Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

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

JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 59,255
And1: 4,667
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#441 » by JordansBulls » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:39 am

Lebron lost with HCA to Dwight Howard (2 bronze medals for America). Kareem to Dave Cowens and then Moises Malone when the Sixers were below .500.
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
VanWest82
RealGM
Posts: 11,156
And1: 11,444
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#442 » by VanWest82 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:33 am

freethedevil wrote:BPM is more or less just offensive impact since it only draws from box things.

1. Voting is not qualitative evidence, and its pretty silly to appeal to authority. Evidence is what happened on the court, the perception of evidence is what did not happen on the court. Obviously the best evidence is based on what happened on the court. The scoreboard has always been the most direct and least diluted track of how players affect winning.

Just like with any other topic, be it music, history, or economics, anecdotal experience is far less important than research when trying to draw holistic conclusions. We too are actual humans, except our writeups and explanations for our opinions are vastly better supported than whatever the hell zach lowe or jalen rose pull up. If their opinions are worth anything you would only need to use the evidence they've cited.

Good analysis does not require any consideration of who made it. The only explantion I can think for you continually citing who said something as opposed to why, is that the analysis that supports your conclusiion sucks, while the analysis that suggests to you you need to revise your conclusion is good.

2. Nope, Isaac was #1 in dpipm and multi-year dpipm for the magic. And I beleive I specifcally cited things like career RAPM, the defenses each player led as well as several granular data points that were randomly sampled over hundreds of games and which probably skew jordan given good games are more likely to be uploaded than bad games.

The bulls defense wasn't strongly impacted by jordan's presence or lacktherof. This pretty strongly indicates Jordan's defense may not be anywhere near as good as you think it is. Given your counter to this so far is....opinions(expressed in voting) not an actual argument, I really don't see why anyone should agree with you.


So rather than respond to my post you gave me this. (Edit: sorry this was a bit uncalled for. I was still pissed when I wrote this response and took it out on you which was bad form)

DPOY voting is a perfect example of qualitative analysis. It's essentially the results from a highly educated focus group. Again, without on/offs, line up data, tracking, etc., it's BY FAR the best evidence we have on his 88 campaign.

It would seem the public PIPM stuff is gone now though I recall Vuc was really high up there recently, same with Whiteside and Drummond. All high quality defenders no doubt...Khris Middleton rated over Jimmy Butler and Marcus Smart, etc. Is it behind a paywall now?

I'm still waiting for all the evidence showing Jordan being error prone.

You keep saying Bulls defense wasn't strongly impacted by Jordan. There's no proof either way without better pbp and line up data. Here is some terrible, horrible evidence but...'85 (3144 mins played, 109.6 DRTG); '86 (451 mins played, 112.4 DRTG); '87 (3281 mins played, 107.6 DRTG). Seems like there might've been some impact there though obviously lots of dudes in and out those years.
User avatar
toodles23
Analyst
Posts: 3,563
And1: 2,480
Joined: Jun 09, 2010

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#443 » by toodles23 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:04 am

VanWest82 wrote:
So rather than respond to my post you gave me this.

DPOY voting is a perfect example of qualitative analysis. It's essentially the results from a highly educated focus group. Again, without on/offs, line up data, tracking, etc., it's BY FAR the best evidence we have on his 88 campaign.

It would seem the public PIPM stuff is gone now though I recall Vuc was really high up there recently, same with Whiteside and Drummond. All high quality defenders no doubt...Khris Middleton rated over Jimmy Butler and Marcus Smart, etc. Is it behind a paywall now?

I'm still waiting for all the evidence showing Jordan being error prone.

You keep saying Bulls defense wasn't strongly impacted by Jordan. There's no proof either way without better pbp and line up data. Here is some terrible, horrible evidence but...'85 (3144 mins played, 109.6 DRTG); '86 (451 mins played, 112.4 DRTG); '87 (3281 mins played, 107.6 DRTG). Seems like there might've been some impact there though obviously lots of dudes in and out those years.

Nah I don't agree at all. Many posters on the PC board are far more educated than your average 1988 DPOY voter, and I would wager Elgee has a better understanding of basketball than all of them - for God's sake this is an era when most people thought it was a good idea to take spot up 21 footers instead of threes, because they hadn't yet realized that 39% from three was better than 41% from two. Most serious historical basketball analysts today have also seen a lot more footage of 1988 Jordan than voters back then did (remember, league pass didn't even exist back in 1988, let alone modern computers and Youtube where you can easily rewatch a play over and over again and go frame by frame), and are much less biased by the established narratives during the 1988 season.

Kobe was getting spots on the all-defensive team late in his career in 2011 and 2012 when it was obvious to anybody with a functioning pair of eyeballs and access to basic +/- stats that he sucked ass on defense by then. We're really supposed to think the voters are somehow geniuses?

That's not to say MJ wasn't a high impact defender, as Elgee noted in the video his boom or bust style is really tough to evaluate without PBP data, but to pretend that voters back in 1988 somehow were better at evaluating impact than modern analysts is asinine.
LukaTheGOAT
Junior
Posts: 365
And1: 240
Joined: Dec 25, 2019
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#444 » by LukaTheGOAT » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:12 am

freethedevil wrote:
VanWest82 wrote:
LukaTheGOAT wrote:Not to be a jackass or **** but you kind of are dismissing available evidence if you are not interested in impact metrics such as the above. Of course, that is your choice, and yo u get to put stock in whatever you like, but technically these impact metrics are some of the best evidence for how good a defender someone is, which you are saying no to.

The typical way to circumvent just using stats, is to watch film as well, but you don't seem to trust the eye test we have around here. So it is going to be pretty difficult to convince you otherwise. Like I think the people around here might value rim-protection a bit more than you do, which is why he might have a few perimeter wings ahead of Jordan (similar to Ben). I think in order for us to kind of show you our thinking, we need to understand where exactly there is a disconnect between you and us.


Doesn't MJ rank really highly in DBPM? I'm fairly certain Nik Vucevic is a big time DPIPM all star. Much more important than Isaac and Gordan ever were defensively for those Magic teams. Those all-in-one stats are so bad. The business of sports analytics.

