RealGM

Something that's occured to me lately when consuming some of Ben's content is that it appears he's allowing certain biases towards specific playstyles (that seem to fall in line with his preferred brand of basketball) affect his analysis of various players' games/impacts.

So this made me want to look back at some of his analysis videos and it's becoming more apparent to me that he's subconsciously allowing his preference for certain playstyles to overrate the impact of various actions on the floor.

He doesn't have any creation breakdowns for Bird or MJ that I can find, but there's a few examples in these Curry clips that make it easy to see his preference for specific actions cause him to overstate the creation produced by these off-ball scorer archetypal players. Some of these are just low IQ defensive breakdowns where Curry is scoring full creation credits on.

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=223

The first clip sees Ben giving Curry a creation credit on this fastbreak where it smacks more of poor defense from Garland considering he had Rubio a few steps behind them to pick up Curry on the weakside.

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=307

This next credit is a stretch at best, and straight up disingenuous at worst. This is just straight up basic Warriors split action where JTA just catches Garland (not the most heady defender) napping and slips the screen for an open back cut. To credit Curry with "creating" this play is absolutely wild to me

https://youtu.be/JCks-bQbn1A?t=108

This play is also lazy, Curry whiffs on the screen and Lowry simply commits a fundamental mistake trying to go through on the high side of a backscreen. Plays like this make me wonder if Ben is going out of his way to overthink basketball here when a much simpler explanation suffices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=296&v=JCks-bQbn1A&feature=youtu.be?t=318

Here we see Pascal simply loses his place in the scheme here. Curry was able to penetrate, but no true breakdown was created directly from his action as the Raptors directly recovered on the strong side. Pascal is just drifting on the weakside low block and not sticking to the scheme where he should be back up at the elbow once the action on his side was stifled. Not sure why Curry is being credited here with a shot creation.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=131

This one is outrageously egregious. Curry doesn't create much of an advantage at all here, he just blows by Love on the switch. And Ben's analysis is completely wrong here which makes me question whether he's so preoccupied with trying to funnel creation assists to Curry that he completely rewrites what actually occurred on the floor. According to him, Curry's PNR pulls the big out of the paint which opens up the wide open layup, when really Draymond is the star of this play. The paint was still occupied by LeBron but Draymond just wrestles him (90s basketball enjoyers in shambles watching this) and boxes him out of the play. Don't see where Curry can be credited with this other than just giving KD the ball and watching Draymond illegally clear the help defender.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=144

This credit is just as weird, given it was just JR Smith coming over for no reason to double on a FAST BREAK while Curry is already covered by LeBron. This isn't even an example of Curry's gravity in my mind because no one watching this is thinking "damn LeBron needs to get bailed out because Chef Curry is about to fry him in isolation" it's just JR Smith being JR Smith, and why LeBron freaks out on him after lol.

Overall man, it really makes you question Ben's breakdowns in some of these plays; which kinda casts doubt on whether he has suffered from similar biased analysis in regards to creation within other players in this archetype.

Can't make passes if nobody gets themselves open, it's a two way street.

Dutchball97 wrote:Can't make passes if nobody gets themselves open, it's a two way street.

Oh I know. But if you watch the clips, the question is whether Ben is somewhat overrating how much Curry is getting these guys open, and by extension has he been overrating off-ball archetypal players subconsciously because he clearly prefers that style of play?

Heej wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Can't make passes if nobody gets themselves open, it's a two way street.

Oh I know. But if you watch the clips, the question is whether Ben is somewhat overrating how much Curry is getting these guys open, and by extension has he been overrating off-ball archetypal players subconsciously because he clearly prefers that style of play?

Equally pressing question would be how that influences the methodology for the various creation stats he's constructed or helped construct.

OhayoKD wrote:

Heej wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Can't make passes if nobody gets themselves open, it's a two way street.

Oh I know. But if you watch the clips, the question is whether Ben is somewhat overrating how much Curry is getting these guys open, and by extension has he been overrating off-ball archetypal players subconsciously because he clearly prefers that style of play?

Equally pressing question would be how that influences the methodology for the various creation stats he's constructed or helped construct.

