RealGM Top 100 List #40

[Fencer reregistered]

ElGee,

Do you have a link to an explanation of HOW you do your normalizations?

[ElGee]

ElGee,

Do you have a link to an explanation of HOW you do your normalizations?

It's an estimation of points scored per 75 possessions played...take the pace a team plays, multiply it by the fraction of the game the player players, and normalize their ppg using that figure.

Kobe Bryant 2006
90.9 team pace *85.4% of the game played is 77.6 pos per game...normalized to 75 pos --> 34.2 pts/75

75 pos was chosen to make the figure familiar, since most stars of the last 30 years play about 75 pos (the mean of the top 30 scoring rate seasons since 1980 is 76.5 pos).

[Fencer reregistered]

ElGee,

Do you have a link to an explanation of HOW you do your normalizations?

It's an estimation of points scored per 75 possessions played...take the pace a team plays, multiply it by the fraction of the game the player players, and normalize their ppg using that figure.

Kobe Bryant 2006
90.9 team pace *85.4% of the game played is 77.6 pos per game...normalized to 75 pos --> 34.2 pts/75

75 pos was chosen to make the figure familiar, since most stars of the last 30 years play about 75 pos (the mean of the top 30 scoring rate seasons since 1980 is 76.5 pos).

So it's only points scored that are normalized, not TS% and so on?

[lorak]

I
93 - Terry Porter. The most unnerving thing about 93 for Miller though is that the Pacers had an all-star... and it wasn't him - it was Detlef Schrempf

Detlef was better player than Reggie.

BTW: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225
Schrempf is 6th on that list and no player from teams he played is over him, so it's rationale to assume that he's one of the best offensive players of all time.
Reggie isn't on the list at all.

[Doctor MJ]

So it's only points scored that are normalized, not TS% and so on?

Normalizing TS% by pace would have no effect.

Now one could "normalize" TS relative to league average, and we see that done, but it's best to tread carefully there since that basically makes some big assumptions. I mean, why would we say a guy's FT% is inflated simply because his contemporaries shot well?

[Doctor MJ]

I
93 - Terry Porter. The most unnerving thing about 93 for Miller though is that the Pacers had an all-star... and it wasn't him - it was Detlef Schrempf

Detlef was better player than Reggie.

BTW: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225
Schrempf is 6th on that list and no player from teams he played is over him, so it's rationale to assume that he's one of the best offensive players of all time.
Reggie isn't on the list at all.

Not sure if you're serious or joking here.

[lorak]

Very serious. It's sad how Schrempf is underrated.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, do note that the similar scoring is a regular season thing. Miller's averages get a clear edge in the playoffs.

That said, I can't get worked up with someone picking McHale over Miller. I disagree, but I've got a ton of respect for McHale.

Fair enough.

I don't pay much attention to the precise details of how much a guy scores. Too much of that has to do with team design.

You don't think it's relevant that Miller's scoring went way up in the playoffs, and his team's efficiency got significantly better as it faced tougher defenses at the height of their engagement while playing on the biggest stage?

[lorak]

Well, do note that the similar scoring is a regular season thing. Miller's averages get a clear edge in the playoffs.

That said, I can't get worked up with someone picking McHale over Miller. I disagree, but I've got a ton of respect for McHale.

Fair enough.

I don't pay much attention to the precise details of how much a guy scores. Too much of that has to do with team design.

You don't think it's relevant that Miller's scoring went way up in the playoffs, and his team's efficiency got significantly better as it faced tougher defenses at the height of their engagement while playing on the biggest stage?

These defenses, for example Knicks, were designed to stop scoring from the paint. On the perimeter they were much worse defensively.

vote: McHale
nominate: Zo

[Doctor MJ]

Tentative vote for 'Nique. Glad Zo is getting attention now.

ronny, apologies if you've already given your detailed argument for Nique. I don't mean to hound you, but it'd be nice to see a Nique supporters offer rebuttals to the statements made about Miller getting the clear scoring edge over Nique when it mattered.

[Doctor MJ]

These defenses, for example Knicks, were designed to stop scoring from the paint. On the perimeter they were much worse defensively.

Interesting. So is it your opinion that Miller & the Pacers improvement on scoring against the Knicks was based on a weakness that they alone could find, and caused one of the best overall defenses in history to be relegated to worse than league average level?

[lorak]

These defenses, for example Knicks, were designed to stop scoring from the paint. On the perimeter they were much worse defensively.

Interesting. So is it your opinion that Miller & the Pacers improvement on scoring against the Knicks was based on a weakness that they alone could find, and caused one of the best overall defenses in history to be relegated to worse than league average level?

Knicks in 1994 stopped Pacers in playoffs on 100,2 ortg. In regular Pacers had 107,8 ortg, so NY's defense was clearly very good. Other (and better) way to look at this is "expected" ortg/drtg ((regular season Knicks drtg + regular season Pacers ortg)/2). It's 103, so that year Knicks definitely did great job on Pacers.

