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

Post #81 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:49 pm

DBoys wrote:A "contender" is still undefined in this thesis, although it supposedly is the promised result of tanking. No way to examine whether that's true when we don't even know what it is.

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.

Spoiler:

mysticbb · Post #82 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:03 pm

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?

Post #83 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:15 pm

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?

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.

mysticbb · Post #84 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:22 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:But if the discussion is honestly going to get that dumb, I'm not interested in being a part of it.

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?

Post #85 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:33 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:But if the discussion is honestly going to get that dumb, I'm not interested in being a part of it.

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?

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

Are there examples of teams with top players that still weren't close? Obviously. They won't all be, but eliminating 3/4ths of the league as contenders is not bad for sharpening the discussion. You can pick to include fringe contenders and keep it where 6 or so teams have a shot, or tighten your standards to only teams that have great shots. Although then if there is a team that wins with a couple of upsets, suddenly you have the unfortunate result that a non contender won. I'm personally not all that bothered by that, outliers are a fact of life, but some people are.

mysticbb · Post #86 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:51 pm

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

To make myself a bit more clear: Top 7 MVP vote getters != top 7 players in the league! You may believe otherwise, but that doesn't make it true. To make that one rather obvious: Garnett was a top7 player in 2008, but not in 2007, 2006 and 2005? How likely is it that a player in the mid of his prime suddenly drops out of the top7 without being seriously injured, while he later enters that again?

And no, that does not mean that James or Duncan or whomever are not good players. Leave your strawman somewhere else, please. ;)

HartfordWhalers wrote:Are there examples of teams with top players that still weren't close? Obviously.

So, maybe that statement:

HartfordWhalers wrote:But what constitutes a contender should be easy -- you need one of the top 7 guys in the league.

isn't accurate overall?

Well, next time when you try to be smart, you may as well say: A contender has more good than bad players on the roster. That may as well be true.

Btw, I would use an indicator like SRS in order to assign a team to a contender-status. I bet that is more accurate than assuming that a team with a top7 player is a contender. Even though some fans may believe otherwise, but usually a team consists of more than 1 player. And matter of fact, the difference in performance level between the top level players is less than the differences between the respective supporting casts. Just something to think about ...

Post #87 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:17 pm

Or maybe needing something (a necessary condition for it) doesn't guarantee something (a sufficient condition for it)? I thought I had explained that already clearly:

HartfordWhalers wrote:
mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:But if the discussion is honestly going to get that dumb, I'm not interested in being a part of it.

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?

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

Are there examples of teams with top players that still weren't close? Obviously. They won't all be, but eliminating 3/4ths of the league as contenders is not bad for sharpening the discussion. You can pick to include fringe contenders and keep it where 6 or so teams have a shot, or tighten your standards to only teams that have great shots. Although then if there is a team that wins with a couple of upsets, suddenly you have the unfortunate result that a non contender won. I'm personally not all that bothered by that, outliers are a fact of life, but some people are.

The rest of your post is nothing but building off your faulty argument from before (somehow these really aren't good players was your straw man not mine), that the top players in the league are somehow too hard to identify. I'm happy to debate the best method for identifying the top players and if we should look at Garnett being 1st and 2nd team ALL NBA alternating back and forth, or if we should use MVP, or if you want to use something different. Doesn't really change the facts of the argument, just the unit of measurement.

It is a deep ocean when measured in feet or meters, and you need one of the top guys in the league to win a ring.

mysticbb · Post #88 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:36 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:Or maybe needing something (a necessary condition for it) doesn't guarantee something (a sufficient condition for it)?

Great, that is my point. :)

HartfordWhalers wrote:The rest of your post is nothing but building off your faulty argument from before (somehow these really aren't good players was your straw man not mine), that the top players in the league are somehow too hard to identify.

Not one of my posts says anything even remotely close to that. Just out of curiousity: Do you actually really believe that I would have written something like that or are you just intellectual dishonest?

HartfordWhalers wrote:It is a deep ocean when measured in feet or meters, and you need one of the top guys in the league to win a ring.

Does "having a top guy in the league" on the roster define a contender? Which means, we are back to the beginning ...

