Transferring to new thread again:
Appreciate the detailed thoughts, as always. Some fair points in there; I'm going to respond to a few items for sake of clarity, discussion, and/or posterity (and since Isiah’s still on the table)......
Owly wrote:
A 1st place offense
... yeah.
But 19th of 23 in efg%.
Detroit got it with turnover economy and on the offensive glass.
Both probably not directly Isiah driven … indirectly can be debated.
wrt the bolded statement, I'd give you the offensive glass (though I do think the "Iverson Assist" is a real thing [to a degree], and it may apply somewhat to Isiah, too).
But turnover economy?....
So what you're saying is [seemingly]: the guy who has
by far the lion's share of the ball-handling responsibilities, who is the [1a/1b] co-leading scorer on the team, whilst simultaneously being 1st on the team in assists (and accruing more apg than 2nd-5th COMBINED), and doing all of these things while managing a
team-best mTOV% of 7.43% [Vinnie Johnson the only one close at 7.51%]----which is respectable for a PG even by modern standards; even moreso given this is in '84, when the league-wide regular TOV% was 15.0% (it has NEVER been that high since)---is, at best,
indirectly driving the team's league-best turnover economy?
Agree to disagree there.
I'll grant you this league-best offense wasn't any sort of all-timer (lot of parity that year). Though again: it's not exactly a super-loaded offensive supporting cast, either.
Owly wrote:Okay so impact. I think this is where we really differ ….
“So I view Isiah Thomas as the little better player overall, peak, prime, and overall career.
Baron has a few years where his RAPM is pretty impressive (as high as 7th in the league in '07, and 10th in '08, couple other years in the top 20; falls off from there).
We have less of this manner of data for Isiah, though we have Squared's partial season RAPM for '85, '88, and '91......
In '85 he's +2.05 (39th in league).
In '88 he's +2.75 (22nd in league).
In '91 he's +4.21 (7th in league).
And his prime WOWYR [Backpicks] is +4.6 (career figure falls off big-time because of large sample missed games in his final mostly ineffectual season).
So there's nothing here really differentiating them.”
So impact side …
Baron has actual … full season RAPM, full career RAPM and playoff data (including in that some RAPM data). We’ve got a couple of very strong seasons, more really good ones and an overall picture that despite including some very clearly outside prime years a ranking that put him 40th in extended era (97-14) with multiple players above limited in how much they played in sample (Muresan, Jordan, Schrempf, Beverley, Amir Johnson, Hornacek, Sabonis etc) and 19th in RAPM points above average in the era with most of those above him by that measure already in. It makes him being in the conversation seem … not unreasonable.
Thomas has … dribs and drabs.
The only career level number had him tied 448th in a list of 671 players.
It would be fair to note those players are generally notable.
It
is fair to note that his prime being stronger, it’s getting pulled down by longer absences in weaker years …
… but then for that career number to get pulled down to average some combination of the below must be true (the greater one, the less is required of another)
-The early late stuff must be really poor
-The sample on the in prime stuff must be small
You note elsewhere that there is uncertainty where Isiah's limited impact data is concerned. It's true. Though uncertainty does not mean the indications we DO have are
for certain wrong. And if it IS wrong or off, uncertainty goes BOTH ways (which you yourself stated).
However, your “tone” throughout appears to hedge toward saying the uncertainty only goes one way for Isiah: if it's off, it's off such that his actual impact was WORSE than indicated.
Fwiw, Taylor’s methodology on WOWYR has always been a bit of a puzzler for me, and I think it’s perhaps not without notable flaws.
For one, I can’t quite get a handle on WHAT he is calling Isiah’s prime. It says 1983 to 1993……I’m not sure if that is to include the ‘83 [that is: 1982-83] season, or starting AFTER that.
Further, it says the number of prime games played is 973; and I can’t figure out where that number comes from. From ‘83-’93, Isaih played 849 rs games; if we add in all the playoff games he played 960. If we count ALL the games the Pistons played [including the ones Isiah missed] in those years, it’s 902 rs games (1013 total).
So where does 973 come from?
I vaguely recall that he used some minute threshold (like if a player didn’t play X number of minutes, the game doesn’t count toward the sample; and I recall a few isolated instances where it seemed like this skewed things). But that doesn’t seem like it could be it either, because his FULL CAREER sample apparently contains just 1026 games (that’s only 53 more than the prime sample).......whereas he played an additional
130 games in those two additional seasons [‘82 and ‘94], and the Pistons played 164 more.
