Owly wrote:1a) “No more an individual”. Absolutely that criticism applies to the measure in general not just for Parish.
Citing a Reed inclusion that you were pretty vocally against … I’m not sure I see the internal (consistent) logic there. Maybe there’s some “appeal to internal consistency” (from others) merit but it feels like you’re defending a point you do believe in/support with one you don’t.
While I certainly can see how my using this against Reed [whom I was vocally against] in such a manner was confusing, I suspect you're perhaps not seeing "the internal (consistent) logic" because you may be projecting [on to me] a philosophy/methodology that I haven't actually professed to use.
I have stated in the past that I think it's important to view a player's accomplishment within the context/circumstance that he found himself in---
to a degree. However, I've cautioned about engaging
too much in thought exercises that attempt to eliminate circumstance ["luck"], because it's noisy business (it's nearly pure speculation, in fact).
I have thus argued that [again, to a degree]
what actually happened should simply be accepted; entered into the equation, as it were. Perhaps not taken at frank face value, but still acknowledged. I believe I even indicated in the post you quoted that these things matter to me (had written "[me included]").
Was this an appeal to internal consistency from others? To some extent, probably; though perhaps not to many persons in the current voting demographic. There are some posters on this forum, however, that---to my perception, at least (and obviously I could be wrong)----profess that team outcomes don't matter, that it's the individual's performance and "impact towards winning" that matters......yet then also [selectively] give credit for team accomplishments (that is: cite "rings" and similar as supportive arguments).
Reed is someone who I think, more than most, benefits from just taking "his" accomplishments at face-value: championships that obviously couldn't have occurred without A LOT of help, an MVP award that is more than a little questionable, at least one FMVP award that is patently absurd.
As I say, I give "credit" to what actually happened, to a degree. Though even if I were to give him "
full credit" for these accomplishments, with no effort at all to account for context, or legitimacy of accolades, his placement in this project would STILL be a little too high by my criteria (which yes, hinges harder upon longevity that most peoples'). Adjusting somewhat for some of the context I outlined in the previous paragraph [which I do: adjusting
somewhat], his placement still seems ~12-25 places too high.
If I adjusted luck/circumstance entirely (writing luck out of the equation entirely), he'd probably only be a fringe top-100 player.
I believe he semi-consistently gets placements like this [or higher] because he---for whatever reason [mythology?]---is one of those players for whom these accomplishments are just taken at face-value in a way that isn't afforded to every player.
Owly wrote:“These type of narrative, "relevance to league history", and other bullet-point accomplishments influence people [me included], as much as we say we scrub chance/luck/circumstance from the equation.”
Okay. Do you want them to though? If you’re happy with it, that's fine. If you’re trying to dig out the player from the “career” (with “legacy”, narrative, circumstance) then saying we do include it isn’t a reason to not try to separate it if one thinks it a “better” way.
Again, I do include it, to an extent. I just feel it needs to be tempered with consideration of context (and accolades definitely need to be scrutinized for legitimacy).
I believe that trying to eliminate luck/circumstance ENTIRELY is too noisy to be adopted wholesale.
Owly wrote:1b [and c]) I’m not saying that there’s no individual player influence. But there’s 9 other guys on the floor, plus minutes off. If you’d be happy with playoff minutes as a ranking list then advocate for that. If not … I think my point stands.
I think BOTH of our points stand.
As you yourself just said: you're "not saying there's no individual player influence". And that's all I'm saying.
My providing a counterpoint was not to be interpreted me as saying that what you've said is wholy false, and that my suggestion is wholy true. There's validity to both (again: as you yourself just allowed).
And of course I never suggested using playoff minutes as a ranking list.
For one, it perhaps doesn't correlate to playoff WS
quite as well as this statement implies (for examples: Derek Fisher is 17th all-time in playoff minutes, yet outside the top 50 in playoff WS; the aforementioned Bill Cartwright is 128th in playoff minutes, but only 244th in playoff WS; there are numerous other examples of differences of 20-35 [or more??] places between minutes and WS).
Nor even would I suggest making a list based upon rank in playoff WS........but that doesn't mean I think it's not worth looking at. Noting (during vote for #65) that a guy ranks 42nd in playoff WS is not exactly a cherry-picking or out-of-order argument when
numerous other indicators posit him in this region (if not higher), too.
Owly wrote:Fwiw (and this is a very much secondary to the main point) … if there is a point that Parish was unexceptional in the playoffs then his contribution in getting them minutes beyond the first round may not be that much.
With regard to “if replaced by Greg Kite” … I mean sure if you replace him with one of the box-score worst (sometimes) rotation/somewhat significant body of minutes (over 10000) careers in the game (6.5 career PER; .027 WS/48, 5.6 total WS [-5 OWS] -4.6 BPM, -6.7 VORP). Yes I do think those teams do worse. I’m not sure that’s a ringing endorsement of Parish or the measure though.
Fine. Replace him with Danny Schayes [who was more of a league-average players in his prime] instead. The suggestion still sort of stands: the Celtics would not have been as successful in some/all years; in some years that difference (between Parish and a league-average center) would be the difference between title and no-title.
Owly wrote:2) Yes there are other problems with the measure but I’m not sure they even out. You’re looking at leaders, leaders need big minute opportunities.
And again: in many/most instances they are only getting big minute opportunities [particularly on teams capable of deep runs]
because they are themselves GOOD. And if they're
good enough they may generate their own deep runs and chances for still more minutes (think prime LeBron). Players like that, of course, look frickin' amazing no matter what metric/methodology you're looking at.......so their impressiveness is sort of baked right into the pie no matter what.
Owly wrote:3) “I tend to look at contributions above replacement level [not average], fwiw.” I would look at both. And above good. Probably curve up more at the higher levels.
I'll consider this.
Owly wrote:His durability is certainly a strength though “all on him” isn’t something I could entirely back. I think he took care of himself very well but also think there’s luck in injuries in general and that for instance cheaper teams (*cough* Sterling Clippers *cough*) could tend to place their players at greater risk.
I suppose. Though we're again dipping our toes into the speculative to at least a small degree with such "what if?" thinking.
Owly wrote:Regarding Grant … these weren’t my suggestions just those were at the top of slightly less bad variation of a measure I didn’t really like. But fwiw … Grant made the last three projects in the mid 80s with a trajectory of a one place drop (‘14: 85; ’17: 86; ’20: 87 - a small real-terms rise), I can’t speak to the particular voting pool but I shouldn’t think regulars will regard backing him as crazy.
I hope not!
"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
