Dr Positivity wrote: freethedevil wrote:
Man, you are not even a Kobe hater but let the CP3 discussion dominated your judgement. KG was **** all over by Dirk, Duncan, and Shaq in the West.
Duncan and Shaq? I thought we were talking kobe? You realize those are two very different calibres of players right?
With consistently good supporting casts
Shaq had 3, +7 stretches and 2 +5 stretches
Duncan had 3 +7 stretches and 2 +4 stretches
KG improved his team by 7 points, in the playoffs, at his best three year stretch, had two +5 po stretches at the back end of his prime, while dealing with terrible casts for most of his career.
These are players who could do everything for contenders, were still the most impactful players in the league on title teams, had near uninamous mvp's, and whose impact and box based playoff or regular season stats remained consistent regardless of how terrible or good their team did(indicating that their supporting casts were the main variable). These are best in the league level players.
Here's the second tier:
Kobe never exceeded +4 playoff impact despite having several shots at the apple with good-great supporitng casts for the vast majority of his prime.
Dirk managed a +4 playoff run once. He played with good to great casts for the majority of his prime.
CP3 also managed a +4 playoff run.
No matter the cast, no matter the situation, no matter how good or how bad there were teammates were, they NEVER crossed into the next tier. Whether you use metrics that predict that come directly from winning or you simple arbitrary box compositiones that specficially overrate one-way, one dimensional offensive studs, they never had an especially strong case for MVP, and they never approached the level of the first tier of player.
Kobe was never the best player in the league, because when he peaked, the first tier of players(lebron, kg) and even members of the second tier of players(nash, cp3) blocked or contested him. It's bad luck for sure, but it can happen when you're a second tier star.
What are these numbers based off? The Lakers were +9 with Kobe on the court in 08 for example, and the Mavs were +17 with Dirk in 2011.
Augmented APM Three Year peaks.
You can also use srs +?-, playoff pipm(when subsituted for winshares dates back to 1974), Corp.
Heck, go ahead and use playoff ws/48, or BPM.
You can even just use the abritraly weighted per. Use what you want, there's always been a clear ass gulf between those sets of players at their best, prompting people to baselessly argue that "first options" are somehow more valuable for winning than "math nerds" think it is(setting aside that the most imapctful players in history by all of these metrics, lebron and jordan, happen to also be the best playoff scorers ever).
Everyone here has an eyetest, but some of us can support ours with granular and qualitative data. Others can't, so they go by "eyetest" to avoid scrutiny, basing their conclusions on truisms which they never bother to support and which they dont' expect to be questioned.
Being skeptical is all well and good, but asking questions is not the same as making a point, something which requires some level of knowledge regarding whatever you're skeptical about, and having an informed practical understanding of the game.
As for raw on/off...Adjust...for...lineups.
Not adjusting the lineups is literally just the plus minus equivalent of replacing slash lines with w-l record. It's utterly useless.