As a side-note: if he is using playoff games to beef up sample sizes, this conceivably skews against guys frequently making deep playoff runs (because naturally the “with” sample in a given year is likely to look less and less impressive [because of the tougher the competition faced therein]).
At any rate, one must ask himself how adding a mere 53 additional games to the sample can skew the score from +4.6 all the way down to +0.8? Especially considering ONE of the two years [‘82] added to the sample to reach that full-career figure is actually substantially positive from a WOWY standpoint (more on that to follow).
This phenomenon should [imo] immediately call the career figure into question, yet you seem quite confident it’s not a mirage, all while being perfectly confident in Baron’s playoff rising ability. It sort of seems like you believe, for instance, that Baron’s playoff shooting efficiency [50 game sample] of 54.8% TS is the real deal, while it’s the career rs [835 game sample] of 50.2% TS that is the mirage…..even though within single-seasons the playoff sample that never exceeded 11 games and: a) his FTAr is better than his in-season rs standard in SIX of seven of those playoff appearances (is TWICE higher than his CAREER BEST), b) he shoots BETTER than his in-year rs standard from the FT-line in SIX of seven playoff appearances (the ONLY year in which he did NOT exceed his rs standard in BOTH FTAr and FT% was a 4-game [4 FT] sample in his rookie year), and c) he shoots better than his
career-best 3pt% in both of his longest playoff runs.
Basically he’s hitting %’s that he’d established are NOT long-term sustainable for him.
Anyway, let’s take a “less granular” look at Isiah’s WOWY....
Isiah WOWY (I counted HCA as worth 3pts for my SRS calculations, btw)
‘82: 36-36 (.500) with, 3-7 (.300) without
-0.25 SRS with, -3.40 SRS without
‘83: 37-44 (.457) with, 0-1 without
-0.13 SRS with, -3.80 SRS without
‘84: 49-33 (.598) with
‘85: 46-35 (.568) with, 0-1 without
+2.81 SRS with, -3.83 SRS without
‘86: 45-32 (.584) with, 1-4 (.200) without
+1.90 SRS with, -5.63 SRS without
108.83 ORtg with, 111.68 ORtg without
107.13 DRtg with, 119.72 DRtg without
‘87: 52-29 (.642) with, 0-1 without
+3.65 SRS with, -6.96 SRS without
109.2 ORtg with, 106.5 ORtg without
105.6 DRtg with, 120 DRtg without
***EVERY year in which there is missed time reflects positively on him.
TOTAL in his first six seasons: 265-209 (.559), +1.96 SRS with him......4-14 (.222), -4.26 SRS without him.
That's
fantastically positive overall so far.
The largest in-season absence we have is in his rookie year. He's not yet even in his prime (this is a CLEARLY lesser year than the next 9-10 seasons he would have); and yet he seems to have an effect of +16-17 wins and +3.15 SRS. (one could also note the jump the Pistons take from ‘81 prior to his arrival, though he wasn’t the only arrival).
The next-biggest without sample is admittedly small [5 games], occurring nearer to his peak. There he appears to impact to the tune of +31-32 wins and +7.43 SRS (though again: only 5-game without sample).
The others are just single-game samples in three other years (though curiously ALL showing positive impact, fwiw); tbf, Kelly Tripucka was also absent that one loss in '85 (though Tripucka missed a full third of the season that year, so his absences are affecting a good chunk of Isiah's "with" sample, too).
So through six years, including his peak and the bulk of his prime, things are looking really strong. What happened after that? Let's look year-by-year.....
'8853-28 (.654) with, **1-0 without
+5.22 SRS with, +25.02 SRS without
110.5 ORtg with, 108.1 ORtg without
105.7 DRtg with, 73.7 DRtg without
**That one win they played at home against a basement-level team who also happened to be missing
TWO of their starters.....and blew them out by 35. (this would cause some degree of damage to his prime WOWYR figure)
'8961-19 (.763) with, **2-0 without
+6.06 SRS with, +13.56 SRS without
110.4 ORtg with, 127.2 ORtg without
104.6 DRtg with, 108.7 DRtg without
**One of the two wins was against a mediocre/weak Bullets team that appears to have written the game off, barely playing some of their starters. It was a blowout, and they likely sat them the fourth quarter because it was garbage time, but they were obviously not playing them even prior: Bernard King played just 14 minutes, for example; Terry Catledge and Jeff Malone just 17 each. The Pistons, for whatever reason, showed no such caution and/or mercy: even though they led by 24 at the end of the 3rd quarter, Dumars played 39 minutes, Aguirre 37, Laimbeer 35.
