Do you understand how the expansion era worked? Do you understand that teams could protect 8 players on their roster? Lets look at the defending champs.
Dener would have kept
Jokic Murray Gordon MJP KCP Brown Braun Green
Expansion team could get their next best player.
Mavs
Luka Irving Kleber Powell Hardaway Green Hardy Bullock
Expansion team gets their next best player
See how that works? You act like teams were depleted of talent. And what, there were two bad teams added during the 90s. This expansion talk is hilarious. You act like the 90s were weak cause expansion but you dont how it worked.
You completely missed the point, while simultaneously making my point. Expansion teams are easy to beat on. They don't get superstar talent. When there are crappy expansion teams in the league, it's easier to pad your regular season record. Thanks for making my point.
Kid how often did the Bulls play the Vancouver Grizzles a year? Are you kidding me lol? So the Bulls are overrated cause this? Just stop man this is embarrassing
The league went from 23 teams to 29 teams from 1988 to 1995. That's a 26% increase in teams. Lol at thinking that is insignificant. Apparently you thought only the Grizzlies got added. You sure you watched basketball in the 90s?
Psrs lol? The Mavs were my team but they were not better then any team Jordans Bulls faced. working kid.
And yet the Mavs performed much better in the playoffs than any of these "more talented" Bulls opponents.
You also seem to be confused about why expansion inflated srs in the 90's(much as it did during the 70's)
New teams tend to be comparatively weak(check the chart i linked last page) which leads to blow-outs. Those blowouts then boost the ratings of the teams blowing those expansion sides out which then scales up and boosts the ratings of everyone. Three of the four most recent expansions occurred before or during MJ's title-runs. Thus when we minimize the effect of those expansion sides with say PSRS, we see a more accurate reflection of talent. The 89/90 pistons rightfully score higher than any of Jordan's conquests, as do the 2013 spurs, the 2011 mavs, the 2016 warriors and the 2012 thunder. The Warriors are the only non-expansion era side to post a +10 rs psrs(and that was probably assisted by with unusually aggressive tanking).
There's no real reason to ignore that unless you're trying to force a desired conclusion...
Yea you nailed it man!! Congrats!! Bulls are over rated cause a couple expansion teams in the 90s lol what a joke. Bulls played these teams like what? Twice a year? You can talk in circles all you want man, it isnt fooling anybody….do you actually read what you post on here? You keep saying psrs lol cause im sure that makes Jordan look bad. But all other metrics that favor Jordan arent good for some strange reason. Keep up the fight kid but you arent fooling anybody. Enjoy your Saturday!
Taj FTW wrote:You completely missed the point, while simultaneously making my point. Expansion teams are easy to beat on. They don't get superstar talent. When there are crappy expansion teams in the league, it's easier to pad your regular season record. Thanks for making my point.
Kid how often did the Bulls play the Vancouver Grizzles a year? Are you kidding me lol? So the Bulls are overrated cause this? Just stop man this is embarrassing
The league went from 23 teams to 29 teams from 1988 to 1995. That's a 26% increase in teams. Lol at thinking that is insignificant. Apparently you thought only the Grizzlies got added. You sure you watched basketball in the 90s?
He is also apparently under the impression that Chicago was the only team that played the Grizzlies those years. Very confused where he's getting all this info
lessthanjake wrote:Their rORTG was essentially exactly identical, and ranked worse in the league.
Yeah, they had the same rORtg but they had much better raw ORtg. I think it's fair to say they didn't regress.
I’d also argue that, by that time, losing Russell the player was probably a *help* offensively, such that staying the same offensively suggests something else got worse—which could be multiple things, including missing Sam Jones, losing Russell the coach, etc.
Even if that's true, it doesn't change anything.
Yes, there is a middle ground, and that middle ground is absolutely not the “Losing Sam Jones didn’t matter and the team’s regression was solely due to losing Russell the player” conclusion.
I agree.
Sam Jones scored more efficiently than Havlicek in 1969 (albeit not in the low sample size of the playoffs). In fact, he was a volume scorer for them (3rd highest PPG on the team for the season and highest scoring per minute on the team), while having very slightly above average scoring efficiency compared to the rest of the team. When someone who scores at the highest rate on the team and does so at very slightly above team average efficiency leaves the team, that’s a serious issue that will likely hurt the team.
But other players improved in 1970. If you replace Jones production by more efficient option, you don't lose that much, which is visible in their ranking.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing. I don’t disagree that the Celtics were notably worse without Bill Russell. This is the loss of a player I voted #4 all time! What I’m objecting to is the idea that there were no other factors that helped cause the team’s regression, and that we can therefore attribute it all to the loss of Russell. And you are saying here that you don’t agree with that assessment either (i.e. “I think we shouldn’t just look at 1969->1970 and say that Russell was worthy of X wins”).