What's your explanation for the DPOY voting? Actual humans with high EQ who were selected to vote on awards based on merit, and who travelled and talked to the most knowlegdeable people in the NBA on a regular basis were all just clueless? That qualitative evidence is so much stronger than bad PIPM quantitative evidence.

BPM is more or less just offensive impact since it only draws from box things.

1. Voting is not qualitative evidence, and its pretty silly to appeal to authority. Evidence is what happened on the court, the perception of evidence is what did not happen on the court. Obviously the best evidence is based on what happened on the court. The scoreboard has always been the most direct and least diluted track of how players affect winning.

Just like with any other topic, be it music, history, or economics, anecdotal experience is far less important than research when trying to draw holistic conclusions. We too are actual humans, except our writeups and explanations for our opinions are vastly better supported than whatever the hell zach lowe or jalen rose pull up. If their opinions are worth anything you would only need to use the evidence they've cited.

Good analysis does not require any consideration of who made it. The only explantion I can think for you continually citing who said something as opposed to why, is that the analysis that supports your conclusiion sucks, while the analysis that suggests to you you need to revise your conclusion is good.

2. Nope, Isaac was #1 in dpipm and multi-year dpipm for the magic. And I beleive I specifcally cited things like career RAPM, the defenses each player led as well as several granular data points that were randomly sampled over hundreds of games and which probably skew jordan given good games are more likely to be uploaded than bad games.

The bulls defense wasn't strongly impacted by jordan's presence or lacktherof. This pretty strongly indicates Jordan's defense may not be anywhere near as good as you think it is. Given your counter to this so far is....opinions(expressed in voting) not an actual argument, I really don't see why anyone should agree with you.


Also not saying it is the end all be all, but Jacob Goldstein got hired by an NBA team so clearly some front-offices must feel like his work is legit. Justin Jacobs has worked for NBA teams since 2012 as well. Jeremias Englemann is the co-creator of RPM with Steve Ilardi and both have/working with NBA teams currently.
sansterre
Junior
Posts: 362
And1: 578
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#445 » by sansterre » Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:38 pm

VanWest82 wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
Spoiler:
The problem isn't you're disagreeing, the problem is your arguments are based of excessive ccherrypicking and lack any sort of holistic support.

We have 5 seasons of data putting jordan as one of the most error prone defenders in the league, go back a couple of pages and you'll see that the bulls defense did not signifcantly improve as jordan increased how many steals he got, holistic all in one's get lower on mj the more they accoutn for defense, and as the bottom line here the bulls team defense is absolutely fine without him which is --exactly-- what you expect from an 'elite' defensive guard.


"Did jordan win a dpoy based off some gamble?" is a loaded question impying that we should assume his dpoy was warranted or says anything aout how good he is defensively.Jordan's utter inability to move the needle for his team's defense tells us his dpoy was a joke. Its incredibly telling that you'ev yet to touch on what is easily jordan's biggest limitation, he can't protect the paint at a high level.

If the dpoy is deserved then you should have no issue making a well supported case for jordan's defensive quality indepednet of that dpoy. If you can' tmake that case than why should anyone here take his dpoy seriously?

There are two ways to approach these discussions, judge based on the evidence available, or judge based on people's perceptions. the former idnicates to me you know what you're talking about, the latter indicates to me that you don't. Jordan isn't an all tiem defensive wing because he's failed to improve his defenses like an all time wing would. It's really that simple.

Jordan's dpoy is a joke and the idea anyone should give a **** about his defensive accolades is equally humurous to me. He's a shooting guard who wasn't able to move the needle. His role was inherently far less valuable and given his -83% of the league was less eror-prone-- he clearly didn't even maximize what tools he had.

I really don't udnerstand the idea ben is _biased_ against jordan. Ben's own data repeatedly shows jordan as not being as good as he rates him and he gave him the 5 best seasons in nba history.

He rates his defense near players with vastly bigger effect on defensive outcomes, and does the dumb **** the media does where they overrate players of posisions they like watching by adding the qualifer of guard next to "all time" or "greatest" and disregarding that his position is far less valuable.

Ben's view of jordan is incredibly generous and doesn't even hold up against ben's own evidence. The idea he has an anti-jordan agenda baffles me.


Sigh...so I'm not going to go back and re-do all that work but here are few snippets:

1. I don't know what five year data you're referring to. You're suggesting there's proof beyond cherry-picked vids that MJ is super error prone, and/or that 83% of the league was less error prone despite MJ being one of the least foul prone players ever and despite all those supposed gambles. It would stand to reason that more gambles would produce more fouls. Care to share your data?
2. I saw the steals/DRTG regressions with no p-values or t-stat. With respect to the author of it, that stuff is somewhere between curiosity and completely useless. We're talking about a small few possessions per 100 and the 4-6 steal games are surely so sss as to throw it out on that basis alone without even getting into what was controlled for and what wasn't.
3. You're suggesting I'm dismissing available evidence. As far as I'm aware we don't have good statistical evidence for that time period. If you have access to detailed and vetted pbp line up, ORTG & DRTG on/off data, tracking, etc., for the late 80s please share. I'm not interested in PIPM or BPM or whatever.
4. You're ignoring the actual best evidence we have which is that Mike received 37 of 80 first place DPOY votes in 88. People aren't perfect but those people were paid to cover the league, had much better access to players, coaches, and executives than media do today, and there are essentially zero cases of an official award winner (any award) that shouldn't have at least been in the discussion. And yet you're calling MJ a joke, among other things. You might want to re-think your position here.
5. One of the things I did was an analysis on Ben Taylor's segment devoted to MJ's defense, which included all the negative and critical language he used (hint: it's a lot). I determined that close to 50% of the segment was devoted to MJ's weaknesses even though MJ wasn't remotely close to a 50/50 defender. He was more like an 80/20 defender at worst though I'd rate him much higher. Taylor doesn't back up any of his defensive criticisms with stats. He does claim to have plus/minus data from that period but only shares the net on/off NRTG. Why? It's overly critical to the point where I question the motivation. Was it done like that to please his clients? Was he trying to be provocative in order get more clicks? idk but I do know that I've watched enough games from that period to say MJ wasn't even close to a 50/50 boom or bust player like the time devoted to that segment and abundant highly negative language might suggest.

