Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 258
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,067
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    I agree but what does that make him in comparison to the other guys on this list? A role player right? No one was giving up on Melo or any of these other guys as a pillar after one season. Comparing them is absurd.
    No one gave up on Melo because he is the quintessential non analytics player dream. There’s a reason when he was asked to be a role player he was passed around like a hot potato.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    68,794
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No one gave up on Melo because he is the quintessential non analytics player dream. There’s a reason when he was asked to be a role player he was passed around like a hot potato.
    What does “quintessential non analytics player dream” mean? (By guess is top 10 scorer of all time but that’s based context)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,067
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    What does “quintessential non analytics player dream” mean? (By guess is top 10 scorer of all time but that’s based context)
    Inefficient chucker who doesn't have nearly the positive impact on a team's performance as people believe. And there is no way on God's green earth he's a top 10 scorer of all-time.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    68,794

    UPDATED TOP 100 NBA players list

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Inefficient chucker who doesn't have nearly the positive impact on a team's performance as people believe. And there is no way on God's green earth he's a top 10 scorer of all-time.
    He’s the 9th leading scorer in NBA history. is 23 on 18 shots that inefficient from 2003-2022, was he overly inefficient for a volume scorer in his prime, and do you think the Knicks and Nuggets were 50 win teams or winners w/o him?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 08-09-2022 at 03:38 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,067
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    He’s the 9th leading scorer in NBA history. is 23 on 18 shots that inefficient from 2003-2022, was he overly inefficient for a volume scorer in his prime, and do you think the Knicks and Nuggets were 50 win teams or winners w/o him?
    He's 9th in career points which is impressive but for perspective Elvin Hayes is 11th, so it's not just about how many points you score over your career. As for efficiency, I posted his TS%+ which shows for most of his prime he had essentially league average efficiency. And that efficiency went down significantly in the playoffs (.544 TS% on Den/NYK RS compared to .513% playoffs). His FG% went to 41.7%, his 3PT went to 32.0%, etc.

    As for whether the Knicks and Nuggets would get worse, obviously they would, but that is true of almost any top scorer for any team (obviously there are exceptions). The real question is, how many other players could you have replaced Melo with on those teams and have them do just as good or better. But even that only speaks to his floor raising ability, which there is certainly something to be said for a player's ability to raise a team's floor. But the problems with how he played really put a limit on his ability to raise a team's ceiling. Hence his Denver and NYK team's combined 2 trips past the first round his entire career.

    He's by no means a bad player, he's incredibly skilled at scoring. But he played ISO ball or went one on one too much and lacked the playmaking ability for teammates to raise the teams' collective offensive efficiency, hence why he is oftentimes overrated by people who are enamored with high PPG.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,067
    Is there anyone who is going to say Melo was a better scorer than:

    MJ
    KD
    Bron
    Bird
    Kobe
    Curry
    Shaq
    Wade
    Dirk
    Wilt

    Those seem like easy calls, and there is a whole host of other players who could make a good argument for being better scorers such as:

    Dr. J
    Gervin
    West
    Big O
    McAdoo
    Kareem
    Baylor
    King
    T-Mac
    K Malone
    Barkley


    Not to mention current guys like Harden, Doncic, Lillard, Giannis, etc.
    Last edited by valade16; 08-09-2022 at 05:57 PM.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    68,794

    UPDATED TOP 100 NBA players list

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    He's 9th in career points which is impressive but for perspective Elvin Hayes is 11th, so it's not just about how many points you score over your career. As for efficiency, I posted his TS%+ which shows for most of his prime he had essentially league average efficiency. And that efficiency went down significantly in the playoffs (.544 TS% on Den/NYK RS compared to .513% playoffs). His FG% went to 41.7%, his 3PT went to 32.0%, etc.

    As for whether the Knicks and Nuggets would get worse, obviously they would, but that is true of almost any top scorer for any team (obviously there are exceptions). The real question is, how many other players could you have replaced Melo with on those teams and have them do just as good or better. But even that only speaks to his floor raising ability, which there is certainly something to be said for a player's ability to raise a team's floor. But the problems with how he played really put a limit on his ability to raise a team's ceiling. Hence his Denver and NYK team's combined 2 trips past the first round his entire career.

