Retro POY '90-91 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

I like how most of the posters are trying to look for info. from other posters about all the top players- not just certain ones. However, I agree with what drza is saying regarding "advocates" of certain players. Usually, those people are only "advocates" because those players don't get much good press here or because the perception of that player isn't too good.

As long as the advocates don't try to attack or bring down other players for the sake of their own player- and this is key- then I don't have a problem with an "advocate" explaining the positives of their guy. I welcome it.

An example: My perception of Dirk Nowitzki has changed over the last few months, and this thread was one reason why. I don't think less of Nash or Barkley or KG or Duncan because of the comparisons and information I've been exposed to- I just think more of Nowitzki now. Same for Malone and Ewing. Ewing hasn't even had an "advocate" really.


One thing I do wish is that posters had to briefly explain their picks. I want to know the gist of the logic of some posters. A few just post a list and they are done. I don't want a long post- just a sentence or two. I understand that's hard to enforece though.

[Gongxi]

But why's it misleading? My stance is that the posters in this project are intelligent enough to tell the real from the fake. If that's the case, we're not going to fall for the okey-doke and are going to make someone saying something counter-intuitive really back up and prove their point. If an advocate can be convincing in the face of skepticism, there must be something legit in their info. Do you disagree?

Let's pinpoint where the negative is, here.

It's misleading because you're only giving half of the argument. Seriously, I can argue virtually any stance, about anything. Pro-eugenics? Alright. The Civil War wasn't about slavery? No problem. I can throw out all kinds of arguments in favor of anything. Only if there's someone equally willing to argue the other side will we get a fair debate about it. But not every player has an advocate. So, by its very nature, we're not getting a fair debate.

I don't understand why we can't just say "Yeah, we all have biases, but let's try to be rational and fair about this" and instead folks are actually saying "Ya know, I like feeling like I just walked into a conversation where a lobbyist is working on a legislator." Is it too hard to ask that people don't come into every thread lobbying to get their favorite player as highly ranked as possible? Is that really so abhorrent?

[JordansBulls]

Karl Malone seems to be getting more respect than I would have imagined. Most seem to say Barkley was better in his prime when the two played, but Malone essentially has finished ahead of him literally every year except 1993.

[sp6r=underrated]

It's misleading because you're only giving half of the argument. Seriously, I can argue virtually any stance, about anything. Pro-eugenics? Alright. The Civil War wasn't about slavery? No problem. I can throw out all kinds of arguments in favor of anything. Only if there's someone equally willing to argue the other side will we get a fair debate about it. But not every player has an advocate. So, by its very nature, we're not getting a fair debate.

I don't understand why we can't just say "Yeah, we all have biases, but let's try to be rational and fair about this" and instead folks are actually saying "Ya know, I like feeling like I just walked into a conversation where a lobbyist is working on a legislator." Is it too hard to ask that people don't come into every thread lobbying to get their favorite player as highly ranked as possible? Is that really so abhorrent?

Your problem, and it is a big one reading all of your posts on realgm, is you think there is some objective truth out there that people are ignoring due to their biases. First, there isn't any real list out there that people would be aware of if they didn't have favorite players. Even if none of us had favorite players there would be any consensus. Second, biased voting isn't happening most of the time. Kamia doesn't argue for Malone to get him as high up the list as he can. He argues for Malone to be ranked as high as he deserves based on his evaluation of his season. Same for Drza-KG, Mystic-Drza. Different people weigh the RS, PS, HTH, injuries etc. differently.

Horror of horrors, and I know you don't like this at all, most people do believe in scouting games to figure out different skill sets. People can disagree with Kamia, but he has made a convincing case that there is an inherent flaw in Robinson's skill-set that makes his RS stats somewhat hollow. You call that biases, but reading his posts I think it is the result of careful analysis. Now, if you think it is wrong have at it and explain to him why he is wrong. I find it your comment that watching game footage is a waste of time. At least that view had somewhat of a defensible nature prior to 2003 when we had plus/minus data to help us figure out what isn't recorded in the box score. We haven't had that for a decade now.

[Gongxi]

Unless you can watch every minute of a player's season, what is it footage is giving you? An extremely small sample size and usually just highlights. You know better than to trust that.

I don't think there's an objective truth, but I think ignoring biases is important. Giving into them is something that should be highly, highly avoided.

[ElGee]

Unless you can watch every minute of a player's season, what is it footage is giving you? An extremely small sample size and usually just highlights. You know better than to trust that.

I don't think there's an objective truth, but I think ignoring biases is important. Giving into them is something that should be highly, highly avoided.

