Proxy wrote:Proxy wrote:4.1962 Bill Russell (1964, 1963, 1965)
Now number 4 is arguably the most influential player ever with how he transformed the way defense is played in the league forever. The greatest defender ever, and the engine behind one of the greatest dynasties in sports history.
There are alot of reasons to believe Russell played a significant part in the Celtics team dominance, his defensive greatness, and many have argued how he has a case for being the most valuable player of his era so I won't focus TOO much on that unless asked to.
Here are a few pretty strong indicators he has:
-We can see it on film and we can read/hear about the era in news articles and from others that have experienced the era.
-WOWY data(also looking at the team pre and post Russell and how the league changed over time).
-Team minutes distribution(how remained constant but everyone around him changed and played nowhere near the same amount of minutes in most years and they were still dominant), etc.
-
But i'll talk about why I believe their team net ratings still undersell how dominant they truly were like I did in the last thread for 2 main reasons.
1. Using the commonly used net ratings is not a true era adjustment - in lower scoring environments a team being worth +5 per 100 has more value, this can be seen when comparing the TS+ framework vs using rTS%.
Real life situations will never be this extreme but here is an example as to why we should use the former
In a league where the average TS% is 10, being +5 would mean you are scoring at a rate 1.5x(150% better) more effectively than league average
In a league where the average TS% is 50, being +5 would mean you are scoring at a rate 1.1x(110% better) more effectively than league average
When calculating net ratings using percentages rather than absolutes, the Celtcs would likely look even more dominant because the era they played in was a lower scoring environment and significantly harder for other teams to make up ground with less PPP available.
2. The Celtics having their outlier dominance in a league with 8 ish teams drags down league averages, supressing their own numbers, and makes it harder to drag them down even further(which is probably why their playoff team numbers look so wonky).
-
I'm also starting to believe Russell is just a very clear positive offensive player. I think many people think of him the wrong way because he does seem to have a bunch of flaws in the halfcourt on film(like his post scoring arsenal does not seem very efficient, turnovers even tho that just seems like an era thing).
When I think of him being a truly all-time level transition threat for a center with and without the ball, with great court awarenes, very strong passing for a center and i've even seen him be the ball handler in screen and roll actions with Sanders, a modern-ish handle that could take other bigs off the dribble, all-time offensive rebounding ability, a little bit of a post game, and lob potential with his athleticism. I really think this is a unicorn that could be a clear positive on most teams but maybe i'm just higher on him than others.
https://youtu.be/PEs4KC4xHE0 I think it's possible his RS efficiency is also suppressed by taking alot of late shot clock bailout shots(his teammates are also overstated offensively), I feel like i've seen this a lot on film.
But in the season I chose for his peak and in a large chunk of his prime not only does his efficiency rise, but his volume rose in the playoffs as well which is very rare for an all-timer.
From backpicks.com (from '60 - '66)
Going from a negative OBPM -> +.073 OBPM(Peaking as +1.2 in '62)
Other years could deserve a shot for sure, but from what I gathered this was the most dominant Celtics team in the RS and was followed by Russell's arguably best playoff run ever so I decided to go with this one and give him the slight edge over my upcoming picks.
Ok so my 5-7 range is comprised of:
-2017 Stephen Curry 
● Arguably the GOAT scoring regular season in 2016 - 42.5 points per 75/Lead leading scoring average of 30.1 PPG, on a game-breaking 124 TS+(!), leading the Dubs to a #1 ITW +8.1 rORTG(iirc this ranked t3 ever but they didnt go as much into offense as the 04 Mavs and 05 Suns and their -2.6 rDRTG got them to a >+10 net rating
●Warps defenses like no other with his shooting threat(spacing) and all-time off-ball movement(gravity). - All-time scalability contributed to unmatched team dominance with more talent wasadded. 15.4 box creation estimate in 2016 - arguably still understating his off-ball value(via backpicks.coms)
●Good passer for a PG, though not rly one of his stronger passing seasons - 7.6 passer rating via backpicks.com in 2017, decent turnover economy
●Solid POA defender, and is decent as a chaser which helps contribute to him being a good team defender, though his defense has improved in 2022 with added bulk, I'd still say he's a slight positive in the year chosen. Attacking Steph has also not really been that viable of a strategy generally and teams have mostly gotten bad offenses out of that so idk why people are so bent on that tbh. I think people struggle to understand that he gets attacked because he’s surrounded by a bunch of defenders better than him, not because he’s some bad or really exploitable defender or anything.
