RealGM Top 100 List #7

[Doctor MJ]

My only problem with using numbers "with & without" a star, is that it penalizes players who had decent bakcups, and elevates those with poor backups.

The 94' Bulls are a perfect example of a team still performing at a good level without a missing star(Jordan). Pippen assumed the main role of volume scorer(though not nearly as well as MJ could), and they won 55 games, with the addition of Kukoc. Conversely, the 97' Spurs compeltely collapsed without DRob, but that's because they had Greg Anderson & Will Perdue filling in.

This gets even more sketchy when you take stretches during a season.

I think you overrate the significance of this concern.

Let's take the example above: People talk about Pippen scoring more, but he only scored 1 more PPG than his previous peak, and Kukoc literally only scored about 10 PPG. The team basically abandoned the entire notion of having a volume scorer, so it really doesn't make sense to say "Well they were just lucky to have another guy who could volume score." Everyone did pretty much what they did before, and they were good, so they won.

At the same time, W-L very much underrates how much worse the Bulls actually were without Jordan. In '91-92, they had a SRS of 10.07. In '93-94 it was 2.87, and in '95-96 it was 11.80. That's actually a totally massive difference. They were just so damn good firing on all cylinders, that with some good breaks they could still win 50+ without him.

I don't disagree with you that a player's irreplaceability in one particular situation does not tell the whole story, but basketball is not a sport where you have a QB-like position and you literally see an superstar level guy rotting away on the bench. About the most extreme situation you'll see in the NBA is a Howard/Gortat situation - significant enough to factor in, but not the difference between a 50 win team without Howard & a 20 win team without Howard.

[An Unbiased Fan]

My only problem with using numbers "with & without" a star, is that it penalizes players who had decent bakcups, and elevates those with poor backups.

The 94' Bulls are a perfect example of a team still performing at a good level without a missing star(Jordan). Pippen assumed the main role of volume scorer(though not nearly as well as MJ could), and they won 55 games, with the addition of Kukoc. Conversely, the 97' Spurs compeltely collapsed without DRob, but that's because they had Greg Anderson & Will Perdue filling in.

This gets even more sketchy when you take stretches during a season.

I think you overrate the significance of this concern.

Let's take the example above: People talk about Pippen scoring more, but he only scored 1 more PPG than his previous peak, and Kukoc literally only scored about 10 PPG. The team basically abandoned the entire notion of having a volume scorer, so it really doesn't make sense to say "Well they were just lucky to have another guy who could volume score." Everyone did pretty much what they did before, and they were good, so they won.

At the same time, W-L very much underrates how much worse the Bulls actually were without Jordan. In '91-92, they had a SRS of 10.07. In '93-94 it was 2.87, and in '95-96 it was 11.80. That's actually a totally massive difference. They were just so damn good firing on all cylinders, that with some good breaks they could still win 50+ without him.

I don't disagree with you that a player's irreplaceability in one particular situation does not tell the whole story, but basketball is not a sport where you have a QB-like position and you literally see an superstar level guy rotting away on the bench. About the most extreme situation you'll see in the NBA is a Howard/Gortat situation - significant enough to factor in, but not the difference between a 50 win team without Howard & a 20 win team without Howard.

I can't quite agree with this.

1) The 92' Bulls had a SRS of 10.07, but the 93' Bulls had a 6.19. That's still a bit more than 2.87, but not a 7+ drop. And the 95' team was 4.31 SRS with MJ for half the year, and no Rodman. My point though, is that Chicago didn't collapse without MJ. A SRS of 2.87 & 4.32 is good.

Conversely, The Spurs went from +5.98 in 96' to -7.93 without DRob in 97'. That's a 12 point SRS drop. I don't think we can equate drops in SRS, W/L, or DRtg with players accurately.

2) My point with Pippen was that he took over the role of main volume scorer. His PTS% went from 22.6% in 1993 to 28.3% in 1994. He didn't shoot much more, but he did offer Chicago a guy who could score in bunchs when needed.

3) I was also reffering to ORtg & DRtg, when I made my post. Elgee is using DRtg difference as an example of Hakeem's impact. Now certainly not having Hakeem impacted Houston's D, but I'm not sure this is the way to really quantify it.

For example, the Bulls had a DRtg of 106.1 in 1993, but in 94' without MJ, their DRtg dropped to 102.7......so what are we to take from that? I don't feel Chicago was a better team defensively without MJ, so what can we extrapolate from this data? Does the arrival of Toni Kukoc explain it?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Lebron's AST% has been better than both Kobe & Bird's. In his prime, Lebron has been on par with Kobe in points created, and slighty ahead of Bird.