Sure, we agree here. Where I disagree with people in this thread (not necessarily you) is when people start to hype up Russell teammates to make look him worse than Jordan.
DB23 wrote:So now lebrons argument seems to be boiling down to - numbers are similar, and he played a lot longer. And even though he admittedly has achieved far less accolades it’s because the league is harder. Despite him playing with more talent than any other goat candidate and losing to some sub par teams along the way.
Uh, no. The argument is that
-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him
-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round
-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'
-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning
-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)
covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)
DB23 wrote:So now lebrons argument seems to be boiling down to - numbers are similar, and he played a lot longer. And even though he admittedly has achieved far less accolades it’s because the league is harder. Despite him playing with more talent than any other goat candidate and losing to some sub par teams along the way.
Uh, no. The argument is that
-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him
-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round
-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'
-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning
-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)
covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)
1. This one imo is irrelevant to the goat discussion because there are so many variable factors at play. 2. And played with far better teammates, you left that part out 3. I would think most people would accept that championships is not cherry-picking 4. That’s your opinion and would probably leave that out if I was you as it makes you look biased 5 well that’s some cherry-picking
All this talk about expansion teams in the 90s, but has anyone seriously considered the impact of teams that deliberately tank in this era?
If you scrutinize MJ for playing against weaker expansion teams like the Grizzlies and the Raptors, we should do the same for LBJ for playing against the 76ers when they purposefully tanked season after season. There was even a thread on this general board criticizing the Mavs for tanking (against the Bulls, I believe) when they had a playoff spot on the line this season.
More and more teams are now willing to put inferior talent and competition on the court in hopes of securing top draft picks, which could contribute to more wins for the top teams, just the same as any "expansion dilution" did in the 90s.
Either way, MJ and LBJ proved who they are against the top competition that each played against on the biggest stages. Nobody talks about either of their accomplishments of beating up on the cellar dweller teams of either era. LBJ has shrunk on the biggest stages when MJ never/rarely did.
“Fortunately, there is gin, the sole glimmer in this darkness.Do you feel the golden, copper-coloured light it kindles in you? I like walking through the city of an evening in the warmth of gin.” – Albert Camus
Taj FTW wrote:You completely missed the point, while simultaneously making my point. Expansion teams are easy to beat on. They don't get superstar talent. When there are crappy expansion teams in the league, it's easier to pad your regular season record. Thanks for making my point.
Kid how often did the Bulls play the Vancouver Grizzles a year? Are you kidding me lol? So the Bulls are overrated cause this? Just stop man this is embarrassing
The league went from 23 teams to 29 teams from 1988 to 1995. That's a 26% increase in teams. Lol at thinking that is insignificant. Apparently you thought only the Grizzlies got added. You sure you watched basketball in the 90s?
And teams tanking so blatantly nowadays the last couple months of the season that the league has threatened to fine or take draft picks from teams. Happened to my Mavs this year. Did teams tank in the 90s? Yea im sure, but not to this degree, so teams that are fighting for playoff position nowadays have it easier obviously….which means….teams can stack wins against teams losing on purpose…this wasnt so egregious in the 90s..
DB23 wrote:So now lebrons argument seems to be boiling down to - numbers are similar, and he played a lot longer. And even though he admittedly has achieved far less accolades it’s because the league is harder. Despite him playing with more talent than any other goat candidate and losing to some sub par teams along the way.
Uh, no. The argument is that
-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him
-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round
-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'
-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning
-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)
covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)
I cant help but laugh at you man lol …james is smarter???? How in the world do you prove that??? Some of th
stuff you put on here is embarrassing….
You also ignore that James played with more talent which
#2 is not true at all
#3 is cause you dont like what the results show
Ways not captured by box data??? So you are just making stuff up?? You just put a bunch of words on here and really you are just making up what you want
DB23 wrote:So now lebrons argument seems to be boiling down to - numbers are similar, and he played a lot longer. And even though he admittedly has achieved far less accolades it’s because the league is harder. Despite him playing with more talent than any other goat candidate and losing to some sub par teams along the way.
Uh, no. The argument is that
-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him
-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round
-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'
-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning
-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)
covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)
1. This one imo is irrelevant to the goat discussion because there are so many variable factors at play. 2. And played with far better teammates, you left that part out 3. I would think most people would accept that championships is not cherry-picking 4. That’s your opinion and would probably leave that out if I was you as it makes you look biased 5 well that’s some cherry-picking
Convenient that the data which doesn't like Jordan(and is actually tied to winning) has too many variables but the data which sees the two as "similar"(not tied to winning) is apparently fine
Far better teammates is itself an opinion but the difference here is you cannot really support that opinion beyond a fixation on "perception" as opposed to on-court outcomes
No I do not think I will "leave out" what I think separates the two. Unless it is of course also a sign of bias when competitive drive is cited as an advantage for someone whose retired three times.
