Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case study)

Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#101 » by Durins Baynes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:19 pm

The easy way out of this is just to say which teams you think were contenders post 99, as I did. Then go from there.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#102 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:52 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:I know what APM, RAPM etc are.


No, you don't. And don't kid yourself by actually believing you know that. You cited xRAPM numbers, where the 90's version even consists of fake data as APM. No idea, but someone who knows what he is talking about would hardly do that (or he is just intellectual dishonest, which doesn't change much in regard of the quality of the discussion itself).

HartfordWhalers wrote:You yet again fail to argue without a personal attack, keep staying classy.


It wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation. What makes you feel attacked here is in your head, not in the words.

HartfordWhalers wrote:And you haven't shown that good players are enough at all, but instead keep trying to switch the discussion and acting like its somehow assumed true without any factual backing.


I haven't even defined what the term "good players" mean. And it is also meaningless to the point made: Your method is insufficient and no matter what kind of metric you use to determine "top player" that will not change. A contender is not based upon on one player alone, but on the team average level of play. The Nuggets with Gallinari where a contender last season, despite not having a top 7 guy on their roster (no matter by what kind of metric), and the Thunder last season weren't a contender without Westbrook, not because Durant isn't a top 7 guy, but because the difference between Westbrook and his replacement was so huge that the overall average team level of play heavily decreased.

HartfordWhalers wrote:Even using your personal metric, how many teams have won without a top 7 guy (number used for mvp voting)?


My personal metric of choice is not presented on the internet, but in my database. The numbers on the webblog, as I pointed out before, are based on an older SPM version of mine. Now I use a merged slightly different version of SPM as well as no-prior informed 1yr RAPM values, where the necessary coefficients are calculated via OLS.

HartfordWhalers wrote:if i were you, I wouldn't feel comfortable arguing that your system shows just a good player is needed and not a top guy. From what I have seen of your own data seems to contradict you, and you seem to busy with personal attacks to bother showing otherwise.


My argument was that your method is insufficient. Did you forget that already?
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 46,932
And1: 20,479
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
 

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#103 » by HartfordWhalers » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:26 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:The argument is not just do you need good players, you need one of the best players.
No, good players is enough here


Go on and show this then, with your numbers. You've been asked to. And yet you keep hiding behind your attacks and trying to skip the central question. So, are you the absolute fraud it appears you are?
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#104 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:25 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:Go on and show this then, with your numbers.


Well, first, I need to define the term "good player", don't I? "Good player" to me means a player with at least +1.5 in my metric. That covers about 50 players per season. Each CF team from 2001 to 2013 as well as 1997 had at least 2 of those players on the roster, every title-winning team at least 3.

2013 and 2012: James, Wade, Bosh
2011: Nowitzki, Chandler, Terry
2010 and 2009: Bryant, Gasol and Odom
2008: Garnett, Pierce, Allen
2007: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker
2006: Wade, O'Neal, Mourning
2005: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker
2004: Wallace, Wallace, Billups
2003: Duncan, Robinson, Parker
2002 and 2001: O'Neal, Bryant, Fisher/Fox
1997: Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc ... Rodman, Harper

Btw, I can also lower the treshold for what "good player" means and raise the amount of players, that will also work. ;)

HartfordWhalers wrote:And yet you keep hiding behind your attacks and trying to skip the central question.


You are still confusing observations with "attacks". You may want to re-read what I wrote and compare that to the reality. You will notice, that I didn't say anything which wasn't true.

And the central question is by no means, what I understand under the term "good players", but what the definition of a "contender" is. I know it is convenient for you to act like the "central question" would be something else, but matter of fact is that all the time I just tried to point out that your method is not a definition. Definition comes from the latin word definitio and means "to specify" or "to seperate". Which means, a definition is per se sufficient! And that is the whole point of my argument.

Yeah, you have a nice method to filter out some teams and found that each title winner had a player which you feel belonged to the "top 7" of the respective season. And you may use that, or use a dice or cards or try to find a pattern in clouds in order to assign a team being a contender or not. What have all those things in common? There aren't sufficient, and therefore not a definition.

HartfordWhalers wrote:So, are you the absolute fraud it appears you are?


Given the fact that you were the one claiming to have an "easy definition" for what a contender is, and seeing that you just presented a method which is insufficient, as well as responding to my questions with a strawman, claiming you would know what APM is, etc. pp., I find that statement to be somewhat funny. Thanks for the entertainment. :)
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 46,932
And1: 20,479
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
 

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#105 » by HartfordWhalers » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:34 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:Go on and show this then, with your numbers.


