Backpicks GOAT: The 40 Best Careers in NBA History | 4/13 - The Value of Longevity & Defense

[tihsad]

"We"? Why don't "you" go ahead and specify your concerns.

Feel free to list them.

In a very congenial manner, I thought I did. If you'd like me to go through the Backpages Bible point by point, I'll need some time, but I think your response speaks volumes....

Well it kind of is the Bible until someone improves on the work or until someone puts in the same amount of work using a different model.

It's lazy to try pick apart something someone else build. Build a list better. He's done a lot of the hardwork by showing the framework of how to begin

No, I'm sorry, that's just not how critique works. I freely admit I cannot provide a body of basketball analysis that supersedes Elgee's work, which was outstanding, if flawed. I also can not produce writing that jumps past the work of In Search of Time Lost or Finnegan's Wake, does that mean I can't have an opinion or critique them? I also lack a 36" vertical, does that mean I can't notice both exceptional and terrible play by those that possess this ability? This is just an exceptionally terrible approach to discussion, and I'm sorry to be harsh, but there isn't any other way to express it. And to be clear, in my prior posts, I noted a blaring example of where I believe Elgee gets it very, very, very wrong.

[tihsad]

In a very congenial manner, I thought I did. If you'd like me to go through the Backpages Bible point by point, I'll need some time, but I think your response speaks volumes....

Well it kind of is the Bible until someone improves on the work or until someone puts in the same amount of work using a different model.

It's lazy to try pick apart something someone else build. Build a list better. He's done a lot of the hardwork by showing the framework of how to begin

TBH the bible comparison is insulting. El Gee's list has an emperical baseline and substantiates nearly all of their observations with some sort of empirical backup. The bible just says things.

I'd argue that, even a casual reading of Elgee's work should highlight a shift from objective to subjective. He's clearly arguing for certain players (I believe he addresses that in one of the foot notes), and despite the immense amount of empirical data he kindly provided, a discerning reader can identity when the shark is jumped and the fridge nuked. Refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of this (you of course have the right to disagree) is similar to religious fever - hence, the Real GM bible.

[tihsad]

Well it kind of is the Bible until someone improves on the work or until someone puts in the same amount of work using a different model.

It's lazy to try pick apart something someone else build. Build a list better. He's done a lot of the hardwork by showing the framework of how to begin

TBH the bible comparison is insulting. El Gee's list has an emperical baseline and substantiates nearly all of their observations with some sort of empirical backup. The bible just says things.

I'd argue that even a casual reading of Elgee's work should highlight a shift from objective to subjective depending on the player being discussed. He's clearly arguing for certain players (I believe he addresses that in one of the foot notes), and despite the immense amount of empirical data he kindly provided, a discerning reader can identity when the shark is jumped and the fridge nuked. Refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of this (you of course have the right to disagree) is similar to religious fever - hence, the Real GM bible.

[tihsad]

TBH the bible comparison is insulting. El Gee's list has an emperical baseline and substantiates nearly all of their observations with some sort of empirical backup. The bible just says things.

I'd argue that even a casual reading of Elgee's work should highlight a shift from objective to subjective depending on the player being discussed. He's clearly arguing for certain players (I believe he addresses that in one of the foot notes), and despite the immense amount of empirical data he kindly provided, a discerning reader can identity when the shark is jumped and the fridge nuked. Refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of this (you of course have the right to disagree) is similar to religious fervor - hence, the Real GM bible.

[tihsad]

double post

[tihsad]

double, double post

[tihsad]

double, double, double post

[tihsad]

Really need to be able to delete posts, my apologies

[tihsad]

To many posts

[freethedevil]

Well it kind of is the Bible until someone improves on the work or until someone puts in the same amount of work using a different model.

It's lazy to try pick apart something someone else build. Build a list better. He's done a lot of the hardwork by showing the framework of how to begin

TBH the bible comparison is insulting. El Gee's list has an emperical baseline and substantiates nearly all of their observations with some sort of empirical backup. The bible just says things.

I'd argue that, even a casual reading of Elgee's work should highlight a shift from objective to subjective.

Cool. The subjective is still rooted in research and supported with explicit reasoning. As long as one understands and can explain said reasoning, you can't really treat such citations as "religious fever" unless you can show they are ridiculous or asinine, something that, requires, at the very least, thorough refutation.

I'm all for bold claims contrary to popular or strongly held beliefs, assuming you can support them convincingly. It's that last bit hich has been missing in your posts.

a discerning reader can identity when the shark is jumped and the fridge nuked. Refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of this

Do provide a reciept of this, or are we just shielding ourselves with strawmen? No one has said such logical leaps are "impossible", but you actually have to make a compelling case that they exist if you're expecting serious consideration from elgee's "worshippers". Such a case requires specificity, something I haven't seem much of from you so far.

[liamliam1234]

Your cited example was that Elgee says 2003 Nash is better than peak Stockton – which, judging by postseason play, SRS impact, ability to maximise teammate potential, scoring, and high-level passing (distinct from high volume passing), he was. So pretty dreadful “example” of bias on your part, and asking for an explanation, when one can be gleaned if you read both their profiles, does not inspire any amount of confidence in your ability to assess the material.