RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #11 (Kevin Garnett)

[sansterre]

1. Kevin Garnett. I know he's not a traditional darling, but he's one of the best defenders ever, a strong #2 on offense, super-scalable, has a horde of metrics to back his case up, played forever, and was the best player on a very strong team (the 08-12 Celtics). If I could vote him for all three spots I would.

2. Oscar Robertson. Super dominant in his time, and played longer than West. I've spoken at length more about him elsewhere, but I think he's here (though I wouldn't be sad if West got it).

3. Kobe Bryant. I hate Kobe Bryant's scoring. There is probably no element to any player's game ever that is more overrated, to my mind (unless it's Wilt's scoring). He's one of the top 10 number one options all-time (if you don't adjust for position) - I won't fight that. He's capable of rolling really high volume with above league average efficiency, and maintaining it in the playoffs. This is a valuable skill. Are there easily half a dozen players who are better at this than him? Yes. But it's still valuable. I just don't get how he gets so much credit for being the #2 on Shaq's Lakers, and how his willingness to take game-winning shots and miss loads of them is somehow redeeming. Saying his scoring is like Jordan's is like saying that Stockton's passing is like Magic's. They're both good passers, but one was the best ever (depending on how much you like Nash) and the other was merely historically excellent. And I find arguments for him devolve into favoring skill over effectiveness. Kobe was unquestionably more skilled as a scorer than Shaq; Shaq was unquestionably a more effective scorer than Kobe. Aesthetics may make a player more appealing, but they *don't* make a player win more.

But I digress. What I love is his passing. I went back and forth between Kobe and Dirk, and I really wanted to go with Dirk, in part because I think that the love Kobe gets is disproportionate. I actually think that Dirk's scoring is more valuable than Kobe's scoring. But Kobe's passing is good enough that you can roll the PG position into a more 3&D role, where Dirk does need some facilitation around him to work. And ultimately, voting against Kobe out of spite isn't a good look. I tried to talk myself into Malone in this spot, but his playoff struggles are hard to get past (and that may be shallow of me).

[mailmp]

First, Ewing wasn't the offensive force Moses Malone was and Moses Malone was pretty great on defense in that season. So, I don't know how you can explain that opinion.

Also the team finished the season with 65 wins, top 5 in both offense and defense, they had an SRS gap bigger than 2 to 2nd highest value. (7.53 to 5.06).
Went 12-1 in the playoffs, 3rd best win rate in NBA playoffs history while playing 2 of the top 5 SRS teams.
I mean, that performance right there is very very hard to up.

And, Moses played against great frontcourts, so it was not like he lacked a great positional competition.

Lol come on, this is just total results based analysis. What specifically makes 1983 Moses more of an overall “force” than 1990 Ewing. Yes, they were very good, but that does not mean they could not have been better. And when it basically is the entire reason to have a player in the top fifteen, it is definitely a question you should be examining more closely.

Well, looking at how you responded some of my arguments you've come across, I know that you won't take my word for 1983 Moses Malone definitely being better than 1990 Patrick Ewing.

I already stated 1983 Moses Malone being a bigger offensive force who did not lack defense. I mean I'm sure you'll try to make a case for 1990 Ewing based on his ppg number but Malone was a 31+ ppg scorer in the previous season which Malone had b2b months with 35+ ppg. He had a 38/17 month and then a 35/14 month to carry an god awful team to playoffs. 1990 Ewing had an obpm of 3.7 while 1982 Malone had 6.2. I'm also aware that you can make this about not comparing 1983 Malone to 1990 Ewing, but in terms team situations 1982 vs. 1990 is the comparison to make.
Quick side note about the gap between their offensive quality and performance; Ewing was never a 3+ obpm player before or after 1990. Moses Malone had 9 seasons with 3+ obpm in total, his obpm in his prime was 3.8 and his career obpm was also 3.1.

In short; the gap on offense between 1983 Malone and 1990 Ewing is bigger than the gap on defense. Malone was also considerably superior rebounder on both ends.

... So still no actual analysis, got it.

