#23 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[freethedevil]

neither me, nor the data you're saying you've seen a flaw for says a less effecient player can't be more valuable. Where did this come from?

Maybe from you talking about efficiency when Giannis is not in the top twenty points per possessions seasons, which was the frame I set.

Yes, and my post directly questioned that framework, so...

[freethedevil]

Also, this is hardly the first time I have criticised the conclusions of your chosen means of "data".

yes, but I'm directly questioning the line of critique you've outlined in this thread. That production has value that is being undersold here.

conclusion not indicated by an easy to digest number.

Well, we can start

you haven't bothered to specify how this undervaluing took place.

^^^^^ Not asking for a number.

Though yes, I do expect some sort of emperical backing, much like you'd expect of someone if they told you giannis scored more than harden did. Your entire case revolves around "points per possesion", a number. Odd you want people to take conclusions based on "points per possesion" seriously, but can't actually provide an emperical basis for "points per possesion" being weighted as heavily as you want it to be.

[liamliam1234]

Pointlessly. You said his efficiency was not spectacular, when for a high-volume scoring season, it objectively was (and the volume itself was literally unprecedented). Best in the top five. Second best in the top ten. Fourth best in the top twenty. Fifth best in the top thirty. Sounds pretty spectacular to me.

I may as well flip it. Why would a High efficiency and moderate volume regular season be rated over a moderate efficiency, high volume regular season? Except in this case, it is the highest volume on high efficiency versus high volume on higher efficiency.

can't actually provide an emperical basis for "points per possesion" being weighted as heavily as you want it to be.

Ta da, what did I tell you.

"I think empirical metrics undersell this." "Yeah, but where is the empirical support for that."

[freethedevil]

Pointlessly. You said his efficiency was not spectacular, when for a high-volume scoring season

You mean for a "top 20 all time" or top ten "all time" volume season. As i've repeated multiple your filter is arbitrary and specifcally skewes this concersation towards volume. Giannis's season was high volume, curry and kd's 2019 seasons were high volume. Plenty of more efficient seasons have been "high volume" without fitting your criteria.

[freethedevil]

can't actually provide an emperical basis for "points per possesion" being weighted as heavily as you want it to be.

Ta da, what did I tell you.

"I think empirical metrics undersell this." "Yeah, but where is the empirical support for that."

Two l's here.

First l: asserting the flaws of one set of emperical data must apply to another set of emperical data. Warriors won 73 games is emperical data. Harden dribbled three times before he shot is emperical data.

Second L:
Your entire argument revolves around... wait for it....emperical data. Make your argument without emperical data. If you can't make that argument withotu emperical data, then you should have no problem with people asking for an emperical data regarding the value of the emperical data you've provided.

[liamliam1234]

I am not making an empirical data argument. I said something objective without argument, and followed that up by saying I think impact data undersells it (which shockingly cannot be supported by impact data). Are you making an argument when you say Giannis had high CORP or PIPM? No, you are stating a fact. Nor was it used in support of a vote, nor was it used in support of a set ranking. It was an observation.

Pick better fights.

You mean for a "top 20 all time" or top ten "all time" volume season. As i've repeated multiple your filter is arbitrary and specifcally skewes this concersation towards volume. Giannis's season was high volume, curry and kd's 2019 seasons were high volume. Plenty of more efficient seasons have been "high volume" without fitting your criteria.

Yes, base 10, how arbitrary. Really unprecedented.

Gee, when you say someone lead something, that sure is arbitrary. Top three? Pretty arbitrary.

[Odinn21]

1. 2017 Russell Westbrookonly losing because his team was the worst team I've ever seen in the playoffs without him on the floor.

Yeah... 240 minutes played in the series;
OKC outscored Houston by 15 when Westbrook was on the court. (194:29)
Houston outscored OKC by 58 when Westbrook was not on the court. (45:31)

Also, sure I read your post about CP3 vs. Penny. But I'm curious about your take about CP3 as a defensive force overall? My personal opinion, he tried way too hard to pick pocket and that compromised his position way too much. I think he could be a bit better if he tried less. I'd rate CP3's defense average or slightly above average but nothing special.

---

Current tally; (counting incomplete votes too, 7 votes in)
1. 10.5 points 1990 Patrick Ewing
2. 7.5 points 2019 Kawhi Leonard
3. 5.0 points 2017 Kevin Durant
4. 4.5 points 1975 Bob McAdoo, 2019 Giannis Antetokounmpo, 2017 Russell Westbrook, 2005 Steve Nash, 1993 Charles Barkley

[E-Balla]

1. 2017 Russell Westbrookonly losing because his team was the worst team I've ever seen in the playoffs without him on the floor.

