Impressive careers

[70sFan]

So now you don't even know what a Big 3 is?

No, that wasn't my point. I talked about what defines the team, which is a fuzzy concept. How can you objectively conclude that?

Im not sure if you were watching the NBA back then but the big story about the 2008 Celtics was that they had 3 borderline superstars and still close to their primes hooking up to get the ring that had eluded each one of them up to that point.

What makes Ray Allen and Paul Pierce superstars though? Before 2008, they consistently missed the playoffs and nobody viewed them as true superstars. They didn't have much team success and their individual resumes were also mediocre.

You have extremely liberal definition of "superstar" if you call Ray Allen that way.

Stop it. Were talking about the modern era. There were no legitimate superteams since the expansion era in the late 80s, early 90s. The Celtics restarted the trend even if Lebron took it to another level.

When did the "modern era" start? Why?

2004 Lakers were also seen as the superteam, although failed one.

Seriously? Im starting to think you really don't know much at all about the NBA if Ben Taylor didn't make a list about it.

Such an unnecessary personal attack...

This is basic, conventional, NBA history. But here ya go:

The Boston Celtics are just a single game away from playoff elimination at the hands of the Miami Heat, and LeBron James would just like to say "thank you." Not for proving to be a pretty beatable team, but for providing the inspiration that three superstar players all suiting up for one team could actually work.


"They set the blueprint for us when they decided to make the trade for KG and for Ray," LeBron James told The Boston Globe of the Celtics. "Seeing guys make sacrifices to come together and play as one. They set the blueprint and went out there and did it. They won a championship. They competed every year."

Even further...

"With LeBron losing to Boston in Cleveland in the playoffs, he felt like, 'I gotta do more, I need to be around more to contend for a championship,'" Wade agreed. "Me feeling the same way going into the summer, saying that I needed more, it was because of Boston. They knocked us out."

So, they decided to fight fire with fire and arrange their own big three. Of course, people may moan that it came together a bit more controversially"

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-heat-say-celtics-set-the-big-three-blueprint-6552405

Now, will you concede this very obvious and basic point and stop acting like you're clueless?

Thanks for these quotes. I'm afraid your interpretation of these words are far from the only one though.

Its true. Coaches play a part in a teams success. KG helped transform the Celtics but what about the Timberwolves? How come they weren't defensive powerhouses witj prime KG?

The same reason why Kobe never anchored offensive powerhouses in 2005-07 period.

I like Kevin Garnett quite a bit. I just don't rank him nearly as high as you do because he never led a team to a title as the Bus Driver. Theregore I don't know if hes capable of it. Meanwhile you are over here trying to twist the 08 Celtics into being KGs team. Even going so far as to pretend you don't know what Big 3s are.

I know what big three means. I also know who was the best player on that team. Miami big three also existed, but it doesn't mean that you can't say it was James team.

Why don't you admit that you're a fan of KG abd twist narratives to bump him higher on the ATG list?

It's easy - because I'm not a KG fan, quite the opposite in fact.

[f4p]

I think this is a good example of what the PC Board crowd likes to do. When confronted with a basic, well established, widely accepted idea the PC Board likes to act obtuse. "Uh, whats an alpha anyway?? I think its some outdated mentality or something. A boomer thing. I dunno". Then you guys start chipping away at that basic, easy to understand concept until you invalidate it completely amongst yourselves. Then it frees you guys up to start constructing and reconstructing narratives to your preference.

that's something i've thought before but you wrote it out better than i could. to be fair, the outside the box thinking is what makes this place great (and better than anywhere else), but it can be frustrating at times as your explanation shows.

[Stalwart]

So now you don't even know what a Big 3 is?

No, that wasn't my point. I talked about what defines the team, which is a fuzzy concept. How can you objectively conclude that?

It's just something you recognize like anything else. What it means to define a team is to be the guy the team is built around and who the other players follow. It means being the player who gives the team it's character and it's culture. Being the player who carries the most pressure and expectations. Examples of this would be Tim Duncan and the Spurs, Kobe and the Lakers, KG and the Timberwolves, Dirk and the Mavs, Steph and the Warriors, Lebron and the Cavs/Heat/Lakers, Reggie Miller and the Pacers, Ewing and the Knicks, ect.

Of course this isn't something you can put a number to and clearly define in an absolute sense but it's still a real thing nonetheless. And when it comes to the 2008 Celtics the team was built around and defined by multiple players. 3 of them to be exact. So although KG played an equal, perhaps even a marginally bigger role than the other 2 it still wasn't his team. He wasn't the guy on the Celtics.

Why is that important to recognize and keep in perspective? Because as good as 08 KG was he wasn't quite good enough to be that traditional Team Alpha/Bus Driver that you guys want to give him credit for. In other words, KG's title is not worth as much as the titles other Top 20ish ATGs have won because he wasn't a Bus Driver or even a Co Pilot. He Car Pooled his way to a NBA Championship. That's still a great accomplishment but not a title you can compare to say Steph Curry's or Hakeem's for example. That's should all be taken into account when ranking him all time. In my humble opinion of course.

