RealGM

Using a bunch of publicly available data, I devised a method to balance peak vs longevity for defensive centers.

Nothing too fancy, but it seems to pass the sniff test on first glance.

1. Bill Russell. Actually broke my model. Not much else to say that hasn't been said about Bill Russell already.

2. Hakeem Olajuwon.
3. David Robinson

4. Ben Wallace. Highest non Russell peak.
5. Dikembe Mutombo. A hair behind Wallace.

6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Tree Rollins These 2 actually tied, with Wilt being ahead as he had the better peak. But Rollins has some crazy longevity stats.
8. Mark Eaton
9. Patrick Ewing. Another tie, between Eaton and Ewing, with Eaton's higher peak getting the nod.
10. Marcus Camby. Another longevity giant.
11. Manute Bol.
12. Rudy Gobert. I think Rudy will pass Manute and possibly Camby if he continues to have the season he's having.
13. Shawn Bradley
14. Andrew Bogut
15. George Johnson
16. Kareem Abdul Jabbar. A tie between KAJ and Johnson. Again, Johnson a slightly higher peak.
17. Dwight Howard
18. Alonzo Mourning. Another tie between D12 and Zo. Slight edge to D12 for peak.
19. Artis Gilmore
20. Theo Ratliff. One last tie. Artis gets the nod for peak.


A few players who I'm surprised didn't make the cut.

23. Bill Walton. Not enough longevity
26. Thurmond, MIkan, Cowens all tied.

Anyways, let me know your thoughts below. I've still got to work on the other positions.

Duncan and KG are both PF’s. But Duncan would be 3rd on the list if he was a C.

Walton I understand since he was injured so often. But Thurmond in the 20s? That's a surprise right there.

trelos6 wrote:

Spoiler:

Using a bunch of publicly available data, I devised a method to balance peak vs longevity for defensive centers.

Nothing too fancy, but it seems to pass the sniff test on first glance.

1. Bill Russell. Actually broke my model. Not much else to say that hasn't been said about Bill Russell already.

2. Hakeem Olajuwon.
3. David Robinson

4. Ben Wallace. Highest non Russell peak.
5. Dikembe Mutombo. A hair behind Wallace.

6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Tree Rollins These 2 actually tied, with Wilt being ahead as he had the better peak. But Rollins has some crazy longevity stats.
8. Mark Eaton
9. Patrick Ewing. Another tie, between Eaton and Ewing, with Eaton's higher peak getting the nod.
10. Marcus Camby. Another longevity giant.
11. Manute Bol.
12. Rudy Gobert. I think Rudy will pass Manute and possibly Camby if he continues to have the season he's having.
13. Shawn Bradley
14. Andrew Bogut
15. George Johnson
16. Kareem Abdul Jabbar. A tie between KAJ and Johnson. Again, Johnson a slightly higher peak.
17. Dwight Howard
18. Alonzo Mourning. Another tie between D12 and Zo. Slight edge to D12 for peak.
19. Artis Gilmore
20. Theo Ratliff. One last tie. Artis gets the nod for peak.


A few players who I'm surprised didn't make the cut.

23. Bill Walton. Not enough longevity
26. Thurmond, MIkan, Cowens all tied.

Anyways, let me know your thoughts below. I've still got to work on the other positions.

Duncan and KG are both PF’s. But Duncan would be 3rd on the list if he was a C.

Looks like a pretty good list. Which data were you using and how did you weigh peak and longevity, respectively?

My first thought is it needs minutes more strongly weighted (possibly team results as well). Manute at #11 is just setting off alarm bells.

I'm curious as to how you're measuring longevity - Tree Rollins as an example has a good number of years played, but what he contributed after leaving Atlanta is minimal at most. I would say Wilt had significantly better longevity than Tree (approximately twice the career minutes).

Dwight is too low on your list.

3 time defensive player of the year. 5 time all defensive team.

Plus lakers don’t win that bubble ring without his contributions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most of the list is solid, but I don't get Thurmond rank...

I think long term RAPM stuff (looking 97-14, 97-22) has Camby as more a good defender than a great one. He's also more longevity of years than of minutes (1 year over 2500 minutes, though 9 between 2400 and 1850 - for 28684 minutes total).

Rollins too on longevity is more seasons than minutes (24028) more due to fouls at the start of his career, then age 33-39 is as a deep(ish) reserve (including being activated from an assistant coach position on Orlando, as I recall).


