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

[CumberlandPosey]

just changed some "beliefs" after i read and reread some of g35 posts.thanks for that.i agree with him on very metaphysical and meta-semantic plateau.that doesnt mean that i agree with him on certain subjects regarding player evaluation or result-based outcomes but he has a point on what the interpretation of certain results mean.hard to put into words for me as not my native language.result,impact,value and role are topics that dont have to lead to the same conclusion at all...

[G35]

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.

I agree with this post.

The issue I see with disagreement, (and you're right, I'm not pointing out anything cosmic here...this could be on any board/site) is that people tend to get entrenched in things they are invested in for any number of reasons.

What I see is that if someone outside of a group (and this can a group of the minority or the majority) has a point of contention, then the group will be resistant and "attack" that outsider. This is going on in our country and likely all around the world, so it is not uncommon.

A solution that I see, is simple but very difficult at the same time. Those who are within that group have to be willing to point out limitations or drawbacks in their belief systems/ideology. It would help if it was someone who is well respected within that group.

For example:
black people issues - white people criticisms are not going to be taken seriously even if they are valid...black leaders have to speak to the problems and acknowledge them

female issues - females are not going to listen to males criticizing their behavior....but they are more willing to listen to respected females (mothers/grandmothers/female friends)

athletes - athletes are not going to listen fans or the media criticizing their behavior....but they will be more willing to listen to teammates or other retired athletes

teenagers - teenagers are not going to listen to parents criticizing their behavior...but they will be more willing to listen to their peers or influencers

Basically, nothing will change if the only people pushing back are outside the group because no one within the group is going to listen to someone diametrically opposed to them.

This is not an attack on statistics, I think we should all have our opinions questioned. Even our experts are not infallible to bias. I will admit, I think about the things said on the board and how my bias influences what I post. I'm very biased but I would like to think I can be objective when someone raises reasonable concerns......

[McBubbles]

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.....

1. It was a metaphor ._. this isn't even my first account created so mute point regardless.

2. If I walk into a maths lesson and I constantly hear someone doing basic maths incorrectly, me choosing to ignore their maths insight henceforth isn't indicative of me being in an echo chamber, it's me being selective with my sources of information lol.

Likewise, if someone says "Lebron only has 3 rings", why would I take anything they say as it pertains to LeBron seriously? You going to tell me that Lebron having 4 rings is a matter of opinion? That my reluctance to care about the opinions of someone that ignores reality as part of their evaluative process, means I'm in an echo chamber or not being fair? Absolutely not.

Same reason why JordansBulls, A.K.A Home Court Gawd is on my ignore list. Acknowledging that someone losing with HCA vs someone not losing with HCA, ISN'T a good form of player evaluation doesn't mean that I'm in an echo chamber, it just means I actually know wtf I'm talking about and that I know what flawed logic looks like. Hence, I'm going to ignore JB whilst on a forum for player comparison, because his comparative tools are clearly trash. It's not bias just because everyone agrees on it.

These are just a few examples of many of what comes to mind but like I said, when you see countless examples of a consistently flawed thought process, it's not indicative of group think, propoganda, echo chambers or what have you to ignore it. If I consistently see a poster arguing that one player is better than another because players think so, I'm likely going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster arguing in bad faith, I'm likely going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster make egregiously, factually incorrect basketball statements, I'm going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster consistently do multiple of the aforementioned? They're definitely getting ignored. Their insight just isn't insightful. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact.

[Outside]

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......

An observation regarding the highlighted part -- "impact" is an ill-defined term that means different things to different people, but I do think that when most people think of impact, they're referring to a player's impact on the success of the team, on the performance of teammates, and on winning. It's mostly the impact a player has on everyone except themselves, an attempt to capture what a player's individual box score stats do not. To me, it's the ultimate recognition that the true measure of a player is how they affect the team as a whole, not just what they can produce themselves.

But, as I said, it's an ill-defined term. That leads to differences in what people mean when they use it, and perhaps more significantly, what they hear when others use it, and that can be detrimental to discussion.

Who knows, I may be interpreting what you mean by "individual impact" incorrectly. That sounds like impact to their own individual performance. That's the thing -- we don't have universally accepted definitions for these things.

[Stalwart]

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.

If its all about team success then why do you routinely remove team success from your own criteria? Why do you elevate guys who have had little to no team success? Why do you criticize people like me for putting such weight behind team success or 'rangz' as you like to call it?

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

Again...if the goal is to win championships then what is wrong with putting a heavy value on them?

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.

Like I pointed out to you earlier this is a red herring. Its never been just about championships. Its about everything including advanced metrics btw. I have Lebron ranked ahead of Kobe despite Kobe having 2 more rings. Why? BECAUSE ITS NOT JUST ABOUT RINGS.

Lebron doesn't have a credible argument over Jordan not because Jordan has more titles. Its because he has more everything. Other than rebs & asts. And longevity of course.

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.

What I said was the narratives that sports media propagates shape the conversations and help influence the views of online communities like this board.

Example: Kyrie & Westbrook. They have been the two most castigated players in sports media this year. Is it a coincidence that they are currently the two most castigated people on this forum?

[70sFan]

If its all about team success then why do you routinely remove team success from your own criteria? Why do you elevate guys who have had little to no team success? Why do you criticize people like me for putting such weight behind team success or 'rangz' as you like to call it?

The aim of this game is to win rings, but it doesn't mean that everyone plays within the same team context. You have to realize that. We should judge teams by teams results, but judging players strictly by team result misses a lot of nuances.

What change in Jordan between 1988-1990 and 1991-93? I'd say nothing, other than his team got notably better. What's the difference between Curry in 2018 and 2019? There is no difference, but Warriors lost because of Durant injury.