What makes Ray Allen and Paul Pierce superstars though? Before 2008, they consistently missed the playoffs and nobody viewed them as true superstars. They didn't have much team success and their individual resumes were also mediocre.

You have extremely liberal definition of "superstar" if you call Ray Allen that way.

Well that's why I said borderline superstars. They were both full fledged All Stars who can raise their games to superstar level of play for stretches and for moments. They both had 'Championship DNA' and other intangibles. As far as their lack of playoff success they weren't far behind KG and the Timberwolves. So considering this it was seen as a coming together of 3 of the best players in the league.

Such an unnecessary personal attack...

Ok, my apologies. I know you're very knowledgeable about NBA history from a textbook perspective. I know you've watched a lot of film and I respect that. But I also know you're young and didn't actually live through and experience a lot of this NBA history. I do think there is some context and nuance that you get from experiencing history in real time. It's easy to look back at players in history and misjudge them based on pure numbers when you didn't actually watch the events unfold. You're missing some context. That's why it's important to always consider and factor in the contemporary opinions of the time when looking back and analyzing NBA history.

Back in 2008 the Celtics were viewed as a Big 3 Superteam the came together and collectively won a NBA Championship. People might have viewed KG as the best player but it wasn't viewed as his team. So it's not ok for you to analyze some numbers and then go back and retroactively try to paint it as KG's team. That's not a true representation of history. And this is what I see so many otherwise knowledgeable posters do here on the PC Board. You try to form new perspectives on NBA history and attempt to change well established narratives about that history.

Thanks for these quotes. I'm afraid your interpretation of these words are far from the only one though.

I feel like that is pretty straight forward. Lebron and Dwade were both motivated to form their own Big 3 in direct response to the Celtics Big 3. That means A) the Celtics were viewed as a collective rather than KG's team and b) they actually started the superteam trend that defined the 2010s.

I know what big three means. I also know who was the best player on that team. Miami big three also existed, but it doesn't mean that you can't say it was James team.

That's not actually true though. In 2011 the Miami Heat were Lebron and DWade's team. It was during the 2012 season when Dwade famously "gave the keys" to Lebron.

It was probably one of the hardest things I had to do in sports was to, in a sense, take a step back,” Wade said. “A lot of people don’t understand. They’ll say, ‘Why would you do that?’ To me, I want more success from winning. I don’t want another scoring title. I’m just trying to win.

“I felt that it had to come from nobody but me, to say, ‘Go ahead, man. You’re the best player in the world. We’ll follow your lead.’ Once I said that, I thought he kind of exhaled a little bit.”

Wade said this really came to him in January when, sidelined by injury, he watched LeBron step forward with monster numbers. Wade said he realized he had to make LeBron feel comfortable.

“I just had some time to sit back and think a lot,” Wade said. “I just realized what we’re playing for, and what I’m playing for.

“LeBron is probably the most talented player we’ve seen in a while, but how good can we be? Are we going to be good if me and him are both scoring 27 a night? Yeah, we’re gonna be good, but it would be too much, ‘OK, it’s your turn, now it’s your turn.’

“I wanted to give him the opportunity where he didn’t have to think about that. It’s kind of like I told him, ‘Listen, I’ll find my way. Don’t worry about me. I’ll be there. But you go out and be the player that we want you to be.'”

So as you see the Heat were initially just a Big 3 collective like Boston. It was in 2012 when Wade made it a point to make Lebron the leader that it became Lebron's team. Paul Pierce or Ray Allen never came to KG and said "go ahead man, you lead us. We'll follow you".

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2012/05/15/wade-admits-he-took-a-step-back-so-lebron-could-lead-heat/

Also, on a side note considering the quotes above this is why I praise Kobe in contrast with Lebron for his ability to a) play off the ball and b) allow great teammates to be great. Kobe didn't need Shaq to take step back in order for him to be comfortable, be great, and be dominant. Kobe could adapt his game and role on the team in a way that helped facilitate Shaq 's dominance while also being dominant himself. And in that way you have a true double headed monster. That speaks to Kobe's portability. Lebron is obviously great but this is an area I think you can legitimately criticize him for. He forces his superstar teammates to take steps back and suppress their own abilities and contributions. Anyway, just food for thought.

[Stalwart]

I think this is a good example of what the PC Board crowd likes to do. When confronted with a basic, well established, widely accepted idea the PC Board likes to act obtuse. "Uh, whats an alpha anyway?? I think its some outdated mentality or something. A boomer thing. I dunno". Then you guys start chipping away at that basic, easy to understand concept until you invalidate it completely amongst yourselves. Then it frees you guys up to start constructing and reconstructing narratives to your preference.

that's something i've thought before but you wrote it out better than i could. to be fair, the outside the box thinking is what makes this place great (and better than anywhere else), but it can be frustrating at times as your explanation shows.

I appreciate the level of knowledge here and that people think outside of the box. I just think a lot of these posters, once outside of the box, are quick to lose perspective of the box altogether and begin forming fallacious arguments. Examples:

People have correctly recognized that the NBA community was putting too much emphasis on "rangz". So what do these guys do? They turn around and ignore rings altogether.

