#25 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[trex_8063]

Two things:

1. Sorry, should have specified playoffs.
2. Checking the numbers, that is probably less charitable than deserved on my part. They did have a strong offensive run from 1995-97 in the playoffs. Considering sample size, the third place finishes in 1996-97 are pretty admirable; there is of course a conference divide, but in 1997 specifically it is conceivable that they might have finished at the top if not for the Bulls series (or maybe second to the Bulls if we did a total opponent adjustment). Still would not say it is anything truly incredible, but it was better than I gave it credit (even though I could probably hide behind the “rarely” qualification, haha).

Also, in terms of the regular season, they finished fourth, second, second, and first (again, that one did not carry over to the playoffs), so I think your portrayal is a little excessive. That said, generally your point is fair: that was a great run, and for its regular season value finishing top two for three straight years was also better than I remembered.

fwiw, one of those "2nd"'s is actually a tie for 1st: in '97 they had the same ORtg as the (1st-placed) Bulls, at least when rounded to the nearest tenth; don't know if the '97 Bulls had some fractional edge on them or if bbref is just listing them relatively randomly (or possibly even alphabetically?).

Anyway, I thought you may have been talking playoffs. That certain tarnishes the offensive rep some, though as you acknowledged: still more than decent.

EDIT: Perhaps rather than dismiss Stockton’s box offensive rating because of team performance, it would be better to dismiss his box offensive rating because of how his teammates fared relatively. Box offensive rating makes it look like Stockton was being massively held back by Karl Malone (which might be the primary reason that narrative is pushed, come to think about it) .

Nah, that's kind of a misuse of individual ORtg. It's just a representation of collective offensive efficiency, but it's heavily dependent on role. For instance, was the entire Jazz roster holding back the kind of offense Rudy Gobert could otherwise lead (he had a 133 ORtg last year)? Of course not.

I'm not overly fond of individual ORtg, or at least I think there's definitely a finite amount [more so than most stats] of useful information it (or net rating in general) provide. I still often include them, just for completeness; but I generally find them of less use than BPM, WS/48, RAPM, or even PER.

EDIT: And no, I don't think that's the primary reason the "Stockton carried Malone" narrative gets pushed (though I don't think you were serious about that one anyway). I think it's more a combination of Malone's playoff struggles (where one has to rely more on your isolation game) and the emergence of RAPM (which frequently paints Stockton as the more impactful player).

[E-Balla]

Net rating isn't a rate metric, or really much of a metric at all. Doesn't really fit in with the rest.

Technically no, I suppose not. I sort of tacked it in there as an after-thought with the rest.
Although I guess it's loosely a "rate metric" in that the players are providing that degree of offensive/defensive efficiency for X-number of mpg.

Neither ORTG or DRTG are minute based stats or have anything to do with minutes. It's as much of a rate metric as TS%.

[E-Balla]

Paul's playoffs were 12 games, i don't know how much to weigh that and Paul's advanced stats have always overrated him. Paul had a 30.7 PER and 12.3 BPM, i get it but if you're really taking that at face value that would mean he was playing at Jordan/Lebron level in those 12 games. Maybe he was, but i really doubt it.

Aside from that, if you guys are really willing to take an inexperienced 22 year old to lead your team over peak Harden and Westbrook(or in Eballa's case just over Harden) then go ahead i guess.

If it wasn't for the injury in 09 that would be Paul's clear peak i think, and I'd likely take it over those guys. 16 Curry was voted in almost strictly on regular season play, i don't see why 09 Paul shouldn't be the choice for his peak if there's any consistency going on.

Inexperienced 22 year old? He was more successful that season than literally any other season in his career. If anything you painted a very bleak picture of his career.

[E-Balla]

It baffles me how many people don't understand at all what the +/- numbers they're using are, and if they're even +/- numbers. Some after years of being corrected around here, others more excusable. It's pretty simple, individual ORTG and DRTG is what is listed on basketball reference and they're measuring the same thing as synergy's ppp but based off the boxscore and not actually tracking the efficiency of each possessions the player had by counting points and possessions.

