freethedevil wrote:The quote was directed at a user who was in quote chain on the original post. Frankly, though, you assuming it's direction was towards you is quite telling...
Yeah, it is telling how you treat any argument which does not capitulate to your own personal assessment. I did not say it was a non-sequitur there meant for me, but it does fit your attitude all over this thread.
liamliam1234 wrote:After all, how could anyone imagine bias ever being an issue?
Did I say i was unbiased? No? Strawman has straw. The issue here is you're bringing up bias out of thin air when i made no assertion regarding my bias, or lack there of.
Is disingenuous arguing second nature to you? Why on earth would you be the one to need to initiate a conversation on bias. "I did not self-identify this potential issue, so do not bring it up!"
It is not your job to vet other people for bias.
Good to see you sincerely believe my sarcastic response. Yes, oh so logical to just accept biased arguments at face value because, oh, they decided they were unbiased. Brilliant system. No wonder you get along so well with WarriorGM.
It is people's own buisness how they formulate the points they make.
This is incomprehensibly un-self-aware. Is that why you police the formulation of those who make arguments which do not correspond to your "impact metrics + portability = quality" formula?
If those result in shaky claims, then point out how thye're shaky.
Like the past three threads.
What someone's biases are, is, simply put, none of your business.
When someone engages you in a discussion, you should have the decency to respond to what they say, not... whatever this is:
You did not engage me in a discussion, you started a fight because I did not arrive at the same conclusion as you using an entirely different assessment. "Decency". Yeah, really decent to drip condescension all over your responses to a debate you initiated. Really decent to ignore the other person saying "I am not assessing this the way you are." You are a bastion of decency.
Who hurt you?
The guy who has wasted my time over three threads because he cannot believe that someone does not just use some nebulous combination of "impact + scalability" to assess players, and then has the gall to act as if he is in the right.
As for the red herrings, i specifically explained why i considered each of the things i called a red herring a redherring, so. i'm not sure what this is for:
Dismissing everything as a "red herring"
I did not dismiss everything. I dismissed specific things as red herrings and which each dismissal gave you specific case by case reasoning for my dismissals. However, since you seem to have missed that, I'll recap:
Rejecting the premise of your "dismissals" is not missing them. But you were never good at accepting that someone would reject any of your assumed premises.
You claimed i am being inconsistent, however you have failed to showcase the contradictions. My argument for curry was based on three different things. So bringing up examples of me having a lower view of players based on one or two of those things is not showcasing a contradiction. If it is not mutually exclusive, it is not, by definition, contradictory. So saying this...
You make it too easy by deliberately blinding yourself to the myriad of inconsistencies you leave in your wake
...tells me you didn't read.
Oh, sorry, I should have been more sensitive to your arbitrary evaluation that says "impact metrics matter until they go against the guy I like, in which case I can subjectively declare him more portable and thus advantaged." I mocked this mentality in like the fourth post in this discussion, yet here we are again.
Here is an example to illuminate my point:
So you seriously think James Harden and Chris Paul were two of the three best players that year.
I do seriously think they could have been two of the three most impactful per minuite
players in the regular season. However, as I've already explained to you, I also considerportability
I don't think either are very portable. You can say "portability is overblown" but that isn't relevant to the consistency of my criteria.
It is considering portability is not in itself a consistent metric, even though you want to pretend otherwise.
Furthermore, I don't simply consider efficiency, i also consider volume. this is why I asked do you know what the "pm" stands for. Look at wins added that season. Paul(and curry who had injuries) plummet and the jameses come to the top. So if a player is being efficient on the basis of not doing much, I wouldn't bring them into a comparison of superstars.
Oh, so VORP.
In the playoffs, however, if players are being used similarly, then i'll value their efficiency accordingly. Green is a 3 and d wing who was a fringe starter during the playoffs. Curry is his team's offensive engine whose minuites are prioritized, just like kobe. So what wouldn't make sense for danny green, would be perfectly sensible for curry. There is no contradiction.
Ah, yes, PIPM is great, unless it suggests something weird, in which case you need to look at cumulative minutes. And if that is still weird, like with Danny Green or Brook Lopez, then we assess it by who is the "engine". What a great system. Totally not manufactured at all.