People have correctly recognized that we often put too much emphasis on raw box scores. So what do these guys do? They ignore box scores altogether in favor of made up stats.

People have recognized that we often times can focused on point totals and ignore efficiency. So naturally these guys begin to judge all offensive ability solely based on efficiency.

And on and on.

[SickMother]

FMVP Cedric Maxwell seems a glaring omission.

Never really realized just how integral Cedric was to those early 1980's Celtics squads.

78/79: Cedric "leads" the 29-53 Celtics in the LSBLB: Last Season Before Larry Bird. Particularly eye popping are his 128 TS+ and 329 TS Add leading to a 121 ORTG | 105 DRtg, the only player on the team with a positive split.

79/80: Bird lands & flips the record to 61-21. Regular season is pretty close between the two...

Larry: 20.5 PER | .538 TS% | 22 TS Add | 11.2 WS | .182 WS/48 | 4.5 BPM | 4.8 VORP | 109 ORtg | 98 DRtg
Cedric: 19.0 PER | .679 TS% | 294 TS Add | 12.2 WS | .214 WS/48 | 3.5 BPM | 3.8 VORP | 124 ORtg | 102 DRtg

Larry hasn't quite figured out how to score efficiently yet as a rookie, but his additional contributions as a creator and defender give him the edge in some measurements. Come playoff time its a pretty clear advantage to Maxwell though...

Larry: 18.3 PER | .511 TS% | 1.1 WS | .136 WS/48 | 4.3 BPM | 0.6 VORP | 101 ORtg | 96 DRtg
Cedric: 21.8 PER | .684 TS% | 1.7 WS | .255 WS/48 | 6.4 BPM | 0.7 VORP | 126 ORtg | 99 DRtg

80/81: Parish/McHale are acquired, with Kevin coming off the bench. Pretty even between the then Big Three of Bird/Maxwell/Parish, during the regular season...

Larry: 19.9 PER | .528 TS% | -20 TS Add | 10.8 WS | .160 WS/48 | 4.3 BPM | 5.2 VORP | 107 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Cedric: 17.6 PER | .651 TS% | 221 TS Add | 11.0 WS | .193 WS/48 | 3.5 BPM | 3.8 VORP | 124 ORtg | 104 DRtg
Robert: 25.2 PER | .579 TS% | 119 TS Add | 10.9 WS | .228 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM | 4.3 VORP | 113 ORtg | 96 DRtg

Larry still hasn't got the scoring efficiently thing figured out yet with an essentially league average 99 TS+, while it looks like Parish cut into a little bit of Cedric's inside game on the offensive end. Cedric ultimately won the FMVP, though again it was close between him & Larry, while Robert fell off some from his RS pace...

Larry: 21.8 PER | .532 TS% | 3.1 WS | .198 WS/48 | 7.7 BPM | 1.8 VORP | 109 ORtg | 95 DRtg
Cedric: 18.9 PER | .644 TS% | 2.5 WS | .201 WS/48 | 5.3 BPM | 1.1 VORP | 122 ORtg | 104 DRtg
Robert: 18.8 PER | .521 TS% | 1.4 WS | .139 WS/48 | 2.3 BPM | 0.5 VORP | 101 ORtg | 96 DRtg

81/82: Pretty much Cedric's last season as a significant contributor with McHale starting to take on a larger role too. Regular season...

Larry: 22.6 PER | .557 TS% | 58 TS Add | 12.5 WS | .205 WS/48 | 6.6 BPM | 6.4 VORP | 114 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Cedric: 16.0 PER | .616 TS% | 145 TS Add | 9.1 WS | .169 WS/48 | 2.2 BPM | 2.7 VORP | 119 ORtg | 105 DRtg
Robert: 22.6 PER | .571 TS% | 92 TS Add | 10.0 WS | .190 WS/48 | 3.8 BPM | 3.7 VORP | 112 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Kevin: 16.9 PER | .568 TS% | 57 TS Add | 7.5 WS | .155 WS/48 | 1.5 BPM | 2.0 VORP | 113 ORtg | 102 DRtg

Larry has pulled farther away from the pack, his first season as the clear cut number one guy. Looks like McHale took another cut of the inside action away from Cedric. Playoff numbers go all kinds of crazy with Bird crashing hard while McHale probably played the best minutes...

Larry: 17.9 PER | .474 TS% | 1.6 WS | .154 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM | 0.9 VORP | 103 ORtg | 94 DRtg
Cedric: 18.0 PER | .577 TS% | 1.6 WS | .200 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM | 0.7 VORP | 117 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Robert: 20.7 PER | .527 TS% | 1.5 WS | .158 WS/48 | 4.0 BPM | 0.6 VORP | 105 ORtg | 95 DRtg
Kevin: 22.0 PER | .617 TS% | 1.8 WS | .257 WS/48 | 6.1 BPM | 0.7 VORP | 127 ORtg | 100 DRtg

From there Cedric continued to start and play regular minutes but couldn't quite score with that same degree of efficiency he displayed earlier in his career, though his playoff performance was right there with Parish/McHale during the 83/84 Championship Run.