Yeah that's a fair point too haha. I feel like you'd have to see what he credits as creation from a random heliocentric archetypal player's game and whether the criteria is more strict in that. I just know for a fact that combing thru these videos, his credits for off-ball players are pretty lax

Ben is biased just like any other person. At some point we have to stop treating his opinions/rankings like they’re significantly more valuable than any one else’s.

I understand that people have some concerns about Ben methodology, but at the same time I wonder how many of you have ever tried to do even a basic basketball analysis. It's extremely complicated, time consuming and hard to make it work even in some cases.

Scepticism is very valuable, but I rarely hear any alternatives. Criticizing something requires knowledge, but positive solutions are much harder and often more valuable.

I won’t criticize because we all have our biases.

His knowledge is extensive and his videos are awesome. Would probably fit right in as a poster here tbh.

No-more-rings wrote:Ben is biased just like any other person. At some point we have to stop treating his opinions/rankings like they’re significantly more valuable than any one else’s.

They're only more valuable because they are consistent with in themselves.

Anyone could say my rule for ranking players is based on the total MVP votes they received in their career.

It's consistent and as valuable as Ben, both are more valuable than some random decision based ranking that aren't structured by rules IMO.

If you want to get the best possible list then what you do is this:

1. Get at least 30 ways to create a top 40 list of players that are based on rules. It's better if you get 30 or more different people to craft rules independently.
2. Remove any double ups that have exact same rules or very similar rules.
3. Plot the 30+ lists that people create from different rules. Use an unsupervised PCA plot to do this.
4. Remove outliers based on different PC combinations
5. Take an average of whatever lists make the cut.

That's how you get the best list ever.

Most of the complaints here seem to include some version of ‘that was just a defensive mistake’ – but how do you think creation works? Defenders usually make mistakes that lead to scoring opportunities when offensive players take actions. In those cases, the ones responsible for causing the mistakes deserve creation credit irrespective of whether you think it was a silly mistake or bad defense.

That's not me saying that we should blindly trust any of the ensuing metrics or stop thinking critically, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to not giving credit to offensive players for being involved in actions that cause defenses to make mistakes or make certain choices, and I believe that to be a fundamentally flawed view.

If everyone just stands around, no creation is happening; the moment players do move around (with or without the ball), creation is happening. How to both validly and reliably allocate credit is a different question, and any solution will necessarily leave room for reasonable disagreement because that's almost an impossible task.

70sFan wrote:I understand that people have some concerns about Ben methodology, but at the same time I wonder how many of you have ever tried to do even a basic basketball analysis. It's extremely complicated, time consuming and hard to make it work even in some cases.

Scepticism is very valuable, but I rarely hear any alternatives. Criticizing something requires knowledge, but positive solutions are much harder and often more valuable.

Lol I mean if it's breaking down film, I've personally gone out of my way to watch quite literally hours of free FIBA coaching clinics put on by actual world class professional coaches to understand the finer nuances of the game, along with just having watched hours of other people breaking down games before trying to dissect what's going on on the court. So I dunno if you're coming at me with that statement, but best believe I'm not the one.

I may not be keeping an Excel sheet tracking plays on a possession by possession basis but I guarantee I spend more time watching what's going on during the minutiae of possessions in an average game than pretty much anyone on RealGM. And I mean it doesn't even take much to see that some of these credits are overstated, particularly the one where Curry just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it lmao.

The only "solution" imo is for people that collaborate just like we do on this forum to collectively raise our understanding of what goes on in a basketball game. And as such I think it's fair to question what exactly is the reasoning or methodology behind some of Ben's analysis.

The-Power wrote:Most of the complaints here seem to include some version of ‘that was just a defensive mistake’ – but how do you think creation works? Defenders usually make mistakes that lead to scoring opportunities when offensive players take actions. In those cases, the ones responsible for causing the mistakes deserve creation credit irrespective of whether you think it was a silly mistake or bad defense.

That's not me saying that we should blindly trust any of the ensuing metrics or stop thinking critically, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to not giving credit to offensive players for being involved in actions that cause defenses to make mistakes or make certain choices, and I believe that to be a fundamentally flawed view.