Thanks for taking the time to write this out; I'm sure it's an incredibly stressful situation when 1) most of the board appears to disagree with you and 2) you work really hard on a post and then lose the data that supports it.

1) The problem with relying on any kind of box score driven defensive analysis is that most of what you're working with is steals and blocks. And the value of steals is built around a regression analysis of how valuable an average steal is. But for every steal attempt you see, there are steal misses you don't see. Clearly the net success rate on steals is high enough to give them considerable value; if going for steals meant whiffing all the time, steals would not show up in the regression as valuable (because getting one would be evidence of blowing your assignment often). But this means that box score-regressed defensive stats basically assume that every steal was bought with a league average failure rate on that steal. So if a player had higher or lower rates of failure (because they gambled too much or whatever), that would throw the values off. Basically, the argument is that if there was a player that got twice as many steals as normal, but blew assignments wildly more often (let's say 50% of steal attempts, instead of 12%, totally making numbers up here) DBPM would praise them as a great defender (because of high steals numbers) but they obviously wouldn't be. To be clear, none of this has anything to do with Jordan explicitly. It's just saying that DBPM loves Jordan because he racks up a ton of steals. But if there was evidence that he whiffed on steals more than average (which there seems to be some of) then his steals are less valuable, and the whole thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

2) I realize that it may seem like hubris for so many to discount the DPOY voting. It may be. But, and I speak only for myself, such votes are often realistic gauges on what people thought at the time, but that doesn't make them right. Bob Pettit, despite being great, probably wasn't more valuable than Russell in '59. Allen Iverson, despite being amazingly skilled and fun to watch, was definitely not the best player in '01 (though I suppose given certain definitions he may have been most valuable). Kobe Bryant was making All Defense teams well past the point where it made any sense. These votes are not magically correct; they are right more often than not but voters are prone to all kind of biases (which is why Jordan only won 5 MVPs despite being the best player in the league much more often than that, because voters don't like giving it to the same person every year). And voters love dramatic demonstrations of skill. Do you follow baseball at all? If not, bear with me. Derek Jeter is a shortstop. He habitually played really shallow (for whatever reason). And he was extremely good at making cross-body athletic throws. Because he played so shallow he could sprint to balls hit nearer the plate, grab them on the move, jump, throw across his body, and get the runner out. It was awesome to see. When you thought of "Who is an awesome defensive shortstop", Jeter came to mind, because he was always showing up on highlight reels of great plays. And he won a considerable number of gold gloves.

Here's the problem though. Jeter was actually an extremely bad fielder (or ineffective would be more accurate). Extremely comprehensive analysis that I won't go into here (though I can give you a source), found that balls that were hit to the near right/left of where a shortstop would normally be would be caught by an average shortstop, but Jeter would miss them most of the time (and he was playing so shallow that the naked eye would assume that he could never have gotten the ball). Basically, he was found to have poor side-side mobility and because of playing so shallow, he was only actually good at hits in the grass. The best shortstop according to the study that year? Adam Everett. But do you know how often Adam Everett made acrobatic jumping throws across his body? Never. He always planted his feet when he threw. Because that's proper technique. And voters never cared. Why? Presumably because every time Everett made a play he made it look easy (because he was doing it right). That someone actually tracking all this made it clear that Everett got to more balls than anyone didn't matter; watching Everett you thought "ah, another easy ball that Everett converted" but watching Jeter you thought "wow, what an amazing play". Point is, Jeter was wildly overrated as a fielder because he was good at really dramatic, ostentatious stuff and bad at all the boring but effective stuff.

Baseball discussion over. So here's the point: gambling for steals is crazy dramatic. Few things get your blood pumping more than a sudden change of possession, with the successful thief streaking down the court to an undefended basket. That **** is awesome, and powerful. It's very eye-catching and very dramatic. But the misses never seem notable. Players whiff on steals all the time, but they never seem to stick in one's head. Kind of like how the story in the '93 Finals was "Paxson hits the shot" not "Barkley completely whiffs on steal attempt and creates power play for other team." It's like how Kobe constantly took those off-balance well-defended buzzer beaters. When he missed (which he did most of the time) you'd shrug and go "Well, it was a hard shot". But when he sinks it the reaction is "Ohmygosh I can't believe he hit that shot, what the heck, Kobe is the best!" Do you know what isn't eye-catching and dramatic? Actually doing your job on your man, never missing rotations and always being in position. You will *never* show up in a highlight reel if you do that, but you *will* be a very good defender.

Jordan was really good at the defensive stuff that is dramatic, eye-catching and highlight reel-worthy. Like, really, really good. But to do that he sacrificed performance on the boring stuff that nobody cares about, the stuff that makes you a reliable man/team defender (and to be clear, I'm not arguing that Jordan was bad at this, only that he was worse at it than he would have been if he'd gambled less). The simple eye-test is almost always going to overrate a player like that. That's just a thing. And the voters (especially back then) were definitely not doing quantitative analysis to evaluate these players; they were going on public perception (which is driven disproportionately by dramatic stuff, which Jordan excelled at). Was Jordan a great defender? Most everybody thinks so. Was he the best wing defender in the game that year? The voters clearly thought so. But saying that Jordan was more valuable on defense than Olajuwon, arguably the best paint protector in the modern era (who averaged about 75% the steals that Jordan did, in addition to being 4th in blocks that year)? That's a tough sell. I can't honestly say one way or another. But for me (and I'm not speaking for others on this board) it's extremely easy to look at an unusual award to a player with a flashy skillset and go "Ah, the flashy skill set bias, duly noted". I'm not saying that Jordan didn't deserve it, but I *am* saying that I take the award about as seriously as I take Barkley winning the MVP in '93. I understand why he got it, but it's still plenty suspect. For better or for worse, the "Do I dare contradict the conscientious voters of the time who watched every game while all I have is stats 30 years later?" is not a question that bothers me. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. The voters get 35% of votes obviously right, 55% of votes reasonably right (like you may disagree, but you get it), and 10% of the votes are simply wrong, because awards voters are capable of myopic, biased groupthink as much as any group, and sometimes it really shows.

