RealGM Top 100 List #28

[Texas Chuck]

Owly,

I can appreciate how much you disagree with my take on things and what you see as inconsistency with a negative slant. There almost certainly is some of that. I won't deny it.

I find myself wondering tho why win shares are very important when comparing Paul to Frazier/Zeke but the same guys dismissed them when comparing Nash to Stockton despite John's edge being far more pronounced.

[colts18]

Owly,

I can appreciate how much you disagree with my take on things and what you see as inconsistency with a negative slant. There almost certainly is some of that. I won't deny it.

I find myself wondering tho why win shares are very important when comparing Paul to Frazier/Zeke but the same guys dismissed them when comparing Nash to Stockton despite John's edge being far more pronounced.

Part of it is that Win Shares underrates Nash's impact. We can see in RAPM how much impact Nash has that isn't accounted in the box score.

btw, Stockton has more Win Shares than Michael Jordan. Would you be willing to argue that they are on the same tier?

[colts18]

Owly,

I can appreciate how much you disagree with my take on things and what you see as inconsistency with a negative slant. There almost certainly is some of that. I won't deny it.

I find myself wondering tho why win shares are very important when comparing Paul to Frazier/Zeke but the same guys dismissed them when comparing Nash to Stockton despite John's edge being far more pronounced.

Part of it is that Win Shares underrates Nash's impact. We can see in RAPM how much impact Nash has that isn't accounted in the box score.

btw, Stockton has more Win Shares than Michael Jordan. Would you be willing to argue that they are on the same tier?

[Texas Chuck]

Owly,

I can appreciate how much you disagree with my take on things and what you see as inconsistency with a negative slant. There almost certainly is some of that. I won't deny it.

I find myself wondering tho why win shares are very important when comparing Paul to Frazier/Zeke but the same guys dismissed them when comparing Nash to Stockton despite John's edge being far more pronounced.

Part of it is that Win Shares underrates Nash's impact. We can see in RAPM how much impact Nash has that isn't accounted in the box score.

btw, Stockton has more Win Shares than Michael Jordan. Would you be willing to argue that they are on the same tier?

Why are they an issue for Steve Nash but not Zeke? Why should I just accept you stating that as fact? We don't have RAPM numbers for Zeke so you just assume I guess?

And your point re:Jordan speaks in part to Stockton's longevity of course, but again goes to my point--why are they suddenly the key argument for Paul? Seems inconsistent.

[john248]

13 vs MEM teams are pretty even 4 v 5 and he scores really efficiently, but the team struggles to score which is partly on the PG

Blake was injured in game 5. Pretty much done after that and consider that just the season before, the Clips beat the Grizz in the playoffs. Crawford was especially bad as he usually is by the time the playoffs rolls around.

What does Blake's injury have to do with the team not scoring well in games 2-4? Again I don't really want to hammer Paul too hard for this, but I hate hearing that anytime a guy doesn't have much playoff success its his teams fault as if he's not the most important player on his teams. That's why I bother going back and looking at individual series and individual games and seeing how the star plays when his team gets eliminated.

Not sure why you're bringing up Dirk or Robinson. I guess if you're trying to prove how consistent you've been with voting, I suppose that's just more thinking out loud. I just asked about his series against the Grizz in 13.

Anyways, what did he do wrong in game 2? He played well, and they won. After 4 games, the series was tied with each team winning their home games. Clippers lose 4 straight and part of that is indeed due to losing Blake. Sounds like a team issue to me though some of it is on CP3. Was this star really bad this series? I don't think so. Hard to have high assist totals or lead the offense when teammates aren't hitting their shots where teh Clips basically lost their #3 option in Crawford just sucking ass. He had a couple rough outings on the road as you mentioned. Statistically, he looks good in game 5 and 6. Criticism for this series are 4th quarters in game 5 where he disappeared for the most part either due to a combination of fatigue as I think he played the entire 2nd half and losing Blake. Did get a tech then ejected in game 6 though this game was pretty much done from the start since there was no answer for Gasol and ZBo, and Joerger, lead def assistant at the time, could game plan differently.

but I hate hearing that anytime a guy doesn't have much playoff success its his teams fault as if he's not the most important player on his teams.