If everyone just stands around, no creation is happening; the moment players do move around (with or without the ball), creation is happening. How to both validly and reliably allocate credit is a different question, and any solution will necessarily leave room for reasonable disagreement because that's almost an impossible task.

Yeah except this reply has no nuance to it whatsoever because some defensive breakdowns are simply a result of the defender making a low IQ decision as opposed to being forced into a precarious situation where the offensive player outmaneuvers their defenders.

You can look at it as the equivalent of "unforced errors" in baseball where sometimes it's really just a guy screwing up vs the batter hitting a dinger. If you take the time to actually comprehend and look at what I'm pointing out it's that Curry is being randomly credited with the baseball equivalent of a good hit when really it's the defender just fumbling.

Kudos to him for being in the general area on some of those, but to credit him as being the engine of that particular play is simply foolish at best or disingenuous at worst. This is like saying we should give LeBron creation credit for throwing an outlet pass to a guy cherry picking on the other end while his defender trips on the floor. "B-b-b-but who cares if the defense tripped over itself and LeBron's teammate never ran back on defense, that's still creation because he passed the ball!" That's how you sound right now lmao.

LeBron didn't do anything special in that situation, he just happened to be there lmao and yet we're gonna give him a creation credit as if he was the one responsible for creating that scoring opportunity? Sounds pretty flawed to me. If we're talking about all time players here and grading them out against each other you need to be looking at what they did on the floor possession by possession that makes them stand out against other greats. I don't see any Rondo truthers stumbling over themselves to use his passes to a wide open Ray Allen coming off a pindown as evidence for why he was such a savant as a playmaker.

I don't think it's hard to see where it's reasonable to make a distinction in these scenarios otherwise you run the risk of the concept of these creation credits becoming meaningless if we come at it with the same laissez-faire approach you seem to be promoting.

Heej wrote:

70sFan wrote:I understand that people have some concerns about Ben methodology, but at the same time I wonder how many of you have ever tried to do even a basic basketball analysis. It's extremely complicated, time consuming and hard to make it work even in some cases.

Scepticism is very valuable, but I rarely hear any alternatives. Criticizing something requires knowledge, but positive solutions are much harder and often more valuable.

Lol I mean if it's breaking down film, I've personally gone out of my way to watch quite literally hours of free FIBA coaching clinics put on by actual world class professional coaches to understand the finer nuances of the game, along with just having watched hours of other people breaking down games before trying to dissect what's going on on the court. So I dunno if you're coming at me with that statement, but best believe I'm not the one.

I may not be keeping an Excel sheet tracking plays on a possession by possession basis but I guarantee I spend more time watching what's going on during the minutiae of possessions in an average game than pretty much anyone on RealGM. And I mean it doesn't even take much to see that some of these credits are overstated, particularly the one where Curry just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it lmao.

The only "solution" imo is for people that collaborate just like we do on this forum to collectively raise our understanding of what goes on in a basketball game. And as such I think it's fair to question what exactly is the reasoning or methodology behind some of Ben's analysis.

I of course can’t speak for anyone else that’s not myself - when it comes to a nuanced / supported viewpoint, but I think that tracking and sharing such analysis is something that takes effort and courage to perform and publish for an audience. Building on that, there are many with a keen eye test and basketball understanding whom use the same methodology behind the scenes and moreso for their own learning rather than to share content. Both approaches are ones I respect, and I appreciate the work of several creators that have given me some baseline to learn more from. With that said, that doesn’t mean someone’s view isn’t free from challenge / devils’ advocacy and pushback when healthy & appropriate ultimately is useful.

That’s what makes the PC board in itself so useful (sans a few trolls & s**tposters). I’m just stating my thoughts as one who has enjoyed interacting with you both, Heej and 70s

have to agree based on what ben has shown as off ball creation examples before



2:15 is a huge stretch to say curry created the layup cause love glanced at him for a quarter of a second before the warriors player attacked the rim

3:30 is literally a fastbreak with curry running alongside the ballhandler in the play, he didnt create that opportunity, the fastbreak did.

