at their scoring, Ewing's and Drexler's top scoring seasons are considerably higher than Pippen's highest scoring seasons (and it's several of seasons that we can look at for Ewing and Drexler). Pippen was a better playmaker than both Ewing and Drexler (although Drexler and Pippen put up comparable assists and rebounding numbers) and a fairly better all around defender, but his offensive shortcomings in the half court preclude him from being on that same level for me, meaning it doesn't really matter what else he does on any other impact numbers, in my book, he's already knocked out of being comparable to them because of his offensive limitations. Can we run an offense through a player and can that player's presence on the court open things up for his teammates? Shaq and Kobe, yes, Ewing and Drexler, yes, Pippen, no.

    When compared to Love and Pippen, it seemed to me that the answer to this question was yes for Love as well, at least when he was in Minnesota, but then never really showed that again during his time in Cleveland. There's no point to me to look at Love's impact over time, because obviously over time looking at Cleveland it's not really that close at that point and that's not the point at which I was saying they were all that comparable (the entire statement was made in reference to how LBJ had guys who were putting up superstar numbers before and then seized doing so when they teamed up with him and hence it makes no sense to focus on Love after he joined LBJ). Pre Cavs Love showed the ability I care about and that's when he was viewed as being a top player as well (and this is the point at which I was referencing in terms of him reaching greater heights individually than Pippen did). I know you've explained why that is, because the offense was geared entirely around him, but my point is that this could not be done with Pippen because he wasn't very effective in the half court, especially as a #1 (his effectiveness came from being in the open floor). Love seized being a top player once he joined the Cavs for whatever reason (likely many reasons behind this), but the initial comparison was made based on Love's performance and potential that he showed when in Minnesota. Obviously Pippen is going to easily win out any career comparisons, but that was never in question on my end.

    In the end, this all comes down to whether an offense can be run through a player and whether that player can warp the floor. That's the underlying factor I'm looking at when comparing players and the factor that is usually going to trump any other metrics for me in most cases.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 06-17-2021 at 02:19 AM.

  9. #279
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I've noted that Kobe and Shaq both warped the floor tremendously (kobe more than anyone in the league outside of shaq during this time, imo). You've disagreed with this (again I don't know why you keep trying to discuss something that I've noted over and over I don't want to rehash, but you refuse to let it go so I will one last time explain it again and thereby rehash this again lol). Kobe and Shaq were very close in scoring both 01 and 02 (and kobe outscored him in 03) and kobe was the best lockdown guy on the team and the guy who the offense was ran through in the 4th and the closer and best playmaker on the team.

    The thing I value the most is ability to warp the floor, because that opens everything else for everyone else and guys who can do that allow an offense to be run through. Pippen did not have those abilities, like at all, and it's because of how offensively limited he was. Because of this, imo, that takes him out of the running to really be compared to guys like Ewing and to a lesser extent Drexler (regardless of any other stats). There's no inconsistency there. With Kobe and Shaq, we can look at their numbers on the other things I mentioned because an offense can be run through them and both warped the floor to tremendous and historic levels (and this was during the 3-peat that I'm referring to).

    When we look at their scoring, Ewing's and Drexler's top scoring seasons are considerably higher than Pippen's highest scoring seasons (and it's several of seasons that we can look at for Ewing and Drexler). Pippen was a better playmaker than both Ewing and Drexler (although Drexler and Pippen put up comparable assists and rebounding numbers) and a fairly better all around defender, but his offensive shortcomings in the half court preclude him from being on that same level for me, meaning it doesn't really matter what else he does on any other impact numbers, in my book, he's already knocked out of being comparable to them because of his offensive limitations. Can we run an offense through a player and can that player's presence on the court open things up for his teammates? Shaq and Kobe yes, Ewing and Drexler, yes, Pippen, no.

