Peaks project update: #15

Moderators: trex_8063, PaulieWal, Quotatious, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

DatAsh
Junior
Posts: 391
And1: 180
Joined: Sep 25, 2015

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#21 » by DatAsh » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:46 am

Now that Oscar has been voted in, how does peak Nash compare? I think it's arguable that Nash could be the better offensive player, and while I do think Oscar has the defensive edge, I don't think the gap is massive, as Nash was never a terrible defender(he usually hovered between 0 and -1), and Oscar wasn't known as a great defender.

Given the comparable offense, and Oscar's better defense, I do think he peaked higher, but the gap can't be that big. Oscar was no Paul/Kidd/Payton/Stockton on defense.
DatAsh
Junior
Posts: 391
And1: 180
Joined: Sep 25, 2015

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#22 » by DatAsh » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:50 am

I'm still voting 2017 Curry as number one here, but I'm still not sure after that.

Is voting for only one player allowed if I'm not sure after that and I don't see good enough arguments to sway me one way or the other?
WarriorGM
Starter
Posts: 2,442
And1: 1,170
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#23 » by WarriorGM » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:59 am

DatAsh wrote:Now that Oscar has been voted in, how does peak Nash compare? I think it's arguable that Nash could be the better offensive player, and while I do think Oscar has the defensive edge, I don't think the gap is massive, as Nash was never a terrible defender(he usually hovered between 0 and -1), and Oscar wasn't known as a great defender.

Given the comparable offense, and Oscar's better defense, I do think he peaked higher, but the gap can't be that big. Oscar was no Paul/Kidd/Payton/Stockton on defense.


Oh DatAsh you are funny bringing it up now that Oscar was voted in. Peak Nash is comparable to 2014 Curry.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1_hint=Stephen+Curry&player_id1_select=Stephen+Curry&player_id1=curryst01&y1=2014&player_id2_hint=Steve+Nash&player_id2_select=Steve+Nash&player_id2=nashst01&y2=2006
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,095
And1: 18,509
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#24 » by E-Balla » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:56 am

@freethedevil I've made plenty of criticisms of Curry and his postseason play in these threads and none of that addresses them. It's more of the same, talking about his regular season impact and using that to trump up various parts of his game, meanwhile in the playoffs his weaknesses shine and he gets stifled by defenses that can switch bigs onto him because he's not beating guards without a pick and his passing isn't great.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
liamliam1234
Freshman
Posts: 98
And1: 105
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#25 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:27 am

Apologies in advance for the long post.

freethedevil wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:Again, was 2001 Kobe's peak?


Does 2011 2001 post similat #'s to his later versions? No?


Yes...

Red herring is red. Frankly, this kind of questioning is tangential and gives me the impression you want me to make your arguments for you. However if we're going to do this thing where you ask me random opinions to seek inconsistencies rather than just crafting your case, I'll ask that you ask questions that would actually tease out inconsistencies.


Oh, shut up with the "red herring" bull. What, did your high school debate coach teach you that was the best way to "win"? The inconsistencies in your stances are pretty obvious, regardless of whether you are willing to acknowledge them.

And your mistake is that I am not trying to convince you. I have already stated I do not care if people vote for 2017 Curry. And while I care if people inconsistently vote for 2016 Curry over other players with similar playoff issues, I have already acknowledged that if they are looking primarily at the regular season (e.g. David Robinson) then I at least follow why they would vote that way. See, most of us are not here because we think we have this cutesy little formula that is objectively correct and that everyone else should obey that opinion.

My case for curry is based on
-> better impact #'s
-> more portability
-> better team


And I have already told you what I thought of those. Those are your myopic metrics, not mine.

So. any questions should be revolved around examples should feature seasons which posted
-> better impact #'s
-> more portability
-> better team success.


I am not trying to convince you to abandon your vote. You (and the Curry fanboy) are the one taking offence at people not backing your candidate. I am trying, evidently impossibly, to show you that basketball is not "solved" by those considerations.

If they don't, then it's a red herring and i'm going to be ignoring it.


It is not a "red herring" just because you personally do not care about it. And even if it were, I may as well just throw the "fallacy fallacy" back at you, or half a dozen other pedantic "fallacies" which the rest of us ignore because we are capable of seeing the bigger picture.

It certainly is convenient how we can dismiss the bad playoffs for Curry such that we leave as a sample the single playoffs where his team was operating at its absolute peak and he faced zero adversity at all.

It's amazing you're complaining about sample size while specifically ignoring all data but two small stretches where curry was coming off injuries. If we're going to actually look at sample, then lets look at it properly.

Pro curry sample:
-> 2013-2015 postseason stretch with better #'s than kobe or wade


So I guess AuPM is good here but not when it supports Westbrook or David Robinson. And I am sure you will be all over Manu Ginobli soon enough, right.

For other impact metrics, no, 2013-14 are not in line with peak Wade (probably not Kobe, either, but I care less about that one). And I have already talked about how uninspiring the 2015 run was.

-> 2017 stretch where a healthy curry posted impact #"s in line with the 82 games of his 2016 rs and which, like the 2013-2015 postseson stretch had better impact #'s than kobe or wade


A healthy Curry and no other changes, right.

-> 2019 postseason where he posted best in the league-arguably best #"s. Last 4 regular seasons where he's posted #"s challenging lebron.


Already said the regular season does not matter all that much if I feel it does not translate as well to the playoffs. Yeah, Curry is a better regular season performer than Kobe, no question. Will give him the advantage over Wade, too, although less comfortably.

But I guess we are back to "luck-adjustments" (read: box-score manipulations). Good thing you marked its portrayal of role-players as franchise guys as a "red herring"! No further discussion needed.

Anti-curry sample:
a few games off an injury in 2016 and 2018.


And the sample of him being frustrated by bench point guards. "A few games". Every postseason is a few games, and it is not like his 2013 and 2014 are really evidence of him being some transcendent player, or like Durant's presence makes no difference at all.

