how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years?

[parsnips33]

I've become a lot less interested in stats and a lot more interested in actually deeply watching the game and seeing breakdowns of what actually happens on the court.

Not to say stats are bad or unimportant, but they just don't grab my attention much anymore. Whereas now I'm fascinated in seeing how a guy uses footwork or off-ball positioning to get an advantage.

[NO-KG-AI]

I've come around more on the well rounded guys that don't maximize efficiency during the regular season always but are more versatile in the playoffs as I've watched more and more guys who are sort of specialists and busting regular season records struggle in recent years.

[Doctor MJ]

basically what have you changed with time, maybe even from a year ago to now, in what you believe/think about basketball topics?

everythingh from player evaluation, to basketball general "theory" among any other related topic

who are you higher or lower on, how differently do you evaluate players, what do you think about the directión of the sport compared to years ago, etc

I've been thinking about how to answer this for a couple days. It's tough because I've got a long history.

Biggest moment for me came with Nash in Phoenix in '04-05 where I started out as a vehement skeptic and ended up not just changing my mind but realizing I needed to change how I perceived players' capacity to add value. I remember one moment along the way where I was in a thread here and we were talking about how many APG we could expect other point guards to get if they were in Nash's place without an awareness of the assumptions we were making.

We were thinking as if another point guard would have the same opportunities to make assists with a pass, but in reality, much of what Nash was achieving was being done in his actions before the pass that then created the assist opportunity.

To borrow terminology from physics, I used to think about the game more in terms of particles, and now I think about it more in terms of fields. An offense creates opportunities by distorting the field, the defense is trying to keep it level.

If we're looking for something much more recent, I think what we're really seeing with Golden State right now is the power of communication, both for general mentorship, and helping players in the moment. It's not like people didn't realize this was a good thing, but the Warriors' results this year clearly stunned the basketball world. I think we're seeing that the more complex basketball strategy gets, the more valuable communication becomes, and this is an argument for keeping your core leaders (who are not necessarily stars) together rather than selling out everything to just get stars.

[McBubbles]

I've come around more on the well rounded guys that don't maximize efficiency during the regular season always but are more versatile in the playoffs as I've watched more and more guys who are sort of specialists and busting regular season records struggle in recent years.

I've always found it odd that people didn't always think this way lol. That's why Karl Malone isn't uber high on my list. Homecourt advantage is great and all but having a Superstar that doesn't regress by a tier or two in the post season, or even improves in the post season more than makes up for it imo.

[McBubbles]

Reputation = Consensus Opinion. I think its objective to take the consensus opinion into account rather than simply my own. Oops.

The consensus opinion has absolutely zero inherent value or objectivity attached to it, and there's no reason why it should be a part of your analysis. Why do you think it matters? It's consensus opinion that Magic started at center in the 1980 Finals. That's just straight up incorrect.
Hell, it's consensus opinion that Lebron is in the GOAT conversation... now what ? Why does that consensus opinion not form part of your objective analysis? Dig yourself out of that logical inconsistency.

If someone leads their team to a championship then they have proven they can get it done and should get credit for that. Someone who hasn't done that has not proven they can do it and shouldn't get credit for that no matter what you think they could or would do. Simple, basic logic.

Do you think 2015 Steph Curry is better than 1988-1990 Michael Jordan? Do you think 04 Chauncy Billups is better than 1991 Magic? Kevin Garnett missed the playoffs back to back years in 06 and 07 but won in 08. Do you think Garnett was literally, several times better than he was in 08 than he was the years prior? Because according to your logic, the answer should be yes, but that's obviously not the case. If a better player can sometimes NOT win a championship, then maybe championships aren't a good metric to determine who the better player is? Maybe there is additional context you need?

Yes, but if a player earns and then receives an accolade he should get credit for it. Its not appropriate for you to come along years after the fact and take that credit away or minimize it because you disagree'd with it. That would be...subjective. the objective thing to do is give people credit for what they earn and accomplish. Of course there is room for context but not to the degree we take away credit from people based on our own subjective opinion about if they deserved it or not.