3) Your point about the point of Ben's content is well-made. I haven't obviously done a counting breakdown, but I wouldn't be surprised if his Jordan content (specifically defensive) was at least half negative. And if you're saying "Jordan was one of the best wing defenders ever, any breakdown that spends half its length on his defensive weaknesses is clearly compromised" . . . I think that's a very understandable position.

But please remember, none of his basketball statements were false, and his conclusion was that Jordan was at least a Defensive Team level if not much better. Both of which are unimpeachable.

To summarize this massive, unwieldy wall of text . . .

I don't think you can disagree with anything he said, because it was all pretty factual. You seem (and I don't want to be putting words into your mouth here, I'm just trying to extrapolate) to have the following position:

"I feel like this is a bad video, because the focus on Jordan's defensive flaws is disproportionate both to his ratio of strengths to weakness defensively and to the ratio in which other players' characteristics have been discussed."

If that is your position, I think that's extremely understandable. I won't tell you that you're wrong.

However, for me (and perhaps for others on this board) I simply go "Ah, data. Some good, some bad, all true, I understand this player a little better, off I go with the rest of my life."

His underlying thesis to the section on Jordan's defense seemed to me to be "Extremely good at the dramatic parts of defense, less good at the boring parts of defense, which means he's going to be overrated (because that's how the human mind works) and I want to talk about all of that." Maybe he talked about the flaws too much. But, as somebody who personally is very cognitive bias-averse, I really appreciate his devotion to the boring parts of things. It fills my nerd heart with joy every time I see Ben putting work into important but boring *** like players rotating correctly, reading plays correctly, or simple raising a hand to guard passing lanes. *That* is the stuff that almost never shows up in video breakdowns (because the dramatic stuff is more, well, dramatic) and at times I feel like Ben is almost fighting a one-man crusade to make sure that consumers of YouTube content remember that the boring stuff is there too and it still matters. Was he disproportionate in his coverage? Maybe. But my priority is always getting good component data and making my own conclusions. I'm really not worried about how other people could read the video; I am no custodian of Jordan's memory. If he said anything that was false that would be extremely undesirable for me. But as far as tone? As long as he's being factually accurate and giving me more good stuff to work with for my understanding, I'm really not concerned.

Sorry, it's early, I've rambled a bit, peace.

PS: Having walked away, then come back, I'd add the following.

If you're trying to persuade us that the video is bad because of the tone of the content, it probably won't be a very efficient use of your time. Most of us have read Ben's Top 40 list (at least once, which merits reading if you haven't) and watched most of his thinking basketball content on youtube. He's earned the benefit of the doubt from most of us; we thank him for his excellent content and move on.

And likewise, we're unlikely to persuade you that the tone of the video is appropriate; you seem to take Jordan getting his due respect very seriously and, given that the actual content isn't debated and you found the content inappropriate, we're not likely to persuade you otherwise.

So neither of these routes is likely to be fruitful.

That said, you've stayed the course and grabbed at least some data to support your position. A discussion of the *actual* value of Jordan's defense, particularly for his peak, with reasonable reliance on objective data, is definitely worth pursuing.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
LukaTheGOAT
Junior
Posts: 365
And1: 240
Joined: Dec 25, 2019
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#446 » by LukaTheGOAT » Mon Jan 11, 2021 4:37 pm

The catchiest title of the series so far.

DSMok1
Freshman
Posts: 65
And1: 10
Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Location: Maine
Contact:
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#447 » by DSMok1 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:54 pm

sansterre wrote:1) The problem with relying on any kind of box score driven defensive analysis is that most of what you're working with is steals and blocks. And the value of steals is built around a regression analysis of how valuable an average steal is. But for every steal attempt you see, there are steal misses you don't see. Clearly the net success rate on steals is high enough to give them considerable value; if going for steals meant whiffing all the time, steals would not show up in the regression as valuable (because getting one would be evidence of blowing your assignment often). But this means that box score-regressed defensive stats basically assume that every steal was bought with a league average failure rate on that steal. So if a player had higher or lower rates of failure (because they gambled too much or whatever), that would throw the values off. Basically, the argument is that if there was a player that got twice as many steals as normal, but blew assignments wildly more often (let's say 50% of steal attempts, instead of 12%, totally making numbers up here) DBPM would praise them as a great defender (because of high steals numbers) but they obviously wouldn't be. To be clear, none of this has anything to do with Jordan explicitly. It's just saying that DBPM loves Jordan because he racks up a ton of steals. But if there was evidence that he whiffed on steals more than average (which there seems to be some of) then his steals are less valuable, and the whole thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt.


I just wanted to comment briefly to say this is an accurate comment about box score assessment of defense.

Steals, while valuable, are still a rare occurrence. The BPM regression uses steals as a proxy for overall defensive skill and activity. That correlation is not at all 100%! It's the best we can do with the box score, but players who gamble a lot for steals will be overrated, and more cautious defenders that never get out of position (but get very few steals) will be underrated.

Jordan certainly falls into the "more likely to be overrated by the box score" category. I am quite certain many big men were more impactful defenders than he was, but the current version of BPM really struggles to capture that. The elite defensive big men don't have a huge box score footprint--at least not a much different footprint from some very poor defensive big men that chase blocks.

I would love to resolve that, but, for now, the best I can say is... "Jordan is likely overrated by DBPM".
Developer of Box Plus/Minus
@DSMok1
sansterre
Junior
Posts: 362
And1: 578
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#448 » by sansterre » Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:04 pm

DSMok1 wrote:
sansterre wrote:1) The problem with relying on any kind of box score driven defensive analysis is that most of what you're working with is steals and blocks. And the value of steals is built around a regression analysis of how valuable an average steal is. But for every steal attempt you see, there are steal misses you don't see. Clearly the net success rate on steals is high enough to give them considerable value; if going for steals meant whiffing all the time, steals would not show up in the regression as valuable (because getting one would be evidence of blowing your assignment often). But this means that box score-regressed defensive stats basically assume that every steal was bought with a league average failure rate on that steal. So if a player had higher or lower rates of failure (because they gambled too much or whatever), that would throw the values off. Basically, the argument is that if there was a player that got twice as many steals as normal, but blew assignments wildly more often (let's say 50% of steal attempts, instead of 12%, totally making numbers up here) DBPM would praise them as a great defender (because of high steals numbers) but they obviously wouldn't be. To be clear, none of this has anything to do with Jordan explicitly. It's just saying that DBPM loves Jordan because he racks up a ton of steals. But if there was evidence that he whiffed on steals more than average (which there seems to be some of) then his steals are less valuable, and the whole thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt.