Either way, over a four season stretch from 78/79 to 81/82 Cedric posted cumulative lines of...

RS: 18.2 PER | .657 TS% | 988 TS Add | 44.0 WS | .191 WS/48 | 3.1 BPM | 14.2 VORP | 122 ORtg | 104 DRtg
PO: 19.4 PER | .633 TS% | 5.8 WS | .214 WS/48 | 5.6 BPM | 2.5 VORP | 122 ORtg | 101 DRtg

...gotta be one of the more unheralded multi season runs for a hyper efficient scorer with the type of playoff resiliency to win a FMVP.

[falcolombardi]

I think this is a good example of what the PC Board crowd likes to do. When confronted with a basic, well established, widely accepted idea the PC Board likes to act obtuse. "Uh, whats an alpha anyway?? I think its some outdated mentality or something. A boomer thing. I dunno". Then you guys start chipping away at that basic, easy to understand concept until you invalidate it completely amongst yourselves. Then it frees you guys up to start constructing and reconstructing narratives to your preference.

that's something i've thought before but you wrote it out better than i could. to be fair, the outside the box thinking is what makes this place great (and better than anywhere else), but it can be frustrating at times as your explanation shows.

I appreciate the level of knowledge here and that people think outside of the box. I just think a lot of these posters, once outside of the box, are quick to lose perspective of the box altogether and begin forming fallacious arguments. Examples:

People have correctly recognized that the NBA community was putting too much emphasis on "rangz". So what do these guys do? They turn around and ignore rings altogether.

People have correctly recognized that we often put too much emphasis on raw box scores. So what do these guys do? They ignore box scores altogether in favor of made up stats.

People have recognized that we often times can focused on point totals and ignore efficiency. So naturally these guys begin to judge all offensive ability solely based on efficiency.

And on and on.

Look up the peaks project and notice that almost all players selected, or who are about to be selected in the top 25, were guys who led their teams to rings. And is ring winning seasons that make 80-90% of the years chosen as peaks

Almost nobody on here evaluates players based on efficiency over all else, if they did players like charlrs barkley or kevin durant would already be picked or in heabier discussion over more mundane efficiency players as wade and kobe

There are posters there who care a lot about subjective skillset evaluation (the "eye test"), other thst put a lot of focus on plus-minus, others that put a heavy emphasis on how a player would do in different eras or only in results within their own era

Is as far as it gets from a single way to evaluate players the way you painted it in a broad brush

No Stats is "made up" that is a gross misrepresentation. Stats measure thinghs that happen in a game(s)

Impact stats are mostly just different flavors of +/- which literally measures how good a team is when a player plays.

Boxscore aggregates merely use the stats that you consider "real" (points, turnovers,assists) and give them a subjective value the same way a random fan gives 14 assits or 32 points a subjective value

Even thinghs like RAPM are just a deeper dive on basic +/- the sane way true shooting is just a deeper dive in scoring efficiency

[falcolombardi]

FMVP Cedric Maxwell seems a glaring omission.

Never really realized just how integral Cedric was to those early 1980's Celtics squads.

78/79: Cedric "leads" the 29-53 Celtics in the LSBLB: Last Season Before Larry Bird. Particularly eye popping are his 128 TS+ and 329 TS Add leading to a 121 ORTG | 105 DRtg, the only player on the team with a positive split.

79/80: Bird lands & flips the record to 61-21. Regular season is pretty close between the two...

Larry: 20.5 PER | .538 TS% | 22 TS Add | 11.2 WS | .182 WS/48 | 4.5 BPM | 4.8 VORP | 109 ORtg | 98 DRtg
Cedric: 19.0 PER | .679 TS% | 294 TS Add | 12.2 WS | .214 WS/48 | 3.5 BPM | 3.8 VORP | 124 ORtg | 102 DRtg

Larry hasn't quite figured out how to score efficiently yet as a rookie, but his additional contributions as a creator and defender give him the edge in some measurements. Come playoff time its a pretty clear advantage to Maxwell though...

Larry: 18.3 PER | .511 TS% | 1.1 WS | .136 WS/48 | 4.3 BPM | 0.6 VORP | 101 ORtg | 96 DRtg
Cedric: 21.8 PER | .684 TS% | 1.7 WS | .255 WS/48 | 6.4 BPM | 0.7 VORP | 126 ORtg | 99 DRtg

80/81: Parish/McHale are acquired, with Kevin coming off the bench. Pretty even between the then Big Three of Bird/Maxwell/Parish, during the regular season...

Larry: 19.9 PER | .528 TS% | -20 TS Add | 10.8 WS | .160 WS/48 | 4.3 BPM | 5.2 VORP | 107 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Cedric: 17.6 PER | .651 TS% | 221 TS Add | 11.0 WS | .193 WS/48 | 3.5 BPM | 3.8 VORP | 124 ORtg | 104 DRtg
Robert: 25.2 PER | .579 TS% | 119 TS Add | 10.9 WS | .228 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM | 4.3 VORP | 113 ORtg | 96 DRtg

Larry still hasn't got the scoring efficiently thing figured out yet with an essentially league average 99 TS+, while it looks like Parish cut into a little bit of Cedric's inside game on the offensive end. Cedric ultimately won the FMVP, though again it was close between him & Larry, while Robert fell off some from his RS pace...