My opinion on 2001 kobe does not necessitate me changing my opinion of curry, because it was never solely based on how good curry's team was. Much like my opinion on draymond green does not neccesarily mean i must change my opinion on curry because it was never solely based on impact #'s. Ditto for westbrook. I've established why i consider these red herrings and consequently given you something to address and scrutinize.
Then you are just arguing in bad faith. You adjust your little formula as needed, weighing portability and impact and team success and whatever as you see fit, and then you attack others for not matching that invented, nonexistent formula. Being "consistent" with nonsense is not consistency. You do not get to claim consistency simply by claiming to consider extra variables. Anyone can do that. And it would be one thing if you let people play with their own variables, but no, instead you decided that it was unthinkable to have Curry below Wade or Kobe because they fall short of the two variables you values most.
You choosing not to do so doesn't warrant this:
(and should they criticise that means of assessment, ooh, I guess we can just call it a "silly tangent"!).
I have given you things you can address or criticize. You haven't done so. That is not my problem. Launching criticisms with no tie to what I've said doesn't change that.
I have, twenty posts ago. And it is your problem, considering you started this. I do not care about your little recipe. I think it is inane and do not value it in the slightest. That is not my problem, that is yours.
You're the one whose felt emboldened to make accusations of character. I'd say you're the kettle calling the pot black, but the pot itself is an imaginary one you've conjured out of thin air to justify being the kettle.
It is not imaginary when this is consistent and prolonged behaviour. Yeah, I am going to make an accusation of character. I naively accepted your query in good faith, and here we are days later talking in circles because you still cannot accept that anyone would not buy into how you rate players.
Curry does more than Kobe does until he encounters adversity.
I'm gonna guess you forgot about him
-> coming back from 3-1 down against westbrook and durant off an injury
-> anchoring an offense with only klay as a legit option that posted a 110 rating against the second best modern playoff defense.
-> leading the warriors to two straight wins against the rockets with klay as his only legit offensive option.
Oh, look, more disingenuous framing. Yes, whine about having Klay as a second option, as if none of us can remember when he was enough of a second option to win 140 regular season games over two years. More of a second option than Wade or Kobe had during their peak years.
And considering how much you love to whine about injuries, should I point out Kawhi and Siakam, two of their best defenders, were hobbling around the court? Bet that was great for team defence.
-> scoring 45 and anchoring an offense that managed a 107 rating against the second best postseason defense of the modern era while klay went down.
Oh, he had a good game? That settles it. Kobe and Wade never had a good game against a top defence. Oh, that is right, they had multiple on a semi-frequent basis.
What amazing "adversity" have kobe and wade overcome that curry couldn't? Why would it outweigh whatever situations curry could come that kobe couldn't?
At their peaks? How about not playing on teams anywhere near as stacked at the Warriors.
A couple of years ago Elgee did this neat little calculation, with PIPM I believe, on relative team quality (http://www.backpicks.com/2017/07/06/supporting-casts-are-more-important-than-stars/
). Wade never led a positive supporting cast. Kobe led a strongly positive supporting cast once. I wonder, if they were available for Curry, what do you think those numbers would indicate? Especially given what we know of Draymond's and Durant's impact scores.
Yes, Danny Green, the low usage 3-point sniper, is just so similar to Wade and Kobe.
You claimed citing pipm for green is analogous to citing pipm for curry as curry does less than kobe does. I claimed the opposite. I'm not really sure where the incredulity is coming from. Regardless you said pipm painted green as a superstar, but it didn't.
It is cute that you are really hanging your hat on "top fifteen to twenty is not superstar". Is the cognitive dissonance about your precious metric that bad?
Not that I think it is that simple, given that the Wolves have three... what is that, three top twelve players?
They don't? They don't even have 2 in the top 12 and don't even have 3 in the top 20. And 14th placed butler drops out of the 20 once i look at volume. The timberwolves also won nearly 50 games and posted a solid srs. Not that it's "inconsistent" for a player on a bad team to have a high pipm. If a player plays efficiently, luck adjustment mitigates for their efficient play not translating into impact for things out of their control. That a player like anthony davis grades out as high despite his team sucking isn't inherently a flaw in the model. It's a result of him being efficient in spite of his team.