    He's by no means a bad player, he's incredibly skilled at scoring. But he played ISO ball or went one on one too much and lacked the playmaking ability for teammates to raise the teams' collective offensive efficiency, hence why he is oftentimes overrated by people who are enamored with high PPG.
    So he wasn’t an inefficient chucker and did have a very positive impact on winning. Seems we mostly agree you just have funny way of saying it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 08-09-2022 at 06:20 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,067
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Was he wasn’t an inefficient chucker and did have a very positive impact on winning. Seems we mostly agree you just have funny way of saying it.
    I consider someone who takes 19-20 shots a game on league average efficiency to be an inefficient chucker because generally you should be getting more shots because you can make them at a better than everyone else average.

    He had a positive impact on winning, but I wouldn't say very based on his historical ranking and in general he's ranked too highly in all-time contexts.

    But yes, he was a good player even in an all-time context. He would make my Top 100 but most likely not my Top 50.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    68,794

    UPDATED TOP 100 NBA players list

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I consider someone who takes 19-20 shots a game on league average efficiency to be an inefficient chucker because generally you should be getting more shots because you can make them at a better than everyone else average.

    He had a positive impact on winning, but I wouldn't say very based on his historical ranking and in general he's ranked too highly in all-time contexts.

    But yes, he was a good player even in an all-time context. He would make my Top 100 but most likely not my Top 50.
    You also take more difficult shots bc you are the end of clock out, bail out, and go to option. I don’t think the volume scorers of his era were much more efficient then he was. If that’s the case we’re they mostly inefficient chuckers? I don’t take issue with him being outside the top 50. I do think the floor raiser/ ceiling raiser argument is over used but the fact that you can use it says something. If Melo was far and away your best player you would need a very well built team to win a chip. That’s true of ton of guys that were great but not god tier. I never loved Melo but he was skilled as ****. When Woodson moved him to the 4 and surrounded him with shooters he was a heck of an engine. My one big issue with him was stubbornness. He just loved playing out of the post and in the half court. He had all the skills to be a PnR play maker and open court stud as well but just loved that bully ball style.


    Regardless he’s 100 spots or more ahead of Ben Wallace


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 08-10-2022 at 08:48 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Except defense isn't anywhere near as important as offense (it's frankly not close)...and no, Wallace was not the best player on that team. What you may not realize is that players like that are not super impactful unless they are on good teams. Put Wallace on a lottery team and what he brings to the table wouldn't move the needle much (i.e., they likely aren't making the playoffs). Players who bring very little offensively, but are great defenders essentially rely on being on good teams in order to have respectable careers and so they have absolutely no business being in the same universe as guys who actually can carry teams and have teams built around them. As for Russell, he was a pretty good offensive player, but wasn't great (what made him great wasn't his offense, but his offense was still arguably at an all-star caliber level). Wallace on the other hand was an atrocious offensive player. There's a massive difference there.

    The list as a whole is indefensible though. How is Paul Milsap ranked ahead of Ray Allen? How is Vlade ranked ahead of Ray Allen? Were they also defensive juggernauts? There's so many of these and that says nothing to all of the omissions. As I've been saying for a long, long time, these metrics are not intended to assess players and your list shows how absurd of a list one can end up with when such methods are used. That you would try to defend Vlade as an all-time great player in the top 100 is outlandish given the players who are not on the list and the players who he is ranked ahead of. Vlade was a low-end all-star caliber player for about 4-6 seasons. Anything that leads to a radically different conclusion than that is not to be trusted.

    There's a major part of my work that you're overlooking.

    Statistical theory can help raise the level of objectivity in any performance rankings as opposed to some arbitrary selections--this shouldn't require any further explanation.

    Beyond sustaining some level of objectivity, the two major reasons most cross-era comparisons do not appear credible is that they fail to account for the changing overall quality of the competition [My theory is outlined in post#58 in this thread] and the effects of rule changes on player performance.

    Bob Pettit may have been the greatest power forward in the 50s, but how does Pettit compare to Shawn Kemp 40 years later is far more complicated.

    In the modern day most people wouldn't consider Andre Drummond in a class with Karl Anthony-Towns. I believe BB-ref Win Shares scores Towns 21 shares higher than Drummond since 2016. I would agree.

