how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years?

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

Stalwart
Senior
Posts: 554
And1: 332
Joined: Jun 06, 2021

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#101 » by Stalwart » Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:37 pm

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?

In short:

- 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.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,755
And1: 14,963
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#102 » by 70sFan » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:13 pm

Stalwart wrote: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.

By this logic, we should never try to develop better and better models of certain phenomena, because there are too many variables to account for. By your logic, the entire modern science is pointless, because no theory can take into account every single variable.

With your logic, you'd never talk to me because your computer wouldn't exist. I hope that you understand that it's not the best approach.

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.

I think you misunderstand the word "uncertain" with "innaccurate". Just because some data have the level of uncertainty doesn't mean that you shouldn't use it. All metrics have their uncertainties and methodological limitations, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't base our analysis on them.

We are aware that the quantum mechanics isn't 100% accurate, but it doesn't mean that we can't use it to make devices you use every single day. Again, you are presenting extremely dangerous approach here.

Also, you'd have to prove that your methodology gives us more complete idea. So far you didn't, because it's not possible I'm afraid.

I don't say that and I don't believe that.

Well, how would you describe it then?


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.

But why do you value this particular award? You make a process of evaluation and (completely arbitrary) decide that winning MVP has a value on what's happening on the basketball court. It doesn't. It's just an uneducated opinion of the panel of voters, nothing else. We don't have any way to analyze their methodology, we don't know anything about their references. Why do you value the opinion of voters at all?

If you provide strong evidence that winning MVP is important in reaching the ultimate goal (which you defined as winning the ring), then I will change my opinion. If you won't, then why should I care about MVPs?


I never said PER = analytics. You literally just made that up.

Yet you always bring up PER to this discussion. Basketball data evaluation has very little to do with these "all in one" boxscore metrics. It's not 2005 anymore.


I disagree. I think thats exactly what many of you do whether you realize it or not.

Well, I can only say about my thoughts but I can assure you that most people you accuse of doing that actually don't think that way at all.

If you want to tell me that you know what I think better than myself, then I don't see the point to discuss with you anymore.


I have a few extra straws if you need.

You did enough for this day :wink:

The same impact metrics that don't accurately capture a players full impact? Why would you do that?

No, the same impact metrics that have limitations. That's not the same, but you'll never understand it because you don't have basic knowledge about the science method.

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.

What are you talking about? Stats are more objective than anything you can think of. Of course, the interpretation of stats isn't objective anymore but stats capture certain phenomena within their limitations and with defined uncertainty. They are much more objective than the average opinion of a few random guys.

I want you to show me more objective way to evaluate basketball players than using stats and trying to interpretate them. How would you describe your way of evaluation? Just counting accolades? Or maybe there are more nuances to that? Please explain it.

I hope you are aware that using your methodology would be ridiculous in different aspects of life. Can you imagine physics doing that way? Let's just take 30 random journalists and pop science bloggers, then give them the freedom to decide which theory is the best. It's as objective method as possible based on your posts. Does it look fair?


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.

Show me them, because I see nothing on PC Board. Literally nothing about Westbrook for a long time.

Perhaps I missed them, because I don't read American papers and I don't watch American TV. That's not what we're talking about though, because you said that we have so many Kyrie and Westbrook threads here - on PC Board.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,755
And1: 14,963
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#103 » by 70sFan » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:25 pm

G35 wrote:Does anyone think that some posters cherry picks certain stats to support their pov.....

I don't doubt that for a moment. Do you think that it's better to stop using stats because some of them manipulate them though? Do you think that people don't manipulate without stats?

Cause you know, when stats are available you can examine whether they are manipulated or not. Without any methodology, we can't verify which point of view is fair and which is distorted by agendas.

I actually see this quite often in pre-databall era. I've seen so many absurd takes about players from the past that are clearly wrong, but few people who lived and watched back then are still interested in basketball talk. We have no data from that era, so you can convince most people that, for example, given players was a horrible shooter or didn't play defense. The more times you repeat this, the more likely it is to become accepted as the fact. Then, once you start coming back and watching old games, you realize that it's all bullsh*t.

It would be much harder with complete data available.
Stalwart
Senior
Posts: 554
And1: 332
Joined: Jun 06, 2021

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#104 » by Stalwart » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:26 am

70sFan wrote:By this logic, we should never try to develop better and better models of certain phenomena, because there are too many variables to account for. By your logic, the entire modern science is pointless, because no theory can take into account every single variable.

