Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #11-#12 Spots

[One_and_Done]

I also don't really get why Paul and Nash aren't universally ahead of Kobe. Those 2 are vastly better than Kobe on offense, and Kobe doesn't move the needle on D so that isn't an argument to elevate him over them (and at any rate, CP3 is much better on D).

[f4p]

I think there’s actually vanishingly few players in history whose peak impact is actually backed up by so many years of similar levels of impact.

If you and Doc really believe these impact and on/off numbers and aren't too concerned with minutes, why are you waiting to vote for him now? Did we have to get the crowd favorites out of the way for some reason? If he was the best player in the league from 2005 to 2007 and 2011 to 2014 and is #3 in playoff RAPM, it seems like this placement is vastly underrating him and he should have been ahead of a lot of these other guys like Shai and jokic who don't have the playoff impact numbers to stack up to Manu. We can't just favor guys like that because of the box score or beating up on weak playoff opponents during their title runs.

[f4p]

I also don't really get why Paul and Nash aren't universally ahead of Kobe. Those 2 are vastly better than Kobe on offense, and Kobe doesn't move the needle on D so that isn't an argument to elevate him over them (and at any rate, CP3 is much better on D).

Cp3 needs to have about 5 fewer blown 2-0 leads to be ahead of Kobe. And Nash probably shouldn't drop in the playoffs in box score, raw on/off and RAPM.

[lessthanjake]

I think there’s actually vanishingly few players in history whose peak impact is actually backed up by so many years of similar levels of impact.

If you and Doc really believe these impact and on/off numbers and aren't too concerned with minutes, why are you waiting to vote for him now? Did we have to get the crowd favorites out of the way for some reason? If he was the best player in the league from 2005 to 2007 and 2011 to 2014 and is #3 in playoff RAPM, it seems like this placement is vastly underrating him and he should have been ahead of a lot of these other guys like Shai and jokic who don't have the playoff impact numbers to stack up to Manu. We can't just favor guys like that because of the box score or beating up on weak playoff opponents during their title runs.

I think I’ve already answered this question. I wrote the following in my voting post:

Spoiler:

The main caveat with Ginobili is the minutes. And it does matter. Without that, I’d have been voting for Ginobili multiple threads ago and would have no problem putting him above these other three guys. With the minutes issue, it becomes difficult.

Basically, the minutes thing does matter and I’ve definitely penalized him for it.

As a sidenote, I’ll note to you again that I don’t value pure “playoff impact numbers” the same way you do. Impact numbers are better than box numbers, but only in large enough samples, and the playoffs are generally not a large enough sample for the vast majority of players (and it’s never a large enough sample in a single year—which is certainly a relevant fact for purposes of a peaks project). So I put more value on playoff box numbers (as well as box-impact hybrids, which are designed to stabilize in smaller samples) than pure playoff impact numbers. Of course, when it comes to Ginobili, he looks great either way. For instance, he had a 9.2 BPM in the 2005 playoffs, and had a higher playoff EPM in 2005 than anyone who hasn’t already been voted in ever got.

[f4p]

I think there’s actually vanishingly few players in history whose peak impact is actually backed up by so many years of similar levels of impact.

If you and Doc really believe these impact and on/off numbers and aren't too concerned with minutes, why are you waiting to vote for him now? Did we have to get the crowd favorites out of the way for some reason? If he was the best player in the league from 2005 to 2007 and 2011 to 2014 and is #3 in playoff RAPM, it seems like this placement is vastly underrating him and he should have been ahead of a lot of these other guys like Shai and jokic who don't have the playoff impact numbers to stack up to Manu. We can't just favor guys like that because of the box score or beating up on weak playoff opponents during their title runs.

I think I’ve already answered this question. I wrote the following in my voting post:

Spoiler:

The main caveat with Ginobili is the minutes. And it does matter. Without that, I’d have been voting for Ginobili multiple threads ago and would have no problem putting him above these other three guys. With the minutes issue, it becomes difficult.

Basically, the minutes thing does matter and I’ve definitely penalized him for it.

But his impact numbers are so much higher. Like playoff RAPM guys like jokic aren't even at half his value. Steph, KD, guys like that are at maybe 70% of his numbers. And ginobili is playing like 90% of the minutes of these guys, especially in the 2005 playoffs. So it's still more value. Leading the league in impact for basically a decade from 2005 to 2014 according to your posts. Even when he's terrible in games in the finals, his on/off numbers are incredible, indicating he's basically invincible. I'm not voting in the project but I don't understand why y'all are holding back.

[lessthanjake]

If you and Doc really believe these impact and on/off numbers and aren't too concerned with minutes, why are you waiting to vote for him now? Did we have to get the crowd favorites out of the way for some reason? If he was the best player in the league from 2005 to 2007 and 2011 to 2014 and is #3 in playoff RAPM, it seems like this placement is vastly underrating him and he should have been ahead of a lot of these other guys like Shai and jokic who don't have the playoff impact numbers to stack up to Manu. We can't just favor guys like that because of the box score or beating up on weak playoff opponents during their title runs.

I think I’ve already answered this question. I wrote the following in my voting post:

Spoiler:

The main caveat with Ginobili is the minutes. And it does matter. Without that, I’d have been voting for Ginobili multiple threads ago and would have no problem putting him above these other three guys. With the minutes issue, it becomes difficult.

Basically, the minutes thing does matter and I’ve definitely penalized him for it.