M8, what are you talking about? You keep on saying "our own" subjective opinion. What do you think the opinions of voters are? Divinely inspired? Our opinions are worth no less than the opinions of those that vote for the awards, and as such, should not be viewed as any less objective. In fact, the opposite is true. Most of the people that vote for the awards are **** casuals or idiots, most people in this forum are not, so if anything "Our own" voting should be viewed as more objective. Why do you take the opinions of people that voted IT on an all defensive team to be objective? It seems like your definition of the word "objective" is literally just "permanently on record". Coming along years after the fact and disagreeing with something is subjective, but NOT disagreeing with it is objective? I don't understand your thought process at all.

Box scores are not the end all be all but they're actually real. They correlate directly to what happens in the game. Made up analytical formulas are not and do not. They are abstract and theoretical. Definitely not something you want to value more than actual accomplishments, accolades, and results.

They're literally not abstract nor theoretical. Not much more to say about that lol, this statement is just categorically incorrect. Even if that were true, abstract and theoretical aren't synonymous with incorrect. I mean, what? Every theory is still theoretical even after they're proven correct, so that doesn't even make sense as a point of disagreement.

Intangibles refer to things like leadership, performance under pressure, Bball IQ, unique skills and attributes. Surely you wouldn't ignore these things when doing a full evaluation of a player would you?

I don't ignore them, they can be reflected in impact and just seen on the court. Problem is most peoples intangibles are just reputation based, hence the issue.

The entire reason you guys think championships don't matter is because of ESPN/Fox Sports. The entire reason Lebron is on the GOAT discussion is because of ESPN/Fox Sports narratives. And on and on.

Why is it that you keep on telling us that we believe things because of ESPN and Fox Sports when we literally keep on telling you that we don't?
You - "You only like rap because you listen to Eminem".
Us - "I don't listen to Eminem though".
You - "Yeah you do".

Also, again, i'd like to point out that ESPN and Fox Sports agree more with you than with us. The only point of disagreement you have is their placement of Lebron, but I bet you think that Kobe is top 10, that Garnett isn't top 10, that Zeke is better than CP3 and Nash, that MJ is better than Lebron and Russell, etc. You AGREE with the same people WE don't like much more than WE do, and yet you accuse us of valuing their opinions .____.

[Morb]

Actually a little, it's just cherrypicked stats and highlights.
Already knew for My Ideal Eye Test that Jordan is Overrated and Lebron 2009 and T-Mac 2003 is GOAT Seasons.

Sent from my Nokia 5.1 Plus using RealGM mobile app

[McBubbles]

Actually a little, it's just cherrypicked stats and highlights.
Already knew for My Ideal Eye Test that Jordan is Overrated and Lebron 2009 and T-Mac 2003 is GOAT Seasons.

Sent from my Nokia 5.1 Plus using RealGM mobile app

Dafuq. I'd love to know how you came to those two conclusions, 09 Lebron being GOAT season is defendable but 03 Tmac over 88-91 MJ? What makes you think that?

[Djoker]

I have come to place pretty large confidence intervals when evaluating defense of players prior to play-tracking (pre-2014) and especially so prior to plus-minus (pre-1997). I have also become somewhat agnostic when comparing different eras that have totally different play styles, rules, tactics, off-court factors etc. There are so many differences that it's near impossible to compare two guys who played 20 years let alone 50 years apart.

[70sFan]

I used to think that basketball changed a lot from 1960s to late 1990s/early 2000s. Right now, I think that basketball changed more in the last 15 years than between 1960s and 2000s.

[Doctor MJ]

I used to think that basketball changed a lot from 1960s to late 1990s/early 2000s. Right now, I think that basketball changed more in the last 15 years than between 1960s and 2000s.

Great point. Basketball has gone through a few phase transitions in its history and I think we all assume that the period from the '40s to the '60s was the last major one we'd ever see. But nope, the 21st century has brought another.

[70sFan]

I used to think that basketball changed a lot from 1960s to late 1990s/early 2000s. Right now, I think that basketball changed more in the last 15 years than between 1960s and 2000s.

Great point. Basketball has gone through a few phase transitions in its history and I think we all assume that the period from the '40s to the '60s was the last major one we'd ever see. But nope, the 21st century has brought another.