We're talking about single season peaks and you're hand waving a single postseason where curry obliterates both kobe and wade on impact #'s because of multi-game stretches coming off injuries. You're also, by neccesity, hand waving an 82 game regular season where his impact #'s destroyed anything kobe's because of a few games of an injury. So no, this is nonsense. My sample of data is way bigger than yours, so I'm going to dismiss you and eballa's complaints regarding sample size.


Where is the Robinson support.

If you think the regular season is more representative of actual ability than the postseason, alright, but plenty of us disagree.

Regardless, draymond's impact isn't an argument against curry's so this really is a moot point.

It is when I am trying to call into question inconsistent reliance on "impact".

Draymond being a top 6 player wouldn't contradict curry's being better than kobe. Dray not being a top 6 player wouldn't contradict curry being better than kobe. If i was using the fact curry won exclusively, you may have a point. Alas, I am not, so red herring is red.


Oh, okay, I can only come up with an argument that addresses all three of your "values" at once. Brilliant, what a "red herring". Yep, guess no use ever considering team context or whether there is an arguably better playoff performer on the same team.

If that increases based on playoff value, how good was Nurkic if he ranks in the top ten without being in the playoffs? My guess is that the bigger reason was that Giannis dipped.


You do realize what the pm in pipm stands for? Compare nurkic's minuites with the players you would consider superstars and answer your own question. And no, giannis didn't dip, it's per minuite, not accumulative. Giannis went up a bit. Curry went up more.

Red herring is red.


Gee, I must have missed the minutes cutoff. So at what point is someone considered a good player? Is it right below whatever Curry's minutes happen to be? Yep, pointing out where the "metric" fails to match anyone's perception is totally a red herring considering how much you are tying yourself to its accuracy. Does Lopez meet the cutoff? Bledsoe? Sure was nice of them to become top twenty players this season.

Cite the full CORP numbers if you are going to use them.


2019 CORP:
Curry, -> 18.7 %
Giannis, -> 18.3 %
Davis -> 16%
Kawhi-> 14%

FYI, Kobe's very best peak corp was 18.7 and unlike 2019 curry, he didn't have points docked for health. Curry has multiple seasons on or above peak kobe's level across the board on impact #"s. So whatever you think of said #"s, the notion that curry only graded higher based on outlier's can only be arrived at with extensive gymnastics.


Not really what I meant by "cite", but I guess I could have specifically asked for a link. Either way, though, not surprised that a metric drawing heavily from, I would presume, regular season performance is higher on Curry than on Kobe.

"Physical dominance" is already baked in to skillset, so it's silly to value that seperately.

Considering how we have watched Curry struggle with physical defence more than most, it obviously is not.

You realize what "baked in" means right? Curry's phyiscal failings will affect his effectiveness at basketball skills. So double counting that is redundant and silly and just conforming to your own biases.


That is not double-counting, that is acknowledging a circumstance where Curry's effectiveness in a likely playoff situation is reduced. As has been expressed in past threads, Robinson was much the same way. Is that a matter of his "physique"?

Great sample size.

My sample size is bigger than yours which is non existent. And given you're the one whose making assertions regarding curry's teammate on his teammates, it is you who has the burden of proof.


Alright, if we can use sample sizes like that, then I would like to submit a vote for 2017 Kawhi, who was absolutely dominating the "greatest team of all time" in the sample we saw of him.

Here's what curry does better:

-> cutting inside
-> cutting outside
-> setting screens
-> corner threes
-> elbow threes
-> catch and shoot threes
-> key threes
-> deep threes
-> pull up threes
-> mid range
-> free throws


I am sure you will extend the same comical level of separation to Kobe. Oh, wait, no, suddenly Kobe gets the narrow frame. Shamelessly disingenuous.

-> ball handling


Already said this is a rather marginal skill advantage to celebrate.

-> switching


More disingenuousness. The fact Wade and Kobe did not play in switching systems does not mean they were not more capable than Curry if the opportunity were presented. May as well argue Curry is advantaged over Jordan for the same reason.

-> fighting sceeens
-> defensive positioning
-> guarding smalls


Strong disagree.

-> spacing


Hahahaha, as opposed to the three point and midrange advantage, right.

-> drawing coverage


So different from spacing.

-> attacking smalls


When did Kobe or Wade ever struggle against a guy like Dellavadova or Van Vleet.

-> steals


Allen Iverson also did this, as did Isaiah.

Here's what kobe does better:
-> interior scoring
-> rim protection
-> passing
-> attacking bigs
-> defending bigs


And you want people to take you seriously.

Let us see, to extend the same generosity you afforded Kobe, how about we expand interior scoring into five different facets, add blocks to rim protection, add wing defence, man-on-man defence, and lockdown defence, add athleticism – wait, sorry, we can do that like five ways too – add heavily (often stupidly) contested shooting...

This is a dumb and highly unobjective means of assessing overall player quality.

Kobe is way less versatile meaning there's a smaller range of systems he could excel on meaning he's more system dependent. I realize why you tried to assert the opposite(it's literally your only viable argument for kobe here), but it's utterly baseless and nonsensical. And fyi, i could do the same with wade.


Basically every 3-and-D player can be said to fit into more systems than the top tier stars.

(unless you mean the "system" is them having high usage, which is pedantic and can be applied to basically any top player).

Yes, because curry is far more versatile off the ball than "basically any top player." So, to justify a one way superstar like Bryant being better, you would have to show he's signifcantly more impactful. Nothing supports that though, so you're now trying to reverse engineer excuses for kobe's lack of comparable impact.


You think there are only three considerations. But for those of us not blindly following "impact" (sorry, blindly when it suits you), we do not just look at the impact metrics and call it a day.

Here is PIPM:
Spoiler:
Image


Seem familiar? How is that meaningfully different from the exact complaints E-balla had of BPM?

Because that data is being used as an adjustment for the rapm, it isn't actually being used in place of it. Hence why pipm is able to massively outperform bpm.


Cheap dodge. It is still just drawing from basic boxscore numbers and churning out an easily digestible result, with many of the same flaws.

