Buzzard wrote:He has a point that analytics and advanced stats are not the end all be all. But check this list of MVP players. The common theme I listed is they are all around .550 TS% or better except Iverson. TS% listed is for the year they won it. I don't think it is a accident that the year Kobe won his, was also his 2nd most efficient season.
The ones who won multiple MVP's were all above the .550 thresh hold. Another thing that stood out is how many of these MVPs have never won a Championship. Quite a few of course are still playing.
TS% .644 2018-19 Giannis Antetokounmpo
TS% .619 2017-18 James Harden
TS% .554 2016-17 Russell Westbrook
TS% .669 2015-16 Stephen Curry
TS% .638 2014-15 Stephen Curry
TS% .635 2013-14 Kevin Durant
TS% .640 2012-13 LeBron James
TS% .605 2011-12 LeBron James
TS% .550 2010-11 Derrick Rose
TS% .604 2009-10 LeBron James
TS% .591 2008-09 LeBron James
TS% .576 2007-08 Kobe Bryant
TS% .589 2006-07 Dirk Nowitzki
TS% .606 2005-06 Steve Nash
TS% .632 2004-05 Steve Nash
TS% .547 2003-04 Kevin Garnett
TS% .564 2002-03 Tim Duncan
TS% .576 2001-02 Tim Duncan
TS% .518 2000-01 Allen Iverson
TS% .578 1999-00 Shaquille O'Neal
The threshold is actually 60% really or close to. The early 2000’s was lower but outside of that and Westbrook, almost everyone is approaching 60TS%.
TS% is great to see how efficient a player is and how well they can get to the line. But efficiency is sometimes overblown. James Harden might be a top 3 efficiency player ever, but I don't think he will ever win a title.
I think offensive creation is more powerful than efficiency...I realize that "offensive creation" is a vague term but that's what is, you can't quite describe it in a word or phrase. The players that can create offense in all situations i.e. playoffs, strong defenses, zones, double/triple teams...those players may not always be the most efficient but they propel their teams offense to a higher degree. Few players can do that.
Buzzard wrote:Garnett surprised me; he was a decent FT shooter also. Duncan surprised me being under .600. I was not expecting that, but FT shooting hurt him.
Not surprising, KG has a wealth of skills but he was not very efficient for an elite big man...I think he might be the least efficient elite big of all time. In career TS% during the RS, Garnett is at the very bottom of this list at 250. Below luminaries like Jeremy Lin, Dennis Rodman, Theo Ratliff, and Channing Frye.
levon wrote:I think pre-analytics NBA thought is really interesting and is undervalued by blog boys all the time. Being dismissive and smart-alecy about the mental aspects of the game when you've never played NBA ball isn't more empirical; it's actually less responsible because you're actively dropping qualitative information that can either be quantified, be used to interpret the numbers, or both.
Kobe's approach to the game was deception. He would start off by imposing his will and getting the defense to react a certain way, and then do the opposite to throw them off. He would do this in something as small scale as a single move, or across possessions, or across games within a playoff series. He would be very informed by film and scouting reports, focusing on tendencies and less on local optima.
It seems to me the dominant school of thought now is to do the most locally optimal thing per possession. It's definitely less of a mental/emotional calculation and more of just referring to data and basically executing a simple min-max. But I think winning is largely a separate experiential skillset, based on very minute details. That's something Kobe loves talking about.
I played a lot of videogames growing up, and I was at that time when you had to go to the mall and play them at an arcade. When Street Fight II came out and then Mortal Kombat came out it was a great time for fighting games. The thing is when you play against the AI at home is far different than playing against a human opponent. The programmers can optimize the character until its nearly unbeatable, but I always felt there was some way to adapt and beat the AI, even on the hardest difficulties.
But going to the arcade...having to put your quarter up on the screen, basically saying you got "next"...(quarters were round pieces of metal we used for currency for cheaper items) and everyone would look at you and you give you that look. The same look you get when you got next on a basketball court. You have to prove yourself. The difference with playing in the arcade is your emotions change, you get excited, you may start to feel hot...sweat...and then you had people who were trash talking behind you, taking sides, saying which matchup was better and who could beat who.
In fighting games, a huge key to winning is adaptation to your opponent and momentum. Knowing what your opponent wants to do and either taking it away or using it against them. Also, there are times when you are down big, its looking like a sure L, and then you have that "real master comeback" and one thing can change the momentum of the game. You never give up, there was always a chance you could win, but you could always tell the guys would give up when things weren't going their way and then the guys who would/could adapt.
You see the same thing in the NBA...when things are going their way some players are invincible (cough James Harden cough) and then when things aren't going their way they look like garbage and you can see they do not adapt to the situation or to their opponent.....
I'm so tired of the typical......