●For the stats, I'm sure you'll see Steph pop up at the top of any APM studies, with larger team samples showing that he deserves a significant amount of credit for team dominance(don't find his collinearity with Draymond a strong argument)
●Highest 5-year on/off and on court net rating of all-time: 15 - '19 Stephen Curry(+15.9 on-court net/+17.7 on/off)
●Many would however argue his effectiveness declines in the playoffs, however in the 2017 season into the playoffs when healthy, if there were any doubt about his resilience, I believe he was basically performing around the same level as a player as he was in 2016 - there were no significant change in his skillset, he rly just had a weird start at the start of the season when incorporating KD and when they took off they were arguably the best healthy team ever.
● There are still some indicators that suggest he still has extremely high, top 5 ish level impact in the playoffs - such as his on/off only taking a slight dip when taking only games he played in, and his change in scoring efficiency against stronger defenses in his prime isn't rly abnormal for an all-time standard, really only being dented by the Rockets switching defense and the Memphis Grizzlies in his prime and dismantling other all-time defenses like the 2019 Raptors and 2022 Celtics past his peak(though the physical changes arguably did help him a lot).
●Even without Klay and KD(arguably rly the only strong positive offensive players on some of those teams) - his scoring, and more importantly team dominance were extremely high in the playoffs - from 2016-2019 the Warriors had a 119 ORTG and +10 net rating without those two on the court via pbpstats.com (a very small sample of 287 minutes). Still, again I believe reinforces the idea that he was really the driving force behind the Warriors' dominance(+12 team net rating in the playoffs from 2015 to 2022 iirc).
●I'm not the biggest fan of using postseason one-number metrics at all(especially if they are hybrids because the box prior can underrate/overrate particular abilities, which I will go into on a future player), but even APM approximates like backpicks.com's AuPM/g paint 2017 playoffs Steph as having the 3rd highest peak on record of +7.5/g(!), right behind 2009 and 2017 LeBron and one spot ahead of Timmy in 2003. This makes sense seeing as how they had a staggering +17.2 net rating in those playoffs and still had a 123 ORTG in 127 minutes without Durant that year while they only had a 105 ORTG in an almost insignificant 60-minute sample with Durant and without Curry via pbpstats.com.
●I think of Steph similarly to how I think of Russell, both the driving forces behind two of the arguably top three dynasties to play the game with outlier-ish level value on one end and having a possibly misunderstood, underrated, positive value on the other end.
-1977 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
●Kareem in the 1977 playoffs might straight up be the most dominant playoff scorer in NBA history IMO, and by that point one of the most lethal half-court scoring options of all time. By that point of his career(really since 1974). I think Kareem improved his lower body strength in order to deal with defenders such as Thurmond and Wilt that both made it difficult for him to get comfortable getting to his spots and bothered him significantly in his early years. He expanded his scoring arsenal with counters, a refined sky hook, and improved passing to truly become unguardable.
Check out this wonderful breakdown by 70sfan dedicated to his post-game prowess:
Not every clip was from the 1977 season, but it backs the idea that Kareem was arguably the most versatile post-scoring threat the game has ever seen.
●Now to start on why I view this stretch as arguably the most impressive scoring stretch in NBA history, just look at this production:
28.3 Points per 75/34.6 PPG(33.4% of the team’s scoring) on +11.6 rTS%. Now I don’t think there is a single other player that has scored on that volume, with that efficiency. With the efficiency looking even more impressive when using percentages rather than absolutes(which I explained why I prefer this approach in the Russell post) like rTS% does, and when dividing his TS% by the league average we see that he was literally scoring with a 126 TS+(26% more effectively on league average).
●To support the idea that scoring efficiency on that volume is so valuable, backpicks.com’s metric of ScoreVal - which attempts to measure a player’s value just from their scoring with a teammate/opponent era adjustment, views 1977 - 1979 Kareem as having the highest peak on record at +3.3 per 100, and the highest single-season peak(min 5 games) at a **** +4.4 in the 1977 playoffs lmao.