Larry: 21.8 PER | .532 TS% | 3.1 WS | .198 WS/48 | 7.7 BPM | 1.8 VORP | 109 ORtg | 95 DRtg
Cedric: 18.9 PER | .644 TS% | 2.5 WS | .201 WS/48 | 5.3 BPM | 1.1 VORP | 122 ORtg | 104 DRtg
Robert: 18.8 PER | .521 TS% | 1.4 WS | .139 WS/48 | 2.3 BPM | 0.5 VORP | 101 ORtg | 96 DRtg

81/82: Pretty much Cedric's last season as a significant contributor with McHale starting to take on a larger role too. Regular season...

Larry: 22.6 PER | .557 TS% | 58 TS Add | 12.5 WS | .205 WS/48 | 6.6 BPM | 6.4 VORP | 114 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Cedric: 16.0 PER | .616 TS% | 145 TS Add | 9.1 WS | .169 WS/48 | 2.2 BPM | 2.7 VORP | 119 ORtg | 105 DRtg
Robert: 22.6 PER | .571 TS% | 92 TS Add | 10.0 WS | .190 WS/48 | 3.8 BPM | 3.7 VORP | 112 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Kevin: 16.9 PER | .568 TS% | 57 TS Add | 7.5 WS | .155 WS/48 | 1.5 BPM | 2.0 VORP | 113 ORtg | 102 DRtg

Larry has pulled farther away from the pack, his first season as the clear cut number one guy. Looks like McHale took another cut of the inside action away from Cedric. Playoff numbers go all kinds of crazy with Bird crashing hard while McHale probably played the best minutes...

Larry: 17.9 PER | .474 TS% | 1.6 WS | .154 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM | 0.9 VORP | 103 ORtg | 94 DRtg
Cedric: 18.0 PER | .577 TS% | 1.6 WS | .200 WS/48 | 5.4 BPM | 0.7 VORP | 117 ORtg | 99 DRtg
Robert: 20.7 PER | .527 TS% | 1.5 WS | .158 WS/48 | 4.0 BPM | 0.6 VORP | 105 ORtg | 95 DRtg
Kevin: 22.0 PER | .617 TS% | 1.8 WS | .257 WS/48 | 6.1 BPM | 0.7 VORP | 127 ORtg | 100 DRtg

From there Cedric continued to start and play regular minutes but couldn't quite score with that same degree of efficiency he displayed earlier in his career, though his playoff performance was right there with Parish/McHale during the 83/84 Championship Run.

Either way, over a four season stretch from 78/79 to 81/82 Cedric posted cumulative lines of...

RS: 18.2 PER | .657 TS% | 988 TS Add | 44.0 WS | .191 WS/48 | 3.1 BPM | 14.2 VORP | 122 ORtg | 104 DRtg
PO: 19.4 PER | .633 TS% | 5.8 WS | .214 WS/48 | 5.6 BPM | 2.5 VORP | 122 ORtg | 101 DRtg

...gotta be one of the more unheralded multi season runs for a hyper efficient scorer with the type of playoff resiliency to win a FMVP.

In a lot of ways he looks like proto mchale minus the strong defensive rep

Kinda fitting that mchale slowly took the mantle from him as his backup into eventual star

[Stalwart]

that's something i've thought before but you wrote it out better than i could. to be fair, the outside the box thinking is what makes this place great (and better than anywhere else), but it can be frustrating at times as your explanation shows.

I appreciate the level of knowledge here and that people think outside of the box. I just think a lot of these posters, once outside of the box, are quick to lose perspective of the box altogether and begin forming fallacious arguments. Examples:

People have correctly recognized that the NBA community was putting too much emphasis on "rangz". So what do these guys do? They turn around and ignore rings altogether.

People have correctly recognized that we often put too much emphasis on raw box scores. So what do these guys do? They ignore box scores altogether in favor of made up stats.

People have recognized that we often times can focused on point totals and ignore efficiency. So naturally these guys begin to judge all offensive ability solely based on efficiency.

And on and on.

Look up the peaks project and notice that almost all players selected, or who are about to be selected in the top 25, were guys who led their teams to rings. And is ring winning seasons that make 80-90% of the years chosen as peaks

Almost nobody on here evaluates players based on efficiency over all else, if they did players like charlrs barkley or kevin durant would already be picked or in heabier discussion over more mundane efficiency players as wade and kobe

You can say that but my experience says different. The constant theme I run into here is a devaluing of titles as "rangz" and a dismissal of high scoring averages based on notions about efficiency.

There are posters there who care a lot about subjective skillset evaluation (the "eye test"), other thst put a lot of focus on plus-minus, others that put a heavy emphasis on how a player would do in different eras or only in results within their own era

Is as far as it gets from a single way to evaluate players the way you painted it in a broad brush

No Stats is "made up" that is a gross misrepresentation. Stats measure thinghs that happen in a game(s)

Impact stats are mostly just different flavors of +/- which literally measures how good a team is when a player plays.

