dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Well again, I used single season VORP and WS. Not career to point peak vs peak that Miller was higher. You can use WS/48 or BPM to get a per metric and we can still use PER...it's still basically the same. These are all traditional box based stats.
The per 100 was just to compare one of the highest scoring eras to lowest. And we see that their box score stats don't favor Girvin but actually favor Miller. So the outclass thing is simply false. Again I don't have any issue if you take either player here, but if we're talking stats you can't claim their playoff stats aren't similar or that Girvin has a clear advantage. He just doesn't.
That's fine, but as I've said, it's obvious to me that we're simply leaning on different criteria for our viewpoints. I certainly can claim that Gervin has a clear statistical advantage, as 26.5/6.9/2.9/50% are better stats than 20.6/2.9/2.5/45%. They just are, and you can (and have) counter by digging into the more nuanced analytics, but at this point, it's coming down to criteria and methodology and what each of us regards as the most salient data to focus on.
One can say anything, but 26.5/6.9/29/50% on 20.4 FGA on a team averaging 119.3 PPG (used 79 to save time) vs 20.6/2.9/2.5/45% on 14.5 FGA on a team averaging 101.3 (used 00 to save time) PPG isn't better. You don't have to look at the "advanced" stats or pace adjust them, but the box score implies you're looking at the full box score which includes how much each team scores. The spurs of that era were scoring at times like 18 more points a game and were a worse team in general. It's like looking at Alex English on those nugget teams of the past and claiming he's among the top 10 scorers in NBA history vs pointing out that was the result of an offensive style that lead to more points but didn't really lead to winning.
Anyway we can agree to disagree on how to look at the box score stats. I honestly was rather surprised to see how clearly Miller's stats both traditional and slightly sorta advanced are so clearly better than Gervins. I'd expect a better case for Ice Man.
This is still a pace-of-play argument, and I remain unconvinced by such arguments. I understand the appeal of diminishing higher individual stats in the context of higher team stats, but I think that's an overly-simplistic/reactionary approach to analyzing that disparity. I've seen too many instances of people minimizing ATG players (Kobe, James, MJ-- even Wilt) by appealing to such disparities to be able to agree that the analysis should be that linear. I won't compel you with my approach, but the eyeball test is my clincher. We'll have to leave it there.
To be clear, though: I asked for a reasonable argument for ranking Miller above Ice, and you gave me one; I appreciate the discussion!