The Pistons blew them away by 24.
This too hurts Isiah's
prime WOWYR figure.
'9059-22 (.728) with, 0-1 without
+5.62 SRS with, -11.55 SRS without
110.1 ORtg with, 96.0 ORtg without
103.4 DRtg with, 108.5 DRtg without
(there are no special extenuating circumstances about that one loss)
'9131-17 (.646) with, 19-15 (.559) without
(there were no other notable or lengthy absences in their primary cast outside of Isiah)
'9244-34 (.564) [+1.58 SRS] with, 4-0 [+11.42 SRS] without
'9340-39 (.506) [-0.66 SRS] with, 0-3 [-12.73 SRS] without
Just want to pause here because we're through the all but his final injury-hit twilight season (and realistically, his prime was over by '92, at the latest [I personally think he was post-prime by '92]), our sample is now 63 games, and it has generally reflected extremely positive on his presence so far:
Collectively with him: 553-368 (.600), +2.73 SRS [SRS not including '91].
Collectively without him: 30-33 (.476), -1.34 SRS [SRS not including '91].
^^^This despite those figures including at least two non-prime seasons.
He missed 1 or more games in 11 of 12 seasons, and the result indicates positive impact [at times, overwhelmingly so] in eight of those 11 years.
The three negative years are a 1-game sample, a 2-game sample, and a 4-game sample, respectively; and ALL except the 4-game sample [which arguably occurs post-prime] have extenuating circumstances around why it was negative.
The biggest single-season sample ['91] shows small-moderate impact (sorry, I didn't calculate SRS for that one; but +7.2 wins on to an already good playoff-ready team (decidedly past his peak, too)).
The 2nd-biggest sample ['82] shows moderately strong impact, even though he wasn't even in his prime.
The 3rd-biggest sample ['86], although only a 5-game sample, indicates superstar impact (and I searched those games for extenuating circumstances [persons missing from roster(s)]: there aren't any).
So in the three largest one-year samples, anywhere between small-moderate to superstar impact is indicated.
Truly, is there any reason to believe his impact is a mirage up to this point? I feel like if you approached this with a positive outlook and expectation, you'd see this and say, "Well, there it is: I was right about him."
But when approaching with negative outlook and expectation you view it with something that goes beyond mere skepticism; more like suspicion (or even doubt and disbelief), in a manner that you absolutely wouldn't do with all players.
Then things crash in his final season, both because the '94 Pistons were awful (dragging his "with" sample down through the mud), and because they actually do marginally better without him....
'9414-44 (.241) with, 6-18 (.250) without (sorry, I don't have SRS)
His full career is: 567-412 (.579) with, 36-51 (.414) without, fwiw.
Again: the only two years apparently (questionable, based on number of games cited) not included in his prime WOWYR sample are ‘82 and ‘94. Based on the fact that ‘94 is sort of a neutral (not significantly better or worse with him), while ‘82 is an obvious [and substantial] positive impact, and his career WOWYR nonetheless falls off a cliff probably demonstrates that the simple fact of the .241 win% in the “with” sample for this final year drags things down substantially (even though they’re not any better without him).
Owly wrote:So you seem to be calling this about a tie “there's nothing here really differentiating them.” My thinking is this a pretty clear advantage for Davis.
I guess we’re seeing things differently. I see:
*a prime WOWYR which [you noted yourself] exceeds Baron’s by +1.1. The career figure appearing weird and questionable to me, seeing that two seasons being added [to 11 others]—-one season where they did no better/no worse with him, the other where they did notably better with him—somehow drops his WOWYR by -3.7????
**the above less granular WOWY data, which is largely [very] positive.
***that Baron’s peak rank in RAPM was 7th in the league, and on the partial season data we have of Isiah he also once ranked 7th in the league. Baron’s full career is covered by RAPM, and his best 7 seasons averages to +3.54; his best 10 years averages +3.04. In the ONLY three partial seasons we have of Isiah, he averages just over +3.00.
…..So yeah, I’m not seeing a ton of distinction here. I certainly don’t see any sort of “pretty clear advantage for Davis.”