I have to disagree here Gongxi. It's basic inferential statistics to look at smaller samples and draw conclusions about the whole sample with some degree of accuracy. Watching highlights are pretty bad because they cut out relevant information, but if I can watch just a few games, especially against different opponents, I've got a few hundred possessions to start gathering how a player plays and it's often fairly accurate. If I can watch 20 regular season games and 2/3 of his playoff games, I'd have missed the majority of his season, but I can get a really good idea of how someone plays, both in terms of production, team context and skill-set. I've missed most of the season, but those ~2000 possessions tell me a lot.

[sp6r=underrated]

Unless you can watch every minute of a player's season, what is it footage is giving you? An extremely small sample size and usually just highlights. You know better than to trust that.

I don't think there's an objective truth, but I think ignoring biases is important. Giving into them is something that should be highly, highly avoided.

Again you seem unable to distinguish bias and conclusions reached on careful analysis. No offense, but posters like Kamia, Drza, Mystic, have added far more to these threads than you (or me) and it will be their posts that carry meaning when other posters review these threads in coming months.

El Gee summarized the value of watching games.

[Gongxi]

Unless you can watch every minute of a player's season, what is it footage is giving you? An extremely small sample size and usually just highlights. You know better than to trust that.

I don't think there's an objective truth, but I think ignoring biases is important. Giving into them is something that should be highly, highly avoided.

I have to disagree here Gongxi. It's basic inferential statistics to look at smaller samples and draw conclusions about the whole sample with some degree of accuracy. Watching highlights are pretty bad because they cut out relevant information, but if I can watch just a few games, especially against different opponents, I've got a few hundred possessions to start gathering how a player plays and it's often fairly accurate. If I can watch 20 regular season games and 2/3 of his playoff games, I'd have missed the majority of his season, but I can get a really good idea of how someone plays, both in terms of production, team context and skill-set. I've missed most of the season, but those ~2000 possessions tell me a lot.

Are those plays going to more accurate than judging their production? I don't care if a guy constantly gets into great position and boxes out like a champ: if he cant never get a rebound, and he can't help his teammates get a rebound, does it matter? I say it doesn't.

Unless you can watch every minute of a player's season, what is it footage is giving you? An extremely small sample size and usually just highlights. You know better than to trust that.

I don't think there's an objective truth, but I think ignoring biases is important. Giving into them is something that should be highly, highly avoided.

Again you seem unable to distinguish bias and conclusions reached on careful analysis. No offense, but posters like Kamia, Drza, Mystic, have added far more to these threads than you (or me) and it will be their posts that carry meaning when other posters review these threads in coming months.

El Gee summarized the value of watching games.

You're a smart guy, sp6r (doesn't that just roll off the tongue when you're trying to sound chummy?), so I'm sure you realize that I prize the methodology behind an argument more than the results that it leads to. I'm very much a fan of the scientific method in that regard and many others. In politics, whether a policy is 'liberal' or 'conservative' isn't very important to me, and I don't care who is supporting a policy, I care about the pragmatism. And so what follows is the rub.

The can add far more to this thread than you or me without lobbying on behalf of a certain player. The two aren't indivisible. That isn't to say that all of all of their posts do that. Quite the contrary. But when you see totally different methodologies for various years in order to catapult a player to #1 (an extreme example, but unfortunately we all saw it), you recognize that that's a bad thing. They can continue on with their analysis- as most of them do, most of the time- without being a blatant cheerleader for one player and/or a heckler for another. It's possible. Their contributions don't need to be linked extreme bias, and I'm not sure why we're all assuming that it can't be and saying "Well, at least they're saying something."

I mean, I hate to go back to politics, but this reeks of Jon Stewart telling the Crossfire guys that they're ruining the political scene. You can add to things without doing so in a partisan, divisive way.

I can't believe we're just shrugging and saying "Well, they post a lot" as if we shouldn't be critical of serious bias. Karl Malone is behind only Shaq, Duncan, and Jordan in this project and there's a very decent chance he could surpass Shaq. When someone says "I think he's being underrated here" people should say "Oh, helllll no" not "Well, you've been making long posts about Malone, maybe he should be ahead of one of those guys as of 1991."

[ElGee]

Are those plays going to more accurate than judging their production? I don't care if a guy constantly gets into great position and boxes out like a champ: if he cant never get a rebound, and he can't help his teammates get a rebound, does it matter? I say it doesn't.

Well that's exactly the point. If someone is boxing out and helping teammates get rebounds, but there is no stat to reflect that, the only way to find that out is to watch. Rebounding is complicated though, so watching is certainly more helpful in gauging other areas of the game.