Boxscore aggregates merely use the stats that you consider "real" (points, turnovers,assists) and give them a subjective value the same way a random fan gives 14 assits or 32 points a subjective value

Even thinghs like RAPM are just a deeper dive on basic +/- the sane way true shooting is just a deeper dive in scoring efficiency

RAPM is indeed a made up stat:

The enhancement with the RAPM is a Bayesian technique in which the data is combined with theoretical beliefs regarding reasonable, large data ranges for the parameters in order to produce more accurate models. That is what ridge regression does


RAPM is based on theories.

[70sFan]

RAPM is indeed a made up stat:

The enhancement with the RAPM is a Bayesian technique in which the data is combined with theoretical beliefs regarding reasonable, large data ranges for the parameters in order to produce more accurate models. That is what ridge regression does


RAPM is based on theories.

Wow, I hate to say that but you just showed complete ignorance towards basic data analysis. That's why not everyone can work with huge data bases I suppose...

Do you even know what theory means?

[Stalwart]

RAPM is indeed a made up stat:

The enhancement with the RAPM is a Bayesian technique in which the data is combined with theoretical beliefs regarding reasonable, large data ranges for the parameters in order to produce more accurate models. That is what ridge regression does


RAPM is based on theories.

Wow, I hate to say that but you just showed complete ignorance towards basic data analysis. That's why not everyone can work with huge data bases I suppose...

Do you even know what theory means?

Sorry bro but the semantic mind games don't work on me. Feel free to explain why a theory isn't a theory if you think you can. But the whole "omg you're so uninformed?!?" routine is weak and not something I respect in the least.

[70sFan]

RAPM is indeed a made up stat:

The enhancement with the RAPM is a Bayesian technique in which the data is combined with theoretical beliefs regarding reasonable, large data ranges for the parameters in order to produce more accurate models. That is what ridge regression does


RAPM is based on theories.

Wow, I hate to say that but you just showed complete ignorance towards basic data analysis. That's why not everyone can work with huge data bases I suppose...

Do you even know what theory means?

Sorry bro but the semantic mind games don't work on me. Feel free to explain why a theory isn't a theory if you think you can. But the whole "omg you're so uninformed?!?" routine is weak and not something I respect in the least.

It's not semantic mind games, if you don't know the definition of scientific theory and then use definitions that include this word, then you don't understand them. I'm not trying to disrespect you, but there is a huge difference between theory and hypothesis. You use the former in the meaning of the latter.

A quick example - general relativity theory isn't made up, unproven model. It is a scientific theory, which means that people checked their reliability and concluded that it works to describe all the gravitational interactions, better than anything we've ever created.

The same thing applies to statistical theories - they are not made up, baseless models that can be disqualified.

It is not my arrogance, but rather a said truth that people have no idea how the science works and come up with their own picture of it, which is often misleading or straight untrue. So you might disrespect me, but I honestly try to explain you that you use this word in a wrong meaning. I hope that my imperfect language won't be a barrier for you to understand my point.

[SickMother]

People have correctly recognized that we often put too much emphasis on raw box scores. So what do these guys do? They ignore box scores altogether in favor of made up stats.

Box score stats are made up. The game of basketball itself is made up. The USD/Euro are made up.

Our existences are mostly composed of make believe.

[Jaivl]

It's just something you recognize like anything else. What it means to define a team is to be the guy the team is built around and who the other players follow. It means being the player who gives the team it's character and it's culture. Being the player who carries the most pressure and expectations. Examples of this would be Tim Duncan and the Spurs, Kobe and the Lakers, KG and the Timberwolves, Dirk and the Mavs, Steph and the Warriors, Lebron and the Cavs/Heat/Lakers, Reggie Miller and the Pacers, Ewing and the Knicks, ect.

Of course this isn't something you can put a number to and clearly define in an absolute sense but it's still a real thing nonetheless. And when it comes to the 2008 Celtics the team was built around and defined by multiple players. 3 of them to be exact. So although KG played an equal, perhaps even a marginally bigger role than the other 2 it still wasn't his team. He wasn't the guy on the Celtics.

Being the player who carries the most pressure and expectations.

Earlier part is OK, but that's not what leader means.

A leader is not neccesarily the best player, but the person who leads (duh) and influences a group. Didn't KG "give the team its character"? He built a culture of grit and grind overnight, a culture that simply did not exist in Boston at that time. Helped by other significant people, like Thibs' schemes and good overall personnel, but those people left and went and his culture stayed, and then finally left when he did. And then he did it again on Minnesota at age 2439. Saying KG was not the leader in Boston is ridiculous. He was more of a leader there than he was on his first Minny stretch.

https://www.nba.com/news/legendary-moments-history-kevin-garnett-traded-boston-celtics-2007

Why is that important to recognize and keep in perspective? Because as good as 08 KG was he wasn't quite good enough to be that traditional Team Alpha/Bus Driver that you guys want to give him credit for. In other words, KG's title is not worth as much as the titles other Top 20ish ATGs have won because he wasn't a Bus Driver or even a Co Pilot. He Car Pooled his way to a NBA Championship.