Are there series you feel that any CP3, or any other star player, led team should've advanced over a better team? Do we expect KG, Hakeem, Kobe, or anyone else to go further in the playoffs when the roster is lacking? Or Nash's Suns going deep in the playoffs but running into the Spurs or Lakers?

[E-Balla]

I'm voting Walt Frazier. He has a pretty large longevity advantage and he's a better postseason performer. The whole winshares argument makes no sense because if Paul has more WS/48 (which he does) he can have more winshares with way less minutes (which he does). On top of that I put no value at all in winshares so his number one argument isn't really valid to me.

If you don't think it should carry any weight you don't need to respond. But since you did, he has more (RS) win shares, period. If Paul retired today he'd have more winshares. Which makes a longevity argument odd. Because longevity is surely contingent on you adding value during that period. All raising longevity does within this context is point out how much better Paul's peak is, how productive his prime has been.

[/quote]
How does it make the longevity argument odd? If a player plays 40,000 minutes and has 10 win shares he clearly has greater longevity than someone with 5000 minutes and 20 win shares. Value isn't determined by one stat especially not a crappy stat like win shares. Even if I valued win shares it has nothing on games and minutes played when comparing longevity.

[Texas Chuck]

Not sure why you're bringing up Dirk or Robinson. I guess if you're trying to prove how consistent you've been with voting, I suppose that's just more thinking out loud. I just asked about his series against the Grizz in 13.

I was trying to show that I had been consistent in my approach at trying to look at every player, but especially those lacking in a ton of team success in terms of championships/Finals trips, and to figure out what responsibility they should bear. I wanted it to be clear that this wasn't something I was bringing up only now in some attempt to discredit Paul

Now as Owly pointed out, I failed to a noticable degree in maintaining total objectivity in how I described Paul's play and I take ownership of that, but my intention was to continue on a theme I had addressed throughout the project.

[Texas Chuck]

Are there series you feel that any CP3, or any other star player, led team should've advanced over a better team? Do we expect KG, Hakeem, Kobe, or anyone else to go further in the playoffs when the roster is lacking? Or Nash's Suns going deep in the playoffs but running into the Spurs or Lakers?

Yes I do.

I specifically referenced Dirk in 2014. Some may scoff since Dirk is past his prime and thus "irrevelant as a player", but the Mavs were clearly the worse team in the series vs the Spurs but nevertheless if Dirk played even close to expectations the Mavs win that series. Why would I ignore that? Im not sure that that in 07 the Mavs beat the Warriors if Dirk isnt absolutely awful in 2 games and below average overall in that series but I can't and won't pretend he shouldn't be held accountable for how he played.

I could list other examples, but I'm using Dirk so people understand this isn't agenda based.

[E-Balla]

Owly,

I can appreciate how much you disagree with my take on things and what you see as inconsistency with a negative slant. There almost certainly is some of that. I won't deny it.

I find myself wondering tho why win shares are very important when comparing Paul to Frazier/Zeke but the same guys dismissed them when comparing Nash to Stockton despite John's edge being far more pronounced.

Part of it is that Win Shares underrates Nash's impact. We can see in RAPM how much impact Nash has that isn't accounted in the box score.

btw, Stockton has more Win Shares than Michael Jordan. Would you be willing to argue that they are on the same tier?

We also know post prime Stockton was an RAPM monster. Basically we are bumping up one guy for looking good according to a stat we can't compare to the past greats?

[Owly]

I'm voting Walt Frazier. He has a pretty large longevity advantage and he's a better postseason performer. The whole winshares argument makes no sense because if Paul has more WS/48 (which he does) he can have more winshares with way less minutes (which he does). On top of that I put no value at all in winshares so his number one argument isn't really valid to me.

If you don't think it should carry any weight you don't need to respond. But since you did, he has more (RS) win shares, period. If Paul retired today he'd have more winshares. Which makes a longevity argument odd. Because longevity is surely contingent on you adding value during that period. All raising longevity does within this context is point out how much better Paul's peak is, how productive his prime has been.

