Retro Player of the Year 2006-07 UPDATE — Tim Duncan

[lessthanjake]

I don’t understand this idea that because someone found a particular type of data important in one year then they are being inconsistent/hypocritical to not be dispositively guided by that particular type of data in another year.

Essentially everyone assesses things by looking at the totality of the available information, rather than any one particular thing. Given that, it is not at all surprising that a particular type of data could get a player over the top one year while not being enough to overcome other information a different year. For instance, team offensive stats are a relevant data point. But if two players have mediocre team offenses, it is totally reasonable to come to a different conclusion about the player with incredible individual box numbers compared to one with less good box numbers. That’s not being inconsistent. It is coming to a different conclusion where the totality of the available information is materially different.

[ceoofkobefans]

Box creation tracks open shots created for teammates per 100 possessions. It's not based on box score.

And how exactly does it calculate “open shots created for teammates”.

The project is player of the year, not team of the year. Naturally I do care more about individual production than I do team offensive results.

Yet your reflexive argument against Lebron as #2 was team offensive results.

Of course the easiest case for evaluation is if the two go hand in hand. But correlation isn't the same as causation. For many seasons, especially prior to 1997, we don't have enough impact data to figure out who affects the game more. 1988 partial RAPM was a factor (albeit a small one and just a piece of the puzzle) in my valuation of Jordan > Magic in that year for both POY and OPOY. But as I recall, you dismissed that data.

Yes, because partial RAPM based on snippets of a season is not a serious citation — nor do you care about that either, seeing as Nash was completely off your OPoY ballot last year.

Read the article about Box Creation here: https://fansided.com/2017/08/11/nylon-calculus-measuring-creation-box-score/

As Ben describes, it is a regression model and calculated using box score data but very closely matches hand-tracked data for Opportunities Created. I guess my original post on that is inaccurate. I should have said that it is box-based but accurately predicts creation.

Because Lebron's individual production was poor as well. It's a double whammy.

Agree to disagree. I think 42 games for Jordan and 54 for Magic is a very decent sized sample to just dismiss.

You’re talking to guys that think LeBron created 25 shots a game in 06

[AEnigma]

Box creation tracks open shots created for teammates per 100 possessions. It's not based on box score.

And how exactly does it calculate “open shots created for teammates”.

The project is player of the year, not team of the year. Naturally I do care more about individual production than I do team offensive results.

Yet your reflexive argument against Lebron as #2 was team offensive results.

Of course the easiest case for evaluation is if the two go hand in hand. But correlation isn't the same as causation. For many seasons, especially prior to 1997, we don't have enough impact data to figure out who affects the game more. 1988 partial RAPM was a factor (albeit a small one and just a piece of the puzzle) in my valuation of Jordan > Magic in that year for both POY and OPOY. But as I recall, you dismissed that data.

Yes, because partial RAPM based on snippets of a season is not a serious citation — nor do you care about that either, seeing as Nash was completely off your OPoY ballot last year.

Read the article about Box Creation here: https://fansided.com/2017/08/11/nylon-calculus-measuring-creation-box-score/

As Ben describes, it is a regression model and calculated using box score data but very closely matches hand-tracked data for Opportunities Created. I guess my original post on that is inaccurate. I should have said that it is box-based but accurately predicts creation.

Because Lebron's individual production was poor as well. It's a double whammy.

Agree to disagree. I think 42 games for Jordan and 54 for Magic is a very decent sized sample to just dismiss.

That is a pitiful sample out of 1230 games every season (which itself is still an unstable sample).

Lebron’s individual production was only “poor” if all you value is scoring output.

Box creation corresponding to Ben’s own tracking reasonably enough that he feels fine using it as an approximation is not much of an argument. Most approaches can give you okay approximations, but that is not a substitution for watching and seeing more of the offence go through Lebron, seeing Lebron create more open looks for his teammates, seeing Lebron make reads that Jordan rarely ever makes, seeing defenders collapse on Lebron in a way they infrequently did for Jordan…

[AEnigma]

And how exactly does it calculate “open shots created for teammates”.


Yet your reflexive argument against Lebron as #2 was team offensive results.


Yes, because partial RAPM based on snippets of a season is not a serious citation — nor do you care about that either, seeing as Nash was completely off your OPoY ballot last year.

Read the article about Box Creation here: https://fansided.com/2017/08/11/nylon-calculus-measuring-creation-box-score/

As Ben describes, it is a regression model and calculated using box score data but very closely matches hand-tracked data for Opportunities Created. I guess my original post on that is inaccurate. I should have said that it is box-based but accurately predicts creation.

Because Lebron's individual production was poor as well. It's a double whammy.

Agree to disagree. I think 42 games for Jordan and 54 for Magic is a very decent sized sample to just dismiss.

You’re talking to guys that think LeBron created 25 shots a game in 06

Quote me. Should be easy; after all, if I thought that, surely I would have put Lebron on my ballots in 2006.

[AEnigma]

I don’t understand this idea that because someone found a particular type of data important in one year then they are being inconsistent/hypocritical to not be dispositively guided by that particular type of data in another year.

Essentially everyone assesses things by looking at the totality of the available information, rather than any one particular thing. Given that, it is not at all surprising that a particular type of data could get a player over the top one year while not being enough to overcome other information a different year. For instance, team offensive stats are a relevant data point. But if two players have mediocre team offenses, it is totally reasonable to come to a different conclusion about the player with incredible individual box numbers compared to one with less good box numbers. That’s not being inconsistent. It is coming to a different conclusion where the totality of the available information is materially different.