Empty accusations do not move me. If I am cherrypicking, then let's hear what I've left out.
I find "accomplishment" simply as "championships won" pretty narrow, but as long as you are consistent I do not really care
DB23 wrote:So now lebrons argument seems to be boiling down to - numbers are similar, and he played a lot longer. And even though he admittedly has achieved far less accolades it’s because the league is harder. Despite him playing with more talent than any other goat candidate and losing to some sub par teams along the way.
Uh, no. The argument is that
-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him
-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round
-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'
-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning
-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)
covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)
I cant help but laugh at you man lol …james is smarter???? How in the world do you prove that??? Some of th
stuff you put on here is embarrassing….
You also ignore that James played with more talent which
#2 is not true at all
#3 is cause you dont like what the results show
We can "prove that"(or at least come closer to that than you can for "james played with more talent") by just looking at how the two were utilized by their teams and the results that followed: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107235609#p107235609 Lebron is a better player. I'm not really sure what the confusion is.
-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him
-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round
-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'
-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning
-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)
covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)
I cant help but laugh at you man lol …james is smarter???? How in the world do you prove that??? Some of th
stuff you put on here is embarrassing….
You also ignore that James played with more talent which
#2 is not true at all
#3 is cause you dont like what the results show
We can "prove that"(or at least come closer to that than you can for "james played with more talent") by just looking at how the two were utilized by their teams and the results that followed: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107235609#p107235609 Lebron is a better player. I'm not really sure what the confusion is.
Prove James is smarter…..i want evidence
How the two were utilized by their teams??? Lol word salad kid and what are you even talking about?
-Jordan was drafted by the Bulls. The Bulls were devoid of talent. Jordan stayed with the organization while they drafted and developed (Pippen and Grant) they won 6 titles including 2 3 peats
- James was drafted by the Cavs. The Cavs were devoid of talent. I give James credit for taking the Cavs to the finals in 09 but the east also sucked
James played with more talent that is a fact..there is reality and your world
If a player makes the allstar team they are one of the best players in the nba during the time they are playing…i assume you disagree? Seems like you do cause it proves a point you dont like
Jordan is the greater player. I dont see what the confusion is. Im not even mentioning James having the worst showing in an nba finals ever by a top 5 player. He had his chance. Couldn’t catch the goat. Move on.
-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him
-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round
-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'
-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning
-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)
covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)
1. This one imo is irrelevant to the goat discussion because there are so many variable factors at play. 2. And played with far better teammates, you left that part out 3. I would think most people would accept that championships is not cherry-picking 4. That’s your opinion and would probably leave that out if I was you as it makes you look biased 5 well that’s some cherry-picking
Convenient that the data which doesn't like Jordan(and is actually tied to winning) has too many variables but the data which sees the two as "similar"(not tied to winning) is apparently fine
Far better teammates is itself an opinion but the difference here is you cannot really support that opinion beyond a fixation on "perception" as opposed to on-court outcomes
No I do not think I will "leave out" what I think separates the two. Unless it is of course also a sign of bias when competitive drive is cited as an advantage for someone whose retired three times.
Empty accusations do not move me. If I am cherrypicking, then let's hear what I've left out.
I find "accomplishment" simply as "championships won" pretty narrow, but as long as you are consistent I do not really care
I haven’t made almost any of the claims you refute in this post. Merely picking holes in yours.
And smarter is of course subjective.
Teammates - prove the point then, create a list of the 15 best players either have played with and how you would rank them
Just want to note I appreciate your civility here. That said...
Chanel Bomber wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:It’s a shame if RAPTOR from the 1990s doesn’t incorporate +/- data. It’d kind of defeat the purpose.
I think RAPM’s an interesting metric which shows some relevant trends but the calculation doesn’t adjust for environment nearly enough (compared to RAPTOR for instance which does a much better job of extracting noise). I wouldn’t use RAPM at face value in this exercise is my point.
Unfortunately RAPM is a little --too-- inclusive to be as accurate writ large(needs very long stretches to stabalize). RAPTOR is also advantaged with player-tracking. However, all that said, when tested against metrics which make use of similar tech: https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparison
Metric accuracy was compared overall and in the context of changing rosters. EPM and RPM, which were the only metrics that used RAPM directly with a Bayesian prior, consistently performed the best among all metrics, with EPM taking the lead overall. RAPTOR was the clear third-place metric with the revamped BPM putting the pressure on in fourth place. New player metrics using the latest methodologies and data are better built for today’s game.