In 1993 it's little different story (Pacers ortg in playoffs was almost the same as in regular), but it's smaller game sample (so result could be screwed by one or two games). And in that series happened something similar to one Suns vs Spurs series (in 2005 I think?), when Spurs didn't even want to play defense because they know that they could play better offense than Suns.

And my opinion is that Reggie improved (because opposing defenses were the most vulnerable for perimeter attack), but team as a whole played worse (after all they didn't won any of these series). It was kind of tactic: "we allow your top scorer to do whatever he want, but we will stop others". And it worked.

[ThaRegul8r]

Tentative vote for 'Nique. Glad Zo is getting attention now.

ronny, apologies if you've already given your detailed argument for Nique. I don't mean to hound you, but it'd be nice to see a Nique supporters offer rebuttals to the statements made about Miller getting the clear scoring edge over Nique when it mattered.

I find it interesting how players who are well-decorated with accolades and have impressive stats who underperform in the playoffs "when it matters" have this completely affect how people view them, yet when you have the converse, it evidently doesn't count for much. I just find that... interesting.

[ThaRegul8r]

You don't think it's relevant that Miller's scoring went way up in the playoffs, and his team's efficiency got significantly better as it faced tougher defenses at the height of their engagement while playing on the biggest stage?

These defenses, for example Knicks, were designed to stop scoring from the paint. On the perimeter they were much worse defensively.

Like Doctor MJ, I also find this interesting, but for different reasons.

A way of proving how great the Knicks were on defense is by looking at they defended at worst the second greatest playoff performer of all time, Michael Jordan.

A myth has grown that prime Jordan destroyed the Knicks in the playoffs the way he did Phoenix and other teams. This is inaccurate.

The NY Knicks, under Riley, were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season.

MJ’s suffered decreases in most statistical areas against the Knicks in the playoffs during his prime.

MJ’s production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         32.49, 6.54, 6.14, 2.64, 1.03, 2.62, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 36.18, 6.71, 6.04, 2.07, 0.68, 3.07, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 29.91, 5.59, 5.22, 1.81, 1.02, 2.91, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531

MJ’s, per 40 minutes, production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         34.31, 6.90, 6.48, 2.79, 1.09, 2.77, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 35.18, 6.52, 5.87, 2.01, 0.66, 2.98, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 28.23, 5.27, 4.93, 1.71, 0.96, 2.74, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531


So you are suggesting that the Knicks were much worse defensively on the perimeter, yet somehow were able to hold Michael Jordan—you know, the guy voted #1 in this project?—to sub-Jordanesque performances? You're suggesting that their strategy against Miller—who I believe by all accounts is an inferior player to Jordan—was to allow him to do whatever he wants, but stop everyone else, yet for some reason decided against this tactic when facing the superior player? I believe Jordan was a perimeter player if I'm not mistaken, was he not? So how do you explain their success against Jordan if they were designed to stop scoring in the paint but "were much worse defensively" on the perimeter?

[Fencer reregistered]

So it's only points scored that are normalized, not TS% and so on?

Normalizing TS% by pace would have no effect.

Now one could "normalize" TS relative to league average, and we see that done, but it's best to tread carefully there since that basically makes some big assumptions. I mean, why would we say a guy's FT% is inflated simply because his contemporaries shot well?

TS% is itself a hack anyway, although anything will be approximate as long as we don't have records separating the two- (or three-) shot fouls from the and-ones.

[Fencer reregistered]

Well, do note that the similar scoring is a regular season thing. Miller's averages get a clear edge in the playoffs.

That said, I can't get worked up with someone picking McHale over Miller. I disagree, but I've got a ton of respect for McHale.

Fair enough.

I don't pay much attention to the precise details of how much a guy scores. Too much of that has to do with team design.

You don't think it's relevant that Miller's scoring went way up in the playoffs, and his team's efficiency got significantly better as it faced tougher defenses at the height of their engagement while playing on the biggest stage?

A couple of issues. I don't think 10-20% differences in scoring volume are very important if they've based on shot volumes. (Obviously, if they're based on efficiency that's a whole different matter.)

I do think that bucking the odds and having one's numbers increase in the postseason is nice. Context and sample size both come into play, of course. If Dwight Howard, usually double-teamed, runs into a post-season opponent who can safely single-team him, it may be misleading if his numbers stay the same from the regular season and some teammate who lives off of open 3s sees his numbers plummet. (I'm not saying all this happened, although I do root for the team that used to leave Perk alone on Dwight; I'm just raising it as an oversimplified example.)

[Fencer reregistered]

I think the Knicks/Miller/Jordan narrative has a lot to do with whether the Knicks focused on stopping bigs from scoring or whether they focused on stopping anybody in the paint, bigs and driving perimeter players alike.

I think the latter would be more accurate.