No, the gap on offence was not bigger than the gap on defence. Moses did a fine job on that end; Ewing was one of the best defenders ever. Basketball-reference’s BPM is a comparably shite metric and that being all you can use speaks to the facile level of this “analysis”... and even it agrees, giving 1990 Ewing a BPM of 5.5 to 1982 Moses’s 4.5. How transparent do you have to be to make it all about OBPM without sharing anything else? Oh, and qUiCK siDeNOtE, but that 4.5 was an even bigger outlier for Moses; his next best year was 3.7, whereas Ewing had an additional six seasons greater than 4 — three of which were also greater than or equal to Moses’s 4.5 peak. And this is using your choice of metric!

Ewing was a more additive scorer, he was a better passer (not a high bar, but he comfortably clears the one Moses sets), and he built his entire career off being one of the best defenders in league history (versus Moses bothering to try on that end for all of one year and ending up as solid). 1990 Ewing has a CORP value of 16 to 1983 Moses’s CORP of 15, and his PIPM (5.7) is significantly ahead of Moses’s (4.8). The fact you take it as any sort of given that Moses has the edge, when there is pretty clear statistical and logical support favouring the contrary, is why this is such a blatant case of team results above everything, plus an added splash of “well defence does not matter that much” (spoiler: save for a few extreme outliers, it is usually the most important attribute for a big to have, because that is the base of the vast majority of team defences).

[Odinn21]

...

Imagine saying this after just nothing but baiting;
"Ewing was a more additive scorer"
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1836300

Here are culminative stats against -2.0 rDRtg defenses or better:
Moses Malone (55.84% of playoffs games): 40.8 mpg, 13.7 rpg,1.5 apg, 2.4 tov, 22.7 ppg on 47.2% FG, 82.4% FT and 54.4% TS (+0.73% rTS)
Patrick Ewing (59.43% of playoffs games): 39.7 mpg, 10.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 2.9 tov, 21.8 ppg on 46.2% FG, 76.4% FT and 51.6% TS (-1.77% rTS)

Here are culminative stats against -4.0 rDRtg defenses or better:
Moses Malone (14.29% of playoffs games): 40.5 mpg, 13.7 rpg, 2.1 apg, 1.9 tov, 27.0 ppg on 48.7% FG, 81.9% FT and 55.5% TS (+1.79% rTS)
Patrick Ewing (21.70% of playoffs games): 40.7 mpg, 11.3 rpg, 1.7 apg, 3.0 tov, 22.9 ppg on 43.7% FG, 80.0% FT and 49.0% TS (-4.48% rTS)

Also;
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1971138

There's absolutely zero data to back up picking Patrick Ewing over Moses Malone for any type of scoring load to say "his scoring was more additive".

---

Patrick Ewing was a player like Kevin Garnett and David Robinson. He had to be the #1 scoring option of his team because the circumstances dictated it. Not because he was good enough to carry an offense.

I'm sure this also will be a no analysis on your part because you don't agree with it. This is the last time I've ever responded to your baiting. Cheers.

[70sFan]

I see no reason to view Moses inside top 15 as unreasonable. I have him a bit lower due to different reasons (short prime, inconsistent defensive impact) but at his peak he was one of the best offensive bigs ever with his combination of scoring and off-ball game.

[mailmp]

I specifically said 1990 Ewing on multiple occasions, but maybe that was just too subtle. 1988-90 Ewing was a +6.3 rTS scorer whose TSAdd comfortably exceeds Moses’s three year peak from 1981-83 (with the acknowledgment that Moses’s best scoring season was 1979), but mock outrage is much easier than actually engaging with these base level assumptions. Naturally, I am baiting, and the person who seems to only ever use basketball-reference for every assessment claims there is no supporting data while deliberately ignoring the data to the contrary right on those pages must be engaging in good faith.

Speaking of which, lol at still using OBPM to make every decision. Again, though, obviously all criticisms of that methodology and how it blatantly handwaves away the single most important skill for a big is all just “baiting”. There is a discussion to be had about these two players (in ten spots maybe, lmao), but you evidently cannot engage in one past “OBPM!!!”

[Whopper_Sr]

I think you severely underrate Magic's skills, especially low block skills. Magic had the greatest low block game from a guard.