It's true, the gap between 1940s and 1960s still is unbeatable but this change was quite unexpected.

[Morb]

Actually a little, it's just cherrypicked stats and highlights.
Already knew for My Ideal Eye Test that Jordan is Overrated and Lebron 2009 and T-Mac 2003 is GOAT Seasons.

Sent from my Nokia 5.1 Plus using RealGM mobile app

Dafuq. I'd love to know how you came to those two conclusions, 09 Lebron being GOAT season is defendable but 03 Tmac over 88-91 MJ? What makes you think that?

Opponents DRtg, too much space (no zone rule), lack jordans 3pts, weak opposition on SG.

Sent from my Nokia 5.1 Plus using RealGM mobile app

[Mazter]

I started to question efficiency based on (r)TS% recently. I started to think that efficiency should be looked at depending on the role and shot selection some one has. I mean, when the league average is 67.5% from the RA and 41.5% from midrange, who is more efficient, someone shooting 60% solely in the RA or someone shooting 50% solely from midrange?

[70sFan]

I started to question efficiency based on (r)TS% recently. I started to think that efficiency should be looked at depending on the role and shot selection some one has. I mean, when the league average is 67.5% from the RA and 41.5% from midrange, who is more efficient, someone shooting 60% solely in the RA or someone shooting 50% solely from midrange?

That's quite interesting approach, using relative efficiency to roles and shot selection. I'm not sure it's possible to create one, simple metric to capture that, but I may think about it while tracking old games.

Do you have any suggestions?

[falcolombardi]

I started to question efficiency based on (r)TS% recently. I started to think that efficiency should be looked at depending on the role and shot selection some one has. I mean, when the league average is 67.5% from the RA and 41.5% from midrange, who is more efficient, someone shooting 60% solely in the RA or someone shooting 50% solely from midrange?

my issue with this approach is why is that player taking those shots?

is he taking only shots at the rim because he can get them consistently or because he is only taking open shots?

ability to generate efficient shots in volume at the most efficient áreas on the court is invaluable

[Mazter]

I started to question efficiency based on (r)TS% recently. I started to think that efficiency should be looked at depending on the role and shot selection some one has. I mean, when the league average is 67.5% from the RA and 41.5% from midrange, who is more efficient, someone shooting 60% solely in the RA or someone shooting 50% solely from midrange?

That's quite interesting approach, using relative efficiency to roles and shot selection. I'm not sure it's possible to create one, simple metric to capture that, but I may think about it while tracking old games.

Do you have any suggestions?

I did it just for the 20-21 season weeks ago, I nicknamed it aTS%, can't really remember why, probably actual which doesn't make sense .
I took the FGA by distance in combination with FTr for each player, combined that with the league percentages. This created a different rTS% for each player, based on their shot selection and FTr.

Most notable increase from rTS% to aTS% were for Paul (+2.7 -> +8.8), Vucevic (-1.3 -> +4.0) and Melo (-2.5 -> +2.3).
The notable decreases went to Gobert (+11.0 -> +0.4), Giannis (+6.1 -> +0.9) and Zion (+7.6 -> -0.7).

Since the numbers are in different pages on bref it took a lot of work to get all the data in one excel sheet, and the discussion for which I did it was already over.

[Mazter]

ability to generate efficient shots in volume at the most efficient áreas on the court is invaluable

This could be true, if it is really adding up to team offense. Take Lakers Shaq for instance, led the league in RA points by a wide margin during 8 seasons. One would think that those Shaq led teams would lead in the RA every season. The Lakers however led the league in RA points just once in those 8 seasons.

I do get your point, and I believe the team dynamics in an offense are difficult to capture. But a team needs his shooters as much as his slashers or post players.

[70sFan]

I started to question efficiency based on (r)TS% recently. I started to think that efficiency should be looked at depending on the role and shot selection some one has. I mean, when the league average is 67.5% from the RA and 41.5% from midrange, who is more efficient, someone shooting 60% solely in the RA or someone shooting 50% solely from midrange?

That's quite interesting approach, using relative efficiency to roles and shot selection. I'm not sure it's possible to create one, simple metric to capture that, but I may think about it while tracking old games.