Owly wrote:[re: playoff rising] More faith … in what though?
That it’s not a mirage. I went into this in part above wrt his shooting efficiency (basically not sustainable for him).
Owly wrote:Even leaving aside the impact side stuff providing greater surety in Baron …
Again: I don’t see it that way.
Owly wrote:“Deep runs” … Detroit played out of 16 of 23 for a spell. First rounds would on average then tend to allow softer teams if you were good … idk if this materializes IRL here.
True. Though the teams they had to dispatch in
the 2nd round (to actually make a legitimately “deep” run) were:
‘87: 57 wins, +7.18 SRS
‘88: 50 wins, +3.76 SRS
‘89: 49 wins, +4.11 SRS
‘90: 45 wins, +0.78 SRS
‘91: 56 wins, +5.22 SRS
Owly wrote:Narrative?
Okay …
What happened is what happened.
Narrative isn’t really that much of what happened. Or entirely things that did happen.
I’m not sure what the “hypotheticals” you’re arguing against are.
Isiah was a part of the Pistons success. I don’t think that is disputed. The degree is what we’re looking at.
The hypotheticals or speculations I refer to is the way it’s sometimes stated “so and so wouldn’t have won so much if he hadn’t been in such and such favourable circumstance”. (You know….the thing that comes up in basically every single Duncan vs Garnett or Duncan vs Hakeem or Duncan vs anyone debate).
Isiah had substantially more team success. That, as you say, cannot be disputed.
When we say we’re trying to figure out who “impacts winning more”, we are in essence attempting to say “so and so would have won just as much [or more] if he’d had as fortunate of circumstances”. When we distill it down, is that not more or less what one is saying when he says Player A [who lacked team success] had greater impact than Player B [who had lots of team success, and for whom we lack [to a degree] impact data]?
But that’s speculation. What happened is not.
And try as we might, we’ll never be exactly certain of the “degree” to which he was a part of that success.
Owly wrote:** Narrative side point – I’d argue Gus Williams should be important to the NBA “narrative”. He’s the most productive guy on a 2x finalist and 1 time champ. But it’s a less glamorous story, he wasn’t as high a pick, it’s a less celebrated, less filmed era…
He also won one chip less, and the one he got was in a softer era. That factors into the narrative aspect.
And actually—since you noted the “16 of 23” thing wrt the Pistons (was 16 of 25, btw, in both championship years)---we might also point out the Sonics only had to get past 2 rounds to make it to the finals, dispatching a 47-win (+2.95 SRS) team and a 50-win (+3.55 SRS) team (no one as good as what the Pistons faced in the 2nd round 4 out of 5 years, and not as good as almost any of the opponents they faced in later rounds [‘90 Bulls being one potential exception: 55 wins, +2.74 SRS]).
Then the team they had to beat in the Finals was just a 54-win, +4.75 SRS team (not as good as either team the Pistons beat in the Finals).
Owly wrote:Narrative side point 2 – Isiah’s importance has been, overplayed in retrospect. There are people that will tell you that he’s top 20 or I think only behind Magic among points.
Oh, I
completely agree with that. But we’re well past the point were the casual masses think he ought to be (by like 20+ places, as you say).
And I don’t think he should be top 50. Top 60, though, I’d generally be on board with that. And I’d be resolutely against him being outside the top 75 (just as I’d be resolutely against him being within sniffing distance of the top 30).
Owly wrote:Looking at how much worse Davis’s teams were without him
‘00-’02: 139-107 (.565) with
‘03: 28-22 (.560) with, 19-13 (.594) without
‘04: 36-31 (.537) with, 5-10 (.333) without [noteworthy that David Wesley missed 7 of Baron’s without sample, too [i.e. whole starting backcourt gone]; they were 2-5 (.286) when missing both, 3-5 (.375) when missing only Baron]
‘05 (NOH [before trading him]): 3-15 (.167) with, 8-28 (.222) without
‘05 (GSW [after getting him]): 18-10 (.643) with [which was a turnaround for them]
‘06: 23-31 (.426) with, 11-17 (.393) without
‘07: 36-27 (.571) with, 6-13 (.316) without
‘08: 48-34 (.585) with
‘09: 17-48 (.262) with, 2-15 (.118) without
‘10: 27-48 (.360) with, 2-5 (.286) without
‘11 (LAC [before trading him]): 18-25 (.419) with, 3-12 (.200) without
‘11 (CLE [after getting him]): 6-9 (.400) with, 3-7 (.300) without
‘12: 16-13 (.552) with, 20-17 (.541) without
Full career: 415-420 (.497) with, 79-137 (.366) without
This doesn’t look notably better than what I showed above for Isiah (or arguably even
quite as good).
