Transferring conversation from last thread to here [as it's relevant to players still on the table]......
falcolombardi wrote:
I dont have miller ahead of Barkley necesarrily as much as i think there is better case than given credit for
With that I will certainly agree.
falcolombardi wrote:Yes, i think is important to not double count thinghs.
Those two thinghs (barkley scoring and barkley rebounding) are not completely independent value adds.
They overlap a fair bit and counting them as completely different the way you would do with a player defense and a player half court offensewould overcount barkley value add
It doesnt mean that his offensive rebounding was not valuable, quite the opposite, it was so valuable that it led to barkley being a historically good scorer in spite of his weaker jumpshot, so-so dribble and small size
It's been food for thought, but we may just have to agree to disagree here.
While I get what you're saying, I don't see it as "double-counting".
For one, that assumes that he is taking a put-back attempt on every single offensive rebound. That isn't the case in reality.
In some instances he'll be kicking it back out. And on some of those, a shot will go up from someone else [not assisted by Barkley either]: such instances are not reflected whatsoever in Barkley's scoring volume/efficiency.
So if we say we don't need to count or consider his offensive rebounding [because we already took stock of his scoring, and his ORebs fold right into that], then we're not giving him any credit for these added possessions, for him being responsible for the scoring opportunities of teammates [even when he is NOT making the assist pass].
And even with the put-backs he takes himself, those aren't shots taken or created within the context of normal offensive possessions.......they're ADDED shot attempts that exist because the offensive rebound made it so.
I view offensive rebounds sort of like "life snatched from the jaws of death": a missed shot is the
end of a possession if an offensive rebound is not attained.
In that respect they're a little bit like steals, except they're slightly more commonplace.
I also think you're overstating how much Barkley being an historically good scorer is result of his offensive rebounding. He was an all-time great scorer because he was a phenomenally good finisher with a really high foul-draw rate; and only a small proportion of those shots in close [or trips to the FT line] occurred as result of an offensive rebound.
To illustrate, let's estimate what [theoretically] happens to his scoring profile if we eliminate
ALL of his offensive rebounds in '90 [my personal pick as his peak]......
In that season, he was averaging 5.8 OReb/100.
Let's say that he's only kicking it out to reset on 0.8 of those 5.8 boards and thus isn't ultimately the one who gets the scoring opportunity on the reboot (which is likely low-balling how many times it's NOT him taking the shot on the reboot, fwiw).
On the other 5.0, he's going for the put-back. Let's say that on TWO of those five put-back attempts he's fouled. Of those let's say 10% he makes it anyway [an "And1"], on the other 90% he's getting 2 FT's. He makes 75% of his FT's that year.
For the other three put-back attempts, let's say he finishes at 80% (I'm probably marginally high-balling his finishing rate here).
So that's:
0.2 "And1"'s per 100 possessions---> 2.75 pts avg.
1.8 two-shot FT situations per 100--->1.5 pts avg
3 put-back attempts ---->1.6 pts avg
(0.2 * 2.75) + (1.8 * 1.5) + (3 * 1.6) = 8.05 pts per 100 possessions as result of offensive rebounding.
Without that he's still averaging 24.05 pts/100 poss [a little above league avg].
In eliminating the corresponding 4.872 TSA [3.2 FGA and 3.8 FTA], his TS% would still be about 62%.
So he'd still be averaging >24 pts/100 @ approx. +8.3% rTS [in a fairly massive 39.1 mpg--->important to note when using per 100 stats].
That's still very good scoring, and that's with: a) eliminating ALL his offensive rebounds [obviously not at all realistic, and setting him at a decided
disadvantage to literally every player in NBA history], b) assuming he goes for the put-back >86% of the time [probably over-estimating], and c) 80% finishing on clean attempts [possibly over-estimating].
If we reduce his OReb numbers only down to something equal(ish) to Reggie's (low even for a SG, just a sliver over 1 per 100 poss.....basically negligible [also extremely unrealistic, as even Kiki Vandeweghe----possibly the weakest rebounding PF/combo forward of all-time----averaged closer to 2]), and otherwise continue with the same proportions and assumptions as above: Barkley would still be averaging 25.6 pts/100 @ 62.8% TS [+9.2% rTS] (in 39.1 mpg)........not tremendously far off Miller's 5-year ['90-'94] avg of 29.5 pts/100 @ 63.6% TS (in 36.6 mpg).
If we estimate the effect of reducing '90 Barkley's offensive rebounding only as far as what was seen from mediocre offensive rebounding
PF's of the early 90's (e.g. down to only 3.0 OReb/100).....
He's still be averaging 28.2 pts/100 @ 64.1% TS [+10.4% rTS] (in 39.1 mpg)--->that's REALLY elite-level scoring (
every bit on par with prime Reggie [and with me probably overstating how often he goes for the immediate put-back]), even if he had been an entirely mediocre offensive rebounding PF.
falcolombardi wrote:Yes i think being a bad defender at sg is worse than being a bad defender at pf. I stand by that. And most of the board probably would agree here
Pretty sure you mean the other way around......and I agree. Though if you're simultaneously saying PF's should be every bit as valuable offensively as SG's, then you are, in essense, saying the PF position is
more important in a vacuum [or on average] (because he's important to BOTH sides of the ball).
And I don't think SG's should be graded on a curve to artificially raise their importance in relation [to PF's].
Their respective
absolute values on the court is what matters; and if that happens to lean in favour of the big men, that's just the way the basketball is.
Having a mediocre starting running back is far more limiting to an NFL football team than having a mediocre punter........but I would never use that as a means of declaring the punter is more valuable (because he's not limiting their ceiling as much).
Nor would I do similar in basketball player comparisons.
falcolombardi wrote:I also dont think reggie was as bad defensively as barkley,you misread my comment. I said reggie was a mediocre defender and barkley a pretty bad one.
In general for their respective primes, I agree.
For specifically a single [peak] season, I'm not sure I do. I'm not sure Barkley was flat "bad" in '90 [or potentially '93] (which is part of why I think they have cases as his peak). Most of the rest of the 90s, yes.
falcolombardi wrote:Even if their positions were worth the same defensively (they were not) barkley would still be worse
Again, here I disagree with your methodology: this is "grading on a curve". You're making the punter more valuable than the RB.
You're fairly explicitly stating: "If they're equal.......Barkley is worse (
because I expect more from him [as a PF])." I cannot get on-board with that. I don't do the "they're equal, therefore nod to the SG because he's a SG" thing (see: punter-to-running back analogy).
I believe their absolute value is what matters. If they're equal, they're equal.
"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
), but for now, with Nash finally off the board…
I fully encourage people to sway me a different way. Until then, Harden is the pick.
