Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me)

Moderator: Doctor MJ

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,588
And1: 19,343
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#1 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:23 am

Hey y'all,

I've been thinking about this a good amount recently and I wanted to bring others into my thoughts without opening it up to everybody. Of course in theory they could come to this forum, but well, it's not as likely.

The Duncan vs Garnett re-started in earnest after what Garnett did in Boston, and while I've never been able to switch away from Duncan, nor have I been able to feel comfortable siding with him over Garnett.

If I'm honest it's the +/- stats. I keep diving further into them, and they keep favoring Garnett. Not only that, from what I can tell in what I'm looking at going back to '98, there's actually a tier difference. The alpha tier of the databall era to me seems to be Garnett along with Shaq & LeBron with Duncan a ways down at the head of the next tier.

I could go into more detail, but really I'm soliciting current thoughts on the subject from people I think are not dismissing the debate out of hand. So, what do you think?
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,852
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#2 » by drza » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:12 am

Doctor MJ wrote:Hey y'all,

I've been thinking about this a good amount recently and I wanted to bring others into my thoughts without opening it up to everybody. Of course in theory they could come to this forum, but well, it's not as likely.

The Duncan vs Garnett re-started in earnest after what Garnett did in Boston, and while I've never been able to switch away from Duncan, nor have I been able to feel comfortable siding with him over Garnett.

If I'm honest it's the +/- stats. I keep diving further into them, and they keep favoring Garnett. Not only that, from what I can tell in what I'm looking at going back to '98, there's actually a tier difference. The alpha tier of the databall era to me seems to be Garnett along with Shaq & LeBron with Duncan a ways down at the head of the next tier.

I could go into more detail, but really I'm soliciting current thoughts on the subject from people I think are not dismissing the debate out of hand. So, what do you think?


I'm really interested in the discussion here, and I'm glad to see your thought process. Because when I went through your standard deviation data, the same thing jumped out at me, that there did seem to be a tier separation between Shaq and Duncan.

And after seeing your thoughts on the Nash/Kidd discussion we had a bit back, that Nash was distinctly (if not by a large margin) better to you in impact than Kidd...but the difference between them is generally smaller than the one between KG and Duncan...well, I wanted to see your thoughts on it.

I've been consistent for pretty much forever that I thought Garnett was slightly better and carried a bigger load than Duncan through the years, so I'm sure my stance in this thread won't be surprising. But I must admit that I've felt more vindicated to see that as the +/- data sets have increased it's done nothing but further support my hypothesis.

Hoping this thread generates some good discussion from both sides.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
blabla
Sophomore
Posts: 156
And1: 76
Joined: May 23, 2012

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#3 » by blabla » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:11 am

Well, first of all the standard errors in RAPM aren't so small that we can say Garnett was better than Duncan with absolute certainty. I would say that Garnett was probably the better player, on average, since 2000 but there's a good chance Duncan was better than Garnett in some (~33%?) of those years. So to me, it's almost a wash
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,428
And1: 3,237
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#4 » by colts18 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:13 pm

Duncan had a better RAPM every year from 2001-2007 which was their prime. During the regular season they are really close but I think Duncan moves up based on his playoffs.
blabla
Sophomore
Posts: 156
And1: 76
Joined: May 23, 2012

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#5 » by blabla » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:06 pm

Garnett won a title in Boston in '08, arguably as the best player on his team and in the league. I'd include that year in his prime
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#6 » by bondom34 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:18 pm

I think I agree with colts18. Looking back, Duncan was better in RAPM every season until 2007-2008 (which is coincidentally(?) when he joined w/ Pierce and Allen in Boston). Both KG's and Duncan's longevity are incredible but I put Duncan ahead personally. Duncan only fell behind in the plus minus stats post big 3, where Duncan was ahead earlier.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,197
And1: 8,517
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#7 » by sp6r=underrated » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:49 pm

delete this post please
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,197
And1: 8,517
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#8 » by sp6r=underrated » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:42 pm

I have revised my opinion on this matter. I would delete the post but am unable to do so. If a moderator sees this post feel free to delete it.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,588
And1: 19,343
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#9 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:10 am

colts18 wrote:Duncan had a better RAPM every year from 2001-2007 which was their prime. During the regular season they are really close but I think Duncan moves up based on his playoffs.


