RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[ElGee]

I am so sick and tired of hearing people use the rational of "it's a team game", "winning is a team achievement", "rings shouldn't matter when rating an individual"

If you think any of those things, you don't get it and would be a terrible basketball player.

I would love to play you for all your money. I'll pick the teams. According to you, when "I" win, it will prove once and for all that I get it and you don't and you would be the terrible basketball player. Right?

[ElGee]

ElGee - why do you have Kareem apart from MJ and BR? KAJs resume is almost the same as Jordan's. I know this "he was second option to Magic" argument but he won numerous MVPs before Magic's arrival. Era differences doesn't matter as 90s were similarly bad as 70s, maybe only a little better. Kareem also led worse team than MJ for that period of time. He's right there.

Also, what makes you think Bird is a level below Magic and why is Wilt so low?

I've written plenty about Kareem's shortcomings for me. I just don't hold his peak play on par with those guys (some offensive rigidity, not on my short list of GOAT defenders). That pulls the value of his career down a touch for me. And then from a team-building standpoint, he was a serious sulk at times. A complicated man, to say the least. Just like I factor in Bird's body breaking down as symptomatic to who he is, I factor in Kareem's anger and personal aloofness.

[Gongxi]

I am so sick and tired of hearing people use the rational of "it's a team game", "winning is a team achievement", "rings shouldn't matter when rating an individual"

If you think any of those things, you don't get it and would be a terrible basketball player.

I would love to play you for all your money. I'll pick the teams. According to you, when "I" win, it will prove once and for all that I get it and you don't and you would be the terrible basketball player. Right?

The idea that DocHoops is espousing needs to be destroyed. Ideally with fire.

[lorak]

Yes, and that's why we have to look at as many data as possible. And if different stats tell more or less the same story then conclusion is pretty sound.

This is what scares me. You believe that without any evidence it's true.

In the world of math numbers only work if they can accurately and consistently predict or explain an outcome.

Not only. Numbers also work when they describe facts. And that's the case here. You even wouldn't know who won the game if not the numbers.

And BTW, you know what scares me, when people think like you - that their eyes see everything or they limited minds remember and can analyze everything. That's really, really scary.

[Laimbeer]

Doc Hoops is correct in that stats are overused here. There is such a thing as expert opinion, eyewitness accounts, and intangibles that can't be measured with numbers.

A question for the stat fans - if these advanced stats are so much better at determining who is better, as opposed to expert opinion and conventional wisdom, shouldn't you be able to get rich predicting the outcome of games?

[drza]

General question about the project and the site

What is with all the fake stats. Made up numbers like adjusted Plus Minus, PER, Win Shares, efg...bfd etc.

You guys seem to be putting more stock into what some nerds came up with on a calculator than what actually happens on the basketball court.

I put zero stock into any of those numbers because they are meaningless. In basketball you CAN NOT quantify about 85% (also a made up number) of what happens. You can't measure anything that leads to every measurable element of the game.

When I first got here I was very impressed with the level of intelligence and critical thinking, now while still conceding that this is a very smart group, I'm mostly just disappointed with the lack of basketball knowledge. This is a group that has disregarded the history of the game and the purity of competition in favor of measuring players by metrics that didn't exist when most of them played and still don't give us any better understanding of the visual game from a statistical plane now.

I would like someone to explain to me just what has happened here...and why so many cling to these ghostly numbers.

Once again, +/- is a separate category from PER/Win Shares, etc. You call +/- a made up number, when in reality it's no more made up than 'points' or 'rebounds'. The same way that you can sit at a game with a scorecard and keep track of points, you could do the same thing with +/-.

All +/- does is measure how the team does when a player is on the court. That's it. I've seen you argue that team results are all that matter, well that is the entirety of what this stat is trying to measure. It's just as organic as 'points scored' to the game, but instead of measuring a single arbitrary category it instead just measures how the team does when a player is on the court. And it's absolutely necessary to keep track of such things with a stat, because nobody could just watch games and keep track of these things in their heads.