I can find more examples, my point is that although it's absolutely true that everyone plays to win the title, it doesn't mean that not winning rings makes you worse player.

Again...if the goal is to win championships then what is wrong with putting a heavy value on them?

If you focus only on that, you miss the whole framework players have to work in. Garnett in 2006 could play like the best player ever and he probably still wouldn't change anything on their chances of winning a ring (or Kobe in 2005, if you really dislike KG).

Like I pointed out to you earlier this is a red herring. Its never been just about championships. Its about everything including advanced metrics btw. I have Lebron ranked ahead of Kobe despite Kobe having 2 more rings. Why? BECAUSE ITS NOT JUST ABOUT RINGS.

Lebron doesn't have a credible argument over Jordan not because Jordan has more titles. Its because he has more everything. Other than rebs & asts. And longevity of course.

What do you mean by "everything"? MVPs?

What I said was the narratives that sports media propagates shape the conversations and help influence the views of online communities like this board.

Example: Kyrie & Westbrook. They have been the two most castigated players in sports media this year. Is it a coincidence that they are currently the two most castigated people on this forum?

I don't see Westbrook and Kyrie being talked much on PC Board. Maybe you read too much of God knows which part of LeBron thread.

[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.....

1. It was a metaphor ._. this isn't even my first account created so mute point regardless.

2. If I walk into a maths lesson and I constantly hear someone doing basic maths incorrectly, me choosing to ignore their maths insight henceforth isn't indicative of me being in an echo chamber, it's me being selective with my sources of information lol.

Likewise, if someone says "Lebron only has 3 rings", why would I take anything they say as it pertains to LeBron seriously? You going to tell me that Lebron having 4 rings is a matter of opinion? That my reluctance to care about the opinions of someone that ignores reality as part of their evaluative process, means I'm in an echo chamber or not being fair? Absolutely not.

Same reason why JordansBulls, A.K.A Home Court Gawd is on my ignore list. Acknowledging that someone losing with HCA vs someone not losing with HCA, ISN'T a good form of player evaluation doesn't mean that I'm in an echo chamber, it just means I actually know wtf I'm talking about and that I know what flawed logic looks like. Hence, I'm going to ignore JB whilst on a forum for player comparison, because his comparative tools are clearly trash. It's not bias just because everyone agrees on it.

These are just a few examples of many of what comes to mind but like I said, when you see countless examples of a consistently flawed thought process, it's not indicative of group think, propoganda, echo chambers or what have you to ignore it. If I consistently see a poster arguing that one player is better than another because players think so, I'm likely going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster arguing in bad faith, I'm likely going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster make egregiously, factually incorrect basketball statements, I'm going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster consistently do multiple of the aforementioned? They're definitely getting ignored. Their insight just isn't insightful. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact.

Many people throw many off the cuff or not well thought remarks...does that mean you dismiss everything they have to say? Sometimes people are trolling, busy at work, out with the family and they just say something.

The PC board is generally elevated conversation, deeper context...just a more in-depth experience. That does not mean there will not be some troll-y type comments. Imo, toughen up your skin and wade through the crap to get to the well thought out comments.

Because your comment about having a foe list from many moons ago, I wouldn't take you seriously.

Further, anyone that has been on message boards for any length of time realizes that there are some people that have multiple accounts:
- hidey accounts to test certain situations
- troll accounts
- I think there are those who have accounts just to create threads
- some have 2nd and 3rd accounts because they can't say what they really want to say on their main account
- shill accounts

I only have one account...I don't have time to be having multiple accounts...but if you have multiple accounts, why should anyone take anything you say seriously.....

[G35]

The main problem I have between the "rangz" argument and the "what's the difference between a player when they win a championship vs years when they do not win a championship" is the nuance.

People who say "rangz" are missing a crap-ton of nuance.

Westbrook gets a triple doubles....but if WB became a better decision maker and utilized his teammates better and went deep into the playoffs, possibly winning a title but he avg'd 18/10/7....which would be the better version? The triple double WB or the better decision making WB.

What I think so many people miss out on the nuance of winning championships is this:
- overcoming injuries...you have to sustain your performance for the RS and through the PS

- leadership/intangibles...sacrificing your production to get others involved....knowing the temperature of the team...when it should be peaking and when you can take your foot off the pedal...knowing when to take over a game and when to let the game come to you

- being able to allow management to build a team...I think it is much harder to build around these do-everything, one player controls the offense type players....some players are better at playing different roles and providing what the team needs, not forcing the team to adapt to the individual player. I think Tim Duncan was the best at that, and Kobe was very good at that at the beginning of his career...Jordan had to adapt to Phil Jackson coming in and completely changing the identity of the team

- making do with what you have...I think this is old school thinking because there was less player movement/player power but players back then tended to try to improve internally instead of bringing in multiple stars or moving to a better situation. One of the first players I think of for this situation is David Robinson. A player who had to deal with five coach's in six years, management bringing in Dennis Rodman who was a poor fit but he still took them to the WCF's. He never complained or threatened to leave and then they draft Tim Duncan. DRob could have taken that personally that they are trying to replace him (like Aaron Rogers did) but no, he took Tim under his wing and willingly gave the team over to Tim. They ended up working really well together and winning two titles.

Now many people tend to think that lion share of the credit goes to Duncan, but how many other twin towers have worked. Also, why couldn't Shaq see that Kobe was the future and let him become the leader and they could have won three or four more titles.

I think one of the biggest obstacles to winning a championship is ego. How many teams either do not come together (1977 Sixers), fall apart after winning (2004 Lakers, 2018 Warriors) because of ego...and how is that accounted for in the metrics.