We find that RAPTOR is both less accurate and [/b]less stable[/b] than data which more directly inputs RAPM. We also find box-aggregates like PER still lose out to RAPM on both fronts(BPM 2.0 matches) despite their theoretical advantages being "stability" and "accuracy" over smaller time-frames. Even though RAPM is far more inclusive(which one hand means it is noisy, but on the otherhand means it avoids most systematic biases), it still mantains an advantage in terms of both accuracy and stability.
This does not include PIPM which is currently owned by the Wizards and to my knowledge, also outperforms RAPTOR with it's defensive scores being more closely tied to DRAPM(something something linear vs branching). Maybe that's why, but IIRC Ben says it's better at capturing defensive value even without on/off data.
All of this is to say, I do not know RAPTOR is the most "promising" of approaches. FWIW, I do not think it's well respected in analytical circles and I've always had some suspicion towards it because in the-lead-up to it being revealed, it's creator was saying that the "competition" so to speak did not respect two-way wings enough and that kawhi leonard was the best defender in the league(as of 2019).
Moving on...
You mention cherry-picked stats but I don’t think there is yet an all-encompassing metric that incorporates finely-adjusted data that we can use for cross-generation comparisons. Although I need to learn more about WOWYR. But as a general point, we also need to think critically about the accuracy of those metrics by the way they are put together.
There is not. I linked my own appraisal of WOWYR in the post you replied to, but even if you like the adjustments, it's still working off tiny samples(for bill russell for example, all those adjustments are being applied to 2.2 games a season of off).
And this gets us to the uncomfortable reality of historic player assessment. Uncertainty is inevitable. That would still be true if we had RAPM or RAPM derivatives(more on that later), but if you want to compare the "value" of players historically, you just need to get comfortable with that.
We can mitigate this issue somewhat by -> looking for replication(bonus if it's across contexts) -> tracking what skills generally produce value(can look at data-ball as well) and then map that onto established skill-sets -> using "production" to internally scale players and teammates -> using "production" to map to similar players we have more data for(hakeem -> duncan) -> applying knowledge and context
As an example of point 2, we can look at the greatest defenses in history, the defensive kings of data-ball, real-world signals(Marc Gasol joins raptors -> atg d, Gasol leaves Raptors -> average d), and see how things unfold when teammates join or leave(Kawhi Leave, Raptors stay an atg d) and reasonably conclude that paint-protection>>>>>perimiter man d(can also look to what happened to the clippers defense without strong rim-protection and two elite "two-way wings" the next few postseasons).
Similarly we can extrapolate that guards do not move-the-needle like wings do and wings do not move the needle like bigs do(giannis coasts bucks defense collapses to average, giannis goes all out, bucks return to atg in the playoffs). The notable exception here is probably CP3, someone who by many accounts, serves as a on-court coach who directs his teammates where to go. This is a pretty rare trait among players, also shared by Draymond Green. Another guy who is relatively undersized relative to the results(greatest defender of his generation?)
(PS: you get one guess which non-big is an outlier regarding those two traits and has a consistently sees their defenses fall off without them)
The point is we are not bound to just looking at what happens to a team when x player leaves. That said, I think it's probably good to start there, rather than to just make assumptions regarding the values of different contributions(which is what you implicitly do when you use PER as a heat-check). Reality is noisy, but it is not biased, and should not just be disregarded when inconvenient for our priors. And to be clear, this does not just apply to box-stuff, which gets us to...
An over-reliance on impact metrics then also opens the door for questions like is Jokic or Curry the GOAT (over James and Jordan)? If you’re willing to have these discussions, then fair enough.
...Okay I have seen this alot and(feel free to check me if it does not apply to you), but I believe for Steph this claim is largely based on -> Comparing the highest single-year scores on apm or apm derivatives(04 kg single highest score on JE'S RAPM SET! Best RS ever!) -> Raw plus-minus and on/off?
I think people need to remember that RAPM(and it's derivatives) are artificial. They are also(like on/off) prone to issues with colinearity. While they make adjustments they are still susceptible to wonky rotations. Beyond that, they also curve down outliers. What you should be looking for in something like LEBRON, EPM or RAPM(ideally over extended samples) is how often a player hits at or near the top historically. It is there to establish a baseline. Not to establish how the best year of Draymond compares to the best year of Steph or CP3.
Per LEBRON, a "state of the art" apm derivative, here are the most valuable seasons(overall) since 2010:
Here are the most valuable seasons(per-possession) since 2010:
notice how best single-scoring years look around the same? That is not real. RAPM is not a substitute for real-world signals. The main benefit of something like WOWY(especially if you are looking at seasons without a player), is that you can truly see what happens to a team when a player leaves.