Is this about height or position? Height is agreeable but saying he was one the greatest defensive PGs would be a big stretch. Especially considering the top defensive PGs were Jason Kidd and Walt Frazier, and Chris Paul never came close to them on defense.

BTW, these are directly to your reasons and not your pick. I think Chris Paul is a good mention. Just don't agree with these particular reasons.

I don't know how to split quote so I'll respond in order.

1. Low block skills aren't highly sought after in point guards. Sure, Magic had the size to use that as an avenue but would you really pass up on a guy like CP3 just because he couldn't post up? I value Paul's outside shooting a lot more than Magic's low post skills. This is not to say Magic has no argument over Paul as the most skilled PG ever. Magic is clearly the better passer for example.

2. More about height but both. Why do you think Kidd and Frazier were miles ahead of Paul on D?

CP3's low center of gravity allowed him to bang with wings (see 2018 WCF vs. Durant and that's a post-prime Paul), his masterful timing and anticipation in the passing lanes led to numerous turnovers/fast breaks (and was deadly in the open court too) which showcased his ball hawking and the immense pressure he puts on opposing ball handlers, and his pest-like maneuvers coupled with his motor are all hallmarks of an all time great guard defender.

1. Paul's skill-set being second to none looked too much to me. Magic was almost as crafty as Paul outside of the low block and the low block should put Magic ahead for certain. That's how I saw that issue.

2. He was not as consistent. He was not as impactful.
For example after getting Kidd, the Nets went from 23rd in DRtg with +1.8 rDRtg to 1st in rDRtg with -5.0 rDRtg.
I don't see Paul making such impact on defense. He's clever as hell, one of the best passing lanes readers. But those are the qualities Kidd and Frazier had then some. These 2 are the only PGs that made an impact on defense like a proper rim protector.

No issues with preferring what Magic brings to the table over what Paul offers. While I still side with CP3, Magic's size does give him unique advantages traditional PGs lack.

As for Kidd, I doubt he was solely responsible for that -6.8 DRtg turnaround. Kittles had returned from injury in the previous as well. I also don't think any PG can have big men-like impact on defense no matter what the stats say.

[Mazter]

Here is where Shaq would come in for me, but since they voted him 8th, I will go with:

10. Jerry West. Seems like a third wheel in the Wilt/Bill decade. But he might have been more than that. Other than missing just a bit too many games, stopped him from being top 10 in scoring for 11 seasons, top 5 in 9 of them. 12x All NBA and 5x All Defensive (would have been more if it existed from the beginning). 9 Finals, 8x top 5 in MVP. Before Wilt joined, the Lakers won only 43% of the games West missed, while winning 60% when West played. Even in the Wilt period it was 70% with West against 52% without. Good enough track record to put him on top of the rest

(11) Karl Malone. From here it starts to get a tossup for me. You have Karl, Oscar and then 3 players who played in the same period, Kobe/Dirk/Kevin. The problem I have with those 3 is that neither of them stands out against each other. I go with Karl Malone because of the great longevity, but I don't know yet whether he would get my 11th spot.

(12) Kobe Bryant. 7 Finals, 5 rings, 2 Finals MVP, 1 MVP, 15 All NBA, 12 All Defensive. I doubt his leadership though based on the 12/13 season. He is a eye catching figure but behind the curtains everything was based on team mates, staff and the Lakers organisation as a whole.

[70sFan]

I specifically said 1990 Ewing on multiple occasions, but maybe that was just too subtle. 1988-90 Ewing was a +6.3 rTS scorer whose TSAdd comfortably exceeds Moses’s three year peak from 1981-83 (with the acknowledgment that Moses’s best scoring season was 1979), but mock outrage is much easier than actually engaging with these base level assumptions.

Also lol at still using OBPM to make every decision.

Don't you think that looking at one (outlier in this case) season is a bit too simplistic? Why didn't Ewing replicate this 1990 scoring again?

I'm one of Ewing supporters (he's massively underrated because his team was built in terrible way which made him look worse on offense than he really was) but I don't see any case for him over Moses offensively.

[70sFan]

I don't know how to split quote so I'll respond in order.

