RealGM Top 100 List #37

[trex_8063]

And if you are willing to basically dismiss the playoffs as noise, well, then you're really a rare basketball analyst indeed.

This line was a bit snide (I hope unintentionally). And realize I can just as easily turn this statement back on you (e.g. if you're willing to basically dismiss the rs as irrelevant for whatever reasons, well, then you're really a rare basketball analyst indeed ).

As I've said or implied many times in the past, I'm very holistic in my approach, and try to remain very consistent across the player spectrum. I'm not going to preferentially focus on one set of criteria for one player, and then focus on a different criteria for a different player (and I'm not suggesting you do either). I was merely putting the rest of the "scale up/30+" picture out there.

Your explanation re: playoffs seems potentially reasonable and valid. I always need to consider your soapbox posts very carefully, however. I'm not sure who you are in the world (and I don't wish to invade your personal privacy), but I tend to think of you as someone well-versed in debate, like potentially a university professor.
At any rate, I roughly consider you the "king of rhetoric" around here (and I don't mean that in a bad way, fwiw). However, it often means I have to seriously mull over your arguments to make sure they have solid merit (and don't just seem like it because they're too damn articulate to not have merit ).

[E-Balla]

And if you are willing to basically dismiss the playoffs as noise, well, then you're really a rare basketball analyst indeed.

This line was a bit snide (I hope unintentionally). And realize I can just as easily turn this statement back on you (e.g. if you're willing to basically dismiss the rs as irrelevant for whatever reasons, well, then you're really a rare basketball analyst indeed ).

As I've said or implied many times in the past, I'm very holistic in my approach, and try to remain very consistent across the player spectrum. I'm not going to preferentially focus on one set of criteria for one player, and then focus on a different criteria for a different player (and I'm not suggesting you do either). I was merely putting the rest of the "scale up/30+" picture out there.

Your explanation re: playoffs seems potentially reasonable and valid. I always need to consider your soapbox posts very carefully, however. I'm not sure who you are in the world (and I don't wish to invade your personal privacy), but I tend to think of you as someone well-versed in debate, like potentially a university professor.
At any rate, I roughly consider you the "king of rhetoric" around here (and I don't mean that in a bad way, fwiw). However, it often means I have to seriously mull over your arguments to make sure they have solid merit (and don't just seem like it because they're too damn articulate to not have merit ).

Gotta disagree here Tsherkin says some of the most insane things here (in a good way: ex - any Brandon Jennings thread).

[Clyde Frazier]

As I've said or implied many times in the past, I'm very holistic in my approach, and try to remain very consistent across the player spectrum. I'm not going to preferentially focus on one set of criteria for one player, and then focus on a different criteria for a different player (and I'm not suggesting you do either). I was merely putting the rest of the "scale up/30+" picture out there.

I've been pretty cognizant of trying to do the same throughout the project. To me, many factors go into the rankings as opposed to just "who was the better (or really, more talented) player?" I look at some combination of peak, prime, durability, longevity, production, team success, on court issues, etc. before making a decision.

I'm surprised by the discussion that a peaks project is more difficult, because to me that's closer to asking, "who was the better player at their best?" Obviously it's not that cut and dry when you're trying to compile a list of 100 players. And all that said, I haven't been involved in a peaks project, so I can't say for certain.

[Doctor MJ]

And if you are willing to basically dismiss the playoffs as noise, well, then you're really a rare basketball analyst indeed.

This line was a bit snide (I hope unintentionally). And realize I can just as easily turn this statement back on you (e.g. if you're willing to basically dismiss the rs as irrelevant for whatever reasons, well, then you're really a rare basketball analyst indeed ).

Well, there's an xkcd that's legendary:



I actually have a healthy respect for people who are more inclined to say "you're mistaking noise for signal" more than me. In general I'm always concerned that I'm taking something that was just luck as something real, and so if you were willing to go in that direction, I'd listen intently.

And to some degree I think you are: You're putting the RS above the PS here because of the sample size. Makes sense.

If I'm irrational with respect to sample size, it's probably because I want the playoffs to matter. I'm a pretty abnormal fan, but I'm still a fan, and so a philosophy that said the playoffs were simply too noisy to do analysis on even after a lengthy career just seems like no fun. I wouldn't refuse it if I saw enough evidence, but I'll admit that it just doesn't feel right to me.

Keep in mind though: I'm not saying to ignore Reggie's regular season. What I'm trying to do is explain the whole shebang, and my only stubbornness is insisting that you need a much better reason to ignore his playoff leap than "it doesn't make sense to me".

Your explanation re: playoffs seems potentially reasonable and valid. I always need to consider your soapbox posts very carefully, however. I'm not sure who you are in the world (and I don't wish to invade your personal privacy), but I tend to think of you as someone well-versed in debate, like potentially a university professor.
At any rate, I roughly consider you the "king of rhetoric" around here (and I don't mean that in a bad way, fwiw). However, it often means I have to seriously mull over your arguments to make sure they have solid merit (and don't just seem like it because they're too damn articulate to not have merit ).

So, wow - and that's not a "laughing at your stupid idea" lol, it's a flabbergasted-but-flattered lol. I might actually sig that if you don't mind.

Okay, forgetting about it being me who said the stuff: Your "holding on to my wallet" approach is the right one. Something I try to re-iterate semi-frequently is that just because someone makes an argument that sounds good and you can't rebut doesn't mean you have to adopt the other person's opinion. Your opinion has to be something that makes sense to you.

What about the dangers with me here? I wouldn't see it as so much rhetoric so much as it is asymmetric analysis. While I'm data-oriented, and data applies to all players equally, there are some players that are more interesting to me to analyze than others, and so I look into them more. So, maybe if I came from a different perspective it would be someone other than Reggie right now I'd be championing with legit facts simply because I had them at the ready for that guy.

As I say all of this though: I'm not so much advocating for Reggie's place at the 37th (now 38th spot) as I am addressing the concerns of people such as yourself. None of what I said means he deserved this spot, it just means that those who think he should eliminated outright for the foreseeable future have a tougher time justifying it than they thought they would, and if I can get someone to say "Okay, he's not my vote, but I get why you see him in the discussion now", that's what I'm really after.