RealGM

Comparing perimeter players against perimeter players or bigs vs bigs.

Comparing one season only.

If player A is better at PPG, ts%, APG, RPG, SPG, BPG, PER and WS/48, do you believe player A was the better player on that season?

Assuming their defensive impact is at least equal.

Joao Saraiva wrote:Comparing perimeter players against perimeter players or bigs vs bigs.

Comparing one season only.

If player A is better at PPG, ts%, APG, RPG, SPG, BPG, PER and WS/48, do you believe player B can't be better than player A?

Assuming their defensive impact is at least equal.

I'd say it's likely, barring some astronomical turnover / foul numbers.

But I wouldn't say that player A is better than player B. I'd say that player A had a better season than player B.

magicmerl wrote:

Joao Saraiva wrote:Comparing perimeter players against perimeter players or bigs vs bigs.

Comparing one season only.

If player A is better at PPG, ts%, APG, RPG, SPG, BPG, PER and WS/48, do you believe player B can't be better than player A?

Assuming their defensive impact is at least equal.

I'd say it's likely, barring some astronomical turnover / foul numbers.

But I wouldn't say that player A is better than player B. I'd say that player A had a better season than player B.

If a player is turning the ball like crazy it shows on PER. If he's fouling too much he'll likely not play enough minutes to provide great raw stats...

Had a better season / was the best player on that season that's what I meant. Already edited my original post.

Probably, yes.

Do you have any examples to test the concept on?

99% of the time yes, but I'm sure you could find exceptions. Player A could play in a system that he excels in and player B could play in a system that brings out all of his weaknesses. It's situations like those that are the exceptions. Just look at a player like Turkoglu and compare him at age 28 to him at 30. I don't think he was that much worse as a player at age 30. He just fell off the map because he was no longer in Orlando's system. It could also be a situation where player A is in a contract year and player B just signed a contract or player A is completely healthy and player B is playing through injuries. There are plenty of reasons why stats don't show the full picture.

You have to consider circumstances. Stats alone are not enough to evaluate on.

No way..

1) For one, the playoffs have to be considered..

i.e. steve nash and derrick rose had better stats than bad boy Isiah Thomas in the regular season, but their WS/48 in the playoffs was both materially lower than Isiah's and lower than the level they had achieved in the regular season - so while Isiah's contribution to win share (wins) increased 25% come playoff time and therefore boosted his team's playoff capability beyond what the regular season win total indicated - nash and rose's contribution to win share (wins) declined 25% so their team's regular season win total was an overrepresentation of the team's true capability in the playoffs...

and isiah's playoff WS/48 not only went the right direction in the playoffs, but it became materially higher than rose and nash's, while his regular season WS/48 was lower - so this means isiah's team was an efficient, well-running machine that could adjust and knew how to take full advantage of isiah's ability when the playoffs arrived and it was time to turn it up... being able to adjust like this and hone in on the team's strength is only possible with a point guard whose style facilitates an equitable distribution of offensive contribution - this contribution includes playmaking from multiple players to maintain overall unpredictability, as opposed to the largely one-playmaker teams that nash and rose led.. people have historically thought that many ball-dominant players like cp3 and nash are very smart - but in reality, having a one-playmaker team is not smart and is not thinking about the game at the highest level of strategy like the all-round team Spurs and Bad Boy Pistons have done.


2.) Also, some of the common metrics like PER have holes in them so often times there is not a perfect or even positive correlation with PER and team wins... For example, PER's that are driven by shooting efficiency as opposed to production are overrated - historically, production-driven PER's result in winning while shooting-efficiency-driven PER's do not..

i.e. Lebron's production in the 2014 Finals was considerably less than Magic Johnson's was in the 1987 Finals, but Lebron's PER was just as high because he made up for his shortfall in production with a higher shooting percentage - a shooting percentage achieved through shrewd use of the spacing that today's game provides coupled with a calculated knowledge of the factors driving high PER's - he sort of conned his way to a high (but empty) PER and it ended up costing him dearly at the highest level.