5:10, his man stayed on him 1vs1 while the play went at the rim on the other side

Is not that curry doesnt create scoring opportunities without the ball, he does and there are lots of good examples in the video of his off ball threat stretching the floor... but also some of his examples stretch way harder

Heej wrote:

The-Power wrote:Most of the complaints here seem to include some version of ‘that was just a defensive mistake’ – but how do you think creation works? Defenders usually make mistakes that lead to scoring opportunities when offensive players take actions. In those cases, the ones responsible for causing the mistakes deserve creation credit irrespective of whether you think it was a silly mistake or bad defense.

That's not me saying that we should blindly trust any of the ensuing metrics or stop thinking critically, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to not giving credit to offensive players for being involved in actions that cause defenses to make mistakes or make certain choices, and I believe that to be a fundamentally flawed view.

If everyone just stands around, no creation is happening; the moment players do move around (with or without the ball), creation is happening. How to both validly and reliably allocate credit is a different question, and any solution will necessarily leave room for reasonable disagreement because that's almost an impossible task.

Yeah except this reply has no nuance to it whatsoever because some defensive breakdowns are simply a result of the defender making a low IQ decision as opposed to being forced into a precarious situation where the offensive player outmaneuvers their defenders.

You can look at it as the equivalent of "unforced errors" in baseball where sometimes it's really just a guy screwing up vs the batter hitting a dinger. If you take the time to actually comprehend and look at what I'm pointing out it's that Curry is being randomly credited with the baseball equivalent of a good hit when really it's the defender just fumbling.

Kudos to him for being in the general area on some of those, but to credit him as being the engine of that particular play is simply foolish at best or disingenuous at worst. This is like saying we should give LeBron creation credit for throwing an outlet pass to a guy cherry picking on the other end while his defender trips on the floor. "B-b-b-but who cares if the defense tripped over itself and LeBron's teammate never ran back on defense, that's still creation because he passed the ball!" That's how you sound right now lmao.

LeBron didn't do anything special in that situation, he just happened to be there lmao and yet we're gonna give him a creation credit as if he was the one responsible for creating that scoring opportunity? Sounds pretty flawed to me. If we're talking about all time players here and grading them out against each other you need to be looking at what they did on the floor possession by possession that makes them stand out against other greats. I don't see any Rondo truthers stumbling over themselves to use his passes to a wide open Ray Allen coming off a pindown as evidence for why he was such a savant as a playmaker.

I don't think it's hard to see where it's reasonable to make a distinction in these scenarios otherwise you run the risk of the concept of these creation credits becoming meaningless if we come at it with the same laissez-faire approach you seem to be promoting.

So... by basically every stat ever created to track creation - LeBron does get at least some credit for 'creating' that look.

Eg the most basic of them all - the assist.

eminence wrote:

Heej wrote:

The-Power wrote:Most of the complaints here seem to include some version of ‘that was just a defensive mistake’ – but how do you think creation works? Defenders usually make mistakes that lead to scoring opportunities when offensive players take actions. In those cases, the ones responsible for causing the mistakes deserve creation credit irrespective of whether you think it was a silly mistake or bad defense.

That's not me saying that we should blindly trust any of the ensuing metrics or stop thinking critically, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to boil down to not giving credit to offensive players for being involved in actions that cause defenses to make mistakes or make certain choices, and I believe that to be a fundamentally flawed view.

If everyone just stands around, no creation is happening; the moment players do move around (with or without the ball), creation is happening. How to both validly and reliably allocate credit is a different question, and any solution will necessarily leave room for reasonable disagreement because that's almost an impossible task.

Yeah except this reply has no nuance to it whatsoever because some defensive breakdowns are simply a result of the defender making a low IQ decision as opposed to being forced into a precarious situation where the offensive player outmaneuvers their defenders.

You can look at it as the equivalent of "unforced errors" in baseball where sometimes it's really just a guy screwing up vs the batter hitting a dinger. If you take the time to actually comprehend and look at what I'm pointing out it's that Curry is being randomly credited with the baseball equivalent of a good hit when really it's the defender just fumbling.