How does it make the longevity argument odd? If a player plays 40,000 minutes and has 10 win shares he clearly has greater longevity than someone with 5000 minutes and 20 win shares. Value isn't determined by one stat especially not a crappy stat like win shares. Even if I valued win shares it has nothing on games and minutes played when comparing longevity.[/quote]
Because if longevity just means minutes and you're acknowledging that attempts to measure productivity have Paul ahead, but Frazier spread his lesser goodness more thinly and trying to claim it as a good thing. That's what boosting a guy for minutes played is doing in that context.

[penbeast0]

Vote count:

Walt Frazier (17) - penbeast0, FJS, fpliii, tsherkin, Clyde Frazier, batmana, Chuck Texas, RSCD3_, john248, Basketballefan, Moonbeam, RayBan-Sematra, Jim Naismith, Jaivl, Quotatious, GC Pantalones, ronnymac2

Chris Paul (3) - Doctor MJ. DQuinn1575, colts18


Seems safe to say that we can proceed to #29. 11 votes for Frazier, 0 for Paul, since penbeast's last count.

All right, I'm calling this for Frazier. Wow, didn't expect that.

[E-Balla]

I'm voting Walt Frazier. He has a pretty large longevity advantage and he's a better postseason performer. The whole winshares argument makes no sense because if Paul has more WS/48 (which he does) he can have more winshares with way less minutes (which he does). On top of that I put no value at all in winshares so his number one argument isn't really valid to me.

If you don't think it should carry any weight you don't need to respond. But since you did, he has more (RS) win shares, period. If Paul retired today he'd have more winshares. Which makes a longevity argument odd. Because longevity is surely contingent on you adding value during that period. All raising longevity does within this context is point out how much better Paul's peak is, how productive his prime has been.

How does it make the longevity argument odd? If a player plays 40,000 minutes and has 10 win shares he clearly has greater longevity than someone with 5000 minutes and 20 win shares. Value isn't determined by one stat especially not a crappy stat like win shares. Even if I valued win shares it has nothing on games and minutes played when comparing longevity.

Because if longevity just means minutes and you're acknowledging that attempts to measure productivity have Paul ahead, but Frazier spread his lesser goodness more thinly and trying to claim it as a good thing. That's what boosting a guy for minutes played is doing in that context.[/quote]
Win shares is a horrible way to measure goodness though. Sure bad attempts to measure goodness have Paul in the lead (actually Paul is statistically the most impressive PG ever) but again that has nothing to do with longevity.

[Doctor MJ]

We also know post prime Stockton was an RAPM monster. Basically we are bumping up one guy for looking good according to a stat we can't compare to the past greats?

Just on that though:

The way you put it, which I have no doubt is how you see, makes it sound crazy to give such a biased bump.

Put it another way though:

Are we suppose to ignore all stats we have now because we didn't have them back then when making comparisons between guys of different generations?

To me that's in actuality what the alternative is, and it's absurd to even consider. You never purposefully ignore information.

To the argument: "Well the old generation guy might have been amazing by this metric and you just don't know?"...well sure, but he's not being penalized by the metric. We rate him as best we can with the information we have, just as we do with the new guy. A stat like that clearly shifts how we see Nash precisely because he looks so much better once you start looking at that family of analytics than he did before...than what you'd expect from other players with similar levels of box score impressiveness.

With all of this, if you personally believe that Isiah rises about his box score in a similar way then you should be giving him a similar bump in your analysis.

[Doctor MJ]

Why are they an issue for Steve Nash but not Zeke? Why should I just accept you stating that as fact? We don't have RAPM numbers for Zeke so you just assume I guess?

And your point re:Jordan speaks in part to Stockton's longevity of course, but again goes to my point--why are they suddenly the key argument for Paul? Seems inconsistent.

I brought WS for Paul as a way of putting the longevity argument against him in perspective. Basically everyone agrees that if you accomplish X in 5 years or X in 10 years, doing it in less time is at least as good as doing it in more time and thus renders the longevity argument moot. More typically, the former is seen as quite a bit more of an accomplishment than the latter.

