how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years?

[Stalwart]

Certain who? LeBron who won more rings than Bird? LeBron who collected his first three rings at a younger age than Jordan?

1. He's only won 3

2. This started before he won 3. And when people brought up his lack of titles you guys pointed to his extra rebound and assist per game. Sorry, that happened.

Watch a game from 1975, then watch a game from 1980. You won't find any difference in styles. Why should I use arbitrary moment to call a game "modern"? As I said, three point line didn't make a difference in the 1980s. Magic and Bird weren't the first great players drafted.

I love how some Jordan fanboys here force the narrative that people don't care about the history of the league, yet they don't know anything about pre-1980 game.

I was just referencing a period of time not arguing about the concept of "modern". I think you're trying to argue just to argue.

Again, you proved you have no idea what you're talking about. I have to admit, now I understand why you have your thoughts about analytics and everything - you just have no idea how it works. People don't care about LeBron rebounding numbers, you create strawman after strawman...

And now I know why you're being such a contentious snob. You don't like the fact that I don't respect analytics the way you do.

[70sFan]

1. He's only won 3

I'm a physicist, I can count to 4. 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2020 are four rings.

2. This started before he won 3. And when people brought up his lack of titles you guys pointed to his extra rebound and assist per game. Sorry, that happened.

Who are "you guys"? Because I don't remember anyone arguing for James here because he averaged more rebounds...

And now I know why you're being such a contentious snob. You don't like the fact that I don't respect analytics the way you do.

You don't respect analytics because you don't know what it is. You are also ignorant, because you are aware of its existance, yet you don't have any willingness to get a decent understanding of these concepts.

If you think that "LeBron averages more rebounds" is analytics, then your are dumber than I thought.

Do you have the same view on science you don't understand? Like quantum mechanics?

[Stalwart]

I'm a physicist, I can count to 4. 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2020 are four rings.

Obviously Im not counting the Mickey Mouse ring. But I'm glad you can count.

Who are "you guys"? Because I don't remember anyone arguing for James here because he averaged more rebounds...

Lebron fanboys and ESPN drones

You don't respect analytics because you don't know what it is. You are also ignorant, because you are aware of its existance, yet you don't have any willingness to get a decent understanding of these concepts.

If you think that "LeBron averages more rebounds" is analytics, then your are dumber than I thought.

I never said rebounds were analytics though. Talk about creating strawmen.

Do you have the same view on science you don't understand? Like quantum mechanics?

I don't treat theories as proven facts, scientific or otherwise, if that's what you mean.

[NbaAllDay]

I'm surprised 70sfan wants to converse with a person this delusional. If it already wasnt obvious, calling it a Mickey mouse ring just further highlights his agenda.

Combine that with a lack of understanding outside of the basic 'accolades' and you've got a level of delusion that shouldn't be entertained.

[Stalwart]

^^This is a propagandist. People who disagree are 'delusional' and have 'agendas'. They can't just have a different opinion he disagrees with. No, no, no. They shouldn't even be entertained.

This is how you create echo chambers.

[70sFan]

Obviously Im not counting the Mickey Mouse ring. But I'm glad you can count.

If NBA counts that ring, why should I disagree? I mean, aren't you the one who applied to authority before? Everybody in media and NBA staff agree that 2020 season was legit, who are you to dispute that?

Lebron fanboys and ESPN drones

Cool, but I am neither of that so why do you keep repeating this? I don't remember any long-time poster here arguing for James over Jordan because of more rebounds.

I never said rebounds were analytics though. Talk about creating strawmen.

Then what analytics is? Can you define it?

I don't treat theories as proven facts, scientific or otherwise, if that's what you mean.

What do you mean by "proven facts"? What makes something "proven" and what not?

Do you disagree that the existance of gravity is a proven fact? Do you disagree that quantum mechanics describes phenomena in nanoscale?

You're talking a lot about objectivity. Do you think that MVPs and accolades are more objective than general relativity or quantum mechanics?

[70sFan]

^^This is a propagandist. People who disagree are 'delusional' and have 'agendas'. They can't just have a different opinion he disagrees with. No, no, no. They shouldn't even be entertained.

This is how you create echo chambers.

This is a quote from someone who said that everyone who disagrees with him is manipulated by ESPN and recent media narratives.

Just keep that in mind before you decide how valuable his content is here.

[G35]

^^This is a propagandist. People who disagree are 'delusional' and have 'agendas'. They can't just have a different opinion he disagrees with. No, no, no. They shouldn't even be entertained.

This is how you create echo chambers.

Whenever you disagree within the echo chamber, soon after the "you just don't understand" comments show up and then the ad hominem's aren't far behind.

To those who identify so strongly with their beliefs cannot stand anyone questioning them...it is akin to an attack on them as a person. First they "patiently" try to show you where you are wrong, then if that doesn't take, they attack you as a person.

The one thing that has changed is that you cannot have civil disagreement...conformity is the end game.....

[70sFan]

^^This is a propagandist. People who disagree are 'delusional' and have 'agendas'. They can't just have a different opinion he disagrees with. No, no, no. They shouldn't even be entertained.

This is how you create echo chambers.

Whenever you disagree within the echo chamber, soon after the "you just don't understand" comments show up and then the ad hominem's aren't far behind.

To those who identify so strongly with their beliefs cannot stand anyone questioning them...it is akin to an attack on them as a person. First they "patiently" try to show you where you are wrong, then if that doesn't take, they attack you as a person.

The one thing that has changed is that you cannot have civil disagreement...conformity is the end game.....

Your post clearly isn't about the discussion we've been having here.

I have major disagreements with a lot of posters here. Let's take a look at Doctor MJ - I have different opinions than him on so many accounts. Yet I've never attacked him and I never tried to suggest that he doesn't understand something, because he always backs his opinions up with logical arguments. On top of that, he never calls someone driven by ESPN propaganda...

You are defending a guy who does everything you described in this post. He said a lot of times that people who have different criteria and opinions than him are either stupid, manipulated by media or have strong agenda behind it.

By the way, I've tried many times to get the answers from him. I asked him why he thinks analytics are useless and by his respones, I realized that he has no clue about the subject.

You're defending a guy who says that physics theories are not "proven"... but it's us who got it wrong? Really...?

[cupcakesnake]

I haven't changed my view much as far as how I rank players in terms of all time. But I have become disillusioned with the whole exercise given the way everyone else has changed.

There used to be much more uniform standards by which we measure players. We used to use things like championships, accolades, box scores, reputation, impact, and intangibles. But over the past 10 years or so pretty much all if those categories have been minimized to such a degree that many people ignore those things altogether. Now it seems all standard, objective measures have been removed and rankings are based on what each person personally values and how they see the game. On its face that seems appropriate until you see this play out in practice. In practice it allows fans to use arguments that are ultimately inconsistent, biased, and illogical while justifying them based on what they personally value or how they see the game. Because how can you argue with someone personal values or philosophy?

Example: Kevin Garnett. Going by traditional standards it would be difficult to put him in the top 20. But with these new, entirely subjective standards of evaluation KG can jump all the way into the top 10 no problem. When asked how KG could be ranked ahead more dominant and successful players like Jerry West, Dr. J, Hakeem, Oscar, Kobe, Bird, ect they will fall back on "hey, I just personally value KG's defense and rebounding bro. Have you seen his impact metrics??" And since it all comes down to subjective value and personal taste there is not much you can argue at that point.

The opposite effect has happened to guys luke Kobe Bryant. By traditional standards Kobe is an unquestionable top 10 player. Going by todays subjective standards Kobe has been all but removed from the top 10 due almost entirely to personal bias and narrative. We've gotten to a point where guys like Dirk Nowitzki are being ranked ahead.

So its all getting very silly at this point. We've entered an era where the NBA community is dominated by ESPN narratives backed up by online 'experts' who have completely distorted the traditional standards of evaluation to such a degree that its become almost meaningless.
And its all being done according to personal agendas and fandom. Its now become an excercise in propping up and knocking down players with arguments based on logical fallacies and personal bias with actual accomplishments and results being increasingly marginalized.

+1

There is a very influential echo chamber in the PC board....

There are tons of posters who disagree with each other on the PC board. I've seen some excellent debates here. I've read some takes I've strongly disliked and I've learned some stuff I haven't considered. I do tend to come to the PC board for some elevated discussion, hoping to learn something about players/teams/eras that I don't have strong opinions on.

Maybe both of you have felt piled on at times, and had multiple users all come at your takes. Maybe you're a bit outspoken and sometimes that can make you feel ganged up on. But just because lots of people don't agree with your takes, doesn't make this an echo chamber. You are entitled to your opinions on basketball, but not all takes are created equal. Sometimes when there are multiple opposing views, some are more correct and some are less correct. I feel like you're complaining because often on this board people don't agree with you. You're complaining about being disagreed with often, but acting like you're the ones defending the right to have different opinions.