Did Magic have a mediocre team offence? Did Nash? No? Then he obviously does not actually care and is just grasping for an easy dismissal.

[OhayoKD]

And how exactly does it calculate “open shots created for teammates”.


Yet your reflexive argument against Lebron as #2 was team offensive results.


Yes, because partial RAPM based on snippets of a season is not a serious citation — nor do you care about that either, seeing as Nash was completely off your OPoY ballot last year.

Read the article about Box Creation here: https://fansided.com/2017/08/11/nylon-calculus-measuring-creation-box-score/

As Ben describes, it is a regression model and calculated using box score data but very closely matches hand-tracked data for Opportunities Created. I guess my original post on that is inaccurate. I should have said that it is box-based but accurately predicts creation.

Because Lebron's individual production was poor as well. It's a double whammy.

Agree to disagree. I think 42 games for Jordan and 54 for Magic is a very decent sized sample to just dismiss.

You’re talking to guys that think LeBron created 25 shots a game in 06

And you're talking to a guy who thinks these two players are comparable playmakers:

Spoiler:

jordan archangel, 13-11, +2 net, with a team that won 27 before he got there

Spoiler:

lebron archangel, 11-0 +8 net with starters(- mo williams) that won at an 18-win pace without Lebron but with Mo-Williams

A Box-score (and it is "a", approaches that heavily favor Lebron exist (example: IBM, anything that inputs the tracking you're referring to, ec) and can be infinitely replicated and refined too) holds value to the degree it can explain winning. And I'm afraid with regards to Lebron or Jordan, a box-score which suggests "the gap is closer than assists suggest" isn't explaining much of anything.

[Djoker]

And how exactly does it calculate “open shots created for teammates”.


Yet your reflexive argument against Lebron as #2 was team offensive results.


Yes, because partial RAPM based on snippets of a season is not a serious citation — nor do you care about that either, seeing as Nash was completely off your OPoY ballot last year.

Read the article about Box Creation here: https://fansided.com/2017/08/11/nylon-calculus-measuring-creation-box-score/

As Ben describes, it is a regression model and calculated using box score data but very closely matches hand-tracked data for Opportunities Created. I guess my original post on that is inaccurate. I should have said that it is box-based but accurately predicts creation.

Because Lebron's individual production was poor as well. It's a double whammy.

Agree to disagree. I think 42 games for Jordan and 54 for Magic is a very decent sized sample to just dismiss.

That is a pitiful sample out of 1230 games every season (which itself is still an unstable sample).

Lebron’s individual production was only “poor” if all you value is scoring output.

Box creation corresponding to Ben’s own tracking reasonably enough that he feels fine using it as an approximation is not much of an argument. Most approaches can give you okay approximations, but that is not a substitution for watching and seeing more of the offence go through Lebron, seeing Lebron create more open looks for his teammates, seeing Lebron make reads that Jordan rarely ever makes, seeing defenders collapse on Lebron in a way they infrequently did for Jordan…

I value creation as well but as I explained they are neck and neck in the RS and Lebron's edge in the PS doesn't come close to compensating for his much inferior scoring.

[Paulluxx9000]

Lebron
Duncan
Nash
Dirk
Garnett
The kid’s not completely ready now but Lebron is definitely verging on making this his league.

Spoiler:

Finally the kid from Akron. Chasing Jordan, but in Magic’s mold:

Over the previous years the offense goes from Kareem-centric to Magic-centric. A lot of people lament Magic not being given the reigns earlier but it’s not so easy. Prime Kareem completely invalidates high-level defense if you use him right.(and who was using him correctly…) Even now he is a huge headache for opposing teams but, you know who also invalidates high-level defense entirely? Magic.
It’s easy to just look at the assists but if you go by the assists Isiah isn’t that far off. Here’s what Magic has that Isiah doesn’t. You have 5 guys there to make sure Magic or one of his teammates doesn’t score. But if there’s just a sliver of daylight. Just a few guys ever so slightly overextended…Magic might just render all 5 of those defenders moot in a flash. He has unbelievable ball control, he’s big and powerful at the basket, he uses his eyes better than anyone, and has a cannon for an arm. He can defeat your defense basically himself. He might not end the possession with a tough contested fadeaway, but he’ll do it his way. And there’s only one other guy you could ever say that about. And he isn’t going to be on anyone’s ballot until 2004.(unless you’re really into him and are a “High school LeBron was the level of an NBA All-Star” (real people that exist))
Finally, his brain. His advanced stats are ridiculous But that doesn’t tell you how someone makes his teammates better. Magic’s impact is ridiculous. Magic is the smartest player on the court every time he steps on it(yes, smarter than Bird). He knows where he needs to go and where you need to go and he’ll make sure you and him both go where you need to go at the time and place you both need to be there. And he does that better than anyone else and everyone who comes after, probably even including that 2004 guy(who’s better at a couple other things).
Is his team good? Yes. Is Kareem amazing? Definitely. But we seem him still doing all this with explicitly fine and not Kareem teammates when he crosses 30

Great stats. Great tape. Undeniable impact. You play to win and no one ever makes you win like him (Russell yes). But what’s been lost to time is the pressure. Not from just being so incredibly good, but because there was a type of good many wanted him to be:
https://youtu.be/mZE4NuH_uuA?t=271
One of the things that always rubbed me wrong is how people covered and still cover Lebron pre-miami. I think it's obvious for anyone who paid attention he was already one of the smartest players ever.
Yet many say things like "he didn't know how to win" (Lebron himself caved in to this one unfortunately), "he didn't know how to close", "he wasn't a game manager yet", while lambsting his almost always correct decision-making as soft, weak, or not "alpha"
And then I came across this; one of the most absurd collection of interview questions in history aimed at any basketball player from one of the most respected and, at least by reputation, class personified, Bob Costas.
We talk about what Russell and Kareem faced, but I don't know I've seen this seriously discussed with Lebron: How much did race factor into how Lebron was and still is covered. Times 100 when we speak of the part of his career before his first ring.
Many hate how he took control of his own future. How he took control of his teams. How he took control of offensive possessions. How he’s trying to take control of endless ridiculous narratives written up exclusively for him and him alone. I applaud it. Invalidating opponent defense. Controlling opponent offense. That’s on film. But entering the most negative environment almost any player has ever entered with teammates and anchors alike chomping at Hummers and Tatoos to see him fail; and forcing all of them to shut up? Chosen one indeed.
20 years old and he already has Cleveland winning despite it all. And he’s just getting started. 20 years later and he’s not even finished.

The playmaking was mostly there already but now the other shoe drops. Ontop of making like Magic, he’s defending like Pippen even with a shaky jumper that type of combination that can make you the best player in the league. You need to think of him inside. He’s not AK47 but he will spend stretches of games on the backline and makes would be dunkers and slashers second-guess themselves and try a different path. He’s an active and disciplined man defender running 1 through 4 and occasionally even 5s. He’s a bit gambly to start the year but as the season progresses you see all the components for the two way monster he’s about to become. Poised but powerful. Disciplined but dynamic His shooting isn’t there for the final hurdle but he finds other ways to keep his team in. Tripled and quadrupled and still more often than not he finds the right man at the right spot at breakneck speed. Add in the fear he’s putting in manu and parker at his basket and you get a massively overmatched cleveland team lottery-level cast staying right there every game. They probably win a couple if Mike Brown isn’t trying to use Lebron like Jordan. Waiting and cutting in the corner where the Spurs can afford to leave one man instead of three or four while Gibson brings it up with his broken foot again and again for dinosaur offense. Or putting Gibson on Parker or tanking their offense with Snow when they have someone who can handle him nearly on his lonesome. It wasn’t an all powerful performance and there are plenty of things to work on. But for anyone who really watched there was lots to praise. And don’t get me started how he got there 27 straight vs Detroit. But that’s not the point. The Cavs got where they got on great defense and under the noses of alot of people who make it all about deflections and steals. A really great attacker became a really great defender.
Then there’s second.

Spoiler:

Tim Duncan. You could say he was already the best player. You could. Really. He’s that good. He can pop, he can pass, he can block, he can step out and stop. He needs a little time to figure it out but man, it’s only a little. KG, Shaq, Duncan. Side by side by side in their primes. That’s just incredible. I’m a Duncan over Hakeem guy. No he didn’t move as much. No he didn’t spin like a ballerina. But he was there, where he needed to be, whenever he needed to be, again and again and again and again and again. Bowens. Robinson. Manu. Tika Taka. Twin Towers. No matter what Duncan was there. On and off, placed in a straight jacket. Given little privilege over the guy seated at the end of he bench. Duncan didn’t get to be an icon. But he was always there all the same. He’s a monster to score on. He’s a monster to defend. Shaq is shaq but if there was no shaq Duncan would be next. Triples and doubles galore. And he can pass it, really pass it. Not just praying on neanderthal defensive schemes like the Jordans and Hakeems, but make for others when making is hard.
And you never want to try him at the basket. Unless you’re shaq. And like the tortoise vs the hare, even the quick and fast will run into trouble if they confuse Mr.Duncan as some statue. He’s not the full thing but he’s already pretty close. He’s the best of his era. And when he faces Malone he might already be BITW.
He’ll get better no doubt. He has work to do containing penetration. Work to do as using his unusual ball control to turn doubles into near triples and work to do timing when he jumps. But the key qualities are all there and the Spurs win with what was close to about any team ever as a 2 man team.

Champion, Defensive monster and undervalued at getting other guys going. This is his last great superstar year but what a run. You easily could say he was still the best. I’m valuing the offense more but you can’t go wrong either way. Ridiculous he wasn’t Finals MVP.
Nash is so close. So so close. It hurts.

Spoiler:

Nash, nash, nash, nash. What he lacks in Power he replaces with persistence. Constant pressure. He kept the ball closer to the hardwood better than anyone letting him negate defenders without a pass or a shot. And he passes like crazy. And he can shoot incredibly too. You put him on Stockton’s teams and they win a ring. Talking heads talk as if his offense was a regular season flash but he fried the Spurs offensively. It’s honestly part of why Nash has a claim to as the GOAT offensive player.

Maybe they still lose but that’s a crazy way to have your hopes stripped from you. Nash didn’t end up a champion but he played like one for sure.
Dirk has a fantastic year. Bad bad loss but I’m not going to pretend he’s not who he was because of a a few games and a bad matchup.

