KrazyP wrote:pingpongrac wrote:720 wrote:It’s okay, I guess Al Horford, Desmond Bane, Porzingis, Mike Conley, etc, are all top 20 players in this league too according to ESPN real plus minus. Totally sane opinions to have I guess. /s
Or are those guys outliers too? If they are, a stat where 5 guys are outliers in the top 20 is a joke stat. Actually watch games people.
Again, you're literally looking at one stat. How many of those players are near the top of the league in virtually every impact stat? And how many of those players are posting elite impact stats while being a top option for a ~50-win team? Porzingis (great numbers for a terrible Washington team and decent numbers for an at the time pretty good Dallas team) and Bane (very good numbers as a 2nd/3rd option for a great Memphis team) are the only ones that come remotely close to FVV's impact + traditional stats.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using
RealGM mobile app
I'd also add that Al Horford actually made a massive, underappreciated impact on how that Celtic team functions. Some times these older, non-flashy impact players go unnoticed by fans that might be too focused on highlight reels and iso scoring.
I liken Horford to a non washed up version of the Raptors Marc Gasol....a guy that actually makes more basketball impact related to winning than several of the players that show up on top 50 lists.
Horford was one of the best defensive bigs in the L, if not the best (I know, its surprising). Heres an example.
Thats not even getting into why his +/- is the way it is, which is also a fairly easy explanation. If the argument is RAPM/LEBRON/etc.. is bad, fine we can talk about why, but no one does. Its just _____ (stat) is bad, because it has _____ (player) high up. Its low level engagement.
The problem people have is they think pointing to _______ (some outlier) is indicative of something. Im not the guy who is ever going to come in here and say PER is **** because ____ is high on the list, im going to tell you its because its a boxscore stat doesnt incorporate defense properly (and I could add other caveats). To me it just shows their ignorance, and after typing that out for 6 yrs, in multiple threads, its boring.
billy_hoyle wrote:VVV could you add Capela to your table? Show 720 that Capelas the outlier because he only ranks in the 90+% in one stat and not across multiple catch all advanced stats?
Cheers
Since youre asking in what I presume is good faith.
This doesnt prove anything though.
billy_hoyle wrote:720 wrote:It’s okay, I guess Al Horford, Desmond Bane, Porzingis, Mike Conley, etc, are all top 20 players in this league too according to ESPN real plus minus. Totally sane opinions to have I guess. /s
Or are those guys outliers too? If they are, a stat where 5 guys are outliers in the top 20 is a joke stat. Actually watch games people.
I'm not arguing against you. I think the stats geeks have a compelling case if the macro catch-all stats are in general agreement on players. If a particular stat has Al Horford as a top 20 player, and he's a top ~100 in all others, well you have an outlier there.
If on the other hand, you have multiple late 100 guys in the top 20 across all these catch all stats...well then a heavy dose of scepticism is justified. If that's the case, who's to say FVV isn't the outlier?
Stat geeks rarely use all encompassing stats because we are aware of the inherent flaws.
The problem is that alot of +/- stats are going to look similar (for obvious reasons), and alot of boxscore stats are going to look similar (for obvious reasons). Im probably the biggest advocate of using stats beyond these, but thats not to say they dont have their uses.
I think youre missing
my point about outliers. Guys can be good and have a great season/s. Guys can be great and have good season/s. These are the outliers. Now why that season they were good/great/whatever, we can break it down and discuss, but no one wants to do that. The irony is, most people dont even understand what they are talking about.
"a stat where 5 guys are outliers in the top 20 is a joke stat"
What does this even mean?? its a number. Then to pile on the rhetoric because hes saying nothing, its about people not watching the games, a common trope. That **** is boring.