Adjustments and all, the premise of APM is ultimately still that “winning on the court is good, as is seeing your team become worse without you on the court”. RAPM can approximate that in most cases(given enough time), and it is advantaged in terms of stability(and probably even accuracy looking at hundreds of players), but it is not a replacement for the real thing.
RAPM is also a rate stat. KG may have scored the highest in 2008, but he averaged substantially less minutes than his peers(. Something to keep in mind for those who think Kobe was undeserving of his MVP(he was not).
All that considered, here's an example of a 1-year "impact" comparison I did 2 days ago:
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:I think there are arguments to be had for Russell, Kareem(and by extension 77 Walton) on a "corp" or "era-relative impact" lens, but with what you seem to be looking at(box-score playing a factor, post-merger years), yeah. Do not think there is much of a "statistical" counter-case. If we look at the seasons you've picked:
2016 Curry? No, not really. For those tempted to toss 1-year rapm or rapm derivatives as positive evidence they're similar...
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:(disclaimer: getting the best, the second best, or the third best season isn't significant inofitself. At a certain treshold, adjusted stuff starts misattributing value, if you want to distingush between single-season, you need to get into the weeds. What's note-worthy is how frequently a player scores near or at the top, and how you look over extended samples. RAPM is great for establishing a baseline of value, not deciding if 2004 kg is more valuable than 2016 draymond)
As far as baseline goes(cheema's been used a bunch, so why don't we use the scaled-apm set Ben likes)
James is, arguably, the king of overall plus-minus stats. 2018 is the 25th season of league-wide plus-minus data, which covers nearly 40 percent of the shot-clock era and touches 12 of the top-20 players on this list. None have achieved LeBron’s heights: He holds four of the top-five scaled APM seasons on record, and six of the top eight. Since 2007, 10 of his 11 years land in the 99th percentile.
Like Nash, LeBron was supercharging dependent talent — finishers who disproportionately benefited from shots served to them on a silver platter. So with his talents in South Beach, Cleveland crumbled in 2011. While most teams fall off after losing a superstar, none imploded like the Lebron-less Cavs; in 21 games with a similar group of players, they played at an anemic 18-win pace (-8.9 SRS) before injuries ravaged their lineup. LeBron’s not worth 40 wins on a typical club, but no player in history has correlated more strongly with such massive, worst-to-first impact.
FWIW over a small sample(7 gms/szn) the 08-10 cavs played like a 19-win team) in games without Lebron. Perhaps more impressively, during 09/10, in 1785 minutes without Mo-Willams(best offensive teammate) and Ben Wallace(best defensive teammate), the cavs were +14. For a smaller-sample, in 630 minutes without either in 09, they were +10.
Over a much smaller sample(a bit under 700 minuites) 15/16 Steph holds up surprisingly well but not that well with his lineups scoring at +8.55 without Dray and +9 in 389 minutes without dray or klay. Note that these are much shorter stretches. Curry's minutes are significantly more tied to his best teammates than LeBron's are. Very small sample, but for comphrensiveness, in less than 300 minutes in 2016, Steph lineups score at +3.38 without Dray and(tiny 169 minute sample) -0.69 without Draymond or Klay.
And then we get into volume (Lebron)
(Steph)
All considered I'd say there's an the evidence consistently supports 2009 Lebron being more valuable per-possession in the regular season. He's probably more valuable in 2010 too. And probably a peer in in his second Cleveland stint while coasting. And we know the postseason is not a winning case for Steph: (Check where Steph's best teammate is)
Jordan's argument is probably weaker(though he benefits from uncertainty). He's drafted onto a better team(27-win without) and does not lead a better regular-season team until 1992 despite great fit by the back-half of 90.
Frankly, while one could point to conventional box-score as a marginal rs advantage, I think we should apply some context here.
Steph(and Jordan) created(volume) and scored at a nigh unprecedented level. Lebron also did that, but was also a strong secondary paint-protector, a mj-esque man defender(refer to the colts quote before), who was communicating and orchestrating on both-ends, was a more effecient creator(feel free to reference ben's passer-rating), handled the ball significantly more(making the turnover economy very impressive), and was facing substantially more defensive attention.
Then by box he(2009) blows right by both in the postseason(bpm/aupm/pipm/raptor). All considered, I think the "stats" are very clearly in Lebron's favor. And who knows how in his favor they'd be with a more reasonable(imo) set of weightings(BBR BPM puts jordan and steph within range of hakeem and dikembe respectively).
Feel free to do your own adjustments and come to a different conclusion, but good empirical comps do not start and end with RAPM.
I would also note that while Jokic's 1-year stuff looks awesome(2023) it does not look that good when we extend the sample(shotchart 3-year rapm and cheema career rapm favors embid oddly enough, raw-stuff still looks great(lineup-ratings, extended wowy, lineups and wowy without Murray, ect.).