Spoiler:

Dallas has it’s man. Dirk Nowitski is tall and strong and can shoot incredibly well. Monstrous in the post efficient at the hole unrivalled in-between and accurate from deep. Dirk was a do-it-all at delivering baskets. His passing is just okay but just okay was enough with how scary defenses and centers found Dirk’s arsenal. You can’t confuse him with some incredible defender but he’s okay there too. He’s still figuring things out now but the full package is fantastic and it’s approaching fast.

It’s sad he loses the way he loses because some really not smart people will spend the next few years saying he’s a chokers. He’ll make them look very stupid very soon though.
Finally Garnett. Even though he missed the playoffs, I think the wolves have genuinely the worst roster in the league and I don’t want to punish KG when he is still a top 5 player in the league:

Spoiler:

He’s mostly there now. Kevin Garnett. Where Duncan is strong, he’s nimble. Duncan waits, he traverses. A versatile offensive piece, hitting jumpers, can handle the ball, can post, and of the bigs can pass it the best. A foreshadowing of the Giannis/AD types. He’s not quite there, no one is, but at this point in league history he was a unicorn. Maybe a little more power would have done him better in the playoffs, but he mostly delivered anyway. I will not fault someone for the failures of others.

KG is better than Kobe, Amare, Tmac, Gilbert, Wade, Dwight and Melo. He wins it all next year proving his doubters all the way wrong but to this day many still trot out Malone and Barkley and this player or that player because really it’s not about winning or adversity or anything they say it is. It’s just about Hesi Tween and Hesi Tween and Scoring titles and all that Jazz. And then it’s about the computer formulas or that tell you their obsession with the points was right and the rest doesn’t matter. Greatness can slap these people in the face but they won’t care unless it comes how they want it to. It was really just Thibs it was really just Pop it was really just the system. But never it was really just Phil Jackson it was really just Rick Carisle it was really just Kerr it was really just Mike Malone. KG was always a winner. 2008 made it undeniable but it was always true

[OhayoKD]

Read the article about Box Creation here: https://fansided.com/2017/08/11/nylon-calculus-measuring-creation-box-score/

As Ben describes, it is a regression model and calculated using box score data but very closely matches hand-tracked data for Opportunities Created. I guess my original post on that is inaccurate. I should have said that it is box-based but accurately predicts creation.

Because Lebron's individual production was poor as well. It's a double whammy.

Agree to disagree. I think 42 games for Jordan and 54 for Magic is a very decent sized sample to just dismiss.

That is a pitiful sample out of 1230 games every season (which itself is still an unstable sample).

Lebron’s individual production was only “poor” if all you value is scoring output.

Box creation corresponding to Ben’s own tracking reasonably enough that he feels fine using it as an approximation is not much of an argument. Most approaches can give you okay approximations, but that is not a substitution for watching and seeing more of the offence go through Lebron, seeing Lebron create more open looks for his teammates, seeing Lebron make reads that Jordan rarely ever makes, seeing defenders collapse on Lebron in a way they infrequently did for Jordan…

I value creation as well but as I explained they are neck and neck in the RS and Lebron's edge in the PS doesn't come close to compensating for his much inferior scoring.

"Neck and Neck"

Spoiler:

jordan archangel, 13-11, +2 net, with a team that won 27 before he got there
lebron archangel, 11-0 +8 net with starters(- mo williams) that won at an 18-win pace without Lebron but with Mo-Williams

lebron 09-21
656-263 with lebron 0.714% win rate
37-73 without lebron 0.336% win rate
net rating with lebron +6.49 (59 win pace level)
net rating without lebron -5.50 (25 win pace level)
+8.6 ortg difference

jordan 88-98
bulls with MJ 490-176 (73.6% win rate)
bulls without MJ 90-64 (58.4% win rate)
net rating with MJ +7.7 (62 win pace level)
net rating without MJ +3.6 (52 win pace level)
+5.1 ortg difference

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2404639

Just going by what was counted Lebron has a significant advantage creating 10 more DTOs (66% more) and affecting 14 more defenders overall (40% more).


Final Tally: Lebron

Over the 40 tracked possessions, I gave Lebron 30 DTOs and an additional 14 ADAs. I also gave Lebron 12 creations: 3 great, 3 good, 4 decent, and 2 weak. Even at 22, asked to acquiesce ball-handling duties to a one-legged Hughes, Lebron showcases incredible defensive pull basically drawing triples whenever he drives. Combining that with all-time passing ability creates a seemingly underrated creative force (overshadowed by hyper-fixation on Lebron’s weaker scoring performance, and undersold by his assists-per-game). Lebron could have created more(and scored more efficiently) with better-shot selection, especially at the start.


Final Tally: Jordan

In 40 Possessions I gave MJ 20 DTOs and 11 ADAs. I also credited Jordan with 9 creations: 1 great, 3 good, 4 decent creations, and 1 weak. Part of me wonders if that “great” even qualifies as “good” but generally 3 defenders taken out has been my bar for great and I’ve decided to mostly leave the “contextual” stuff for the analysis section rather than the raw tracking. Jordan showcased pretty good shot-selection and a willingness to pass, but it seems a combination of relative deficits in terms of build and vision prevented Jordan from seeing and/or hitting on some of the more ambitious reads/windows.

[lessthanjake]

I don’t understand this idea that because someone found a particular type of data important in one year then they are being inconsistent/hypocritical to not be dispositively guided by that particular type of data in another year.