With your logic, you'd never talk to me because your computer wouldn't exist. I hope that you understand that it's not the best approach.


What I am saying is that a theoretical model based on a past event that never took place could never be anything more than an idea or belief. You can't look at the numbers and metrics of past NBA players and then plug those players into fantasy scenarios that never happened and gain anything real from it.

It's a thought experiment that you can never prove so why base your rankings on that? It's entirely subjective. Why don't you instead weight your rankings toward the results and outcomes that were actually achieved?

If you provide strong evidence that winning MVP is important in reaching the ultimate goal (which you defined as winning the ring), then I will change my opinion. If you won't, then why should I care about MVPs?


Accolades are honors and recognition garnered for excellence on the basketball court. They're not predictive or analytical tools.

No, the same impact metrics that have limitations. That's not the same, but you'll never understand it because you don't have basic knowledge about the science method.


You mean the theoretical science method? How is it science when you can't physically test anything that you're proposing? Are you a physicist or a philosopher?

What are you talking about? Stats are more objective than anything you can think of. Of course, the interpretation of stats isn't objective anymore but stats capture certain phenomena within their limitations and with defined uncertainty. They are much more objective than the average opinion of a few random guys.


Aaannd...there you go. Stats have to be interpreted and therefore are not objective.

I want you to show me more objective way to evaluate basketball players than using stats and trying to interpretate them. How would you describe your way of evaluation? Just counting accolades? Or maybe there are more nuances to that? Please explain it.


My methodology is this. I judge players based on everything they accomplished, achieved, shown, and was recognized for both individually and from team perspective through out their careers. The way I go about evaluating this is by first....giving them credit for everything they accomplished, achieved, shown, and was recognized for both individually and from a team perspective through out their careers.

"Everything" includes:

Team Success - Not just championships, but conference titles, deep playoff runs, overall regular season and playoff records.

Individual Success - This includes all accolades, honors, and distinctions relative to individual excellence. This also includes achievements and milestones of all types. This would account for longevity as well.

Unique Achievements - This would include things like Steph's leading his team to a 73-9 RS record, Lebron's 8 straight finals, Kareem's 6 MVPs, Jordan's 6 FMVPs, and yes Russell Westbrook's triple doubles.

That is your objective criteria. It's all pretty straightforward. After you've established and created a rough list through your objective criteria you then move on to the more subjective criteria in order to parse and differentiate between comparable players. This includes:

Statistics(both box scores and advanced metrics), Intangibles & Attribute, Influence, Skill Sets, Teammates, Strength of Competition, Era, ect.

This methodology is weighted heavily toward the objective results, outcomes, and events that really happened and actually took place while still leaving an appropriate amount of room to consider context as well as isolate and compare a player's ability, impact, and value. This approach ensures that our biases, assumptions, and personal philosophy of how the game should be played are kept in check.

I hope you are aware that using your methodology would be ridiculous in different aspects of life. Can you imagine physics doing that way? Let's just take 30 random journalists and pop science bloggers, then give them the freedom to decide which theory is the best. It's as objective method as possible based on your posts. Does it look fair?


Well with all due respect I would not be comfortable with you having the final say on what my reality is. Of course what you present, as a physicist, would carry more weight than a random blogger or journalist. But I would still like to maintain the final say in what theories I accept. I would still like the right to consider what the pop science blogger as to say. Is that ok with you?
Stalwart
Senior
Posts: 554
And1: 332
Joined: Jun 06, 2021

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#105 » by Stalwart » Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:52 am

From my methodology outlined above you get tiers that look something like this:

Tier 1: MJ, Kareem, Russell

Tier 2: Lebron, Magic, Wilt

Tier 3: Tim, Kobe, Shaq, Bird

Tier 4: Hakeem, Dr. J, Moses, Steph, KD, Oscar, West, Pettit

Tier 5. KG, Dirk, DWade, David Robinson, Karl Malone, Giannis, Isiah, Stockton maybe, Barkley maybe

Lebron is very close to Tier 1. Had 2020 been a real title I would have put him there.

Hakeem is on the cusp of Tier 3. My hesitation is his relative lack of team success and influence. He didn't win as much or have the type of impact on the sport and on people that the guys in Tier 3 did. If someone put him in Tier 3 I wouldn't argue.