I just wanted to comment briefly to say this is an accurate comment about box score assessment of defense.

Steals, while valuable, are still a rare occurrence. The BPM regression uses steals as a proxy for overall defensive skill and activity. That correlation is not at all 100%! It's the best we can do with the box score, but players who gamble a lot for steals will be overrated, and more cautious defenders that never get out of position (but get very few steals) will be underrated.

Jordan certainly falls into the "more likely to be overrated by the box score" category. I am quite certain many big men were more impactful defenders than he was, but the current version of BPM really struggles to capture that. The elite defensive big men don't have a huge box score footprint--at least not a much different footprint from some very poor defensive big men that chase blocks.

I would love to resolve that, but, for now, the best I can say is... "Jordan is likely overrated by DBPM".

Thanks so much for weighing in.

I have a basic understanding of the underpinnings of those formulas, and everything I said seemed intuitively true, but I'm very grateful to get confirmation from somebody that actually knows what they're talking about :)
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
Djoker
Sophomore
Posts: 186
And1: 80
Joined: Sep 12, 2015

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#449 » by Djoker » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:30 pm

The Hakeem video was fantastic! I agree that shot selection was an issue for younger Hakeem but I think that like with Jordan and Kobe, his overall creation was much stronger than just his passing ability. Hakeem had a lot of gravity which sometimes made simply inside-out play very effective. And inelastic scoring is more valuable than people give it credit IMO. Most of the toughest playoff series are against the stingiest defenses and I think elite isolation scorers become that much more valuable.

With that being said I do agree that he moves the needle a lot more on the defensive end of the floor.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,384
And1: 1,757
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#450 » by Odinn21 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:06 pm

I watched Jordan and Robinson episodes earlier but something made me watch them before going into Olajuwon episode.

I think Olajuwon episode was definitely the best of the 3.

I'd like to start with reminding my position about criticism of Taylor and also he already does a great job and my criticism is about minor things, you can think that I'm too nitpicky but I have these thoughts nonetheless.

In Jordan episode, I feel like he didn't dive deep enough to highlight the fundamental issue in Jordan's overaggressive defensive approach. Maybe he just wants to keep it light but I feel like he isn't shy about mentioning certain physical habits and Jordan's movement in his left knee was an issue for him. Instead of showing so many footages of Jordan's gambling habits, he could have mentioned that.

In Robinson episode, I think he could draw bigger comparisons between him, Olajuwon and Ewing (even maybe young O'Neal). Also, I always get bothered by 3 certain narratives;
Abdul-Jabbar had all-time great guards around him. The only overlapped prime guard with Abdul-Jabbar's prime is 1971 Robertson. The C legend didn't have have that luxury.
The notion of goat offense coming only from goat offensive guards/wings. By his standards, Abdul-Jabbar is the only goat offensive force up until Magic Johnson's prime. There's no need to get sidetracked with positional assumptions.
If we look at historical timeline for goat offensive forces, up until the mid '00s majority goat offensive players were bigs/low post players. Not even Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan tipped those scales. That notion is just too pro-modern and ignores the actual timeline.
In terms of his Robinson evaluation, it's a top notch job without a doubt. I just got turned off by his comment about Abdul-Jabbar.

Olajuwon episode was perfection. There are some nuances I'd disagree about but none them are fundamental issues to be addressed. His presentation, what and how he discussed, they were all perfect.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
VanWest82
RealGM
Posts: 11,156
And1: 11,444
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#451 » by VanWest82 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:08 am

sansterre wrote:Thanks for taking the time to write this out; I'm sure it's an incredibly stressful situation when 1) most of the board appears to disagree with you and 2) you work really hard on a post and then lose the data that supports it.

1) isn't stressful. Keep in mind you guys are likely in the vast minority in this debate. It just may not seem like that to you as this place can be a bit of an echo chamber;
2) definitely sucked. An entire game's worth of pbp tracking down the tube. I'm still mad about it. c'est la vie.

1) The problem with relying on any kind of box score driven defensive analysis is that most of what you're working with is steals and blocks.
Spoiler:
And the value of steals is built around a regression analysis of how valuable an average steal is. But for every steal attempt you see, there are steal misses you don't see. Clearly the net success rate on steals is high enough to give them considerable value; if going for steals meant whiffing all the time, steals would not show up in the regression as valuable (because getting one would be evidence of blowing your assignment often). But this means that box score-regressed defensive stats basically assume that every steal was bought with a league average failure rate on that steal. So if a player had higher or lower rates of failure (because they gambled too much or whatever), that would throw the values off. Basically, the argument is that if there was a player that got twice as many steals as normal, but blew assignments wildly more often (let's say 50% of steal attempts, instead of 12%, totally making numbers up here) DBPM would praise them as a great defender (because of high steals numbers) but they obviously wouldn't be. To be clear, none of this has anything to do with Jordan explicitly. It's just saying that DBPM loves Jordan because he racks up a ton of steals. But if there was evidence that he whiffed on steals more than average (which there seems to be some of) then his steals are less valuable, and the whole thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't rely on box score defensive stats. It's why I keep going on and on about line up data, pbp, on/off, tracking, etc. Without that stuff we have essentially nothing from a statistical POV, or at least nothing we can trust on a stand alone basis. We have eye test. We have testimony from old guys like me who watched a ton of games back then and have re-watched a bunch of them, and we have people who covered or participated in the league. Maybe we can't really trust that either but it's still better info than the limited/flawed stats from that period in time.