I messed this up by associating Covington with them. Speaking of Covington, there is another top ten PIPM guy, by impact or volume. Ah, but I forgot, that does not count because we need to do the imaginary "actually a top player" adjustment.
There is something seriously off with this metric you keep hailing as the definitive means of adjustment, but you keep tritely pretending they do not exist.
There's something seriously off about countering a large sample size suggesting the metric does a good job predicting how players do with a few extreme examples:
Especially since these examples can be addressed by looking at volume as well as effiency.
Except when volume leaves them be, like with Covington and Brook Lopez and Danny Green.
What exactly is the "sample size" suggesting it does a good job? Sorry, does a good job notably beyond being a glorified BPM.
It's also puzzling you keep accusing me of solely relying on the metric when you've also dismissed the other criteria i've listed for my evaluation. It's doubly puzzling you're picking on this metric when i've cited a variety of different metrics which support my opinion.
And I have criticised them all, because impact metrics are not objective reflections of reality. And "portability" is not even an objective concept, let alone something that determines player quality.
Regardless, since i've multiple things i consider for player evaluation, you can only show me being inconsistent with examples where my opinion would contradict all my criterion of evaluation. But you have not, and instead are fixating on the trees rather than forest.
Because I do not value your "forest". A forest full of infected trees is hardly worth keeping. If you want to tend it on your own, fine, but I do not care to.
Cheap dodge. It is still just drawing from basic boxscore numbers
No, it isn't:https://fansided.com/2018/01/11/nylon-calculus-introducing-player-impact-plus-minus/
There are three components of Player Impact Plus-Minus: a box-score prior, luck-adjusted on-off data, and luck-adjusted net rating.
It draws from luck adjusted data, a 15 year sample of rapm AND more specific knobs of box score. Simply noting that there is a box score prior does not mean it's bpm.
My apologies, it is 50% BPM mixed with 25% net rating (where Danny Green gets a lot of his value) and 25% ortng/drtng (guessing this is where Brook Lopez gets most of his value). And we make it sound special because it factors out three-point noise.
PIPM is more stable across smaller sample sizes than rapm(which needs 250 days to stabilize). IOW, it can be used for a season. So if I wanted to look at curry's value in 2019, pipm would be more reliable than eballa spamming rapm. This is why box score prior's are used.
I am not saying they have no possible utility, but there a is massive gap between "this can indicate some interesting things" and "this is what I use to evaluate players". Apologies, this and "portability".
Westbrook isn't portable because he is extremely ball dominant. Again, you can consider my criteria "myopic", if the inconsistency does not address all the criteria, it is not an inconsistency.
The disingenuousness of this was expressed prior. Who exactly do you think is going to be convinced because, "Oh, he had that extra subjective variable to cite when needed."
You set the arguments, and everyone needs to respond, oh, but only in the way you see fit; disputing the starting point of the argument itself is a non-starter.
Actually, I let you set the stage for discussion after you said you weren't convinced by my criteria. I then met you on the stage you set
The gall of this. No. No, no, no. I do not know what is worse, trying to what in any context without receipts could qualify as gaslighting... or just assuming I would not bother to check the receipts.
I made my post with Wade and Bryant, and you came objecting because I put them over Curry even though Curry had "portability" and "impact metrics", and for the past three threads you have continued on like that. That is you setting the stage. You did not say, "Explain why impact and portability is bad." You said Curry is better because of impact and portability. At no point was this ever about me wanting clarification. I said outright, repeatedly, and pretty immediately, that I disagreed with your fundamental premise and was not assessing players that way. I did not ask for you to walk me through why your method is better, because I do not take your method seriously. At no point did I say, "Make the case for Curry." I in fact explicitly said I do not have a broad problem with the case for 2017 Curry, or even for 2016 Curry when people admitted they only really cared about the regular season. You asked why I thought Wade and Kobe were better at their best, and I answered, and you never let it go. This has never been about my criteria. This has always been about your criteria. Why would I care about your criteria. And how could you possibly think that a discussion revolving entirely around your set criteria is actually something I am orchestrating. Are you seriously that full of yourself?
I've also entertained the questions you've asked me despite them making the discussion a one-sided scrutinization of my views. I've let you set the table and you're still upset.