So, to the extent WS is a valid measure for actual career accomplishment, Paul's easily made up the longevity issue against Frazier, and in the case of Isiah left him behind years ago.

Now, by no means do I actually hold WS as some perfectly valid measure like that, but it's a pretty good stat that I expect many on here know and use to some extent. Paul doing that to Frazier & Isiah means that if you side with them it basically has to be because of stuff that you can't measure by box score. While I by no means pretend that stuff doesn't exist - I would be a "RAPM guy" if I did - to me what I've presented makes a quite compelling argument to anyone who was fixated against Paul simply due to longevity.

[E-Balla]

We also know post prime Stockton was an RAPM monster. Basically we are bumping up one guy for looking good according to a stat we can't compare to the past greats?

Just on that though:

The way you put it, which I have no doubt is how you see, makes it sound crazy to give such a biased bump.

Put it another way though:

Are we suppose to ignore all stats we have now because we didn't have them back then when making comparisons between guys of different generations?

To me that's in actuality what the alternative is, and it's absurd to even consider. You never purposefully ignore information.

To the argument: "Well the old generation guy might have been amazing by this metric and you just don't know?"...well sure, but he's not being penalized by the metric. We rate him as best we can with the information we have, just as we do with the new guy. A stat like that clearly shifts how we see Nash precisely because he looks so much better once you start looking at that family of analytics than he did before...than what you'd expect from other players with similar levels of box score impressiveness.

With all of this, if you personally believe that Isiah rises about his box score in a similar way then you should be giving him a similar bump in your analysis.

Don't ignore but I think should be crux an argument. And I really think using it in the context of (for example) Nash and Stock its disengenous because Stock had high RAPM numbers anyway. I don't know I think some of the ways its been used is a little inconsistent. I don't mind someone keeping it in mind while evaluating a career but I have no doubt many people are using it to say x (who has great RAPM numbers and raw numbers) has more impact than y (who was known to add a lot of non boxscore impact - like Walt) without having the numbers.

[Texas Chuck]

Doc,

the reason Im not compelled by you using that argument for Paul is because the opposite is shown when comparing Nash and Stockton. Stockton having both more total WS and a better WS/48 rate and not really a small difference either.

So if that is what you are resting your case on to claim Paul did more in less time than Frazier/Zeke then it would seem that Stockton accumulating more win shares in total and doing so at a superior rate would lead one to conclude John ahead of Nash.

And the only answer given to this point is Colts18 acting like the stat somehow penalizes Nash but not the other guys but without explaining why that's the case and then your explanation that its purpose is simply to give perspective on longevity. I think what it really says is that Paul had a better peak/prime, not that he had more longevity.

And you telling me if I don't side with Paul its for stuff not measured by a box score I guess you take Nash over Stockton for the same reason?

[Doctor MJ]

We also know post prime Stockton was an RAPM monster. Basically we are bumping up one guy for looking good according to a stat we can't compare to the past greats?

Just on that though:

The way you put it, which I have no doubt is how you see, makes it sound crazy to give such a biased bump.

Put it another way though:

Are we suppose to ignore all stats we have now because we didn't have them back then when making comparisons between guys of different generations?

To me that's in actuality what the alternative is, and it's absurd to even consider. You never purposefully ignore information.

To the argument: "Well the old generation guy might have been amazing by this metric and you just don't know?"...well sure, but he's not being penalized by the metric. We rate him as best we can with the information we have, just as we do with the new guy. A stat like that clearly shifts how we see Nash precisely because he looks so much better once you start looking at that family of analytics than he did before...than what you'd expect from other players with similar levels of box score impressiveness.

With all of this, if you personally believe that Isiah rises about his box score in a similar way then you should be giving him a similar bump in your analysis.

Don't ignore but I think should be crux an argument. And I really think using it in the context of (for example) Nash and Stock its disengenous because Stock had high RAPM numbers anyway. I don't know I think some of the ways its been used is a little inconsistent. I don't mind someone keeping it in mind while evaluating a career but I have no doubt many people are using it to say x (who has great RAPM numbers and raw numbers) has more impact than y (who was known to add a lot of non boxscore impact - like Walt) without having the numbers.