Well this gets into some of my doubts, although i must be clear that I'm speaking more to the ambiguity than anything else.

The RAPM data you show from that set of years favors Duncan, but this is not THE RAPM data.

If we go by prior-informed RAPM, here's the respective edges over the years:

'98 - Garnett
'99 - Garnett
'00 - Garnett
'01 - no data
'02 - Duncan
'03 - Garnett
'04 - Garnett
'05 - Duncan
'06 - Duncan
'07 - Duncan
'08 - Garnett
'09 - Garnett
'10 - Garnett
'11 - Garnett
'12 - Garnett

That gives Garnett the edge in 10 of 14 years, and 3 of the 4 years Duncan has the edge come when Garnett's an absolute nightmare of a situation.

There's also the matter that if we simply look at best overall years Garnett has 5 of the 6 best ratings between the two of them, and the one Duncan year isn't what we typically see as peak Duncan ('03) but rather a perfect storm type of situation ('07).

But, thing is, I'm not all that content with just saying "prior-informed is definitively better so I side with Garnett". It's utterly bizarre to me that the non-prior-informed version repeatedly sides differently from the prior-informed version, and were I simply looking at the data you speak of I wouldn't have even started seriously thinking of Garnett as a threat to Duncan.

Ironing this stuff out is part of what I'm hoping people can help me with.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,588
And1: 19,343
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#10 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:13 am

blabla wrote:Well, first of all the standard errors in RAPM aren't so small that we can say Garnett was better than Duncan with absolute certainty. I would say that Garnett was probably the better player, on average, since 2000 but there's a good chance Duncan was better than Garnett in some (~33%?) of those years. So to me, it's almost a wash


Might be good if you could elaborate on your thoughts on the standard errors. To be honest I've always rolled my eyes at listed "errors" when people use them to indicate their own high confidence in the stat given that I've see eye-popping differences simply by changing priors. Which incidentally makes me sympathetic in general to a statement urging against overconfidence.

There is however a difference between asserting absolute certainty and simply making the best conclusion you can based on what you see.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,588
And1: 19,343
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#11 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:15 am

bondom34 wrote:I think I agree with colts18. Looking back, Duncan was better in RAPM every season until 2007-2008 (which is coincidentally(?) when he joined w/ Pierce and Allen in Boston). Both KG's and Duncan's longevity are incredible but I put Duncan ahead personally. Duncan only fell behind in the plus minus stats post big 3, where Duncan was ahead earlier.


Well when you put it like that, yes, it is a coincidence in the sense that they didn't directly cause him to become more effective. It wasn't luck though, Garnett focused on defense as never before while playing under a very smart defensive coach for the first time. Playing with Pierce & Allen helped allow him to do that, but they definitely didn't "make" him better.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,588
And1: 19,343
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#12 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:31 am

sp6r=underrated wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Hey y'all,

I've been thinking about this a good amount recently and I wanted to bring others into my thoughts without opening it up to everybody. Of course in theory they could come to this forum, but well, it's not as likely.

The Duncan vs Garnett re-started in earnest after what Garnett did in Boston, and while I've never been able to switch away from Duncan, nor have I been able to feel comfortable siding with him over Garnett.

If I'm honest it's the +/- stats. I keep diving further into them, and they keep favoring Garnett. Not only that, from what I can tell in what I'm looking at going back to '98, there's actually a tier difference. The alpha tier of the databall era to me seems to be Garnett along with Shaq & LeBron with Duncan a ways down at the head of the next tier.

I could go into more detail, but really I'm soliciting current thoughts on the subject from people I think are not dismissing the debate out of hand. So, what do you think?