    But that's not my focus. I want to measure Towns and Drummond against every Center that played since 1950. The vintage Centers played in an era much more favorable to low post players. I have to adjust for that.

    In today's rules, 2016-22 Drummond is not nearly as valuable as 2016-22 Towns. Towns' ability to play on the perimeter is a perfect fit for todays game. But what if I use statistical theory to adjust each Center by the 1990s league average.

    Towns' 792 career regular and post season 3 pointers decrease to 185.
    Drummonds 3307 career regular and post season offensive rebounds increases from 3307 to 4110, 19th all-time. Drummonds on pace to be the second greatest offensive rebounder all-time, to Moses Malone.

    In the common era where all player regular and playoff stats are factored into, Drummond finishes with 75 value shares from 2016-22. Towns finished with 78 value shares during that period.

    It's a much closer comparison in my all-time scale.

    I don't believe in applying some kind of fairy dust time machine "translation". I can reasonably estimate through an objective statistical analysis that Towns gains a 45% advantage in performance value over Drummond by playing in todays era as oppose to the early 90s.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel20 View Post
    There's a major part of my work that you're overlooking.

    Statistical theory can help raise the level of objectivity in any performance rankings as opposed to some arbitrary selections--this shouldn't require any further explanation.

    Beyond sustaining some level of objectivity, the two major reasons most cross-era comparisons do not appear credible is that they fail to account for the changing overall quality of the competition [My theory is outlined in post#58 in this thread] and the effects of rule changes on player performance.

    Bob Pettit may have been the greatest power forward in the 50s, but how does Pettit compare to Shawn Kemp 40 years later is far more complicated.

    In the modern day most people wouldn't consider Andre Drummond in a class with Karl Anthony-Towns. I believe BB-ref Win Shares scores Towns 21 shares higher than Drummond since 2016. I would agree.

    But that's not my focus. I want to measure Towns and Drummond against every Center that played since 1950. The vintage Centers played in an era much more favorable to low post players. I have to adjust for that.

    In today's rules, 2016-22 Drummond is not nearly as valuable as 2016-22 Towns. Towns' ability to play on the perimeter is a perfect fit for todays game. But what if I use statistical theory to adjust each Center by the 1990s league average.

    Towns' 792 career regular and post season 3 pointers decrease to 185.
    Drummonds 3307 career regular and post season offensive rebounds increases from 3307 to 4110, 19th all-time. Drummonds on pace to be the second greatest offensive rebounder all-time, to Moses Malone.

    In the common era where all player regular and playoff stats are factored into, Drummond finishes with 75 value shares from 2016-22. Towns finished with 78 value shares during that period.

    It's a much closer comparison in my all-time scale.

    I don't believe in applying some kind of fairy dust time machine "translation". I can reasonably estimate through an objective statistical analysis that Towns gains a 45% advantage in performance value over Drummond by playing in todays era as oppose to the early 90s.

    Overall I like your logic but care to explain the bolded part?

    Why was it more favorable? If anything, it was harder to score from the low post than it is now. I get that it's less common to feed a player in the low post these days, but it's far easier to score from the low post now.

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    48,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I disagree, and I like Billups more than Melo, but Anthony was an elite scorer for most of his career and was the best player on the team while the nuggets were contenders and the closest they came to winning a title in 09 where they pushed the laker a very tough 6 games. Anthony was in the top 5-15 players or so for most of his career, whereas Billups was never in that type of company. Anthony also wasn't really an inefficient scorer. For most of his career, he was either above average or around average in terms of his fg% and was usually above the league average for ts%. It wasn't until he got older that his efficiency started to dip.

    Billups was an excellent player, but I would put them in different categories. Anthony was competing among the best players, whereas Billups was around a mid-level all-star who brought a lot of great intangibles, but he was usually only at this level when he was on good teams. On mediocre or bad teams, he was mostly a role player. As for Wallace, like Billups, but to an even greater extent, what he brings usually only moves the needle on good teams. On bad teams, both players are kind of meh, whereas Anthony was a great player regardless of where he played until about 6 years ago or so when he entered his mid 30s.
    You keep mentioning your feelings as if that's supposed to matter here. Its not about who you like, it's about who's better. You also brought up the lakers but those same lakers were pushed to 7 by a completely crippled Houston team that had no Tmac, no Yao to close and the likes of Ron Artest/Aaron Brooks as the offensive hub. So Melo allegedly led his team to less victories against Kobe than a team missing their superstars, big whoop. Check out the rest of Melos playoff career for a good laugh.
    Chauncey has the far more impressive accomplishment of ending the Shaqobe era and winning finals mvp in the process.