But his impact numbers are so much higher. Like playoff RAPM guys like jokic aren't even at half his value. Steph, KD, guys like that are at maybe 70% of his numbers. And ginobili is playing like 90% of the minutes of these guys, especially in the 2005 playoffs. So it's still more value. Leading the league in impact for basically a decade from 2005 to 2014 according to your posts. Even when he's terrible in games in the finals, his on/off numbers are incredible, indicating he's basically invincible. I'm not voting in the project but I don't understand why y'all are holding back.

I think something I edited into my last post while you posted this response basically answers this:

Spoiler:

As a sidenote, I’ll note to you again that I don’t value pure “playoff impact numbers” the same way you do. Impact numbers are better than box numbers, but only in large enough samples, and the playoffs are generally not a large enough sample for the vast majority of players (and it’s never a large enough sample in a single year—which is certainly a relevant fact for purposes of a peaks project). So I put more value on playoff box numbers (as well as box-impact hybrids, which are designed to stabilize in smaller samples) than pure playoff impact numbers. Of course, when it comes to Ginobili, he looks great either way. For instance, he had a 9.2 BPM in the 2005 playoffs, and had a higher playoff EPM in 2005 than anyone who hasn’t already been voted in ever got.

Those other guys you mention do really well in the playoff data that I actually value the most.

And again, the minutes issue does matter for Ginobili, and it has resulted in me putting him lower than players who otherwise I’d put behind him based on all the other factors I’d be thinking of. I think it’s reasonable if others penalize him for the minutes even more than I do. But, for me, at this point the minutes issue is outweighed by the rest of the picture from him.

[f4p]

I think I’ve already answered this question. I wrote the following in my voting post:

Spoiler:

The main caveat with Ginobili is the minutes. And it does matter. Without that, I’d have been voting for Ginobili multiple threads ago and would have no problem putting him above these other three guys. With the minutes issue, it becomes difficult.

Basically, the minutes thing does matter and I’ve definitely penalized him for it.

But his impact numbers are so much higher. Like playoff RAPM guys like jokic aren't even at half his value. Steph, KD, guys like that are at maybe 70% of his numbers. And ginobili is playing like 90% of the minutes of these guys, especially in the 2005 playoffs. So it's still more value. Leading the league in impact for basically a decade from 2005 to 2014 according to your posts. Even when he's terrible in games in the finals, his on/off numbers are incredible, indicating he's basically invincible. I'm not voting in the project but I don't understand why y'all are holding back.

I think something I edited into my last post while you posted this response basically answers this:

Spoiler:

As a sidenote, I’ll note to you again that I don’t value pure “playoff impact numbers” the same way you do. Impact numbers are better than box numbers, but only in large enough samples, and the playoffs are generally not a large enough sample for the vast majority of players (and it’s never a large enough sample in a single year—which is certainly a relevant fact for purposes of a peaks project). So I put more value on playoff box numbers (as well as box-impact hybrids, which are designed to stabilize in smaller samples) than pure playoff impact numbers. Of course, when it comes to Ginobili, he looks great either way. For instance, he had a 9.2 BPM in the 2005 playoffs, and had a higher playoff EPM in 2005 than anyone who hasn’t already been voted in ever got.

Those other guys you mention do really well in the playoff data that I actually value the most.

And again, the minutes issue does matter for Ginobili, and it has resulted in me putting him lower than players who otherwise I’d put behind him based on all the other factors I’d be thinking of. I think it’s reasonable if others penalize him for the minutes even more than I do. But, for me, at this point the minutes issue is outweighed by the rest of the picture from him.

Mmm, but if the box score isn't really a valuable tool and doesn't tell us anything, why would smooshing it into a hybrid be good? Mixing bad data (or at least less good data) with good data doesn't make things better. Just feels like a cop out to still get to vote for the jokics of the world instead of standing by the ginobili numbers. Where he looks like maybe a top 5 peak from the last 30 or 40 years. Besides, the playoff RAPM numbers are their whole career. How much more sample can we get? Ginobili and a guy like Draymond simply stand way above these other guys. I don't know if it's a desire for conformity with the more casual community to include the box hybrids, but seems like we should just go with the impact guys, not the box score guys.

I mean guys like dirk and Giannis are barely at a third.of ginobilis value, at 2.1 and 2.2 compared to 5.9 (and Nash is even lower than that). These are trouncings.

[lessthanjake]

But his impact numbers are so much higher. Like playoff RAPM guys like jokic aren't even at half his value. Steph, KD, guys like that are at maybe 70% of his numbers. And ginobili is playing like 90% of the minutes of these guys, especially in the 2005 playoffs. So it's still more value. Leading the league in impact for basically a decade from 2005 to 2014 according to your posts. Even when he's terrible in games in the finals, his on/off numbers are incredible, indicating he's basically invincible. I'm not voting in the project but I don't understand why y'all are holding back.

I think something I edited into my last post while you posted this response basically answers this:

Spoiler:

As a sidenote, I’ll note to you again that I don’t value pure “playoff impact numbers” the same way you do. Impact numbers are better than box numbers, but only in large enough samples, and the playoffs are generally not a large enough sample for the vast majority of players (and it’s never a large enough sample in a single year—which is certainly a relevant fact for purposes of a peaks project). So I put more value on playoff box numbers (as well as box-impact hybrids, which are designed to stabilize in smaller samples) than pure playoff impact numbers. Of course, when it comes to Ginobili, he looks great either way. For instance, he had a 9.2 BPM in the 2005 playoffs, and had a higher playoff EPM in 2005 than anyone who hasn’t already been voted in ever got.

Those other guys you mention do really well in the playoff data that I actually value the most.

And again, the minutes issue does matter for Ginobili, and it has resulted in me putting him lower than players who otherwise I’d put behind him based on all the other factors I’d be thinking of. I think it’s reasonable if others penalize him for the minutes even more than I do. But, for me, at this point the minutes issue is outweighed by the rest of the picture from him.