For example, if I showed you a bunch of Bulls games from 93 and Sixers games from '01, there's NO WAY you could just watch the games and tell whether Iverson or Jordan was scoring more points unless you counted. You just couldn't do it...too much going on, too many shots made, just too much. So if someone later references stats to say that Jordan was scoring more points than Iverson, it's not a trick or a made up number or an indication that someone is ignoring watching games in favor of numbers. It's just that keeping track of those stats helps us quantify how many points one player scored vs another. +/- is just the same way. Just because someone adds it up over all of the games doesn't make it a substitute for watching...it's just another stat, like scoring, to keep track of...only it's more team oriented.

Similarly, raw points alone aren't always the only things you care about when judging a scorer. You also care about efficiency...so you track how many shots a player both makes and misses (analogous to on/off +/-). But just raw points and FG% aren't always enough to define a scorer either...so you also do some basic math to determine things like EFG% or Drawf (analogous to APM). And we've refined scoring prowess even further with more math-based adaptations like TS% and usage% (analogous to RAPM).

The key is, whether its points or +/-, we aren't just making numbers up out of the air. These are things that actually measure an aspect of the game, and keeping track of it is useful information. And just like points sometimes aren't enough by themselves to track for scoring, raw +/- isn't enough to gauge team impact. In both instances, some math was required to really get an accurate view of what's going on. And again, in both instances seeing what the stats say isn't an indication that you are completely ignoring what happened on the court. In fact, the exact opposite. We DO care about what's going on, and all these stats do is help to quantify what we're seeing.

Ignoring information doesn't make you some type of basketball purist. It just makes you less informed when making your decisions.

[DocHoops]

And BTW, you know what scares me, when people think like you - that their eyes see everything or they limited minds remember and can analyze everything. That's really, really scary.

Edited by Mod

[DocHoops]

All +/- does is measure how the team does when a player is on the court.

And thus it's immensely flawed because there is no way to account statistically for the intangible impact of each individual.

That's it. I've seen you argue that team results are all that matter, well that is the entirety of what this stat is trying to measure. It's just as organic as 'points scored' to the game, but instead of measuring a single arbitrary category it instead just measures how the team does when a player is on the court.

Points scored is meaningless too (In terms of measuring individual players value) so we agree here.

And it's absolutely necessary to keep track of such things with a stat, because nobody could just watch games and keep track of these things in their heads.

If no one tallied any stats but the final score, basketball would still be just as wonderful to me. And I'd still be wasting the time I could be collecting coins or gambling or building model airplanes making top 100 lists and writing about hoops.

For example, if I showed you a bunch of Bulls games from 93 and Sixers games from '01, there's NO WAY you could just watch the games and tell whether Iverson or Jordan was scoring more points unless you counted. You just couldn't do it...too much going on, too many shots made, just too much. So if someone later references stats to say that Jordan was scoring more points than Iverson, it's not a trick or a made up number or an indication that someone is ignoring watching games in favor of numbers.

But if they use the stats to conclude Jordan is a better scorer or vice versa, then it is a trick. Or in the least a wholly subjective argument. The stats they could use do account for the changes in competition, teammates, pace of the game, coaching philosophy, rule interpretations and on and on and on until the proverbial Cows come home.

Stats are awesome fun. When I was kid I use to tally my own Quarterback rating based on my recess performance. In High School I would go to the scorers table and tell the local TV guys I was going to 10 rebounds in this half or something like that. On the tenth, I'd always look over at them in laugh. To this day I can recite the backs of baseball and basketball cards with uncanny (and uninteresting) accuracy. But they don't tell the story of basketball they way they do baseball. It's much more useful and for that matter respectful to value instead the marketplace of ideas, the exchange of opinions and in-particular the education of ones-self through the wealth on historical recollection and account available at literally your fingertips.

Similarly, raw points alone aren't always the only things you care about when judging a scorer. You also care about efficiency...so you track how many shots a player both makes and misses (analogous to on/off +/-). But just raw points and FG% aren't always enough to define a scorer either...so you also do some basic math to determine things like EFG% or Drawf (analogous to APM). And we've refined scoring prowess even further with more math-based adaptations like TS% and usage% (analogous to RAPM).

And after all that you've got about 25% of what goes into each shot attempt accounted for. See my point. Even if you don;t want to or are not compelled to agree, you must see it.

Ignoring information doesn't make you some type of basketball purist. It just makes you less informed when making your decisions.

It's not ignorance. Not intentionally anyway. I have come to the conclusion that it only further clouds the overall picture of the game. I'll take it in with my eyes and ears and never stop pursuing the understanding of as many perspectives as I can. Then I can make decisions I feel good about, even if they're bound to change down the road.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[kabstah]

And thus it's immensely flawed because there is no way to account statistically for the intangible impact of each individual.

I'm afraid this is going to come off as condescending while I don't intend it to, but for the sake of clarity I'm going to be as blunt as possible.

Winning a game of basketball is a statistical condition. A purely statistical condition that involves no intangibles or immeasurables. I don't need to watch a single second of the game, I don't even need to know what a basketball looks like, to know who won a game if I have the box score.

What does that imply, that the only thing that matters (winning -- your own words here) can be summed up by a pair of numbers? The primary thing is that every action, or at least every action that has any impact at all on the final score, needs to have a statistical foot print. If there were something truly intangible, truly invisible to our statistical measures, then it's also invisible to the scoreboard and thus doesn't affect the outcome of the game.

[DocHoops]

^Dumbest thing I ever heard.

And I literally mean that. I've never heard/seen/read anything that is some immensely wrong.

[kabstah]

You flatter me.

Quick, name me one intangible quality from your favorite player and describe how it affects the game without being reflected in his personal stats, or his teammates' stats, or his opponents' stats.

[drza]

All +/- does is measure how the team does when a player is on the court.

And thus it's immensely flawed because there is no way to account statistically for the intangible impact of each individual.

That's it. I've seen you argue that team results are all that matter, well that is the entirety of what this stat is trying to measure. It's just as organic as 'points scored' to the game, but instead of measuring a single arbitrary category it instead just measures how the team does when a player is on the court.

Points scored is meaningless too (In terms of measuring individual players value) so we agree here.

And it's absolutely necessary to keep track of such things with a stat, because nobody could just watch games and keep track of these things in their heads.

If no one tallied any stats but the final score, basketball would still be just as wonderful to me. And I'd still be wasting the time I could be collecting coins or gambling or building model airplanes making top 100 lists and writing about hoops.

For example, if I showed you a bunch of Bulls games from 93 and Sixers games from '01, there's NO WAY you could just watch the games and tell whether Iverson or Jordan was scoring more points unless you counted. You just couldn't do it...too much going on, too many shots made, just too much. So if someone later references stats to say that Jordan was scoring more points than Iverson, it's not a trick or a made up number or an indication that someone is ignoring watching games in favor of numbers.

But if they use the stats to conclude Jordan is a better scorer or vice versa, then it is a trick. Or in the least a wholly subjective argument. The stats they could use do account for the changes in competition, teammates, pace of the game, coaching philosophy, rule interpretations and on and on and on until the proverbial Cows come home.

Stats are awesome fun. When I was kid I use to tally my own Quarterback rating based on my recess performance. In High School I would go to the scorers table and tell the local TV guys I was going to 10 rebounds in this half or something like that. On the tenth, I'd always look over at them in laugh. To this day I can recite the backs of baseball and basketball cards with uncanny (and uninteresting) accuracy. But they don't tell the story of basketball they way they do baseball. It's much more useful and for that matter respectful to value instead the marketplace of ideas, the exchange of opinions and in-particular the education of ones-self through the wealth on historical recollection and account available at literally your fingertips.

Similarly, raw points alone aren't always the only things you care about when judging a scorer. You also care about efficiency...so you track how many shots a player both makes and misses (analogous to on/off +/-). But just raw points and FG% aren't always enough to define a scorer either...so you also do some basic math to determine things like EFG% or Drawf (analogous to APM). And we've refined scoring prowess even further with more math-based adaptations like TS% and usage% (analogous to RAPM).

And after all that you've got about 25% of what goes into each shot attempt accounted for. See my point. Even if you don;t want to or are not compelled to agree, you must see it.

Ignoring information doesn't make you some type of basketball purist. It just makes you less informed when making your decisions.

It's not ignorance. Not intentionally anyway. I have come to the conclusion that it only further clouds the overall picture of the game. I'll take it in with my eyes and ears and never stop pursuing the understanding of as many perspectives as I can. Then I can make decisions I feel good about, even if they're bound to change down the road.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

And thank you right back on your thoughtful response as well. Here's the thing...I see that you have your method of evaluation, and that you like to do it that way. And that's fine. But the issue is...you aren't correct.