    Everything you've stated about Melo is simply not true. He's never been that guy, and only an elite scorer if your standards are pretty low, and even then, it's just a scorer as opposed to an elite offensive player.

    Reread my post, I said he's a **** playmaker and not overly efficient with his scoring. When you're that subpar as a passer/defender, your individual scoring has to be more efficient than the lowly marks Melo touched. And it's not like coaches didn't try to get him to pass more, 2 HOF coaches tried. He was simply incapable and egotistical.

    FG% is for idiots so we can't have a discussion on stats if you're using beyond outdated metrics from the 70s.

    Nothing you've said about Billups is remotely true. Maybe for Ben Wallace but that wouldn't preclude him from being the superior player. A dominant defender to a champion can be superior than a such a flawed primary option offensively.
    Random Highlight of the Month: * RARE - Zo DUNKS on Shaq *

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    48,569
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    What game?
    Clamps
    Random Highlight of the Month: * RARE - Zo DUNKS on Shaq *

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    48,569
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Overall I like your logic but care to explain the bolded part?

    Why was it more favorable? If anything, it was harder to score from the low post than it is now. I get that it's less common to feed a player in the low post these days, but it's far easier to score from the low post now.
    That's false
    Random Highlight of the Month: * RARE - Zo DUNKS on Shaq *

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    15,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    You keep mentioning your feelings as if that's supposed to matter here. Its not about who you like, it's about who's better. You also brought up the lakers but those same lakers were pushed to 7 by a completely crippled Houston team that had no Tmac, no Yao to close and the likes of Ron Artest/Aaron Brooks as the offensive hub. So Melo allegedly led his team to less victories against Kobe than a team missing their superstars, big whoop. Check out the rest of Melos playoff career for a good laugh.
    Chauncey has the far more impressive accomplishment of ending the Shaqobe era and winning finals mvp in the process.

    Everything you've stated about Melo is simply not true. He's never been that guy, and only an elite scorer if your standards are pretty low, and even then, it's just a scorer as opposed to an elite offensive player.

    Reread my post, I said he's a **** playmaker and not overly efficient with his scoring. When you're that subpar as a passer/defender, your individual scoring has to be more efficient than the lowly marks Melo touched. And it's not like coaches didn't try to get him to pass more, 2 HOF coaches tried. He was simply incapable and egotistical.

    FG% is for idiots so we can't have a discussion on stats if you're using beyond outdated metrics from the 70s.

    Nothing you've said about Billups is remotely true. Maybe for Ben Wallace but that wouldn't preclude him from being the superior player. A dominant defender to a champion can be superior than a such a flawed primary option offensively.
    My "feelings" in this case would favor Billups, which is why I brought it up. Everything I said about Billups was true. He was considered a bust until he went to a good team and then when he was no longer on a good team he went back to being meh. He was never considered on the same level as superstar players. At least not by the massive majority of the basketball world. Most lists during his peak have him ranked in the 20-50 range in those years.

    Yes, the lakers went 7 with the rockets, but anyone watching those series knows that they were taking it easy against the rockets and the series was never in real doubt. The nuggets games were legitimately intense and played at a very high level.

    I'm happy to have a discussion about efficiency (which is going to translate to a very small in-game difference), but we can't have that discussion unless you're actually exploit and clear about what you mean by efficiency. Whatever it is though, it's important to keep in mind that guys like Melo usually have the other team's best defenders guarding them the entire night and the defensive schemes are set up to stop those kind of players. The overwhelming massive majority of the league would almost certainly end up being much less efficient (regardless of what metric you want to use) if they faced that type of defense regularly.

    I agree that Melo wasn't a good playmaker, but Billups wasn't really a great playmaker either (especially for a pg). He was more a great floor general. Melo was a solid rebounder and was a very dynamic scorer. He's not my favorite player, but their accolades show the wide disparity in how they were viewed during their primes and careers in general.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 08-11-2022 at 01:17 AM.

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •