Always love when the projection comes out.
LukaTheGOAT wrote:AEnigma wrote:LukaTheGOAT wrote:I don't see the point on harping on Garnett's net ratings.
Because you are trying to pull a trick where you excuse Garnett’s advantage as a regular season one when it could just as easily be explained by the fact that his postseason impact is still massive.
Yes, it's a nice number, and certainly something to consider, but net rating that isn't adjusted in some format might be the least reliable measure of a player's impact.
When comparing superstars, based on what? Why do you think “adjusting” impact with box scores would not disadvantage defensive stars?
Every number has outliers, including on/off.
For instance, Ray Allen's 3-year PS peak on/off is 28.4.
Yep, that is part of why sample sizes are nice and team context should be considered.Vlade Divac is also a 28.4.
Vlade is and was an under-appreciated player but there too sample size matters.
KG's Peak 3 year On/Off happened from 11-13, not during his prime years. Team context matters.
Now you are just being obtuse, his entire career playoff on/off is just shy of Paul’s three-year peak.
The fact that these plus-minus stats incorporate some box-score at least helps to stabilize them.
In some sense sure, but then we end up prioritising box production over all other production. As seen here.
It's no trick. You just can't accept the fact that others have a different opinion.
I can accept the different opinion. The problem is trying to hide alternate and more facially reasonable interpretations.
You outright said that the impact numbers don't say CP3 is better than KG in the PS, and then you brush them off when I provide evidence.
The one that was closest to team “impact” was the one
you tried to brush off.
You tried to say DraymondGold had been posting stats that said otherwise,
No, I thought you were legitimately asking a good faith question, which admittedly was my mistake. Garnett was in over ten spots ago. I suggested if you wanted to look at some of the numbers to explain why, one of his posts probably had them, but I also thought I made it pretty clear that you were not really framing “impact” in any coherent way. Later on I even said I do not think Garnett’s case was tied to his box score totals or to every “metric” you may pull up — and this was all before you started getting specific with any numbers.
and I clearly disproved that with my post.
Please quote where I said anything along the lines of, “PIPM is real impact and says Garnett is better.”
I see no reason to argue over this. You were wrong. How you interpret them are your opinion.
Lmfao, no, you were wrong and want to hide behind box score differences literally no one ever disputed.
I clearly showed how in every other one-in all impact stat outside of AuPM/g that CP3 grades out higher.
Yep, that Chris Paul sure has better looking boxscores than Garnett.
I then gave my interpretation with even a quote of admission by Ben Taylor that his stat biases toward the RS. I even said that YOU don't have to interpret as such, but that is what I take away from why AuPM/g differs.
And I said — without explicitly denying your interpretation — that the more obvious explanation is that Garnett’s postseason net impact is higher even without adding in his regular season advantage. Which you continue to reject because it is inconvenient for your entire narrative.
You even made the false statement that AuPM/G incorporates better defensive numbers,
Okay, prove it false.
when 1)we don't even know the formula of the current AuPM/G
and 2)Based off the old AuPM that has decent amount of similarities to the new one in terms of results, did not have any have near the amount of defensive stats included in it as a RAPTOR (which you said YOU personally don't like).
So you do think RAPTOR measures defence well / better than any other metric?
A metric can incorporate any random number of things it wants, but that does not mean they are incorporated usefully.
You now change the argument that his entire career playoff on/off is just shy of Paul's 3-year peak.
It is not an argument, it is a fact — one of which I doubt you were ever unaware.
Okay, once again, that is noteworthy. Yet you brush off the fact that AuPM (the stat you have been fighting for this whole time that is closer to on/off than anything else I presented) says Paul has the 2nd most postseason runs over +4 in AuPM per game since 1997 with 7, with Curry next up with 6. Keep in mind a +4 is around the area of what you would expect for a top 5 guy, so that is significant added value and has been able to do this type of thing repeatedly. But once again, it doesn't seem to matter to you.
Okay, so save that factoid for the next Top 100 project? That is a fine argument if the stance is simply that Paul has been a consistent impact player in the postseason, but that too was never disputed. This is a peaks project, you know that, and you began this topic by specifically referring to their peaks.
What is there even to argue here?
That being better in metrics that favour box score production do not mean much against those whose impact does not show up as much in the box score.
You made a statement about how the same impact metrics DraymondGold had been posting, would point to KG being better than CP3, and you were proven wrong.
Nope, but thanks for lying about stuff that is on record for everyone to read. Or are you arguing that AuPM is not an “impact metric” now?
And I interpreted some info differently from you, and are having issues with it.
I have an issue when people feign ignorance as part of a bit to carry out some personal player grudge, but if you think box score metrics are everything, that is your prerogative. Sorry that no one cares about you pouting over Garnett slotting in at #12 weeks after it happened.
That is an odd reading here though, considering if anything I was defending it.