Owly wrote:“short dynasty” I’m including short for fairness. I don’t think it’s a dynasty. Of any kind. The team happened to win 2 titles. I don’t think they were that great. Even if it mattered to my evaluation of the player (it doesn’t) and I had to do it just off titles I wouldn’t call a two title team dynastic.
Didn’t I include “short” myself?
Anyway, this is semantics, not really wanting to debate it. Suffice to say they were not a flash in the pan. They legitimately contended for at least 3 (arguably as many as 4-5) seasons in a row [winning 2 titles, making it as far as the Finals THREE times], and the ‘89 squad ranking as the 28th-best team off all-time in Sansterre’s list.
Owly wrote: 1) Is narrative a criterion on your list (and should it be)?
Sort of?.....
Rather it’s things indirectly related to narrative, such as popularity, gamesmanship, innovation, etc. Quoting from my post on the Official Criteria Thread:
There are a few other factors that [to a lesser degree] go into my ranking of players, other than just a semi-measurable assessment of career value. One such thing is imprint/influence left upon the game or game culture itself. Players such as Bob Cousy, Bill Russell, George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Pete Maravich, Earl Monroe, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, and Steph Curry all come to mind where this is concerned.
These are all guys who in some way altered the course of professional basketball. Whether it was by pioneering a new skillset or pushing the envelope of what's possible in an existing skill, being a positional prototype, altering game philosophy, forcing rule changes, changing the aesthetics and/or simply inspiring the imagination of fans and young players (maybe altering the skillsets they pursue) and boosting global popularity of the game, etc etc…...these are ways in which a single player may shift the course of the game.
Anyway, I suspect we’ll have to just agree to disagree on much of this. I don’t view the impact data as clearly favouring Baron.
And where you keep leaning on his impact metrics, expressing trust in his impact (because look: RAPM) while doubting Isiah’s…….you haven’t actually expressed much in terms of game evaluation: like WHAT specifically you think Baron does so much better that accounts for “clearly” better impact.
You mentioned you think he’s better defensively, I guess. Though I’m not sure this could be seen as a seismic shift.
What else?
I’d allow that in raw terms, he probably gets to the rim more: 30.3% of his attempts came at the rim. Though can’t say for sure [could be wrong]; and fwiw Isiah gets to the FT-line more (where he also shoots better).
And even if Baron does get to the rim more, how much of that is influenced by era dynamics (spacing, hand-checking officiating, etc)? On a level playing field would he?
And does he finish better? Again, we can’t know. Though I’ll say that for all the highlight dunks you can find of Baron Davis, he actually
wasn’t that great a finisher at the rim (even for a PG): career 57.8% finisher, 58.4% for his prime, peaked at 66.5% in his limited-minute rookie season (66.3% otherwise; though his 3rd-best year drops all the way to 60.9%).
Compare that to a legit GOOD/(elite??) PG finisher, Gary Payton (missing some of his young athletic early years): career [‘97 onward] 64.7% finisher, peaking at 73.9% (and on marginally HIGHER proportion of his attempts).
Or even Steve Nash: career 63.9%, 65.0% in his prime, peaking at 74.0% (albeit on lower proportion).
Or Steph Curry: 65.1% for his career, 66.6% in his prime, peaking at 76.0% (though also on lower proportion).
Baron’s no better finishing than Allen Iverson; he’s marginally closer to Kirk Hinrich than he is to Gary Payton, and more or less evenly between Payton and Chauncey Billups (mentioned because Billups and Hinrich were noted BAD finishers). So there’s no guarantee he’s actually better attacking the rim than Isiah.
We’ve already established he’s worse in the mid-range.
3pt shooting is hard to compare due to vast differences in era emphasis (though I don’t think either is blowing the doors off the other).
Playmaking? Debatable, but I go with Isiah, personally.
Rebounding is a negligible difference (small edge to Baron in rs, which interesting vanishes and turns to negligible edge to Isiah in the playoffs).
So if he’s inherently so much more valuable and impactful, HOW is that transpiring?
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69362242/1233176799.0.jpg)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54441341/usa_today_10030059.0.jpg)