2) I realize that it may seem like hubris for so many to discount the DPOY voting. It may be.
Spoiler:
But, and I speak only for myself, such votes are often realistic gauges on what people thought at the time, but that doesn't make them right. Bob Pettit, despite being great, probably wasn't more valuable than Russell in '59. Allen Iverson, despite being amazingly skilled and fun to watch, was definitely not the best player in '01 (though I suppose given certain definitions he may have been most valuable). Kobe Bryant was making All Defense teams well past the point where it made any sense. These votes are not magically correct; they are right more often than not but voters are prone to all kind of biases (which is why Jordan only won 5 MVPs despite being the best player in the league much more often than that, because voters don't like giving it to the same person every year). And voters love dramatic demonstrations of skill. Do you follow baseball at all? If not, bear with me. Derek Jeter is a shortstop. [spoiler]He habitually played really shallow (for whatever reason). And he was extremely good at making cross-body athletic throws. Because he played so shallow he could sprint to balls hit nearer the plate, grab them on the move, jump, throw across his body, and get the runner out. It was awesome to see. When you thought of "Who is an awesome defensive shortstop", Jeter came to mind, because he was always showing up on highlight reels of great plays. And he won a considerable number of gold gloves.

Here's the problem though. Jeter was actually an extremely bad fielder (or ineffective would be more accurate). Extremely comprehensive analysis that I won't go into here (though I can give you a source), found that balls that were hit to the near right/left of where a shortstop would normally be would be caught by an average shortstop, but Jeter would miss them most of the time (and he was playing so shallow that the naked eye would assume that he could never have gotten the ball). Basically, he was found to have poor side-side mobility and because of playing so shallow, he was only actually good at hits in the grass. The best shortstop according to the study that year? Adam Everett. But do you know how often Adam Everett made acrobatic jumping throws across his body? Never. He always planted his feet when he threw. Because that's proper technique. And voters never cared. Why? Presumably because every time Everett made a play he made it look easy (because he was doing it right). That someone actually tracking all this made it clear that Everett got to more balls than anyone didn't matter; watching Everett you thought "ah, another easy ball that Everett converted" but watching Jeter you thought "wow, what an amazing play". Point is, Jeter was wildly overrated as a fielder because he was good at really dramatic, ostentatious stuff and bad at all the boring but effective stuff.

Jordan was really good at the defensive stuff that is dramatic, eye-catching and highlight reel-worthy. Like, really, really good. But to do that he sacrificed performance on the boring stuff that nobody cares about, the stuff that makes you a reliable man/team defender (and to be clear, I'm not arguing that Jordan was bad at this, only that he was worse at it than he would have been if he'd gambled less). The simple eye-test is almost always going to overrate a player like that. That's just a thing. And the voters (especially back then) were definitely not doing quantitative analysis to evaluate these players; they were going on public perception (which is driven disproportionately by dramatic stuff, which Jordan excelled at). Was Jordan a great defender? Most everybody thinks so. Was he the best wing defender in the game that year? The voters clearly thought so. But saying that Jordan was more valuable on defense than Olajuwon, arguably the best paint protector in the modern era (who averaged about 75% the steals that Jordan did, in addition to being 4th in blocks that year)? That's a tough sell. I can't honestly say one way or another. But for me (and I'm not speaking for others on this board) it's extremely easy to look at an unusual award to a player with a flashy skillset and go "Ah, the flashy skill set bias, duly noted". I'm not saying that Jordan didn't deserve it, but I *am* saying that I take the award about as seriously as I take Barkley winning the MVP in '93. I understand why he got it, but it's still plenty suspect. For better or for worse, the "Do I dare contradict the conscientious voters of the time who watched every game while all I have is stats 30 years later?" is not a question that bothers me. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. The voters get 35% of votes obviously right, 55% of votes reasonably right (like you may disagree, but you get it), and 10% of the votes are simply wrong, because awards voters are capable of myopic, biased groupthink as much as any group, and sometimes it really shows.

1. We have enough good information to discredit Jeter's GGs in the mid 00s. Baseball, due to its style of play, is much easier to evaluate from a statistical standpoint. We don't, however, have enough good information to discredit Jordan's DPOY. The "MJ was serial gambler which hurt his team" theory is just an hypothesis. There is no good actual evidence to back that up outside of a few posters on the PC board making grand declarative statements which I (and most people I'd reckon) disagree with, and Ben Taylor - who apparently also comes from this board - giving his opinion on a youtube video.
2. Barkley did deserve to win MVP that year. He was awesome and his team won more games, and Jordan certainly deserved some portion of the blame for the "jordan rules" fallout given it was about him and the drama caused his most high profile teammates to basically mail in the regular season.
3. Kobe getting gratuitously reputation voted into all defense or all star at the tail end of his career isn't the same as an MVP or DPOY vote. The latter gets taken way more seriously and always has. I thought this was common knowledge.
4. It's a slippery slope to be full on writing off NBA awards. If MJ's DPOY is just a big joke like some posters have suggested, then it's all a big joke. None of the DPOY winners are true winners. Throw out all the All NBA teams. Throw out all the MVP winners. If there's no integrity year-to-year then how can any of it matter? I just think this is such an extreme overreaction to an imperfect system that gets it VERY close in the vast majority of cases. If you're going to discredit an official award winner, the onus is on you to overcome a high level of scrutiny in doing so. We haven't even come close to approaching that threshold with MJ.

5. This is going to be a little personal and I don't mean to single you out as that's not my intent...but having now interacted with more posters on here recently, I'm getting the impression that a lot perhaps scale on the younger side (maybe teens-late 20s?). The reason I say that is there seems to be a strong distrust of old and/or generally accepted information, especially from a historical context, which is a trait typically most prominent in youth. I have a teenage daughter and I recognize that same quality in her as I do in my younger self from decades ago. As you get older one of the things you realize is that your parents and older people who you perhaps once thought knew very little actually probably knew a heck of a lot more than you ever gave them credit for. That's something we all go through. 30 years is a long time but from an evolutionary sense, not really. All of which is to say, maybe the people covering the league back in the 80s and 90s weren't really as dumb and uninformed as some here like to suggest. Perhaps they knew more about what they were experiencing, living, breathing at the time than we do looking back with limited information after the fact. They may not have had the publicly available stats we count on today, but they had much better access to NBA coaches and front office personnel whom they relied on to help form their opinions of players. They also had two eyes and a human brain which doesn't always do the best job differentiating within one standard deviation but almost always can pick out the outliers. If MJ was out there gambling and whiffing and failing like a madman, isn't it weird that no one really made a big deal about it until now, and that it's really only being discussed in this one small corner of the internet? There were a lot of NBA players from that time who weren't exactly fans of MJ. Why aren't they calling him a reckless defender? In my experience salty people who've lost tend to speak those truths. Food for thought. I'll get off my soap box now.