Car pooled his way to a title, have to admit that was funny. #3 in MVP vote with > half an MVP share who ended up winning a title is not good enough to lead a title. More news at 8.

They both had 'Championship DNA' and other intangibles.

Easy to say in 2022. I'm curious, care to tell me which current rookies/sophs have "Championship DNA" and which don't?

Back in 2008 the Celtics were viewed as a Big 3 Superteam the came together and collectively won a NBA Championship.

See, I'm not old either by any means, but I was around by 2008. Such a super team they were, they weren't even favored over the Cavs, Pistons or Bulls to get out of the East. 5-7th favourites to win the chip. It was just another contender, but not even close to overwhelming favourites.

You know which SUPER TEAM was actually favored to make the Finals? The Kobe/Howard/Gasol/Nash SUPER TEAM. That was indeed a SUPER TEAM, a wash with the Miami Heat on pre-season odds. Wonder how that worked out.

08 Celts were a team who had a very solid core of three all-stars. They were called a superteam, but only when they wildly overperformed due to how unexpectedly FREAKING GOOD their defense was. But there are different tiers of all-stars. They were indeed a three-headed monster, with a similar load... on offense.

[Stalwart]

It's not semantic mind games, if you don't know the definition of scientific theory and then use definitions that include this word, then you don't understand them. I'm not trying to disrespect you, but there is a huge difference between theory and hypothesis. You use the former in the meaning of the latter.

I understand just fine. A theory is an explanation that can always be changed with new information. Therefore its not something that ever be a proven fact. This is even more true in situations where you can't accurately test these theories, like basketball. At that point you have to evaluate those theories through abductive reasoning. Which of course makes the strength of a theory subjective and determinant based on who is doing the reasoning. Therefore theories don't actually prove anything especially in sports. They can help you understand something but they can't determine what is real and what is true in an absolute sense.

A quick example - general relativity theory isn't made up, unproven model. It is a scientific theory, which means that people checked their reliability and concluded that it works to describe all the gravitational interactions, better than anything we've ever created.

The same thing applies to statistical theories - they are not made up, baseless models that can be disqualified.

General Relativity is considered a theory because there are aspects to it that were not sure about and don't fully understand. And those aspects, if fully understood, could completely change our view of General Relativity. So yeah, its not a fact or a truth. Its an idea.

With that said GR is a much stronger, more tested, well supported idea than made up basketball statistics so I don't even think we should be comparing the two.

It is not my arrogance, but rather a said truth that people have no idea how the science works and come up with their own picture of it, which is often misleading or straight untrue. So you might disrespect me, but I honestly try to explain you that you use this word in a wrong meaning. I hope that my imperfect language won't be a barrier for you to understand my point.

It is arrogance though unintentional as it may be. Thats why authority, especially scientific authority, needs to be scrutinized and never taken taken at face value. Taking scientists and their semantic mind games at face value is what led to eugenics, for example.

[70sFan]

I understand just fine. A theory is an explanation that can always be changed with new information. Therefore its not something that ever be a proven fact.

No, you don't understand. A theory is proven within its limitations and you can't falsify it. You can only come up with a theory that has expanded area of usage, but it doesn't make the previous one "false".

What's your definition of a proven fact by the way? You may say it's a silly question, but it's really not if you want to have a philosophical discussion here.

This is even more true in situations where you can't accurately test these theories, like basketball. At that point you have to evaluate those theories through abductive reasoning. Which of course makes the strength of a theory subjective and determinant based on who is doing the reasoning.

Well, of course in sports analysis we usually use abductive reasoning, but I fail to see why it's a concern. I mean, can you find a better way to do that?

Therefore theories don't actually prove anything especially in sports. They can help you understand something but they can't determine what is real and what is true in an absolute sense.

Again, throwing words like "true" or "absolute sense" requires a very strict definition of what you mean. Without your explaination, we won't go any further.

General Relativity is considered a theory because there are aspects to it that were not sure about and don't fully understand.

No, this is not true. General Relativity is considered a theory, because it describes everything we know about the gravity. A lot of people tried to falsify it, but nobody succeed. Although it has some limitations, within them it describes everything just fine and gives us the ability to predict things we haven't known about before.

And those aspects, if fully understood, could completely change our view of General Relativity. So yeah, its not a fact or a truth. Its an idea.

If we get a new theory of gravity, it would increase our knowledge about the phenomenon, but it doesn't make the General Relativity false. It will still work for describing and predicting phenomena it already does.

Again, what is a fact or truth for you?

With that said GR is a much stronger, more tested, well supported idea than made up basketball statistics so I don't even think we should be comparing the two.

I agree.

It is arrogance though unintentional as it may be. Thats why authority, especially scientific authority, needs to be scrutinized and never taken taken at face value. Taking scientists and their semantic mind games at face value is what led to eugenics, for example.

You made quite a leap to use eugenic as an example...