[E-Balla]

Two things:

1. Sorry, should have specified playoffs.
2. Checking the numbers, that is probably less charitable than deserved on my part. They did have a strong offensive run from 1995-97 in the playoffs. Considering sample size, the third place finishes in 1996-97 are pretty admirable; there is of course a conference divide, but in 1997 specifically it is conceivable that they might have finished at the top if not for the Bulls series (or maybe second to the Bulls if we did a total opponent adjustment). Still would not say it is anything truly incredible, but it was better than I gave it credit (even though I could probably hide behind the “rarely” qualification, haha).

Also, in terms of the regular season, they finished fourth, second, second, and first (again, that one did not carry over to the playoffs), so I think your portrayal is a little excessive. That said, generally your point is fair: that was a great run, and for its regular season value finishing top two for three straight years was also better than I remembered.

fwiw, one of those "2nd"'s is actually a tie for 1st: in '97 they had the same ORtg as the (1st-placed) Bulls, at least when rounded to the nearest tenth; don't know if the '97 Bulls had some fractional edge on them or if bbref is just listing them relatively randomly (or possibly even alphabetically?).

Anyway, I thought you may have been talking playoffs. That certain tarnishes the offensive rep some, though as you acknowledged: still more than decent.

EDIT: Perhaps rather than dismiss Stockton’s box offensive rating because of team performance, it would be better to dismiss his box offensive rating because of how his teammates fared relatively. Box offensive rating makes it look like Stockton was being massively held back by Karl Malone (which might be the primary reason that narrative is pushed, come to think about it) .

Nah, that's kind of a misuse of individual ORtg. It's just a representation of collective offensive efficiency, but it's heavily dependent on role. For instance, was the entire Jazz roster holding back the kind of offense Rudy Gobert could otherwise lead (he had a 133 ORtg last year)? Of course not.

I'm not overly fond of individual ORtg, or at least I think there's definitely a finite amount [more so than most stats] of useful information it (or net rating in general) provide. I still often include them, just for completeness; but I generally find them of less use than BPM, WS/48, RAPM, or even PER.

EDIT: And no, I don't think that's the primary reason the "Stockton carried Malone" narrative gets pushed (though I don't think you were serious about that one anyway). I think it's more a combination of Malone's playoff struggles (where one has to rely more on your isolation game) and the emergence of RAPM (which frequently paints Stockton as the more impactful player).

But those are all in one stats, ORTG isn't. Why is it even being compared to those stats? It's utility is clearly better than TS%, TOV%, and ORB% individually as it's all those in one, while also factoring for roles within the team (aka assist percentage).

Of course a measure of efficiency would be less useful as a measurement of overall ability than measures of overall ability are.

[trex_8063]

But those are all in one stats, ORTG isn't. Why is it even being compared to those stats? It's utility is clearly better than TS%, TOV%, and ORB% individually as it's all those in one, while also factoring for roles within the team (aka assist percentage).

Of course a measure of efficiency would be less useful as a measurement of overall ability than measures of overall ability are.

You sound irritated, but I don't quite understand why.

No, it's not an "all-in-one" stat (like PER or BPM); but nor is it measuring a single thing (like OREB%). As you noted, it's somewhere in between in this regard; sort of a "some-in-one".

I'm sorry I prefaced a stat compilation/comparison utilizing the term "rate metrics", and then included net rating. As I said, I merely did it for purpose of providing a touch of additional info that some posters do like to cite it in their own comparisons.
And while it's not, strictly speaking, a rate metric, it does include one or two rate-based inputs (you noted inputs like OREB%, for example: that's somewhat a measure of offensive rebounding rate, no?), as well as some other similar [if not the very same] non-rate inputs that go into the other rate metrics (like some manner of accounting for shooting efficiency or turnovers, for examples).
Additionally, it's something I'd expect to worsen with extreme minute-load (same as I would for actual rate metrics), due to factors like fatigue or foul-trouble.
And lastly, I was comparing three back-court players whom all had PG roles (even if one of them is clearly of the more score-first variety), all of whom were responsible for acting as the "anchor" of the offense.