If Amare Stoudemire averages 30 on 65% shooting, that's great. But if I watch every game and he's getting 8 dunks a night because Steve Nash is doubled and drops it to him, then that offense is largely due to Steve Nash and not so indicative of Amare Stoudemire playing great ball.

If Stephon Marbury averages 8 assists per game, it might seem like he is an elite distributor. But if he dribbles the ball for 80% of the game and is merely passing it to players who inevitably make 8 covered shots at the end of the shot clock, then he's not really creating any open shots for teammates and in that case he wouldn't necessarily even be making good passes.

Then there's defense, which is barely covered by statistics...

And that's the crux of the issue: Basketball is an interactive game which isn't comprehensively covered by stats. Baseball is. (Football, good luck!) In basketball, a sizebale chunk of the offensive game is accurately reflected in offensive stats. A sliver of defense is reflected in whatever defensive stats are available.

[jicama]

...
I can't believe we're just shrugging and saying "Well, they post a lot" as if we shouldn't be critical of serious bias. Karl Malone is behind only Shaq, Duncan, and Jordan in this project and there's a very decent chance he could surpass Shaq. When someone says "I think he's being underrated here" people should say "Oh, helllll no" not "Well, you've been making long posts about Malone, maybe he should be ahead of one of those guys as of 1991."

Apparently I'm the one who asked whether Malone was getting his just due, and I also suspect he's nobody's favorite player (or person). So if no one advocates for a certain player, his stock drops relative to those being advocated.

Since I asked the question, voters have tended to rank him higher, for 1991. Coincidence?

NBA leaders (regular season) from 1985-86 to present:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=VU035

Rebounds : Malone 14,968 , Shaq 12.921, Hakeem 12,774, ...
Points : Malone 36,928 , Jordan 29,979 , Shaq 28,255 ...
Assists : Malone 20th, behind a bunch of PG's and Pippen; ahead of Jordan, Billups, Kobe ...
Steals : 6th, behind 5 guards and Pip; ahead of Hakeem, Iverson, Drexler, 2 Harpers ...
Win Shares : Malone 235, Stockton 205, Jordan 200, Shaq 179

If Malone isn't #1 in the cumulative vote totals (by 1986), it must be his playoffs.

Pts : Jordan 5870, Shaq 5248, Kobe 4965, Malone 4761, Duncan 3914 ...
Reb : Shaq 2508, Duncan 2114, Malone 2062, Rodman 1676 ...
Ast : 16th, with more than Duncan, Shaq, LeBron ...
Stl : 6th, ahead of Drex, Hakeem, Kidd, Payton ...
WS : Jordan 39.1, Shaq 31.1, Duncan 28.6, Kobe 25.4, Pippen 23.6, Malone 23.0
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=BWgos

The Stockton-Malone Jazz were upset several times in playoffs, and they did an equal amount of upsetting others.

[Gongxi]

But there are stats that cover that: total team rebounds and percentage of points assisted.

[kaima]

An argument, by its very nature, is exclusive, not inclusive. That Gongxi apparently can't examine or reason his way towards this conclusion while arguing is more than a bit humorous.

It's the type of argument that is so self-destructive that it can't be won; for by winning, he disconnects his own argument -- that is, the idea of an all-inclusive, macro viewpoint. It's like a pissed off, hyper violent...pacifist.

The irony is that while arguing for his side, he doesn't appear to realize that he's being divisive. That he's taking a side at all.

Embarrassing.

Over and over, there's the disconnect. As an example, he says that he doesn't care about the "how" or "why" of a guy scoring, say, thirty a night, he just cares that he does it. And somehow, he's twisted this to mean that no one should care about these things, lest they be biased. Which is quite biased in its account, discord and illogic.

He talks about stringent science, yet speaks of his own formula and viewpoint in a dogmatic tense. Rather the reverse of the tree of knowledge, in that he would exclude information that he deems, piously, unworthy.

What kind of person doesn't care about cause, instead only focusing on effect? Would anybody say that this sounds like a scientific mind at work? Without causality as a standard, humanity would itself be an oxymoron -- forget Kubrick's Nietzschean starchild.

All is of numeracy, including, yes, analysis of a guy's post up ability. To not realize this is to be rather innumerate by way of personal bias, if not zeal.

Another, if not the, question comes to the fore in the parallel of his arguing vigorously for statistical formula(s?) over in-game analysis -- for, when considered, how is this really much different, if at all, from saying one player is generally better from year to year, however one draws such a conclusion?