I waffle alot on George Mikan & Bob Cousy because Im not sure how to judge the 50s. If I stay true to my methodology and judge these guys according to their era then they are both Tier 3. Maybe Tier 2 for Mikan.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,755
And1: 14,963
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#106 » by 70sFan » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:19 pm

Stalwart wrote:What I am saying is that a theoretical model based on a past event that never took place could never be anything more than an idea or belief. You can't look at the numbers and metrics of past NBA players and then plug those players into fantasy scenarios that never happened and gain anything real from it.

It's a thought experiment that you can never prove so why base your rankings on that? It's entirely subjective. Why don't you instead weight your rankings toward the results and outcomes that were actually achieved?

That's not what we're talking about though. Impact metrics capture what happens on basketball court. Stats don't say anything about fantasy scenarios.

Do you really think that I rank players based on my assumption of how they'd perform in different scenarios? Then good luck with discussions in future, because you don't listen me at all.

Accolades are honors and recognition garnered for excellence on the basketball court. They're not predictive or analytical tools.

But they don't give you any idea of how good basketball player someone is. It simply shows how basketball player is perceived, that's a huge difference. Why should I care about opinions of random journalists? You didn't answer this question even once.

You mean the theoretical science method? How is it science when you can't physically test anything that you're proposing? Are you a physicist or a philosopher?

Do you know what science method is? You can check it by yourself, it's not that hard.

I also see that you have a lot of problems with the word "theoretical". Theories helps us describe physical phenomena and as long as you can't falsify given theory, there is no reason to say "BUT IT'S ONLY THEORY", because humans haven't created a better way to explore and describe the world.

Impact metrics capture what happens on basketball court. I don't know what you're talking about. Mathematical models used in basketball analysis try to describe everything that happens on basketball court. They can be easily falsified simply by collecting data from games that actually happened and looking at the results. That's how statistical analysis works, it's funny that you don't realize that you use devices created thanks to this methods every single day, but you'll keep saying that it's only theory and you can't test it...

Aaannd...there you go. Stats have to be interpreted and therefore are not objective.


Sure, every time someone finishes a science research, he or she have to provide some interpretation. Again, that's how science works. It seems that you have a better idea of how to describe the world, I'm waiting.


My methodology is this. I judge players based on everything they accomplished, achieved, shown, and was recognized for both individually and from team perspective through out their careers. The way I go about evaluating this is by first....giving them credit for everything they accomplished, achieved, shown, and was recognized for both individually and from a team perspective through out their careers.

"Everything" includes:

Team Success - Not just championships, but conference titles, deep playoff runs, overall regular season and playoff records.

Individual Success - This includes all accolades, honors, and distinctions relative to individual excellence. This also includes achievements and milestones of all types. This would account for longevity as well.

Unique Achievements - This would include things like Steph's leading his team to a 73-9 RS record, Lebron's 8 straight finals, Kareem's 6 MVPs, Jordan's 6 FMVPs, and yes Russell Westbrook's triple doubles.

That is your objective criteria. It's all pretty straightforward.

So your "objective" criteria includes a number of opinions of people you don't know and you can't even check their methodology...

Could you please explain me how an opinion of MVP voter is more objective than my opinion? Just how?

This methodology is weighted heavily toward the objective results, outcomes, and events that really happened and actually took place while still leaving an appropriate amount of room to consider context as well as isolate and compare a player's ability, impact, and value. This approach ensures that our biases, assumptions, and personal philosophy of how the game should be played are kept in check.

This approach also ensures that we will repeat biases of voters that decide who is the best player in the league... It's not more objective than any other opinion. I'm shocked that you can't understand that.

Well with all due respect I would not be comfortable with you having the final say on what my reality is. Of course what you present, as a physicist, would carry more weight than a random blogger or journalist. But I would still like to maintain the final say in what theories I accept. I would still like the right to consider what the pop science blogger as to say. Is that ok with you?

You don't understand what I'm talking about (again). That's because you don't know how science method works.

I'll try to make it as simple as possible:

How science works: people from all over the world try to create the ultimate theory that describes given phenomena the best and that is compatible with other theories that we use. These theories are falsified in multiple experiments. When there is no difference between experimental results and theoretical predictions (and when there is no contradiction between the new theory and well known laws of physics), we can assume that it's the hypothesis that we could describe as the "right one" - the theory. Of course people from all over the world would try to prove that it's not the right theory, that it has weaknesses. It can be used as long as we have no evidence of its failing under specific circumstances. When that happens, we have to work on another hypotheses or on developing the existing one.

