MisterWestside wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:If we actually had access to a non-prior APM or RAPM for the year right now, it would be shocking if Durant didn't have a clear lead.
And therein lies the problem with most of the responses that follow in your post. The goal is to predict performance, and +/- presents its own set of problems that get in the way of this (much like with the box score). Non-prior APM was replaced a long time ago for a reason, DocMJ. The same with RAPM.
If you can't recognize these fundamental issues with +/- and why these other metrics exist, then this discussion has reached an impasse. I'll get to a couple of your other points later, though.
Dude, c'mon.
I know exactly why all of these stats exist. I understand the pros and cons of all of them. I understand why Engelmann does what he does, I understand his goals, and I understand that his goals are not the only goals out there.
You, on the other hand, just tried to use a stat that included previous season performance to talk about this year's MVP without acknowledging that the guy you argued against would be underrated by the stat due to the clear improvement that we both agree he's made this year.
I say this as someone who respects your knowledge, and things you have far more to offer than most: Either you don't understand these stats as well as I do, or you're purposefully cherrypicking to try to prove you point...or both.
MisterWestside wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Engelmann prefers to use previous season data as a prior for his RAPM analysis, which means that Durant is starting from a dramatic handicap in Engelmann's '12-13 ratings.
Priors are also better for predictive use, and the use of the box score prior adds information that addresses some of the inherent (and significant) limitations of pure +/-. This actually favors Durant, who has posted impressive box metrics.
Of course, I also know about your beef with xRAPM. That's just something you'll have to figure out for yourself.
The assumption of previous season priors is that players remain the same from year to year. As long as they do so, the use of priors improves reliability. When they fail to do so, the priors reduce validity. We're specifically talking about a player who we both agree has changed significantly from the previous year. Can you see the problem?
RE: box score priors. These aren't a big issue with regards to Durant, but you brought them up relating to Nash who is tremendously underrated by box score metrics. That's the problem. If box score metrics were better then they could be used as an excellent prior...of course if box score metrics were better, why would we even bother with +/- data in the first place?
As I said, I understand what Engelmann's holy grail is. He wants to build one stat that perfectly captures how effectively a player is playing. If that's your goal, why wouldn't you use every tool at your disposal?
But what if that dream is an impossibility? What if one-stat-to-rule-them all is simply not possible with something as complicated as basketball? Well, by mashing everything into a black box, what he's done is create a flawed stat which can't really be used in an informed manner in conjunction with anything else with a great deal of confidence. Whereas, if you keep the the box score and the +/- separate, you've got two orthogonal indicators than an experienced analysis can factor based on their knowledge of how the two tend to work along with a variety of other factors.
Really what we're talking about is a classic issue with the application of AI where the combined usage of the AI with an expert continues to be better than what the AI (or the human) can do on its own.
MisterWestside wrote:Don't get caught up in the semantics of words borrowed from common language.
As far as I know, I'm the one who popularized the term "lift" here. I can't know I was the first to use it, but I made a conscious choice to use it when no one else was, and I meant it as a way to verbally signify what an idealized on/off would represent.
I read this carefully several times, and I still don't know what you're talking about as it relates to what I posted.
To reiterate: you cannot talk about Durant's ability to "lift" a strong team better than LeBron can, but then also discredit his supporting cast while talking about the "luxury" of players LeBron gets to play alongside with. If that's the case, then Durant is not actually lifting a strong team like LeBron is, just a weak one. And that destroys the point of comparison that is needed for your premise. (Personally, I'd say that the "lift" argument is a bit misguided and erroneous in the first place.)
I don't understand why this is complicated.
If Player A has a weaker supporting cast than Player B, but Player A's team does better than Player B, then Player A has "lifted" his team more than Player B.
We can certainly debate about whether that's what's happening, but in the abstract the idea is basic. The fact that you could come up with different interpretations of what lift might mean, or maybe what you think it should mean, should not make it this hard for you to understand how I'm using the term.