I'm not going to try to talk you down. Instead I'm going to tell you to jump or tell you that it is time to reassess how you really view RAPM.

You've made clear in many posts you put massive stock in RAPM data. By that metric it isn't close. KG > TD by a very wide margin. TD looks like a high level HOF which is very impressive. KG appears to be a GOAT caliber player.

Accordingly, for someone who has massive confidence in RAPM I don't know how you can even debating this. The following all can't be true:

Premise: RAPM with sufficient data can be used to rank players alone
Evidence: KG leads TD by a real margin over RAPM.
Conclusion: There is still a debate about who is better between KG and TD

The premise must be false or the evidence must be inclusive to hold the conclusion. You seem to feel the RAPM evidence is sufficent. That means you either must conclude KG > TD or you must conclude that your premise is false.


Frankly, you should be championing KG as a GOAT candidate if you really hold that premise. The only guy with similar numbers to him in this range is Lebron. KG has many more years pre and post-prime in the relevant sample which makes him the leader of the two. KG's best seasons are as impressive as anyone else in this stat. His older years slaughter all of the other elite bigs (TD, Hakeem, Shaq, Malone) that we have data for.

It seems highly doubtful that guys pre-97 had massively more impressive RAPM, though admittedly that is speculation as the data doesn't exist. KG has an extremely high peak and was the best player of a huge time period (25% of the NBA's history) by this stat. If you have the confidence in this stats you should be championing debates such as KG vs Russell or KG vs MJ.

If you're not willing to do that you should consider reassessing how much confidence you really have in RAPM.


I really like this post sp6r. It's not the answer to my question, but it's a very perspective diagnosis of where I'm at.

People have a tendency to think that I'm a reckless stat guy or a blind homer because I hold unorthodox view of many players, but the truth is I very purposefully drag my heels whenever making major changes. I prefer to let more and more information and arguments come my way and only change my opinions when I hit a tipping point. Because of this I think some could make a great case that I let emotion cloud my judgment, but I tend to see it more along the lines that being like this has helped me not overreact to things in the past. I'm not a GM, I don't need to make a decision NOW, so I can be patient.

At a certain point though, you're right, you either have to swing at the pitch...or not, and I'm making this thread because I'm nearing such a point. As you can see though already, there's some noise in the equation that I still don't have answer for. I'm wanting to see other things that come up as well.

Re: GOAT candidate. And see that's the thing. It's not just about the debate with Duncan. As I'm starting to ponder my perspectives in remaking my GOAT list this summer, it's easy to see Garnett climbing and climbing. I wouldn't quite call him a GOAT candidate, but I won't be shocked if he ends up #4 on my list.

And if I'm honest, it just feels weird to me. Some of the criticisms made about Garnett do resonate with me. Him at his peak impact was indeed getting much of his impact from an offensive game that didn't seem to scale to the playoffs as well as Duncan or a variety of other players for example.

When I analyze things I tend to get to a place where things "click". A moment of catharsis if you would where I feel I'm at a stable fulcrum between two sides. I don't think I"m there yet, but I feel I'm close, and so I solicit the opinions of smart folks to help me out.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,197
And1: 8,517
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#13 » by sp6r=underrated » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:02 am

I have revised my opinion on this matter. I would delete the post but am unable to do so. If a moderator sees this post feel free to delete it.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,197
And1: 8,517
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#14 » by sp6r=underrated » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:43 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Re: GOAT candidate. And see that's the thing. It's not just about the debate with Duncan. As I'm starting to ponder my perspectives in remaking my GOAT list this summer, it's easy to see Garnett climbing and climbing. I wouldn't quite call him a GOAT candidate, but I won't be shocked if he ends up #4 on my list.


It really isn't just KG that should be in for some revisionism if you really accept a strong belief in the validity of RAPM.

To go really controversial, how about David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon . This is not in comparison to each other but rather their place in the hollowed realgm player comparisons board.

On the PC board Hakeem is regarded as a GOAT level player while Robinson is nothing more than a RS warrior/PS choker.