Do you have any suggestions?

I did it just for the 20-21 season weeks ago, I nicknamed it aTS%, can't really remember why, probably actual which doesn't make sense .
I took the FGA by distance in combination with FTr for each player, combined that with the league percentages. This created a different rTS% for each player, based on their shot selection and FTr.

Most notable increase from rTS% to aTS% were for Paul (+2.7 -> +8.8), Vucevic (-1.3 -> +4.0) and Melo (-2.5 -> +2.3).
The notable decreases went to Gobert (+11.0 -> +0.4), Giannis (+6.1 -> +0.9) and Zion (+7.6 -> -0.7).

Since the numbers are in different pages on bref it took a lot of work to get all the data in one excel sheet, and the discussion for which I did it was already over.

Thanks, it looks interesting. I don't think it could simply replace traditional rTS%, cause it simply captures different things. I mean, this stat shows how efficient you are within your specific role, but it doesn't show how efficient your role is.

The best examples are Giannis and Melo - Melo looks quite good by this stat, but I don't think being +2.3 in Melo role is less impactful than +0.9 at Giannis.

That said, it does look interesting. These two stats, along with volume numbers and minutes played could capture the scoring profile better than without it.

[Mazter]

Thanks, it looks interesting. I don't think it could simply replace traditional rTS%, cause it simply captures different things. I mean, this stat shows how efficient you are within your specific role, but it doesn't show how efficient your role is.

The best examples are Giannis and Melo - Melo looks quite good by this stat, but I don't think being +2.3 in Melo role is less impactful than +0.9 at Giannis.

That said, it does look interesting. These two stats, along with volume numbers and minutes played could capture the scoring profile better than without it.

Of course, one is the primary volume scorer and the other merely a 5th option. Here is the list for the top 30 scorers that season:

Code: Select all

Player                rTS%  aTS%   PPG
Stephen Curry         8,3   8,0   32,0
Bradley Beal          2,1   4,1   31,3
Damian Lillard        5,1   2,7   28,8
Joel Embiid           6,4   5,3   28,5
Giannis Antetokounmpo 6,1   0,9   28,1
Luka Dončić           1,5   1,7   27,7
Zach LaVine           6,2   4,5   27,4
Zion Williamson       7,6  -0,7   27,0
Kyrie Irving          4,2   6,7   26,9
Kevin Durant          9,4  10,7   26,9
Nikola Jokić          7,5   9,3   26,4
Jayson Tatum          0,5   1,9   26,4
Donovan Mitchell     -0,2   1,1   26,4
Devin Booker          1,5   3,6   25,6
Trae Young            1,7   1,1   25,3
De'Aaron Fox         -0,7  -0,6   25,2
LeBron James          3,0   1,4   25,0
Kawhi Leonard         5,1   6,9   24,8
Karl-Anthony Towns    4,0   2,4   24,8
Jaylen Brown          1,4   3,3   24,7
James Harden          4,6   2,0   24,6
Collin Sexton         0,1   0,1   24,3
Julius Randle        -0,5   1,7   24,1
Brandon Ingram        1,2   3,7   23,8
S.Gilgeous-Alexander  5,1   2,5   23,7
Nikola Vučević       -1,3   4,0   23,4
Paul George           2,6   3,8   23,3
CJ McCollum           0,5   4,3   23,1
Jerami Grant         -1,6  -1,5   22,3
Russell Westbrook    -6,3  -4,0   22,2



[ty 4191]

I started to question efficiency based on (r)TS% recently. I started to think that efficiency should be looked at depending on the role and shot selection some one has. I mean, when the league average is 67.5% from the RA and 41.5% from midrange, who is more efficient, someone shooting 60% solely in the RA or someone shooting 50% solely from midrange?

That's quite interesting approach, using relative efficiency to roles and shot selection. I'm not sure it's possible to create one, simple metric to capture that, but I may think about it while tracking old games.

Do you have any suggestions?

Someone else, here, might:

https://aminoapps.com/c/nba/page/blog/createastatistic-position-relative-true-shooting-percentage-prts/MQZ6_vJJfku20k3zQppqRYbQ57jeMGYK630