70sFan wrote:How can you know when the limit is crossed by the way? It's easy to say "there is limit to that", but without any specifics you're not talking about anything revealing.
That's the thing, none of us know and none of us could ever know. There are just too many variables to account for.
None of us know what exact point constitutes "too far" but you did agree with me that "too far" exists. So to make sure we don't go too far I think its appropriate to give players a default level of credit for being the leader on a championship team. More impressive players and performances can get more credit but everyone should be afforded a basic level of credit for getting the job done.
Actually, isolating players impact should give us pretty good idea of how successful player is when we scale back his production. If you take highly impactful player whose production got lesser but he helps his teams winning games, it's usually visible in impact metrics.
The same thing happens when someone tries to do too much on the court. If someone makes his team worse by doing too much, it's visible in impact metrics.
But don't you agree that impact metrics, by themselves, don't accurately reflect the full extent of a players impact? So, again, there is only so far we can go in isolating and measuring an individual players impact. So it may give you a good idea depending on your perspective. What we can say is, by itself, will give you an inaccurate or incomplete idea.
Of course, no disagreement here as well. The problem is that you don't say in your post that we shouldn't take impact metrics for granted, you simply say that analytics are useless basically. There is a massive difference between the former and the later.
I don't say that and I don't believe that.
By the way, rings are important but you use the same logic to defend MVPs, all-nba teams and other accolades. How is a voting from random number of journalists is any less "inherently flawed and incomplete" than what raw data shows? There is nothing more objective, or "real" as you said, about the results of a poll than analytical work. Absolutely nothing and in fact, voting results are much less objective because voters don't even have to share their methodology. They can just vote based on their completely subjective opinion and it's not like they are thoroughy selected experts - they are just journalists, media guys ect.
If someone wins an award and I give then credit for winning it despite how I may feel about the award itself...how is that not objective? He won it and I acknowledge it.
Again, you keep believing that PER is what we call "analytics". You are wrong, I explained it for you so many times that I can't even count it...
I never said PER = analytics. You literally just made that up.
Nobody here assumes that impact on bad teams carries through good or elite ones
I disagree. I think thats exactly what many of you do whether you realize it or not.
Jordan trusted his teammates so much that he punched them in sparring and bullied them, even the ones who were experienced veterans.
I have a few extra straws if you need.
Maybe the difference lies in coach change? I mean, it's Jackson who made Jordan play a bit different and managed his personality (which wasn't easy). Previous coaches couldn't maximize their rosters in the same way.
Of course, Jordan should get a lot of credit for doing his job so well. He played within a system and he made it work better than anyone. Let's not pretend that Jordan had to make some drastic changes in his game though. He still possessed the ball a lot, he still shot on unmatched volume and he still was clearly the man on his team. His "sacrifice" is extremely exaggarated and I don't agree that 1989 Jordan wouldn't be able to do the same under Phil Jackson.
Im just going by what Jordan and Phil themselves say. Also, he only lost by a hair in 1990 so he didnt need to make a drastic change. Only a few specific ones like trusting his teammates more via the triangle.
By the way, Garnett won one ring. He reached the finals 2 times. He reached conference finals 4 times. We're not talking about the guy who made a playoffs twice in his career, he played on the highest level a lot and proved his value. Garnett isn't a career loser, he just didn't have the same luck to play from the beginning on the highest market team with the best player in the league in much worse conference. I'm talking about Magic Johnson, one of my favorite players ever (yes, I have Magic ahead of Garnett - not because Magic won 5 rings though).
The reason Magic is ranked higher than KG is not due to vague notions of "impact". He is ahead of Garnett because he accomplished and exhibited significantly more than KG both individually and from a team perspective. Also, his influence on the league and sport was transcendental.
That's it. There is no objective argument you can make for KG > Magic. The only argument you can make is "Well, I just think KG was better..."
Thankfully to impact metrics, we can see that Magic was comparably good basketball player to KG and then we can start nuanced analysis in which contribution to winning could be a key factor.
The same impact metrics that don't accurately capture a players full impact? Why would you do that?
- I have Magic ahead of Garnett because I think that his impact on the Lakers was high enough to compete with KG and I see the number of aspects of game (on and off the court) that makes me believe Magic is more deserving of the higher rank. The sheer amount of team success certainly could be an evidence that Magic is a player you can build successful dynasty around when you have enough talent, but he also proved himself with weaker teams around him.
So impact metrics carry the most weight with you while team success and individual achievement extremely marginalized? You start with impact metrics and work backwards from there?
This is not a good way to do rankings my friend. It's an extremely subjective way to go about it which in turns leaves you vulnerable to your own bias, assumptions, limited information, and limited understanding.
I just looked on the last two page of PC Board - no Westbrook threads and only one Kyrie thread (Kyrie-Harden-KD Brooklyn thread) that doesn't get any attention. Maybe you watch too much media? Because I don't watch any American media and I don't see anything about Kyrie or Westbrook recently (other than recent Kyrie return).
Well Ive seen plenty of them. And when you actually read through them most everyone is just propagating sports media narratives. Perhaps you missed them.