So from these standpoints, it didn't seem grossly inappropriate to include it with the rest. I certainly didn't anticipate this extremely minor indiscretion was going to derail the thread.


As to why it's being compared to the others specifically in the section you just quoted last:
Someone had mentioned that Stockton's individual ORtg made him look God-like (sort of implying is it's a suitable "stand-alone" measure of his offensive acumen or "overall ability"). I merely said I don't think that's an appropriate use of it, that it's not terrific as a stand-alone stat, and hopefully implied (when I said I don't find it as handy as the others) that those metrics better lend themselves to being stand-alone measures. That's it.


Used individually, sure, it has more value than looking at TS% alone.....but I would never look at TS% alone either.

ORtg attempts to state the same thing as offensive PPP, but because it attempts to do so based on box inputs (rather than actual play-by-play), it occasionally does a rotten job of it. I'll again allude to the '19 Rudy Gobert example: I haven't looked up when his actual PPP is, but I'd not be surprised to find it's a full 20 pts shy of his ORtg listed on bbref.

And ditto DRtg: it can grossly undervalue any decent defender that doesn't get a lot of the box defensive inputs [e.g. Joe Dumars, Klay Thompson, or Allan Houston (he had a few good defensive years) as examples], while overvaluing bad defenders who do get a lot of one or more of those inputs [e.g. Carlos Boozer has a year or two with like the 2nd-best DRtg on the Bulls, iirc; Charles Barkley has solid DRtg's most of his career, etc].

It frequently misses the mark of what actual play-by-play based def PPP would tell us. In a general sense, I'm actually marginally less fond of DRtg than I am of ORtg.

[E-Balla]

But those are all in one stats, ORTG isn't. Why is it even being compared to those stats? It's utility is clearly better than TS%, TOV%, and ORB% individually as it's all those in one, while also factoring for roles within the team (aka assist percentage).

Of course a measure of efficiency would be less useful as a measurement of overall ability than measures of overall ability are.

You sound irritated, but I don't quite understand why.

No, it's not an "all-in-one" stat (like PER or BPM); but nor is it measuring a single thing (like OREB%). As you noted, it's somewhere in between in this regard; sort of a "some-in-one".

I'm sorry I prefaced a stat compilation/comparison utilizing the term "rate metrics", and then included net rating. As I said, I merely did it for purpose of providing a touch of additional info that some posters do like to cite it in their own comparisons.
And while it's not, strictly speaking, a rate metric, it does include one or two rate-based inputs (you noted inputs like OREB%, for example: that's somewhat a measure of offensive rebounding rate, no?), as well as some other similar [if not the very same] non-rate inputs that go into the other rate metrics (like some manner of accounting for shooting efficiency or turnovers, for examples).
Additionally, it's something I'd expect to worsen with extreme minute-load (same as I would for actual rate metrics), due to factors like fatigue or foul-trouble.
And lastly, I was comparing three back-court players whom all had PG roles (even if one of them is clearly of the more score-first variety), all of whom were responsible for acting as the "anchor" of the offense.

So from these standpoints, it didn't seem grossly inappropriate to include it with the rest. I certainly didn't anticipate this extremely minor indiscretion was going to derail the thread.


As to why it's being compared to the others specifically in the section you just quoted last:
Someone had mentioned that Stockton's individual ORtg made him look God-like (sort of implying is it's a suitable "stand-alone" measure of his offensive acumen or "overall ability"). I merely said I don't think that's an appropriate use of it, that it's not terrific as a stand-alone stat, and hopefully implied (when I said I don't find it as handy as the others) that those metrics better lend themselves to being stand-alone measures. That's it.


Used individually, sure, it has more value than looking at TS% alone.....but I would never look at TS% alone either.

ORtg attempts to state the same thing as offensive PPP, but because it attempts to do so based on box inputs (rather than actual play-by-play), it occasionally does a rotten job of it. I'll again allude to the '19 Rudy Gobert example: I haven't looked up when his actual PPP is, but I'd not be surprised to find it's a full 20 pts shy of his ORtg listed on bbref.