If good players cannibalise each other, why do impact metrics paint the opposite picture? Why do the Warriors have three of the best six or eight guys? Why does Kevin Durant suddenly leap up the rankings once he joins

Why do you keep insisting on grouping every impact stat together?

Durant's rpm was 11th in 2017. His luck adjusted stats were top 5. The better player's stats got cannibalized by other offensive players. Curry was ranked behind chris paul, while his luck adjusted stats painted him as lebron on their own tier. Again, the better player got cannibalized. I specifically listed rpm, and you just listed a bunch of different metrics as the sabe to obfuscate the point. Also, rpm is a fraction of a team's total value. So. YOu would expect, if a team is cannibalizing, that the shares would be shares by multiple players. Having the best players lowered while the # of players increase is exactly what would happen if they're getting canniablized.


I keep grouping them together because you keep referring to multiple iterations of them. If you only care about PIPM, stick with it. But it seems like you are willing to use the rest until something seems off, then PIPM is the final backup, regardless of whatever else it says about other players.

did he just happen to learn "winning" basketball in that 2016 offseason? Or if we use your PIPM metric, why do the 2018 Rockets have two of the league's three best players?

Because it's luck adjusted? Why wouldn't a team that won 65 games and posted a + 10 srs not have three high players? Do you think they nearly beat the greatest team ever by not being great? :-? Where is the contradiction.


So you seriously think James Harden and Chris Paul were two of the three best players that year.

This is borderline tautological. Yes, great teams are usually made of great players, but they should not be considered great players because they played on great teams. Chris Paul should not be the third best player in the league just because he was on a historically good Rockets team this year.

Not that I think it is that simple, given that the Wolves have three... what is that, three top twelve players?

Why is Danny Green a superstar impact player on the Raptors? Why is Robert Covington basically on par with Towns? Why is Otto Porter a perpetual metrics maestro? It is because they are all excelling in their roles.

Fringe top 20 is superstar now?
:lol:

They aren't even close to the best players. Red herring is red.


"I have no response, so I am just going to baselessly call it a fallacy." (What else is new.)

Robert Covington is in the top ten. Is that not "close" to the top? Do you seriously think Danny Green and Otto Porter actually belong near the top twenty? Did Brook Lopez and Eric Bledsoe just happen to become top fifteen players this year? There is something seriously off with this metric you keep hailing as the definitive means of adjustment, but you keep tritely pretending they do not exist.

They are not being dinged because they are not being asked to do anything difficult for their skillset. They are not carrying the teams the way players like Garnett and Lebron and young Jordan and 2002-03 Duncan did. This is not the full story of basketball, and it should be obvious if you guys ever bothered to look at the players next to your specific points of focus.

This is relevant to curry how?

Oh, no, it's not. It's a silly red herring. Curry does more than kobe does. Yet again, you're deseprately grasping for some inconsistency on my part instead of just crafting a compelling case for the peaks you prefer. Curry has a wider variety of skills than wade or kobe, so using garnett in place of kobe and curry in place of green is beyond laughable.


Curry does more than Kobe does until he encounters adversity.

There is no desperation. You make it too easy by deliberately blinding yourself to the myriad of inconsistencies you leave in your wake. And again, I do not care if you are "compelled" by my case. I know what I look for, and I am not so insecure as to need people like you to believe I am right. Seems like you are projecting your own needs there. The only thing I really care about doing in this thread is calling out the people who are so up their own *ahem* that they are acting like their answer is "objective" and every contradiction deserves to be disregarded and met with utter condescension .

Kobe and wade are more similar to green or porter than curry is, rendering this anaolgy invalid. If you wish to dispute that, then do so. in fact, you really have to do so, because that's quite literally the only relevant claim you've made


Yes, Danny Green, the low usage 3-point sniper, is just so similar to Wade and Kobe.

And fyi, every single player you listed kills the likes of wade and kobe's best seasons in luck adjusted stats(Like AuPM). So listing players at the fringe of the top 20 and then somehow linking them, as superstars, to curry, is the most gymnastic of gymnastics.


By AuPM so does Russell Westbrook, yet here you are in this thread pitching a fit to E-Balla because he was selected over Wade and Kobe.

It is not gymnastics. If a metric says a top fifty player is a top twenty player, or that a top thirty player is a top ten player, why would those issues suddenly vanish at the top.

And since it seems unsubtly directed in part at this thread...

Honestly, at some point we should stop humoring people who try and make "meta" points because we'r ejust validating their red herrings. They can't or won't address the actual arguments so they deflect with silly tangents like questioning what biases might be at play, or lecturing us on the tyranny of the unquanitfiable. 'Why does X% view it like this" is just another example of this. Not relevant, but an effective deflection.


This is the problem I have seen with a few of the "veteran" posters on this board. You have this one-track mind that refuses to deal with any criticism which does not fit in with your own belief of what qualifies as "legitimate". Dismissing everything as a "red herring" is poisonous to discussion – not that someone like you, who treats this board as just a means of building a sense of self-righteous superiority through one-sided "debate", would care. Yes, "bias", what a "silly tangent"! After all, how could anyone imagine bias ever being an issue? And how could we ever acknowledge that basketball is not solved by numbers. If you think it is, post your own list, off your own little formula, if that is all you want this project to be. This not far off of the people who cry "whataboutism" as an excuse to ignore their own issues (not that I would be surprised to find you were one of them). You are so full of yourself you think every argument needs to fit into your own profoundly narrow frame. You set the arguments, and everyone needs to respond, oh, but only in the way you see fit; disputing the starting point of the argument itself is a non-starter. You set the means of assessment, and everyone else is obligated to correspond (and should they criticise that means of assessment, ooh, I guess we can just call it a "silly tangent"!).

It is no mystery why engagement is dwindling when the discussion gets dominated by egomaniacs who go around trying to attack everyone else for not going along with what their little equations say is the "answer". The only ones who enjoy that are the ones who fetishise the concept of being "right" so much that it extends into questions of subjectivity.