Well, first, I need to define the term "good player", don't I? "Good player" to me means a player with at least +1.5 in my metric. That covers about 50 players per season. Each CF team from 2001 to 2013 as well as 1997 had at least 2 of those players on the roster, every title-winning team at least 3.

2013 and 2012: James, Wade, Bosh
2011: Nowitzki, Chandler, Terry
2010 and 2009: Bryant, Gasol and Odom
2008: Garnett, Pierce, Allen
2007: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker
2006: Wade, O'Neal, Mourning
2005: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker
2004: Wallace, Wallace, Billups
2003: Duncan, Robinson, Parker
2002 and 2001: O'Neal, Bryant, Fisher/Fox
1997: Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc ... Rodman, Harper

Btw, I can also lower the treshold for what "good player" means and raise the amount of players, that will also work. ;)

HartfordWhalers wrote:And yet you keep hiding behind your attacks and trying to skip the central question.


You are still confusing observations with "attacks". You may want to re-read what I wrote and compare that to the reality. You will notice, that I didn't say anything which wasn't true.

And the central question is by no means, what I understand under the term "good players", but what the definition of a "contender" is. I know it is convenient for you to act like the "central question" would be something else, but matter of fact is that all the time I just tried to point out that your method is not a definition. Definition comes from the latin word definitio and means "to specify" or "to seperate". Which means, a definition is per se sufficient! And that is the whole point of my argument.

Yeah, you have a nice method to filter out some teams and found that each title winner had a player which you feel belonged to the "top 7" of the respective season. And you may use that, or use a dice or cards or try to find a pattern in clouds in order to assign a team being a contender or not. What have all those things in common? There aren't sufficient, and therefore not a definition.

HartfordWhalers wrote:So, are you the absolute fraud it appears you are?


Given the fact that you were the one claiming to have an "easy definition" for what a contender is, and seeing that you just presented a method which is insufficient, as well as responding to my questions with a strawman, claiming you would know what APM is, etc. pp., I find that statement to be somewhat funny. Thanks for the entertainment. :)


So, you respond to the idea that a team needs a top 7 player by showing how many top 50 players they have? I suppose I should have expected similar, well done, a fraud to the end.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#106 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:45 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:So, you respond to the idea that a team needs a top 7 player by showing how many top 50 players they have?


No, I actually responded to your idea by proclaiming that it is not sufficient to serve as a definition, which you countered with a strawman. ;)
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#107 » by bondom34 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:55 pm

OK, attempting to follow logic in this conversation (bored at work). I'm not really understanding the arguement that you need top 50 players to win, as that's incredibly low for a ceiling for contenders. I'd like to see what players are in the top 50, and how many teams would therefore qualify as "contenders" under that definition. I just did a quick BBRef search, and used WS/48 as a quick reference for "top 50". It gave:
http://bkref.com/tiny/qBfPu

for last season. By that definition (2 in the top 50) the following were contenders:
BKN, CHI, DEN, GSW, HOU, Indy, LAC, Memphis, Miami, OKC, NYK, San Antonio, Toronto, Utah

If you limit it to 3 players:
BKN, GSW, DEN, Indy, LAC, Memphis, Miami, OKC, San Antonio

Either of these isn't really a great filter, as its just showing that having enough good players to be around a top 5 seed is a "contender" which isn't really true. I wouldn't have considered Denver, GSW, or really Memphis as teams w/ much of a chance last year, and the Knicks, Clippers, and Nets are debatable when healthy. I think the filter of top 50 is too much.
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
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#108 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:01 pm

bondom34 wrote:OK, attempting to follow logic in this conversation (bored at work).


Well, in that case it helps to really read the posts and not assume things. At no point did I say that having two or three top50 players would be sufficient enough to define the term "contender". ;)

In fact, I explicitely used the term "good players" in order to show HW the flaw of his method and why that can't serve as a definition.
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#109 » by bondom34 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:04 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:Go on and show this then, with your numbers.


Well, first, I need to define the term "good player", don't I? "Good player" to me means a player with at least +1.5 in my metric. That covers about 50 players per season. Each CF team from 2001 to 2013 as well as 1997 had at least 2 of those players on the roster, every title-winning team at least 3.