Not the crux? I'm not really sure what that means. Nash's entire argument for being an MVP level player is in the fact that we see his value in such a clear cut manner outside of the box score. You don't need RAPM to see it...but if you quantify what we see rigorously you get the +/- family of stats that RAPM is in. Hence, you can't really evaluate Nash without using RAPM or some less rigorous equivalent, and expect to get a reasonable perspective on him, and there's no rational way to "cap" how important that factor should be given that "value" isn't really a factor, so much as it is the whole shebang in any particular context.

As to people using RAPM to help understand the intangible impact of a new player and thereby ranking him over a player who may have had even more intangible impact, well obviously there's imprecision in the evaluation. People like this can be wrong...but so can everyone else. To me the clear answer is to fight the individual battle if you think a particular old player is getting overrated or underrated, not only because that's the only way I can imagine doing this productively, but also because the whole point of this project is to in depth on each of the players in question.

Re: Nash, Stockton, disingenuous. Do you not realize how offensive this is? Do you not realize how hard I've worked to explain my thoughts on this in this project alone?

I don't know how I can be expect to think: "Gosh, looks like he's really ready and willing to listen to everything I have to say. I should spend a ton of time on this!"

The concerns about anyone arguing for Nash > Stockton now that we've seen more RAPM stats are absolutely worth talking about, but I don't have reason to think that you'll listen to what I have to say.

[E-Balla]

Don't ignore but I think should be crux an argument. And I really think using it in the context of (for example) Nash and Stock its disengenous because Stock had high RAPM numbers anyway. I don't know I think some of the ways its been used is a little inconsistent. I don't mind someone keeping it in mind while evaluating a career but I have no doubt many people are using it to say x (who has great RAPM numbers and raw numbers) has more impact than y (who was known to add a lot of non boxscore impact - like Walt) without having the numbers.

Not the crux? I'm not really sure what that means. Nash's entire argument for being an MVP level player is in the fact that we see his value in such a clear cut manner outside of the box score. You don't need RAPM to see it...but if you quantify what we see rigorously you get the +/- family of stats that RAPM is in. Hence, you can't really evaluate Nash without using RAPM or some less rigorous equivalent, and expect to get a reasonable perspective on him, and there's no rational way to "cap" how important that factor should be given that "value" isn't really a factor, so much as it is the whole shebang in any particular context.

But again Stockton was also highly rated by those same metrics. Now saying you had to dip into the +/- family to create a full picture (stuff like WOWY) is true but I've seen way more of an emphasis on just RAPM even in comparisons where its hazy even by RAPM.

As to people using RAPM to help understand the intangible impact of a new player and thereby ranking him over a player who may have had even more intangible impact, well obviously there's imprecision in the evaluation. People like this can be wrong...but so can everyone else. To me the clear answer is to fight the individual battle if you think a particular old player is getting overrated or underrated, not only because that's the only way I can imagine doing this productively, but also because the whole point of this project is to in depth on each of the players in question.

This is completely true and I agree here. I mean the WOWY data on Jerry West and some of the KG/Dirk arguments made me throw all of them higher on my ATL.

Re: Nash, Stockton, disingenuous. Do you not realize how offensive this is? Do you not realize how hard I've worked to explain my thoughts on this in this project alone?

I don't know how I can be expect to think: "Gosh, looks like he's really ready and willing to listen to everything I have to say. I should spend a ton of time on this!"

The concerns about anyone arguing for Nash > Stockton now that we've seen more RAPM stats are absolutely worth talking about, but I don't have reason to think that you'll listen to what I have to say.

I'm already Nash > Stockton and I completely understood the logic you used to explain your doubt in his RAPM numbers when compared to Nash. But then with Chris Paul you immediately jump into Win Shares to dispel the argument against his longevity which was the exact same argument Stockton voters were using against Nash to say his longevity is way over Nash's.

