LukaTheGOAT wrote:AEnigma wrote:LukaTheGOAT wrote:"meant to write the PS impact numbers are almost unanimously in Paul's favor in terms of Peak."-me
These three statements by you
“DraymondGold has been going over some of the “impact” numbers if that is your idea of “hardcore evidence."-You
Gee, not seeing a part where I say every metric he lists favours Garnett in the postseason.”I knew what you meant. And again, I find that hard to believe, depending on what you are using as “impact numbers”."-You
Hmm, hold on a moment, it seems you must have accidentally forgotten a bit. Because obviously you would not just exclude yet another inconvenient element here, right?depending on what you are using as “impact numbers”. Garnett had a ton of impact on his postseason teams, just not so much via the box score.
So exactly what part of that indicates PIPM/RAPTOR/BPM/“projected LEBRON” to you."Or alternatively Garnett would rate higher in AuPM because it is more dependent on net ratings (where Garnett tops Paul even in the postseason) and to the extent it does use box scores it more deliberately skews to defensive box statistics to try to make up for how most all-in-ones undersell defence."-You
All are wrong
Really? Please elaborate. Does Garnett not actually have a higher postseason on/off than Paul? Seems like you should have clarified that earlier if you feel that is the case.(used plenty of the same metrics as DraymondGold)
“Plenty of the same” wow interesting word choice there. Any notable exclusions?and that is what I was addressing.
The box score metrics I repeatedly said would not capture Garnett’s impact? Great job!You refuse to admit this.
Oh fun more projection!
The funniest bit of this is that you could have just left it at Paul having an advantage in the box score metrics you cared about. But nope, you decided to handwave away Garnett having more actual team impact outside the box score. How sad.
These statements are irrefutable.
Words unfortunately have real definitions.
You only then admitted it depends on what you consider impact metrics after the fact.
Oh, really?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2222404&start=40#p101057476
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2222404&start=40#p101059480
A shrewd observer may notice, one of those precedes the other…
Backpicks BPM, RAPTOR, BPM, PIPM and AuPM are all stats DraymondGold used; these same stats you said KG would look better in but he doesn't except for AuPM.
Yet again: please quote where I said “Garnett beats Paul in postseason BPM, PIPM, and RAPTOR.” Otherwise, looks like more lying.
You were wrong unless you fail to grasp the logic of 4>1; if that was the case, I apologize for thinking higher of you.
I apologise for thinking that basketball was about more than how many box score metrics you can “win”.
And 4 of those 5 stats I have listed, use plus-minus in some fashion.
True! Just not weighed as heavily.
hence they can be considered impact metrics (which you admitted they were when DraymondGold used them).
Did the heavily sarcastic quotation marks around “impact metrics” not tip you off? Remember when I kept saying you were not specifying what exactly you were looking for?
And you also lied about about AuPM.
No, but I have given you multiple opportunities to come up with an actual case how. The best you have offered thus far is that RAPTOR uses more total defensive statistics, but when I pressured you to say you thought DRAPTOR was better or even good, you shockingly balked to comment.
Tired of embarrassing yourself yet?