Yes there is group think. That's just a normal part of forming a community that shares ideas. Certain arguments, over time, carry greater influence because they've held out strong than conflicting arguments. If I came on here thinking Wilt was the GOAT, but had plenty of smart people offer me perspectives on why he isn't the GOAT, that might influence me, and lead me to joining a "group think". But most times in these threads, there is a ton of disagreement on basically every player. This forum is built on that. It strikes me that the complaint here is that your opinions have been resisted more often than you'd like. If you believe so much in the value of disagreement, you should be happy that people push back, even if it sometimes feels like it's the whole board against you.

[G35]

^^This is a propagandist. People who disagree are 'delusional' and have 'agendas'. They can't just have a different opinion he disagrees with. No, no, no. They shouldn't even be entertained.

This is how you create echo chambers.

Whenever you disagree within the echo chamber, soon after the "you just don't understand" comments show up and then the ad hominem's aren't far behind.

To those who identify so strongly with their beliefs cannot stand anyone questioning them...it is akin to an attack on them as a person. First they "patiently" try to show you where you are wrong, then if that doesn't take, they attack you as a person.

The one thing that has changed is that you cannot have civil disagreement...conformity is the end game.....

Your post clearly isn't about the discussion we've been having here.

I have major disagreements with a lot of posters here. Let's take a look at Doctor MJ - I have different opinions than him on so many accounts. Yet I've never attacked him and I never tried to suggest that he doesn't understand something, because he always backs his opinions up with logical arguments. On top of that, he never calls someone driven by ESPN propaganda...

You are defending a guy who does everything you described in this post. He said a lot of times that people who have different criteria and opinions than him are either stupid, manipulated by media or have strong agenda behind it.

By the way, I've tried many times to get the answers from him. I asked him why he thinks analytics are useless and by his respones, I realized that he has no clue about the subject.

You're defending a guy who says that physics theories are not "proven"... but it's us who got it wrong? Really...?

Everyone can have their opinion...and at the end of the day that is all it is...an opinion.

None of this is backed up with an objective measurement. Why? Because there is no agreement on what the end goal is to basketball.

When these advanced stats are touted as an objective measurement...what are we measuring? Typically a past result...meaning, what players have already done in the past...there is no predictive element at all. You can take all those stats and none of them will predict what a player will do going forward.

I do not want to speak for everyone, I will only speak for myself, but where I disagree with how much emphasis people place upon stats...and I'm talking any stats (box score or advanced). From what I see, and correct me if I am wrong, but I hear a lot about "impact". There is so much discussion about this player provides this amount of impact because this stat says so.

But what is the impact? Where I personally disagree is so many people are boiling impact down to personal/individual production.

I disagree with that fundamentally, when this is a team sport. You cannot separate individual impact from the team. Which fundamentally means every player is under a different set of circumstances. If the goal was to have the highest "impact" to show who are the best players then I think many players mindset would change.

I agree with Stalwart in that many people on this board, overlook that since the beginning of the NBA, the goal was not individual impact...it was winning championships. Which makes this an intriguing post because if many people have changed from thinking winning is the end goal, compared to individual impact is now the end measurement...naturally "beliefs" are going to change.

That is fine. People can change what they prioritize...times change but imo, until they stop playing for championships...stop playing for a team trophy, that is how I'm going to evaluate players. Now, I do take into consideration that style of play has changed, the modernization of the game etc etc but I still prioritize how well players are able to help their team win games.

Imo, my belief is more flexible...whoever is able to win (whether I like them as a player or not) the most has the most impact. Whereas, this modern way of measuring players seems to put more parameters on how a player "should" play.

What can be frustrating is that we cannot have competing...or lets make this less aggressive/antagonistic...side by side beliefs. There has to be a "my way of thinking is better" and if you do not listen or do as I do, then something is wrong with your beliefs.

I've noticed that there is a strong desire to rewrite or get rid of traditional ways of thinking. But I would preface that something only becomes a tradition if it is effective over a long period of time. Trends or fads do not become traditions......

[McBubbles]

^^This is a propagandist. People who disagree are 'delusional' and have 'agendas'. They can't just have a different opinion he disagrees with. No, no, no. They shouldn't even be entertained.

This is how you create echo chambers.

Whenever you disagree within the echo chamber, soon after the "you just don't understand" comments show up and then the ad hominem's aren't far behind.

To those who identify so strongly with their beliefs cannot stand anyone questioning them...it is akin to an attack on them as a person. First they "patiently" try to show you where you are wrong, then if that doesn't take, they attack you as a person.

The one thing that has changed is that you cannot have civil disagreement...conformity is the end game.....

Your post clearly isn't about the discussion we've been having here.

I have major disagreements with a lot of posters here. Let's take a look at Doctor MJ - I have different opinions than him on so many accounts. Yet I've never attacked him and I never tried to suggest that he doesn't understand something, because he always backs his opinions up with logical arguments. On top of that, he never calls someone driven by ESPN propaganda...

You are defending a guy who does everything you described in this post. He said a lot of times that people who have different criteria and opinions than him are either stupid, manipulated by media or have strong agenda behind it.

By the way, I've tried many times to get the answers from him. I asked him why he thinks analytics are useless and by his respones, I realized that he has no clue about the subject.

You're defending a guy who says that physics theories are not "proven"... but it's us who got it wrong? Really...?

I put G35 and Stalwart on my foe list many a moon ago. When you read as many old threads as I do you keep on seeing the same people make dumbass arguments over and over again.
It's very clear that they're either not interested or incapable of thinking critically. I mean, seriously.

Stalwart - I miss when people cared about rings in ranking players, or player reputations.

You - Like Lebron's 4th ring, which has a reputation amongst players for being one of the most difficult because of the mental stress of bubble?

Stalwart - I don't care about his 4th ring nor its reputation. Cute you do though.

And yet he thinks that everyone else is lacking in self awareness lmao.

[70sFan]

Everyone can have their opinion...and at the end of the day that is all it is...an opinion.

None of this is backed up with an objective measurement. Why? Because there is no agreement on what the end goal is to basketball.

I don't remember anyone saying that you can't have your own opinion. As long as you are consistent within your own criteira, it's fine. I didn't start this discussion though - it's Stalwart take about people being manipulated by ESPN that started it all.

By the way, Stalwart literally does exact opposite of what you're describing here - he literally said that his criteria are more objective and we shouldn't use "unproven" and "arbitrary" "analytics". It doesn't help that he doesn't know anything about basic data analysis either, but it's another subject.

When these advanced stats are touted as an objective measurement...what are we measuring? Typically a past result...meaning, what players have already done in the past...there is no predictive element at all. You can take all those stats and none of them will predict what a player will do going forward.

Is there anyone here who calls advanced stats "objective" measurement of impact? No, in every single debate here people try to contextualize data we have. Stats are actually objective, but they measure what they meausure by definition.

RAPM doesn't tell us who is better, but it gives us a lot of information about team's success with given player on the floor. It's also adjusted for teammates. Is it perfect stat that says us who is more impactful? Not at all, but it is an useful metric that could give us clearer picture.

Stalwart believes that MVPs and other accolades are objective - do you agree with him? Because there is nothing more subjective than the opinion of a group uninformed media guys.

I do not want to speak for everyone, I will only speak for myself, but where I disagree with how much emphasis people place upon stats...and I'm talking any stats (box score or advanced). From what I see, and correct me if I am wrong, but I hear a lot about "impact". There is so much discussion about this player provides this amount of impact because this stat says so.

But what is the impact? Where I personally disagree is so many people are boiling impact down to personal/individual production.

I disagree with that fundamentally, when this is a team sport. You cannot separate individual impact from the team. Which fundamentally means every player is under a different set of circumstances. If the goal was to have the highest "impact" to show who are the best players then I think many players mindset would change.

I don't view impact as an individual production and I don't think anyone here does. Impact is strictly related to the team success. This is what all impact metrics try to do. Do they capture it perfectly? Of course not, it's impossible to put such a complex system into very rigid, basic statistical model. It doesn't mean that it's better to stop using any sort of data though.

I'll try to make another physics analogy. We all (should) know that Newtonian theory of gravity is limited to very specific examples. It definitely can't be used to describe the phenomenon of gravity in absolute terms. Does it mean that it's useless? Should we abandon it? Well, I guess you should answer this question by yourself.

I agree with Stalwart in that many people on this board, overlook that since the beginning of the NBA, the goal was not individual impact...it was winning championships. Which makes this an intriguing post because if many people have changed from thinking winning is the end goal, compared to individual impact is now the end measurement...naturally "beliefs" are going to change.

That is fine. People can change what they prioritize...times change but imo, until they stop playing for championships...stop playing for a team trophy, that is how I'm going to evaluate players. Now, I do take into consideration that style of play has changed, the modernization of the game etc etc but I still prioritize how well players are able to help their team win games.

If anybody overlooks that the goal is to win championships, then he should stop watching basketball.

Realizing that winning a ring doesn't automatically make individual player better than a loser isn't the same thing though. Going with this reasoning, I have all rights to call Robert Horry a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. He won more rings and the goal is to win rings. Does it look absurd? Of course, but without deeper analysis that's all you can count on...

unless you want to tell me that Jordan is better because of boxscore stats. That would make you a hypocrite though, because boxscore stats have even lesser relation to winning than impact metrics. As you said, the aim isn't to score as many points individually as possible, but it's to give your team the highest possibility of winning the game.

What can be frustrating is that we cannot have competing...or lets make this less aggressive/antagonistic...side by side beliefs. There has to be a "my way of thinking is better" and if you do not listen or do as I do, then something is wrong with your beliefs.

I agree with that, but this is what Stalwart is doing here. He literally said in different thread that I have been brainwashed by ESPN and other media because I don't think that Jordan is much better than LeBron. This fits perfectly what you describe.

Besides, going full "you can believe whatever you want, we shouldn't use arguments at all" is something that would make us dumber, not smarter. People have to exchange (intellectually) to become better. I agree that we should always respect other opinions, but we shouldn't say "agree to disagree" when we clearly see that something is just wrong or inaccurate.

I've noticed that there is a strong desire to rewrite or get rid of traditional ways of thinking. But I would preface that something only becomes a tradition if it is effective over a long period of time. Trends or fads do not become traditions......

Well, I think it's fair to say that judging the effectiveness of given solution by mathematical analysis has been with us for over 300 years and it gives us a lot of very prolific results. I guess it's a bit older and richer tradition than these Jordan fans movement created 30 years ago.

I get it that sport is all about entertainment and most people don't like maths at all. If you don't believe me (why should you? I'm not a basketball expert, I'm a physicist), you can always ask people who work on training staff about their ways of analyzing the game. I can guarantee you that they spend massive amount of money on people who can analyze data. That's how the world works and it doesn't mean that they can do everything perfect and they are always right - but it makes their projections more accurate.

[G35]

There are tons of posters who disagree with each other on the PC board. I've seen some excellent debates here. I've read some takes I've strongly disliked and I've learned some stuff I haven't considered. I do tend to come to the PC board for some elevated discussion, hoping to learn something about players/teams/eras that I don't have strong opinions on.

Maybe both of you have felt piled on at times, and had multiple users all come at your takes. Maybe you're a bit outspoken and sometimes that can make you feel ganged up on. But just because lots of people don't agree with your takes, doesn't make this an echo chamber. You are entitled to your opinions on basketball, but not all takes are created equal. Sometimes when there are multiple opposing views, some are more correct and some are less correct. I feel like you're complaining because often on this board people don't agree with you. You're complaining about being disagreed with often, but acting like you're the ones defending the right to have different opinions.

Yes there is group think. That's just a normal part of forming a community that shares ideas. Certain arguments, over time, carry greater influence because they've held out strong than conflicting arguments. If I came on here thinking Wilt was the GOAT, but had plenty of smart people offer me perspectives on why he isn't the GOAT, that might influence me, and lead me to joining a "group think". But most times in these threads, there is a ton of disagreement on basically every player. This forum is built on that. It strikes me that the complaint here is that your opinions have been resisted more often than you'd like. If you believe so much in the value of disagreement, you should be happy that people push back, even if it sometimes feels like it's the whole board against you.

A lot of times I have disagreements because of an interpretation of a word or phrase...when I say echo chamber, this is what I mean:

ech·o cham·ber
/ˈekō ˌCHāmbər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: echo chamber; plural noun: echo chambers
1. an enclosed space where sound reverberates.
"purpose-built echo chambers allow the addition of natural-sounding reverberation to the recordings"
2. an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

There are those who cannot listen to any other ideas or beliefs that contradict or conflict with their own. I have no problem with countering beliefs to my own; of course in the moment we argue for our "side" or belief system. But the reason why I continued to come to RGM was for the different viewpoints.

Why would I want to only listen to people who agree with my viewpoints or echo my sentiments? I already know what I think and believe, I want to hear differing views. It takes time, maturity, experiences to be open enough to be able to hold a conversation from an opposing pov and not let it devolve into name calling.

I like to think I would be a good tenth man.

I don't have a complaint about disagreement, I tend to be a contrarian and not go with conventional wisdom...I think there are many solutions to a problem. OTOH, I am also results based, I do not care about intentions, no matter how noble they are, results are what matters.

I don't care about the ganging up either, I'm use to that. It is just the internet. Many times people that disagree on this board cannot prove objectively why they disagree, it tends to be a like/dislike for a particular player or emotionally based.

As you said, many people do not agree with me...I would never complain about someone disagreeing with me. I've been here a long time, I have had a lot of disagreements. I have seen how this board has changed. I remember when PER and John Hollinger was the last word. I disagreed with that then. I heard all of the, "You reject facts!" many times. Or you do not understand how it works.

I have taken two statistic classes, I understand how it works. I even made several posts showing my knowledge but it does not matter....you get the same replies of "dumb...stupid...ignorant". Its like some posters cannot understand there are several ways of thinking. It seems as if they want to drop players or fans into their formulas so they can control the result.

I will say that one of my beliefs that has changed is that I place even more emphasis on leadership than I did when I was younger. Especially when it comes to a team sport.....

[G35]

Everyone can have their opinion...and at the end of the day that is all it is...an opinion.

None of this is backed up with an objective measurement. Why? Because there is no agreement on what the end goal is to basketball.

I don't remember anyone saying that you can't have your own opinion. As long as you are consistent within your own criteira, it's fine. I didn't start this discussion though - it's Stalwart take about people being manipulated by ESPN that started it all.

By the way, Stalwart literally does exact opposite of what you're describing here - he literally said that his criteria are more objective and we shouldn't use "unproven" and "arbitrary" "analytics". It doesn't help that he doesn't know anything about basic data analysis either, but it's another subject.

When these advanced stats are touted as an objective measurement...what are we measuring? Typically a past result...meaning, what players have already done in the past...there is no predictive element at all. You can take all those stats and none of them will predict what a player will do going forward.

Is there anyone here who calls advanced stats "objective" measurement of impact? No, in every single debate here people try to contextualize data we have. Stats are actually objective, but they measure what they meausure by definition.

RAPM doesn't tell us who is better, but it gives us a lot of information about team's success with given player on the floor. It's also adjusted for teammates. Is it perfect stat that says us who is more impactful? Not at all, but it is an useful metric that could give us clearer picture.

Stalwart believes that MVPs and other accolades are objective - do you agree with him? Because there is nothing more subjective than the opinion of a group uninformed media guys.

I do not want to speak for everyone, I will only speak for myself, but where I disagree with how much emphasis people place upon stats...and I'm talking any stats (box score or advanced). From what I see, and correct me if I am wrong, but I hear a lot about "impact". There is so much discussion about this player provides this amount of impact because this stat says so.

But what is the impact? Where I personally disagree is so many people are boiling impact down to personal/individual production.

I disagree with that fundamentally, when this is a team sport. You cannot separate individual impact from the team. Which fundamentally means every player is under a different set of circumstances. If the goal was to have the highest "impact" to show who are the best players then I think many players mindset would change.

I don't view impact as an individual production and I don't think anyone here does. Impact is strictly related to the team success. This is what all impact metrics try to do. Do they capture it perfectly? Of course not, it's impossible to put such a complex system into very rigid, basic statistical model. It doesn't mean that it's better to stop using any sort of data though.

I'll try to make another physics analogy. We all (should) know that Newtonian theory of gravity is limited to very specific examples. It definitely can't be used to describe the phenomenon of gravity in absolute terms. Does it mean that it's useless? Should we abandon it? Well, I guess you should answer this question by yourself.

I agree with Stalwart in that many people on this board, overlook that since the beginning of the NBA, the goal was not individual impact...it was winning championships. Which makes this an intriguing post because if many people have changed from thinking winning is the end goal, compared to individual impact is now the end measurement...naturally "beliefs" are going to change.

That is fine. People can change what they prioritize...times change but imo, until they stop playing for championships...stop playing for a team trophy, that is how I'm going to evaluate players. Now, I do take into consideration that style of play has changed, the modernization of the game etc etc but I still prioritize how well players are able to help their team win games.

If anybody overlooks that the goal is to win championships, then he should stop watching basketball.

Realizing that winning a ring doesn't automatically make individual player better than a loser isn't the same thing though. Going with this reasoning, I have all rights to call Robert Horry a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. He won more rings and the goal is to win rings. Does it look absurd? Of course, but without deeper analysis that's all you can count on...

unless you want to tell me that Jordan is better because of boxscore stats. That would make you a hypocrite though, because boxscore stats have even lesser relation to winning than impact metrics. As you said, the aim isn't to score as many points individually as possible, but it's to give your team the highest possibility of winning the game.

What can be frustrating is that we cannot have competing...or lets make this less aggressive/antagonistic...side by side beliefs. There has to be a "my way of thinking is better" and if you do not listen or do as I do, then something is wrong with your beliefs.

I agree with that, but this is what Stalwart is doing here. He literally said in different thread that I have been brainwashed by ESPN and other media because I don't think that Jordan is much better than LeBron. This fits perfectly what you describe.