Essentially everyone assesses things by looking at the totality of the available information, rather than any one particular thing. Given that, it is not at all surprising that a particular type of data could get a player over the top one year while not being enough to overcome other information a different year. For instance, team offensive stats are a relevant data point. But if two players have mediocre team offenses, it is totally reasonable to come to a different conclusion about the player with incredible individual box numbers compared to one with less good box numbers. That’s not being inconsistent. It is coming to a different conclusion where the totality of the available information is materially different.

Did Magic have a mediocre team offence? Did Nash? No? Then he obviously does not actually care and is just grasping for an easy dismissal.

I just was giving one of a hypothetical example to demonstrate a general point. As for Magic and Nash, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You are again suggesting here that if one finds something important in one year, then it must always be dispositive. Again, any individual data point is just one piece of the totality of available information. Just because it is notable that a player’s team had a mediocre offensive rating one year does not mean that players with mediocre team offensive ratings must be ranked lower every year. The totality of the available information isn’t the same when looking at different players in a different year! That should be obvious! Unless Djoker is suggesting that the *only* piece of information we should care about is team offensive rating (which I am confident is not what Djoker is saying), then this is not really a valid criticism.

[AEnigma]

I don’t understand this idea that because someone found a particular type of data important in one year then they are being inconsistent/hypocritical to not be dispositively guided by that particular type of data in another year.

Essentially everyone assesses things by looking at the totality of the available information, rather than any one particular thing. Given that, it is not at all surprising that a particular type of data could get a player over the top one year while not being enough to overcome other information a different year. For instance, team offensive stats are a relevant data point. But if two players have mediocre team offenses, it is totally reasonable to come to a different conclusion about the player with incredible individual box numbers compared to one with less good box numbers. That’s not being inconsistent. It is coming to a different conclusion where the totality of the available information is materially different.

Did Magic have a mediocre team offence? Did Nash? No? Then he obviously does not actually care and is just grasping for an easy dismissal.

I just was giving one of a hypothetical example to demonstrate a general point. As for Magic and Nash, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You are again suggesting here that if one finds something important in one year, then it must always be dispositive. Again, any individual data point is just one piece of the totality of available information. Just because it is notable that a player’s team had a mediocre offensive rating one year does not mean that players with mediocre team offensive ratings must be ranked lower every year. The totality of the available information isn’t the same when looking at different players in a different year! That should be obvious! Unless Djoker is suggesting that the *only* piece of information we should care about is team offensive rating (which I am confident is not what Djoker is saying), then this is not really a valid criticism.

If only it were possible to read the comment written on page one.

There is not a coherent standard by which one can exclude Nash from the 2006 OPoY ballot entirely while also scoffing at the idea Lebron merits #2 on an OPoY ballot in 2007… apart from one which is built around scoring quality, not team results.

[lessthanjake]

Read the article about Box Creation here: https://fansided.com/2017/08/11/nylon-calculus-measuring-creation-box-score/

As Ben describes, it is a regression model and calculated using box score data but very closely matches hand-tracked data for Opportunities Created. I guess my original post on that is inaccurate. I should have said that it is box-based but accurately predicts creation.

Because Lebron's individual production was poor as well. It's a double whammy.

Agree to disagree. I think 42 games for Jordan and 54 for Magic is a very decent sized sample to just dismiss.

You’re talking to guys that think LeBron created 25 shots a game in 06

And you're talking to a guy who thinks these two players are comparable playmakers:
jordan archangel, 13-11, +2 net, with a team that won 27 before he got there
lebron archangel, 11-0 +8 net with starters(- mo williams) that won at an 18-win pace without Lebron but with Mo-Williams

This is a silly spammed stat that occurred in two completely different contexts, and it’s never been clear why we should particularly care about a stretch of games without Mo Williams. It’s not as if LeBron’s role was materially different without Mo Williams. You’re just cherry-picking a small-sample stretch that you like.

But it also is just significantly misleading and/or silly for several reasons (many of which have already been explained to you before):

1. The part where you talk about how Jordan was “with a team that won 27 before he got there” is just nonsensical. You are referring to the 1983-84 Bulls winning 27 games. How does that team bear any relationship to the 1988-89 Bulls that Jordan played PG with? The only player who was on both teams was Dave Corzine! And the coach was different too. As I have said to you many times when you make completely nonsense WOWY comparisons regarding teams that are not at all the same team, you might as well be comparing the 1989 Bulls to a season of a totally random franchise. It wouldn’t be any more irrelevant. Granted, 27 wins is bad, but it still wouldn’t matter if the 1983-84 Bulls won 0 games or 82 games. There’s simply no useful comparison between two teams with only one overlapping player. I find it difficult to understand how you keep making this mistake.

2. The part about winning “at an 18-win pace without LeBron but with Mo Williams” is curious, because in the years LeBron was on the team, the Cavaliers only played 4 games without LeBron and with Mo Williams, and two of those were end-of-season games that didn’t matter. So you’re either indexing on a tiny sample size of games that includes only two games the Cavaliers cared about (in which they went 1-1 with a positive SRS, by the way), or you’re basing the stat off of the 2011 Cavaliers. I believe it’s the latter. And, well, here’s the problem: Only 51% of the minutes played by the 2011 Cavaliers in games Mo Williams played were actually played by players who had played *any* minutes for the Cavaliers in that 2010 stretch you refer to. It’s a team that was only half the same! And really less than half when we account for the fact that it was a different coach. So this is obviously a very flawed WOWY comparison. And that’s of course leaving aside the tanking aspect of things. Of course, a valid response from you to this might be that having that kind of churn in terms of different players playing minutes year to year isn’t all that abnormal. And I imagine that’s true. But that’s just a reason to think that relying on WOWY is a bad approach in general.