Yeah... 240 minutes played in the series;
OKC outscored Houston by 15 when Westbrook was on the court. (194:29)
Houston outscored OKC by 58 when Westbrook was not on the court. (45:31)

Also, sure I read your post about CP3 vs. Penny. But I'm curious about your take about CP3 as a defensive force overall? My personal opinion, he tried way too hard to pick pocket and that compromised his position way too much. I think he could be a bit better if he tried less. I'd rate CP3's defense average or slightly above average but nothing special.

---

Current tally; (counting incomplete votes too, 7 votes in)
1. 10.5 points 1990 Patrick Ewing
2. 7.5 points 2019 Kawhi Leonard
3. 5.0 points 2017 Kevin Durant
4. 4.5 points 1975 Bob McAdoo, 2019 Giannis Antetokounmpo, 2017 Russell Westbrook, 2005 Steve Nash, 1993 Charles Barkley

I think CP3 was a well above average defender. Not All D but I don't think he reached too much. Definitely not enough to be a negative on that end.

[freethedevil]

I am not making an empirical data argument.

Your OG post:

but the fact the greatest per possession scoring run of all-time, done more efficiently than like the next twenty non-Curry seasons below it, and coupled with respectable passing and general assist totals

Those are all emperical things. This is very much an emperical argument. If it's not, I'd love you to restate this without using emperical things.

[freethedevil]

Stars also command a higher percentage of possessions when they're on the floor now because role players are more specialized when back in the day they weren't. Overall the amount of total possessions stars have in general nowadays are higher, even if the minutes are lower. If this is your idea of adjusting for era you're doing a poor job of it.

Role players are expected to do more things at once then they used to. This is nonsense.

[Mavericksfan]

Tried to make a bigger post but it crashed

Patrick Ewing 1993
Led one of the most dominant defense of all time. Great playoffs

Steve Nash 2006
Still led a top 2 offense despite losing the 2nd best offensive player. Also a great playoff performance

Patrick Ewing 1994
Pretty much the same as ‘93 for regular season. Ran into tougher defenses in the playoffs

[cecilthesheep]

1. 1949 George Mikan - Mikan's peak was so far above his contemporaries that I don't think I can leave him out any longer. He was the most unstoppable scorer of basketball's first decade or two, he raised his game in the playoffs to lead his team to 5 titles in 6 years and create the league's first dynasty, and this was his most dominant year.

2. 1950 George Mikan - same player, second-best year, basically the same level of performance

3. 2007 Steve Nash. I'd just rather have this guy to win a title with than anyone left. Very very close with some version of Ewing and with '97 Karl Malone, but the way Nash totally transforms an offense is not something that anyone remaining in this tier can do on either end, in that I think if you have this version of Nash your offense is guaranteed to be one of the best in the league.

Next tier I'm thinking about: Barkley, Ewing, CP3, and yes, Karl Malone

edit - changed 2006 Nash to 2007, seems better by almost any metric

[liamliam1234]

I am not making an empirical data argument.

Your OG post:

but the fact the greatest per possession scoring run of all-time, done more efficiently than like the next twenty non-Curry seasons below it, and coupled with respectable passing and general assist totals

Those are all emperical things. This is very much an emperical argument. If it's not, I'd love you to restate this without using emperical things.

Literally at the top of the per possession leadership. An admitted and since corrected exaggeration about efficiency ranks, but one literally just reflecting that. Alright, “Respectable” is a judgement, sure, but you have not quibbled there.

Nome of that (save potentially passing) constitutes an argument. Saying facts is not an argument unless accompanied by more, and as I said, I made no specific ranking. It is not an argument to say Harden had the highest points per game since Jordan if I am not using it to say he was a better scorer than Jordan.

Try again.

[freethedevil]

I am not making an empirical data argument.

Your OG post:

but the fact the greatest per possession scoring run of all-time, done more efficiently than like the next twenty non-Curry seasons below it, and coupled with respectable passing and general assist totals

Those are all emperical things. This is very much an emperical argument. If it's not, I'd love you to restate this without using emperical things.

Nome of that (save potentially passing) constitutes an argument.

No, but they make the basis of your argument. If we take out those emperical facts, you wouldn't be arguing anything right now. And ofc, that's the exact same way the data you don't like is used, as a basis.

[liamliam1234]

What am I arguing?

And no, I have yet to see you make any notable departure from set data ranks, or suggest you want to, which is hardly different from just voting down the points per game board (except for the correlative superiority of the metric). A basis is not the whole thing. Again, where exactly is my vote for Harden?

[freethedevil]

What am I arguing?