Post #89 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:52 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:Or maybe needing something (a necessary condition for it) doesn't guarantee something (a sufficient condition for it)?

Great, that is my point.

HartfordWhalers wrote:The rest of your post is nothing but building off your faulty argument from before (somehow these really aren't good players was your straw man not mine), that the top players in the league are somehow too hard to identify.

Not one of my posts says anything even remotely close to that. Just out of curiousity: Do you actually really believe that I would have written something like that or are you just intellectual dishonest?

HartfordWhalers wrote:It is a deep ocean when measured in feet or meters, and you need one of the top guys in the league to win a ring.

Does "having a top guy in the league" on the roster define a contender? Which means, we are back to the beginning ...

Nice try but no.

Basically all you are doing is trying to argue that if we use a net that captures 100 of 100 contenders but also 20 non contenders its unsuitable as a net. Seems absurd to me. But again, if you prefer a net that doesn't let in one fake contender a year but only captures 90/100 contenders and lets an upset winner out, it is easy to do just that again using the top players in the league.

A top player is a clear necessary condition, with just how tight a definition of a top player determining the size of your net.

Post #90 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:52 pm

mysticbb wrote:Btw, I would use an indicator like SRS in order to assign a team to a contender-status. I bet that is more accurate than assuming that a team with a top7 player is a contender. Even though some fans may believe otherwise, but usually a team consists of more than 1 player. And matter of fact, the difference in performance level between the top level players is less than the differences between the respective supporting casts. Just something to think about ...

Teams without an All NBA first teamer (5 or less teams) that have won a championship over the last 20 years:
Dallas '11 (2nd teamer)
Det '04 (2nd teamer)
Hou 95' (3rd, wow)

Teams without a top 5 SRS that have won a championship over the last 20 years:
Dallas '11 (8th)
Miami '06 (6th)
Det '04 (6th)
Hou '95 (11th, wow)
Hou '94 (6th)

I'm not sure SRS really does better at all. What it does a great job at is identifying the favorite of the contenders (8 of 20 are 1st in SRS).

But using SRS begs the questions, what gets a good SRS?

I think it is pretty instructive that something as simple as having the top player at his position gets you there as well, and then lets people debate how do you get an All NBA 1st teamer (or top 7 mvp guy, or ...).

Again, I don't mind outliers so my preference is all nba 1st team, noting that each exception had a guy who won dpoty within a year providing some clear guideline for the type of exception to the rule that works.

Post #91 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:11 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:The rest of your post is nothing but building off your faulty argument from before (somehow these really aren't good players was your straw man not mine), that the top players in the league are somehow too hard to identify.

Not one of my posts says anything even remotely close to that. Just out of curiousity: Do you actually really believe that I would have written something like that or are you just intellectual dishonest?

To be clear, here is your post:

mysticbb wrote: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?

So, you are suggesting that individual awards are not accurate for it. And yet you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty?

mysticbb · Post #92 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:13 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:Basically all you are doing is trying to argue that if we use a net that captures 100 of 100 contenders but also 20 non contenders its unsuitable as a net. Seems absurd to me.

Well, if something is supposed to be "easy", I can assume that the presented DEFINITION is at least sufficient. But maybe you aren't quite aware of what definition even means? ;)

HartfordWhalers wrote:A top player is a clear necessary condition, with just how tight a definition of a top player determining the size of your net.

Having good players on the team is a clear necessary condition, with just how tight a definition of a good player determining the size of your net.

What you haven't grasp yet, is the fact that you, instead of defining a term, just changed the issue. And yeah, it is rather easy to change the issue, but not really helpful for a good discussion about the topic at hand.

Btw, arbritarily picking the top5 in SRS as the only possible contenders is weird. Why not top10? Maybe there are 10 contenders in the league? Or maybe the amount of contenders changes from year to year? Or maybe a better team has some injury problems and missing players, which causes them to have an actual lower SRS than with those players? Or they traded later for a player in that season? In that case the SRS of the team with those said "good players" may as well be the better way to judge a team? Just to make it clear: The Mavericks with Nowitzki playing in 2011 had a top5 SRS, the Heat in 2006 with Wade and O'Neal playing had a top5 SRS, the Pistons after getting Rasheed Wallace had a top5 SRS. Maybe it is actually better to really evaluate a team and how good it plays than just simply using the season SRS?

mysticbb · Post #93 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:17 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:
mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:The rest of your post is nothing but building off your faulty argument from before (somehow these really aren't good players was your straw man not mine), that the top players in the league are somehow too hard to identify.