Oh, and 2014 Curry is not a fifth of the passer/playmaker Nash was.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,569
And1: 1,441
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#26 » by freethedevil » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:02 am

E-Balla wrote: It's more of the same, talking about his regular season impact

I've cited postseason impact from multiple post seasons these last two threads. Try to keep up here.
and using that to trump up various parts of his game, meanwhile in the playoffs his weaknesses shine and he gets stifled by defenses that can switch bigs onto him because he's not beating guards without a pick and his passing isn't great.

HIs weaknesses shine and he's still improving his postseason teams more than westbrook ever has. See, the issue here is you're listing weaknsses but you're not giving anyone to compare them to. If you're only looking at one side of the scale, there's really no way to compare it to the other side. You can't just say: "curry has x and x weaknesses". You have to say "curry has x weaknsses, westbrook has y weaknsses, and then give a basis for one's weaknesses hurting him more than the other. But you haven't. You've cherrypicked a small sample of teams, cherrypicked a few games from a very specifc postseason runs, and then waved away all surrounding data to justify takes that don't look remotely reasonable as we increase the sample size.

Is curry vs switchable bigs a weakness? Sure. Is it as big a weakness as weak passing? No.

Is as big a weakness as not being nearly as effective without the ball? No.

Curry has weaknesses. The players you're comparing him to have bigger ones.

And if you question that, we can just look at how well he improves his teams, post season or regular season. And assuming we use multiple healthy postseasons +regular seasons of data rather than the cherrypicked set you've chosen(conveniently after injuries), they don't remotely support your assertions.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,095
And1: 18,509
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#27 » by E-Balla » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:47 am

freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote: It's more of the same, talking about his regular season impact

I've cited postseason impact from multiple post seasons these last two threads. Try to keep up here.
and using that to trump up various parts of his game, meanwhile in the playoffs his weaknesses shine and he gets stifled by defenses that can switch bigs onto him because he's not beating guards without a pick and his passing isn't great.

HIs weaknesses shine and he's still improving his postseason teams more than westbrook ever has. See, the issue here is you're listing weaknsses but you're not giving anyone to compare them to. If you're only looking at one side of the scale, there's really no way to compare it to the other side. You can't just say: "curry has x and x weaknesses". You have to say "curry has x weaknsses, westbrook has y weaknsses, and then give a basis for one's weaknesses hurting him more than the other. But you haven't. You've cherrypicked a small sample of teams, cherrypicked a few games from a very specifc postseason runs, and then waved away all surrounding data to justify takes that don't look remotely reasonable as we increase the sample size.

Is curry vs switchable bigs a weakness? Sure. Is it as big a weakness as weak passing? No.

Is as big a weakness as not being nearly as effective without the ball? No.

Curry has weaknesses. The players you're comparing him to have bigger ones.

And if you question that, we can just look at how well he improves his teams, post season or regular season. And assuming we use multiple healthy postseasons +regular seasons of data rather than the cherrypicked set you've chosen(conveniently after injuries), they don't remotely support your assertions.

If Westbrook is a weak passer in your opinion you aren't paying attention.

And his performance in the playoffs without KD since 2015 isn't cherry picked. It's completely relevant to wondering how good he is.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
Morb
Sophomore
Posts: 244
And1: 58
Joined: May 08, 2017
 

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#28 » by Morb » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:15 pm

1. T-Mac 2003 - GOAT Offensive Game, best OBPM in 25 years (from 1990 to 2015), lifted Orlando ORtg from 91.8 to 109.3 (+8% eFG), great body, versality, handles, underrated passer, low tovs, good series vs DRtg 99.9 (-3.7).
2. Wade 2009 - great motor, rim attack, assists, good series vs DRtg 107.6 (-0.7).
3. McAdoo 1975 - Scoring Machine, shooting 6'10, rebounds, historically great series vs DRtg 91.3 (-6.4). Wow.
http://bkref.com/tiny/Es4q0
PG Lebron '09, SG Vince '01, SF T-Mac '03, PF Wilt '62, C Shaq '03.
no-zone-baby))
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,569
And1: 1,441
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#29 » by freethedevil » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:30 pm

The quote was directed at a user who was in quote chain on the original post. Frankly, though, you assuming it's direction was towards you is quite telling...
liamliam1234 wrote:After all, how could anyone imagine bias ever being an issue?

Did I say i was unbiased? No? Strawman has straw. The issue here is you're bringing up bias out of thin air when i made no assertion regarding my bias, or lack there of.

It is not your job to vet other people for bias. It is people's own buisness how they formulate the points they make. If those result in shaky claims, then point out how thye're shaky. What someone's biases are, is, simply put, none of your business.

When someone engages you in a discussion, you should have the decency to respond to what they say, not... whatever this is:
You are so full of yourself you think every argument needs to fit into your own profoundly narrow frame... not that someone like you, who treats this board as just a means of building a sense of self-righteous superiority through one-sided "debate", would care

:eek1:
Who hurt you?

As for the red herrings, i specifically explained why i considered each of the things i called a red herring a redherring, so. i'm not sure what this is for:
Dismissing everything as a "red herring"


I did not dismiss everything. I dismissed specific things as red herrings and which each dismissal gave you specific case by case reasoning for my dismissals. However, since you seem to have missed that, I'll recap:

You claimed i am being inconsistent, however you have failed to showcase the contradictions. My argument for curry was based on three different things. So bringing up examples of me having a lower view of players based on one or two of those things is not showcasing a contradiction. If it is not mutually exclusive, it is not, by definition, contradictory. So saying this...
You make it too easy by deliberately blinding yourself to the myriad of inconsistencies you leave in your wake

...tells me you didn't read.

Here is an example to illuminate my point:
So you seriously think James Harden and Chris Paul were two of the three best players that year.

I do seriously think they could have been two of the three most impactful per minuite players in the regular season. However, as I've already explained to you, I also consider
portability
I don't think either are very portable. You can say "portability is overblown" but that isn't relevant to the consistency of my criteria.