    When compared to Love and Pippen, it seemed to me that the answer to this question was yes for Love as well, at least when he was in Minnesota, but then never really showed that again during his time in Cleveland. There's no point to me to look at Love's impact over time, because obviously over time looking at Cleveland it's not really that close at that point and that's not the point at which I was saying they were all that comparable (the entire statement was made in reference to how LBJ had guys who were putting up superstar numbers and then seized doing that when they teamed up with him and hence it makes no sense to focus on Love after he joined LBJ). Pre Cavs Love showed the ability I care about and that's when he was viewed as being a top player as well (and this is the point at which I was referencing to in terms of him reaching greater heights individually than Pippen did). He seized being a top player once he joined the Cavs for whatever reason (likely many reasons for this).
    I am just noting the inconsistencies that keep showing up and was explaining why they can't change for you (they are necessary for your narrative). We disagree, Duncan for example was a better player at that time warping the floor and leading a team as a better player overall. Probably why he won MVP in 02/03 and they won title in 03 as well despite Kobe having Shaq next to him but Duncan not having that level guy for an example. Kobe had never shown capable and again when Shaq was out during their time together the team fell off but not as much the other way around. It was just very obvious to almost everyone that Shaq with an all time great peak to most was clearly the one warping defenses/game planned for and it wasn't close even if Kobe did too (a lot of teams just packed the paint generally but more due to Shaq as penetration opened him up, when he got it doubles swarmed unlike Kobe to near that extent). As I said the idea it was something real close is pretty ridiculous when Pippen compared to Ewing/Drexler is considered something that can't be. One is far far more obvious than the other comparison. I don't think they warp the floor comparatively as much as you seem to think nor do many others and as I noted this is the issue in the end it comes down to a complete subjective. I know again not anything we can point to objectively but that doesn't mean the inconsistencies used and just way out there takes repeatedly aren't an issue. You just subjectively are taking a player out of the running completely that is ridiculous lol his stats/rankings etc. aren't just discounted due to one random opinion like that and it's simply not going to be accepted by most as reasonable. You wouldn't either.

    Basic stats aren't telling of warping the floor. I would think someone with your claimed expertise wouldn't stoop to this level trying to claim one thing matters then using basic stats this way. Again this is what I mean with inconsistencies. Pippen is pretty close overall even if not quite on their level of volume but that isn't the only factor to consider. They all had certain shortcomings but the playmaking/defense and all around game matter a lot as well. You actually make this argument when it is AD. As I keep noting the inconsistency over and over is the issue.

    Again basic stats seem to be misguiding you in major ways. Remove his basic stats and tell me why you thought he was on that level of being able to carry playoff level teams that can win a round and go 7 against what was considered a regularly tough Knicks team for the era. The reason it was never close outside that specific time in that specific role is the basic stats were warped, he was not creating in the same way. When we talk about focus of defense and warping the court it just seems like often actual context is being missed from you. Love had so many touches as I showed due to the specific offense which was catered around repeatedly putting him in threatening positions with the ball then resetting to the same thing. Adelman was a pretty great coach and knew how to maximize the ability for the teams offense through him no doubt. That's different than his impact as a player being on Pippens level. Again it just is a crazy take when you say Pippen isn't on Drexler/Ewing but is on Love's despite the full context for them all. You seem to really overrate basic stats even when context has been pointed out clearly.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,342
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I am just noting the inconsistencies that keep showing up and was explaining why they can't change for you (they are necessary for your narrative). We disagree, Duncan for example was a better player at that time warping the floor and leading a team as a better player overall. Probably why he won MVP in 02/03 and they won title in 03 as well despite Kobe having Shaq next to him but Duncan not having that level guy for an example. Kobe had never shown capable and again when Shaq was out during their time together the team fell off but not as much the other way around. It was just very obvious to almost everyone that Shaq with an all time great peak to most was clearly the one warping defenses/game planned for and it wasn't close even if Kobe did too (a lot of teams just packed the paint generally but more due to Shaq as penetration opened him up, when he got it doubles swarmed unlike Kobe to near that extent). As I said the idea it was something real close is pretty ridiculous when Pippen compared to Ewing/Drexler is considered something that can't be. One is far far more obvious than the other comparison. I don't think they warp the floor comparatively as much as you seem to think nor do many others and as I noted this is the issue in the end it comes down to a complete subjective. I know again not anything we can point to objectively but that doesn't mean the inconsistencies used and just way out there takes repeatedly aren't an issue. You just subjectively are taking a player out of the running completely that is ridiculous lol his stats/rankings etc. aren't just discounted due to one random opinion like that and it's simply not going to be accepted by most as reasonable. You wouldn't either.