●The thing is however, that Kareem did not only have all-time scoring, but he had a fast, quick-hitting game, using his versatility to leverage his all-time gravity on and off the ball and his solid passing for hitting both passers as well as shooters(unfortunately limited by the era), and was a great creator for a center, he was also a good outlet passer that I've ever seen handle the ball on the break occasionally in film, and was an fine offensive rebounder and lob threat - that added to his off ball value. I don’t know how I feel about his screening though, didn’t seem very strong as a screen and roll man in the film i’ve seen but he could also pop out and had solid mid-range accuracy and range.
●Kareem at the height of his powers was also one of the best defensive players ever, with his main weakness in his peak years being motor. He was a phenomenal rim protector, a decent post defender, and was one of the more switchable bigs I think I’ve seen from that era as 70sfan has argued in previous threads. He was no longer the Bucks Kareem that led the Bucks to a -8.4 rDRTG in the playoffs from ‘71 - ‘73, but he could still be that player in bursts, and on teams where he wouldn’t have such a ridiculous offensive load I think you could expect more consistent defensive effort.
●These skills both helped him become a strong floor-raiser(I don’t think a single healthy prime Kareem team fell below a 50 win-pace with him), and they also scaled up extremely well. Allowing him to contribute to both the Bucks' dominance in the early 70s(+11.5 net rating from the ‘71 to’ 73 playoffs), as well as the 80s Lakers that had a +8.1 net rating in the playoffs from ‘80 to ‘82 in the playoffs, and a +9.3 rORTG from ‘85 to ‘87, where they began to move onto Magic as the focus, but he was still a solid impact player that had the ability to ramp up his scoring in the playoffs when challenged like in the 1985 finals.
●Kareem may have an argument as the most portable player era to era for the first 30 or so years post-shot clock and showed indicators suggesting that his game was absurdly resilient when it came to changes across eras in different stages of his career, adding more confidence that the value he showed at his peak was legit.
-2004 Kevin Garnett
●Kevin Garnett IMO contributes more positive value in different aspects than any other player that has ever played the game. I’m running out of time so I’ll link some great breakdowns of his offense and defense and why he was one of the most valuable players on both ends by drza and I will just explain why I regard him so highly.
Offense:
https://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/150868850871/mechanisms-of-greatness-scouting-kevin-garnetts Defense:
https://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/150844038866/mechanisms-of-greatness-scouting-kevin-garnetts ●Strengthening the argument that Kevin Garnett was one of the most valuable players of his era, arguably being THE most valuable at his peak in the regular season. KG in the 2003-04 season provided the highest single-season APM/g of +9.4 leading a pretty mediocre twolves cast to a +5.9 net rating, 58 wins, and the top of the western conference in the the deadball era, with a shot to make the finals if not for injury(via backpicks.com) and four other seasons in the top forty all-time. KG alongside LeBron stand alone at the top upon the top of any of these type of value measurements and they have an argument for being the top two most valuable players in the league in the 2000s(with Shaq and Timmy being right there too ofc for their peaks but Tim looking slightly behind).
Year by year in his prime:
1997 - +4.5
1998 - +4.8
1999 - +5
2000 - +6 (26th all–time)
2001 - +2.1
2002 - +3.6
2003 - +7.2(11th all-time)
2004 - +9.4(1st all-time)
2005 - +4.5
2006 - +4.6
2007(inj) - +6.2 (23rd all-time)
2008 - +6.3 (21st all-time)
2009(inj) - +5.3
2010 - +3.5
2011 - +4.8
2012 - +3.2
●I would normally be skeptical of the 2003/2004 Wolves results as it is easier to be more valuable on a weaker team more dependent on his strengths, but the recurring signal in which he posted massive value signals again with an even stronger, less dependent team in Boston(a -8.6 rDRTG in his first season there - a +11.3 net rating in the RS and +8.8 and +8.6 PS team net rating in the '08 and '10 playoff runs respectively) matches the film suggesting that he was possibly the most versatile player of all-time, with his ability as both a floor raiser and ceiling raiser and that his results in Minnesota were not just some outlier that should be ignored.