So I think that nuance is vital, but I think we all have our own ideas of what is important and what is not and sometimes we are not willing to let go because of ego......

[McBubbles]

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.....

1. It was a metaphor ._. this isn't even my first account created so mute point regardless.

2. If I walk into a maths lesson and I constantly hear someone doing basic maths incorrectly, me choosing to ignore their maths insight henceforth isn't indicative of me being in an echo chamber, it's me being selective with my sources of information lol.

Likewise, if someone says "Lebron only has 3 rings", why would I take anything they say as it pertains to LeBron seriously? You going to tell me that Lebron having 4 rings is a matter of opinion? That my reluctance to care about the opinions of someone that ignores reality as part of their evaluative process, means I'm in an echo chamber or not being fair? Absolutely not.

Same reason why JordansBulls, A.K.A Home Court Gawd is on my ignore list. Acknowledging that someone losing with HCA vs someone not losing with HCA, ISN'T a good form of player evaluation doesn't mean that I'm in an echo chamber, it just means I actually know wtf I'm talking about and that I know what flawed logic looks like. Hence, I'm going to ignore JB whilst on a forum for player comparison, because his comparative tools are clearly trash. It's not bias just because everyone agrees on it.

These are just a few examples of many of what comes to mind but like I said, when you see countless examples of a consistently flawed thought process, it's not indicative of group think, propoganda, echo chambers or what have you to ignore it. If I consistently see a poster arguing that one player is better than another because players think so, I'm likely going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster arguing in bad faith, I'm likely going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster make egregiously, factually incorrect basketball statements, I'm going to ignore their takes. If I consistently see a poster consistently do multiple of the aforementioned? They're definitely getting ignored. Their insight just isn't insightful. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact.

[1.]Many people throw many off the cuff or not well thought remarks...does that mean you dismiss everything they have to say? Sometimes people are trolling, busy at work, out with the family and they just say something.

The PC board is generally elevated conversation, deeper context...just a more in-depth experience. That does not mean there will not be some troll-y type comments. [2.]Imo, toughen up your skin and wade through the crap to get to the well thought out comments.

[3.]Because your comment about having a foe list from many moons ago, I wouldn't take you seriously.

Further, anyone that has been on message boards for any length of time realizes that there are some people that have multiple accounts:
- hidey accounts to test certain situations
- troll accounts
- I think there are those who have accounts just to create threads
- some have 2nd and 3rd accounts because they can't say what they really want to say on their main account
- shill accounts

I only have one account...I don't have time to be having multiple accounts...[4.]but if you have multiple accounts, why should anyone take anything you say seriously.....

1. Nope. I said "consistently". Someone posting a dumb comment doesn't change my opinion much, but if every single time I see a posters name, I see a series dumb, ill thought out, disingenuous, factually incorrect or illogical arguments? Yeah, I'm going to ignore them.

2. It's not about tough skin, dafuq. I don't put people on the ignore list because they annoy me or hurt my feelings. I put them there because they're not particularly insightful. Why would I waste my time wading through comments that I know are going to be trash, just to find the insightful ones, when I could just read the insightful ones?

3. You wouldn't take my basketball opinions seriously because of my non basketball take related actions? Doesn't make sense to me but that's your prerogative.

4. I only have one account. Regardless, idek what point you're trying to make with this, you keep on bringing up the meta? I don't see someone make a joke or troll and go *gasp*, such facetiousness, such irreverence, on MY BOARD?!? *Foe list*. If I see someone constantly posting crappy arguments I'm going to ignore them to make my Realgm viewing experience easier. Idk what's so hard to understand about this. Note, I didn't say "An opinion I disagree with", I said " A crappy argument".

5. Why do you use so many ellipses? I've always wondered this.

[Doctor MJ]

So, with me elaborating on the nature of paradigms as a community-level phenomenon, and me describing essentially being "in" the paradigm on the PC Board, and me going into +/- stats specifically, it's probably worth describing where I eventually went "out" of the paradigm.

I first started diverging with the introduction of RAPM by Joe Sill as a replacement for APM. The added R (for regularization) added to the reliability of the stat, thus reducing effective noise and allowing the creation of meaningful data for analysis with small sample size, but it by definition added in assumptions. Even if you didn't include a Prior, you were still essentially biasing the data in some direction now, and that bias caused problems. Additionally, RAPM made the numbers you got no longer correspond to actual points on the scoreboard. In and of itself, that's a minor thing in the big picture, but it's part and parcel with the issues of RAPM relative to APM. With RAPM, you're forced to choose your assumptions and there's not one clear cut right answer, which means different people end up using different parameters and you get different results all being called RAPM.

That's not me saying we shouldn't use RAPM, because it's a good idea. But saying "RAPM is APM but better" isn't quite true, and the reasons why it isn't true are things that the statmaking community didn't see the issue with, and it didn't take long before APM basically disappeared from use.

Where things really started bother me a great deal more was with Jeremias Englemann's XRAPM, which then got crafted into ESPN's Real Plus Minus. There Englemann started creating Priors that were based on any data he could find - age, height, whatever. From a perspective of creating the strongest possible prediction tool, this made sense. But from an analyst's perspective, it was awful.

Why? Because I want to use +/- stats as something separate from the box score. I want to make the decision on how to interpret sample size, role, etc. I want to do this, because I know for a fact that there's more I can factor in with my basketball brain than will exist in his algorithm, and his algorithm isn't just forcing me to defer to it on this front, it's making it impossible to figuring out what's being "double counted" as I try to use his algorithm along with my other knowledge.

But the prediction-oriented paradigm took hold, with my complaints falling on deaf ears.