Mmm, but if the box score isn't really a valuable tool and doesn't tell us anything, why would smooshing it into a hybrid be good? Mixing bad data (or at least less good data) with good data doesn't make things better. Just feels like a cop out to still get to vote for the jokics of the world instead of standing by the ginobili numbers. Where he looks like maybe a top 5 peak from the last 30 or 40 years. Besides, the playoff RAPM numbers are their whole career. How much more sample can we get? Ginobili and a guy like Draymond simply stand way above these other guys. I don't know if it's a desire for conformity with the more casual community to include the box hybrids, but seems like we should just go with the impact guys, not the box score guys.

I never said box data isn’t a valuable tool. I use box data a lot, so obviously I think it is useful. In larger samples, I tend to think impact data is better (though it’s still not unimpeachable enough that we shouldn’t also look at box data), but in smaller samples like the playoffs I think the advantages impact data has are outweighed by the problems with sample size. Box data (and box-impact hybrids) stabilize much better in smaller samples.

As for the notion that “the playoff RAPM numbers are their whole career,” that’s true but I’d say two things: First, the fact that the career playoff sample for a guy like Ginobili is actually a pretty decent size doesn’t actually make career playoff RAPM a good measure for him (or anyone else). The problem is that the whole point of RAPM is that it adjusts for everyone else who was on the court. And most of those players will not have a career playoff sample that is anywhere near as big as Ginobili. So, a lot of the time, the adjustments career playoff RAPM will be making will just be adjusting based on noise. It makes the whole thing a rather bad measure. Second, this is a peaks project not a career project. Career playoff impact data may help make us more sure that someone really was impactful in the playoffs in a particular year, so it’s not completely irrelevant, but ultimately the most relevant question is how impactful they were in that particular year, and I don’t think pure impact data is the best way to determine that for the playoffs because single-playoff impact data is so noisy.

Ultimately, what you’re doing here is trying to go back and downplay players who have already been voted in, based on a type of data that I just don’t put much weight on. And we have actually been over that before in prior threads about some of these players. If I really cared a lot about career playoff RAPM, then maybe I really *would’ve* voted for Ginobili before now! But I don’t particularly value that measure very much. So this thread is the point where I think the rest of the picture outweighs the minutes issue for him.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Kobe Bryant '09 > '08 > '01
2. Kevin Durant '14 > '16 > '17
3. Steve Nash '05 > '07 > '06
4. Dirk Nowitzki '11 > '06 > '03

So I'm adding Dirk as the new guy on my ballot.

Given my focus on Ginobili in the conversation I completely understand why people are perplexed with me not voting for him, but I meant what I said that I wasn't saying he should be getting the vote, but that what he did was amazing and that most of the arguments we've used to try to keep from how amazing he was just fall apart the more you look at them.

I also talked about minutes, and there I talked about the dilemma of how to count them against Ginobili, and the fact that I'm not really satisfied giving any argument as if it is the only reasonable choice.

It's really possible that Ginobili didn't actually have the endurance limitations that his minutes implied - that it was really just about Pop making decisions on hunches that weren't right. But aside from the fact it's also possible that there were real limitations, there's the matter that he didn't play more than he did.

I'm still not sure where I'm going to end up placing him, and I'm really trying to think about this vote-by-vote. Here I'm in a place where when I compare Manu to Dirk, I have a hard time viewing Manu as the guy who showed us more.

I also spent a little time thinking about Dirk vs Paul, and more time thinking about Dirk vs Dray. For the latter comparison, something I struggled to get passed with Green is the fact that I do think he's really quite fortunate to have landed where he did in Golden State, and that in most places his limited scoring ability would hurt more. And yeah, I get that in '16 Green's shooting was better than in most other years and I'm not trying to utterly reject that, but I also think that judging a guy with consistently inconsistent shooting based on his best shooting season is baking in a bit of luck.

[iggymcfrack]

1. 2011 Dirk Nowitzki
Tremendous impact season. Not only did Dirk lead the league in RS+PS RAPM, but the difference between 1st and 2nd was bigger than the difference between 2nd and 10th. Over the 2001-2013 period with individual years covered in the 97-14 RAPM, the only seasons that beat Dirk's 2011 are 2 LeBron years and 1 Duncan year. The Mavericks went 55-18 when he played and 2-7 when he didn't. Dallas had a point differential over +10 with Dirk on the floor and under -5 with him on the bench in both the regular season and playoffs. He played all-time superstars with significantly better supporting casts in each of the final 3 rounds and beat all of them to lead his team to an epic ring.

2. 2014 Chris Paul
Led the NBA in xRAPM in 2014 and did everything he could possibly be asked for in a playoff run. First, he outplays Steph Curry head-to-head in Round 1 the year before his MVP season, and then follows it up with an even more dominant performance against OKC where he outplayed both KD and Russ, and the Clippers were a ridiculous +47 with CP on the floor. Unfortunately for him, the bench let him down and got outscored by 52 in the 61 minutes he was on the bench, costing the Clippers the series and ending his season.

3. 2005 Manu Ginobili
This has been the most difficult choice for me by far in this series as I was going back and forth like crazy between a bunch of different alternatives. Ultimately, I think Manu's the most balanced of the candidates though. Had a complete season as shown by his leading the league in PI RS+PS RAPM, and yet he still elevated in the playoffs, increasing his minute load, lifting his BPM from 6.9 to 9.2 and lifting his on/off from an already ridiculous +17.2 to an even more ridiculous +19.2. The main lift in the playoffs is that he went from just being one of the best scorers in the league to having one of the most efficient postseasons of all-time. His raw TS% of .652 in one of the most difficult seasons to score in NBA history was better than Jokic has ever done in the modern day. If you adjust for era, it's more efficient than any Steph Curry playoffs too. He saved the best for last, putting up 23/5/4 in Game 7 on .757 TS% in the midst of a 81-74 rock fight. And while it's not something I weigh heavily at all, I do think it matters that he's the last player left to be the best player in the league during their peak season.