How is a stats formula versus tape-watching any different than the very player bias being discussed and, now, ridiculously attacked? Replace advanced-metrics-versus-careful-scouting with David-Robinson-versus-Karl-Malone (in fact, these players might be a personification of the debate, in the differences I've seen and argued on the basis of skillsets versus efficiency) and, on a logical and macro level, what's the difference? It's Coke versus Pepsi. Malcom X versus MLK.

But Gongxi would have us believe it was G-d versus the devil.

Gongxi is arguing an all-or-nothing outlook that's itself so over the top I have trouble telling who would be kosher under his standardization, and thus who would remain after his purge. Are all mathematical formulas created equal? Because, again, frankly anything could apply. But then, who is to decide what passes muster? Gongxi, period?

And somehow he thinks this is all-inclusive. It's the ideology of a fascist dictatorship. Not trying to be over the top, but that's the extrapolated logical conclusion of "my way, or else!" that has been promulgated from his, yes, side. That's right, SIDE.

Both arguments are just that: argumentative, disagreeable, and thus anything but holistic. To be holier than thou about this is either an example of obfuscation or pitiable ignorance on the basis of rudimentary logic.

If all there is is Gongxi's formula, then perhaps these threads should be one-poster shrines wherein Gongxi ranks the players of the year. I don't know why there would be a vote.

Hell, I don't know why we would need to watch any games, ever.

But, if he admits that there are other viewpoints, just as valid as his own, the question becomes what was the point in the first place?

If we're left with Gongxi saying some are fine while others aren't, we're back to the broad preface and ironically unwinnable standardization that he's been pressing: for that is nothing more than a combative argument.

Furthermore and finally, I find it quite telling that what started this was jicama pushing for Malone based on, wait for it, his own advanced statistical formula and overall careful analysis of Malone's statistical history versus the field. Sound like somebody Gongxi, by way of conclusions formed, would get along with famously, right?

Um, no. Immediately after jicama stated his findings, Gongxi immediately told him that his kind were not needed or welcome around here.

So it appears that Gongxi is contrary to the point of very direct contradiction of his own standards on a number of levels. I wonder if there's an advanced formula he could prep to analyze that?

I'm not going to post about this any further on this thread. People like sp6r, elgee and drza have done a fine job already, and my post is pretty close to redundant because they covered most of it.

I will just say that if Doc finds my presence in this project to be counter to its methodology and point, I will leave. Without rancor. Otherwise, I look forward to more debate. Which is divisive, and imperfect, but also, I thought, a big part of the point of this project and these boards.

[jicama]

For the record, after I wrote, "Nobody loves Malone" -- including myself -- the next post was:

Yeah, I'm not here to 'love' a player, I'm here to rank the top five players every year as emotionlessly as possible, using the same criteria applied the same way. We don't need any more bandwagons.

I definitely did not interpret this as an unwelcoming comment. Gongxi seemed to be saying that he is not biased (does not advocate) for any player; so it seems we have the same approach there.

Now it may be that I cannot help but notice a lack of recognition and mention it. If I'd found this project earlier, I'd have clamored to know why people loved Kidd in '02 and paid him no attention in '03, when he was clearly better; his team went just as far.

Reversing the chronology, you may have the reverse of the MVP-voting psychology. Maybe we create our own type of 'make-up calls' for players over- or under-appreciated in a previous vote.

It's very interesting, but I have to say the threads have more archival value if they aren't so bloated with personal vilifications. Just saying. Maybe people should vent and then just delete their crap.

[lorak]

How is a stats formula versus tape-watching any different than the very player bias being discussed and, now, ridiculously attacked? Replace advanced-metrics-versus-careful-scouting with David-Robinson-versus-Karl-Malone (in fact, these players might be a personification of the debate, in the differences I've seen and argued on the basis of skillsets versus efficiency) and, on a logical and macro level, what's the difference? It's Coke versus Pepsi. Malcom X versus MLK.

If I understand correctly you are saying that there are different paradigms and they are equal, we can’t say for sure which one is better (which one better evaluates players)? If so, why we have different conclusions? I mean “efficiency” says Robinson, “skillset” says Malone and for example you think that “skillset” is closer to truth than “efficiency”. So it seems it’s not like “Coke vs Pepsi”.

[Gongxi]

An argument, by its very nature, is exclusive, not inclusive. That Gongxi apparently can't examine or reason his way towards this conclusion while arguing is more than a bit humorous.

It's the type of argument that is so self-destructive that it can't be won; for by winning, he disconnects his own argument -- that is, the idea of an all-inclusive, macro viewpoint. It's like a pissed off, hyper violent...pacifist.

The irony is that while arguing for his side, he doesn't appear to realize that he's being divisive. That he's taking a side at all.