Mikan came to mind as an absence otoh, though it's harder to tell the further back you go. As has been noted, Thurmond looks low eyeballing it.

eminence wrote:My first thought is it needs minutes more strongly weighted (possibly team results as well). Manute at #11 is just setting off alarm bells.

I'm curious as to how you're measuring longevity - Tree Rollins as an example has a good number of years played, but what he contributed after leaving Atlanta is minimal at most. I would say Wilt had significantly better longevity than Tree (approximately twice the career minutes).

Depends what your replacement level is for this.

Bol will definitely be much higher in per possession (or per minute) than accumulated value.

But otoh (so absolutely don't just trust me on this) I think the Philly on-off stuff suggested he really nuked both offenses. Like a 10 (+? I want to say more) point swing per 100 possessions. And Andrew Lang was the alternate one year who himself was very much a defensive specialist.

Looking at it the Lang year was much weaker.

His defensive Net (difference between on and off) were
91: -14.0
92: -17.1
93: -1.8
94: -14.6 (tiny "on" sample)
overall: -10.7

I don't know what those numbers look like for all players. You have to account for replacements etc.
Bol's minutes are very low (11698 career RS)
He might be the sort of guy who hurts more in the RS if you're not planning for him given he's such an outlier.
It would also depend if you're using a CORP-ish model if you curve exponentially when evaluating one end (like shaving 10+ points per 100 off the opponents really helps your title chances in a vacuum ... it's attached to an offensive player that negates that though).

So IDK. Minutes definitely really hurt. I'm just saying depending on the model if you're hurting offenses so much that value could pile up quick.

Owly wrote:

eminence wrote:My first thought is it needs minutes more strongly weighted (possibly team results as well). Manute at #11 is just setting off alarm bells.

I'm curious as to how you're measuring longevity - Tree Rollins as an example has a good number of years played, but what he contributed after leaving Atlanta is minimal at most. I would say Wilt had significantly better longevity than Tree (approximately twice the career minutes).

Depends what your replacement level is for this.

Bol will definitely be much higher in per possession (or per minute) than accumulated value.

But otoh (so absolutely don't just trust me on this) I think the Philly on-off stuff suggested he really nuked both offenses. Like a 10 (+? I want to say more) point swing per 100 possessions. And Andrew Lang was the alternate one year who himself was very much a defensive specialist.

Looking at it the Lang year was much weaker.

His defensive Net (difference between on and off) were
91: -14.0
92: -17.1
93: -1.8
94: -14.6 (tiny "on" sample)
overall: -10.7

I don't know what those numbers look like for all players. You have to account for replacements etc.
Bol's minutes are very low (11698 career RS)
He might be the sort of guy who hurts more in the RS if you're not planning for him given he's such an outlier.
It would also depend if you're using a CORP-ish model if you curve exponentially when evaluating one end (like shaving 10+ points per 100 off the opponents really helps your title chances in a vacuum ... it's attached to an offensive player that negates that though).

So IDK. Minutes definitely really hurt. I'm just saying depending on the model if you're hurting offenses so much that value could pile up quick.

I absolutely believe/agree Manute was an all-timer of a specialist (numbers support it). But I don't think a 'Corp-ish' style makes any sense at all to apply to only one end of the game for a guy who quite literally couldn't stay on the court when his team needed him (reading 'Corp-ish' as curving numbers up exponentially). Not one of those Philly defenses made it to above average (the '93 team well below that).

I'm assuming you're using a data driven approach which explains why Camby is too high (jumps out of position to block shots) whereas someone like Cowens who I see as the original Draymond/KG style defender is underrated. Overall hard to capture D with numbers alone especially for old players.

I'm assuming you're using a data driven approach which explains why Camby is too high

Why single out Camby? He's a one time DPOY, 2 time all-defensive 1st team, 2 time all-defensive 2nd team.

If you lower his ranking then both Shawn Bradley and Manute Bol would be ranked higher than him. Neither of them has a DPOY award, Bradley was never named to an all-defensive team, and Bol was named just once, and only to an all-defensive 2nd team.

kcktiny wrote:

I'm assuming you're using a data driven approach which explains why Camby is too high

Why single out Camby? He's a one time DPOY, 2 time all-defensive 1st team, 2 time all-defensive 2nd team.

If you lower his ranking then both Shawn Bradley and Manute Bol would be ranked higher than him. Neither of them has a DPOY award, Bradley was never named to an all-defensive team, and Bol was named just once, and only to an all-defensive 2nd team.