And no, I have yet to see you make any notable departure from set data ranks, or suggest you want to,

Huh? My qualitative analysis looks at off/on ball play, breaks down the various aspects of defense, and looks at the tape analysis of guys who shown me they know what they're talking about. Your qualitative analysis is literally just a fixation on scoring, and man defense. The fact that the first and only thing you talked about in your orignal post about kawhi's defensew was his MAN DEFENSE, should really table this criticism. That you dedicated your entire critisicm of robinson to MAN DEFENSE on a specifc player, should also table this criticism. That you utterly neglected to mention how one defender was using one, two, or no help defenders while he guarded up while being the primary interior deterrent while the other defender was using one or two bigs every possesion, and was flanked by two or three helpers every possesion while trying to assert some sort of parity in their man defense should completely table this discussion.

Frankly, your criticism of my usage of data fall hollow to me because neither your qualitative data or quantiative data seem to have any sort of focus or logical overarching conclusion. You make obvservations about single details both emperically and qualitatively and then use those to draw conclusions that are completely outside of the scope of the one or two elements you've mentioned.You say A=really good, neglect looking at b and c, and then on the other side say a= not good, and then just speculate the gap in b or c isn't big enough.

My usage of data/qualitative is dependent on
A. the size of the gap
B. The depth of the argument I'm faced with

You adding some woefully incomplete observation about man defense to an emperical observation about their scoring doesn't seem meaningfully different to me than just bringing up thier ppg.

I use datasets, because the datasets do a better job estimating than a random, arbitrarily weighted collection of qualitative+quaintitaive analysis of part of a player's game. And frankly, if you're only going to do parts or even most of a player's game, I'd argue you're better off just looking at the data set, because at least the data set is complete. Unweighted analysis isn't much more useful than a lack of analysis outside of the most extreme disparities which can easily be picked up by the most simplest of comparisons.

When faced with an in depth argument that weights a variety of the most effective and appropiate data and then specifies why and how much weight they give to qualitative aspects, I'm inclined to go in depth, like say when i discuss things with Doctor MJ.

Off course all of this is moot, because even when I'm "not going in depth", I still stay things like, "defense is more valuable on better teams", or improving a team by 2 points without the ball is better than improving a team by 2 points with the ball. Not a very complicated concept, but still more in depth than "harden produced alot, he must be underrated" or "hakeem scored a lot, robinson got destroyed". Frankly, you seem to confuse depth with verbosity. You group what i say under one word to make it seem otherwise(portability), but portabilty is a massive umbrealla term that compares a wide, wide set of qualitative statements, many of which, like "Westbrook's threat as a passer makes it easier for teammates to rebound" are more complex than "harden scores alot, and he passes alot." See, "westbrook's threat as a passer makes it easier for teammates to rebound partially compensating for his bricks" covers multiple things

1. Westbrook's passing ability
2. The way defenses react to that passing ability
3. What the reaction allows from his teammates
4. how it effects his overall value as a scorer

Harden passes a lot covers
1. his passing

You listing multiple things that fit under category b does not make your analysis as deep as mine. Quality>>quantity, and your qualitative analysis is not some sort of bridge i can't and haven't easily crossed.

[liamliam1234]

Huh? My qualitative analysis looks at off/on ball play, breaks down the various aspects of defense, and looks at the tape analysis of guys who shown me they know what they're talking about.

Lot of words to avoid answering when you have ever departed from what PIPM and CORP tell you.

Your qualitative analysis is literally just a fixation on scoring, and man defense.

Yep, that is why Nash had my vote.

The fact that the first and only thing you talked about in your orignal post about kawhi's

Hm, weird angle to take in a Harden discussion.

That you utterly neglected to mention how one defender was using one, two, or no help defenders while he guarded up while being the primary interior deterrent while the other defender was using one or two bigs every possesion, and was flanked by two or three helpers every possesion

Except for the part where I have repeatedly acknowledged that Kawhi was not guarding Giannis alone, both here and throughout the forum. But go on, watching you froth over a strawman is great comedy.

Frankly, your criticism of my usage of data fall hollow to me because neither your qualitative data or quantiative data seem to have any sort of focus or logical overarching conclusion.

Which is why you have never been able to respond to my self-assessments of consistency, right? Your blind inability to pick up on it, or even read it, is your issue, and you want to turn it into mine, lol.

My usage of data/qualitative is dependent on
A. the size of the gap
B. The depth of the argument I'm faced with

See top of comment.

You adding some woefully incomplete observation about man defense to an emperical observation about their scoring doesn't seem meaningfully different to me than just bringing up thier ppg.

Great. As usual, neither of us feels the other provides meaningful original analysis. Weird response to a pretty direct question, though. Nice to have it confirmed that all of this is because you are literally incapable of moving past someone not buying into your schitck, but hardly a good reason to so severely derail the thread.