3. You appear to have ignored the playoffs for Jordan that year, despite him being at PG in that timeframe too (as clearly evidenced by Hodges—squarely a PG—starting every game, despite basically never starting for the Bulls otherwise while he was on the team). Which is an interesting decision, since the Bulls upset two favored opponents in a row before handing the Pistons their only losses of the playoffs. The 1989 Bulls had a playoff rNET of +5.9. Interestingly enough, even *with Mo Williams,* LeBron’s 2010 Cavaliers only put up a playoff rNET of +2.7.

[lessthanjake]

Did Magic have a mediocre team offence? Did Nash? No? Then he obviously does not actually care and is just grasping for an easy dismissal.

I just was giving one of a hypothetical example to demonstrate a general point. As for Magic and Nash, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You are again suggesting here that if one finds something important in one year, then it must always be dispositive. Again, any individual data point is just one piece of the totality of available information. Just because it is notable that a player’s team had a mediocre offensive rating one year does not mean that players with mediocre team offensive ratings must be ranked lower every year. The totality of the available information isn’t the same when looking at different players in a different year! That should be obvious! Unless Djoker is suggesting that the *only* piece of information we should care about is team offensive rating (which I am confident is not what Djoker is saying), then this is not really a valid criticism.

If only it were possible to read the comment written on page one.

There is not a coherent standard by which one can exclude Nash from the 2006 OPoY ballot entirely while also scoffing at the idea Lebron merits #2 on an OPoY ballot in 2007… apart from one which is built around scoring quality, not team results.

I would’ve put Nash on my OPOY ballot for 2006 if I were voting (might’ve even put him #1). But I don’t really see how there couldn’t be a coherent standard for what you describe. Again, there’s other factors besides team results. Team results can matter but still be overcome by other pieces of data. And sometimes it will matter and *not* be overcome by other pieces of data. It depends on what other information we have and how one assesses that other information. Moreover, team results always must be seen in the overall team context they came in, so what team results mean to a given person in a given year can differ from another person based on how good they assess the relevant players’ teammates to be offensively, how one assesses the offensive-mindedness of the relevant teams and their game plan, etc. I’ve not gone back and read what Djoker said specifically but I recall that Djoker took a view of the 2005 Suns as having been very offense-minded, and so I imagine that even with the 2006 Suns being less offensively talented, Djoker probably has a different assessment of the offensive strength around Nash that year than you or I do. Basically, I think you’re trying to find incoherence in something that is really just a result of a person’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances that you just don’t agree with, perhaps because you are assuming things are being weighed a certain way that they’re not or are assuming things are being assessed in a certain way that they’re not (for instance, my example about the offensive situation around Nash in 2006).

[AEnigma]

I just was giving one of a hypothetical example to demonstrate a general point. As for Magic and Nash, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You are again suggesting here that if one finds something important in one year, then it must always be dispositive. Again, any individual data point is just one piece of the totality of available information. Just because it is notable that a player’s team had a mediocre offensive rating one year does not mean that players with mediocre team offensive ratings must be ranked lower every year. The totality of the available information isn’t the same when looking at different players in a different year! That should be obvious! Unless Djoker is suggesting that the *only* piece of information we should care about is team offensive rating (which I am confident is not what Djoker is saying), then this is not really a valid criticism.

If only it were possible to read the comment written on page one.

There is not a coherent standard by which one can exclude Nash from the 2006 OPoY ballot entirely while also scoffing at the idea Lebron merits #2 on an OPoY ballot in 2007… apart from one which is built around scoring quality, not team results.

I would’ve put Nash on my OPOY ballot for 2006 if I were voting (might’ve even put him #1). But I don’t really see how there couldn’t be a coherent standard for what you describe. Again, there’s other factors besides team results. Team results can matter but still be overcome by other pieces of data. And sometimes it will matter and *not* be overcome by other pieces of data. It depends on what other information we have and how one assesses that other information. Moreover, team results always must be seen in the overall team context they came in, so what team results mean to a given person in a given year can differ from another person based on how good they assess the relevant players’ teammates to be offensively, how one assesses the offensive-mindedness of the relevant teams and their game plan, etc. I’ve not gone back and read what Djoker said specifically but I recall that Djoker took a view of the 2005 Suns as having been very offense-minded, and so I imagine that even with the 2006 Suns being less offensively talented, Djoker probably has a different assessment of the offensive strength around Nash that year than you or I do. Basically, I think you’re trying to find incoherence in something that is really just a result of a person’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances that you just don’t agree with, perhaps because you are assuming things are being weighed a certain way that they’re not or are assuming things are being assessed in a certain way that they’re not (for instance, my example about the offensive situation around Nash in 2006).

This is not a response to what I said, but I suppose I should not be surprised when you are more interested in talking in abstractions than in reading what people write.

[lessthanjake]

If only it were possible to read the comment written on page one.