Here I'd draw an analogy to what occurred with interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in physics. As the field developed good tools for making good predictions of particle behavior, there was a strong pull to stop looking at the foundations of those predictions. The group pushing in this direction was led by Niels Bohr and his followers in Copenhagen, Denmark. This came to be known as Copenhagen Interpretation, and it showed significant influence from the philosophical movement of Logical Positivism which was incredibly influential at the time. The main thrust of Logical Positivism was that if you couldn't verify something with direct evidence, it wasn't simply treated as an unknown, it was treated as effectively not real. As a result, you started getting physics claiming that looking into the foundations of Quantum Mechanics was not Physics, but Metaphysics, which was another way of saying it wasn't really real, and didn't really matter.

On the other side of the debate was Albert Einstein (as well as Erwin Schrodinger) who said "Don't be ridiculous. Clearly the theory of Quantum Mechanics we have right now is incomplete and needs more work." While one might expect the sheer clout of Einstein - the most famous scientists in the world - would win out here, it didn't. Bohr was incredibly charismatic and always worked in collaboration with others, while Einstein largely worked alone and had always rubbed some the wrong w+ay, so that was part of it. Another part of it was that Einstein wasn't promoting a theory, he was pointing to an absence of one. Even for those who could concede he had a point, if you didn't have any ideas yourself as to what the theory should be, you essentially had no choice but to operate in a manner similar to how Bohr & company said you should.

And then the atomic bomb happened. The success of the project proved that our theories of Quantum Mechanics were incredibly applicable to humanity, and brought in tons of military funding, as well as tons of new students...too many students to grade essays for, so now physics education largely becomes a series of math problems.

Worse, now we start getting the kind of closing of ranks that you worry about within a community with established paradigms. Young physicists looking to fill in the gaps that were left by this Copenhagen Interpretation found their careers hindered and at time destroyed. Most dramatically this happened David Bohm, who had the extra strike against him of being a Communist and led the American military to shove him to the side from the start, but correspondence from physicists of the time show how arrogant the physics community responded to challenges of the status quo.

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics stagnated for decades, and even after progress was made (rooted in a key paper by John Stewart Bell published in an incredibly minor journal so that it wouldn't hurt his career), physicists trained under the Copenhagen paradigm trained others the same way, and if you ask a physicist today what they believe, the most common answer is "Copenhagen Interpretation" which as noted, isn't actually an answer, just a pragmaticist's way of saying he isn't focused on the question.

Anyway, all this to say, these issues infect even the Physics community which has been something close to the gold standard, and I definitely have felt what it feels like to be an outsider of various paradigms - such as XRAPM/RPM - even if I'm an insider on the PC Board.

[Outside]

Spoiler:

So, with me elaborating on the nature of paradigms as a community-level phenomenon, and me describing essentially being "in" the paradigm on the PC Board, and me going into +/- stats specifically, it's probably worth describing where I eventually went "out" of the paradigm.

I first started diverging with the introduction of RAPM by Joe Sill as a replacement for APM. The added R (for regularization) added to the reliability of the stat, thus reducing effective noise and allowing the creation of meaningful data for analysis with small sample size, but it by definition added in assumptions. Even if you didn't include a Prior, you were still essentially biasing the data in some direction now, and that bias caused problems. Additionally, RAPM made the numbers you got no longer correspond to actual points on the scoreboard. In and of itself, that's a minor thing in the big picture, but it's part and parcel with the issues of RAPM relative to APM. With RAPM, you're forced to choose your assumptions and there's not one clear cut right answer, which means different people end up using different parameters and you get different results all being called RAPM.

That's not me saying we shouldn't use RAPM, because it's a good idea. But saying "RAPM is APM but better" isn't quite true, and the reasons why it isn't true are things that the statmaking community didn't see the issue with, and it didn't take long before APM basically disappeared from use.

Where things really started bother me a great deal more was with Jeremias Englemann's XRAPM, which then got crafted into ESPN's Real Plus Minus. There Englemann started creating Priors that were based on any data he could find - age, height, whatever. From a perspective of creating the strongest possible prediction tool, this made sense. But from an analyst's perspective, it was awful.

Why? Because I want to use +/- stats as something separate from the box score. I want to make the decision on how to interpret sample size, role, etc. I want to do this, because I know for a fact that there's more I can factor in with my basketball brain than will exist in his algorithm, and his algorithm isn't just forcing me to defer to it on this front, it's making it impossible to figuring out what's being "double counted" as I try to use his algorithm along with my other knowledge.

But the prediction-oriented paradigm took hold, with my complaints falling on deaf ears.

Here I'd draw an analogy to what occurred with interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in physics. As the field developed good tools for making good predictions of particle behavior, there was a strong pull to stop looking at the foundations of those predictions. The group pushing in this direction was led by Niels Bohr and his followers in Copenhagen, Denmark. This came to be known as Copenhagen Interpretation, and it showed significant influence from the philosophical movement of Logical Positivism which was incredibly influential at the time. The main thrust of Logical Positivism was that if you couldn't verify something with direct evidence, it wasn't simply treated as an unknown, it was treated as effectively not real. As a result, you started getting physics claiming that looking into the foundations of Quantum Mechanics was not Physics, but Metaphysics, which was another way of saying it wasn't really real, and didn't really matter.

On the other side of the debate was Albert Einstein (as well as Erwin Schrodinger) who said "Don't be ridiculous. Clearly the theory of Quantum Mechanics we have right now is incomplete and needs more work." While one might expect the sheer clout of Einstein - the most famous scientists in the world - would win out here, it didn't. Bohr was incredibly charismatic and always worked in collaboration with others, while Einstein largely worked alone and had always rubbed some the wrong w+ay, so that was part of it. Another part of it was that Einstein wasn't promoting a theory, he was pointing to an absence of one. Even for those who could concede he had a point, if you didn't have any ideas yourself as to what the theory should be, you essentially had no choice but to operate in a manner similar to how Bohr & company said you should.