If it cheers you up, you can have this:
Screw off. This has all been about your ego, and now you want to play if off as if you were doing a favour. The discussion is about your views because you think your views are the only ones worth considering, and that anyone who uses a different assessment – most recently, me or E-balla – needs to be promptly informed that "ackshually, that does not correspond to portability and impact metrics."
You can strong disagree, but kobe was well below average for his position in blow by rate and gambled more than curry with little results. Conidering the most important part of perimiter defense is preventing penetration, being in the bottom third, to the bottom decile in walling off the perimiter isn't gonna cut it. Kobe also was regular placed on lesser threats and hid on the post, much like harden. Curry on the other hand is above average in lowering his opposing #"s efg%, been a steals leader with low fouling rates and lesser defensive errors. He's been effective at forcing bigs into help, and he doesn't get parked in the post. The end game here is that curry's consistently made his team's defense better throughout his prime, while kobe's defensive value fluctuated from negative, to slight positive to nuetral.
The case for Wade here is certainly better, but Kobe's defensive reputation among media, analysts, and other players is not wholly invented just because he was a popular guy on the Lakers.
And of course it is a lot easier for Curry to basically play into a limited role behind Draymond than it is for Kobe to replicate the same on a team like the 2005-07 Lakers.
Hahahaha, as opposed to the three point and midrange advantage, right.
No, I mean as in the three points you get when you hit a three pointer and the two points you get when you score a midranger. Quite embarrasing that someone whose been spending multiple threads whining about my evaluation being simplistic can't grasp the most simple example of nuanced distinction.
Distinction to the point of extenuating eight different types of three-pointers is not "nuance".
How does struggling against a box one translate to struggling against van vleet?
By all the times he struggled against Van Vleet outside of the box one.
No wait hey, here's a better question, when did kobe make lebron go 0-8 against him in a finals game?
Oh right, never.
Narratives are so easy to spin.
This is truly the most shallow possible defensive analysis, assuming it even qualifies as anything more than nonsense.
So different from spacing.
-> Spacing: Defenses going up higher to guard you
-> Drawing coverages: Teams sending an extra man to double or triple you.
Amazing how you've gone from whining about how stats don't capture nuance to getting sarcastic when someone breaks down the game for you.
You are not breaking down the game. In Curry's case any coverage drawing is absolutely the result of his spacing, considering Kobe arguably drew even more coverage on average (more a consequence of his team than anything) despite lacking the same shooting ability.
add wing defence, man-on-man defence, and lockdown defence
Kobe wasn't good at any of those, Why would I?
Plenty of players and analysts would disagree.
Basically every 3-and-D player can be said to fit into more systems than the top tier stars.
If that 3 and d player was the
-> one of the best playmakers ever
-> one of the best scorers ever
-> best of ball player in the league
-> one of the best on ball players in the league
then yes, they would. Alas, only the second applies to kobe whose closer to a 3 and d wing than curry is.
Since when have 3-and-D players struggled for fit because they were not "one of the best scorers" or "ball-players". Another super genuine framing.
This is a dumb and highly unobjective means of assessing overall player quality.
This is the criteria you brought up for basketball evaluation.
It literally was not. I said Wade and Kobe were more reliable in the toughest environments, i.e. up against physical playoff defence and not surrounded by one of the greatest rosters ever assembled. The i.e. is my clarification, since apparently you missed all the other times I referenced those being my major issues with Curry.
If you want, as this criteria has stopped working for you, you're welcome to give us a new one to compare them on.
For three threads we have been using your criteria, at your behest. Again, screw off.
The argument for kobe is.....
This is the problem I have seen with a few of the "veteran" posters on this board. You have this one-track mind that refuses to deal with any criticism which does not fit in with your own belief of what qualifies as "legitimate".
Oh, right, you don't have one.
I gave it twenty posts ago, but you just ignored it. And I repeated myself, and you ignored it. Because you did not start this conversation to promote discussion or to have your mind changed; you started this conversation because you wanted people to fall in line with your method of assessment.
But for those people who love regular season impact metrics but do not fetishise some nebulous concept of "portability", this may be too late, but have fun with this (http://www.backpicks.com/2017/10/02/the-plus-minus-goat-list-1994-2016/
). I especially like the part where both 2016 and 2017 Curry trails 2016 and 2017 Draymond, 2010 Wade, and 1995 Robinson.