There is not a coherent standard by which one can exclude Nash from the 2006 OPoY ballot entirely while also scoffing at the idea Lebron merits #2 on an OPoY ballot in 2007… apart from one which is built around scoring quality, not team results.

I would’ve put Nash on my OPOY ballot for 2006 if I were voting (might’ve even put him #1). But I don’t really see how there couldn’t be a coherent standard for what you describe. Again, there’s other factors besides team results. Team results can matter but still be overcome by other pieces of data. And sometimes it will matter and *not* be overcome by other pieces of data. It depends on what other information we have and how one assesses that other information. Moreover, team results always must be seen in the overall team context they came in, so what team results mean to a given person in a given year can differ from another person based on how good they assess the relevant players’ teammates to be offensively, how one assesses the offensive-mindedness of the relevant teams and their game plan, etc. I’ve not gone back and read what Djoker said specifically but I recall that Djoker took a view of the 2005 Suns as having been very offense-minded, and so I imagine that even with the 2006 Suns being less offensively talented, Djoker probably has a different assessment of the offensive strength around Nash that year than you or I do. Basically, I think you’re trying to find incoherence in something that is really just a result of a person’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances that you just don’t agree with, perhaps because you are assuming things are being weighed a certain way that they’re not or are assuming things are being assessed in a certain way that they’re not (for instance, my example about the offensive situation around Nash in 2006).

This is not a response to what I said, but I suppose I should not be surprised when you more interested in talking in abstractions than in reading what people write.

You’ll definitely need to explain how that’s not a response to what you said, because from my perspective it definitely was. You said: “There is not a coherent standard by which one can exclude Nash from the 2006 OPoY ballot entirely while also scoffing at the idea Lebron merits #2 on an OPoY ballot in 2007… apart from one which is built around scoring quality, not team results.” I explained why I think that it’s overly simplistic to suggest incoherence here.

I realize you raised the idea that the standard could be coherent if it were “built around scoring quality, not team results.” But I don’t think that’s the only way that could be the case, for reasons I explained in my post, so that was implicitly responded to. One can care about scoring quality, team results, and plenty of other factors, and have that result in conclusions in different years that are low on both a player with good team results and a player with mediocre team results, because the assessment is based on a lot of other factors and team results simply don’t have to be dispositive. Similarly, one could be relatively low on two players with low “scoring quality” (not entirely clear what that means), and have that not be the only factor that weighs on that decision. Again, there’s a ton of relevant factors and available information! In any event, I’m not even sure I understand this point from you, because LeBron scored a good deal, so building an approach around scoring wouldn’t necessarily be to his detriment. Of course, it might be to his detriment if we look at scoring efficiency. Which is something we definitely *should* look at when assessing an offensive player! Indeed, I imagine that that does weigh significantly for Djoker in this year. But it is surely not the only factor, nor does pointing out that some of his rankings correlate with that factor tell us that it’s the only factor.

Overall, I think if you look at someone’s ranking and you see that their rankings tend to correlate pretty well with how you’d rank things if you only looked at scoring volume/efficiency, then that probably does indicate that that person weighs that as a significant factor. But it definitely doesn’t tell you that’s the only thing they care about.

[AEnigma]

You saying that hypothetically it may be possible to imagine such a standard depending on an unspecified confluence of factors does not qualify as any actual standard, no — nor does it pertain to the original comment at question.

[OhayoKD]

You’re talking to guys that think LeBron created 25 shots a game in 06

And you're talking to a guy who thinks these two players are comparable playmakers:
jordan archangel, 13-11, +2 net, with a team that won 27 before he got there
lebron archangel, 11-0 +8 net with starters(- mo williams) that won at an 18-win pace without Lebron but with Mo-Williams

This is a silly spammed stat that occurred in two completely different contexts, and it’s never been clear why we should particularly care about a stretch of games without Mo Williams. It’s not as if LeBron’s role was materially different without Mo Williams.

Because both played taking over from their team's starting PG's and upped their assists to a similar amount? If arch-angel is not cherrypicking than neither is the Mo-Williams-less Cavs. Not that it particularly matters which you choose since Cleveland was way better.

 

1. The part where you talk about how Jordan was “with a team that won 27 before he got there” is just nonsensical. You are referring to the 1983-84 Bulls winning 27 games. How does that team bear any relationship to the 1988-89 Bulls that Jordan played PG with? The only player who was on both teams was Dave Corzine!

.
The relationship is they're a better team that lost a negative impact player named Woodrige whose next team and teams gained a bunch of postive impact defensive specialists. They were a 27-win team without MJ in 84, a 27-win team without MJ in 86, and then lost Orlando Woodridge and gained Oakley, Pippen, Grant, and Sam Vincient.

As explained to you, it's the same thing you have spammed thread after thread, except far more transparent:

Spoiler:

As is, you're not really applying this seriously. Taking 86 and then adjusting for Woodridge's negative signals is the same process as "WOWYR". Taking the 93 Rox and adjusting for Thorpe showing no impact is the same process. But those are apparently not valid, while WOWYR is.

If much simpler and more transparent adjustments aren't trustworthy, then there's no reason for you to be trusting these other metrics just because they specifically favor Jordan in 93.

.
If you want to argue losing a player whose next team got 4 points worse with him, was generally worse with him, and played on one winning team as a 12th man made the Bulls significantly worse, feel free to. If you want to argue Pippen and Grant becoming starters made the Bulls worse you can do that too. But when you repeatedly use a far more extreme version of this approach for no other reason than "I like the end result", the "it's just nonsensical" is clearly prompted with the output, not the process.