A better question people should start asking is whether Bird is the best Point-Forward ever, or is that Lebron. Lebron's PTS% & AST% are higher than Bird's, and he's a better defender. Now for me, I count playoff performances & success, along with longevity & accolades, so Bird is still ahead by a decent margin at this point. However....for those who think playoff success 7 accolades shouldn't matter, and that "peak" is the most important thing, how is Bird ahead of Lebron?

Because Bird was able to put up those numbers without monopolizing the ball (he was probably the least ball-dominant all-time level player) and while playing alongside top-flight talent. As Lebron's numbers this past season demonstrate, it's much harder to put up all-time level numbers when you have a lot of talent on your team. And Bird's mid-80's Celts had even more talent than the 2011 Heat.

I agree with you on this. Lebron's numbers come in a much more ball-dominant way than Bird's did. Balancing out his numbers and putting them into context with his usage, is a tough thing.

[drza]

This is literally the first time I've been able to read these threads at all since my last post on Saturday (in related news, look for my new book soon: "Men are from Mars, moving is from Hell"). No time at all in the next 15 minutes before the vote closes to really take this to the lab the way I'd like. In the #5 thread I was seriously debating Shaq, Bird and Duncan. I tentatively took Shaq, knowing that it was so close that a good argument either way could change my mind. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to be around to participate in said arguments. At that time I voted Shaq, and so I guess that's still where I am.

Vote: Shaquille O'Neal
Nominate: LeBron James

[penbeast0]

Anyone wanting to affect the voting has to change their votes before midnight EST (David Stern has already sent in his change; I will change from Duncan to Shaq if it's between Shaq and anyone else).

[drza]

My only problem with using numbers "with & without" a star, is that it penalizes players who had decent bakcups, and elevates those with poor backups.

The 94' Bulls are a perfect example of a team still performing at a good level without a missing star(Jordan). Pippen assumed the main role of volume scorer(though not nearly as well as MJ could), and they won 55 games, with the addition of Kukoc. Conversely, the 97' Spurs compeltely collapsed without DRob, but that's because they had Greg Anderson & Will Perdue filling in.

This gets even more sketchy when you take stretches during a season.

I think you overrate the significance of this concern.

Let's take the example above: People talk about Pippen scoring more, but he only scored 1 more PPG than his previous peak, and Kukoc literally only scored about 10 PPG. The team basically abandoned the entire notion of having a volume scorer, so it really doesn't make sense to say "Well they were just lucky to have another guy who could volume score." Everyone did pretty much what they did before, and they were good, so they won.

At the same time, W-L very much underrates how much worse the Bulls actually were without Jordan. In '91-92, they had a SRS of 10.07. In '93-94 it was 2.87, and in '95-96 it was 11.80. That's actually a totally massive difference. They were just so damn good firing on all cylinders, that with some good breaks they could still win 50+ without him.

I don't disagree with you that a player's irreplaceability in one particular situation does not tell the whole story, but basketball is not a sport where you have a QB-like position and you literally see an superstar level guy rotting away on the bench. About the most extreme situation you'll see in the NBA is a Howard/Gortat situation - significant enough to factor in, but not the difference between a 50 win team without Howard & a 20 win team without Howard.

I can't quite agree with this.

1) The 92' Bulls had a SRS of 10.07, but the 93' Bulls had a 6.19. That's still a bit more than 2.87, but not a 7+ drop. And the 95' team was 4.31 SRS with MJ for half the year, and no Rodman. My point though, is that Chicago didn't collapse without MJ. A SRS of 2.87 & 4.32 is good.

Conversely, The Spurs went from +5.98 in 96' to -7.93 without DRob in 97'. That's a 12 point SRS drop. I don't think we can equate drops in SRS, W/L, or DRtg with players accurately.

2) My point with Pippen was that he took over the role of main volume scorer. His PTS% went from 22.6% in 1993 to 28.3% in 1994. He didn't shoot much more, but he did offer Chicago a guy who could score in bunchs when needed.

3) I was also reffering to ORtg & DRtg, when I made my post. Elgee is using DRtg difference as an example of Hakeem's impact. Now certainly not having Hakeem impacted Houston's D, but I'm not sure this is the way to really quantify it.

For example, the Bulls had a DRtg of 106.1 in 1993, but in 94' without MJ, their DRtg dropped to 102.7......so what are we to take from that? I don't feel Chicago was a better team defensively without MJ, so what can we extrapolate from this data? Does the arrival of Toni Kukoc explain it?

Interesting mini conversation on the +/- stats through time, and both of you make solid points. My opinion is that we have to keep in mind exactly what tools we have to offer for a particular time period, and modify the strength of our convictions based on that. Many of the issues you mention, AUF, have been addressed in the current +/- calculations. APM is corrected for teammate caliber, opponent, and game situation. We have the data, these days, to be much more refined with our APM evaluations.