I think from a 1-year "impact only" perspective(only looking at the rs), the potential standouts are Kareem(72, 74, 77), Lebron(9/10), Walton(77), Wilt(67, era-tresholds come into play here), and Russell(pick a year honestly). Steph's 2016(and 2015-2017) looks awesome, but not like the "greatest in nba history" outlier people potray it as. Obviously the pre-data ball stuff is super-murky, but I see a strong possiblity there(can elaborate for those who are curious). Accounting for the postseason makes things more interesting(A bunch of Wilt years, For Kareem, 71 and 72 potentially jumps, 12 and 15-17 Lebron, ect.)
ShaqAttac wrote:twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
No he isnt doing that he decided to somehow make this about Lebron. Which was barely mentioned in my post… but if that is shooting throught it in your books that you do you.:
ur post which tried to pretend pete myers wasn't a terrible player? how bout you address how the bulls were still good after they lost grant.
ppl have literally gassed up 93 bulls by usin their 92 **** n mj still dont look comp. celts went from beatin a superteam to bad and u had to ignore hondo gettin better and gas up a 6th man coz of his pee-pee-gee. just give up
OhayoKD wrote:Just want to note I appreciate your civility here. That said...
Chanel Bomber wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:It’s a shame if RAPTOR from the 1990s doesn’t incorporate +/- data. It’d kind of defeat the purpose.
I think RAPM’s an interesting metric which shows some relevant trends but the calculation doesn’t adjust for environment nearly enough (compared to RAPTOR for instance which does a much better job of extracting noise). I wouldn’t use RAPM at face value in this exercise is my point.
Unfortunately RAPM is a little --too-- inclusive to be as accurate writ large(needs very long stretches to stabalize). RAPTOR is also advantaged with player-tracking. However, all that said, when tested against metrics which make use of similar tech: https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparison
Metric accuracy was compared overall and in the context of changing rosters. EPM and RPM, which were the only metrics that used RAPM directly with a Bayesian prior, consistently performed the best among all metrics, with EPM taking the lead overall. RAPTOR was the clear third-place metric with the revamped BPM putting the pressure on in fourth place. New player metrics using the latest methodologies and data are better built for today’s game.
We find that RAPTOR is both less accurate and [/b]less stable[/b] than data which more directly inputs RAPM. We also find box-aggregates like PER still lose out to RAPM on both fronts(BPM 2.0 matches) despite their theoretical advantages being "stability" and "accuracy" over smaller time-frames. Even though RAPM is far more inclusive(which one hand means it is noisy, but on the otherhand means it avoids most systematic biases), it still mantains an advantage in terms of both accuracy and stability.
This does not include PIPM which is currently owned by the Wizards and to my knowledge, also outperforms RAPTOR with it's defensive scores being more closely tied to DRAPM(something something linear vs branching). Maybe that's why, but IIRC Ben says it's better at capturing defensive value even without on/off data.
All of this is to say, I do not know RAPTOR is the most "promising" of approaches. FWIW, I do not think it's well respected in analytical circles and I've always had some suspicion towards it because in the-lead-up to it being revealed, it's creator was saying that the "competition" so to speak did not respect two-way wings enough and that kawhi leonard was the best defender in the league(as of 2019).
Moving on...
You mention cherry-picked stats but I don’t think there is yet an all-encompassing metric that incorporates finely-adjusted data that we can use for cross-generation comparisons. Although I need to learn more about WOWYR. But as a general point, we also need to think critically about the accuracy of those metrics by the way they are put together.
There is not. I linked my own appraisal of WOWYR in the post you replied to, but even if you like the adjustments, it's still working off tiny samples(for bill russell for example, all those adjustments are being applied to 2.2 games a season of off).
And this gets us to the uncomfortable reality of historic player assessment. Uncertainty is inevitable. That would still be true if we had RAPM or RAPM derivatives(more on that later), but if you want to compare the "value" of players historically, you just need to get comfortable with that.
We can mitigate this issue somewhat by -> looking for replication(bonus if it's across contexts) -> tracking what skills generally produce value(can look at data-ball as well) and then map that onto established skill-sets -> using "production" to internally scale players and teammates -> using "production" to map to similar players we have more data for(hakeem -> duncan) -> applying knowledge and context
As an example of point 2, we can look at the greatest defenses in history, the defensive kings of data-ball, real-world signals(Marc Gasol joins raptors -> atg d, Gasol leaves Raptors -> average d), and see how things unfold when teammates join or leave(Kawhi Leave, Raptors stay an atg d) and reasonably conclude that paint-protection>>>>>perimiter man d(can also look to what happened to the clippers defense without strong rim-protection and two elite "two-way wings" the next few postseasons).