And that’s of course leaving aside the tanking aspect of things.

Ah yes, the "tanking aspect of things", A.K.A you and Djoker making **** up. The 21-game sample are games Ben curated pre-trade all featuring Mo-Williams and "full-strength rotations. And as has been covered, those cavs went into the season declaring they'd try to win(having refused to trade JJ Hickson) and played the same starters with the same minute distributions from game 1 as they did in non-blowouts during the losing streak. They tried to win...they couldn't. Even in their "full-strength" games they played like a sub-20 win team...which is what they played like without Lebron the previous 3 years.

You know who was actually trying to tank? The 84 and 86 Jordan-less Bulls...
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=115384747#p115384747

Who your entire defense hinges on being better support than the 88/89 Bulls, even though they ditched impact negatives for impact positives who didn't conflict with Jordan's strengths.

You appear to have ignored the playoffs for Jordan that year, despite him being at PG in that timeframe too (as clearly evidenced by Hodges—squarely a PG—starting every game,

Ignore what? The Bulls reducing Jordan's point-responsibilities and Jordan averaging less assists overall and less assists progressively each series? If you had actually watched the games as opposed to just saying you do like you last thread, you would have noticed playoff MJ brough up the ball less, handled the ball less, made less passes, and was no-longer operating the same way he did arch-angel, probably because that ended with the Bulls being on a big strech of losing. Heck, even if you had just been consistent with how you were interpreting the box-score(highlighting the 11 assist stretch initally to backup the idea Jordan was helioing), the assists going down would have signalled to you Jordan's offensive involvement was going down. But instead you linked a game where Pippen, initially bringing the ball up, went down early, the commentators noted Jordan's offensive involvement was higher than before, and the Bulls with Jordan playing his most helio game of the playoffs suffered their biggest defeat.

This is the issue with declaring you watch the games as opposed to actually watching the games.

Not that scraping past a banged up Lowry Raptors analog with it's best player injured and missing the swing game is impressive.

There's also Lebron injuring his shooting elbow:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/807803459331555363/1328625200723525704/IMG_2284.jpg?ex=678aade4&is=67895c64&hm=041cfe9e7bc14fdb54ab67c8ecd4c76b05f5bad0827b15edb388a8738793a38a&=&format=webp&width=1434&height=240
Though I guess injuries only matters for you if it's steph. "Team playoff translation" does not actually help Jordan vs Lebron unless you "cherrypick" a few series, even though Lebron's teams have been significantly more injury plagued. (Bosh, Kyrie and Love all missed more games in singular playoff-runs than all of Jordan's co-stars have for the duration of his career)

[Djoker]

You saying that hypothetically it may be possible to imagine such a standard depending on an unspecified confluence of factors does not qualify as any actual standard, no — nor does it pertain to the original comment at question.

If you want to know my standard for ranking offensive players, I'll tell you. I rank their goodness primarily based on a) scoring and b) creation. Comparing 1988 Jordan and 2007 Lebron, I find Lebron to be the slightly better creator but a way worse scorer. But when it comes to the OPOY ballot, there is of course more to it than just a player's goodness.

As for instance 2006 Nash, I didn't put him over Wade/Kobe/Dirk in OPOY simply based on the weight of PS achievements. My OPOY (and DPOY and overall POY) ballots also consider PS performance and are winning-biased you can say. I care a lot about winning a championship or coming close in any given year. In addition to all that, I also slightly curve Nash's offensive impact numbers down because I think his team was unbalanced even in 2006 (even though less than in 2005). Kobe was an interesting case because he didn't have almost any PS performance or accomplishments to speak off but his supporting cast was also really bad bad to me. Trying to piece all this kind of context is always going to be subjective.

If you have any follow up questions, I'll be glad to clarify. And if you identify inconsistencies I'll own up to them. I have no reason to pretend I'm perfect, the least bit so on a basketball forum. I've surely made some poor or short-sighted arguments in the past but I haven't doubled down when exposed and can say that I'm usually quite logical and coherent.

[IlikeSHAIguys]

You know I'm not out here watching and counting all these things in all these games but saying Lebron's only a little better than Jordan at playmaking seems like a really bad take

[AEnigma]

Djoker, I am not calling you inconsistent with your votes, nor did I ever expect you to vote for Lebron prior to 2009, but my original point was that this comment:

With all due respect, how is Lebron getting #2 in OPOY this year? The Cavs had a -0.9 rORtg in the RS then -2.8 rORtg in the PS. The Cavs got to the Finals more thanks to their defense (and some soft East competition) not Lebron's offensive mastery.

… does not work as an an expression of incredulity from you any more than it would work for me to ask why people are not voting for the players who had the most regular season success / highest BPM.

Lebron had terrible offensive support, which is the type of extenuating circumstance you have used to argue for other players. Lebron led that terrible offensive support to the Finals, which is the type of “postseason success” you have used to argue for other players. The Cavaliers were 8 points better offensively with Lebron in the regular season, and nearly 12 points better offensively with Lebron in the postseason, which is the type of statistical lift you have used to argue for other players. Despite all that, you do not understand why he might be second on some ballots? (Hell, based on last thread, may as well put him #1 because it is not like you have any love for Nash here either.) That is the inconsistency I am highlighting.