For the 80s and 90s the info isn't nearly as precise, and in fact the data isn't even set up for refined APM calculations. But, that doesn't mean that the things that APM measures aren't still vital and informative things to know. So, we make cruder estimates. ElGee's posts about how teams do without players for periods of time, rough basketball-reference stats like Defensive rating and win shares...they evaluation tools that we have to rely on more. Of course, as you point out, there are more flaws in these tools than what we currently have to work with, so you have to temper how you interpret. But to me, warts and all, it's still valuable data to consider.

Then, once you go back even further into the 60s and 70s, even the box scores from individual games can be hard to come by and those box scored have missing categories. That's why TheRegulator and ElGee and others in the RPoY project that actually scrubbed the old newspapers and really went in-depth to come up with some objective ways to (roughly) quantify individual contributions was really outstanding work IMO. And again, you realize that your signal is going to be a lot noisier the further back you go. But again, there is useful info in that noise.

Bottom line, no stat is perfect. But many of the issues that you complain of have been dramatically improved on over time. Unfortunatley, with a historic project like this that means that many of the players under consideration wlll have to be evaluated with less than ideal tools. But it doesn't invalidate the use of whatever level of +/- tools are available for the time, the user just has to keep the circumstances in mind and, as with every other data point, weigh how much to factor it in to his overall analysis.

[penbeast0]

VOTERS
1. Penbeast (Wizards)
2. Baller24 (Rockets)
3. SDChargers#1 (Lakers )
4. Fencer Registered (Celtics)
5. JordanBulls (Bulls)
6. Dr Mufasa (Raptors)
7. ElGee (doesn't/won't identify)
8. GilmoreFan (Kentucky Colonels) -- NO LONGER POSTING IN PROJECT
9. An Unbiased Fan (Lakers)
10. Drza (76ers)
11. Snakebikes (Pistons)
12. RonnyMac2 (Lakers)
13. rravenred (Bucks)
14. ThaRegul8r
15. DavidStern (Bulls & Knicks)
16. mysticbb (Bulls)
17. TmacforMVP (Rockets)
18. Lukearts
19. Jay From LA (Lakers)
20. Pancakes3
21. Laimbeer (Pistons)
22. Jimmy76 (Suns)
23. Vinsanity420 (Magic)
24. Bucksfans1and2 (Bucks)
25. Sedale Threatt (Lakers)
26. FJS (Jazz)
27. RoyceDa59 (Raptors)
28. Green Hat
29. cpower
30. Warspite (Pistons) -- No Longer Posting in Project
31. Dr MJ (Lakers)
32. Black Feet (Lakers)
33. shawngoat23 (Bulls)
34. Doormatt (Lakers)
35. Gongxi (Bulls)
36. Optimism Prime (Rockets)
37. Fatal 9

VOTES -- drza, sorry I missed your vote, counted now with the math fixed. I didn't see shawngoat's vote or nomination but since Shaq is up 2 without it, he takes this vote

Shaq 11 (TMACFORMVP, JordansBulls, ronnymac2, Gongxi, ElGee, Jay From LA, Snakebites, RoyceDa59, fatal9, Sedale Threatt, drza)
Duncan 9 (Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, mysticbb, Bucksfans1and2, penbeast0, Laimbeer, ThaRegul8r, FJS, Baller 24)
Hakeem 5 (Vinsanity420, DavidStern, Doctor MJ, pancakes3, DoctorMJ)
KB 2 (SDChargers#1, An Unbiased Fan)


NOMINATIONS
LJ 10 (Vinsanity420, FJS, ronnymac2, Gongxi, ElGee, Jay From LA, RoyceDa59, Baller24, Sedale Threatt, DoctorMJ, drza)
Mikan 6 (Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, penbeast0, DavidStern, An Unbiased Fan, Laimbeer)
Barkley 5 (SDChargers#1, JordansBulls, Bucksfans1and2, pancakes3, fatal9)
Robinson 2 (TMACFORMVP, Snakebites)
Dirk 1 (mysticbb)

Again, for players wanting to participate, send me a PM and if either Baller, DrMJ, or myself recognize you as a good poster, you will get a PM back inviting you to join for the following thread (not the one we are doing)

[drza]