Here is how Robinson ranks in ascreamacrossthecourt's RAPM figures from 98-00:

Code: Select all

                          OFF  DEF TOT LG Rank
1998   David Robinson    0.73   3.64   4.37   23   
1999   David Robinson    1.83   5.18   7.00   3   
2000   David Robinson    1.96   4.53   6.49   4   
2001   David Robinson   -0.10   4.10   4.00   9   NPI
2002   David Robinson   -0.30   2.10   1.80   21   I believe year is incomplete
2003   David Robinson   -0.1    3.4    3.3     9   


Robinson as an old man who suffered a real injury is closer to KG than he is to all of the other older greats. Robinson is killed for his post-season performance yet his on/off numbers from the post-season look amazing. He is also associated with two of the biggest turnaround/collapses in NBA history. Is it really reasonable to doubt 90-96 Robinson had monster RAPM figures?

Hakeem, in neither 97 or 99, years in which he looked great from a box score perspective never shows much of anything. Indeed, Hakeem supporters tout 97 as his last great season and yet he only ranks 28th in the league (42nd (1998), 52nd (1999)). He ranks far and away worse than Robinson. TD 2010-2012 is solidly above Hakeem 97-99 in league rank. Why isn't Hakeem able to show any significant impact in comparison to other older bigs (save Shaq) if he truly is this GOAT level player?

Now it is possible to still conclude the negative view of Robinson is correct just as it is possible to hold the positive view of Hakeem is correct because relevant data is missing. Nonetheless, these are the types of questions that have to be pondered for people who have a very strong belief in RAPM.
blabla
Sophomore
Posts: 156
And1: 76
Joined: May 23, 2012

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#15 » by blabla » Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:22 am

A word on the standard errors: Even with a 14-year sample the standard errors for each estimate (each player value) almost never go below 1. Thus, we're 95% sure that Garnett's rating is between 9.7 +/-2, so ranging from 7.7 to 11.7, so to speak (the "2" comes from using twice the standard error). Duncan's estimate would range from 5.9 to 9.9. The two ranges overlap and thus we can't say the estimates are 'significantly different'. That's using the 5% significance level. See here. I think (don't nail me on this one) we can say with with ~66% certainty that Garnett was better than Duncan because if we change each player's range to +/- 1 (thus only covering 68% under this curve) the ranges almost don't overlap anymore (because it's only almost, I say 66% instead of 68%)

A word on the NPI RAPM: If it is what I think it is, i.e. single year RAPM with absolutely no priors, then a) it's a worse measurement than multiyear RAPM and b) it has a harder time giving players on bad teams good ratings and vice versa (there's not "enough" data to bump the rating of the good player on a bad team to a high point). That player will most likely have a negative ON and single year RAPM "wants to avoid" giving such a player a strong positive rating. Multiyear RAPM doesn't suffer from this problem as much. You'll also see that player ratings of players playing in one team are much closer together in NPI RAPM, thus making it hard for Garnett to get a good rating
RealRapsFan
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,680
And1: 893
Joined: Nov 18, 2012

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#16 » by RealRapsFan » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:53 pm

If I can add my 2 cents.

It feels as if your problem is more philosophical than scientific. As if you are looking for an absolute, or a guarantee, in a world where there is none. Until you feel that absolute is true, you've made your home on the proverbial fence, unwilling to set foot into 'new' territory.

Our stats, whether rankings or values or whatever, are probabilities. As such we can't, and shouldn't, ensure that they are 100% true..... there is room for error. In fact, that an error will occur should be the only guarantee. While I don't doubt you recognize this, we are also in a world that often doesn't want to. Its wants surety. It wants guarantees. More so if it goes against commonly held perceptions. I find that often weighs on people who put their faith in science - "I need to know, without a shadow of a doubt, this is true or people won't trust me. Won't trust the science" (take that quote liberally ofcourse)

I actually think this is a good thing (most of the time), as too many (particularily in the internet stats community) don't do this... they are too often over confident in their work. In what they've done, in what they want to be known or believed. Bias sets in, blinds them, and overwhelms their ability to practice good science. They become true economists at heart :lol:

Yet, as you pointed out, you can't sit on that fence forever. Science goes no where when it refuses to give us an answer to the question.

