DraymondGold wrote:What's the difference between providing statistical information when somebody mentioned statistics and replying to a claim nobody made? Well, no-more-rings asked Why Nash was being ranked so low given his goat-level offensive stats. He proposed it could be defense and a lack of reliance on team offensive rating. I supplemented his comment with additional information, saying that although he may have goat-level offensive stats, he doesn't have goat-level overall stats, or even necessarily clearly better stats than the players we're discussing alongside him.AEnigma wrote:DraymondGold wrote:Not making "a claim that nobody made," providing more information to someone who openly mentioned statistics. There's a pretty clear difference, and the intention of my post was pretty obviously the latter. You always assume the worst in your opponents. It's a shame really...
What is the difference? Imagine if every time you mentioned a player’s defence I came in with a random list of players with a high DRAPM. Because you know, you mentioned defence.
That wasn't a claim nobody made. Somebody asked a question, and I replied with relevant information. Seems pretty simple
The only person in the conversation who seems to rank players based on their sum “advanced stats” is you. That is not really a response to anything, especially not a rhetorical question pretty blatantly setting up that Ortg quip, unless your brain is just wired to look for any possible connection to those stats.
Welp, another discussion gone with another sarcastic comment from you. Oh wellAnd for the record: only one of us has provided play-by-play "on-court analysis" in this project.... and it wasn't you
And such a critical analysis it was.
I said I would be interested in you applying as critical a lens to Robinson as you did to Giannis (which you were called out for), but when one uses an excessively critical lens and the other is almost wholly glowing, seems like, per usual, bending to an already decided conclusion. Even if subconsciously. Being critical in itself is fine; your Kawhi WCF viewing has a useful place in disrupting some of the narrativising around that run, even if I imagine some could also see it as excessive. I have followed along with critical Jordan watches that were probably excessive but pretty entertaining in how they upset the fan squad. But if that eye becomes softer on preferred players, well, then it kind-of loses any shine of possible objectivity.
I have a challenge for you Enigma. By memory, we've had 4 discussions. You've been sarcastic, straw-manned / blatantly misconstrued my comments, and outright insulted me in 3/4 of those conversations. The only conversation you didn't was when you said you'd respond later. One conversation (25% of our discussions so far) was rude enough to merit a moderator warning.
Here's my challenge for you: have one conversation with me without being resorting to personal attacks, sarcasm, or straw-manning. Just one.
I guess we'll see if this can happen. I've never understood what someone gains by resorting to sarcasm or personal attacks or intentionally misconstruing another person's intentions, but I guess that's just not my style.
No your style is to insert a bunch of “advanced stats” into conversations with people who have consistently criticised your excessive reliance on them. Where is the discussion in that. Exactly what type of dialogue were you expecting by coming in with “ackshually in your conversation about Nash and Harden these other unmentioned numbers do not like Nash as much as all these other non-Harden players”. Are you sincerely interested in a back-and-forth or engaging with my intentions, or do you just want to continue to preach the gospel of AuPM and PIPM? Because time and time again, seems like your willingness to “discuss” dies as soon as that gospel is rejected. I know f4p disagrees with my approach, but at least he seems legitimately interested in learning about alternative views.
There's a difference between using advanced stats for my own votes and forcing others to follow the gospel.
I do the former, and I've openly stated what my criteria are. I do not do the latter, nor do I force anyone to.
When people quote stats (like no-more-rings above), I add my statistical analysis. When people misuse stats or have a preference for PER of all stats, sure, I propose that they instead follow better stats (what you disparagingly call the "gospel")... and justify this by noting that plus minus stats are what actual NBA analysts use and they're better connects to winning than PER. But that's not forcing anyone to change their criteria.
Who said forcing? Were you under the impression I had some deep concern about anyone being swayed? Always such curious choice of language, ah but you know me, so negative, must be a coincidence every time…
When people quote stats (like no-more-rings above), I add my statistical analysis.
See: relevance.
For whom is it being added when you are the only one making it a foundation of your rankings?
When people misuse stats
Lmao, you mean like confusing impact for absolute quality independent of team reliance?
I propose that they instead follow better stats (what you disparagingly call the "gospel")... and justify this by noting that plus minus stats are what actual NBA analysts use
There is not really anything to suggest most front offices are checking Backpicks in their player assessment, even if you can find some comments about which metric an executive feels does reflect their own models a bit better. DARKO or EPM maybe has some value in their intended purpose of potentially predicting career arcs, but you have not really been using either, and there too I have not really heard of front offices using those. And outside that, why would we care? Kind-of seems like you mostly would mean Ben Taylor — do you think here on RealGM he is a mystery?