If I'm misrepresenting your point against either Paul or Nash's longevity (I understand if you take Paul and Nash despite the lower longevity) please let me know but seeing you take that stance stood out to me as I was reading this thread specifically because of how you dismissed that argument when it was being used against Nash.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc,

the reason Im not compelled by you using that argument for Paul is because the opposite is shown when comparing Nash and Stockton. Stockton having both more total WS and a better WS/48 rate and not really a small difference either.

So if that is what you are resting your case on to claim Paul did more in less time than Frazier/Zeke then it would seem that Stockton accumulating more win shares in total and doing so at a superior rate would lead one to conclude John ahead of Nash.

And the only answer given to this point is Colts18 acting like the stat somehow penalizes Nash but not the other guys but without explaining why that's the case and then your explanation that its purpose is simply to give perspective on longevity. I think what it really says is that Paul had a better peak/prime, not that he had more longevity.

The opposite was NOT shown though.

People were arguing against Paul because of lack of longevity.
Paul having more career WS than the guys he was competing with is an argument that his longevity isn't so bad.

Tell me, when was Stockton's "lack of longevity" used against him in this project?
Never, obviously, since longevity is a huge strength of Stockton.

It's as simple as that.

Now look: I understand how it struck you. You saw "Win Shares", and you thought "You didn't think Win Shares were such a big factor before, yet now you bring them up?" There's no inherent contradiction here though. I'm not saying that people should vote for Paul because Win Shares are an amazing metric. I'm simply using it as one method to try to get people to really be clear on how they're judging his longevity, much like I keep bringing up age.

Put it this way: If I had asked people to guess career WS of the guys in question, do you think they would have been roughly accurate with their guesses? Not precise mind you, I'm not expecting exact answers, but accurate: Would people on average see Paul and guess he faired as well as he did?

I think the answer is a clear "No". I sure as hell underestimated what Paul looked like, which is precisely why it hit me hard, shaped my vote, and caused me to share it with y'all. Am I seriously an anomaly?

And you telling me if I don't side with Paul its for stuff not measured by a box score I guess you take Nash over Stockton for the same reason?

Separating this out because I'm not sure I get what you're really asking.

Unless you're saying you simply prefer another competing metric to WS, then of course you're making your decision based on stuff not entirely within the box score. I would hope that was the case regardless.

And yeah, I rate Nash as high as I do for things that go beyond the box score.

[Doctor MJ]

But again Stockton was also highly rated by those same metrics. Now saying you had to dip into the +/- family to create a full picture (stuff like WOWY) is true but I've seen way more of an emphasis on just RAPM even in comparisons where its hazy even by RAPM.

Such as? When we were talking Nash vs Stockton, I made a point to say that I could see the Stockton RAPM argument, and I spoke about a variety of other non-RAPM things to illustrate why I stood where I stood.

I'm not denying that RAPM has come up like crazy in this project, and I understand people being frustrated with it, but I honestly don't recall a time where many people decided comparisons by directly citing RAPM when RAPM could be argued to say the exact opposite.

I'm already Nash > Stockton and I completely understood the logic you used to explain your doubt in his RAPM numbers when compared to Nash. But then with Chris Paul you immediately jump into Win Shares to dispel the argument against his longevity which was the exact same argument Stockton voters were using against Nash to say his longevity is way over Nash's.

If I'm misrepresenting your point against either Paul or Nash's longevity (I understand if you take Paul and Nash despite the lower longevity) please let me know but seeing you take that stance stood out to me as I was reading this thread specifically because of how you dismissed that argument when it was being used against Nash.

Sounds like I overreacted to your choice of words before. If so, I apologize.

To the specifics:

But Stockton's longevity is greater than Nash's. I never denied this. I rank Nash ahead of Stockton because I think his pinnacle of play warrants it despite the longevity disadvantage...which if you think about it is exactly the same reason I sided with Paul over Frazier & Isiah.

As I said to Chuck, I understand that me using Win Shares after not switching my opinion in light of a Win Shares based argument might appear to put me in a box of contradiction, but the two specific arguments weren't the same and the most you could possibly conclude about me from my two positions is "Well I guess he values Win Shares more than nothing but less than everything."