4. 2016 Draymond Green
I think there's just too much signal to argue with here. Best on/off of all-time. Best plus/minus of all-time. Better xRAPM than Kobe, KD, or AD's peak. Carried the offense without Steph and led the team to a 6-2 playoff record without his running mate. Shot 39% from three in the regular season and 37% in the playoffs. Had the best Game 7 in the history of the NBA Finals. Like I really just don't see any weaknesses in his game or any reason to doubt the numbers.

[70sFan]

11. 2007/08 Kobe Bryant (HM: 2008/09)

There was a lot said about Kobe and I won't go into details here. I will just say that I am extremely impressed how he played before Gasol trade in the RS, but also how quickly they meshed up together to create one of the best teams of this century (both in 2008 and 2009). I decided to go with 2008 not because of his MVP, but because of the best series of his career (in my personal opinion) against defensive juggernaut 2008 Spurs.

The series was actually really close and the Spurs did an excellent job slowing down Lakers offense. It's all on Kobe who went nuclear in the environment where everybody struggled to score. Truly remarkable series, one of the classics. The Spurs averaged 50.8 TS% and the non-Kobe Lakers had even worse 50.2 TS% for the series. It was a slugfest and Kobe scored over twice more points than Gasol, he even scored more than Gasol and Odom combined. Despite all the talk about the remarkable supporting cast Kobe had in those years (which is true, these Lakers teams were excellent), he didn't have much offensive help against an all-time great defense and he delivered big time.

Of course, the finals were rougher for him but that's why I have him outside top 10.

Kobe's skillset was very misunderstood during the time. We all identify him with this ridiculous shotmaker and ISO scorer, which is all true but Kobe was just remarkably skilled offensive player across the board. He's elite off-ball player who understood how to play off bigs (that's not very common trait among volume scoring guards). He's very good connective passer and underrated playmaker. His scoring repertoire allowed him to pressure defenses from basically any place of the court, with the exception of long threes that weren't a thing back then.

I don't say it's an easy choice to me. Kobe has his share of limitations. His physical profile didn't allow him to generate easy points the same way other players did and his defensive motor is a mixed bag. I don't think we have a candidate with a clearly more robust skillset and more complete season.


12. 2014/15 Chris Paul (HM: 2013/14, 2007/08)

Alright, I have many thoughts about this choice. I struggle with Paul because of his injuries and I am very hard on the availability (the most important skill). At this point though, I just don't believe we have anyone left with a more robust impact profile. By all accounts, Paul looks like an absolute all-timer and if you try to find holes in his skillset, you'll quickly realize that it's basically impossible to put him further on the list at this point. He's everything you want from your point guard - remarkable floor general, elite at controlling pace, top tier passer, very smart decision maker. He's also one of the best P&R player ever. The way he leveraged his top tier midrange game made this play basically impossible to defend.

Although some people suggest that his tendency to control everything on the court limits team's ceiling, I have never seen any indicator that would suggest so. He also fit really well with guys you'd not expect (like Griffin) and for all the talk about the lack of synergy with Harden (which tells more about Harden than him in my opinion), they still accomplished some remarkable feats.

I decided to go with a better shooting and better defensive version of Paul over the more athletic NOH version. Although sometimes overrated, I value Paul's defense a lot. His size limits the impact he can have on that end, but some of his strengths (reading the game, quick hands, pick dodging) are on an all-time level and you can't just ignore that.

I know that the season didn't end well for the Clippers in 2015. Paul also missed some games and it definitely hurts his case. The problem is that without all these issues, I'd probably put Paul inside top 10. I don't see any reason to punish him more at this point, he's too good.

13. 2005/06 Steve Nash (HM: 2004/05, 2006/07)

I previously had Dirk and Durant ahead of Nash, but when I started to think why, I just couldn't find a good answer. Steve Nash is by far the best offensive player left (or best, period?) and I just don't believe that the defensive edge the other two have over him is enough to put him below. Nash is basically a perfect offensive player with the only very minor drawback that his size provides... but that didn't stop him from being absurdly effective. Probably top 3 shooter, passer and ball-handler ever. Remarkable transition player. Maybe the best ever at penetrating defenses and finding holes in them.

Why not higher? I think his defense is very problematic. I know some may point out the good things he did (like charges) or that the Suns were still plenty successful with him on the court, but if I believe otherwise, he wouldn't compete for my top 15. Everything between his size, lateral quickness, strength, length screams a bad defender and he's very exploitable in the playoffs on that end.

14. 2010/11 Dirk Nowitzki (HM: 2009/10, 2005/06)

Between Dirk and Durant, I decided to go with an all-around dominant season. Dirk did remarkable things during that year, but it's not some kind of outlier - his consistency is what always impresses me the most. Possibly the GOAT creator from midrange, insane ability to stretch the floor and excellent turnover economy. The only reason why I have him lower is because of his questionable (though not horrible) defense, but he did fine enough in that run surrounded by excellent defenders.

I have far more faith in Dirk as the lone star over Durant and I don't see any reason to believe that Dirk would fit worse with more talent around him. The only thing you can argue is that Durant's versatility on defensive end makes him a better player, but I don't value Durant's defense too much.