Similarly we can extrapolate that guards do not move-the-needle like wings do and wings do not move the needle like bigs do(giannis coasts bucks defense collapses to average, giannis goes all out, bucks return to atg in the playoffs). The notable exception here is probably CP3, someone who by many accounts, serves as a on-court coach who directs his teammates where to go. This is a pretty rare trait among players, also shared by Draymond Green. Another guy who is relatively undersized relative to the results(greatest defender of his generation?)
(PS: you get one guess which non-big is an outlier regarding those two traits and has a consistently sees their defenses fall off without them)
The point is we are not bound to just looking at what happens to a team when x player leaves. That said, I think it's probably good to start there, rather than to just make assumptions regarding the values of different contributions(which is what you implicitly do when you use PER as a heat-check). Reality is noisy, but it is not biased, and should not just be disregarded when inconvenient for our priors. And to be clear, this does not just apply to box-stuff, which gets us to...
An over-reliance on impact metrics then also opens the door for questions like is Jokic or Curry the GOAT (over James and Jordan)? If you’re willing to have these discussions, then fair enough.
...Okay I have seen this alot and(feel free to check me if it does not apply to you), but I believe for Steph this claim is largely based on -> Comparing the highest single-year scores on apm or apm derivatives(04 kg single highest score on JE'S RAPM SET! Best RS ever!) -> Raw plus-minus and on/off?
I think people need to remember that RAPM(and it's derivatives) are artificial. They are also(like on/off) prone to issues with colinearity. While they make adjustments they are still susceptible to wonky rotations. Beyond that, they also curve down outliers. What you should be looking for in something like LEBRON, EPM or RAPM(ideally over extended samples) is how often a player hits at or near the top historically. It is there to establish a baseline. Not to establish how the best year of Draymond compares to the best year of Steph or CP3.
Per LEBRON, a "state of the art" apm derivative, here are the most valuable seasons(overall) since 2010:
Here are the most valuable seasons(per-possession) since 2010:
notice how best single-scoring years look around the same? That is not real. RAPM is not a substitute for real-world signals. The main benefit of something like WOWY(especially if you are looking at seasons without a player), is that you can truly see what happens to a team when a player leaves.
Adjustments and all, the premise of APM is ultimately still that “winning on the court is good, as is seeing your team become worse without you on the court”. RAPM can approximate that in most cases(given enough time), and it is advantaged in terms of stability(and probably even accuracy looking at hundreds of players), but it is not a replacement for the real thing.
RAPM is also a rate stat. KG may have scored the highest in 2008, but he averaged substantially less minutes than his peers(. Something to keep in mind for those who think Kobe was undeserving of his MVP(he was not).
All that considered, here's an example of a 1-year "impact" comparison I did 2 days ago:
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:I think there are arguments to be had for Russell, Kareem(and by extension 77 Walton) on a "corp" or "era-relative impact" lens, but with what you seem to be looking at(box-score playing a factor, post-merger years), yeah. Do not think there is much of a "statistical" counter-case. If we look at the seasons you've picked:
2016 Curry? No, not really. For those tempted to toss 1-year rapm or rapm derivatives as positive evidence they're similar...
HeartBreakKid wrote:
As far as baseline goes(cheema's been used a bunch, so why don't we use the scaled-apm set Ben likes)
James is, arguably, the king of overall plus-minus stats. 2018 is the 25th season of league-wide plus-minus data, which covers nearly 40 percent of the shot-clock era and touches 12 of the top-20 players on this list. None have achieved LeBron’s heights: He holds four of the top-five scaled APM seasons on record, and six of the top eight. Since 2007, 10 of his 11 years land in the 99th percentile.
Like Nash, LeBron was supercharging dependent talent — finishers who disproportionately benefited from shots served to them on a silver platter. So with his talents in South Beach, Cleveland crumbled in 2011. While most teams fall off after losing a superstar, none imploded like the Lebron-less Cavs; in 21 games with a similar group of players, they played at an anemic 18-win pace (-8.9 SRS) before injuries ravaged their lineup. LeBron’s not worth 40 wins on a typical club, but no player in history has correlated more strongly with such massive, worst-to-first impact.
FWIW over a small sample(7 gms/szn) the 08-10 cavs played like a 19-win team) in games without Lebron. Perhaps more impressively, during 09/10, in 1785 minutes without Mo-Willams(best offensive teammate) and Ben Wallace(best defensive teammate), the cavs were +14. For a smaller-sample, in 630 minutes without either in 09, they were +10.
Over a much smaller sample(a bit under 700 minuites) 15/16 Steph holds up surprisingly well but not that well with his lineups scoring at +8.55 without Dray and +9 in 389 minutes without dray or klay. Note that these are much shorter stretches. Curry's minutes are significantly more tied to his best teammates than LeBron's are. Very small sample, but for comphrensiveness, in less than 300 minutes in 2016, Steph lineups score at +3.38 without Dray and(tiny 169 minute sample) -0.69 without Draymond or Klay.