Because Camby is notorious for being less than his boxscore and that DPoY as being depending on the person as dubious/an error/a joke.

I'd be towards the kinder end (well, probably the middle) but say ... versus Garnett

'07 Timberwolves: Drtg Garnett ON: 106.2
'07 Timberwolves: Drtg Garnett OFF: 112.5
dif: -6.3

'07 Nuggets: Drtg Camby ON: 106.9
'07 Nuggets: Drtg Camby OFF: 105.0
dif: +1.9

Not only are Denver performing worse on D in the minutes with Camby on than those when he's off (versus a substantial reduction of opponents efficiency for Garnett) but even those Timberwolves with Garnett (who is simultaneously playing more minutes and shouldering a larger offensive load) on the court are better than the Nuggets with Camby on.

Now there will be differences of lineup context of the sort that RAPM tries to solve for and whilst I couldn't find an NPI version from a source I trust Googlesites PI version for that year has Garnett as the DRAPM leader whilst Camby is circa 29th to 31st (tied to 1dp) and below fellow Nugget Nene.

Camby plays 2369 minutes this season.


Put simply awards is a bad way of doing this, especially in an era where we have impact data. And Camby ... simply wasn't the best or most valuable defensive player.


As above minutes will hurt Bol and to a lesser degree Bradley. And depending on your assumed replacement level one can come up with very different orders for this type of list. So I'm not taking a strong stance on who should be where. That said Bradley has long term signal for big defensive impact from 97-14 DRAPM, plus WoWY type analysis in '94 and Bol's +/- and on off data from the 76ers also show big defensive impact. That they happen to have less accolades gives an idea what some people thought (and might lead us to look at potentially differing levels of competition in the broader context) but it doesn't affect the reality of the data suggesting substantial impact.

Using a bunch of publicly available data, I devised a method to balance peak vs longevity for defensive centers.

Hard to argue with your list. All 20 are great selections. I too think Thurmond belongs but it's hard to choose who to omit.

Because Camby is notorious for being less than his boxscore

Is that a fact. This you expressing an opinion?

and that DPoY as being depending on the person as dubious/an error/a joke.

So the sportswriters and broadcasters that voted Camby as DPOY by a landslide vote in 2006-07 were in your opinion not coherent? Not serious in their voting? As a group these voters who watched far more NBA games at that time than either you or I just blew it?

FWI in 2006-07 Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, and Ben Wallace all played more minutes than did Camby. Yet in these voters' eyes it wasn't even close.

You do realize that from 2004-05 to 2007-08 NBA head coaches also named Camby to the all-defensive team (two 1sts, two 2nds), including to the 1st team in 2006-07, when he was voted DPOY. You know, those individuals that game planned against Denver on a nightly basis. They watched a lot of games, and a lot of game film.

'07 Timberwolves: Drtg Garnett ON: 106.2
'07 Timberwolves: Drtg Garnett OFF: 112.5
dif: -6.3

'07 Nuggets: Drtg Camby ON: 106.9
'07 Nuggets: Drtg Camby OFF: 105.0
dif: +1.9

Whoops, should have guessed it. Another on/off plus/minus adherent. One who just forgets how unreliable RAPM is in a single season sampling.

Put simply awards is a bad way of doing this, especially in an era where we have impact data.

Oh we get it. Forget what the experts of the time, those who watched the NBA for a living, had to say, "we" plus/minus fervent devotees know better now.

Yes, it's a bad way when it conflicts with your mathematical concoction some 15-20 years down the road.

And Camby... simply wasn't the best or most valuable defensive player.

You understand the concept of a landslide vote? Or being named to the all-defensive team four years running, voted on by NBA coaches? Evidently not.

but it doesn't affect the reality of the data suggesting substantial impact.

Here we are, the crux of the problem. This mathematical concoction is your true reality. When it conflicts with what occurred what occurred has to be wrong.

kcktiny wrote:

I'm assuming you're using a data driven approach which explains why Camby is too high

Why single out Camby? He's a one time DPOY, 2 time all-defensive 1st team, 2 time all-defensive 2nd team.

If you lower his ranking then both Shawn Bradley and Manute Bol would be ranked higher than him. Neither of them has a DPOY award, Bradley was never named to an all-defensive team, and Bol was named just once, and only to an all-defensive 2nd team.