Kudos to him for being in the general area on some of those, but to credit him as being the engine of that particular play is simply foolish at best or disingenuous at worst. This is like saying we should give LeBron creation credit for throwing an outlet pass to a guy cherry picking on the other end while his defender trips on the floor. "B-b-b-but who cares if the defense tripped over itself and LeBron's teammate never ran back on defense, that's still creation because he passed the ball!" That's how you sound right now lmao.

LeBron didn't do anything special in that situation, he just happened to be there lmao and yet we're gonna give him a creation credit as if he was the one responsible for creating that scoring opportunity? Sounds pretty flawed to me. If we're talking about all time players here and grading them out against each other you need to be looking at what they did on the floor possession by possession that makes them stand out against other greats. I don't see any Rondo truthers stumbling over themselves to use his passes to a wide open Ray Allen coming off a pindown as evidence for why he was such a savant as a playmaker.

I don't think it's hard to see where it's reasonable to make a distinction in these scenarios otherwise you run the risk of the concept of these creation credits becoming meaningless if we come at it with the same laissez-faire approach you seem to be promoting.

So... by basically every stat ever created to track creation - LeBron does get at least some credit for 'creating' that look.

Eg the most basic of them all - the assist.

"Notoriously one of the most perfect stats ever created" is what I presume you meant to say next? Otherwise this response is unnecessary and irrelevant

Based on the examples you provided, I agree. I don't think these plays are attributable to Steph. That said, I don't think it's a huge exaggeration, and I don't blame youtube creaters for small exaggerations. It helps get views. He's still one of(if not) the best basketball minds on youtube, and maybe on the internet.

Can you provide the examples for Bird/Jordan? You mention them too, but provide no examples, so I have to judge them separately and disagree for now.


That said, while I do think he's exaggerating the impact of some of those Curry plays, I really do think S tier off ball scorers like Curry, Jordan, Bird, and Durant create far more opportunities/baskets for their teammates than the box scores show.

Being great and needing the ball < Being great and not needing the ball

Maybe it’s not a preference, maybe it’s an acknowledgment of the value of the four other guys on the floor wearing the same color jersey and how an archetype can maximize them.

FYI - no, I didn’t look at the videos…details here don’t interest me. The archetype argument is way more valuable IMO.

Heej wrote:

70sFan wrote:I understand that people have some concerns about Ben methodology, but at the same time I wonder how many of you have ever tried to do even a basic basketball analysis. It's extremely complicated, time consuming and hard to make it work even in some cases.

Scepticism is very valuable, but I rarely hear any alternatives. Criticizing something requires knowledge, but positive solutions are much harder and often more valuable.

Lol I mean if it's breaking down film, I've personally gone out of my way to watch quite literally hours of free FIBA coaching clinics put on by actual world class professional coaches to understand the finer nuances of the game, along with just having watched hours of other people breaking down games before trying to dissect what's going on on the court. So I dunno if you're coming at me with that statement, but best believe I'm not the one.

I may not be keeping an Excel sheet tracking plays on a possession by possession basis but I guarantee I spend more time watching what's going on during the minutiae of possessions in an average game than pretty much anyone on RealGM. And I mean it doesn't even take much to see that some of these credits are overstated, particularly the one where Curry just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it lmao.

The only "solution" imo is for people that collaborate just like we do on this forum to collectively raise our understanding of what goes on in a basketball game. And as such I think it's fair to question what exactly is the reasoning or methodology behind some of Ben's analysis.

I don't know your background, so it wasn't directly about you. I know some people are very vocal Ben haters and they haven't tried to analyze one game in their lifes. I'm glad you are not one of them.

I agree it's fair to ask about the methodology. I think you raised a good point. What I would suggest (if you have good intentions) is just contact Ben. I said it before - Ben used to be PC Board member. He's not a celebrity from another planet. He's relatively easy to reach out and he's always kind. I think he will answer your questions. Unless you already tried that of course.

About positive solutions - the thing is that criticizing something is always easier to present your own work. I really get that there are things Ben overstates and I don't agree with him on many subjects, but in the end his work is still very valuable.

The last point isn't to you, but there are people who knows who I am talking to. I don't like looking at people accusing Ben of manipulating his methodology and not presenting any alternative. Maybe Ben got some things wrong, but is it really necessary to project a bad faith or blind bias here?