1. Low block skills aren't highly sought after in point guards. Sure, Magic had the size to use that as an avenue but would you really pass up on a guy like CP3 just because he couldn't post up? I value Paul's outside shooting a lot more than Magic's low post skills. This is not to say Magic has no argument over Paul as the most skilled PG ever. Magic is clearly the better passer for example.

2. More about height but both. Why do you think Kidd and Frazier were miles ahead of Paul on D?

CP3's low center of gravity allowed him to bang with wings (see 2018 WCF vs. Durant and that's a post-prime Paul), his masterful timing and anticipation in the passing lanes led to numerous turnovers/fast breaks (and was deadly in the open court too) which showcased his ball hawking and the immense pressure he puts on opposing ball handlers, and his pest-like maneuvers coupled with his motor are all hallmarks of an all time great guard defender.

1. Paul's skill-set being second to none looked too much to me. Magic was almost as crafty as Paul outside of the low block and the low block should put Magic ahead for certain. That's how I saw that issue.

2. He was not as consistent. He was not as impactful.
For example after getting Kidd, the Nets went from 23rd in DRtg with +1.8 rDRtg to 1st in rDRtg with -5.0 rDRtg.
I don't see Paul making such impact on defense. He's clever as hell, one of the best passing lanes readers. But those are the qualities Kidd and Frazier had then some. These 2 are the only PGs that made an impact on defense like a proper rim protector.

No issues with preferring what Magic brings to the table over what Paul offers. While I still side with CP3, Magic's size does give him unique advantages traditional PGs lack.

As for Kidd, I doubt he was solely responsible for that -6.8 DRtg turnaround. Kittles had returned from injury in the previous as well. I also don't think any PG can have big men-like impact on defense no matter what the stats say.

What do you think about Paul vs West/Oscar? Especially Paul vs West defensively?

[mailmp]

I just provided a sample past that. I agree for their careers Ewing was not the same level offensive player. But contrary to the assertion that Moses at his peak had an outlier season of fine defence, I posited that Ewing at his peak was operating at an outlier level as a scorer which would have positioned him to be even better in Moses’s place. Especially because even with that 1983 outlier the defensive gulf between the two is substantial.

And in response I get basketball-reference’s OBPM thrown at me, which I guess must be the true holy grail of all impact metrics.

[Dutchball97]

Now that we're talking BPM; is there a reason why Moses not once had a DBPM above 0? Was he really that bad of a defender?

[Ambrose]

I'm looking at Oscar, Kobe and KG here. We'll see how the arguments play out.

[mailmp]

He was not that bad, and being an offensive focal point evidently drained a lot of his willingness or ability to exert maximum effort on the other end (funny how that works), but the main thing is that BPM’s sole dependence on box score inputs makes it a grossly ineffectual aggregate (even Win Shares at least tried to incorporate team context — although that metric still has its own hard limits).

For comparison, DPIPM has Moses as a positive in his first three 76ers years, with 1983 as a decent positive (+1.5, 0.6, and 0.3). And I think elgee’s own plus/minus metric similarly has him as a slight positive, although I am not a Patreon so I cannot confirm exact numbers. But broadly speaking, no, he was not a good defender. As in even Shaq comes across as a clear tier (maybe more) ahead of him on defence, and obviously we have spent a lot of time needling his defensive issues.

[Whopper_Sr]

What do you think about Paul vs West/Oscar? Especially Paul vs West defensively?

On offense, Paul and Oscar had similar approaches. Both controlled and clinical. Oscar the better scorer. Paul the better shooter and passer. Playmaking is a wash I'd say. Then on defense, Paul was clearly better with even the size disadvantage.

Paul vs. West is a more challenging comparison because West was more of a combo guard leaning more towards volume scoring (on elite efficiency) and less playmaking.

I actually might have West as the slightly superior defender to Paul because there really isn't anything that Paul brings that West doesn't. West was just as good at disrupting the passing lanes although Paul still has him beat in anticipation. West's longer wingspan inevitably gave him advantages Paul couldn't touch (some rim protection, better at defending wings even though Paul was great at that too, etc). His defense would be more valuable on more teams as well.