This isn’t 20-25 years ago when people based their opinions primarily on what other people thought.

kcktiny wrote:So the sportswriters and broadcasters that voted Camby as DPOY by a landslide vote in 2006-07 were in your opinion not coherent? Not serious in their voting? As a group these voters who watched far more NBA games at that time than either you or I just blew it?

FWI in 2006-07 Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, and Ben Wallace all played more minutes than did Camby. Yet in these voters' eyes it wasn't even close.

You do realize that from 2004-05 to 2007-08 NBA head coaches also named Camby to the all-defensive team (two 1sts, two 2nds), including to the 1st team in 2006-07, when he was voted DPOY. You know, those individuals that game planned against Denver on a nightly basis. They watched a lot of games, and a lot of game film

Are these the same sports writers and broadcasters who have also made choices for all-defense teams that do not stand up to even the slightest bit of statistical scrutiny? Camby should not have been the defensive player of the year this let alone by a landslide.

kcktiny wrote:Whoops, should have guessed it. Another on/off plus/minus adherent. One who just forgets how unreliable RAPM is in a single season sampling.

He didn’t cite RAPM, but rather simple on off numbers—the fact that you don’t know this takes away from the credibility of any point that you’re trying to make down here…

kcktiny wrote:Oh we get it. Forget what the experts of the time, those who watched the NBA for a living, had to say, "we" plus/minus fervent devotees know better now.

Yes, it's a bad way when it conflicts with your mathematical concoction some 15-20 years down the road.

A final score is a “mathematical concoction,” too. Also, are these the same experts who voted a Kobe Bryant who had become a negative defender on to all-defensive teams?

kcktiny wrote:You understand the concept of a landslide vote? Or being named to the all-defensive team four years running, voted on by NBA coaches? Evidently not.

but it doesn't affect the reality of the data suggesting substantial impact.

Here we are, the crux of the problem. This mathematical concoction is your true reality. When it conflicts with what occurred what occurred has to be wrong.

What exactly “occurred” that’s different than the mathematical reality? What’s the “true reality” as opposed to the “mathematical reality”? How do you quantify what “occurred“?

kcktiny wrote:

Because Camby is notorious for being less than his boxscore

Is that a fact. This you expressing an opinion?

Technically, I haven't done a survey so I guess an opinion. If you want we can set up a poll here and ask, "Was Marcus Camby as good as his blocks and steals indicate?" though technically that would only give us whether this place thinks he is rather than if he's "notorious" for it.

But I'm pretty confident people don't think that Marcus Camby's defensive boxscore should be taken straight up. Or people would be talking about him as better than Duncan on that end.

kcktiny wrote:

and that DPoY as being depending on the person as dubious/an error/a joke.

So the sportswriters and broadcasters that voted Camby as DPOY by a landslide vote in 2006-07 were in your opinion not coherent? Not serious in their voting? As a group these voters who watched far more NBA games at that time than either you or I just blew it?

I don't know what coherent has to do with it. (Coherent in that they could get their words out and the votes could be read? Coherent in that they all got together and had a discussion so that the outcome isn't just the aggregation of individual opinions -i.e. a vote? I honestly don't know what coherence has to do with anything here.)
Not serious ... depends what you mean. Do I think anonymous voters gave a great deal of thought about an unpaid job. No honestly.
"As a group" the children in grade one in your local elementary school have probably practiced more arithmetic than you or I recently. That's just saying there's more of them (not that they're better at the thing). But honestly I don't know how much writers in a given year watched guys other than their beat or how many had a national cover. I don't know how much each's expertise was foremost in understanding basketball more than in writing (or broadcasting). I don't know how many were basketball specialists. I don't know how many seriously thought about defense and how it could be measured.

Mark Jackson, a guy with serious coaching aspirations, left Jokic of his MVP ballot last year. In an era when they are open, public votes. Where doing so made him a national story who had to apologize. Imagine how much easier it would be to vote lazily with no transparency, less name exposure in general, for lower prestige award.

Hollinger has said on the record that he knew of a person whose MVP vote was influenced by how nice the players were in interviews.

Somebody thought Kelvin Ransey was the best player in the NBA one year.

Award voting ... if you've got nothing else ... sure. If you've you've got much better tools then someone's voting opinion, without justification or transparency ... I can't justify that taking precedence over direct measures of what is happening on court.

kcktiny wrote:FWI in 2006-07 Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, and Ben Wallace all played more minutes than did Camby. Yet in these voters' eyes it wasn't even close.