2013 and 2012: James, Wade, Bosh
2011: Nowitzki, Chandler, Terry
2010 and 2009: Bryant, Gasol and Odom
2008: Garnett, Pierce, Allen
2007: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker
2006: Wade, O'Neal, Mourning
2005: Duncan, Ginobili, Parker
2004: Wallace, Wallace, Billups
2003: Duncan, Robinson, Parker
2002 and 2001: O'Neal, Bryant, Fisher/Fox
1997: Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc ... Rodman, Harper

Btw, I can also lower the treshold for what "good player" means and raise the amount of players, that will also work. ;)
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
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#110 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:07 pm

And? Where does that say that this would define "contender"? I just simply stated the fact that each title-winning team had such players.
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#111 » by bondom34 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:08 pm

OK, so can you please define it?
Edit: Not trying to be snarky, just want to know.
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
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#112 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:25 pm

bondom34 wrote:OK, so can you please define it?


For me, the term contender is defined as every team which is at least 1σ better than league average in games with their 5 best players playing. In terms of SRS that is about +4.5 SRS (standard deviation of SRS for all team seasons from 1980 to 2013 is 4.45).

bondom34 wrote:Edit: Not trying to be snarky, just want to know.


Didn't see your request as being "snarky". Don't worry.
Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#113 » by Durins Baynes » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:27 pm

By that definition the Pacers weren't a contender either. Their SRS the last 2 years has been well below 4.5
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 46,932
And1: 20,479
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
 

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#114 » by HartfordWhalers » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:33 pm

bondom34 wrote:OK, attempting to follow logic in this conversation (bored at work).


Sure:
Here was my argument:
HartfordWhalers wrote:you need one of the top 7 guys in the league

HartfordWhalers wrote:I think it is pretty clear you cannot win without a top 7 player. Cause it doesn't happen


Here were the two some sort of attempts at rebuttals:
1)
mysticbb wrote:Well, let just look through the years and we can stop at 2012, because according to your criteria the Magic were a contender. Howard finished 7th in the MVP voting as well as 3rd in DPOY voting. ;)


2)
mysticbb wrote:getting votes for individual awards is not "necessarily" a sign that someone is better than someone else who didn't get those votes.


In terms of the 1), as I noted several pages ago:
HartfordWhalers wrote:needing something (a necessary condition for it) doesn't guarantee something (a sufficient condition for it)?


The fact that mysticbb is still repeating this complaint two pages later is confounding, unless you believe he is intentionally being dishonest.

In terms of the 2), I have shown that the stylized fact that you need a top guy and not just the good players (top 50) as mysticbb keeps trying to turn it back to. Mvp voting, 1st team all nba, his own old metric. It withstands the change to different evaluation criteria.

He has been repeatedly asked if it stands the test in his new top secret metric, because he keeps attempting to discredit the claim based upon the metrics being used.

HartfordWhalers wrote:Even using your personal metric, how many teams have won without a top 7 guy (number used for mvp voting)?


Has he responded? No...
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#115 » by bondom34 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:34 pm

mysticbb wrote:
bondom34 wrote:OK, so can you please define it?


For me, the term contender is defined as every team which is at least 1σ better than league average in games with their 5 best players playing. In terms of SRS that is about +4.5 SRS (standard deviation of SRS for all team seasons from 1980 to 2013 is 4.45).

bondom34 wrote:Edit: Not trying to be snarky, just want to know.


Didn't see your request as being "snarky". Don't worry.

Thanks for the definition, it makes it a bit easier to see where everyone's coming from. A few teams I'd still debate as "contenders" but that seems a more reasonable list. Just trying to somewhat make sense of where everyone is coming from in the thread.

As an aside, I am actually sort of on your side here as well. Not completely, as I think tanking is an option for building, just not the only one.
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
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#116 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:39 pm

bondom34 wrote:As an aside, I am actually sort of on your side here as well. Not completely, as I think tanking is an option for building, just not the only one.


Actually, I completely agree with that statement. As I said earlier in this thread, tanking might be even a good option for a specific team. I just disputed the OP in regard to "tanking is necessary". Nothing else. The rest is just side-tracking the issue by the OP (or now HW, as you can see, where he just shifts from the question "what defines a contender" to whatever.)

HW, seriously. :lol:

Your argument and my first response:

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:You guys can keep going around the mulberry bush with your definitions of what is tanking, and how long a string can you tie between any two events. But what constitutes a contender should be easy -- you need one of the top 7 guys in the league.


So, there are about 7 teams (excluding those, which might have two or more players within the top7 MVP vote getters) in each season which have to be considered "contenders"?