MisterWestside wrote:I think people have this tendency to see star players like a one man band, and what I'm saying is something akin to, "Yes it's cool that you can play guitar, harmonica, tambourine, drums, and cowbell at the same time, but y'know we really could get someone else to do some of that."
This isn't an absurd example; obviously you're referring to the proper division of labor in basketball for the purpose of running an optimal team. I just think you're using this analogy to describe something that doesn't actually exist (e.g., LeBron "doing too much" on offense with other "capable" talent around him). He's been less involved in his team's offense in '12 than ever before. And no, the talent around him outside of Wade and Bosh isn't all that "capable".
Okay, I don't think that's unreasonable.
MisterWestside wrote:Well, that's why I talk about "ceiling". When we're talking about the very best of the best, it's out duty to nitpick. Is there ANYthing about this guy's game that could cause team stagnation even if the stagnation only comes when you're talking about already being very good? Well, if there is, we need to understand it.
100% agreed. I would just like you to recognize that you're taking shortcuts to address a complex problem. Notice in our back-and-forth, for example, that you have yet to refer to any other player (or person on the team!) besides LeBron, Wade, Durant, and Westbrook. I previously asked you to name players who you believe are "capable" scorers outside of the Heat's Big 3, and you did not answer. You're screwing over proper analysis when you limit the scope of analysis to four players. The "other" players aren't as important as Lebron, et. al.; but they are absolutely relevant (if they weren't, then any owner or GM could go out into the street and sign any random person from the local gym to the league minimum, put them next to their star, and win titles). This is a team game. And I haven't even talked about coaching yet. (I know your next response: +/- already account for these factors. NOT. PERFECTLY. You still need to pay attention to the fine details and the limitation of the metrics you are using. Please pardon the caps.)
Is analysis hard? Of course it is. But let's not be lazy about it, hmm?
Lazy about it? We're already writing tomes.
If we were to focus on guys other than the Big 3, what would be the intent? Is it to say that LeBron has a weak supporting cast other than the two Top 10 players he's playing next to? Okay, granted.
I feel like the crux of the point is this:
You say we don't really know anything about LeBron's limitations because the fit in Miami is so terrible.
I say that I still expected better, and that I'm cautious about making assumptions about what ultra-outlier offensive performances LeBron could have given we haven't seen it, and that the issue of talent redundancy that we see in Miami would seem to be something that exists with any team capable of reaching those unheard of levels.
You then say "But you don't really know for sure", and I say "You're right".
MisterWestside wrote:Re: Durant's better because team is better. Well if Durant's team is better with him ont he floor, and they are worse without him, just taken as an ideal, shouldn't that say something about Durant relative to LeBron?
This is not a clear-cut conclusion to arrive to simply because of the many confounding variables in team basketball, as explained above.
Hence my use of "just taken as an ideal". Clearly you're saying we have to do more than that, and clearly based on the amount of my writing, I am doing more than that, but we're also having issues with fundamental agreement on basic semantics so I have to lay these things down from time to time.
MisterWestside wrote:However, to me the question of level of absolute goodness is something that should be seen as incredibly difficult to answer even on a philosophical level.
Ditto with this (valid) statement.
Cool.
MisterWestside wrote:On a season level though, you're largely fooling yourself if you think you can separate luck from the process.
On a lineup level, however? You better amend your statement for that, because it certainly matters.
I'll put it like this:
Let's take an extreme example with two ultra-Shaq's. They are the two best players in the league, but it's impossible to play them at the same time (easy to prevent pass to the interior on offense, and open 3's on the perimeter). They happen to play on the same team, each play 24 minutes, and cost so much money that the supporting talent is weak.
Would you consider them the top 2 MVP candidates in the league?
To me the answer is a clear "No", and the big reason is simply that they exist on a team with poor fit. The fit of the team keeps them from contributing the value they are capable of.