The top 10 all-time PER that Lebron registered in this year's Finals manifested itself on the court as impact-less in the face of superior coaching because there was no production counter the spurs production, only shooting efficiency - it was the only shooting-efficiency-driven PER among the top 10 all-time Finals PER's, and not coincidentally, it was the only top 10 Finals PER to lose its Finals (not coincidentally again, by a record margin).

mooncheese wrote:No way..

1) For one, the playoffs have to be considered..

i.e. steve nash and derrick rose had better stats than bad boy Isiah Thomas in the regular season, but their WS/48 in the playoffs was both materially lower than Isiah's and lower than the level they had achieved in the regular season - so while Isiah's contribution to win share (wins) increased 25% come playoff time and therefore boosted his team's playoff capability beyond what the regular season win total indicated - nash and rose's contribution to win share (wins) declined 25% so their team's regular season win total was an overrepresentation of the team's true capability in the playoffs...

and isiah's playoff WS/48 not only went the right direction in the playoffs, but it became materially higher than rose and nash's, while his regular season WS/48 was lower - so this means isiah's team was an efficient, well-running machine that could adjust and knew how to take full advantage of isiah's ability when the playoffs arrived and it was time to turn it up... being able to adjust like this and hone in on the team's strength is only possible with a point guard whose style facilitates an equitable distribution of offensive contribution - this contribution includes playmaking from multiple players to maintain overall unpredictability, as opposed to the largely one-playmaker teams that nash and rose led.. people have historically thought that many ball-dominant players like cp3 and nash are very smart - but in reality, having a one-playmaker team is not smart and is not thinking about the game at the highest level of strategy like the all-round team Spurs and Bad Boy Pistons have done.


2.) Also, some of the common metrics like PER have holes in them so often times there is not a perfect or even positive correlation with PER and team wins... For example, PER's that are driven by shooting efficiency as opposed to production are overrated - historically, production-driven PER's result in winning while shooting-efficiency-driven PER's do not..

i.e. Lebron's production in the 2014 Finals was considerably less than Magic Johnson's was in the 1987 Finals, but Lebron's PER was just as high because he made up for his shortfall in production with a higher shooting percentage - a shooting percentage achieved through shrewd use of the spacing that today's game provides coupled with a calculated knowledge of the factors driving high PER's - he sort of conned his way to a high (but empty) PER and it ended up costing him dearly at the highest level.

The top 10 all-time PER that Lebron registered in this year's Finals manifested itself on the court as impact-less in the face of superior coaching because there was no production counter the spurs production, only shooting efficiency - it was the only shooting-efficiency-driven PER among the top 10 all-time Finals PER's, and not coincidentally, it was the only top 10 Finals PER to lose its Finals (not coincidentally again, by a record margin).

1. I agree you can take playoffs into account. I agree that PER only is not that good. That's why I included raw stats and 3 advanced stats (ts%, PER, WS/48)

2. I saw the finals in a diferent way, I actually thought LeBron's impact was great (game 1 and game 2 will describe it perfectly). I just thought the gap between the teams was so big that despite LeBron's amazing displays the Heat got blown out. You say lack or production but LeBron is near 30 PPG and playing reduced minutes considering how much he should have played (injury in game 1, left earlier games 3, 4 and 5 because his team couldn't keep up).

magicmerl wrote:Probably, yes.

Do you have any examples to test the concept on?

I can think of some yes, but I'd rather not show them in the thread. Because sometimes people say yes to this things, but when it comes to a player of their franchise or to a player they don't like they start saying stats don't matter.

I believe they do, and I think you can't be a great player without producing great stats. If it's one stat only (only PER for example) it can be that the player is ideal for the forumla or something... If it's just PPG the player can be overshooting. Now if you have great PPG, on great ts%, great PER and great WS/48 I think there is absolutely no way you can be playing bad, and if they're all above another player (or at least almost all the group of the stats I posted, PPG, ts%, APG, RPG, WS/48 and PER) I don't believe the other player can be better.

By realgm standerds Probally yes (I've often noted that this is the most advanced stat driven basketball forum I've seen to the point of obsession)

For me, I've always been distrusting of the degree to which stats can quantify a players impact in a game like basketball. So personally I'd have to go look at the tapes, and evaluate for myself. Thats how I've always done it, and it gives me the best feel.