I use datasets, because the datasets do a better job estimating than a random, arbitrarily weighted collection of qualitative+quaintitaive analysis of part of a player's game. And frankly, if you're only going to do parts or even most of a player's game, I'd argue you're better off just looking at the data set, because at least the data set is complete. Unweighted analysis isn't much more useful than a lack of analysis outside of the most extreme disparities which can easily be picked up by the most simplest of comparisons.

Yes, we are all aware you feel that way. But again, no one else is just looking at an impact spreadsheet and calling it a day, so if that is what you want, group voting is probably not the best environment for you.

Off course all of this is moot, because even when I'm "not going in depth", I still stay things like, "defense is more valuable on better teams", or improving a team by 2 points without the ball is better than improving a team by 2 points with the ball. Not a very complicated concept, but still more in depth than "harden produced alot, he must be underrated" or "hakeem scored a lot, robinson got destroyed".

Not really, although I understand why you like to tell yourself it is.

Frankly, you seem to confuse depth with verbosity.

If I did, I would take you much more seriously.

You group what i say under one word to make it seem otherwise(portability), but portabilty is a massive umbrealla term that compares a wide, wide set of qualitative statements

Hahahahaha, this really has been simmering, huh? That cannot be good for your mental well-being.

many of which, like "Westbrook's threat as a passer makes it easier for teammates to rebound" are more complex than "harden scores alot, and he passes alot." See, "westbrook's threat as a passer makes it easier for teammates to rebound partially compensating for his bricks" covers multiple things

1. Westbrook's passing ability
2. The way defenses react to that passing ability
3. What the reaction allows from his teammates
4. how it effects his overall value as a scorer

Harden passes a lot covers
1. his passing

Lol, gee, what a genuine, data-driven framing. Amazing how Harden could have apparently discovered a form of high volume passing which does not affect his scoring value, his teammates, or opposing defences, and that the only way you could conclude otherwise is if I phrased it in a more specific way. What was that again about correlating verbosity with depth?

You listing multiple things that fit under category b does not make your analysis as deep as mine. Quality>>quantity, and your qualitative analysis is not some sort of bridge i can't and haven't easily crossed.

You citing spreadsheets is not equal to depth or quality.

And through all of that, you utterly failed to respond to the actual comment. Amazing. Hope the venting made you feel better.

[Mavericksfan]

Can we please go back to having discussions focusing on players instead of arguing down each other’s criteria for player evaluation?

You guys clearly cant see eye to eye so why not agree to disagree

[Odinn21]

I think CP3 was a well above average defender. Not All D but I don't think he reached too much. Definitely not enough to be a negative on that end.

https://public.tableau.com/profile/dsmok1#!/vizhome/BPMvs_RAPM/BoxPlusMinusvs_14YearRAPM
This website has 1.4 DBPM and 0.8 DRAPM for CP3 which I think fairly accurate to represent CP3's defense.

Of course CP3 is not a defensive liability. I doubt that he's ever been over a season even though he had some defensive games surely.

[freethedevil]

...

I think this sums up your response quite well.
Exhibit A
What you quoted:

You listing multiple things that fit under category b does not make your analysis as deep as mine.

How you responded:

You citing spreadsheets is not equal to depth or quality.

Spreadsheets were never mentioned in the quoted text, so why you would post a assertion regarding spreadsheets below a statement regarding a distinction in two types of qualitative analysis is beyond me.

Exhibit B
You said this:

Except for the part where I have repeatedly acknowledged that Kawhi was not guarding Giannis alone

Here was the context of the part you quoted, emphasis mine:

The fact that the first and only thing you talked about in your orignal post about kawhi's defensew was his MAN DEFENSE, should really table this criticism. That you dedicated your entire critisicm of robinson to MAN DEFENSE on a specifc player, should also table this criticism. That you utterly neglected to mention how one defender was using one, two, or no help defenders while he guarded up while being the primary interior deterrent while the other defender was using one or two bigs every possesion, and was flanked by two or three helpers every possesion while trying to assert some sort of parity in their man defense should completely table this discussion.

Yes, once I brought it up, you did acknowledge it. But without me serving as stimuli, your defensive analysis was literally: "Kawhi's man defense was really good". It astounds me that I have to remind you of basic things like help defense, and rim protection and then a few days later you're here asserting my analysis is only based on spreadsheets.

Exhibit C

Amazing. Hope the venting made you feel better

Nice to have it confirmed that all of this is because you are literally incapable of moving past someone not buying into your schitck

Hahah[/b]ahaha, this really has been simmering, huh? That cannot be good for your mental well-being.

[/quote]

I also can't help but notice this thing you do, where you put a personal attack in place of a coherent response, is something you do with a wide variety of posters here. It's quite petty really.