The next guys for me are Durant, Davis, Harden and Luka. Don't have a crystal clear order yet, so we will see what happens next.

[70sFan]

Voting results

Votes:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

        "Djoker": ["Kobe Bryant", "Kevin Durant", "Anthony Davis", "Dirk Nowitzki"],
        "trelos6": ["Chris Paul", "Kevin Durant", "Steve Nash", "Dirk Nowitzki"],
        "IlikeSHAIguys": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Kobe Bryant", "Joel Embiid", "Chris Paul"],
        "One_and_Done": ["Kevin Durant", "Luka Doncic", "Chris Paul" , "Dirk Nowitzki"],
        "homecourtloss": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Kobe Bryant", "Chris Paul", "Kevin Durant"],
        "TrueLAfan": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Kobe Bryant", "Kevin Durant", "Manu Ginobili"],
        "lessthanjake": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Kobe Bryant", "Steve Nash", "Manu Ginobili"],
        "Cavsfansince84": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Kobe Bryant", "Anthony Davis", "Kevin Durant"],
        "eminence": ["Kobe Bryant", "Dirk Nowitzki", "Chris Paul", "Jayson Tatum"],
        "LA Bird": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Chris Paul", "Kobe Bryant", "Steve Nash"],
        "DraymondGold": ["Chris Paul", "Kobe Bryant", "Kevin Durant", "Steve Nash"],
        "-Luke-": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Kobe Bryant", "Kevin Durant", "Chris Paul"],
        "Doctor MJ": ["Kobe Bryant", "Kevin Durant", "Steve Nash", "Dirk Nowitzki"],
        "iggymcfrack": ["Dirk Nowitzki", "Chris Paul", "Manu Ginobili", "Draymond Green"],
        "70sFan": ["Kobe Bryant", "Chris Paul", "Steve Nash", "Dirk Nowitzki"]

Number of voters: 15

Best Kemeny score:

Spoiler:

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Chris Paul
4. Kevin Durant
5. Steve Nash
6. Manu Ginobili
7. Anthony Davis
8. Draymond Green
9. Jayson Tatum
10. Joel Embiid
11. Luka Doncic
Kemeny score: 433

Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #9-#10 Spots:

#11. 2010/11 Dirk Nowitzki



#12. 2008/09 Kobe Bryant

[Owly]

I also don't really get why Paul and Nash aren't universally ahead of Kobe. Those 2 are vastly better than Kobe on offense, and Kobe doesn't move the needle on D so that isn't an argument to elevate him over them (and at any rate, CP3 is much better on D).

Cp3 needs to have about 5 fewer blown 2-0 leads to be ahead of Kobe. And Nash probably shouldn't drop in the playoffs in box score, raw on/off and RAPM.

I'd tend to argue the Paul rational don't make much sense in a peaks project.

By definition the most "blown" leads a player['s team] can have in a year is one assuming you mean they lose the series. And for what it's worth I never understood why "blown" series are worse than the same end score without ever leading.

This could to a significant extent be applied to the Nash rationale too, in addition to questioning how true aspects are across his strongest years. Some may again smooth over several years to try to avoid the impact of luck. Still ...

... the same broad point applies numbers dropping, in almost all cases you could avoid that by selecting the year according your own (here playoff heavily weighted) criteria. If true ... I suppose playoff impact side stuff dropping might be something where people look at several years of data ... though RS is still going to provide larger samples. Fwiw though, looking at something like Nash's strongest spell '05-'10 BPM and PER seem to hold about still, whilst only WS/48 really falls. Given tougher competition and a higher average standard player (and WS [and BPM]'s team performance elements) I would first glance splitball-read that as a small real-terms rise. Mileage may differ, other metrics may differ, other spells may get different results though I think this is a fair read of his "strong-prime". Against this one could argue that the RS is pulled down a little by a weaker 2009 whilst the playoffs sample doesn't have that year. Still, overall my instinctive mental aggregation is that there isn't a big shift.

The post this was in response to didn't present comprehensively why Nash and Paul higher should be the default so it's not like there's some great onus to present a watertight, comprehensive case as to why not. Still, for the reasons outlined above, I'm not sure they're compelling.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd tend to argue the Paul rational don't make much sense in a peaks project.

By definition the most "blown" leads a player['s team] can have in a year is one assuming you mean they lose the series. And for what it's worth I never understood why "blown" series are worse than the same end score without ever leading.

This could to a significant extent be applied to the Nash rationale too, in addition to questioning how true aspects are across his strongest years. Some may again smooth over several years to try to avoid the impact of luck. Still ...

... the same broad point applies numbers dropping, in almost all cases you could avoid that by selecting the year according your own (here playoff heavily weighted) criteria. If true ... I suppose playoff impact side stuff dropping might be something where people look at several years of data ... though RS is still going to provide larger samples. Fwiw though, looking at something like Nash's strongest spell '05-'10 BPM and PER seem to hold about still, whilst only WS/48 really falls. Given tougher competition and a higher average standard player (and WS [and BPM]'s team performance elements) I would first glance splitball-read that as a small real-terms rise. Mileage may differ, other metrics may differ, other spells may get different results though I think this is a fair read of his "strong-prime". Against this one could argue that the RS is pulled down a little by a weaker 2009 whilst the playoffs sample doesn't have that year. Still, overall my instinctive mental aggregation is that there isn't a big shift.

The post this was in response to didn't present comprehensively why Nash and Paul higher should be the default so it's not like there's some great onus to present a watertight, comprehensive case as to why not. Still, for the reasons outlined above, I'm not sure they're compelling.