[lorak]

You don't think it's relevant that Miller's scoring went way up in the playoffs, and his team's efficiency got significantly better as it faced tougher defenses at the height of their engagement while playing on the biggest stage?

These defenses, for example Knicks, were designed to stop scoring from the paint. On the perimeter they were much worse defensively.

Like Doctor MJ, I also find this interesting, but for different reasons.

A way of proving how great the Knicks were on defense is by looking at they defended at worst the second greatest playoff performer of all time, Michael Jordan.

A myth has grown that prime Jordan destroyed the Knicks in the playoffs the way he did Phoenix and other teams. This is inaccurate.

The NY Knicks, under Riley, were the only team during Jordan’s prime that were able to affect his production during the post-season.

MJ’s suffered decreases in most statistical areas against the Knicks in the playoffs during his prime.

MJ’s production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         32.49, 6.54, 6.14, 2.64, 1.03, 2.62, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 36.18, 6.71, 6.04, 2.07, 0.68, 3.07, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 29.91, 5.59, 5.22, 1.81, 1.02, 2.91, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531

MJ’s, per 40 minutes, production from (91/92-92/93)

Code: Select all

                        Ppg   rpg    apg   spg   bpg   topg   fg%    efg  ts%
Regular Season:         34.31, 6.90, 6.48, 2.79, 1.09, 2.77, 0.529, 0.537, 0.592
Post Season (minus NY): 35.18, 6.52, 5.87, 2.01, 0.66, 2.98, 0.508, 0.529, 0.577
Post Season (NY alone): 28.23, 5.27, 4.93, 1.71, 0.96, 2.74, 0.441, 0.459, 0.531


So you are suggesting that the Knicks were much worse defensively on the perimeter, yet somehow were able to hold Michael Jordan—you know, the guy voted #1 in this project?—to sub-Jordanesque performances? You're suggesting that their strategy against Miller—who I believe by all accounts is an inferior player to Jordan—was to allow him to do whatever he wants, but stop everyone else, yet for some reason decided against this tactic when facing the superior player? I believe Jordan was a perimeter player if I'm not mistaken, was he not? So how do you explain their success against Jordan if they were designed to stop scoring in the paint but "were much worse defensively" on the perimeter?

Perimeter in this case = scoring mainly from the outside. Reggie was a shooter, Jordan slasher, who attacked basket much more and that's why Knicks defense was more effective against him. because you know - they were built that way to stop players from scoring in the paint.

[lorak]

V
I think that people need to really think about the comparison with John Stockton. I think people expected Stockton to go about where he did, but expected Miller to go far lower. I ask the question: Why? Why is Stockton drastically ahead of Miller? I mean, if you really think Stockton should have been a strong MVP candidate all those years, okay, but if are rewarding him for being a top 10-ish level guys with a knack fitting well with other talent, I think you need to consider how that differs from Miller.

Stockton was ahead of Miller because he was more valuable player. Every outside the box score data available says so. Stockton was close to Nash level, Reggie to Ray Allen level.

Non box score data we have says:

1. RAPM

2002
Stockton +2.2
Miller 0.0

2003
Stoctkon +3.0
Miller -0.9

2004
Miller -0.7

2005
Miller -0.4

2. with/without impact

In 1998 Stockton improved Jazz offense by +6.1 ortg, not so impressive unless we realize that he lifted already very good offense (+2.8 ortg above LA) to one of the best of all time (+9.7)

Reggie also almost never missed games, the most he missed during his prime was in 1996 (6 games).
Pacers offense without him was +0.5 ortg above LA, with him +4.4. So younger, more in his prime Reggie had much less offensive impact than old Stockton.

3. Winston '00-09 APM:
Stockton +8.2
Miller not ranked in top 10.


So overall that shows that Reggie was nowhere close to Stockton in terms of value.

[penbeast0]

ElGee . . . absolutely Oscar was better than Lucas, but Oscar went a long time ago. Lucas basically replaced Jack Twyman (another terrific offensive player) and was a very very good player for a long time. If we are looking at off ball scorers as being better than their numbers for their ability to stretch the floor and allow on ball teammates to play at their peak, Lucas should get some credit for that. Plus he was the best rebounding 4 in the league at least from when Pettit retired.

Dr MJ . . . and yeah, he was more Kevin Love than Dirk but Love hasn't done it long enough to really be impressive whereas Dirk and Lucas did it for an impressive duration too (and Dirk has only started to really be recognized for how good he is after this year). If Love keeps up this year for 10 years with a normal career arc he will be a sure HOF player and, depending on how much his teams win, a contender for all-time best PF (defense fades in hindsight so often while stats stay ever fresh).

Oh, and whoever said it . . . Gasol's defense is not in the same league with McHale's (or that of Hayes, Reed, or Cowens), if it was, he'd be on our list now. He strikes me as above average but not a dominating defender unless someone can convince me that my eye test is wrong.