No, eugenic was used by politicians that decided to make the use of some, completely misunderstood scientific conceptions. Besides, this is completely different discussion. I agree that science can't tell us anything about the morality. It's not within its capabilities. Science doesn't answer to all questions, but this is not what we're talking about here. Using pseudo-scientific claims from eugenics was a wrong thing from moral perspective, but science never forced you to do that.

Science is used to describe the various phenomena, but it's not for its evaluation.

You prove how little idea people have in general about the science.

[Dooley]

Therefore theories don't actually prove anything especially in sports. They can help you understand something but they can't determine what is real and what is true in an absolute sense.

Nothing can do that.

[Stalwart]

No, you don't understand. A theory is proven within its limitations and you can't falsify it. You can only come up with a theory that has expanded area of usage, but it doesn't make the previous one "false".

What's your definition of a proven fact by the way? You may say it's a silly question, but it's really not if you want to have a philosophical discussion here.

A fact is an indisputable observation of a natural or social phenomenon. Theories are not facts. Why aren't theories considered fact? Because they are always disputable if only potentially.

You keep trying to have it both ways which is why I call this semantic mind games. You want to treat theories and indisputable facts as essentially the same. RAPM is not based on facts fact but rather a theoretical model.

Well, of course in sports analysis we usually use abductive reasoning, but I fail to see why it's a concern. I mean, can you find a better way to do that?

My only objection is when PC Board posters try to present formulas based on abductive reasoning as facts. Or even worse is when people compare these formulas to scientific theories that have been tested.

No, this is not true. General Relativity is considered a theory, because it describes everything we know about the gravity. A lot of people tried to falsify it, but nobody succeed. Although it has some limitations, within them it describes everything just fine and gives us the ability to predict things we haven't known about before.

GR is considered a theory because it provides the best explanation that we currently have. But we can't rule out finding better explanations in the future. Why can't we rule it out? Because there are aspects to GR that we are not sure about mainly the postulates it is based on.

GR is based on postulates. Pop quiz. Whats a postulate? Ill give you a hint...its starts with H...

No, eugenic was used by politicians that decided to make the use of some, completely misunderstood scientific conceptions. Besides, this is completely different discussion. I agree that science can't tell us anything about the morality. It's not within its capabilities. Science doesn't answer to all questions, but this is not what we're talking about here. Using pseudo-scientific claims from eugenics was a wrong thing from moral perspective, but science never forced you to do that.

Science is used to describe the various phenomena, but it's not for its evaluation.

You prove how little idea people have in general about the science.

Im not sure how to break this to you but the scientific community here in America was founded, funded, and built up by eugenists. That same network of eugenists still fund the scientific community today. And they still push eugenics under the banner of "population control". They didn't teach you this in school? Im not shocked. But youre right, thats probably another discussion.

[70sFan]

A fact is an indisputable observation of a natural or social phenomenon. Theories are not facts. Why aren't theories considered fact? Because they are always disputable if only potentially.

What do you mean by "indisputable observation of a natural phenomenon"? Are you aware that it's basically impossible to prove that something happened in absolute sense? Why do you think a natural phenomenon can't be disputed, but a theory can?

No, your differentiation is full of mistakes.

You keep trying to have it both ways which is why I call this semantic mind games. You want to treat theories and indisputable facts as essentially the same. RAPM is not based on facts fact but rather a theoretical model.

No, I have a problem that you don't have the basic knowledge about the philosophy and science, which is why you provide very fuzzy definitions that can be easily questioned.

My only objection is when PC Board posters try to present formulas based on abductive reasoning as facts.

I'd love to see one example when it happened.

Or even worse is when people compare these formulas to scientific theories that have been tested.

These models are definitely not even close in accuarcy to scientific theories, but they have been tested by teams all the time. Otherwise, it would be silly to even spend money on their development.

GR is considered a theory because it provides the best explanation that we currently have. But we can't rule out finding better explanations in the future. Why can't we rule it out? Because there are aspects to GR that we are not sure about mainly the postulates it is based on.

1. Even if we find a better explaination of gravitational phenomena, it doesn't make General Relativity false. It only means that its usage has limits, that's all.

2. I hope you are aware that everything is based on axioms, including our most basic logical thinking. You can't do anything without them.

GR is based on postulates. Pop quiz. Whats a postulate? Ill give you a hint...its starts with H...

Of course, in this case if you want to question everything, then we're strating to touch some kind of nihilistic thinking. I mean, how can you say that anything is a fact? It's your hidden postulate that your eyes works fine, or that you don't have a damaged brain.

I hope you don't want to go that way, with your common sense.

Im not sure how to break this to you but the scientific community here in America was founded, funded, and built up by eugenists.

I am not from the US, so I can't discuss about it. I find it highly unlikely though, given that the scienctific community in America is way older than eugenic.

That same network of eugenists still fund the scientific community today. And they still push eugenics under the banner of "population control". They didn't teach you this in school? Im not shocked. But youre right, thats probably another discussion.

Yeah, let's equal these very strict group of people who are not scientists, but rather politicians who want to control the world, to every scientist that works across the world. I guess I am one of these eugenists as well, right?

I don't know any eugenist who funds physical community. You can do it for me though, find one. Otherwise, it's just your wishful thinking.