Not one of my posts says anything even remotely close to that. Just out of curiousity: Do you actually really believe that I would have written something like that or are you just intellectual dishonest?

To be clear, here is your post:

mysticbb wrote: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?

So, you are suggesting that individual awards are not accurate for it. And yet you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty?

how good != not good

The term "how good" explicitly asked for a quantification. That's what I "suggested", that getting votes for individual awards is not "necessarily" a sign that someone is better than someone else who didn't get those votes.

And yeah, I just figured out that you really believed it. Thanks.

Post #94 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:46 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:Basically all you are doing is trying to argue that if we use a net that captures 100 of 100 contenders but also 20 non contenders its unsuitable as a net. Seems absurd to me.

Well, if something is supposed to be "easy", I can assume that the presented DEFINITION is at least sufficient. But maybe you aren't quite aware of what definition even means?

How cute. The second time you have no real argument so you resort to a personal attack.

Again, the argument that is plainly supported by the history is you ned a top player to be a contender. If there is one team with a top player that is not close to winning it all in a given year, that doesn't change the argument that you need one -- which you clearly do.

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:A top player is a clear necessary condition, with just how tight a definition of a top player determining the size of your net.

Having good players on the team is a clear necessary condition, with just how tight a definition of a good player determining the size of your net.

What you haven't grasp yet, is the fact that you, instead of defining a term, just changed the issue. And yeah, it is rather easy to change the issue, but not really helpful for a good discussion about the topic at hand.

Btw, arbritarily picking the top5 in SRS as the only possible contenders is weird. Why not top10? Maybe there are 10 contenders in the league? Or maybe the amount of contenders changes from year to year? Or maybe a better team has some injury problems and missing players, which causes them to have an actual lower SRS than with those players? Or they traded later for a player in that season? In that case the SRS of the team with those said "good players" may as well be the better way to judge a team? Just to make it clear: The Mavericks with Nowitzki playing in 2011 had a top5 SRS, the Heat in 2006 with Wade and O'Neal playing had a top5 SRS, the Pistons after getting Rasheed Wallace had a top5 SRS. Maybe it is actually better to really evaluate a team and how good it plays than just simply using the season SRS?

Wait, is that top 5 compared to other teams with only their best players on the court also? Obviously if not that would be intellectually dishonest. And more importantly, why are you picking Wade and ONeil, Dirk, and Wallace? What about the rest of the whole team that you were talking about? and don;t those players rest at all, thus making the whole team data relevant? It starts to look like you need one of those top players, and SRS is actually worse than the mere presence of one (so that bet still looks lost by you).

Post #95 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:55 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:
mysticbb wrote:
Not one of my posts says anything even remotely close to that. Just out of curiousity: Do you actually really believe that I would have written something like that or are you just intellectual dishonest?

To be clear, here is your post:

mysticbb wrote: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?

So, you are suggesting that individual awards are not accurate for it. And yet you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty?

how good != not good

The term "how good" explicitly asked for a quantification. That's what I "suggested", that getting votes for individual awards is not "necessarily" a sign that someone is better than someone else who didn't get those votes.

And yeah, I just figured out that you really believed it. Thanks.

My argument was clear, without a top player you are not a contender. You can highlighting your use of the qualification 'how' but it doesn't change the argument you made, that something like mvp votes wasn't identifying these players from those that aren't these players. If you want to retract that argument, feel free to as gracefully as above.

If you want to keep arguing it, then you are either left saying that the top players cannot be identified or you need to put forward a different methodology. As already noted, All NBA teams are similar and result in the same result.

mysticbb · Post #96 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:55 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:Again, the argument that is plainly supported by the history is you ned a top player to be a contender. If there is one team with a top player that is not close to winning it all in a given year, that doesn't change the argument that you need one -- which you clearly do.