    Basic stats aren't telling of warping the floor. I would think someone with your claimed expertise wouldn't stoop to this level trying to claim one thing matters then using basic stats this way. Again this is what I mean with inconsistencies. Pippen is pretty close overall even if not quite on their level of volume but that isn't the only factor to consider. They all had certain shortcomings but the playmaking/defense and all around game matter a lot as well. You actually make this argument when it is AD. As I keep noting the inconsistency over and over is the issue.

    Again basic stats seem to be misguiding you in major ways. Remove his basic stats and tell me why you thought he was on that level of being able to carry playoff level teams that can win a round and go 7 against what was considered a regularly tough Knicks team for the era. The reason it was never close outside that specific time in that specific role is the basic stats were warped, he was not creating in the same way. When we talk about focus of defense and warping the court it just seems like often actual context is being missed from you. Love had so many touches as I showed due to the specific offense which was catered around repeatedly putting him in threatening positions with the ball then resetting to the same thing. Adelman was a pretty great coach and knew how to maximize the ability for the teams offense through him no doubt. That's different than his impact as a player being on Pippens level. Again it just is a crazy take when you say Pippen isn't on Drexler/Ewing but is on Love's despite the full context for them all. You seem to really overrate basic stats even when context has been pointed out clearly.
    My man, we've had this discussion. You're basically challenging my position again. I'm not trying to have the discussion again because we've already had it. I wasn't stating what I stated so that we could discuss it again. We disagree lol. Again, with Pippen and Drexler and Ewing, Pippen lacks this ability and so already right there we can stop, meaning there is no need to make any other comparisons because already Pippen loses out. I get it that you disagree, but that was not the point. You noted that there was an inconsistency and I'm explaining that it is not inconsistent, you simply disagree with my assessment. That's cool, it's not unreasonable to disagree with me on this point, but that is the reason I see guys like Shaq and Kobe as being similar (shaq did warp the floor more, but Kobe was far more dynamic than Shaq in how he warped the floor; I also disagree that Duncan warped the floor more than Kobe and I don't think this one is nearly as close, but that is a different debate for a different day). At any rate, we're not going to agree on this, I was just explaining what I'm basing my evaluation on and it is actually consistent. It might not be something a lot of you agree with, but that's totally cool with me.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 06-17-2021 at 02:40 AM.

  11. #281
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    My man, we've had this discussion. You're basically challenging my position again. I'm not trying to have the discussion again because we've already had it. I wasn't stating what I stated so that we could discuss it again. We disagree lol. Again, with Pippen and Drexler and Ewing, Pippen lacks this ability and so already right there we can stop, meaning there is no need to make any other comparisons because already Pippen loses out. I get it that you disagree, but that was not the point. You noted that there was an inconsistency and I'm explaining that it is not inconsistent, you simply disagree with my assessment. That's cool, it's not unreasonable to disagree with me on this point, but that is the reason I see guys like Shaq and Kobe as being similar (shaq did warp the floor more, but Kobe was far more dynamic than Shaq in how he warped the floor; I also disagree that Duncan warped the floor more than Kobe and I don't think this one is nearly as close, but that is a different debate for a different day). At any rate, we're not going to agree on this, I was just explaining what I'm basing my evaluation on and it is actually consistent. It might not be something a lot of you agree with, but that's totally cool with me.
    Alright that is fine we don't need to have it again.