And then the atomic bomb happened. The success of the project proved that our theories of Quantum Mechanics were incredibly applicable to humanity, and brought in tons of military funding, as well as tons of new students...too many students to grade essays for, so now physics education largely becomes a series of math problems.

Worse, now we start getting the kind of closing of ranks that you worry about within a community with established paradigms. Young physicists looking to fill in the gaps that were left by this Copenhagen Interpretation found their careers hindered and at time destroyed. Most dramatically this happened David Bohm, who had the extra strike against him of being a Communist and led the American military to shove him to the side from the start, but correspondence from physicists of the time show how arrogant the physics community responded to challenges of the status quo.

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics stagnated for decades, and even after progress was made (rooted in a key paper by John Stewart Bell published in an incredibly minor journal so that it wouldn't hurt his career), physicists trained under the Copenhagen paradigm trained others the same way, and if you ask a physicist today what they believe, the most common answer is "Copenhagen Interpretation" which as noted, isn't actually an answer, just a pragmaticist's way of saying he isn't focused on the question.

Anyway, all this to say, these issues infect even the Physics community which has been something close to the gold standard, and I definitely have felt what it feels like to be an outsider of various paradigms - such as XRAPM/RPM - even if I'm an insider on the PC Board.

As someone with an amateur interest in both physics and basketball analytics, that was both educational and fun. It also did a nice job of supplementing your prior post about paradigms. Can't do much better than that

[Ambrose]

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.

This is why WE don't respect YOUR beliefs. You're everything you claim to hate in your first post and don't realize it. There is nothing objective about your methods

The existence of this thread, and the posts within it (before derailment) are proof that it isn't much of an echo chamber.

[Doctor MJ]

As someone with an amateur interest in both physics and basketball analytics, that was both educational and fun. It also did a nice job of supplementing your prior post about paradigms. Can't do much better than that

Thanks for the kind words Outside!

And to be clear, I don't want to come off as if I'm demanding to be the world's expert on either of these fronts, just giving my perspective bringing it whatever analogues seem fitting.

[falcolombardi]

funnily enough doctor mj post is making me think of the rough similarities between basketball analytics with -bear with me here- Medical knowledge

contrary to stem fields Medicine is unfortunately not a fully exact science where there are 100% right solutions as not everybody is the same and the same disease doesnt affects everyone the same way

this means that for a long time ( and i mean until the 21th century) a lot of Medical practice was heavily -empirical- lots of common knowledge amongst doctors went umchellenged and old flawed studies remained unchallenged

then there came a movement called "evidence based medicine" which objective was to make sure Medical practice was as scientific as possible and not take "common old knowledge" at face value (sounds familiar?)

in the Medical world now everythingh is -supoosed- to be baked by evidence, expert opinion is considered the most worthless level of evidence there is

if surgeon McSurgeon the greatest surgeon among all surgeons says somethingh, but has no evidence other than "trust me bro" then that evidence is as good as worthless
this is a contrast to basketball, where many players (the expert surgeons in this analogy) refuse that analytics (the studies and hard evidence in this analogy) may know somethingh they dont

let me give en example, when i made my internship in a small hospital (back in the old pre covid days of 2019...) there was a intubated patient with lung problems

the older and more experienced doctor wanted to do the traditional treatment, the younger doctor wanted to do a newer treatment with strong evidence of helping patients

the issue was that the older doctor didnt believe those new studies since they were completely at odds with what "was always done", he refused to consider that what he had been doing for years may have been suboptimal and dismissed it as "not enough evidence yet, may have yet unknown side effects" (actually a more than fair concern)

basketball is kinda like that, evidence is almost never 100% unquestionable, new studies come out all the time contradixting older ones, and people who learned somethingh decades ago are often reluctant to challenge what they know

that is why i am relatively unimpressed when people use old awards or old player opinions as only evidence,

because i know how much Medicine (a field a lot more crucial to the world than basketball) has improved
-precisely- from prefering hard evidence over expert opinion

barkley or shaq or any older player who disliked analytics in basketball may be the greatest experts in playing basketball
but once upon a time we had the greatest experts in surgery not knowing they should stirilize when doing surgery...

[Stalwart]

The aim of this game is to win rings, but it doesn't mean that everyone plays within the same team context. You have to realize that. We should judge teams by teams results, but judging players strictly by team result misses a lot of nuances.

I'm not suggesting that you judge players strictly by team results. I think its appropriate to consider the context and circumstances of any particular team success but there is a limit to how far you can go in that excercise. There are countless variables and nuances that go into winning a championship and we can't properly and accurately account for them all.

When someone uses advanced metrics in an attempt isolate a particular players impact and contribution to a championship team they are leaving out all the things numbers and formulas don't capture or capture accurately. It doesn't account for leadership, team culture, or teammate development. It doesn't account for those times where team leaders must scale back their own production or adapt their games in the in order to improve the team. It doesn't take into account any personal or private issues going on with a player or his teammates. It doesn't account for many of different intangibles that players possess. And many of the things these metrics do address and account for they do so in an incomplete manner.

So understanding that there is a limit to just how accurately we can isolate and measure a players impact on a particular team or game I think there should be an inherent benefit of the doubt and a base level of credit given to those who lead their teams to success. Again, I do think it's appropriate to consider context and to analyze a players performance, contribution, and impact. But there is a limit to how far we can accurately do this so we shouldn't take it so far that we begin discrediting real accomplishments based on our inherently flawed and incomplete analysis of how they achieved it. We shouldn't be so short sighted as to brush off titles because someone had a good team and another player didn't. Or flat out ignore team success because someone had a lower PER or played a particular style of basketball, for example.