So don't think you can support the latter statement.

If I ask a million people "100+1 or 101+1 which is bigger?" I hope I'd get something like 1 million to zero for 101+1. But I couldn't say in "in these peoples eyes it wasn't even close". All would presumably know that the difference is only 1.

What you may mean, and could accurately say is the aggregation of the votes cast isn't close. But that is something very different from "in the voters eyes" which implies a mind and considered margin.

And I don't think highlighting how Camby played less minutes makes his victory more compelling. It makes it more dubious.

kcktiny wrote:You do realize that from 2004-05 to 2007-08 NBA head coaches also named Camby to the all-defensive team (two 1sts, two 2nds), including to the 1st team in 2006-07, when he was voted DPOY. You know, those individuals that game planned against Denver on a nightly basis. They watched a lot of games, and a lot of game film.

Coaches should know more ...

There are stories about who actually fills in those ballots.

And there are also league sources that call some votes a joke. Michael Williams, all D for example.

There is also considerable evidence of lazy voting off reputation (e.g. Payton, Bryant).

But regardless the case hasn't been that Camby wasn't a good defender in general but with regard to a specific year and him getting the DPoY.

kcktiny wrote:

'07 Timberwolves: Drtg Garnett ON: 106.2
'07 Timberwolves: Drtg Garnett OFF: 112.5
dif: -6.3

'07 Nuggets: Drtg Camby ON: 106.9
'07 Nuggets: Drtg Camby OFF: 105.0
dif: +1.9

Whoops, should have guessed it. Another on/off plus/minus adherent. One who just forgets how unreliable RAPM is in a single season sampling.

Impact side stuff (though this isn't RAPM, which is tangentially cited) is noisy in a single season. Fwiw, as noted by me in an earlier post longer term impact stuff sees Camby as more good than great.

For what it's worth though the above offers multiple angles to conclude Garnett is better, several of which you cut. Minny better with Garnett than Denver with Camby is crude but given the state of Minnesota's roster.

Or the on/off difference being so large.

Or just Denver being not insignificantly worse in the minutes with him on ... note how I've avoided phrasing that say he caused that but ... wouldn't you like some signal that the best defender in the league, one who missed significant time forcing not only his backup but the backups to his backup into the rotation ... that he's making them better on that end. It's been discussed in here how much signal there was for Bol altering a defense (or opponent's offense). So even with strong defensive bigs around him it's hard for me to fathom the best defensive player saw his team play worse defense with him on, despite an injury to ensure a decent off sample and to force deeper rotation players into the off sample. Criteria can differ but I'd argue that absence (and more broadly lower minute total) hurts the defensive value provided and so hurts his case too.

Fwiw, regarding "single season noise" and given I did tangentially cite RAPM for the specific year, which you've cut ... as noted I could only get a PI version. So whilst less directly a measure of the specific year, the priors do help pull Camby up and help mitigate noise by effectively drawing from a larger sample.

kcktiny wrote:

Put simply awards is a bad way of doing this, especially in an era where we have impact data.

Oh we get it. Forget what the experts of the time, those who watched the NBA for a living, had to say, "we" plus/minus fervent devotees know better now.

Yes, it's a bad way when it conflicts with your mathematical concoction some 15-20 years down the road.

So I don't know why you've posted a range of years.

Per above, multiple times now, it's bad because it's indirect and opaque. Not because it conflicts. It's a bad method if it agrees with better methods. It's not about the outcome. And if you go into any debate assuming malign intent from those that disagree with you, I would imagine it is not only less likely to be productive and foster any understanding but I think also less likely to be persuasive to anyone not already persuaded.

I don't know per above whether voters were experts in isolating and judging individuals defensive impact. Or whether they only professionally covered basketball, or how much they covered all teams or ...

This "concoction" of on court and on-off were around at the time, just not mainstream yet. I chose the simplest least black box-y stuff to make this clear and easily comprehensible. So it's neither invented after the fact, nor much more a concoction than counting the points each team scores.

kcktiny wrote:

And Camby... simply wasn't the best or most valuable defensive player.

You understand the concept of a landslide vote? Or being named to the all-defensive team four years running, voted on by NBA coaches? Evidently not.

It's clear that your saying things not based on my post. There's nothing to indicate I don't know what a landslide vote is. It is pretty clear that my issue is with trusting (opaque) voting rather than more direct measures. You aren't arguing with the points made.

kcktiny wrote:

but it doesn't affect the reality of the data suggesting substantial impact.