How science would work if we use MVP standards: let's create a poll. In this poll, we will have 10 most famous hypotheses. Give one vote for 30 random people (you can insert anyone here - physicists, journalists, pop science bloggers). They will decide which hypothesis is the right one. After the results, the winning one will be called the "right theory". We will use it to cure people or to send people into space or to create vehicles.

Which methodology is better in your opinion?

Note that scientific method doesn't force you to listen to certain people. The scientific world works the way I described and yet you have all the freedom to listed to pop science bloggers. Within existed criteria, anybody can introduce the breakthrough in given discipline. With your method, that wouldn't be possible.
ty 4191
Pro Prospect
Posts: 857
And1: 367
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
       

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#107 » by ty 4191 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:38 pm

Stalwart wrote: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..."


Are wins and losses objective?

-KG's teams went 127-195 (.407) without him on the floor in his career.

-Magic's teams went 95-66 (.590) without him on the floor in his career.

Also, I know these are "boxscore based", but KG, due to longevity, buries Magic in career VORP and WS in the RS + postseason (combined). Is that objective?

He played 509 more games than Magic in his career. Doesn't that count for something? Isn't that objective?
ty 4191
Pro Prospect
Posts: 857
And1: 367
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
       

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#108 » by ty 4191 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:48 pm

Also, Magic played against between ~1%-~7% non US players in his career.

The NBA also expanded four times from 22-29 teams in Magic's career, adding 7 (generally) lousy teams to mix.

KG played against ~7%-28% international players in his career. That's a drastically expanded/better talent pool, overall, relatively speaking.

The NBA expanded only once in KG's entire career, adding only 1 bad team to the mix.
Stalwart
Senior
Posts: 554
And1: 332
Joined: Jun 06, 2021

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#109 » by Stalwart » Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:01 pm

ty 4191 wrote:
Stalwart wrote: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..."


Are wins and losses objective?

-KG's teams went 127-195 (.407) without him on the floor in his career.

-Magic's teams went 95-66 (.590) without him on the floor in his career.


Yes but why are adding up the wins and losses from when they don't play? Why not add up the wins and losses from when they do play?

Also, I know these are "boxscore based", but KG, due to longevity, buries Magic in career VORP and WS in the RS + postseason (combined). Is that objective?


Yes but none of those things translated into the same level of success for his team. So even though I would give KG credit for those metrics its not enough to overcome the gap between them.

He played 509 more games than Magic in his career. Doesn't that count for something? Isn't that objective?


Yes but it goes both ways. It can also be said that Magic attained more team success and individual success in less games.
ty 4191
Pro Prospect
Posts: 857
And1: 367
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
       

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#110 » by ty 4191 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:09 pm

Stalwart wrote:Yes but why are adding up the wins and losses from when they don't play?


Because the fact is Magic had much, much better teammates in his career. This is one way a person provides evidence supporting that premise.
Stalwart
Senior
Posts: 554
And1: 332
Joined: Jun 06, 2021

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#111 » by Stalwart » Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:18 pm

ty 4191 wrote:
Stalwart wrote:Yes but why are adding up the wins and losses from when they don't play?


Because the fact is Magic had much, much better teammates in his career. This is one way a person provides evidence supporting that premise.


Does that then mean KG would have achieved the same amount of team success as Magic given a better team?
ty 4191
Pro Prospect
Posts: 857
And1: 367
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
       

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#112 » by ty 4191 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:02 pm

Stalwart wrote:
ty 4191 wrote:
Stalwart wrote:Yes but why are adding up the wins and losses from when they don't play?


Because the fact is Magic had much, much better teammates in his career. This is one way a person provides evidence supporting that premise.


Does that then mean KG would have achieved the same amount of team success as Magic given a better team?


I don't know.

What I do know is using the "team success/rings" argument is faulty. Extremely faulty. See: Wilt Chamberlain vs. Bill Russell.
Stalwart
Senior
Posts: 554
And1: 332
Joined: Jun 06, 2021

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#113 » by Stalwart » Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:24 pm

ty 4191 wrote:I don't know.


Exactly.

What I do know is using the "team success/rings" argument is faulty. Extremely faulty. See: Wilt Chamberlain vs. Bill Russell.


Do we ignore team success?
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,755
And1: 14,963
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#114 » by 70sFan » Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:41 pm

Still waiting for the explaination of why opinion of voters are more objective than my opinion.