And conversely I don't feel its appropriate to take how someone's production and impact on a bad team and extrapolate that onto a good team and assume success. You just can't do that. If someone had a lack of team success then they simply had a lack of team success and should be factored into their all time ranking.

What change in Jordan between 1988-1990 and 1991-93? I'd say nothing, other than his team got notably better. What's the difference between Curry in 2018 and 2019? There is no difference, but Warriors lost because of Durant injury.

I can find more examples, my point is that although it's absolutely true that everyone plays to win the title, it doesn't mean that not winning rings makes you worse player.

Jordan improved his leadership by trusting his teammates, giving up the ball, and buying into the coache's system. Yes, players got better but that was in part due to Jordan's leadership as they themselves attest.

And we don't know what would have happened had Durant not been injured.

If you focus only on that, you miss the whole framework players have to work in. Garnett in 2006 could play like the best player ever and he probably still wouldn't change anything on their chances of winning a ring (or Kobe in 2005, if you really dislike KG).

Perhaps. But that doesn't then mean if you put 06 KG or 05 Kobe on a better team that they are going to win. You're assuming that. Even worse is that you are taking that assumption to such an extent of actually bumping KG above guys with 3,4,5 times the amount of team success there by rendering team success effectively null and void.

What do you mean by "everything"? MVPs?

I mean everything. You should factor in everything a player accomplishes, achieves, or is recognized for both from a team perspective and individually. That includes accolades, yes.

I don't see Westbrook and Kyrie being talked much on PC Board. Maybe you read too much of God knows which part of LeBron thread.

I've seen a bunch of threads about Kyrie and Westbrook echoing sports media narratives. Its almost like clockwork the way this forum and others follow behind media pundits and contrived narratives.

[Stalwart]

Furthermore, many of you say the most important thing is helping your team win. But then when it comes to all time rankings guys are being measured heavily based on their individual production, efficiency, and raw stats while their team success is greatly downplayed or ignored altogether. So you are essentially saying two different things.

Take a player like Isiah Thomas. His main goal was to win a championship because that was how great players were measured at the time. So in order to do that he scaled back his own production and his own numbers while focusing on the team as whole. He should be commended for that, right? Well in hindsight, according to the PC board, he went about the wrong way. Instead of being rewarded for his high level team success he gets discredited for his lack of production and efficiency. He gets put behind guys like John Stockton who never proved he could lead his team to a title. So, according to this logic, he should have continued putting up 21/13 per game. Or maybe just focus on efficiency. Because being a 2x Champion, 3x Conf Champion, and a FMVP means very little in 2022.

[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.

This is why WE don't respect YOUR beliefs. You're everything you claim to hate in your first post and don't realize it. There is nothing objective about your methods

The existence of this thread, and the posts within it (before derailment) are proof that it isn't much of an echo chamber.

I never called this place an echo chamber. I think 'we' need to work on our reading comprehension.

[70sFan]

I'm not suggesting that you judge players strictly by team results. I think its appropriate to consider the context and circumstances of any particular team success but there is a limit to how far you can go in that excercise. There are countless variables and nuances that go into winning a championship and we can't properly and accurately account for them all.

Of course we will never separate one from another. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try though. We shouldn't trivalize winning in individual evaluation (and as far as I know, nobody does that), but at the same time we can't go to completely different direction.

How can you know when the limit is crossed by the way? It's easy to say "there is limit to that", but without any specifics you're not talking about anything revealing.

When someone uses advanced metrics in an attempt isolate a particular players impact and contribution to a championship team they are leaving out all the things numbers and formulas don't capture or capture accurately. It doesn't account for leadership, team culture, or teammate development. It doesn't account for those times where team leaders must scale back their own production or adapt their games in the in order to improve the team. It doesn't take into account any personal or private issues going on with a player or his teammates. It doesn't account for many of different intangibles that players possess. And many of the things these metrics do address and account for they do so in an incomplete manner.

Actually, isolating players impact should give us pretty good idea of how successful player is when we scale back his production. If you take highly impactful player whose production got lesser but he helps his teams winning games, it's usually visible in impact metrics.

The same thing happens when someone tries to do too much on the court. If someone makes his team worse by doing too much, it's visible in impact metrics.

So understanding that there is a limit to just how accurately we can isolate and measure a players impact on a particular team or game I think there should be an inherent benefit of the doubt and a base level of credit given to those who lead their teams to success. Again, I do think it's appropriate to consider context and to analyze a players performance, contribution, and impact. But there is a limit to how far we can accurately do this so we shouldn't take it so far that we begin discrediting real accomplishments based on our inherently flawed and incomplete analysis of how they achieved it.

Of course, no disagreement here as well. The problem is that you don't say in your post that we shouldn't take impact metrics for granted, you simply say that analytics are useless basically. There is a massive difference between the former and the later.

By the way, rings are important but you use the same logic to defend MVPs, all-nba teams and other accolades. How is a voting from random number of journalists is any less "inherently flawed and incomplete" than what raw data shows? There is nothing more objective, or "real" as you said, about the results of a poll than analytical work. Absolutely nothing and in fact, voting results are much less objective because voters don't even have to share their methodology. They can just vote based on their completely subjective opinion and it's not like they are thoroughy selected experts - they are just journalists, media guys ect.

We shouldn't be so short sighted as to brush off titles because someone had a good team and another player didn't. Or flat out ignore team success because someone had a lower PER or played a particular style of basketball, for example.

Again, you keep believing that PER is what we call "analytics". You are wrong, I explained it for you so many times that I can't even count it...