I tend to agree for the most part though there's context of how those things happen in any series. Such as if a player loses 4-0 or 4-1 then we usually assume that it was an unwinnable series no matter what the star player did(which may not always be true but I think its how it is). If a player loses 4-2 a series can be seen as competitive and possibly winnable. If a series goes 7 its obviously usually seen as very winnable but prob more so if a player's team gets out to a 3-1 or 3-2 lead. Then I think we say that the star sort of let it slip through their fingers barring injury such as in the 2018 wcf. Which might be compounded if a player played poorly in the last 2-3 games. I don't agree with holding that pattern against CP3 in a peaks project though since I think most criticism should be limited to the peak season in question.

[Owly]

I'd tend to argue the Paul rational don't make much sense in a peaks project.

By definition the most "blown" leads a player['s team] can have in a year is one assuming you mean they lose the series. And for what it's worth I never understood why "blown" series are worse than the same end score without ever leading.

This could to a significant extent be applied to the Nash rationale too, in addition to questioning how true aspects are across his strongest years. Some may again smooth over several years to try to avoid the impact of luck. Still ...

... the same broad point applies numbers dropping, in almost all cases you could avoid that by selecting the year according your own (here playoff heavily weighted) criteria. If true ... I suppose playoff impact side stuff dropping might be something where people look at several years of data ... though RS is still going to provide larger samples. Fwiw though, looking at something like Nash's strongest spell '05-'10 BPM and PER seem to hold about still, whilst only WS/48 really falls. Given tougher competition and a higher average standard player (and WS [and BPM]'s team performance elements) I would first glance splitball-read that as a small real-terms rise. Mileage may differ, other metrics may differ, other spells may get different results though I think this is a fair read of his "strong-prime". Against this one could argue that the RS is pulled down a little by a weaker 2009 whilst the playoffs sample doesn't have that year. Still, overall my instinctive mental aggregation is that there isn't a big shift.

The post this was in response to didn't present comprehensively why Nash and Paul higher should be the default so it's not like there's some great onus to present a watertight, comprehensive case as to why not. Still, for the reasons outlined above, I'm not sure they're compelling.

I tend to agree for the most part though there's context of how those things happen in any series. Such as if a player loses 4-0 or 4-1 then we usually assume that it was an unwinnable series no matter what the star player did(which may not always be true but I think its how it is). If a player loses 4-2 a series can be seen as competitive and possibly winnable. If a series goes 7 its obviously usually seen as very winnable but prob more so if a player's team gets out to a 3-1 or 3-2 lead. Then I think we say that the star sort of let it slip through their fingers barring injury such as in the 2018 wcf. Which might be compounded if a player played poorly in the last 2-3 games. I don't agree with holding that pattern against CP3 in a peaks project though since I think most criticism should be limited to the peak season in question.

That there's always context is absolutely true.

I'm not sure 4-0, 4-1 is directly relevent as I'm really just discussing order rather than a different final series score. But even I would say (I think I'm agreeing here) that 4-0 doesn't necessarily mean unwinnable (again further context required).

I don't think we're disagreeing here as far as I can tell (I may be wrong) ... you seem to be primarily explaining the "what is" regarding the perception of (a generic?) "we". I just don't see the merits of why that should be the case. I'll make clear why I think it shouldn't be.

Players played as well as they did over the series.

We could estimate "winnablility" before the series. We could do so again after with more information (though perhaps, typically, many might do so with some outcome inevitability bias) with accounts for what we are holding constant and what we aren't. I don't see the merit of evaluating a series by taking a moment in time as if a given (say 3-0 rather than 0-3 ... whilst knowing in each hypothetical case that it goes to 3-3 and then 3-4) ...

Of course, it is true at that point Team A (that's up 3-0 against Team C) is in a "more winnable" (higher win probability) series than Team B (down 0-3 against Team D) ... but even here just evaluating the teams (not even the player) on the series ... they had to get to that point ... winning those games was something they did. Treating part of a series as a given because it did happen and then saying a latter part probably shouldn't have ... doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally if it's a player evaluation I'd prefer to look at how the player played though.

[Cavsfansince84]

That there's always context is absolutely true.

I'm not sure 4-0, 4-1 is directly relevent as I'm really just discussing order rather than a different final series score. But even I would say (I think I'm agreeing here) that 4-0 doesn't necessarily mean unwinnable (again further context required).

I don't think we're disagreeing here as far as I can tell (I may be wrong) ... you seem to be primarily explaining the "what is" regarding the perception of (a generic?) "we". I just don't see the merits of why that should be the case. I'll make clear why I think it shouldn't be.

Players played as well as they did over the series.

We could estimate "winnablility" before the series. We could do so again after with more information (though perhaps, typically, many might do so with some outcome inevitability bias) with accounts for what we are holding constant and what we aren't. I don't see the merit of evaluating a series by taking a moment in time as if a given (say 3-0 rather than 0-3 ... whilst knowing in each hypothetical case that it goes to 3-3 and then 3-4) ...

Of course, it is true at that point Team A (that's up 3-0 against Team C) is in a "more winnable" (higher win probability) series than Team B (down 0-3 against Team D) ... but even here just evaluating the teams (not even the player) on the series ... they had to get to that point ... winning those games was something they did. Treating part of a series as a given because it did happen and then saying a latter part probably shouldn't have ... doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally if it's a player evaluation I'd prefer to look at how the player played though.

I think even if we just narrow it down to game 7's that a game 7 always carries more weight when we look at how a player performed in a series. So if a guy plays poorly in a game 7 loss it tends to matter more than how he played in a game 1 or 2 loss. Of course you can say that maybe it shouldn't but everyone knows going into a game 7 that this is for all the marbles while that doesn't hold true for game 1 or 2. I think anyone who's competed in sports knows the difference. Competition is meant to bring out the best in those competing. So personally ya, I am going to look a bit harder at how players did in those last 1-2 games in a series for better or worse. To me that's when the pressure is turned up and I want to see who did the best.