    My entire point is you have this specific narrative that only holds up with these weird definitions and constantly shifting how we look at things and what evidence is acceptable based on what fits your narrative not anything else consistent (often blatantly ignoring actual context/evidence pointed out). As I said nothing is ever going to change due to that, you can't give in on this description or all of a sudden Pippen becomes a superstar and now his rings would count so it hinges on this whole "warped" opinion to discount him now. He has to be excluded or the narrative created is destroyed, that is why I pointed it out and why it is important. It's not just that I disagree overall it is the way you have reasoned it out repeatedly and the inconsistencies every time people point out. That's why my initial post pointed out the agenda and why it was obviously never going to change so neither would this stance (because it is what is supporting it).

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,342
    Anyhow, despite my best efforts, this has unfortunately devolved into discussing Kobe (again), which apparently seems to follow me anywhere I go on this site, even when discussing seemingly unrelated topics, like super teams, Pippen, Drexler, Ewing, and the Bulls lol. I'm out of here for a bit because I don't get any work done when I come on this site. To sum up my main points, super teams aren't always bad, but there needs to be at least two at the same time otherwise it's kind of lame, imo, Bulls were not a super team, Ewing and Drexler > Pippen, and Pippen was not a superstar due to his notable offensive limitations (albeit he was a great player).
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 06-17-2021 at 03:01 AM.

  13. #283
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,502

    Critisism of forming super-teams

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Anyhow, despite my best efforts, this has unfortunately devolved into discussing Kobe (again), which apparently seems to follow me anywhere I go on this site, even when discussing seemingly unrelated topics, like super teams, Pippen, Drexler, Ewing, and the Bulls lol. I'm out of here for a bit because I don't get any work done when I come on this site. To sum up my main points, super teams aren't always bad, but there needs to be at least two at the same time otherwise it's kind of lame, imo, Bulls were not a super team, Ewing and Drexler > Pippen, and Pippen was not a superstar due to his notable offensive limitations (albeit he was a great player).
    I agree that having at least another team with comparable talent is very important. What matters most is the talent compared to competition than anything else really.

    Where we disagree on this is the idea Chicago wasn't clearly better than the rest of the team with MJ/Pippen and then either Grant or Rodman/Kukoc and then role players/Phil as GOAT level coach. For many Ewing and Drexler were certainly closer to Pippen level than MJ as was noted. Even so those guys are going to be matched up with MJ in comparisons as 1's. They don't have Pippen next to them. Impact wise Starks may take Grant but again and this Knicks team was ECF matchup in 93 with Suns in finals. Barkley is better than Pippen but again not MJ level and Pippen is better than Kevin Johnson too it isn't like they weren't just clearly better often. Cavs with Price/Nance/Daughtery year before and Clyde with Porter/Williams.

    I think pretty clearly none of them have GOAT level 1's and then Pippen is clear best of any 2nd option. That isn't necessarily every year for them just saying overall there was generally a gap talent wise.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 06-17-2021 at 03:44 AM.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    41,788
    The disappointing thing is there are actually statistics that do a better job of measuring who warps the floor than just opinion, scoring more than PPG, playmaking more than APG, etc. but we are precluded from using any of them.

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,342
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The disappointing thing is there are actually statistics that do a better job of measuring who warps the floor than just opinion, scoring more than PPG, playmaking more than APG, etc. but we are precluded from using any of them.
    We've discussed this before and gravity and respect are not a great measures of warp, imo (although I do like these statistics and I think they are certainly on the right track in terms of what we should be looking at). Unfortunately, they're not not really available to look at unless you pay for them and as far as I can tell, it seems to only go back to 2013? I think to account for warp, we need something that in addition to those gravity and respect metrics, they also incorporate double and triple teams and how quickly defensive players are able to rotate back (which would provide a measure of how hard the defensive players commit when they help and how that distorts the spacing). I do think these more nuanced types of metrics are very promising though and I'm hopeful that in the next decade or so we'll see more of this sort of thing.

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 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
  •