And then we get into volume (Lebron)
(Steph)
All considered I'd say there's an the evidence consistently supports 2009 Lebron being more valuable per-possession in the regular season. He's probably more valuable in 2010 too. And probably a peer in in his second Cleveland stint while coasting. And we know the postseason is not a winning case for Steph: (Check where Steph's best teammate is)
Jordan's argument is probably weaker(though he benefits from uncertainty). He's drafted onto a better team(27-win without) and does not lead a better regular-season team until 1992 despite great fit by the back-half of 90.
Frankly, while one could point to conventional box-score as a marginal rs advantage, I think we should apply some context here.
Steph(and Jordan) created(volume) and scored at a nigh unprecedented level. Lebron also did that, but was also a strong secondary paint-protector, a mj-esque man defender(refer to the colts quote before), who was communicating and orchestrating on both-ends, was a more effecient creator(feel free to reference ben's passer-rating), handled the ball significantly more(making the turnover economy very impressive), and was facing substantially more defensive attention.
Then by box he(2009) blows right by both in the postseason(bpm/aupm/pipm/raptor). All considered, I think the "stats" are very clearly in Lebron's favor. And who knows how in his favor they'd be with a more reasonable(imo) set of weightings(BBR BPM puts jordan and steph within range of hakeem and dikembe respectively).
Feel free to do your own adjustments and come to a different conclusion, but good empirical comps do not start and end with RAPM.
I would also note that while Jokic's 1-year stuff looks awesome(2023) it does not look that good when we extend the sample(shotchart 3-year rapm and cheema career rapm favors embid oddly enough, raw-stuff still looks great(lineup-ratings, extended wowy, lineups and wowy without Murray, ect.).
I think from a 1-year "impact only" perspective(only looking at the rs), the potential standouts are Kareem(72, 74, 77), Lebron(9/10), Walton(77), Wilt(67, era-tresholds come into play here), and Russell(pick a year honestly). Steph's 2016(and 2015-2017) looks awesome, but not like the "greatest in nba history" outlier people potray it as. Obviously the pre-data ball stuff is super-murky, but I see a strong possiblity there(can elaborate for those who are curious). Accounting for the postseason makes things more interesting(A bunch of Wilt years, For Kareem, 71 and 72 potentially jumps, 12 and 15-17 Lebron, ect.)
A lot of time spent explaining RAPM and other adjusted plus-minus variants but what are we to make of John Stockton having the highest average 5-year RAPM from 1998 to 2002 at the age of 35 to 39?
Lebron has lost to virtually every elite big in his era. Ben Wallace, Tim Duncan, Dwight Howard with HCA, KG with HCA, Dirk with HCA, Durant, Jokic to name a few. Only beat old 36 year old Duncan when Lebron was at his peak and needed heroics for that from the other team making a dumb decision to not have there elite big in the game at the end. He has a losing record on the highest stage which isn't a good thing. He also won multiple bronze medals for America with Peak Duncan and Iverson on his squad and then Wade, Dwight, Melo. Was down in a series every year of his career at least 3-2 with fans in the arena. Missed the playoffs as much as titles won. Other players have more titles in the same amount of years or less without stacking the deck and moving from one team to the next. Only player to ever get swept in 3 different decades 4-0 in a series.
Lebron is soo good that he has a losing record on the highest stage, the most finals losses of players who won league mvp, 2 bronze medals, 3 series in which he lost with HCA and down every year where fans were in the arena 3-2. Also lost in round 2 with Shaq and stacked the deck his career and still doesn't have more titles than Curry who came in after him and beat him head to head more times. He also only won 1 title in 11 years for the franchise that drafted him. Dirk did as good as did Isiah, Hakeem to name a few. Has also missed the playoffs as much as titles won. Jordan also has more accolades than Lebron in 5 less seasons at that.
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." - Michael Jordan
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
Teams can protect up to 8 players. That means expansion teams cant just select any player from a team. Expansion teams are plucking the 9th best player from a team. I think some people are making more out of this than what it is. For the Mavs last year for example. They could protect:
Luka Irving Kleber Hardaway Green Bullock Hardy Powell
Whats left? McGee Pinson Frank
See how that works?
And those teams made up of these 9 and down players are what the good teams feasted on.
I do find it curious somewhat to piggyback off of WarriorGM's point(though I disagree with his overall ranking of Curry) that beating a 70 win team seems to garner far more credit than leading a team to 70 wins.
he decided to somehow make this about Lebron. Which was barely mentioned in my post… but if that is shooting throught it in your books that you do you.:
