trex_8063 wrote:Winsome Gerbil wrote:trex_8063 wrote:
I did not invoke Richmond here, you did.
And while you did not put him up for consideration, you did [paraphrasing] say that he's essentially an equal candidate to Ray Allen. I went about explaining why that is not really the case, showing that there is a small but clear separation in the numbers (and that's before even going into the extra four seasons, and the chasm in team success---luck or no), and thus emphasizing that outing Richmond as a valid candidate here doesn't really rule Allen out at all (i.e. somewhat a strawman to bring up in the first place).
You are rather famously Boogie's biggest champion on this forum and have stated you'd support him in this top 100 project. So while you were deriding Paul Pierce's candidacy so early, I invoked Boogie to try to reach you in a different manner regarding a player on the table at that time (Pierce). I outlined how Pierce had done a nearly equal "lifting" with crap casts for TWICE as long as Boogie, then also noted his 2nd/(3rd) banana roles on contender teams as evidence of Pierce's candidacy.
I was basically saying "if accomplishing X is sufficient to give Boogie top 100 consideration, then surely accomplishing 2*X + Y is sufficient to give Pierce top 50 consideration". I felt I was pretty clear on that.
I raise Boogie and Richmond and draw direct correlations in the numbers precisely because I know this little group is quite biased against them.
I'm a touch wowed at this point. I'm going to summarize the exchange thus far (as it pertains to Allen, the guy currently on the table):
1st: You draw these "direct correlations", indicating you believe that A basically equals B, or in this case: Richmond's numbers equal Allen's.
2nd: I then point out some inappropriate slants in the numbers you presented--->I instead go with Allen's first 14 seasons---because that's all Richmond played; and while you don't have to laud players for longevity, it's not fair to penalize them for it---and also noting raw FG% is inappropriate because of a gross difference in 3PAr. Upon presenting a more "apples to apples" data comparison, I think I adequately showed----in pure black and white numbers----that there is a small but clear edge to Ray Allen (i.e. the "direct correlation" is actually not too direct).......and this was before noting the significant difference in the quality of teams these big numbers are put up for (this is something I'd mentioned in many other places: it's one thing to put up certain numbers for a team that struggles to get 30 wins, quite another to do it for a solid playoff team, or perhaps even a .500 team), and also before acknowledging the additional FOUR [pretty good] seasons Allen played.
3rd: You nonetheless reply still referring to it as a "direct correlation" and claim [with the condescending reference to this "little group"] that it's everyone else that isn't seeing it clearly.
I don't know what to do with this. So I'm going to do my best to just disengage and agree to disagree on some points. We're clearly just spinning our wheels at each other. Our criteria/value systems are clearly quite different, and even when on the same page we seem to view the evidence very differently. Hopefully someone has benefited from this exchange, but I doubt we are anymore.
I would agree as to the general argument and will keep this short.
However, specifically here you are continuing to argue about Ray vs. Mitch Richmond...and actually the fact that you had to work on that is kind of the point I was making. I admitted in my first post on the matter that I likely considered Ray > Mitch myself, and would have no problem if they appeared later in this project within perhaps 5-10 places of each other, with Ray taken first. But it's no blowout.
This isn't about Ray vs. Mitch though. Mitch just serves as what should be a grounding point for Ray. If it takes some work to show a small advantage for Ray + some longevity...that still in absolutely no way elevates Ray up above the hyperscoring MVP candidates who exceeded him in every way. Put up bigger numbers, achieved more accolades, won more games, despite rarely having teammates as good as Ray's. Well, I take that back in Westbrook's case, until last year when his very best teammate was Victor Oladipo and put up an all time statline that Ray couldn't match if you locked him in a gym all by himself.
So to be absolutely as clear as I can be, in shorthand THIS is what the debate is about (and notably I would be just as aghast if somebody had thrown up Mitch Richmond in this position insead):
Iverson 26.7pts 3.7reb 6.2ast Per100 33.7pts 4.7reb 7.8ast 20.9PER; 7x All-NBA (3/3/1) MVP 1.567mvpshares 71playoff gms
Westbr 22.7pts 6.2reb 7.9ast Per100 33.8pts 9.2reb 11.8ast 23.8PER; 6x All-NBA (2/4/0) MVP 1.531mvpshares 87 playoff gms
Wilkins 24.8pts 6.7reb 2.5ast Per100 34.7pts 9.3reb 3.5ast 21.6PER; 7x All-NBA (1/4/2) .845mvpshares 55playoff gms*
RAllen 18.9pts 4.1reb 3.4ast Per100 28.0pts 6.0reb 5.0ast 18.6PER; 2x All-NBA (0/1/1) .038mvpshares 37playoff gms**
* as main guy before 1gm at age 39 with Orlando
** pre-Boston as main guy