So clearly, unless you disagree, fit HAS to be something that is a factor contributing to actual value and not something to penalize a guy for in an MVP race, and most definitely there's a lot to fit that's beyond a player's control, hence there's luck involved.
MisterWestside wrote:I'm not saying you can't find ways to improve the Heat offense with some player changes, but what I'm saying here is that it's really straight forward some of the problems on the Thunder. Finding someone who can play point guard better than Westbrook isn't trivial, but there are guys you could pretty much just slot in and make the team better.
I already said before that just slotting in a PG who isn't as shot-happy (this speaks to your dislike of Westbrook's game) and who "allows" Durant to command more of the offense does necessarily achieve this (see '12 team offense data when Durant's offensive role increased). Even this season, concluding that Durant can play in better offenses without a player like Westbrook is hella fallacious with the tiny sample sizes of the minutes played for lineups with Durant/without Westbrook. Meanwhile, those two have played great together on offense (in many more minutes played), so your claims are unfounded.
I don't think this should be this complicated.
Would the team be better if Westbrook was a more capable playmaker? Surely.
Do you think Westbrook is an elite level playmaker?
I mean it's working well with the two of them, but I can't really fathom the idea that if you've got a world-class off-ball scorer you wouldn't love to have the best playmaker you can next to him.
MisterWestside wrote:With Miami, you can't just slot in a better Wade. Ask 10 different people how to build the ideal team around LeBron, and you might get 10 very different answers, and the reason for that is because it's not really as clear how to build around LeBron.
Er, no. You space the floor with capable shooters and take advantage of the extra attention that the Big 3 generates. James and Wade purposely look to get others involved in the offense first, and when the role players put the ball in the basket they're outrageously efficient. The lineups that have hurt the Heat are ones in which the shooters on the floor don't capitalize, particularly inconsistent players like Battier, Chalmers, Haslem play together with the Big 3. Spoelstra insists on playing those lineups anyway (they play alot of minutes with the Big 3) perhaps because he feels those those players along with Allen are the most reliable role players in a playoff series (and you also saw that in '12), so he hopes they can get out of their slump by the playoffs.
Let's consider Battier here.
This is a guy long considered probably the single greatest role player in the entire league. Does all the little things. Phenomenal defender, and certainly capable of hitting the open trey. I understand he's getting older, and maybe that's your point, but isn't he in theory exactly the type of guy you'd try to slot in next to the Big 3?
Chalmers? Hey, if you're going to have your 2 & 3 be the dictators of the offense, what are you expecting to get at the 1?
Haslem? The Big 3 took paycuts specifically so that he would stay because he seemed the precise type of player they needed.
I feel like you're looking at the things going wrong and saying "If those weren't going wrong, it would all be great", and I'm looking at them and saying "I don't think it's as easy as you think to reliably build better".
MisterWestside wrote:Sorry DocMJ, but I'm still not satisfied with you merely recognizing that they did a good job. That's why I said you were sidestepping: you fail to investigate the implications of their work vis-à-vis the success of the Thunder's offense.
I'm sorry you've lost me a bit here. Could you restate your thesis?
MisterWestside wrote:I repeat: It didn't happen in Cleveland and we've yet to see any next-level transformation of Miami, so at the very least it's not inevitable.
Here again, you don't even attempt to inquire further into what is taking place behind the surface. It's quite puzzling given your basketball acumen.
Perhaps you're seeing what I consider the limits of my acumen.
You seem to be looking at these contexts and saying "This didn't work because of X, Y, and Z, and I could do better with...".
Whereas I'm saying "People made some reasonable decisions, granted with a few mistakes, they still got nowhere near the level of offense I'm talking about. I'm not willing to say I know how to make it all much better."
This is not to say that I don't do a lot of detailed thinking on the matter, but to me we seem to be disagreeing largely on fundamental issues.