You can't do more than test your hypothesis, come to a conclusion and MOST IMPORTANTLY be open, willing and have a desire for criticism. In the end, its that criticism that opens up avenues we never would have found on our own. And this is really how we come to realize the truth, isn't it?

It sure sounds as if the only thing keeping your from claiming KG > Duncan is your own self doubt in the result, a bias in and of itself (even if a healthy one), rather than work you've done. Don't forget, its not like you can't retest with more/better information later and come to a new conclusion. If anything, an unwillingness to do so would be the biggest mistake you could possibly make.
Optimism Bias is the tendency of individuals to underestimate the likelihood they will experience adverse events. Optimistic bias cannot be reduced, and by trying to reduce the optimistic bias the end result was generally even more optimistically biased
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,197
And1: 8,517
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#17 » by sp6r=underrated » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:35 pm

I looked at the NPI for 98-00 on accrossthecourt's website. Duncan beats KG every year. So from 98-07 and 12, the years in which NPI data is available, TD beats KG 10-1. Yet, in PI KG leads 10-4.

To me the confusion is more about NPI than PI. In APM, KG has had a real lead by APM so does TD ends up in the lead for the first ten years of their career? If TD really has the lead for 10 straight years in NPI why doesn't he beat KG soundly in PI?

I'll admit, I'm confused and would appreciate a stat guy really going in depth about this.

BTW: nothing in my posts should be read as an acceptance of the strong belief in RAPM
Chicago76
Rookie
Posts: 1,134
And1: 228
Joined: Jan 08, 2006

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#18 » by Chicago76 » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:08 pm

Long post, so bear with me:

I've been thinking a bit about RAPM lately. Specifically, how RAPM is essentially a linear solution to a non-linear problem and how that can impact value estimates. We know that lineup A vs. lineup B won't necessarily have a close outcome with respect to the RAPM values estimated. Players aren't robots. We also know lineups are non-randomized and limited as are player minutes. This means player rotations can often complicate the system's ability to identify which player is responsible for the relative outcome vs. another lineup. This is the mathematical error portion and people who are much better versed in the nuts and bolts of the mathematics can run circles around me (and the rest of us) on this part.

When I refer to a non-linear problem, the issues I'm trying to wrap my head around relate to redundancies, synergies, team construction philosophy, and team quality. These issues could suppress or exaggerate a player's RAPM outside of mathematical error/deviation computations.

Team quality is the most intuitive, with the two core issues here being diminishing returns and coasting. Adding a +5 RAPM player to a good lineup is not likely to produce incremental improvement equivalent to adding the same player to a bad team, all else equal. As the quality of teammates increases, a player's incremental impact should decrease. This is the direct RAPM player impact of a good team. Indirectly, good teams are also prone to coasting on leads more frequently, which would suggest that the Ortg-Drtg differential of a good team is to some extent suppressed. If you're up by 15 with 9 minutes left in the game, a team doesn't need to keep their foot down to destroy someone by 25. They just need to play a low-risk/low energy style that will maintain their probability of a W while conserving energy for the demands of the rest of the season. Intuitively, this makes sense to me, although to test it someone would need to look at NPI changes when high impact players face substantial teammate quality changes season over season. There are exceptions (Garnett being a good one w BOS). There is also the issue that high impact players frequently change teams when they are being underutilized and/or their attitude is negatively affecting their play, which would suggest an RAPM bounce the post-team change. Generally though, I would expect this principle to hold true.