The reason I am so high on KG is that I believe his game is actually extremely resilient to the playoffs and that people over-fixate on his scoring weaknesses, which leads to his value being understated in box metrics because of his scoring efficiency does drop(normal for an all-timer), the box score is also genuinely pretty bad at gauging defensive value that does have the possibility of increasing in value in the playoffs. This scouting report by SideshowBob from a few years ago describes some ways in which many aspects of his game can not be measured traditionally by box metrics, and in a larger sample of raw +/- data we see that his game may have translated well to the playoffs despite the drop in scoring efficiency:
SideshowBob wrote: Garnett's offense can be broken down like this:
-Spacing
-PnR (Roll/Pop)
-High-Post
-Low-Post
-Mid-Post
-Screens
Remember, there is overlap between these offensive skills/features; I'm trying to give a broad-strokes perspective here.
Let's talk about his shooting really quick, and then dive in. What I want to consider is how and which of these traits show up in the box-score, as well as which would be resilient in the face of smarter defenses.
-Has range out to the 3 pt line but practically/effectively speaking, he's going out to ~22 feet.
-From 10-23 feet, shot 47.7% in 03 (9.6 FGA/G), 45.2% in 04 (11.0 FGA/G), 44.6% in 05 (8.3 FGA/G), 48.4% in 06 (8.4 FGA/G)
-16-23 ft range, he's assisted on ~77% over those 4 years
-Shooting at the big-man positions is a conundrum - shooting 4/5s are often associated with weak (breakeven) or bad (negative) defense. Garnett is one of the few exceptions in that not only is he an elite shooter, there's virtually no defensive opportunity cost to playing him over anyone in history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he's on the ball, he can utilize his exceptional ball-handling skills to create separation and knock it down. When he's off the ball, he's always a threat to convert - the fact that he's assisted so frequently on 16-23 ft shots means they're mostly coming on a Pick and Pop or a drive and kick, which means a lot of them are open. He's usually shooting around 45% overall from there, so we're looking at high 40s on open shots and low-mid 40s on created ones. BOTH of those numbers are strong, and that's where the first offensive trait comes;
Spacing. His shooting spaces the floor. A LOT - despite the fact that he doesn't shoot 3s, he forces bigs out of the paint and opens up the lane. Because he's not a 3-point shooter though, this effect doesn't really show up in the box-score. And yet, this effect will always be present; doesn't matter how much a defense slows down his raw production in the playoffs, the spacing effect will always be present - he's going to try and create shots from out there and he's going to pop/spot-up; give him space/leave him open and he'll convert at .95-1.00 PPP (which is very strong in the halfcourt). Cover him/recover on him with a little guy and he'll just shoot right over. His man
has to come out and try and cover him, and this means that there will always be a marginal improvement for the rest of the team with regards to the lane being open. The only real way to reduce this? Have someone at the 1-3 that can cover him (has the size/strength to cope with his shot/inside game for stretches at a time), but even then, you might yield a disadvantage with one of your bigs covering a small ball-handler.
So next, his
PnR game. Crucially, he's a dual threat, he's deadly popping out (as demonstrated above) but even crazier rolling to the basket (high 60s-70ish finishing, that includes post/isolation, thus baskets on the roll would likely be higher. The rolls are similar (though not equal) to drives to the basket and aside from finishing offer an opportunity to kick it out. THIS aspect is captured fairly well by the box-score (rolls into finishes - FG%, finishes - PTS, kick outs - direct assists). This is also one that good PnR defense teams can slow down. Close off the PnR by stopping the ball handler (aggressive blitz/trap to force the ball out their hands before the PnR is initiated, or drop center, ice sideline to deny the ball-handler middle), or rely on strong rotations into the lane to close off easy baskets off a roll. When we talk about his postseason dips (mainly PPG and TS%), this is mostly where they're coming from (and face up game which I'll get to later).
So now, the post options. The
high post probably yields the largest fraction of his offensive impact. His scoring skills (again, ball-handling to set up midrange game, quickness/explosion to attack the basket straight on, catch&shoot/spotup, etc.) means that he draws a great amount of attention here, again, pulling a big away from the restricted area and up to the free throw line. This is significant because he can spot and capitalize on any off ball movement, use his passing to force rotations until an opportunity is created, play the give and go with a small. Essentially, there are a ton of options available here due to his gravity and diversity, yet almost
none of this will show up in the box-score. Unless he hits a cutter with a wide open lane or a shooter with a wide open corner, he's not going to be credited with the assist.