And ditto DRtg: it can grossly undervalue any decent defender that doesn't get a lot of the box defensive inputs [e.g. Joe Dumars, Klay Thompson, or Allan Houston (he had a few good defensive years) as examples], while overvaluing bad defenders who do get a lot of those of one or more of those inputs [e.g. Carlos Boozer has a year or two with like the 2nd-best DRtg on the Bulls, iirc; Charles Barkley has solid DRtg's most of his career, etc].

It frequently misses the mark of what actual play-by-play based def PPP would tell us. In a general sense, I'm actually marginally less fond of DRtg than I am of ORtg.

The gap between ORTG and PPP is ORTG takes points off assists into account (note that it doesn't approximate how many shots were assisted, which is an issue) and adds in the full added possessions for ORBs.

That said my post wasn't about your response to the confusion once it started. I only mentioned it as an aside originally, and to you specifically my issue was that you ignored all of CP3's postseason numbers being way better than Harden.

And DRTG is absolute garbage so I agree there. It assumes everyone on the team is equally responsible for missed and made shots so right there it's disqualified from being even remotely useful.

[liamliam1234]

Someone had mentioned that Stockton's individual ORtg made him look God-like (sort of implying is it's a suitable "stand-alone" measure of his offensive acumen or "overall ability"). I merely said I don't think that's an appropriate use of it, that it's not terrific as a stand-alone stat, and hopefully implied (when I said I don't find it as handy as the others) that those metrics better lend themselves to being stand-alone measures. That's it.

Quick correction, I said that precisely because I think it is a terrible measure. Although my problem with Gobert’s rating is not how it stacks up the rest of the Jazz; the issue is more that he leads (almost) the entire league, lol, without it being a measure giving predominant weight to, uh, screen-setting.

[trex_8063]

That said my post wasn't about your response to the confusion once it started. I only mentioned it as an aside originally,

Ah, tone is hard to interpret in text. Sorry I went on the defensive.

....and to you specifically my issue was that you ignored all of CP3's postseason numbers being way better than Harden.

Well, as you may know from my posts in other threads, I tend to not weight the playoffs quite as heavy as many do. Although, if you go back, I'm pretty sure I included a sentence stating that if someone weights the playoffs heavily they should be compelled to favor Paul in the comparison.

Note I'm going with him regardless because I feel box-based metrics often UNDERvalue CP3 (especially in '15), whereas imo Harden's value [and to a lesser degree perhaps Westbrook's] is slightly OVERstated by box-based metrics.

And DRTG is absolute garbage so I agree there. It assumes everyone on the team is equally responsible for missed and made shots so right there it's disqualified from being even remotely useful.

Yeah. I think it does a reasonably decent job of valuation for good rim-protecting defensive anchors (guys like Gobert, Duncan, Mutombo, etc); but otherwise......

[No-more-rings]

Paul's playoffs were 12 games, i don't know how much to weigh that and Paul's advanced stats have always overrated him. Paul had a 30.7 PER and 12.3 BPM, i get it but if you're really taking that at face value that would mean he was playing at Jordan/Lebron level in those 12 games. Maybe he was, but i really doubt it.

Aside from that, if you guys are really willing to take an inexperienced 22 year old to lead your team over peak Harden and Westbrook(or in Eballa's case just over Harden) then go ahead i guess.

If it wasn't for the injury in 09 that would be Paul's clear peak i think, and I'd likely take it over those guys. 16 Curry was voted in almost strictly on regular season play, i don't see why 09 Paul shouldn't be the choice for his peak if there's any consistency going on.

Inexperienced 22 year old? He was more successful that season than literally any other season in his career. If anything you painted a very bleak picture of his career.

Was he though? Without going through the years i’d imagine some of his Clipper teams had a better record/srs/ortg some combination or all. And again, there’s lots of proof he just wasn’t good on defense like he’d become. I thought for a long time that was his peak, but i’m not so sure he was more impactful than some other years. That’s possibly his best “put it all together” year but if you’re someone who puts a lot of weight into impact stuff there’s 0 chance that’s his peak or even top 3 season.