And conversely I don't feel its appropriate to take how someone's production and impact on a bad team and extrapolate that onto a good team and assume success. You just can't do that. If someone had a lack of team success then they simply had a lack of team success and should be factored into their all time ranking.

Nobody here assumes that impact on bad teams carries through good or elite ones. It's another strawman you just created.

What people say: we can see that someone has extremely high impact on a team that doesn't win much. Unfortunately, this team isn't talented enough to stay competitive without this player on the floor and they collapse without him. It is possible that this player does something wrong and makes other players play below their potential, but I think it's rational not to judge him too harshly until we get bigger sample of size.

The perfect example is Kareem. He had two seasons in the middle of his prime when he missed playoffs. Unlike with Jordan though, we know that Jabbar was more than capable of winning the ring before 1975 and he consistently proved that. It's also not true that his impact diminished with time, because we've seen him doing some extreme things in 1977-82 period.

By your logic, we should rate 1976 Kareem different than 1971 Kareem or 1980 Kareem. By my logic, we should take into account that Lakers had no starting lineup level of players in their roster and their bench was horrible. We can say something like "Kareem could have done a bit better job in this situation", but saying that "Kareem should be penalized, because he missed playoffs" or "Kareem made his team play below their potential cause they missed playoffs" isn't rational argumentation.

Jordan improved his leadership by trusting his teammates, giving up the ball, and buying into the coache's system. Yes, players got better but that was in part due to Jordan's leadership as they themselves attest.

Jordan trusted his teammates so much that he punched them in sparring and bullied them, even the ones who were experienced veterans.

Maybe the difference lies in coach change? I mean, it's Jackson who made Jordan play a bit different and managed his personality (which wasn't easy). Previous coaches couldn't maximize their rosters in the same way.

Of course, Jordan should get a lot of credit for doing his job so well. He played within a system and he made it work better than anyone. Let's not pretend that Jordan had to make some drastic changes in his game though. He still possessed the ball a lot, he still shot on unmatched volume and he still was clearly the man on his team. His "sacrifice" is extremely exaggarated and I don't agree that 1989 Jordan wouldn't be able to do the same under Phil Jackson.

Perhaps. But that doesn't then mean if you put 06 KG or 05 Kobe on a better team that they are going to win. You're assuming that. Even worse is that you are taking that assumption to such an extent of actually bumping KG above guys with 3,4,5 times the amount of team success there by rendering team success effectively null and void.

No, I didn't make that assumption. I make the assumption that if you give them better teams, these teams would perform better than 2005 Lakers or 2006 Wolves. I think it's backed up by what we've seen in their careers, because Kobe with solid team always was a threat to win the title. KG with the only semi-decent Wolves team made the WCF.

I don't say "give 2005 Kobe 1991 Bulls roster and they'd win the title". I'm just saying "give 1991 Jordan 2005 Lakers roster and he'd not win a title". Which is why simply looking at ring numbers is silly.

By the way, Garnett won one ring. He reached the finals 2 times. He reached conference finals 4 times. We're not talking about the guy who made a playoffs twice in his career, he played on the highest level a lot and proved his value. Garnett isn't a career loser, he just didn't have the same luck to play from the beginning on the highest market team with the best player in the league in much worse conference. I'm talking about Magic Johnson, one of my favorite players ever (yes, I have Magic ahead of Garnett - not because Magic won 5 rings though).

If you think that Magic would have won multiple rings in Minnesota in Garnett's place then you're deluding yourself. It doesn't mean that Garnett is as good as Magic, but it means that comparing their ring numbers is a moot point given how their team context is so off.

Thankfully to impact metrics, we can see that Magic was comparably good basketball player to KG and then we can start nuanced analysis in which contribution to winning could be a key factor.

In short:

- I have Magic ahead of Garnett because I think that his impact on the Lakers was high enough to compete with KG and I see the number of aspects of game (on and off the court) that makes me believe Magic is more deserving of the higher rank. The sheer amount of team success certainly could be an evidence that Magic is a player you can build successful dynasty around when you have enough talent, but he also proved himself with weaker teams around him.

- you have Magic ahead of Garnett because Magic won so much more that it's silly to even compare them.

It's up to people here to decide which reasoning is more rational

I mean everything. You should factor in everything a player accomplishes, achieves, or is recognized for both from a team perspective and individually. That includes accolades, yes.

Could you explain how accolades can be called an objective metric? Remember, accolades don't tell us anything about winning - Russell Westbrook won an MVP and has tons of accolades.

I've seen a bunch of threads about Kyrie and Westbrook echoing sports media narratives. Its almost like clockwork the way this forum and others follow behind media pundits and contrived narratives.

I just looked on the last two page of PC Board - no Westbrook threads and only one Kyrie thread (Kyrie-Harden-KD Brooklyn thread) that doesn't get any attention. Maybe you watch too much media? Because I don't watch any American media and I don't see anything about Kyrie or Westbrook recently (other than recent Kyrie return).

[70sFan]

Furthermore, many of you say the most important thing is helping your team win. But then when it comes to all time rankings guys are being measured heavily based on their individual production, efficiency, and raw stats while their team success is greatly downplayed or ignored altogether. So you are essentially saying two different things.

Strawman after strawman... when did I rank players based on individual procution?

Take a player like Isiah Thomas. His main goal was to win a championship because that was how great players were measured at the time. So in order to do that he scaled back his own production and his own numbers while focusing on the team as whole. He should be commended for that, right? Well in hindsight, according to the PC board, he went about the wrong way. Instead of being rewarded for his high level team success he gets discredited for his lack of production and efficiency. He gets put behind guys like John Stockton who never proved he could lead his team to a title. So, according to this logic, he should have continued putting up 21/13 per game. Or maybe just focus on efficiency. Because being a 2x Champion, 3x Conf Champion, and a FMVP means very little in 2022.