Still waiting for explaination why we should decide what's true or not by the consensus opinion of random group of people.
ty 4191
Pro Prospect
Posts: 857
And1: 367
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
       

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#115 » by ty 4191 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:05 pm

ty 4191 wrote:Also, Magic played against between ~1%-~7% non US players in his career.

The NBA also expanded four times from 22-29 teams in Magic's career, adding 7 (generally) lousy teams to mix.

KG played against ~7%-28% international players in his career. That's a drastically expanded/better talent pool, overall, relatively speaking.

The NBA expanded only once in KG's entire career, adding only 1 bad team to the mix.


Stalwart, what's your response to this?
ty 4191
Pro Prospect
Posts: 857
And1: 367
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
       

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#116 » by ty 4191 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:11 pm

Stalwart wrote:Do we ignore team success?


No, but we should fully contextualize everything. Here's an example:

Consider Wilt played his first three/formative years with coaches that 1) had little to no experience 2) were lousy and 3) totally misused and misunderstood Wilt.

--Neil Johnston: Coached only 2 years in the NBA, was fired after 1961.

--Frank McGuire: Coached 1 year in the NBA, resigned (rather than be fired) after 1962.

--Bill Feerick: 2 years NBA experience, total, when he took over. Was fired after 1 year.


He also had historically pathetic teammates, shooting/offense wise:

Code: Select all

Wilt Teammates' TS Added
1960   -404
1961   -407
1962   -295
1963   -435
1964   -419
1965   -377
1966   -221
1967   226
1968   -14
1969   145
1970   13
1971   182
1972   385
1973   77

Sum   -1544


This was the fault of terrible, regressive myopic coaching and offensive strategy, not Wilt Chamberlain "trying to tank his teams by scoring and shooting too much". (Paraphrasing people's sentiments, repeatedly, over time on this Forum).

Once again, it's in all three of those books, painted everywhere, if you take all the time to read them and research, as many of us have, here.

https://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Than-Robert-Cherry-ebook/dp/B009N3585M/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilt+chamberlain+larger+than+life&qid=1635954831&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Russell-Chamberlain-Golden-Basketball-ebook/dp/B000FCKGSY/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilt+chamberlain+russell+rivalry+book&qid=1635954851&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Wilt-1962-Night-Points-Dawn/dp/1400051606/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilt+1962+book&qid=1635954870&sr=8-1

Here's just one excerpt apropos of 1962:

"McGuire met Chamberlain for the first time at the Coco Inn, near the Warriors training camp in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

He told Chamberlain that he was supposed to be tough to coach, but that that was probably because Wilt had never had a coach who treated him like a man. McGuire pointed out that he, McGuire, had always been a winner and said that if Chamberlain listened to him and they worked together, it would be possible to beat Boston.

Chamberlain wanted to believe McGuire, but he thought Boston was unbeatable. It simply had too many good players. McGuire said it was true that Boston was better than Philadelphia when Chamberlain was scoring thirty-seven or thirty-eight points a game.

But, if he scored fifty points a game, McGuire said, the Warriors could beat Boston. “

“Fifty?” Chamberlain protested. “Nobody can average fifty a game in this league.”

McGuire told Chamberlain he could do it. The other players wouldn’t be happy, he said, and he, McGuire, was going to have to put up with a lot of bitching, but that was his problem. He would have to convince them that the only way they could win was with Chamberlain shooting constantly.

In McGuire’s view, Chamberlain wasn’t being selfish in taking so many shots. He just had the highest shooting percentage on the team. It made more sense to have your 50-percent shooter taking the shot than it did your 40-percent shooter, which meant that if one of Wilt’s teammates with a poorer shooting percentage did not pass to Wilt, that man was not acting in the team’s interest.

“I have two goals,” McGuire told Chamberlain.

“I hope we win the championship. And I hope you break every record in the book.”


So we must ask ourselves, how great and properly oriented can a young player be that has godawful coaching and management, works in a terrible offensive structure/system, on a team with very poor cohesion and (usually) poor morale?

All the while, Bill Russell was being treated like a proxy son and leader by the greatest coach/executive of that era (and, likely, in history).
User avatar
homecourtloss
General Manager
Posts: 8,576
And1: 13,741
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#117 » by homecourtloss » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:08 pm

Stalwart wrote:Lebron is very close to Tier 1. Had 2020 been a real title I would have put him there.