Imagine - he sucks/turns the attention of the defense to himself, a cutter sees an opening and zips in from the wing, which forces a defender from the corner to come over and protect the basket, leaving a shooter open. Garnett hits the cutter who dishes it out, or he kicks the ball out to the perimeter and it is swung around to the open shooter. Garnett's pressure created the opening, and his passing/vision got the ball where it needed to go, but he's given no credit in the box-score.
Give and go is another example - at the top of the key, he gets the ball, his man (a big) is now worried about his shot and starts to close in, the lane has one less protector, the PG who just threw it in to him now curls around him with a quick handoff,
his defender now runs into Garnett or his man and the PG gets an open lane to the basket. If someone has rotated over, a shooter will be open, if not, free layup for the PG, or a kick out for a reset for Garnett in the high/mid-block area. IF it works out that the PG gets an opening up top on the handoff, then he may get a pullup and Garnett is credited with an assist, but in most scenarios, it will play out that again, Garnett gets no box-score credit.
The effect of this play on the offense
is resilient, its going to remain present against strong defenses. It doesn't matter how strong your rotations are or what kind of personnel you have, the key is that adjustments have to be made to combat a talented high-post hub, and when adjustments are made, there is always a cost (which means the defense must yield
somewhere) and therein lies the impact. This is one of the most defense-resistant AND portable offensive skillsets that one can have (you're almost never going to have issue with fit) and its what made Garnett, Walton, 67 Chamberlain, so valuable.
Mid-Post and face-up game are a little more visible in the box-score (similar to PnR). Mostly comprised of either blowing by the defender and making quick moves to the basket (and draw a foul) or setting up the close-mid-range shot. This is his isolation offense, something that will tend to suffer against stronger, well equipped defenses that can close off the lane, which sort of strips away the "attack the basket, draw free throws" part and reduces it to just set up mid-range jumpshots. Garnett's obviously great at these, but taking away the higher-percentage inside shots will hurt his shooting numbers, volume, and FTA bit. The key then is, how disciplined is the defense. Yes they can close the paint off, but can they do so without yielding too much somewhere else - was there a missed rotation/help when someone left his man to help cover the paint. If yes, then there is impact, as there is anytime opportunities are created, if no then its unlikely any opportunity was created and the best option becomes to just shoot a jumper. This is the other feature of his game that isn't as resilient in the face of smart defenses.
The
low-post game is crucial because it provides both a spacing effect and the additional value of his scoring. While he lacks the upper body strength to consistently finish inside against larger bigs, he can always just shoot over them at a reliable % instead, and against most matchups he's skilled enough back-to-basket and face-up that he can typically get to the rim and score. Being able to do this means that he draws attention/doubles, and he's one of the best at his position ever at capitalizing by passing out to an open shooter or kicking it out to swing the ball around the perimeter to the open guy (in case the double comes from the opposite corner/baseline) and all of this action tends force rotations enough that you can get some seams for cuts as well. Outside of scoring or making a direct pass to the open guy, the hockey assists won't show up in the box-score. But, more importantly, there is a crucial utility in having a guy diverse enough that he can play inside and out equally effectively - lineup diversity. He fills so many staples of an offense himself that it allows the team to run more specialized lineups/personnel that might not conventionally work, and this forces defenses to adjust (! that's a key word here). He doesn't have to do anything here that shows up in the box-score, all he needs to do is be on the floor. You can argue the low-post ability as a 50/50 box-score/non-box-score, but I'd lean towards giving the latter more weight.
Finally
screens. The effect of Garnett's screens is elite, because of his strong lower body base and because of the diversity of his offensive threat (and he just doesn't get called for moving screens). Its tough for most players to go through/over a Garnett screen, which makes him ideal for setting up jumpers and cutters off the ball. When he's screening on the ball, everyone involved has to worry about his dual scoring threat, and when that happens, that gives the ball-handler
that much more space to work with. Marginal on a single possession, significant when added up over the course of ~75 possessions, and extremely resilient - how do you stop good screens? You don't really, you just stay as disciplined as possible. And this effect is completely absent in the box-score.
So what's important now is to consider the fact that
most of Garnett's offense does not show up in the box-score! And I wouldn't call what he does on the floor the "little things" (this is just something people have been conditioned to say, most things that aren't covered in the box-score have become atypical/unconventional or associated with grit/hustle, despite the fact that these are pretty fundamental basketball actions/skills).