Here we are, the crux of the problem. This mathematical concoction is your true reality. When it conflicts with what occurred what occurred has to be wrong.

[/quote]
You are at this point advertising that your mind is closed in the matter, that you are certain that Camby deserving it is "what occurred".

You will note my deliberate uncertainty - that the data - suggests impact.

This isn't a discussion that that seems likely to be fruitful so I'll be leaving it here.

People will appreciate Camby's defense more if they actually watched the game instead of mathematical concoctions:



Oh wait, he was overrated on tape too.

He didn’t cite RAPM

Correct. You did:

I think long term RAPM stuff (looking 97-14, 97-22) has Camby as more a good defender than a great one.

the fact that you don’t know this takes away from the credibility of any point that you’re trying to make down here…

That's why I'm here posting on RealGM. Just for the credibility.

This isn’t 20-25 years ago when people based their opinions primarily on what other people thought.

So voters for the all-defensive team are now using mathematical concoctions for determining their votes? Or just people in general? Like you.

Are these the same sports writers and broadcasters who have also made choices for all-defense teams that do not stand up to even the slightest bit of statistical scrutiny?

Like?

You enjoy making comments with generalizations as if they have meaning. Care to expound on this?

Camby should not have been the defensive player of the year this let alone by a landslide.

Well, he was. And was 3rd in DPOY voting in 2004-05, 5th in 2005-06, and 2nd in 2007-08.

Seems like a lot of "people" who actually watched Camby play at that time think differently than you. How much did you actually watch him play 15-25 years ago? Or is your whole opinion on his defense based solely on RAPM?

A final score is a “mathematical concoction,” too.

Yes it is. Thank you for pointing that out.

Also, are these the same experts who voted a Kobe Bryant who had become a negative defender on to all-defensive teams?

Bryant was named to the all-defensive team from the ages of 21-25, and all-defensive 1st team at the age of just 21. That's quite an accomplishment. From early on in his career his was known as a top defender, one of the best in the league at the SG position. He wasn't named in 2004-05, but from 2005-06 to 2010-11 was named all-defensive 1st team.

Care to tell us which seasons you feel he did not deserve to be named to the all-defense 1st team? Not many players are named all-defensive 1st team 6 years in a row, let alone to the all-defensive team 12 times in their career.

Why do you call him a negative defender? Again is this based solely on RAPM?

What exactly “occurred” that’s different than the mathematical reality? What’s the “true reality”

Camby being voted DPOY is the reality.

as opposed to the “mathematical reality”?

What you are calling a mathematical reality is in your head, so to speak.

How do you quantify what “occurred“?

Back then I read the newspaper. Now moreso the internet.

If you want we can set up a poll here and ask, "Was Marcus Camby as good as his blocks and steals indicate?"

Had you watched him play you would know his defense was far more than just steals and blocks (and defensive rebounds).

But I'm pretty confident people don't think that Marcus Camby's defensive boxscore should be taken straight up. Or people would be talking about him as better than Duncan on that end.

Those 4 seasons (2004-05 to 2007-08) Camby got 104 votes for DPOY, Duncan 24. Duncan got 131 votes for the all-defensive team, Camby 107. I'm guessing the sportswriters and broadcasters and NBA coaches that watched them play at that time were not just looking at box scores to cast their votes.

Do I think anonymous voters gave a great deal of thought about an unpaid job. No honestly.

Ah, but you want us to believe that someone who comes up with a mathematical concoction for something that occurred 15-19 years ago has? Did this person actually watch Camby play (or Duncan)?

I don't know how much writers in a given year watched guys other than their beat or how many had a national cover. I don't know how much each's expertise was foremost in understanding basketball more than in writing (or broadcasting). I don't know how many were basketball specialists. I don't know how many seriously thought about defense and how it could be measured.

You don't know much do you?

But those who calculate RAPM are basketball specialists? Someone who claims they can tell you how good a player is by what happens when he doesn't play? You really do not understand or refuse to understand why single season RAPM is so noisy do you?

Mark Jackson, a guy with serious coaching aspirations, left Jokic of his MVP ballot last year.

Maybe he likes Cs that play defense.

I can't justify that taking precedence over direct measures of what is happening on court.

What direct measures might you be talking about? RAPM is as far from a direct measure as could possibly be.

I don't think highlighting how Camby played less minutes makes his victory more compelling.