MisterWestside wrote:Beyond that, there is also just the matter than no matter the RAPM score, it's based on the impact you're having in that context. If you're unable to have similar impact in other contexts, it's not only acceptable but necessary to consider that when holistically judging a player. LeBron's offensive RAPM (or xRAPM) peak comes with a supporting cast of great fit but weak talent that could not produce GOAT levels of offense.
Whoa. This conclusion makes zero sense: firstly because LeBron isn't playing on a team with weak talent in the first place (at least at the top-end) and is still providing lots of impact; and secondly because it's stupid to blame someone for not "producing GOAT levels of offense" with a team. The team ortg is a team metric only; it tells you nothing about the performances of the individuals on the team. But forget LeBron for a second; you're essentially doing the same thing "RINGZ" people do when they look at the team accomplishment (they do it with rings or lack thereof; you do it with team ortg) and then identify the best player on the team as the sole source of the team accomplishment (or lack thereof). It's backwards, irrational, and overlooks the fact that one player does not make up the entire squad.
Dude, you're the one who brought up 2010, not me. Makes no sense for you to do that, and then be shocked when I talk about the context of 2010.
Your quite right that he's still providing a lot of impact. I'm not after all arguing that he shouldn't be in the MVP discussion.
Re: stupid to blame for not producing GOAT team offense. We've had plenty of context around this. You know full well that I'm not refusing to give LeBron an MVP because his team offense isn't GOAT or anything like that. You disagree with me in my tendencies regarding to LeBron's "ceiling", but you've been perfectly willing to talk about it before without resorting to such over-simplistic categorization of what I'm saying. What's up bro?
There is a very clear difference between saying, "X can't win a title because he hasn't won one" and "Offenses always experience diminishing returns at a certain point relating to talent and this causes ceilings in how good they can get. The fact that a player jumped to a team new with far higher offensive talent and their ORtg was worse than the previous team with less talent makes me concerned that this is a player who hits a hard ceiling, in part because this is a player who stands out first and foremost in his ability to seemingly do everything himself."
MisterWestside wrote:What do you mean he didn't "do it"? He DID lead a GOAT level offense. This isn't up for debate. The fact that he, shockingly, had teammates when he did this is irrelevant.
No, sir. Just as you have been doing all along, you casually overlook one's teammates and assign the entire credit/blame of a team's performance to one person without any regard for context. You DID, after all, go out of your way to remind me that the Suns offense had the biggest turnaround in history in the first season with Nash; you even wrote in such a way as to make it seem as if he was the SOLE reason for the turnaround ("Nash joins Suns as FA; Suns become all-time offense. The end.") I'm just throwing it back at you ("Nash joins Lakers in sign-and-trade; Lakers don't improve all that much on offense. The end."); now you decide to apply context ("But injuries! Kobe! Coaching!"). Don't backpedal DocMJ, you're better than that.
What I'm seeing repeatedly from you here is accusations toward me of being inconsistent in areas where I consider nuance to be crucial to fully understanding the concept. I feel like you're looking for reasons to knock me and win the argument instead of looking to learn.
That probably sounds arrogant. So be it to a certain extent but do keep in mind that you learn not just from people who know more than you but also people who think differently than you. While I'll admit that I'm knocking your thought process at times too, and I won't claim that I'm immune to inconsistency, I am trying on the whole to see all the valid things from your perspective, which is why I keep offering places where it would make sense to say we agree to disagree based on philosophical differences.
MisterWestside wrote:You want me in every post to put a disclaimer that I don't have access to a supercomputer that give the absolute truth about NBA basketball that no one else has? Well at least you don't ask for anything unreasonable.
Heh. I suppose I should cut you some slack then
It isn't a simple sport to analyze, after all.
Let me give you props for responding like that here. You took it exactly how I meant it, but reading my words again the tone could have seemed really hostile.
So you get it: It's a drag to constantly be couching your words by saying essentially "None of us really knows anything for sure but...". Over time, responses get more brief, at times less polite, and you can get the impression someone thinks they know everything. I know I don't, and I know everyone else doesn't, so I'm inclined to skip the formalities.