[freethedevil]

It baffles me how many people don't understand at all what the +/- numbers they're using are

That's rich from someone who still uses rapm for single season samples.

[Morb]

1. Bob McAdoo 1975 - Scoring Machine, shooting 6'10, rebounds, historically great series vs DRtg 91.3 (-6.4). Wow.
2. Chris Paul 2008 - Top 3 PG Peak, assists, tempo, midrange, quickness, low tovs, good series vs DRtg 106.1 (-1.4) and good series vs DRtg 101.8 (-5.7).
3. Anthony Davis 2018 - Offense + Defense, 6'11, midrange, 34% threes, 83% FT, athletic, great series vs DRtg 106.4 (-2.2) and good series vs DRtg 107.6 (-1.0).

[E-Balla]

It baffles me how many people don't understand at all what the +/- numbers they're using are

That's rich from someone who still uses rapm for single season samples.

Umm... If you read any of my cases for a player I use a pretty consistent criteria of 3 forms of evaluation.

1. Their individual games.

2. Their numbers and impact numbers.

3. Team success and their impact on team success.

So yeah RAPM is a part of that, whether it's short or long term and I've used both plenty of times to make a point. I never once in this project used RAPM as the deciding factor in anything though so this is a pretty trash criticism.

[freethedevil]

It baffles me how many people don't understand at all what the +/- numbers they're using are

That's rich from someone who still uses rapm for single season samples.

2. Their numbers and impact numbers.


So yeah RAPM is a part of that, whether it's short or long term and I've used both plenty of times to make a point. I never once in this project used RAPM as the deciding factor in anything though so this is a pretty trash criticism.

Did I say you used rapm as a deciding factor? No, I said you don't use rapm properly. RAPM over a single season sample is useless. RAPM over a single postseason sample is useless. I'mnot critiquing your use of impact #'s, I'm critiquing your choice of impact #'s for whatever sample you're using. RAPM is meaningless over a single season or single postseason sample. It shouldn't be used at all there. RAPM needs tobe regressed to be used among slammer sample sizes. BPM for example is actually stable and hence has utility over a single season.

[E-Balla]

Paul's playoffs were 12 games, i don't know how much to weigh that and Paul's advanced stats have always overrated him. Paul had a 30.7 PER and 12.3 BPM, i get it but if you're really taking that at face value that would mean he was playing at Jordan/Lebron level in those 12 games. Maybe he was, but i really doubt it.

Aside from that, if you guys are really willing to take an inexperienced 22 year old to lead your team over peak Harden and Westbrook(or in Eballa's case just over Harden) then go ahead i guess.

If it wasn't for the injury in 09 that would be Paul's clear peak i think, and I'd likely take it over those guys. 16 Curry was voted in almost strictly on regular season play, i don't see why 09 Paul shouldn't be the choice for his peak if there's any consistency going on.

Inexperienced 22 year old? He was more successful that season than literally any other season in his career. If anything you painted a very bleak picture of his career.

Was he though? Without going through the years i’d imagine some of his Clipper teams had a better record/srs/ortg some combination or all.

Maybe you should go through the years. Outside of the year Blake was 3rd in MVP voting and the team played better without him his results aren't much better than in Charlotte. Same wins, slightly higher SRS, worse postseason performances from the team.

The Hornets under Paul peaked at 56 wins, a +5.5 SRS with a +4 offense in 08 and a 2nd round loss where they played at a +9 level in the postseason.

In LA the best he did (as the best player, so I'm not giving him credit for them playing better without him in 2014) was 56 wins, a +6.8 SRS with a +6.8 offense, and a 2nd round loss while they played at a +7 level in the postseason.

I don't see any real meaningful distance in these teams.

And again, there’s lots of proof he just wasn’t good on defense like he’d become. I thought for a long time that was his peak, but i’m not so sure he was more impactful than some other years. That’s possibly his best “put it all together” year but if you’re someone who puts a lot of weight into impact stuff there’s 0 chance that’s his peak or even top 3 season.