Seriously, are you not getting that I don't dispute that at all? You just haven't provided a defintion, because your "method" is insufficient! That was the argument from the beginning, you just seemed to have missed the point of the questions!

HartfordWhalers wrote:Wait, is that top 5 compared to other teams with only their best players on the court also?

Playing, the whole game, not just being on the court. But at the end, you can also look how good the teams plays with their best players on the court and it will give you a better idea about the strength of the team.

HartfordWhalers wrote:Obviously if not that would be intellectually dishonest.

No, it is actually called failing at reading comprehension, because at no point in my post was something written about the performance of the team with said player on the court.

HartfordWhalers wrote:And more importantly, why are you picking Wade and ONeil, Dirk, and Wallace?

Because Wade and O'Neal missed games, because Nowitzki missed games and Rasheed Wallace came to the Pistons later.

mysticbb · Post #97 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:05 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:My argument was clear, without a top player you are not a contender.

And at no point did I dispute that, in fact, I actually agree, good teams have good players. That is TRIVIAL! But your "method" does not provide a sufficient definition of the term contender, because there are teams missing out, because their best players were not getting the votes or you are include teams like the 2013 Lakers (Bryant finished 5th in the MVP voting) or 2012 Timberwolves (Love finished 6th in the voting).

HartfordWhalers wrote:, that something like mvp votes wasn't identifying these players from those that aren't these players.

It is not a sufficient method to identify which players are better. Or do you believe that Derrick Rose in 2011 was actually the best player in the league? Or Allen Iverson in 2001? Was Garnett in 2008 a top3 player, in 2004 the best while in 2005 to 2007 he wasn't even among those "top7"? What about Steve Nash winning two MVPs in a row in 2005 and 2006? Honestly, getting MVP votes is dependent on how good the team is the player is playing on. The same performance by a MVP on a team with a worse cast and all of the sudden that player isn't the MVP anymore. Garnett is the best example of this. Maybe those examples will help ...

HartfordWhalers wrote:If you want to keep arguing it, then you are either left saying that the top players cannot be identified or you need to put forward a different methodology. As already noted, All NBA teams are similar and result in the same result.

Actually, I don't need to do that at all. But I prefer analysing HOW the player actually played over individual awards. Just the simple fact that in 2006 Garnett wasn't even a member of the All-NBA teams while Carmelo Anthony was shows me how reliable such individual awards are.

Post #98 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:23 pm

I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this in this much detail for you to get the issue.

2011 Dallas SRS for entire season (8th)
Amount of games Dirk missed 9.
Therefore we should take Dallas's SRS for just those 73 games Dirk played in and compare it with the other 29 teams in the league ignoring that those other teams had injures also.

That doesn't really seem like an unbiased comparison to me.

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:My argument was clear, without a top player you are not a contender.

And at no point did I dispute that, in fact, I actually agree, good teams have good players. That is TRIVIAL!

Well, if you take top player, change it to good player, then sure its trivial. But its also not what is being discussed. The argument is not just do you need good players, you need one of the best players. One of the very few at the tip of the top. If you agree with that, and not just your 'good', then we can debate the implications because getting a top of the game guy is much different and harder than just a good guy.

mysticbb wrote:Actually, I don't need to do that at all. But I prefer analysing HOW the player actually played over individual awards. Just the simple fact that in 2006 Garnett wasn't even a member of the All-NBA teams while Carmelo Anthony was shows me how reliable such individual awards are.

So, pick your metric.

APM of the single best player on a team actually does better than SRS of a whole team (unless maybe you do some weird manipulations) at pinpointing each season's winner -- 10 of the last 20 champs have had the single highest APM in the league. The only teams without a top 5 APM for instance where Jordan's Bulls (when Pippen had a higher APM and was still at 6 for one year) and the Lakers (when Odom was 6th and one year when Kobe was highest at 18). {To me those examples show some of the limitations of APM but that is a really separate discussion; the more you look at different metrics the more it seems like it should be obvious that you need not just your 'good' player but a true 'top' player.

mysticbb · Post #99 » by **mysticbb** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:53 pm

HartfordWhalers wrote:2011 Dallas SRS for entire season (8th)
Amount of games Dirk missed 9.
Therefore we should take Dallas's SRS for just those 73 games Dirk played in and compare it with the other 29 teams in the league ignoring that those other teams had injures also.