I think it's you who use flawed logic here. Just because he won more in seasons when his production is significantly weaker doesn't mean that he should have done that throughout the career. It doesn't mean that it was necessary to win. Especially when we factor that Pistons didn't improve their offense in championship years - it was all about defensive improvement.

I'm not saying that Thomas sucked because his production went down, but I'd like to see any evidendes from you that your hypothesis is true. This is what we have in this case:

- Thomas offensive production got notably worse,
- his team didn't become notably better on offense,D
- the breakthrough for Pistons was improving their defensive personel (Rodman, Salley, Dumars) which turned them into elite defensive team,
- Pistons won their first ring in a season when Bird was injured, Bucks suffered two starters injuries and Lakers played without Scott and with Magic missing half of the series.

I'm not coming to the conclusion that Thomas was bad in winning seasons, but when I take all these points into consideration, I don't see any more logical explaination that Pistons roster improved so much that even with Thomas decline they were able to compete for the titles.

Of course it doesn't account to how critical Thomas was for them off the court (which is very important, unlike your assumption I care about off-court impact) but is there any reason to believe that Thomas wouldn't be able to do that when he was younger? That's a legit question, if we have any reasons to doubt Thomas leadership before 1989 I'd like to know them.

[G35]

funnily enough doctor mj post is making me think of the rough similarities between basketball analytics with -bear with me here- Medical knowledge

contrary to stem fields Medicine is unfortunately not a fully exact science where there are 100% right solutions as not everybody is the same and the same disease doesnt affects everyone the same way

this means that for a long time ( and i mean until the 21th century) a lot of Medical practice was heavily -empirical- lots of common knowledge amongst doctors went umchellenged and old flawed studies remained unchallenged

then there came a movement called "evidence based medicine" which objective was to make sure Medical practice was as scientific as possible and not take "common old knowledge" at face value (sounds familiar?)

in the Medical world now everythingh is -supoosed- to be baked by evidence, expert opinion is considered the most worthless level of evidence there is

if surgeon McSurgeon the greatest surgeon among all surgeons says somethingh, but has no evidence other than "trust me bro" then that evidence is as good as worthless
this is a contrast to basketball, where many players (the expert surgeons in this analogy) refuse that analytics (the studies and hard evidence in this analogy) may know somethingh they dont

let me give en example, when i made my internship in a small hospital (back in the old pre covid days of 2019...) there was a intubated patient with lung problems

the older and more experienced doctor wanted to do the traditional treatment, the younger doctor wanted to do a newer treatment with strong evidence of helping patients

the issue was that the older doctor didnt believe those new studies since they were completely at odds with what "was always done", he refused to consider that what he had been doing for years may have been suboptimal and dismissed it as "not enough evidence yet, may have yet unknown side effects" (actually a more than fair concern)

basketball is kinda like that, evidence is almost never 100% unquestionable, new studies come out all the time contradixting older ones, and people who learned somethingh decades ago are often reluctant to challenge what they know

that is why i am relatively unimpressed when people use old awards or old player opinions as only evidence,

because i know how much Medicine (a field a lot more crucial to the world than basketball) has improved
-precisely- from prefering hard evidence over expert opinion

barkley or shaq or any older player who disliked analytics in basketball may be the greatest experts in playing basketball
but once upon a time we had the greatest experts in surgery not knowing they should stirilize when doing surgery...

Its funny that you shared that experience. I have similar experience with the flying career field. I work with some old pilot instructors...in their 70's and we read the critiques from students about the training.

One example is this one instructor is having a hard time understanding that things in the "field" have changed and people are not doing the same thing. One of the complaints is that he does not engage with the students in a useful way and he is inhibiting the CRM (crew resource management...which is essentially how well each member of the crew communicates and their situational awareness at any point during the mission).

One complaint is that once they reach cruising altitude in the simulator, not much is happening. When the airplane is cruising there is not likely to be any emergencies during the scenario. But this instructor does not provide much instruction, does not share any useful techniques or speed up the scenario. If the instructors want, he can reposition the pilots for vectoring or put them on final, to speed up the training. But he does not really do that and the younger pilots think it becomes a waste of time, since nothing is really being taught.

Other instructors have taken him aside and tried to get him to "modernize" his way of thinking. He just does not get it, so not much changes...he probably should retire but he's not ready.

When new ideas, techniques are shared the way they are verified is through peer review...those peers will question the proposals to see if it holds up under inspection. That is how we progress...question the status quo...but also question any new ideas.

Traditions/rules are there because they were initially put through the same review and they passed muster.

What I am seeing is that change is being proposed for the sake of change and any questioning is shut down or ridiculed.

The way I see things is there will always be someone to question ideas...the only true way of knowing is by the results. Intentions do not matter...only results. What happens is that many times, people do not like the results and will manipulate the scenario, the variables until they get the result they desire.

One major example of that was the Seven Countries Study by Ancel Keys. It was the first major study of lifestyle, diet, heart disease from different parts of the world. What Keys did was show a correlation between lifestyle/diet and increased risk of stroke, hypertension etc.

The summary is that high blood cholesterol, lack of exercise, smoking was bad for your health.

There was pushback on Keys' findings; John Yudkin who claimed that sugar was the bigger threat to public health than fats/carbs. Keys, the sugar industry, process food makers disagreed with Yudkin ridiculing his work.

There was also criticism of Keys that he originally did research in 22 countries but he basically picked seven countries that would support his theories.

Does anyone think that some posters cherry picks certain stats to support their pov.....