Oscar's game was better suited for his era than West's and I'm certain West would be more valuable in the modern era because he was more dynamic offensively. West would be elite in any era, Oscar not as much. One of the reasons why I have West above Oscar.

Overall, Paul's peak and prime are on the same level as Oscar's. Slight longevity edge (with health taken into account) to Paul due to tougher era. I have them right next to each other on my ATG list. If you prefer what West gives you on offense than what Paul/Oscar offer, then West is the clear winner due to his already superior defense.

[Odinn21]

I specifically said 1990 Ewing on multiple occasions, but maybe that was just too subtle. 1988-90 Ewing was a +6.3 rTS scorer whose TSAdd comfortably exceeds Moses’s three year peak from 1981-83 (with the acknowledgment that Moses’s best scoring season was 1979), but mock outrage is much easier than actually engaging with these base level assumptions.

Also lol at still using OBPM to make every decision.

I already commented on 1990 Ewing's situation by comparing him to 1982 Malone because that was the comparison to make while considering the situations they were in.

I already showed that 1990 was a clear outlier on Ewing's part. He never replicated or came close to that kind of offensive production and efficiency. While these can be said for Moses Malone's 1982, outside of that season, Malone was closer to that level on a constant basis.
I literally talked about it in my 1st response to you.
You're putting too much stock on an outlier season.

Another thing is, Malone's defensive performance in 1983 being an outlier. Like I stated, he was inconsistent over a long period of time. But Malone matched his 1983 defensive level in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1985. 70sFan is right about Malone's prime being relatively short. He kept his numbers good until 1990, but his actual prime ended after 1985. His production was there but his impact shrunk. 1982, 1984 and the seasons after 1985 would cancel out those good defensive seasons.

You talk like I shy away from discussion and then spray lol at this and lol at that.

Here's what our debate so far;
You claimed an already goat level season could be further improved with 1990 Ewing instead of 1983 Malone. And I pointed out the thing you say that can be improved is very hard to improve.

Since we are playing around with eras, what do we think would happen if we threw 27-year-old Ewing on that 76ers team instead of Moses? Nice little direct peak comparison, seeing as 1990 Ewing was the same age as 1983 Moses. I am inclined to say they would have been even better — but alas, Ewing was born seven years too late.

First, Ewing wasn't the offensive force Moses Malone was and Moses Malone was pretty great on defense in that season. So, I don't know how you can explain that opinion.

Also the team finished the season with 65 wins, top 5 in both offense and defense, they had an SRS gap bigger than 2 to 2nd highest value. (7.53 to 5.06).
Went 12-1 in the playoffs, 3rd best win rate in NBA playoffs history while playing 2 of the top 5 SRS teams.
I mean, that performance right there is very very hard to up.

And, Moses played against great frontcourts, so it was not like he lacked a great positional competition.

You said nothing about how it could be improved. And sidestepped.

I then continued with your particular comparison with 1990 Ewing and pointed out the season Malone was in a similar situation was 1982. Also pointed out Malone staying close to his 1982 performance in terms of offensive quality and efficiency. And being better than Ewing's outlying top season.

I already stated 1983 Moses Malone being a bigger offensive force who did not lack defense. I mean I'm sure you'll try to make a case for 1990 Ewing based on his ppg number but Malone was a 31+ ppg scorer in the previous season which Malone had b2b months with 35+ ppg. He had a 38/17 month and then a 35/14 month to carry an god awful team to playoffs. 1990 Ewing had an obpm of 3.7 while 1982 Malone had 6.2. I'm also aware that you can make this about not comparing 1983 Malone to 1990 Ewing, but in terms team situations 1982 vs. 1990 is the comparison to make.
Quick side note about the gap between their offensive quality and performance; Ewing was never a 3+ obpm player before or after 1990. Moses Malone had 9 seasons with 3+ obpm in total, his obpm in his prime was 3.8 and his career obpm was also 3.1.

In short; the gap on offense between 1983 Malone and 1990 Ewing is bigger than the gap on defense. Malone was also considerably superior rebounder on both ends.

You did not say anything about why my closing statement was inaccurate or was not fair. Actually, while I gave far more analysis to you than me, you literally wrote this;

So still no actual analysis, got it.