What is interesting is comparing RAPM MIN Garnett vs. Duncan over the same period and grouping them according to how good their respective teams were when both were off (simple +/- per 100). 2002-07, MIN had 4 years of -10 per 100 or worse without Garnett. His average normalized RAPM (from Doc's spreadsheet) in those years was 9.8. For the other two years where MIN posted better off-Garnett numbers (-4.2 and +1), his RAPM was only +6.0. Duncan’s Spurs always had better off-Duncan numbers. He was +8 the two years the Spurs posted solid off-Duncan numbers (+2.5 or higher) and Duncan was +9.5 in the other 5 years, four of which were years the team was around 0 to -1 with Duncan on the bench. This still doesn’t explain BOS Garnett though.

The other component I'm thinking about is the more complicated issues of synergies/redundancies and team construction philosophy. This is on a team level. I'm not looking at this from a player characteristic or portability angle. If we suspend reality for a moment and assume that all teams are equal with respect to talent evaluation, drafting, wheeling/dealing, FA acquisition, every player is paid in accordance with their production, and every team spends the exact same amount of money, then every team in the league is mediocre and talent/ability is perfectly distributed across the league. There is a continuum of construction strategy ranging from high risk/high reward to low risk/low reward. The high risk and reward team would be assembled in a way that everyone had a very specific role they performed very well. Players are compartmentalized with respect to skill set and the team relies upon discrete skill sets feeding others to create a perfectly synergistic and additive RAPM output with no redundancies. This team would win a lot until one of those pieces either gets hurt or slumps. Then they would suck horribly. The low risk/low reward team would feature built in redundancies. This team would never hit the same level of play as the first team, but they'd be able to hum along with an insurance policy against injury or a player slump.

The low risk strategy is the Spurs in a nutshell, except they are obviously far above average from a talent evaluation and personnel management standpoint. They were remarkably consistent, regardless of who might have missed stretches of the season with injury. Duncan played at least 33mpg in his first 11 non-CBA shortened seasons. Apart from a 63-win season, they never won more than 60 games, but they always won at least 53. They hit 56-58 wins more than half the time, with the other seasons not too far off (53, 54, 59, 60). In Duncan’s first 10 years, they weren’t superlatively dominant in the way that many dynasties are where they can reel off consecutive titles or finals appearances. They never even went to the WCF in consecutive years. They were consistently good and over the long run they were able to win a title every 2-3 years with reasonably deep bench play and a variety of players who rose to the occasion in key moments. This is what redundant teams do. They maintain a consistent level of play, and quite likely individual player RAPMs among many of their most important players were suppressed a bit. BOS was a bit more compartmentalized w/ Allen, Rondo, and Garnett in particular. They didn’t have a way of playing around the issue of Garnett being on the bench quite as easily as the Spurs did with Duncan. Part of that may be that Garnett offers an extremely rare skill set that happens to be valuable. But another part might be construction or Popovich’s ability to do things with alternate lineups Rivers couldn’t.

Curious to hear what others think of my little theory. Re: Garnett v. Duncan, I think you can make a reasonable case for either. Their respective RAPMs are close enough, due to statistical error and the issues I mentioned, that the case isn’t made or lost for either on the basis of RAPM. Someone’s selection of one over the other will be determined more by what the selector places importance upon rather than a clear cut statistical case.
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,730
And1: 2,053
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#19 » by Purch » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:44 pm

It's actually amazing to me, that someone's whole perception of two players can be completely altered by one stat. I've always looked at stats alongside, what I observe a player doing on the court. But I've never had an internal struggle about picking one player over another, because of a single stat. It seems kind of weird to me.
Image
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,588
And1: 19,343
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Stat guys Duncan vs Garnett (bear with me) 

Post#20 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:53 pm

So I'm at Coachella right now (Waxahatchee is awesome!) and can't really respond much now. But I did feel the need to say: blabla nailed it.

It's coming back to me now my original issues with RAPM and things that made me feel better about my concerns relative to pure APM. RAPM in some ways could be said to be a method to add skepticism to outlier regression data.

So the NPI numbers with Garnett are saying "that's probably luck, round it down".
But the PI numbers are saying "whoa, he keeps pulling this off, seems legit after all".
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!

Return to Statistical Analysis