Furthermore, I don't simply consider efficiency, i also consider volume. this is why I asked do you know what the "pm" stands for. Look at wins added that season. Paul(and curry who had injuries) plummet and the jameses come to the top. So if a player is being efficient on the basis of not doing much, I wouldn't bring them into a comparison of superstars. In the playoffs, however, if players are being used similarly, then i'll value their efficiency accordingly. Green is a 3 and d wing who was a fringe starter during the playoffs. Curry is his team's offensive engine whose minuites are prioritized, just like kobe. So what wouldn't make sense for danny green, would be perfectly sensible for curry. There is no contradiction.

My opinion on 2001 kobe does not necessitate me changing my opinion of curry, because it was never solely based on how good curry's team was. Much like my opinion on draymond green does not neccesarily mean i must change my opinion on curry because it was never solely based on impact #'s. Ditto for westbrook. I've established why i consider these red herrings and consequently given you something to address and scrutinize. You choosing not to do so doesn't warrant this:
(and should they criticise that means of assessment, ooh, I guess we can just call it a "silly tangent"!).

I have given you things you can address or criticize. You haven't done so. That is not my problem. Launching criticisms with no tie to what I've said doesn't change that.
It is no mystery why engagement is dwindling when the discussion gets dominated by egomaniacs who go around trying to attack everyone else for not going along with what their little equations say is the "answer".

You're the one whose felt emboldened to make accusations of character. I'd say you're the kettle calling the pot black, but the pot itself is an imaginary one you've conjured out of thin air to justify being the kettle.

Curry does more than Kobe does until he encounters adversity.

I'm gonna guess you forgot about him
-> coming back from 3-1 down against westbrook and durant off an injury
-> anchoring an offense with only klay as a legit option that posted a 110 rating against the second best modern playoff defense.
-> leading the warriors to two straight wins against the rockets with klay as his only legit offensive option.
-> scoring 45 and anchoring an offense that managed a 107 rating against the second best postseason defense of the modern era while klay went down.

What amazing "adversity" have kobe and wade overcome that curry couldn't? Why would it outweigh whatever situations curry could come that kobe couldn't?
:-?
Yes, Danny Green, the low usage 3-point sniper, is just so similar to Wade and Kobe.

You claimed citing pipm for green is analogous to citing pipm for curry as curry does less than kobe does. I claimed the opposite. I'm not really sure where the incredulity is coming from. Regardless you said pipm painted green as a superstar, but it didn't.

Not that I think it is that simple, given that the Wolves have three... what is that, three top twelve players?

They don't? They don't even have 2 in the top 12 and don't even have 3 in the top 20. And 14th placed butler drops out of the 20 once i look at volume. The timberwolves also won nearly 50 games and posted a solid srs. Not that it's "inconsistent" for a player on a bad team to have a high pipm. If a player plays efficiently, luck adjustment mitigates for their efficient play not translating into impact for things out of their control. That a player like anthony davis grades out as high despite his team sucking isn't inherently a flaw in the model. It's a result of him being efficient in spite of his team.

There is something seriously off with this metric you keep hailing as the definitive means of adjustment, but you keep tritely pretending they do not exist.

There's something seriously off about countering a large sample size suggesting the metric does a good job predicting how players do with a few extreme examples:

Especially since these examples can be addressed by looking at volume as well as effiency. It's also puzzling you keep accusing me of solely relying on the metric when you've also dismissed the other criteria i've listed for my evaluation. It's doubly puzzling you're picking on this metric when i've cited a variety of different metrics which support my opinion.



Regardless, since i've multiple things i consider for player evaluation, you can only show me being inconsistent with examples where my opinion would contradict all my criterion of evaluation. But you have not, and instead are fixating on the trees rather than forest.
:dontknow:
Cheap dodge. It is still just drawing from basic boxscore numbers

No, it isn't:
https://fansided.com/2018/01/11/nylon-calculus-introducing-player-impact-plus-minus/
There are three components of Player Impact Plus-Minus: a box-score prior, luck-adjusted on-off data, and luck-adjusted net rating.

It draws from luck adjusted data, a 15 year sample of rapm AND more specific knobs of box score. Simply noting that there is a box score prior does not mean it's bpm. :roll:


Regardless, here's the reason they do it:
The point of this regression step is to reduce the effect that a small sample size can have. It does this by bringing everyone closer to zero, based on the amount of minutes, and then to replacement level. Let's say we have 10 minutes for Player A and 2000 minutes for Player B. Your opinion of A is going to be highly influenced by your prexisting assumption compared to B because you have so much more info on B. The more minutes A plays, the more his minutes will influence your opinion versus the prexisting assumptions. That makes both intuitive and mathematical sense.

The results?
PIPM is more stable across smaller sample sizes than rapm(which needs 250 days to stabilize). IOW, it can be used for a season. So if I wanted to look at curry's value in 2019, pipm would be more reliable than eballa spamming rapm. This is why box score prior's are used.
And I have already told you what I thought of those. Those are your myopic metrics, not mine.
By AuPM so does Russell Westbrook, yet here you are in this thread pitching a fit to E-Balla because he was selected over Wade and Kobe.

Westbrook isn't portable because he is extremely ball dominant. Again, you can consider my criteria "myopic", if the inconsistency does not address all the criteria, it is not an inconsistency.

You set the arguments, and everyone needs to respond, oh, but only in the way you see fit; disputing the starting point of the argument itself is a non-starter.




Actually, I let you set the stage for discussion after you said you weren't convinced by my criteria. I then met you on the stage you se
Here's what curry does better:

-> cutting inside
-> cutting outside
-> setting screens
-> corner threes
-> elbow threes
-> catch and shoot threes
-> key threes
-> deep threes
-> pull up threes
-> mid range
-> free throws


I've also entertained the questions you've asked me despite them making the discussion a one-sided scrutinization of my views. I've let you set the table and you're still upset.

If it cheers you up, you can have this:
:violin:
The fact Wade and Kobe did not play in switching systems does not mean they were not more capable than Curry if the opportunity were presented.

Fair.
Strong disagree.

You can strong disagree, but kobe was well below average for his position in blow by rate and gambled more than curry with little results. Conidering the most important part of perimiter defense is preventing penetration, being in the bottom third, to the bottom decile in walling off the perimiter isn't gonna cut it. Kobe also was regular placed on lesser threats and hid on the post, much like harden. Curry on the other hand is above average in lowering his opposing #"s efg%, been a steals leader with low fouling rates and lesser defensive errors. He's been effective at forcing bigs into help, and he doesn't get parked in the post. The end game here is that curry's consistently made his team's defense better throughout his prime, while kobe's defensive value fluctuated from negative, to slight positive to nuetral.

All that really differatiates kobe here is he offered marginal paint protection. But seeing as that hasn't done much for his teams, it seems weird to use that to try and claim durant "can do more" defensively.

Allen Iverson also did this, as did Isaiah.

Yes, and that was really the only thing they had that offset their lackluster team d. Not the case for curry whose a good team defender.
Hahahaha, as opposed to the three point and midrange advantage, right.

Huh?
No, I mean as in the three points you get when you hit a three pointer and the two points you get when you score a midranger. Quite embarrasing that someone whose been spending multiple threads whining about my evaluation being simplistic can't grasp the most simple example of nuanced distinction.
When did Kobe or Wade ever struggle against a guy like Dellavadova or Van Vleet.

How does struggling against a box one translate to struggling against van vleet?

No wait hey, here's a better question, when did kobe make lebron go 0-8 against him in a finals game?

Oh right, never. :lol:

Narratives are so easy to spin.
So different from spacing.

-> Spacing: Defenses going up higher to guard you
-> Drawing coverages: Teams sending an extra man to double or triple you.

Amazing how you've gone from whining about how stats don't capture nuance to getting sarcastic when someone breaks down the game for you.
add wing defence, man-on-man defence, and lockdown defence

Kobe wasn't good at any of those, Why would I?
:crazy:
add athleticism – wait, sorry, we can do that like five ways too

Already did:
-> interior scoring
-> rim protection

-> attacking bigs
-> defending bigs

Or should i add "accuracy", "skill" "vision" and "speed", and "intelligence" for curry?
add heavily (often stupidly) contested shooting.
..
Fair, but then you'd have to add shot selection for curry.

Basically every 3-and-D player can be said to fit into more systems than the top tier stars.

If that 3 and d player was the
-> one of the best playmakers ever
-> one of the best scorers ever
-> best of ball player in the league
-> one of the best on ball players in the league
then yes, they would. Alas, only the second applies to kobe whose closer to a 3 and d wing than curry is.

To recap curry
-> can score in more ways
-> can facilitate in more ways
-> can defend is as many ways
This is a dumb and highly unobjective means of assessing overall player quality.

This is the criteria you brought up for basketball evaluation.

If you want, as this criteria has stopped working for you, you're welcome to give us a new one to compare them on.

You think there are only three considerations.

Four now. peak Curry's argument has become:
-> does more things on the court
-> more portable
-> more impactful
-> won more

The argument for kobe is.....
This is the problem I have seen with a few of the "veteran" posters on this board. You have this one-track mind that refuses to deal with any criticism which does not fit in with your own belief of what qualifies as "legitimate".

Oh, right, you don't have one.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,569
And1: 1,441
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#30 » by freethedevil » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:31 pm

E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote: It's more of the same, talking about his regular season impact

I've cited postseason impact from multiple post seasons these last two threads. Try to keep up here.
and using that to trump up various parts of his game, meanwhile in the playoffs his weaknesses shine and he gets stifled by defenses that can switch bigs onto him because he's not beating guards without a pick and his passing isn't great.

HIs weaknesses shine and he's still improving his postseason teams more than westbrook ever has. See, the issue here is you're listing weaknsses but you're not giving anyone to compare them to. If you're only looking at one side of the scale, there's really no way to compare it to the other side. You can't just say: "curry has x and x weaknesses". You have to say "curry has x weaknsses, westbrook has y weaknsses, and then give a basis for one's weaknesses hurting him more than the other. But you haven't. You've cherrypicked a small sample of teams, cherrypicked a few games from a very specifc postseason runs, and then waved away all surrounding data to justify takes that don't look remotely reasonable as we increase the sample size.

Is curry vs switchable bigs a weakness? Sure. Is it as big a weakness as weak passing? No.

Is as big a weakness as not being nearly as effective without the ball? No.

Curry has weaknesses. The players you're comparing him to have bigger ones.

And if you question that, we can just look at how well he improves his teams, post season or regular season. And assuming we use multiple healthy postseasons +regular seasons of data rather than the cherrypicked set you've chosen(conveniently after injuries), they don't remotely support your assertions.

If Westbrook is a weak passer in your opinion you aren't paying attention.

And his performance in the playoffs without KD since 2015 isn't cherry picked. It's completely relevant to wondering how good he is.

I was referring to malone.

For westbrook his off ball play is a far more significant weakness than curry's ability to hit a single type of shot over rare defenders.
His performances in the playoffs from 2013-2015 and 2019 have been better the westbrook's. Hence why i cited them. Using the two post season runs when he came off injuries is indeed cherrypicking
Mavericksfan
Junior
Posts: 426
And1: 146
Joined: Sep 28, 2011

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#31 » by Mavericksfan » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:52 pm

1)1975 Bob McAdoo(thanks to whoever it was in the last topic that mentioned Macdoo. Made me take a closer look$
Won league MVP over Cowens by a significant margin(.567 MVP shares) Led his team to the 4th best offense (+5.1 rel)and average defense (-0.1).

Led the league in PPG,MPG, and was 5th in TS% despite having a 4ppg gap over the second highest volume scorer. He has a sizeable gap in OWS (12.7 second is Tiny Archibald at 9). His total WS are +5 over the second highest KAREEM(17.8 vs 12.9). Kareem missed 17 games that year but Mcadoo still had him beat in WS per 48(.242 vs .252)

BPM and vorp still rank him favorably overall(although lower than Kareem) at 4.7 and 6 (top 5).

For me he also had one of the greatest playoff series ever against one of the best defenses ever.

He went up against the Bullet frontcourt duo of Unseld and Hayes. As a team they had a -6.4 rel team D. They had the best SRS in the league and Mcadoo’s Braves forced it to 7.