I didn't even bother with talking about the difference between obpm and bpm. Defensive impact is still not captured by any box score or driven numbers. There's a reason why obpm should be used over bpm, because defensive components still fail.
And more directly to our topic at hand, you're saying Ewing was on the same level as Malone on offense if not better. So, why wouldn't I use obpm?
Changing the subject to bpm to "win the fight", another sidestep.

The only data you ever used are PIPM which is a bad metric to use before 1997 due to lack of full logs, missing +/- data and CORP is more of the same with +/- assumptions combined with full season BPM 1.0 (r. season + playoffs).

Here's a direct comparison for those +/- assumptions;
1985 Malone had +21.7 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Malone's +/- worth as 3.75.
2008 Garnett had +12.5 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Garnett's +/- worth as 5.50.
2007 Duncan had +17.4 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Duncan's +/- worth as 5.75.
2002 O'Neal had +11.1 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed O'Neal's +/- worth as 6.50.
Do you think Taylor got that one right?

The same thing applies for Ewing BTW. Not just saying Malone did not get the value he deserved. Those numbers before full logs have no proper validation.

You don't like me using obpm and turn to use the numbers those have no proper foundation? That seems about right...

[mailmp]

I specifically said 1990 Ewing on multiple occasions, but maybe that was just too subtle. 1988-90 Ewing was a +6.3 rTS scorer whose TSAdd comfortably exceeds Moses’s three year peak from 1981-83 (with the acknowledgment that Moses’s best scoring season was 1979), but mock outrage is much easier than actually engaging with these base level assumptions.

Also lol at still using OBPM to make every decision.

I already commented on 1990 Ewing's situation by comparing him to 1982 Malone because that was the comparison to make while considering the situations they were in.

I already showed that 1990 was a clear outlier on Ewing's part. He never replicated or came close to that kind of offensive production and efficiency.

Apart from the prior two seasons sure.

While these can be said for Moses Malone's 1982, outside of that season, Malone was closer to that level on a constant basis.
I literally talked about it in my 1st response to you.
You're putting too much stock on an outlier season.

Another thing is, Malone's defensive performance in 1983 being an outlier. Like I stated, he was inconsistent over a long period of time. But Malone ma But Malone matched his 1983 defensive level in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1985.

Based on what, his defensive rebounding? The champion of BBR’s BPM sure loves to ignore how poorly Moses fares there (not to mention DPIPM).

Here’s what our debate so far;
You claimed an already goat level season could be further improved with 1990 Ewing instead of 1983 Malone. And I pointed out the thing you say that can be improved is very hard to improve.

Also the team finished the season with 65 wins, top 5 in both offense and defense, they had an SRS gap bigger than 2 to 2nd highest value. (7.53 to 5.06).
Went 12-1 in the playoffs, 3rd best win rate in NBA playoffs history while playing 2 of the top 5 SRS teams.
I mean, that performance right there is very very hard to up.

And, Moses played against great frontcourts, so it was not like he lacked a great positional competition.

You said nothing about how it could be improved. And sidestepped.

They could win more and have a better defence...

That is not an argument. You may as well say peak Lebron would not improve the 1991-98 Bulls in place of Pippen because they were already super good.

I then continued with your particular comparison with 1990 Ewing and pointed out the season Malone was in a similar situation was 1982. Also pointed out Malone staying close to his 1982 performance in terms of offensive quality and efficiency. And being better than Ewing's outlying top season.

I already stated 1983 Moses Malone being a bigger offensive force who did not lack defense. I mean I'm sure you'll try to make a case for 1990 Ewing based on his ppg number but Malone was a 31+ ppg scorer in the previous season which Malone had b2b months with 35+ ppg. He had a 38/17 month and then a 35/14 month to carry an god awful team to playoffs. 1990 Ewing had an obpm of 3.7 while 1982 Malone had 6.2. I'm also aware that you can make this about not comparing 1983 Malone to 1990 Ewing, but in terms team situations 1982 vs. 1990 is the comparison to make.
Quick side note about the gap between their offensive quality and performance; Ewing was never a 3+ obpm player before or after 1990. Moses Malone had 9 seasons with 3+ obpm in total, his obpm in his prime was 3.8 and his career obpm was also 3.1.