Besides, going full "you can believe whatever you want, we shouldn't use arguments at all" is something that would make us dumber, not smarter. People have to exchange (intellectually) to become better. I agree that we should always respect other opinions, but we shouldn't say "agree to disagree" when we clearly see that something is just wrong or inaccurate.

I've noticed that there is a strong desire to rewrite or get rid of traditional ways of thinking. But I would preface that something only becomes a tradition if it is effective over a long period of time. Trends or fads do not become traditions......

Well, I think it's fair to say that judging the effectiveness of given solution by mathematical analysis has been with us for over 300 years and it gives us a lot of very prolific results. I guess it's a bit older and richer tradition than these Jordan fans movement created 30 years ago.

I get it that sport is all about entertainment and most people don't like maths at all. If you don't believe me (why should you? I'm not a basketball expert, I'm a physicist), you can always ask people who work on training staff about their ways of analyzing the game. I can guarantee you that they spend massive amount of money on people who can analyze data. That's how the world works and it doesn't mean that they can do everything perfect and they are always right - but it makes their projections more accurate.

Imo, you are going to deep into the argument. What I personally do is let people think or post whatever they want to think. If it does not make sense or is completely off the deep end...won't that bear out in the end?

But I will take your Robert Horry vs Michael Jordan analogy...it is a very common counter argument to winning/rings etc.

When posters make that argument typically they are making it a Horry vs Jordan. So then if we look at each situation and not make any statistical comparison. Just championships and how integral each were to winning.

Jordan won six rings. How integral was he to winning those six rings and what was the context:
- Bulls threepeated two separate times...how many times has that been accomplished in NBA history...no team has ever threepeated two separate times
- Which teammates were on both threepeats...Scottie Pippen is the only player
- Was Scottie able to go win multiple championships elsewhere
- Acknowledgement by media/coaches/fans of who the best player(s) were on those teams

Taking that context, with those Bulls teams, they had entire different casts and the only constants were Jordan/Pippen/Jackson/Krause. Ironically, I would say all four of those people could be argued as the most important piece. It would arguable that Phil Jackson was the most important piece since he was able to go on and win five more titles without Jordan or Pippen. But Pippen and Jackson were not able to win without Jordan in 1994 or 1995.

Horry won seven rings. How integral was he to winning those seven rings and what was the context:
- Horry won two titles with the Rockets, three titles with the Lakers, and two titles with the Spurs
- With those teams, one of them threepeated (Lakers 00-02), and one repeated (Rockets 94-95)
- Horry was able to win titles in multiple situations
- Acknowledgement by media/coaches/fans of who the best player(s) were on those teams

Horry played on teams that won titles but those teams were not completely rebuilt with a new roster. The teams he won titles on ended up getting rid of Horry and then going on to win titles without him:
- After 2003, the Lakers completely rebuilt their roster without Horry and went to the finals in 2004, with Shaq and Kobe. The Lakers further rebuilt their roster by trading O'Neal and rebuilding around Kobe and winning back to back titles in 2009 and 2010
- Horry won titles with the Spurs in 2005 and 2007, retiring in 2008. The Spurs were able to go to back to back NBA finals in 2013 and 2014 winning in 2014 without Horry.

You could debate that Horry was the key piece with the Rockets because he went on to win without Hakeem, when he was with the Lakers and the Spurs. But those teams were able to rebuild without Horry and win multiple titles.

So you can surmise that some players have a winning quality to their game...is having Horry on your team a positive. I think you have to say that. I know many people will dismiss Horry because of his "impact production" but I think there are other things he contributes to the winning formula. However, is Horry the most important element to winning and you have to say decidedly, no he is not.....

[70sFan]

Horry vs Jordan is the least important part of my post, but whatever. I already spent way too much time on this subject.

[G35]

I put G35 and Stalwart on my foe list many a moon ago. When you read as many old threads as I do you keep on seeing the same people make dumbass arguments over and over again.

I joined RGM, I think it was in May 2005 IIRC

McBubbles joined June 2020

Stalwart joined June 2021

How did McBubbles put anyone on a "foe list many a moon ago"...these are those echo chambers when someone does not like anyone who has an opposing pov.....

[PistolPeteJR]

I'm a physicist, I can count to 4. 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2020 are four rings.

Obviously Im not counting the Mickey Mouse ring. But I'm glad you can count.

Who are "you guys"? Because I don't remember anyone arguing for James here because he averaged more rebounds...

Lebron fanboys and ESPN drones

You don't respect analytics because you don't know what it is. You are also ignorant, because you are aware of its existance, yet you don't have any willingness to get a decent understanding of these concepts.