May it be also possible that you just figured out that individual awards have strong ties to the overall team success and are not necessarily a good metric to know how good a player was?


viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1276993&start=75#p37141316

Your response:

HartfordWhalers wrote:Sure, it is possible that Lebron, Kobe, Shaq, Wade, Duncan, Garnett are all just being boosted by their lesser teammates and not top players. But if the discussion is honestly going to get that dumb, I'm not interested in being a part of it.


viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1276993&start=75#p37141366

My response:

mysticbb wrote:Well, let just look through the years and we can stop at 2012, because according to your criteria the Magic were a contender. Howard finished 7th in the MVP voting as well as 3rd in DPOY voting. ;)

So, I'm asking you quite honestly: Do you actually really believe that you can assign teams to be contenders or not based on your criteria? Or may it be possible that some teams will wrongly assigned to that status and some others will miss out despite that fact that they were actually quite close to the title?


viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1276993&start=75#p37141398

There, you have it. I responded to your claim that you would have an easy definition for the term "contender" by pointing out that you will miss out on some and will have counted teams which will not be contenders (not just by a little bit, but by a huge margin like the 2012 Timberwolves, which even missed the playoffs). Therefore, it is insufficient, thus not a definition. If you don't know what the term "definition" means, please, educate yourself.

Everything else is just you trying to side-track the real issu: that you haven't found a definition. And you can see, when I asked the two questions, you responded with a strawman, because NOTHING in my post stated that O'Neal or Wade or James or whomever wouldn't be a top player. You just made it up in order to not respond to the question. Whether you really didn't get the question or you intentionally tried to derail it, I don't know, but your response was complete nonsense in regard to the two questions.

And the fact that you left out parts of posts in your attempt to save face just shows me what kind of character you have.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#117 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:38 pm

Durins Baynes wrote:By that definition the Pacers weren't a contender either. Their SRS the last 2 years has been well below 4.5


The Pacers are a somewhat interesting case, because they had such a weak bench that the team overall didn't play as good, but the top unit was playing at a contender level. Unfortunately, I have not yet the adjusted numbers for each unit, but that might be better to judge a team by the strength of their playoffs starting lineup instead.
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 46,932
And1: 20,479
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
 

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#118 » by HartfordWhalers » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:49 pm

So we are back to that some teams have top 7 guys and aren't contenders? Haven't I agreed with that and noted it was a necessary but not sufficient condition more than once? I'm confused, are you reading a different thread?

Now, if you want to keep typing long responses, why don't you bother getting around to my actual point that it is a necessary condition? Or is your silence tacit agreement? If so, you don't need to be so bashful.

HartfordWhalers wrote:Even using your personal metric, how many teams have won without a top 7 guy (number used for mvp voting)?
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#119 » by mysticbb » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:11 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:I'm confused


At least you realised it. ;)

And yeah, I read what you said regarding "necessary, but not sufficient conditions", but what you did afterwards is just called: moving the goalpost.

HartfordWhalers wrote:Now, if you want to keep typing long responses, why don't you bother getting around to my actual point that it is a necessary condition?


No, your actual point was that you have found an easy definition. Now, you can still derail that fact by trying to push a different agenda, but you already admitted to be confused, maybe I should leave it at that.

Btw, I showed that a title-winning team needs at least 3 "good players". Now, where did you refuse that or is your silence tacit agreement. ;)
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 46,932
And1: 20,479
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
 

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#120 » by HartfordWhalers » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:35 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:I'm confused


At least you realised it. ;)

And yeah, I read what you said regarding "necessary, but not sufficient conditions", but what you did afterwards is just called: moving the goalpost.

HartfordWhalers wrote:Now, if you want to keep typing long responses, why don't you bother getting around to my actual point that it is a necessary condition?


No, your actual point was that you have found an easy definition. Now, you can still derail that fact by trying to push a different agenda, but you already admitted to be confused, maybe I should leave it at that.

Btw, I showed that a title-winning team needs at least 3 "good players". Now, where did you refuse that or is your silence tacit agreement. ;)


So, my point wasn't that it was a necessary condition even though this is what I said in my first post and then repeatedly afterwards? Well then, I guess you are winning that debate. However, it is just versus yourself, which is not really constructive to keep repeating, at least in my opinion.

Instead you have now, yet again resorted to personal attacks instead of answering the simple question -- is it a necessary condition using your preferred methodology of player evaluation. To be blunt it makes you look very much like a fraud. Why not focus on replying to the direct question instead of trying to be an ass?


In terms of the idea that 3 good players are also needed, I'm going to assume you are posting this as a second necessary but not sufficient characteristic? If so, it looks good to me. Focusing on the components of what is needed to win a title in that sort of manner seems far more productive than arguing how much of a SRS a team needs to be a contender, because that just begs the question of then what sort of components are needed for a large SRS.

Return to CBA & Business