McAdoo played 46.7 mpg and averaged 37 ppg. He saw a moderate drop in fg and TS% but he averaged an amazing 37% of his team’s offense as his scoring increased while the team’s overall average decreased by 5.

2)Kobe Bryant 2009

Checks the boxes as a floor raiser, ceiling raiser, great regular season/playoffs and performed well against good competition. Nothing really bad to say about this season. Was still seen as the best player in the league by many only being challenged by LeBron.

3) Stephen Curry 2017

Led the GOAT team. Every impact metric we have including on/off data says Curry is what makes this team great on offense. The best offensive player on the best offensive team (leading scorer and second in assists). Stepped up his game for an amazing post season run.

Only real knocks is that he had a fellow MVP caliber teammate and that the level of competition in the playoffs was subpar. Going 16-1 is impressive regardless and once again impact stats say he was the best offensive player on that team.
No-more-rings
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,867
And1: 755
Joined: Oct 04, 2018

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#32 » by No-more-rings » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:13 pm

Timmyyy wrote:
Again only making it short because you misunderstood one part. I already accounted for strength of the faced defenses in my +/- analysis. The gap is still that big, but as I already said Terry had a lot to do with that too. Still the gap being that big and Dirk being the anchor of it should mean something.

I realized that afterwards, but again Wade's team was shooting far less 3s so he wasn't going to produce the caliber of offense that Dirk did.

Timmyyy wrote:Your on/off doesn't mean he lifted his team more. That actually is a big misuse of the stat (Wade having a way worse bench plays in it a lot and he gets credit for it which doesn't make sense).


It's noisy just like any other impact stats can be, you can take it or leave it but i wouldn't call it "misuse". As Eballa pointed out, if anything you miused RAPM by comparing them 5 years apart.

Timmyyy wrote:I do not care as much about the boxscore and you actually did that analysis already so why would I address it when I explicitly said I want to give a counterview to your boxscore numbers.


That's fine to ignore them as long as you are consistent. Let me ask this though, when it comes to a player like Russell Westbrook, at his peak he didn't fair particularly well by RAPM for a mega star. One source it's like 24th, and another i think has him maybe 17th or something for 2017. Can you say we just ignore his historical box production and floor raising, and call him not a top 10 player because that's where RAPM has him? I'm not being sarcastic, i just think there has to be some reasonable weighing of both.

Timmyyy wrote:And finally it might be a philosophical thing but being smart on defense time and time again shows up in good defensive RAPM and I don't think this is randomness. I take a smart big on D over the flashy perimeter defender most of the time and the fact that I have them close is a big credit I give to Wade.

Dirk is a good solid defender, no one should dispute that. At least not from like 03-11. If anything thinks though that Wade was all flash(no pun intended), and wasn't an intelligent defender i doubt they paid much attention to what he was doing on that end.

See the below video, is an evidnece of Wade being a defensive anchor for a big playoff game, i'm not saying this was an all the time thing but still he's not even in his prime, so it gives you a pretty good idea of what he could and did do.

1:31 clean strip on Splitter down low

2:02 blocks slitter at the rim, which eventually leads to a bucket down the other end

2:31: strip steals Duncan, which starts the fast break and leads to easy bucket for Lebron

4:29: Wade being active in the passing lanes, grabs a steal that one may be more luck but still.

5:49: Wade gets a jumpball defending splitter

6:22 Again active in the passing lanes, comes up with the steal leading to dunk on other end

Gregoire
Veteran
Posts: 2,762
And1: 287
Joined: Jul 29, 2012

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#33 » by Gregoire » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:16 pm

1. 2016 Curry. GOAT RS + stellar playoffs. One of the best offensive players in a vacuum.
2. 1990 Barkley. GOAT offensive bigmen + neutral defense.
3. 1995 Robinson. Very good bigmen offense + great defense.
nate33 wrote:

Yeah, when ever I make all time comparisons, I pretty much ignore the pre-3PT-line era. The game was so different then. It's apples and oranges. Those guys may be better or may be worse, we're never really going to know.
Mavericksfan
Junior
Posts: 426
And1: 146
Joined: Sep 28, 2011

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#34 » by Mavericksfan » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:31 pm

No-more-rings wrote:Wade stuff


Isnt that the same series Danny Green went nuclear thanks to Wade’s poor off-ball D?

Don’t let the highlights fool you into thinking he was anything close to anchor. He constantly ball watched and roamed(with varying results)
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,095
And1: 18,509
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#35 » by E-Balla » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:38 pm

freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:I've cited postseason impact from multiple post seasons these last two threads. Try to keep up here.

HIs weaknesses shine and he's still improving his postseason teams more than westbrook ever has. See, the issue here is you're listing weaknsses but you're not giving anyone to compare them to. If you're only looking at one side of the scale, there's really no way to compare it to the other side. You can't just say: "curry has x and x weaknesses". You have to say "curry has x weaknsses, westbrook has y weaknsses, and then give a basis for one's weaknesses hurting him more than the other. But you haven't. You've cherrypicked a small sample of teams, cherrypicked a few games from a very specifc postseason runs, and then waved away all surrounding data to justify takes that don't look remotely reasonable as we increase the sample size.

Is curry vs switchable bigs a weakness? Sure. Is it as big a weakness as weak passing? No.

Is as big a weakness as not being nearly as effective without the ball? No.

Curry has weaknesses. The players you're comparing him to have bigger ones.

And if you question that, we can just look at how well he improves his teams, post season or regular season. And assuming we use multiple healthy postseasons +regular seasons of data rather than the cherrypicked set you've chosen(conveniently after injuries), they don't remotely support your assertions.

If Westbrook is a weak passer in your opinion you aren't paying attention.

And his performance in the playoffs without KD since 2015 isn't cherry picked. It's completely relevant to wondering how good he is.

I was referring to malone.