Or, more precisely, you aren't the ONLY one that can be correct.

You have strong feelings about what stats can and can't tell you. I read your response, and the irony (IMO, anyway) is that the very stats that you rail against, to me, do a lot more to appreciate the nuances and levels of the game than the more cookie-cutter "won a title as best player and/or count accolades" crowd that more typically espouses a don't-believe-the-stats point of view. But be that as it may, that's not really the crux of it, to me. We're free to disagree about analysis or conclusions or whatever, because this isn't an exact science and there is room for many different opinions.

And THAT is what most annoys me about the somewhat holier-than-thou approach you've taken here. You cast an extremely wide net of assumptions and aspersions about "nerds" with calculators and their "made up", "ghostly numbers" who don't care about what "actually happens on the basketball court". And that, for want of a better way to put it, is BS.

You know basketball. Well guess what, so do I. And just because our methods of evaluating might be different, you don't get to sit on a high horse and suggest that if I don't do it like you then your way is inherently better or more "real basketball" than mine. I'll debate any person alive about the subjects we discuss here, and rest very easily that I can hold my own and my understanding is just fine. For you to just sit back and throw stones like it's your way or nothing is, frankly, annoying.

And I'm sorry if that comes off as harsh. I hope you aren't offended. But it is what it is, and you need to accept that you aren't the only one here that knows and loves this game. And that there's room for both of us, as well as any number of others, to appreciate and evaluate in our own way without it being something that you get to scoff at. Disagree with? Sure. Debate till the cows come home about whether your analysis/conclusion is right or mine is, definitely. But act like my way has absolutely no merit simply because you happen to not like statistics? Garbage.

[DocHoops]

I see that you have your method of evaluation, and that you like to do it that way. And that's fine. But the issue is...you aren't correct.

Or, more precisely, you aren't the ONLY one that can be correct.

We agree.

You have strong feelings about what stats can and can't tell you. I read your response, and the irony (IMO, anyway) is that the very stats that you rail against, to me, do a lot more to appreciate the nuances and levels of the game than the more cookie-cutter "won a title as best player and/or count accolades" crowd that more typically espouses a don't-believe-the-stats point of view.

I view them as equal valid, I think, but still mostly I agree.

But be that as it may, that's not really the crux of it, to me. We're free to disagree about analysis or conclusions or whatever, because this isn't an exact science and there is room for many different opinions.

100% agree. When I say I put zero stock in statistics, it is hyperbole, but I mean to convey not that it is of no value, but that it is not alone a valid means of determining anything. I am relating to the consistent dependency on advanced statistics solely behind the arguments for and against players so far in this process.

And THAT is what most annoys me about the somewhat holier-than-thou approach you've taken here. You cast an extremely wide net of assumptions and aspersions about "nerds" with calculators and their "made up", "ghostly numbers" who don't care about what "actually happens on the basketball court". And that, for want of a better way to put it, is BS.You know basketball. Well guess what, so do I. And just because our methods of evaluating might be different, you don't get to sit on a high horse and suggest that if I don't do it like you then your way is inherently better or more "real basketball" than mine. I'll debate any person alive about the subjects we discuss here, and rest very easily that I can hold my own and my understanding is just fine.

I always come across that way in type. It is what it is. I am using my words, for want of gestures and annunciation and any other conversational accessories, to make my point. It paints a picture, it's not meant to belittle or demean, but to contextualize. There are other ways of thinking.

I think we are pretty much on the same page with this, but coming at it from different points of preference.

For you to just sit back and throw stones like it's your way or nothing is, frankly, annoying.

I don't think I am doing that. Not trying to convey that, never said it that way.

The advanced stats are made up numbers. That doesn't mean they don't have value, but they are not something intrinsic to the game like two points or three points for a field goal and what justifies an assist or rebound.

You can't account with stats for coaching strategy, defensive match-ups, style of officiating and a myriad of other things. Based on that knowledge I find it logical to put for stock in expert opinions and peer reputation and when fortunate enough, eye-witness account. Even if you don't agree (more than fair) you must see the need for consideration for this element.