If you do legit film analysis, great. If you value defensive more or offense more, great. So long as you justify it well and make reasonable conclusions from those principles, that's fine. That's not to say I won't ever disagree with someone.... but disagreement can be healthy. You certainly disagree with enough people, presumably you know that!
You say my "willingness to 'discuss' dies as soon as the gospel is rejected". Every single time I've ended a conversation with you, I've made it clear this is not the case. I challenge you to find a single other poster who shares this oddly adversarial opinion of me. I've discussed other issues with other posters and "engaged with their intentions" plenty of times throughout the project, as I will continue to do.
Where my willingness to discuss with you "dies" is when you insist on using sarcasm, strawmannirg, and personal insults. Stop doing that, and I'll engage with your posts. I've now made this clear in 4/4 of our discussions. Hopefully the 5th will be productive...
Edit: I think my last sentence may come across as snide or rude without making the tone clear. To be clear, I'm being sincere when I say that! You do offer good points, and I think we both have the potential to challenge each other's perspectives in a way that's healthy and fun for both of us. But as I've said, that productive discussion requires treating each other with respect, which is really all I'm asking of you, and frustratingly I'm still asking that of you in our 4th/5th discussion lol
Ah you find it frustrating, interesting.
I am curious: Do you find this cycle productive, where you tag me in a comment referencing numbers that either I or someone else in the conversation were not using or otherwise openly spoke against and then do not continue to discuss anything of substance because you were offended by the ensuing tone of dismissal? Numerous criticisms left abandoned and unaddressed, until next time, when they can go ignored in favour of starting out the exact same way. Enriching stuff.
From my perspective, this cycle must be productive in some sense to justify the constant repeats, but all I really see being produced is a retread of the usual sermon. So then my question becomes — and terribly uncharitable, I know — is the goal a dialogue, in which case this approach makes zero sense, or simply a production of the sermon itself, with no interest as to the aftermath. That is not my idea of “respect”; I at least can be bothered to read your posts and make an effort to remember what they say about how you are valuing a player.
EDIT — Some examples of critically minded (1995) Robinson film assessments which would seem to contradict your glowing assessment:
Elgee wrote:In G2 San Antonio doubled Hakeem furiously. Sometimes it was 3 guys. Dude set up his teammates for 13 open shots off of this action! That's an absurd number because he also took 31 shots! One of the issues was Hakeem would quickly spin away from the double to his baseline bread and butter. He went quickly - it was devastating and difficult to defend. Interestingly, Robinson created essentially no offense off of doubles for the Spurs.
kaima wrote:On offense, Robinson was trying to play against a collapsing defense with, far too often, faceup drives that either left him with a shot he was incapable of making or a bad pass that was a likely turnover. He had no back to the basket game which, against a defense that's by definition and design paint-oriented, made it the wrong answer to a remedial math question. A real post player, even with a swarming defense coming at or for him, can find a way to make reads and create some positive result in individual or team counterpoint; Robinson spent the series panicked, because his athleticism could not solve the problem. He'd go into the post, receive a pass, and pass it back out almost immediately. Why? Because nothing easy would come, and he had no post game to work with. His jumper was fundamentally shaky. He had no real go-to moves. He wasn't good at all at battling for position, ala Shaq or Karl, and then making an explosive move from the low post to the rim. He was mediocre at sealing his man and receiving a lob. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And, as nail (in the coffin, through the heart) or lynchpin to all this, he was a lacking passer. With the defense in a collapse mode, you would think that Robinson's assist numbers would be decent, yet he produced at the worst rate of any of Olajuwon's post opponents with a 2.6 average. But that's only half the story, as he averaged 6.25 turnovers over the 4 losses. The two games the Spurs won, he averaged one turnover. His assist/TO ratio in the four losses was a 0.42. By comparison, Malone averaged a 1.36 on A/TO ratio, Barkley a 1.15, Olajuwon (in the SA series, in this case) a 1.19 and Shaq a 1.19. So we've got another key stat as to W/Ls, and it's centered, appropriately, on Robinson. Now, a mediocre or even bad passing big man could be defensible if he had fundamental talent for any real type of post play. Unfortunately, this is a non-starter for Robinson. Meaning that another star, having a ridiculously bad series passing the ball, could a find a way to create offense for his team that doesn't lead directly back to his statline; rotational feeds, where it's passed out of the post and moved around would be an easy example. But because of Robinson's other limitations, this type of offensive creation is not likely to be there.