For westbrook his off ball play is a far more significant weakness than curry's ability to hit a single type of shot over rare defenders.
His performances in the playoffs from 2013-2015 and 2019 have been better the westbrook's. Hence why i cited them. Using the two post season runs when he came off injuries is indeed cherrypicking

Yeah I'm not rehashing this ghost injury argument, go back 5 threads to read how I feel on that one. It's not really worth rehashing the same arguments constantly because you have an issue with other posters caring about postseason performances while not on a team with 3 other All-Pros.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,569
And1: 1,441
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#36 » by freethedevil » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:52 pm

E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:If Westbrook is a weak passer in your opinion you aren't paying attention.

And his performance in the playoffs without KD since 2015 isn't cherry picked. It's completely relevant to wondering how good he is.

I was referring to malone.

For westbrook his off ball play is a far more significant weakness than curry's ability to hit a single type of shot over rare defenders.
His performances in the playoffs from 2013-2015 and 2019 have been better the westbrook's. Hence why i cited them. Using the two post season runs when he came off injuries is indeed cherrypicking

Yeah I'm not rehashing this ghost injury argument,

-> Stephen a smith notices curry's knee is bothering him during the wcf and the finals
-> eballa: no one thought curry was injured!
. It's not really worth rehashing the same arguments constantly because you have an issue with other posters caring about postseason performances while not on a team with 3 other All-Pros.


So we're clear here, you think it's better to make a bad team better by 5 points than it is to make a good team better by 6 points?

And what does that have to do with "curry's weaknesses' vs westbrook. Why would you highlight curry's weaknesses and not address westbrook.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,095
And1: 18,509
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#37 » by E-Balla » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:56 pm

Mavericksfan wrote:
No-more-rings wrote:Wade stuff


Isnt that the same series Danny Green went nuclear thanks to Wade’s poor off-ball D?

Don’t let the highlights fool you into thinking he was anything close to anchor. He constantly ball watched and roamed(with varying results)

No? Danny Green played more SF and LeBron (who got voted in off the strength of his "great" defense in that series :lol:) gave up more of those shots than Wade by my memory (I'll confirm after watching all his 3s).



That's 7 on Wade and 8 on LeBron if we go off who was his primary defender. He wasn't perfect but saying he's why he went nuclear is a gross exaggeration.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,095
And1: 18,509
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#38 » by E-Balla » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:05 pm

freethedevil wrote:
So we're clear here, you think it's better to make a bad team better by 5 points than it is to make a good team better by 6 points?

And what does that have to do with "curry's weaknesses' vs westbrook. Why would you highlight curry's weaknesses and not address westbrook.

Quite frankly because every time I say anything about Curry you're just going to say he was injured and I'm cherry picking and I'm not in the business of getting into that again. If you have an issue with my inclusion of Westbrook in my vote, post about that and refute my argument for him or make an argument against him. I'm not particularly interested in discussing Curry at all anymore, and I don't think there's any new information to be gained by continuing to go in circles.

I don't post just to post, I post to hear compelling arguments and get different points of view other than my own. That's obviously not going to happen here as long as you think what I think is evidence of Curry's weaknesses is just him being hurt.

Also if we want to go off playoff on/off numbers Westbrook from 13-17 was making a +5 team 20 points better while Curry in the same period was making a +8 team 12 points better (or if we want to take 15-19 he made a +10 team 9 points better).
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 14,345
And1: 13,998
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#39 » by Clyde Frazier » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:07 pm

Ballot #1 - 16 Curry
Ballot #2 - 66 West
Ballot #3 - 11 Dirk

--------------------

Ballot #1 - 16 Curry

Arguably the greatest offensive regular season ever, or at least in the modern era, say since 1980? Even purely as a volume scorer he tops the list: http://bkref.com/tiny/9jxSr The finals "collapse" doesn't kill the season for me. It literally came down to the last minute to decide the championship. This wasn't a 4-1 trouncing or something ala pistons lakers in 04. 2017 is certainly close, but that 2016 season was a sight to see. Appointment television every night and curry was the center of it. It was special.

Ballot #2 - 66 West

Going with West here sort of in the same vein as magic / bird putting him close to oscar. West was a master volume scorer on great efficiency (especially for his era), not to mention an excellent playmaker, falling somewhere between a PG and SG throughout his career.

RS: 31.3 PPG, 7.1 RPG, 6.1 APG, 47.3% FG, 86% FT (12.4 FTAs per game), 57.3% TS (+8.6% vs. league avg), .256 WS/48

PS: 34.2 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 5.6 APG, 51.8% TS, 87.2% FT, 58.1% TS, .237 WS/48

He had the poor luck of coming up during the russell celtics era, losing to them several times in the finals. He would lead the lakers to the finals in 66, again losing in game 7 by 2 to the celtics in heart breaking fashion. This would come after putting up 33.9 PPG, 6.4 RPG and 5.1 APG on 51.5% from the field and 87.1% from the line in the series.

Purely as a fan, I think Oscar and West would really thrive in today's game, and it would be a pleasure to watch.

1966 Finals Highlights



Ballot #3 - 11 Dirk

Dirk had an incredible regular season topped off by a championship run where he was about unstoppable as a player could get. His combo of elite footwork and patience on offense developed over the few seasons prior paid off as his teammates finally stepped up to support him.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,569
And1: 1,441
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Peaks project update: #15 

Post#40 » by freethedevil » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:19 pm

E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
So we're clear here, you think it's better to make a bad team better by 5 points than it is to make a good team better by 6 points?

And what does that have to do with "curry's weaknesses' vs westbrook. Why would you highlight curry's weaknesses and not address westbrook.

If you have an issue with my inclusion of Westbrook in my vote, post about that and refute my argument for him or make an argument against him.

Fine.

Westbrook's team sucked. Westbrook suddenly posted amazing box stats when his team started sucking. And yet, two players with less impressive box stats were able to "carry" teams as much while taking them much higher that very season.

Box stats have little to no correlation with winning and westbrook got kickdropped despite his box stats in the first round. Since you care about postseason weaknesses, westbrook wasn't very good off the ball. This means his ability to carry or put up impressive box stats would plummet on a team with a team capable of winning.

Why would a team wanting to win take westbrook over anybody else left?

Return to Player Comparisons