WestGOAT wrote:LukaTheGOAT wrote:PIPM is no longer publicly available because Jacob Goldstein has been signed by Monumental Sports & Entertainment as a research analyst assisting across the Wizards, Mystics and Go-Go (he had to take town his work). However, right here is a PIPM sheet that goes from like 1974 to 2019. The most recent season is not available in this sheet. Here it is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qfyWxm1JL4BMD0ZY3kUvKOkOh6mjtL1i_vvV7NZqerk/edit#gid=0WARNING: These stats are not saying guys like Robert Covington, etc. are actually better than like a Bradley Beal for example. These stats measure impact in their roles, or rather how well each player is performing the role they are given. Someone playing the glue guy role like Covington, has relative to the rest of the league, plays a much easier 3&D, then someone like Beal who has to completely carry a Washington Wizards offense. The numbers reflect that.
Furthermore, these stats measure value with regards to their teams. If Lebron's RAPM is higher in 2007 than 2012, it does not mean he was actually better in 2007. Rather it means Lebron was more indispensable to that 2007 Cavs team then the 2012 Heat. Always keep in mind how a player played each season and compare his teammates to understand better why certain numbers might be indicating such things.
Finally, finding resources is really just saving any documents you come across as you interact with others regarding basketball, as well as find on the internet. Have a nice day!
But that's the thing, with some players it's clear that they have a facilitating role, rather than being THE driving force of their team.
Sometimes it's a bit fuzzier, for example would you say it's fair to compare Stockton's PIPM in the 2000-2001 season, 2nd(!) in the league to Iverson's in the same season, 21st in the league, despite Iverson carrying a much heavier load than Stockton. Stockton also only played 2,581.3 minutes compared to Iverson's 3,997.7 minutes. Is this a fair comparison?
I don't think it's awful that Stockton is rated ahead of Iverson. In fact, I believe there is a good argument to be made that Stockton was better than AI, at least on a per-possession basis.
Let's start off with team results:
Jazz: 53-29, 5.00 SRS (3rd)
76ers: 56-26, 3.63 SRS (7th)
AI's main argument stems from the 76ers playoff success. In reality, that was a byproduct of playing in a historically bad eastern conference.The East was so bad that its head to head record vs the West (38.3 win%) is the 2nd worst since the NBA merger, only behind 2004. It comes as no surprise that the 76ers record was padded vs the East, 40-14 (.741), in comparison to the West, 16-12 (.571). The Jazz were simply a better team that had to play in a tough conference.
It's also historical revisionism to say that AI's teammates were awful. He had the 6th Man of the year, Coach of the year, and Defensive Player of the Year. The 76ers went 6-5 in the 11 games AI missed. AI was carrying them offensively, but the team was winning on the backs of their 5th ranked defense
AI's best argument comes from his team making the finals. The only reason they made it was the atrocious Eastern Conference competition they faced.
Playoff opponents:
76ers:
Indiana: 41-41, -0.77 SRS
Toronto: 47-35, 1.69 SRS
Milwaukee: 52-30, 3.14 SRS
Jazz:
Dallas: 53-29, 4.61 SRS
If Utah played the 76ers opponents, they would have the made the finals too. If the 76ers were in the West, they would have lost in the 1st round.
On Court PlayWe established that the jazz were on the same level if not better than the 76ers. How did those teams do with their star on the court?
Stockton: +12.2, +18.5 On/Off
Iverson: +5.7, +4.1 On/Off
With Stockton on the court, The Jazz outscored opponents by over twice the amount of Iverson. The Jazz played like a significantly better team with Stockton. When you adjust for the tougher competition, the gap widens.
OffenseWe already know that Stockton was on another level defensively compared to AI. Stockton was an All-NBA level defender while AI was a liability. AI's best argument comes from Offense. I'm not convinced that AI was better offensively.
Jazz: 107.6 O rating (3rd)
76ers: 103.6 O rating (13th)
On court:
Stockton: 112.8 O rating, +14.3 On/Off
Iverson: 104.1 O rating, +3.9 On/Off
It's not outrageous to say that Stockton was better offensive player than Iverson. Stockton dominates AI at his best traits (shooting and passing). Stockton's 61 TS%,+9.2% rTS (Best in the NBA) is noticeably higher than AI's 51.8 TS%, +0.0% rTS. If you look at B-R's Points added because of True Shooting, Stockton is at 114 points above average compared to Iverson's 1 point. That's 113 Points (1.4 PPG) alone that Stockton is adding over AI based on efficiency.
Iverson made up for that with the playmaking created by all of the attention he received. Unfortunately for AI, playmaking is Stockton's best trait. Stockton had a 10.7 Assists per 36 average (best in the NBA), while AI only had a 3.9 Assists per 36 average. Their turnover numbers were comparable too. There is nothing in the stats that showed AI as a better offensive player.
Stockton's team had a legendary 7 year stretch from 95-01 as an elite offensive club.
Rank in O Rating:
95: 4th
96: 2nd
97: 2nd
98: 1st
99: 3rd
00: 6th
01: 3rd
5 Top 3 finishes in 7 years. Stockton, alongside Malone, being the engine of that offense.
How is AI Better?Based on the above, Stockton was better on both Offense and Defense than AI. His team played better too. So what exactly is AI's argument over Stockton? The only argument he has is minutes played. AI played 42 Minutes Per Game compared to Stockton's 29. On a per-possession basis, Stockton is better than AI. That gap is reduced only when we account for the massive disparity in playing time. Either way it makes sense that this stat which is a per possession stat would rank Stockton well above AI.