What’s funny about the “Bubble ring,” “Mickey mouse title,” “not a real run,” crowd (a group that is 99%+ anti LeBron) is the narrative they (or the fawning media) would have if Jordan or even Kobe won a title in a bubble.

“Back in 1993 the world was in the midst of a pandemic. COVID-19 had ravaged the world but the players and the NBA wanted to play. And play they did after a hiatus. The conditions were different from any we have ever seen as all distractions and crowd influence on players or referees was gone. There was no travel. There wasn’t anything. Just pure basketball on a neutral court to determine who was the best team.

And the best player. And once again, Michael Jordan stood out on top amongst his peers. When there is no crowd noise and no travel, the skill level of the players is even more important and the GOAT dominated, blocking out what was happening around the world, solely concentrating on his obsession which was to win and kill his opponents. While lesser players might have missed home or worried the health of family members, Jordan pathological desire to compete despite circumstances and win shone through yet again. While other players may have been bored or wanted out of the bubble, Jordan wanted to kills his opponents in his ruthless desire to compete. The opponents didn’t stand a chance.

The Bulls held 30 point leads in 4 different games and twice in the Finals. They held leads of 27+ 6 different times and at least once against every team they played. And of course, when there is nothing but pure basketball to consider, who is going to player better than Jordan, the ultimate competitor and skilled player? Jordan averaged 27.6 ppg., 10.8 rpg., and 8.8 astg., while shooting a remarkable 56% from the field. And because he’s Michael Jordan, he was even BETTER in the finals, scoring 29.8 points per game on 59% shooting and 42% from the three.

The bubble may never happen again. There might never be a chance to see who’s better in a pure basketball setting again. But we do know it happened once, and like always, the GOAT rose up above his peers.”
OdomFan wrote:I'd rather have Ray Allen on my team [over Curry].


Hal14 wrote:Not saying I put McHale over Duncan, but the argument can be made.
G35
RealGM
Posts: 21,029
And1: 6,511
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#118 » by G35 » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:11 pm

70sFan wrote:Still waiting for the explaination of why opinion of voters are more objective than my opinion.

Still waiting for explaination why we should decide what's true or not by the consensus opinion of random group of people.



We decide who leads our cities, states, and country by opinion.

You may or may not agree with it, but the results are what they are and you have to take that into account.

Those awards are voted on by the media and those are not random people. Those people have been appointed and are getting paid for to give their opinion because of either their background/history, credentials, or relative expertise.

At least those media individuals have to attach their names, faces, and credibility to whatever opinions the make. I will take that over unknown, random, posters on a website that do not have to have any credentials and can make up whatever claims that they want.

The problem I have with the current media over those in the past is that you can hand over voting rights to those that may have "not put in the work". Before to get to voting level status, you had to work for a local newspaper, cover minor league teams, cover games throughout the regular season, write columns in the newspaper before you could even be considered for your opinion.

The issue now with the internet is anyone can have an opinion...anyone can make baseless claims, but now they want to be "respected" because they attach some numbers to an opinion. There use to be a minimum level of work history you had to put in to be taken seriously, but now someone can get an economics degree, take some formulas with a +/- 20 confidence interval and throw out an "informed opinion" because it is easy to fool people that have no idea what those formulas mean.

Sports are a funny thing, we think making it more complex makes it better but many times the kiss method ends up winning it all. That is why a lot of old-school axioms are still around:
- it is a make or miss league
- offense sells tickets, defense wins championships
- you cannot win without stars
- win the turnover battle
- no rebounds, no rings

These sayings tend to hold truer the farther you go...the regular season will have a lot of "noise" but as you get to deeper into the playoffs, things start to crystallize and you see what methods win and what methods do not.

What I see is people want so badly to disprove traditions and old school ways just for the sake of being progressive......
I'm so tired of the typical......
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 19,755
And1: 14,963
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#119 » by 70sFan » Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:36 pm

G35 wrote:We decide who leads our cities, states, and country by opinion.

You may or may not agree with it, but the results are what they are and you have to take that into account.

I don't think this analogy fits here. It's one thing to decide who should have certain role in our society, but it's completely different thing to decide who/what is the best choice for the certain role. There are different mechanics that runs these two processes.

Those awards are voted on by the media and those are not random people. Those people have been appointed and are getting paid for to give their opinion because of either their background/history, credentials, or relative expertise.

Can you name a few of them? Can you name the credentials of Chris Broussard?