(edit: maybe a better way of saying all this is we have to have a higher threshold for new evidence before arbitrarily throwing the baby out with bath water on existing widely held and agreed upon beliefs.)

3) Your point about the point of Ben's content is well-made. I haven't obviously done a counting breakdown, but I wouldn't be surprised if his Jordan content (specifically defensive) was at least half negative. And if you're saying "Jordan was one of the best wing defenders ever, any breakdown that spends half its length on his defensive weaknesses is clearly compromised" . . . I think that's a very understandable position.

But please remember, none of his basketball statements were false, and his conclusion was that Jordan was at least a Defensive Team level if not much better. Both of which are unimpeachable.

To summarize this massive, unwieldy wall of text . . .

I don't think you can disagree with anything he said, because it was all pretty factual.

I disagree it was all pretty factual. I think a lot of it was his educated opinion, and in the case of Jordan's defensive play making, one I happen to disagree with. When Ben Taylor sees MJ taking a calculated risk to go for a rotation steal he thinks about the theoretical gamble that's taking place - one which could really compromise the defense. It would seem this is how you look at it too. I look at it and say "that's Michael Jordan - he hits a heck of a lot more than he whiffs on those, and that level of help defense puts an added amount of pressure on the opposing team that makes it harder to score against weaker teammates." But that's just my opinion, and given neither you, I, nor Ben Taylor actually went to the trouble of tracking his "gambles" and their results and compared that with gambles and results from other players, opinions is all we really have on the matter. I also think that Mike toned it down a lot in the 90s when he had much better defensive teammates and there was less of a need for that kind of pressure style. Coincidence? Probably not.
User avatar
Snakebites
Forum Mod - Pistons
Forum Mod - Pistons
Posts: 36,604
And1: 7,018
Joined: Jul 14, 2002
Location: Looking not-so-happily deranged
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#452 » by Snakebites » Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:29 am

70sFan wrote:i just watched Hakeem's video - it's good and I agree with Ben's evaluation in most parts. I won't give much details until he shares the video on YT ;)

By the way, he mentioned in the post for patrons that the series will be 16 episodes long - the last one will be about ranking. This means 7 peaks left and the next one is about Shaq.

I’m operating off the assumption that everyone in the intro is getting a video, so we know we’re seeing:

Shaq (the next vid)
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Lebron

Who do we think he last 2 will be?

I know he ranks Steph Curry really highly based on his other videos- I figure he’ll probably be there.

Durant? Dirk? Wade?
DQuinn1575
Rookie
Posts: 1,247
And1: 441
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#453 » by DQuinn1575 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:09 am

Top defensive teams 1988:
1. Utah
2. Detroit
3. Chicago
4. Houston


Top 3 in DPOY voting:
1. Jordan
2. Eaton
3. Olajuwon

So it's not like all the voters were totally clueless here. At first glance I would think it should be Hakeem, but picking probably the best defensive player on the 3rd best defensive team in the league, with 3 average at best defenders in the starting lineup isn't totally unreasonable.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,384
And1: 1,757
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#454 » by Odinn21 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:39 am

I think it's quite forgotten that the first several DPoY awards were rewarded to guards, and those results were not outliers leading in each year. Guards in general were more favoured.

If we separate as guards/wings vs. forwards/bigs;
1983; 26-22 guards led the vote.
1984; 46-30 guards led the vote.
1985; 44-34 guards led the vote. (Eaton was the only non-guard winner from '83 to '88)
1986; 35-22 guards led the vote.
1987; 55-23 guards led the vote.
1988; 58-22 guards led the vote.

Until Olajuwon and Ewing joined Eaton and Bol, guards were more favoured than bigs in DPoY votes.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
DQuinn1575
Rookie
Posts: 1,247
And1: 441
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#455 » by DQuinn1575 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:15 am

Odinn21 wrote:I think it's quite forgotten that the first several DPoY awards were rewarded to guards, and those results were not outliers leading in each year. Guards in general were more favoured.

If we separate as guards/wings vs. forwards/bigs;
1983; 26-22 guards led the vote.
1984; 46-30 guards led the vote.
1985; 44-34 guards led the vote. (Eaton was the only non-guard winner from '83 to '88)
1986; 35-22 guards led the vote.
1987; 55-23 guards led the vote.
1988; 58-22 guards led the vote.

Until Olajuwon and Ewing joined Eaton and Bol, guards were more favoured than bigs in DPoY votes.


Nice analysis. Also remember that early 80s we did have Cooper and Moncrief who were considered elite defenders. while the generation of Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson didnt really start until 85 season with Hakeem.
User avatar
Goudelock
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,741
And1: 19,077
Joined: Jan 27, 2015
Location: College of Charleston
 

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#456 » by Goudelock » Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:16 am

Odinn21 wrote:
Spoiler:
I watched Jordan and Robinson episodes earlier but something made me watch them before going into Olajuwon episode.

I think Olajuwon episode was definitely the best of the 3.

I'd like to start with reminding my position about criticism of Taylor and also he already does a great job and my criticism is about minor things, you can think that I'm too nitpicky but I have these thoughts nonetheless.

In Jordan episode, I feel like he didn't dive deep enough to highlight the fundamental issue in Jordan's overaggressive defensive approach. Maybe he just wants to keep it light but I feel like he isn't shy about mentioning certain physical habits and Jordan's movement in his left knee was an issue for him. Instead of showing so many footages of Jordan's gambling habits, he could have mentioned that.

In Robinson episode, I think he could draw bigger comparisons between him, Olajuwon and Ewing (even maybe young O'Neal). Also, I always get bothered by 3 certain narratives;
Abdul-Jabbar had all-time great guards around him. The only overlapped prime guard with Abdul-Jabbar's prime is 1971 Robertson. The C legend didn't have have that luxury.
The notion of goat offense coming only from goat offensive guards/wings. By his standards, Abdul-Jabbar is the only goat offensive force up until Magic Johnson's prime. There's no need to get sidetracked with positional assumptions.
If we look at historical timeline for goat offensive forces, up until the mid '00s majority goat offensive players were bigs/low post players. Not even Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan tipped those scales. That notion is just too pro-modern and ignores the actual timeline.
In terms of his Robinson evaluation, it's a top notch job without a doubt. I just got turned off by his comment about Abdul-Jabbar.