Of course you don't. But the people that voted for DPOY and the all-defensive teams saw Howard, Garnett, and Wallace play as much if not more than Camby, and they made their choices. Camby.

Coaches should know more ... There are stories about who actually fills in those ballots. And there are also league sources that call some votes a joke. Michael Williams, all D for example. There is also considerable evidence of lazy voting off reputation (e.g. Payton, Bryant).

Boy you have literally every excuse in the book don't you? The ultimate NBA conspiracy theorist.

For what it's worth though the above offers multiple angles to conclude Garnett is better

You are clueless. You look at on/off data and assume - rather state categorically - that those numbers relate to a specific player.

They do not.

Player X on and player X off always has four other players/teammates on the floor with them, and not the same four players. Yet you religiously state these numbers as being specific to an individual player. They are not.

Or just Denver being not insignificantly worse in the minutes with him on

You seem to understand how dependent on/off plus/minus RAPM is to who a player's backup is, yet continue to pronounce these numbers as some factual to some specific player. They are not.

note how I've avoided phrasing that say he caused that

Again you do seem to realize the fallacy of all this. On/off, plus/minus, RAPM give you some kind of rating but has no clue as to why.

That's why you should actually watch basketball.

It's been discussed in here how much signal there was for Bol altering a defense

This is some sort of revelation? On a per minute basis Bol was the greatest shot blocker in league history.

So whilst less directly a measure of the specific year, the priors do help pull Camby up and help mitigate noise by effectively drawing from a larger sample.

Wellst then perhaps you should stop quoting RAPM/mathematical reality as a viable measurement for a single season. If something that happened in a season other than the season you are looking at can affect/alter a rating then your rating system is for all intent and purpose worthless.

So I don't know why you've posted a range of years.

Camby was named the the all-defensive team from 2004-05 to2007-08 and DPOY in 2006-07. That's some 15-20 years ago.

And if you go into any debate assuming malign intent from those that disagree with you

You mean like someone who quotes a mathematical concoction as the gospel truth that is contrary to what the people at the time professed and then states they are all wrong, two decades hence?

I would imagine it is not only less likely to be productive and foster any understanding but I think also less likely to be persuasive to anyone not already persuaded.

This is straight out of the RAPM bible. If any one contests the RAPM ratings/rankings never give an inch, regardless of what those who watched these players play thought. RAPM is never wrong.

This "concoction" of on court and on-off were around at the time, just not mainstream yet. I chose the simplest least black box-y stuff to make this clear and easily comprehensible. So it's neither invented after the fact

Excuse me? How many renditions have their been of on/off plus/minus calculations? There have been numerous variations in just the past decade, let alone the past two decades.

nor much more a concoction than counting the points each team scores.

Well devotee you are wrong. Counting up points in a game has been the same since peachbaskets were used (except for the 3pter).

Do you yourself even know how to calculate RAPM? If so which version?

There's nothing to indicate I don't know what a landslide vote is.

You just choose to ignore it when it comes to Camby's defense. You yourself just questioned with multiple "I don't know"s the veracity of the DPOY and all-defense team voters.

All because it conflicts with your RAPM devotion.

It is pretty clear that my issue is with trusting (opaque) voting rather than more direct measures.

Since when is RAPM or on/off data "direct measures"?

You aren't arguing with the points made.

On the contrary you are ignoring evidence that conflicts with your mathematical concoction of RAPM.

This isn't a discussion that that seems likely to be fruitful so I'll be leaving it here.

Again, straight out of the on/off plus/minus RAPM guidebook. When the ratings/rankings are questioned, showing the fallacy of the so-called mathematical reality, get out.

People will appreciate Camby's defense more if they actually watched the game instead of mathematical concoctions: Oh wait, he was overrated on tape too.

Camby, including the playoffs, played over 30,000 career NBA minutes in a 17 year career. You just showed a clip of him that was less than 60 seconds long.

Thanks for the contribution.

Watching the birth of a Marcus Camby fan base in the early days of 2024 is definitely something I did not expect to see. It would have been suspect and awfully anachronistic even in 2014 tbh.

AdagioPace wrote:Watching the birth of a Marcus Camby fan base in the early days of 2024 is definitely something I did not expect to see. It would have been suspect and awfully anachronistic even in 2014 tbh.

I don't think he's Camby fan he just always defends official voting results as something more worthy than actually watching games. I don't think he could explain anyone why Camby was a better defender than Duncan