And I'm sorry if that comes off as harsh. I hope you aren't offended. But it is what it is, and you need to accept that you aren't the only one here that knows and loves this game. And that there's room for both of us, as well as any number of others, to appreciate and evaluate in our own way without it being something that you get to scoff at. Disagree with? Sure. Debate till the cows come home about whether your analysis/conclusion is right or mine is, definitely. [?quote]

No reason to be sorry, more than fair. Again I think you're presuming I want everyone to think like me. I want everyone to consider other perspectives. Amongst basketball fans, people like you (meaning those who dominate the conversation here) tend to come off as elitist because you are smarter and/or more thoughtful than the average fan. It takes a level of education and/or intelligence to understand advanced statistics and use them properly in your argument. What I think has happened here is that stereo-type has driven out, largely the other approaches to evaluating players in a historical context.

But act like my way has absolutely no merit simply because you happen to not like statistics? Garbage.

Sorry for coming across that way, not my intent.

[Gongxi]

kabstah must have that "clutch gene" I've heard so much about it, because he came through in those last few posts.

[lorak]

You flatter me.

Quick, name me one intangible quality from your favorite player and describe how it affects the game without being reflected in his personal stats, or his teammates' stats, or his opponents' stats.

It's sad people like DocHoops ignore questions like that.

[mysticbb]

I'm afraid this is going to come off as condescending while I don't intend it to, but for the sake of clarity I'm going to be as blunt as possible.

Winning a game of basketball is a statistical condition. A purely statistical condition that involves no intangibles or immeasurables. I don't need to watch a single second of the game, I don't even need to know what a basketball looks like, to know who won a game if I have the box score.

What does that imply, that the only thing that matters (winning -- your own words here) can be summed up by a pair of numbers? The primary thing is that every action, or at least every action that has any impact at all on the final score, needs to have a statistical foot print. If there were something truly intangible, truly invisible to our statistical measures, then it's also invisible to the scoreboard and thus doesn't affect the outcome of the game.

Great post! If it isn't seen in the result, it is highly likely it doesn't exists. Hopefully repeating this over and over again will at one point open the eyes for some people.

[Laimbeer]

You flatter me.

Quick, name me one intangible quality from your favorite player and describe how it affects the game without being reflected in his personal stats, or his teammates' stats, or his opponents' stats.

It's sad people like DocHoops ignore questions like that.

The question is a misnomer because the stat guys claim to be able to quantify an individual player's impact. So the question should be...

Quick, name me one intangible quality from your favorite player and describe how it affects the game without being reflected in his personal stats.

[pancakes3]

leadership? let's not forget the best ship of all. friendship.

[Laimbeer]

leadership? let's not forget the best ship of all. friendship.

Ding ding ding.

[DocHoops]

^I can't believe there are people who think that is a valid point.

Here is a quick list of 50 or so things you can see in every basketball game that effect the outcome and that stats can't measure accurately or assign proper credit.

passes not leading to assists directly but continuing the offense
player spacing
offensive strategy/preparation
defensive strategy/preparation
leadership
outlet passes that don't lead to assists
deflections
individual help defense
team defensive rotations
box outs
referee's awareness
missed assignments
motivation/inspiration
crowd noise
containing a players dribble/staying in front
shots changed or intimidated
trash talk
screen setting (away from the ball)
pick setting (on the ball)
mental errors
clutch
heart
passion
chemistry
quality of missed shots
luck (the breaks)
pressure (applied to a ball handler)
Screens fought through
properly/poorly executed switches
passes denied
saves
momentum
communication
pride
fatigue
confidence
showing on pick and rolls
mismatches created
beating your man down the floor
playing through pain/injuries
trust/commitment
traps set
match-up changes due to foul trouble or substitution patterns
reputation calls
moving without the ball
tips/back-taps
mishandled passes
decision making
off the court distractions


Now those of you who love to argue more than you love basketball will try and argue that some of these lead to something that a stat can measure. However in no way do stats properly reflect the weight of each individuals contributions. If someone can really read this...

"Quick, name me one intangible quality from your favorite player and describe how it affects the game without being reflected in his personal stats, or his teammates' stats, or his opponents' stats."

...and think it's not 100% wrong, well we don't need to exchange ideas on here, we are watching two different games.