Embarrassing.

Over and over, there's the disconnect. As an example, he says that he doesn't care about the "how" or "why" of a guy scoring, say, thirty a night, he just cares that he does it. And somehow, he's twisted this to mean that no one should care about these things, lest they be biased. Which is quite biased in its account, discord and illogic.

He talks about stringent science, yet speaks of his own formula and viewpoint in a dogmatic tense. Rather the reverse of the tree of knowledge, in that he would exclude information that he deems, piously, unworthy.

What kind of person doesn't care about cause, instead only focusing on effect? Would anybody say that this sounds like a scientific mind at work? Without causality as a standard, humanity would itself be an oxymoron -- forget Kubrick's Nietzschean starchild.

All is of numeracy, including, yes, analysis of a guy's post up ability. To not realize this is to be rather innumerate by way of personal bias, if not zeal.

Another, if not the, question comes to the fore in the parallel of his arguing vigorously for statistical formula(s?) over in-game analysis -- for, when considered, how is this really much different, if at all, from saying one player is generally better from year to year, however one draws such a conclusion?

How is a stats formula versus tape-watching any different than the very player bias being discussed and, now, ridiculously attacked? Replace advanced-metrics-versus-careful-scouting with David-Robinson-versus-Karl-Malone (in fact, these players might be a personification of the debate, in the differences I've seen and argued on the basis of skillsets versus efficiency) and, on a logical and macro level, what's the difference? It's Coke versus Pepsi. Malcom X versus MLK.

But Gongxi would have us believe it was G-d versus the devil.

Gongxi is arguing an all-or-nothing outlook that's itself so over the top I have trouble telling who would be kosher under his standardization, and thus who would remain after his purge. Are all mathematical formulas created equal? Because, again, frankly anything could apply. But then, who is to decide what passes muster? Gongxi, period?

And somehow he thinks this is all-inclusive. It's the ideology of a fascist dictatorship. Not trying to be over the top, but that's the extrapolated logical conclusion of "my way, or else!" that has been promulgated from his, yes, side. That's right, SIDE.

Both arguments are just that: argumentative, disagreeable, and thus anything but holistic. To be holier than thou about this is either an example of obfuscation or pitiable ignorance on the basis of rudimentary logic.

If all there is is Gongxi's formula, then perhaps these threads should be one-poster shrines wherein Gongxi ranks the players of the year. I don't know why there would be a vote.

Hell, I don't know why we would need to watch any games, ever.

But, if he admits that there are other viewpoints, just as valid as his own, the question becomes what was the point in the first place?

If we're left with Gongxi saying some are fine while others aren't, we're back to the broad preface and ironically unwinnable standardization that he's been pressing: for that is nothing more than a combative argument.

Furthermore and finally, I find it quite telling that what started this was jicama pushing for Malone based on, wait for it, his own advanced statistical formula and overall careful analysis of Malone's statistical history versus the field. Sound like somebody Gongxi, by way of conclusions formed, would get along with famously, right?

Um, no. Immediately after jicama stated his findings, Gongxi immediately told him that his kind were not needed or welcome around here.

So it appears that Gongxi is contrary to the point of very direct contradiction of his own standards on a number of levels. I wonder if there's an advanced formula he could prep to analyze that?

I'm not going to post about this any further on this thread. People like sp6r, elgee and drza have done a fine job already, and my post is pretty close to redundant because they covered most of it.

I will just say that if Doc finds my presence in this project to be counter to its methodology and point, I will leave. Without rancor. Otherwise, I look forward to more debate. Which is divisive, and imperfect, but also, I thought, a big part of the point of this project and these boards.

All of this to defend not starting out with a process and letting it guide results and instead argue on behalf of a player? Is it that counter-intuitive?

[Doctor MJ]

...
I can't believe we're just shrugging and saying "Well, they post a lot" as if we shouldn't be critical of serious bias. Karl Malone is behind only Shaq, Duncan, and Jordan in this project and there's a very decent chance he could surpass Shaq. When someone says "I think he's being underrated here" people should say "Oh, helllll no" not "Well, you've been making long posts about Malone, maybe he should be ahead of one of those guys as of 1991."

Apparently I'm the one who asked whether Malone was getting his just due, and I also suspect he's nobody's favorite player (or person). So if no one advocates for a certain player, his stock drops relative to those being advocated.

Since I asked the question, voters have tended to rank him higher, for 1991. Coincidence?

To just make it a bit more clear, Kaima's the one whose been making really long pro-Malone, anti-Robinson posts for a number of years, which coincided with Malone starting to get more credit than he traditionally got in MVP voting.