Something like 75-80% of his offensive value just simply isn't tracked by "conventional" recordkeeping, yet the focus with Garnett is almost always on the dip in scoring and efficiency. So what if the 20% that
is tracked has fallen off. Even if that aspect of his game fell off by 50% (it hasn't), the rest of his game is so fundamentally resilient that I'm not even sure what degree of defense it would take to neutralize it (at least to an effective degree, I'm welcome to explanations), and that still puts him at 80-90% of his max offensive impact (given the increased loads he was typically carrying in the playoffs, I doubt it even went that low). The generalized argument against him of course tends to be "where are the results", and quite frankly it needs to be hammered home that his Minnesota casts were
actually that bad. Not mid 2000s Kobe/Lebron bad, like REALLY bad, like worst of any top 10 player bad.
^https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1587761&p=57014420&hilit=KG#p57014420
●So like I said before, I believe the big ticket has an argument that he added positive value in more different ways than any other player ever, this skillset allowed him to both be one of the best floor-raisers, and one of the best ceiling-raisers of all time as well too, and to me his game has shown to be resilient to the playoffs over a larger postseason sample size(one data point is how is on/ off in the RS from '00 to '12 is +12.4, while it is +17.8 in that same stretch).
●Some of my quick reasons/concerns for not yet listing a few of the closest people I think have arguments yet(again I will go into more detail when I have more time/they are more popular picks). I would still love to hear other thoughts if people disagree with what I have to say ofc
Wilt: Inconsistency year to year gives me a bit less confidence in him, in 1967 it seems like he put things together, and that 76ers team was for sure one of the more dominant teams of all time, as well as him putting one of the more dominant playoff runs ever, but how sustainable is his value? Was that team just a perfect fit and I should have less confidence when picking him to lead my team in a vacuum? It wasn’t too long after his 64 and 67 seasons where he just had a flat-out questionable impact from the WOWY data we had(1965 and 1969).
Walton: Mainly durability/sample size related
Magic: I believe Steph is a slightly better defender than Magic was in his actual peak years, with a slight preference in his offense, but those two like everyone else in this tier are basically just picking from preference and in Magic’s prime he has a strong argument for being the most resilient offensive player the game has ever seen.
Bird: Without granular +/- or team info for the playoffs, I’m not entirely sure just how resilient his game was even though it looks like a case of someone being underrated by traditional box score measurements, I also think there's quite a bit of variance on how his defense could be perceived.
Hakeem: I’m really just not very high on Hakeem as an offensive player, his value indicators in the regular season lag behind those players even when in a more optimal situation(from a role standpoint, not a supporting talent one) like the ‘93 to ‘95 Rockets(we don’t have +/- data for 1993 which I think is his peak but his ‘94 and ‘95 indicators don’t seem game-breaking or anything to me like the other players I named even if they are still all-time great. He also he never really played on a great team or gave me much reason to believe his offense would scale too well looking at the situations where he did have a bit more talent in his career, his versatility pops out to me as being severely overrated. He does definitely seem like a playoff riser offensively, but I also think his defense is a step down from his defensive peak - I believe similar-ish in value to peak KG, Duncan, and Wilt in those years, and the Rockets feel like a really high variance team with their advanced outside shooting which I believe helped them overrperform. I can’t see a strong argument at all for him being the best offensive player ITW in any of his seasons with his passing and optimal decision-making issues, and it's hard for me to see him really toning down his detrimental tendencies to play a role more within the flow of a cohesive offesive attack because to me the willingness(which did improve throughout his career), still just wasn't really there consistently.
Tim: I don’t really like him as much as I do KG on either end but it’s basically splitting hairs again. His RS signals aren’t quite as strong as the other names I gave from the pbp era and I think it’s a little strange how much of a stark contrast his playoffs +/- data looks from that special peak from ‘01 - ‘03 have to the rest of his career, his value may be inflated by the situation?? I think his scalability is a bit underrated because people overlook 2005 for whatever reason but it’s just a bit shakier for me compared to the other people I’m voting for this round.
I used to be rather high on him, but I've been increasingly lower on him as I've read the analysis and looked at the data. 