Olajuwon episode was perfection. There are some nuances I'd disagree about but none them are fundamental issues to be addressed. His presentation, what and how he discussed, they were all perfect.


I mostly agree with your criticism, and I actually wasn't a huge fan of the Robinson episode. It felt like more of a career recap, rather than a breakdown of a specific part of his career. I did enjoy the Olajuwon episode much more than the Robinson one, since it seemed more focused.

One thing I'd say is that I don't think of these videos as the defining or absolute best way someone has evaluated a player's peak. This series seems like more of an introduction into how to evaluate players beyond surface-level analysis of stats or highlights. Maybe I"m just crazy tho.
Devin Booker wrote:Bro.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,384
And1: 1,757
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#457 » by Odinn21 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:26 am

Goudelock wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:
Spoiler:
I watched Jordan and Robinson episodes earlier but something made me watch them before going into Olajuwon episode.

I think Olajuwon episode was definitely the best of the 3.

I'd like to start with reminding my position about criticism of Taylor and also he already does a great job and my criticism is about minor things, you can think that I'm too nitpicky but I have these thoughts nonetheless.

In Jordan episode, I feel like he didn't dive deep enough to highlight the fundamental issue in Jordan's overaggressive defensive approach. Maybe he just wants to keep it light but I feel like he isn't shy about mentioning certain physical habits and Jordan's movement in his left knee was an issue for him. Instead of showing so many footages of Jordan's gambling habits, he could have mentioned that.

In Robinson episode, I think he could draw bigger comparisons between him, Olajuwon and Ewing (even maybe young O'Neal). Also, I always get bothered by 3 certain narratives;
Abdul-Jabbar had all-time great guards around him. The only overlapped prime guard with Abdul-Jabbar's prime is 1971 Robertson. The C legend didn't have have that luxury.
The notion of goat offense coming only from goat offensive guards/wings. By his standards, Abdul-Jabbar is the only goat offensive force up until Magic Johnson's prime. There's no need to get sidetracked with positional assumptions.
If we look at historical timeline for goat offensive forces, up until the mid '00s majority of goat offensive players were bigs/low post players. Not even Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan tipped those scales. That notion is just too pro-modern and ignores the actual timeline.
In terms of his Robinson evaluation, it's a top notch job without a doubt. I just got turned off by his comment about Abdul-Jabbar.

Olajuwon episode was perfection. There are some nuances I'd disagree about but none them are fundamental issues to be addressed. His presentation, what and how he discussed, they were all perfect.


I mostly agree with your criticism, and I actually wasn't a huge fan of the Robinson episode. It felt like more of a career recap, rather than a breakdown of a specific part of his career. I did enjoy the Olajuwon episode much more than the Robinson one, since it seemed more focused.

One thing I'd say is that I don't think of these videos as the defining or absolute best way someone has evaluated a player's peak. This series seems like more of an introduction into how to evaluate players beyond surface-level analysis of stats or highlights. Maybe I"m just crazy tho.

Yeah, the Olajuwon episode was more focused. It was more direct to the point, the player's peak. I liked it way more than the Robinson episode.

I think Taylor tries to keep it somewhat light because he wouldn't want to scare off majority of his audience. When he started a YouTube channel and watched the first few videos on there, I thought he's trying to bring some of the casuals to our side. :D I think he's still doing that.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 43,398
And1: 12,192
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#458 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:22 am

Odinn21 wrote:I think it's quite forgotten that the first several DPoY awards were rewarded to guards, and those results were not outliers leading in each year. Guards in general were more favoured.

If we separate as guards/wings vs. forwards/bigs;
1983; 26-22 guards led the vote.
1984; 46-30 guards led the vote.
1985; 44-34 guards led the vote. (Eaton was the only non-guard winner from '83 to '88)
1986; 35-22 guards led the vote.
1987; 55-23 guards led the vote.
1988; 58-22 guards led the vote.

Until Olajuwon and Ewing joined Eaton and Bol, guards were more favoured than bigs in DPoY votes.

Precisely.

All DPoYs from the guard era should not be taken seriously. The basketball world knew better for decades before that and the fact they didn’t give the award to big men from the start is astonishingly damning to the voters.

None of that means Michael Cooper (or MJ) wasn’t great at their job, but the votes were absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
VanWest82
RealGM
Posts: 11,156
And1: 11,444
Joined: Dec 05, 2008

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#459 » by VanWest82 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:34 am

DQuinn1575 wrote:Top defensive teams 1988:
1. Utah
2. Detroit
3. Chicago
4. Houston


Top 3 in DPOY voting:
1. Jordan
2. Eaton
3. Olajuwon

So it's not like all the voters were totally clueless here. At first glance I would think it should be Hakeem, but picking probably the best defensive player on the 3rd best defensive team in the league, with 3 average at best defenders in the starting lineup isn't totally unreasonable.


A couple of other underrated things that might've influenced voting:

1. If we just look at points allowed Bulls were 1st, Jazz were 5th, and Rockets were 13th. It's possible that Hakeem was effectively eliminated from the debate due to pace. That's the kind of thing that probably gets blood boiling around here but I suspect if we go back and look up until recently DPOY candidates generally haven't come from many high paced teams which give off the impression of being more focused on offense. It's one of those biases that probably holds some water.

2. Total mins played in 88: MJ - 3311, Olajuwon - 2825, Eaton - 2731. Certainly rate stats provide a better measure of per possession impact but there's something to be said for just being out there more. It's only natural to want to give guys like that a larger share of the credit.
kayess
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,502
And1: 808
Joined: Sep 29, 2013

Re: Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor) 

Post#460 » by kayess » Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:40 am

I haven't been watching allt he vids but what is this AuPM? If it's a mix of box score data and plus/minus isn't it going to be fundamentally flawed?

Return to Player Comparisons