In short; the gap on offense between 1983 Malone and 1990 Ewing is bigger than the gap on defense. Malone was also considerably superior rebounder on both ends.

You did not say anything about why my closing statement was inaccurate or was not fair. Actually, while I gave far more analysis to you than me, you literally wrote this;

So still no actual analysis, got it.

Throwing scoring averages is not analysis. This is what 2006 Kobe stans love to do, or Harden stans, or 2017 Westbrook stans. Saying, “But look at the pretty boxscores!” is not an actual argument for a player being better. I repeatedly highlighted how your defensive “analysis” was a cursory and baseless “Oh actually the gap was not big,” but I guess that was again too subtle for you.

I didn't even bother with talking about the difference between obpm and bpm. Defensive impact is still not captured by any box score or driven numbers. There's a reason why obpm should be used over bpm, because defensive components still fail.

Ah, yes, how convenient! It measures defence poorly so who can say how big the defensive gap was! Guess we will never know, so best just put total reliance on the offensive side.

And more directly to our topic at hand, you're saying Ewing was on the same level as Malone on offense if not better. So, why wouldn't I use obpm?
Changing the subject to bpm to "win the fight", another sidestep.

Maybe you should read better. You are the one who cares about offence only analysis, not me. At no point would I ever take the inane position of, “Well call the defence between Ewing and Moses a wash.”

The only data you ever used are PIPM which is a bad metric to use before 1997 due to lack of full logs, missing +/- data and CORP is more of the same with +/- assumptions combined with full season BPM 1.0 (r. season + playoffs).

Lmao, I was being sarcastic about you treating OBPM as a holy grail, but wow.

PIPM is leaps and bounds ahead of Basketball Reference’s BPM, as is Ben’s own plus/minus, as is CORP, but OBPM is convenient and superficial so praise be to it and all its one-sided value. I guess BPM probably has some super secret full log that makes it actually the best? Oh, wait, no, it literally just looks at a statline and churns out a number. Analytics!!!

Here's a direct comparison for those +/- assumptions;
1985 Malone had +21.7 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Malone's +/- worth as 3.75.
2008 Garnett had +12.5 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Garnett's +/- worth as 5.50.
2007 Duncan had +17.4 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed Duncan's +/- worth as 5.75.
2002 O'Neal had +11.1 on/off NRtg differential. Taylor assumed O'Neal's +/- worth as 6.50.
Do you think Taylor got that one right?

Yes lmfao, because using on/off the way you do is utter nonsense. Was 1981 Julius Erving worse than Mo Cheeks or Bobby Jones? Was Dwight Howard regularly not the best player on the Magic? Was Kemp regularly like the fourth best player on Seattle? Raw on/off offers no lineup correction and consequently only has the most rudimentary of real value, and here you are going, “Ben Taylor, what a dumbass, never even checked the on/off splits smh.” Honestly stunned that freethedevil has not jumped down your throat for that take before.

You don't like me using obpm and turn to use the numbers those have no proper foundation? That seems about right...

No proper foundation like OBPM or raw on/off, oh, I am in stitches. Unless you personally worked on OBPM, this stanning for it as an actual top tier metric is one of the most ludicrous things I have read on this forum.

[70sFan]

What do you think about Paul vs West/Oscar? Especially Paul vs West defensively?

On offense, Paul and Oscar had similar approaches. Both controlled and clinical. Oscar the better scorer. Paul the better shooter and passer. Playmaking is a wash I'd say. Then on defense, Paul was clearly better with even the size disadvantage.

Paul vs. West is a more challenging comparison because West was more of a combo guard leaning more towards volume scoring (on elite efficiency) and less playmaking.

I actually might have West as the slightly superior defender to Paul because there really isn't anything that Paul brings that West doesn't. West was just as good at disrupting the passing lanes although Paul still has him beat in anticipation. West's longer wingspan inevitably gave him advantages Paul couldn't touch (some rim protection, better at defending wings even though Paul was great at that too, etc). His defense would be more valuable on more teams as well.