[Owly]

That there's always context is absolutely true.

I'm not sure 4-0, 4-1 is directly relevent as I'm really just discussing order rather than a different final series score. But even I would say (I think I'm agreeing here) that 4-0 doesn't necessarily mean unwinnable (again further context required).

I don't think we're disagreeing here as far as I can tell (I may be wrong) ... you seem to be primarily explaining the "what is" regarding the perception of (a generic?) "we". I just don't see the merits of why that should be the case. I'll make clear why I think it shouldn't be.

Players played as well as they did over the series.

We could estimate "winnablility" before the series. We could do so again after with more information (though perhaps, typically, many might do so with some outcome inevitability bias) with accounts for what we are holding constant and what we aren't. I don't see the merit of evaluating a series by taking a moment in time as if a given (say 3-0 rather than 0-3 ... whilst knowing in each hypothetical case that it goes to 3-3 and then 3-4) ...

Of course, it is true at that point Team A (that's up 3-0 against Team C) is in a "more winnable" (higher win probability) series than Team B (down 0-3 against Team D) ... but even here just evaluating the teams (not even the player) on the series ... they had to get to that point ... winning those games was something they did. Treating part of a series as a given because it did happen and then saying a latter part probably shouldn't have ... doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally if it's a player evaluation I'd prefer to look at how the player played though.

I think even if we just narrow it down to game 7's that a game 7 always carries more weight when we look at how a player performed in a series. So if a guy plays poorly in a game 7 loss it tends to matter more than how he played in a game 1 or 2 loss. Of course you can say that maybe it shouldn't but everyone knows going into a game 7 that this is for all the marbles while that doesn't hold true for game 1 or 2. I think anyone who's competed in sports knows the difference. Competition is meant to bring out the best in those competing. So personally ya, I am going to look a bit harder at how players did in those last 1-2 games in a series for better or worse. To me that's when the pressure is turned up and I want to see who did the best.

The error here, and I argue it is an error, is in failing to acknowledge that game 7 is only ever played ... because games 1-6 turned out as they did. If we were to assume that all series were predestined to go 3-3, that that were a given ... it would make sense to weight game 7 more. I don't mind the argument that game 7 is a different atmosphere/experience. It's just not more valuable. Given the choice, holding all else equal, I'd marginally prefer a squad (or player) more likely to be good early such that we're more likely to sweep or 4-1 and save each player on the team extra pounding and extra travel. Of course in an ideal world I'd like my players to compete in every competitive game they play.

In simplified terms if you promise to give me one of games 1-4, just don't turn up ... I'll give you the same promise for game 7. And you'll never gain from taking that (at best, net 1-1) and I have a pretty good chance of a free win. We could get more complex factoring in homecourt and perhaps other things, but the fundamental point stands.

"All the marbles" only works if you take everything prior as a given. Some sports will bake in rules and structures to make late count more to (artificially?) keep the outcome in doubt ... it's what F1 did in 2014 and you could argue it's why North American sports have a playoff system that doesn't celebrate or champion the team that is best over the totality of a season but a small part of it (and - where all know this is the case, agree to it then in that sense this is fine, "fair" etc and teams/participants should strategize accordingly) ... but if it isn't the case (G7 doesn't count as, say, 3 wins) why act act as though it is?

[Cavsfansince84]

The error here, and I argue it is an error, is in failing to acknowledge that game 7 is only ever played ... because games 1-6 turned out as they did. If we were to assume that all series were predestined to go 3-3, that that were a given ... it would make sense to weight game 7 more. I don't mind the argument that game 7 is a different atmosphere/experience. It's just not more valuable. Given the choice, holding all else equal, I'd marginally prefer a squad (or player) more likely to be good early such that we're more likely to sweep or 4-1 and save each player on the team extra pounding and extra travel. Of course in an ideal world I'd like my players to compete in every competitive game they play.

In simplified terms if you promise to give me one of games 1-4, just don't turn up ... I'll give you the same promise for game 7. And you'll never gain from taking that (at best, net 1-1) and I have a pretty good chance of a free win. We could get more complex factoring in homecourt and perhaps other things, but the fundamental point stands.

"All the marbles" only works if you take everything prior as a given. Some sports will bake in rules and structures to make late count more to (artificially?) keep the outcome in doubt ... it's what F1 did in 2014 and you could argue it's why North American sports have a playoff system that doesn't celebrate or champion the team that is best over the totality of a season but a small part of it (and - where all know this is the case, agree to it then in that sense this is fine, "fair" etc and teams/participants should strategize accordingly) ... but if it isn't the case (G7 doesn't count as, say, 3 wins) why act act as though it is?

I mean its subjective to each poster/voter how they contextualize postseason wins/losses. We obviously just disagree on how to weigh different games within a series or whether that's a proper way to judge how a player performed. Much like how one game can sometimes have a big impact on what a player avgs over a series. Again, its just context to me but I try to look at all of that. It gets hard with someone like Harden in 2018 imo to say how he performed or bears much criticism for how they lost.

[f4p]

That there's always context is absolutely true.

I'm not sure 4-0, 4-1 is directly relevent as I'm really just discussing order rather than a different final series score. But even I would say (I think I'm agreeing here) that 4-0 doesn't necessarily mean unwinnable (again further context required).