VOTERS
1. Penbeast (Wizards)
2. Baller24 (Rockets)
3. SDChargers#1 (Lakers )
4. Fencer Registered (Celtics)
5. JordanBulls (Bulls)
6. Dr Mufasa (Raptors)
7. ElGee (doesn't/won't identify)
8. GilmoreFan (Kentucky Colonels) -- NO LONGER POSTING IN PROJECT
9. An Unbiased Fan (Lakers)
10. Drza (76ers)
11. Snakebikes (Pistons)
12. RonnyMac2 (Lakers)
13. rravenred (Bucks)
14. ThaRegul8r
15. DavidStern (Bulls & Knicks)
16. mysticbb (Bulls)
17. TmacforMVP (Rockets)
18. Lukearts
19. Jay From LA (Lakers)
20. Pancakes3
21. Laimbeer (Pistons)
22. Jimmy76 (Suns)
23. Vinsanity420 (Magic)
24. Bucksfans1and2 (Bucks)
25. Sedale Threatt (Lakers)
26. FJS (Jazz)
27. RoyceDa59 (Raptors)
28. Green Hat
29. cpower
30. Warspite (Pistons) -- No Longer Posting in Project
31. Dr MJ (Lakers)
32. Black Feet (Lakers)
33. shawngoat23 (Bulls)
34. Doormatt (Lakers)
35. Gongxi (Bulls)
36. Optimism Prime (Rockets)
37. Fatal 9

VOTES
Duncan 9 (Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, mysticbb, Bucksfans1and2, penbeast0, Laimbeer, ThaRegul8r, FJS, Baller 24)
Shaq 9 (TMACFORMVP, JordansBulls, ronnymac2, Gongxi, ElGee, Jay From LA, Snakebites, RoyceDa59, fatal9, Sedale Threatt)
Hakeem 5 (Vinsanity420, DavidStern, Doctor MJ, pancakes3, DoctorMJ)
KB 2 (SDChargers#1, An Unbiased Fan)

and if there will be tie (David Stern) is going to change my vote from Hakeem to Duncan which gives this extremely narrow victory to Duncan!

NOMINATIONS
LJ 9 (Vinsanity420, FJS, ronnymac2, Gongxi, ElGee, Jay From LA, RoyceDa59, Baller24, Sedale Threatt, DoctorMJ)
Mikan 6 (Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, penbeast0, DavidStern, An Unbiased Fan, Laimbeer)
Barkley 5 (SDChargers#1, JordansBulls, Bucksfans1and2, pancakes3, fatal9)
Robinson 2 (TMACFORMVP, Snakebites)
Dirk 1 (mysticbb)

Again, for players wanting to participate, send me a PM and if either Baller, DrMJ, or myself recognize you as a good poster, you will get a PM back inviting you to join for the following thread (not the one we are doing)

You didn't include my vote and nomination, from about a half hour ago.

[ronnymac2]

Duncan 9 (Fencer reregistered, Dr Mufasa, mysticbb, Bucksfans1and2, penbeast0, Laimbeer, ThaRegul8r, FJS, Baller)

Shaq 12 (JordansBulls, ronnymac2, Gongxi, ElGee, Jay From LA, Snakebites, RoyceDa59, fatal9, Tmac4MVP, Sedale, Shawngoat, Drza )

Hakeem 4 (Vinsanity420, DavidStern, Doctor MJ, pancakes3)

KB 2 (SDChargers#1, An Unbiased Fan)


I looked at what David Stern wrote on page 12 and 13, when the vote was tied between Duncan and O'Neal. Then I added who else has voted since then, including Shawngoat, Sedale, Drza, Tmac4MVP, and Baller.

[Fencer reregistered]

Lebron's PTS% & AST% are higher than Bird's,

But Bird had a higher number on his uniform.

All three statistics are of approximately equal significance.

What numbers do you think are significant??

I didn't realize that offensive porduction didn't matter. I guess I should just accept that Larry has a greater legend than Kobe, and just ignore anything else, since they don't seem to matter.

What we really want to know is how much more a team won because they had a guy than they would have with an ordinary/average/scrub guy in his position. At least that's what I want to know. I sometimes think that if a guy went into the locker room, machine-gunned four of his more productive teammates, and then went out and filled the box score, you'd say he made a great combination to winning.

The stats part of that usually boils down to metrics that help estimate how a guy affected the scores of his games, and more specifically that help estimate one (or occasionally more) of three things:

* How efficient he helped his team be in scoring -- e.g. FG%, FTA, FT%, 3PT%, and various aggregations of same -- volume comes into play indirectly, in that having a high % for a lot of attempts is more valuable than having the same high % for only a few.
* How inefficient he helped induce the other team to be in scoring -- e.g. steals, blocks, etc.
* How he affected the disparity between the number of full possessions either team had -- e.g. offensive rebounds, steals, turnovers, etc.

Other stats may be heavily circumstantial, but still be good back up for "eye test" opinions -- e.g. rebounds, assists, etc. Even the ones that are directly meaningful have to be adjusted for anecdotal circumstances -- does a guy take his 3s wide open catch-and-shoot, open for a moment after he ran around screens, while covered, off the dribble, after broken plays with the shot clock winding down, etc. And while (to continue the example) the guy who runs around screens and scores (Ray Allen, Reggie Miller) is accomplishing something impressive, he's also requiring his teammates to stand around ... but on the other hand, he's not dominating the ball directly. Etc.