Oscar's game was better suited for his era than West's and I'm certain West would be more valuable in the modern era because he was more dynamic offensively. West would be elite in any era, Oscar not as much. One of the reasons why I have West above Oscar.

Overall, Paul's peak and prime are on the same level as Oscar's. Slight longevity edge (with health taken into account) to Paul due to tougher era. I have them right next to each other on my ATG list. If you prefer what West gives you on offense than what Paul/Oscar offer, then West is the clear winner due to his already superior defense.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate that. I don't agree with some things (Oscar being worse shooter for example) but you put everything well overall

[Odinn21]

I should stick with my decision with not responding to lols and lfmaos. I stopped responding to what freethedevil has to say about my posts because all he did was acting arrogant and baiting like if this was Reddit or ISH. Time to do the same with you.

"Yes lmfao, because using on/off the way you do is utter nonsense. Was 1981 Julius Erving worse than Mo Cheeks or Bobby Jones? Was Dwight Howard regularly not the best player on the Magic? Was Kemp regularly like the fourth best player on Seattle? Raw on/off offers no lineup correction and consequently only has the most rudimentary of real value, and here you are going, “Ben Taylor, what a dumbass, never even checked the on/off splits smh.” Honestly stunned that freethedevil has not jumped down your throat for that take before."
This alone is just ironic. I said +/- data before 1997 is not reliable and we have the Sixers numbers because Dipper 13 kept those logs at the time and shared.
If you took my point as those +/- numbers for being better or worse while the point is about the process and the results not being reliable in any way. There's no such thing as RAPM or similar thing for before 1997. Because there's not enough data to work on. There's nothing to back up those +/- valuations and CORP numbers of Taylor. If you think there's one, provide it instead of spreading lmfaos once again.
I mean, you didn't even address that it was done with BPM 1.0... The CORP on backpicks is not updated with BPM 2.0. There's still more room to investigate about reliability of that list...

Agree to disagree. Cheers.

[Dutchball97]

In defense of BPM, if you use it alongside VORP you get a generally pretty good idea of the performance of a player. Just using BPM doesn't account for games missed or total minutes played, while VORP has a tendency to reward more playing time a bit generously. They're not perfect metrics and they shouldn't just be put out there as definite proof but a combination of BPM and VORP is definitely a helpful guide to a player's performance in the majority of cases. Even if it's just to check if your view of a player is backed up by stats or not.

[mailmp]

When did I cite pre-1997 RAPM? PIPM gains accuracy when it is able to take into account RAPM, as potentially does Taylor’s BPM, but that does not make on/off a substitute, and your decision to use on/off rather than RAPM values to make your point about how “bad” Taylor’s proprietary metrics are speak pretty clearly to your conflagration of the two.

And of course none of that makes OBPM better in the pre-1997 years. It is more consistent, sure, but it is consistent in being a lower value and more superficial assessment. As I said originally, it is much easier to stick your fingers in your eyes when people point out blatant flaws in your “analysis” rather than consider, oh, wait, why am I trumpeting a contextless statline above all else because at least it equally maintains that lack of context across eras.

Oh and by the way, Taylor has his own BPM lol. That is how useful he found BBR’s — “oh man I really need to make my own version” Granted, dumb move on his part to give it the same name, but feels like something you should have picked up on a lot earlier. There is consequently nothing to “address” regarding throwing BPM values up at the top of those Backpicks profiles, because they are just there for quick reader reference (did the Nash profile not tip you off?). In contrast, your baseless elevation of Moses’s defence did seem to go unaddressed, as did the even more comical assertion that apparently great teams cannot be improved with better players; what a strange silence...

However, even if Ben did meaningfully care about BPM 1.0, you seem to assume the new version is better by virtue of being new, when in reality they made it even more box score reliant and removed outside context entirely. But hey, keep championing it! At least you can be “consistent” in not contributing much in the way of real analysis and instead dumping the need to dig any deeper.

What you are doing does not qualify as any sort of “reexamination” of Taylor’s profiles. His work has his flaws, but not valuing BPM 2.0 is a positive, not a negative, and showcases an actual understanding of box score limitations that you would do well to develop. Cheers.