Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st
Posted: 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.
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1276993
HartfordWhalers wrote:I know what APM, RAPM etc are.
HartfordWhalers wrote:You yet again fail to argue without a personal attack, keep staying classy.
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.
HartfordWhalers wrote:Even using your personal metric, how many teams have won without a top 7 guy (number used for mvp voting)?
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.
mysticbb wrote:No, good players is enough hereHartfordWhalers wrote:The argument is not just do you need good players, you need one of the best players.
HartfordWhalers wrote:Go on and show this then, with your numbers.
HartfordWhalers wrote:And yet you keep hiding behind your attacks and trying to skip the central question.
HartfordWhalers wrote:So, are you the absolute fraud it appears you are?
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.
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?
bondom34 wrote:OK, attempting to follow logic in this conversation (bored at work).
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.
bondom34 wrote:OK, so can you please define it?
bondom34 wrote:Edit: Not trying to be snarky, just want to know.
bondom34 wrote:OK, attempting to follow logic in this conversation (bored at work).
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
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.
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.
HartfordWhalers wrote:needing something (a necessary condition for it) doesn't guarantee something (a sufficient condition for it)?
HartfordWhalers wrote:Even using your personal metric, how many teams have won without a top 7 guy (number used for mvp voting)?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
HartfordWhalers wrote:Even using your personal metric, how many teams have won without a top 7 guy (number used for mvp voting)?
HartfordWhalers wrote:I'm confused
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?
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.