I can't think of a situation where a player had higher raw numbers across the board (with similar defense) with higher efficiency and PER and WS/48 but had a "worse" season than the other player, not counting PS of course.

The default is the better stats probably indicate the better player. Defense is one area where stats don't tend to answer questions well but you specified equal defensive impact. The other main area where stats (assuming you chose good ones which generally you did) aren't able to assess value is what we call intangibles . . . leadership, locker room effect, etc.

A player like Carmelo Anthony his last year in Denver may put up good stats and have a negative effect on his team because of his attitude, the way it affects his teammates, selfish play, etc. This is why a team of guys in their contract years doesn't tend to play well together even though guys tend to have better numbers in their contract years (I don't know this for sure but am generalizing from anecdotal evidence which is sometimes iffy). So, it's still possible that the lower stat player is better for his team that year just by being less of an @#$%&^.

BmanInBigD wrote:I can't think of a situation where a player had higher raw numbers across the board (with similar defense) with higher efficiency and PER and WS/48 but had a "worse" season than the other player, not counting PS of course.

How about for playoffs? Of course for players playing more than 10 games

Joao Saraiva wrote:

BmanInBigD wrote:I can't think of a situation where a player had higher raw numbers across the board (with similar defense) with higher efficiency and PER and WS/48 but had a "worse" season than the other player, not counting PS of course.

How about for playoffs? Of course for players playing more than 10 games

Pretty much the same thing. Better raw and advanced numbers, better PS. Doesn't mean better "player", though. Just better for that period in question, that season or PS.

I would think after a Finals where we all saw the impact of Boris Diaw there would be less people going overwhelmingly yes at this question. There are a lot of things on a basketball court not measured in a box score. Now, there are a lot of things that ARE measured in a box score, but the player with the better box scores stats isn't always the better player.

Krodis wrote:I would think after a Finals where we all saw the impact of Boris Diaw there would be less people going overwhelmingly yes at this question. There are a lot of things on a basketball court not measured in a box score. Now, there are a lot of things that ARE measured in a box score, but the player with the better box scores stats isn't always the better player.

Yes, absolutely. There are a lot of players (Battier, Horry, Ginobli, Diaw) whose positive impact far outstrips their box score contributions.

I'm starting to suspect that this is another Demarcus Cousins thread.

Stats always need context. Take Adrian Dantley for example. Great stats offensively, high volume, super efficient, etc. Also a notorious ballstopper, to the point of disrupting your offense...

Krodis wrote:I would think after a Finals where we all saw the impact of Boris Diaw there would be less people going overwhelmingly yes at this question. There are a lot of things on a basketball court not measured in a box score. Now, there are a lot of things that ARE measured in a box score, but the player with the better box scores stats isn't always the better player.

Can you give me an example of 5 things that are not measured by any stat that have impact on a basketball court? Can't be on D, since I told in the begining of the thread that the players would have similar impact on D.

The NBA isn't a computer model, no discussion about real situations can reach a logical conclusion without context. We'd need it to judge for ourselves what the numbers meant.

Its definitely more likely that player A is better but we'd have to have the context to put the nail in the coffin.

Jordan jumped way higher and had better explosion off vertical which was a big advantage in traffic... Kobe is pretty good of a vertical too - and both those guys had the physique that was conducive for scoring effectively in traffic, where their vertical ability was needed.

In contrast, Lebron is actually only okay off a vertical and his physique is not conducive for mitigating defenders in traffic... Here's Lebron off a drop-step (one-step vertical), where he gets stuffed on a game winning attempt and the Heat lost... He didn't have good explosion.




Whereas, in the same spot, Jordan drop-steps with a lot more lift and explosion.















Here's another one where they are both doing the exact same move that ends up with them jumping off two feet, and Jordan has quite a bit more lift.

Lebron going up weak off two feet after jumpstop.. can't dunk..






Jordan in Exact Same Spot, Exact Same Move and Jumpstop, Goes up A Lot Stronger




Same Spot, Also Over Dominique and Moses Malone at the Same Time