Which "other teams" are you talking about? And yes, the Mavericks with Nowitzki had a higher SRS than 25 other teams in the league with their respective best player playing as well. The same goes for the Heat with Wade and O'Neal playing. And you better not ask for the Pistons with Rasheed Wallace. ;)

HartfordWhalers wrote:That doesn't really seem like an unbiased comparison to me.

What bias is included? Did the Mavericks in 2011 play the playoffs with Nowitzki or without him?

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, because, as I pointed out (and you seem to agree with) the MVP voting is not a sufficient method to identify the best players.

HartfordWhalers wrote:So, pick your metric.

I actually use a merged metric of SPM and RAPM, where I use a regression analysis on the team's game-by-game performance in order to calculate the coefficients needed. The used RAPM is 1yr no-prior informed, the SPM is my own boxscore-based metric (quite similar to what is still listed on the blog).

HartfordWhalers wrote:APM of the single best player on a team actually does better than SRS of a whole team (unless maybe you do some weird manipulations) at pinpointing each season's winner -- 10 of the last 20 champs have had the single highest APM in the league. The only teams without a top 5 APM for instance where Jordan's Bulls (when Pippen had a higher APM and was still at 6 for one year) and the Lakers (when Odom was 6th and one year when Kobe was highest at 18). {To me those examples show some of the limitations of APM but that is a really separate discussion; the more you look at different metrics the more it seems like it should be obvious that you need not just your 'good' player but a true 'top' player.

I don't think that you actually know what APM even means ... but it is at least a start. :)

And adjusting for the fact that a team plays worse while the best player/s sit/s out due to injuries is hardly a "weird manipulation". ;)

Post #100 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:30 pm

mysticbb wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:2011 Dallas SRS for entire season (8th)
Amount of games Dirk missed 9.
Therefore we should take Dallas's SRS for just those 73 games Dirk played in and compare it with the other 29 teams in the league ignoring that those other teams had injures also.

Which "other teams" are you talking about? And yes, the Mavericks with Nowitzki had a higher SRS than 25 other teams in the league with their respective best player playing as well. The same goes for the Heat with Wade and O'Neal playing. And you better not ask for the Pistons with Rasheed Wallace.

HartfordWhalers wrote:That doesn't really seem like an unbiased comparison to me.

What bias is included? Did the Mavericks in 2011 play the playoffs with Nowitzki or without him?

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, because, as I pointed out (and you seem to agree with) the MVP voting is not a sufficient method to identify the best players.

HartfordWhalers wrote:So, pick your metric.

I actually use a merged metric of SPM and RAPM, where I use a regression analysis on the team's game-by-game performance in order to calculate the coefficients needed. The used RAPM is 1yr no-prior informed, the SPM is my own boxscore-based metric (quite similar to what is still listed on the blog).

HartfordWhalers wrote:APM of the single best player on a team actually does better than SRS of a whole team (unless maybe you do some weird manipulations) at pinpointing each season's winner -- 10 of the last 20 champs have had the single highest APM in the league. The only teams without a top 5 APM for instance where Jordan's Bulls (when Pippen had a higher APM and was still at 6 for one year) and the Lakers (when Odom was 6th and one year when Kobe was highest at 18). {To me those examples show some of the limitations of APM but that is a really separate discussion; the more you look at different metrics the more it seems like it should be obvious that you need not just your 'good' player but a true 'top' player.

I don't think that you actually know what APM even means ... but it is at least a start.

And adjusting for the fact that a team plays worse while the best player/s sit/s out due to injuries is hardly a "weird manipulation".

I know what APM, RAPM etc are. You yet again fail to argue without a personal attack, keep staying classy.

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.

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

Looking at your SPM, it is 2 in the past 20 years:
2010 Lakers when Kobe was 8th (just missing) in your rankings and 4th in the MVP voting and first team all nba.
2004 Pistons when Billups was 12th and Wallace was 27th in your ranking (1 behind Okur) while 7th in mvp voting, 4th in APM, and 2nd team all nba.

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.