And what about his clear drop offensively as he aged and became less of a dangerous scorer? What about him being a generally bad teammate and that bleeding into their performance on the floor?

[E-Balla]

That's rich from someone who still uses rapm for single season samples.

2. Their numbers and impact numbers.


So yeah RAPM is a part of that, whether it's short or long term and I've used both plenty of times to make a point. I never once in this project used RAPM as the deciding factor in anything though so this is a pretty trash criticism.

Did I say you used rapm as a deciding factor? No, I said you don't use rapm properly. RAPM over a single season sample is useless. RAPM over a single postseason sample is useless. I'mnot critiquing your use of impact #'s, I'm critiquing your choice of impact #'s for whatever sample you're using. RAPM is meaningless over a single season or single postseason sample. It shouldn't be used at all there. RAPM needs tobe regressed to be used among slammer sample sizes. BPM for example is actually stable and hence has utility over a single season.

Well that's foolish...

How is it useless? It measures something pretty consistent and valuable. You quite literally couldn't find me misusing RAPM once in this whole project, I know because you haven't.

And no one is using RAPM over single postseasons, who even has those numbers? What are you talking about? Just ranting at the clouds mad?

[freethedevil]

2. Their numbers and impact numbers.


So yeah RAPM is a part of that, whether it's short or long term and I've used both plenty of times to make a point. I never once in this project used RAPM as the deciding factor in anything though so this is a pretty trash criticism.

Did I say you used rapm as a deciding factor? No, I said you don't use rapm properly. RAPM over a single season sample is useless. RAPM over a single postseason sample is useless. I'mnot critiquing your use of impact #'s, I'm critiquing your choice of impact #'s for whatever sample you're using. RAPM is meaningless over a single season or single postseason sample. It shouldn't be used at all there. RAPM needs tobe regressed to be used among slammer sample sizes. BPM for example is actually stable and hence has utility over a single season.

Well that's foolish...

How is it useless? It measures something pretty consistent and valuabLE

It's useless because it takes 250 games to stabalize. It's only useful when regressed using metrics which you're too stubborn to make use of, hence you misuse rapm.

[E-Balla]

Did I say you used rapm as a deciding factor? No, I said you don't use rapm properly. RAPM over a single season sample is useless. RAPM over a single postseason sample is useless. I'mnot critiquing your use of impact #'s, I'm critiquing your choice of impact #'s for whatever sample you're using. RAPM is meaningless over a single season or single postseason sample. It shouldn't be used at all there. RAPM needs tobe regressed to be used among slammer sample sizes. BPM for example is actually stable and hence has utility over a single season.

Well that's foolish...

How is it useless? It measures something pretty consistent and valuabLE

It's useless because it takes 250 games to stabalize. It's only useful when regressed using metrics which you're too stubborn to make use of, hence you misuse rapm.

You're... Really clueless aren't you?

Again if you can't find one instance of me misusing RAPM, hop off my nuts, and keep churning out those low quality posts.

Also you clearly still don't understand what either BPM or RAPM is according to your posts so... Good job again not understanding something you're talking about before acting like an expert? Like BPM and RAPM aren't remotely similar, why are you even mentioning it?

[freethedevil]

Well that's foolish...

How is it useless? It measures something pretty consistent and valuabLE

It's useless because it takes 250 games to stabalize. It's only useful when regressed using metrics which you're too stubborn to make use of, hence you misuse rapm.

You're... Really clueless aren't you?

Again if you can't find one instance of me misusing RAPM, hop off my nuts,

You literally just disagreed with me saying rapm is useless over a single season sample. Hence you misuse rapm.

Also you clearly still don't understand what either BPM or RAPM is according to your posts so

Really? Because it's been explained to you how bpm works multiple times. No, it seems you don't understand why box-informed #"s are used instead of the prior itself. Given you don't understand box regression, I'm not sure how you can tell other people what they don't know or know about stats that use box regression.

[LA Bird]

Please vote. We are in the third day and we only have five valid votes right now ....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(I hope the quote notifications are still working for everybody.)