At least those media individuals have to attach their names, faces, and credibility to whatever opinions the make. I will take that over unknown, random, posters on a website that do not have to have any credentials and can make up whatever claims that they want.

The problem is that they also can do whatever they want. We've seen year after year some absolutely horrible votes but people simply don't care who does that.

Sports are a funny thing, we think making it more complex makes it better but many times the kiss method ends up winning it all. That is why a lot of old-school axioms are still around:
- it is a make or miss league
- offense sells tickets, defense wins championships
- you cannot win without stars
- win the turnover battle
- no rebounds, no rings

I agree that we shouldn't make things too complicated. That's why people use simple metrics and don't go into some kind of next level statistical analysis. It's also critical to watch basketball games and track possessions, tendencies ect. Sport will never be decided by stats, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't use them.

What I see is people want so badly to disprove traditions and old school ways just for the sake of being progressive......

I see this a lot outside of basketball as well, this is the major problem in modern societies. Here I have to agree with you, although I'm not sure how much of this trend went into basketball talks.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 45,796
And1: 14,741
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years? 

Post#120 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Jan 15, 2022 7:51 pm

falcolombardi wrote:
Spoiler:
funnily enough doctor mj post is making me think of the rough similarities between basketball analytics with -bear with me here- Medical knowledge

contrary to stem fields Medicine is unfortunately not a fully exact science where there are 100% right solutions as not everybody is the same and the same disease doesnt affects everyone the same way

this means that for a long time ( and i mean until the 21th century) a lot of Medical practice was heavily -empirical- lots of common knowledge amongst doctors went umchellenged and old flawed studies remained unchallenged

then there came a movement called "evidence based medicine" which objective was to make sure Medical practice was as scientific as possible and not take "common old knowledge" at face value (sounds familiar?)

in the Medical world now everythingh is -supoosed- to be baked by evidence, expert opinion is considered the most worthless level of evidence there is

if surgeon McSurgeon the greatest surgeon among all surgeons says somethingh, but has no evidence other than "trust me bro" then that evidence is as good as worthless
this is a contrast to basketball, where many players (the expert surgeons in this analogy) refuse that analytics (the studies and hard evidence in this analogy) may know somethingh they dont

let me give en example, when i made my internship in a small hospital (back in the old pre covid days of 2019...) there was a intubated patient with lung problems

the older and more experienced doctor wanted to do the traditional treatment, the younger doctor wanted to do a newer treatment with strong evidence of helping patients

the issue was that the older doctor didnt believe those new studies since they were completely at odds with what "was always done", he refused to consider that what he had been doing for years may have been suboptimal and dismissed it as "not enough evidence yet, may have yet unknown side effects" (actually a more than fair concern)

basketball is kinda like that, evidence is almost never 100% unquestionable, new studies come out all the time contradixting older ones, and people who learned somethingh decades ago are often reluctant to challenge what they know

that is why i am relatively unimpressed when people use old awards or old player opinions as only evidence,

because i know how much Medicine (a field a lot more crucial to the world than basketball) has improved
-precisely- from prefering hard evidence over expert opinion

barkley or shaq or any older player who disliked analytics in basketball may be the greatest experts in playing basketball
but once upon a time we had the greatest experts in surgery not knowing they should stirilize when doing surgery...


Thought I'd responded to this before but I guess not. Definitely appreciate you (and later G35) bringing up other experiences like this with reluctant old guard.

Here's a quote from Charles Darwin I think sums up reasonable expectation in a nutshell, though I can't always claim to be so sanguine about it.

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Conclusion wrote:Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume…I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mind…but I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.


As we all talk about recognizing these issues though, one of the most fascinating things from the Quantum Mechanics debate is that Bohr's side was dead convinced that Einstein WAS that old guard. The Copenhagen Interpretation can be argued to be a story of a young guard overthrowing the old by being wrong but persuasive, and then holding on to power within their field with some brutality until they died.

There are always characteristic dangers on whatever kind of side you're on, and I think it's clear that there is no way to make it impossible to end up on the wrong side. Hence, we should all try to take pride in recognizing when we have been wrong - though easier said than done in the moment.
Currently GMing the Original Centaurs:

Nikola Jokic
Evan Mobley
Darius Garland
Dillon Brooks
Royce O'Neale
Nicolas Batum
Seth Curry
Grayson Allen
Kentavious-Caldwell Pope
Kevon Looney

Return to Player Comparisons