I don't think we're disagreeing here as far as I can tell (I may be wrong) ... you seem to be primarily explaining the "what is" regarding the perception of (a generic?) "we". I just don't see the merits of why that should be the case. I'll make clear why I think it shouldn't be.

Players played as well as they did over the series.

We could estimate "winnablility" before the series. We could do so again after with more information (though perhaps, typically, many might do so with some outcome inevitability bias) with accounts for what we are holding constant and what we aren't. I don't see the merit of evaluating a series by taking a moment in time as if a given (say 3-0 rather than 0-3 ... whilst knowing in each hypothetical case that it goes to 3-3 and then 3-4) ...

Of course, it is true at that point Team A (that's up 3-0 against Team C) is in a "more winnable" (higher win probability) series than Team B (down 0-3 against Team D) ... but even here just evaluating the teams (not even the player) on the series ... they had to get to that point ... winning those games was something they did. Treating part of a series as a given because it did happen and then saying a latter part probably shouldn't have ... doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally if it's a player evaluation I'd prefer to look at how the player played though.

I think even if we just narrow it down to game 7's that a game 7 always carries more weight when we look at how a player performed in a series. So if a guy plays poorly in a game 7 loss it tends to matter more than how he played in a game 1 or 2 loss. Of course you can say that maybe it shouldn't but everyone knows going into a game 7 that this is for all the marbles while that doesn't hold true for game 1 or 2. I think anyone who's competed in sports knows the difference. Competition is meant to bring out the best in those competing. So personally ya, I am going to look a bit harder at how players did in those last 1-2 games in a series for better or worse. To me that's when the pressure is turned up and I want to see who did the best.

The error here, and I argue it is an error, is in failing to acknowledge that game 7 is only ever played ... because games 1-6 turned out as they did. If we were to assume that all series were predestined to go 3-3, that that were a given ... it would make sense to weight game 7 more.

and this is something that tends to get held against harden, who admittedly is not great in game 7's. but people act like the initial games were just destined to end up at game 7 no matter what happened. you see it in something like the 2023 boston series, where harden wins game 1 without embiid, on the road in boston, with 45 points and a game-winning 3. a completely unexpected win. and then in game 4 has another 40 point game and hits the shot to force OT and the game winner in OT. then he plays poorly in game 7 and it's like "can't count on harden". except literally the only reason it got to game 7 is harden having 2 high end games no one expected at that point in his career. it's like it would have been better to just suck in game 1 and lose in 5 or 6 and avoid the game 7 criticism (kind of the "it would be better if lebron lost in the 1st round than in the finals" argument). or last year, harden is great in game 1 against denver but loses b/c kawhi is terrible and then is the best player on either team in game 3 but then he's bad in game 7 so you can't count on harden. it's essentially treated like every series is fated to be in game 7, no matter what harden does in the beginning, so then only game 7 counts.

or something like the 2019 series against the warriors. steph plays terribly all series but then is great in the 2nd half of game 6 while harden is great all series but merely "good" in the 2nd half of game 6, so it's harden's fault and you can't count on harden. apparently when other people play well in the back half of a series, it leads to their teams winning, but by that logic harden should be winning all his series 4-0 or 4-1 if all you have to do is play well and then you win. but like you said, it's treated like the first 6 games are irrelevant, no matter how well harden plays, he then has to also play well at the end of the series, while other people can be bad for large stretches of the series as long as they are good in game 6 or 7 because apparently their teams will just reach game 6 or 7 regardless of how they actually play.

[Cavsfansince84]

and this is something that tends to get held against harden, who admittedly is not great in game 7's. but people act like the initial games were just destined to end up at game 7 no matter what happened. you see it in something like the 2023 boston series, where harden wins game 1 without embiid, on the road in boston, with 45 points and a game-winning 3. a completely unexpected win. and then in game 4 has another 40 point game and hits the shot to force OT and the game winner in OT. then he plays poorly in game 7 and it's like "can't count on harden". except literally the only reason it got to game 7 is harden having 2 high end games no one expected at that point in his career. it's like it would have been better to just suck in game 1 and lose in 5 or 6 and avoid the game 7 criticism (kind of the "it would be better if lebron lost in the 1st round than in the finals" argument). or last year, harden is great in game 1 against denver but loses b/c kawhi is terrible and then is the best player on either team in game 3 but then he's bad in game 7 so you can't count on harden. it's essentially treated like every series is fated to be in game 7, no matter what harden does in the beginning, so then only game 7 counts.

or something like the 2019 series against the warriors. steph plays terribly all series but then is great in the 2nd half of game 6 while harden is great all series but merely "good" in the 2nd half of game 6, so it's harden's fault and you can't count on harden. apparently when other people play well in the back half of a series, it leads to their teams winning, but by that logic harden should be winning all his series 4-0 or 4-1 if all you have to do is play well and then you win. but like you said, it's treated like the first 6 games are irrelevant, no matter how well harden plays, he then has to also play well at the end of the series, while other people can be bad for large stretches of the series as long as they are good in game 6 or 7 because apparently their teams will just reach game 6 or 7 regardless of how they actually play.

I don't think we should spend too much time on this but I think there's many forms of context within a playoff series. Much like how I don't like the way the 08 finals ended for the Lakers. Even though a lot of people will use that as his peak, the way the Lakers lose a 25 pt lead then get blown out in game 6 by like 40 to me isn't what I'd want to see in a player's peak. It's not really about game 7's or losing 3-2 leads so much as that there is a lot of context that can be looked at and seen as a + or a -. Harden's last Sixers series is one of the more up and down series a player has ever had but again I doubt anyone will use that as his peak so its sort of irrelevant. He also tends to get a bit of a pass for losing in 2018 due to CP3 being out.