If you think that "LeBron averages more rebounds" is analytics, then your are dumber than I thought.

I never said rebounds were analytics though. Talk about creating strawmen.

Do you have the same view on science you don't understand? Like quantum mechanics?

I don't treat theories as proven facts, scientific or otherwise, if that's what you mean.

RE: bolded, so you’re simply ignorant and arrogant then, seeing how you’re turning an objective number (4) into a subjective farce (-1 due to Mickey).

Great, well then, it’s rabbit season everyone! Pick and choose all you want with no baseline for what gets to count and what doesn’t, because relativism!

[Doctor MJ]

So, with the direction the thread has gone, I think it makes sense for me to chime on some things at a broad philosophical level.

I think everyone's familiar at this point with the idea of a paradigm, as in "paradigm shift". One bit of nuance that often gets left out when people use that term nowadays is that a paradigms are community-level things. A new idea can spawn a paradigm, but one person having that idea, even if it's the correct idea, would not be considered a paradigm, and the date associated with the idea's birth would not be the date of birth for the paradigm.

So for example, Big Bang Theory is generally said to have been 'born' in 1927, but until the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background in 1965, the field of astronomy didn't truly undergo a paradigm shift.

I say all this to emphasize that any time you have paradigmatic growth in a field, it involves a community, and to those outside of that community who don't buy in to that new paradigm, the metaphor of "echo chamber" is bound to spring to mind. And I'll note that the thing that becomes the dominant community paradigm is not necessarily any more correct than the perspective of those outside the community.

So, when G35 calls refers to an echo chamber on the PC board, whether he's right or wrong on his specific basketball beliefs, he's not actually pointing out anything that's unique to the PC board when he says this. What he's essentially saying is that he feels is that a particular community paradigm took hold on this board, and that he doesn't buy that paradigm.

I should say that it's easy to overstate the degree to which this community paradigm represents the PC Board as a whole. The reality is that this is the internet, and folks come in here all the time arguing for what they believe without even any knowledge of the community history on this board. But certainly I can see what G35 is pointing to, it's a real thing, and I'm clearly one of the faces of it.

So then, speaking for myself, what objections do I have to his characterization?

Well, I think that part of the implication of "echo chamber" is that no minds are being changed and no progress is being made by those in said chamber. I'd object to these notions. I think minds have been changed, and tangibly, we can point to progress being made. Work on the PC board has led to additions on basketball-reference.com and to actual careers for some of the people involved, with Ben Taylor being the most salient example. Whether or not these ideas were "right", this hasn't merely been a group of people sitting around affirming each others' opinions and doing nothing else even if most of us never turned our hobby into a career.

Finally, I think there's a specific thing G35 pointed to, that I think he's been objecting to for a long time, that represents a crucial divergence:

The use of +/- stats as proxy for value, and often called 'impact'.

+/- stats are something that many have been reluctant to get behind for understandable reasons. They are not based directly on player action (whereas production stats are), considerably more reliant on sample to achieve reliability within a given context than production stats, and are often less predictable in new context compared to production stats. These issues are further complicated by the fact that basketball legacy is so dominated by the playoffs, but playoff sample is so limited compared to the regular season.

I'll add that specifically I found the APBRmetrics community at one time to be aggressively cynical toward these stats, and this was part of the reason I ended up gravitating toward this board - which felt more open-minded. Of course, as people making use of these sort of stats started getting hired by NBA teams, the attitude toward them on APBRmetrics changed dramatically because so many folks there were hoping to get hired by NBA teams, but for those who simply saw basketball how they saw basketball, there wasn't the same type of carrot dangling to encourage them to change their mind.

For myself, these stats have been essential to the transformation in approach I've had compared to my pre-RealGM days. As I came to the conclusion that there really was something huge that box score production wasn't capturing, I really needed to have a new kind of stat that I could use to connect to the plays I saw that added value without necessarily showing up on the box score. Without such a stat, I could still be confident that such impact existed, but the scale of that impact would never be clear, and there'd be no way to use data to zoom in on players and teams that I needed to focus on better to understand where their value-add was being added, which is to me often the most valuable way to use analytics.

I don't want to claim that the divergence between where G35 is compared to where the community I'm a part of is, is simply about this one type of statistical tool because I don't think it's that simple, but there's certainly been an important schism there among the basketball community.

[Fadeaway_J]

Gotta love a complaint that effortlessly morphs from "we need more uniform standards rather than everyone just judging players by what they personally value" to "this place is an echo chamber where differing opinions aren't allowed".