Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #29 - 2018-19 James Harden

[AEnigma]

So were criticisms of Westbrook winning MVP off two extra rebounds over Harden unfounded because triple doubles are the defining part of his game?

Andre drummond was not a 30 points per game scorer with solid efficiency

With the acknowledgment that this was a factitious comment to illustrate a point about assumed value of a given stat, if you think scoring was what prevented Drummond from being an impact player, we might have bigger problems. Whiteside had solid if not elite scoring volume and efficiency, and that maintained into the postseason. Finished top three in DPoY voting. How high is he on your centre peaks with that unprecedented shotblocking profile.

[70sFan]

Yeah you are not going to sell me on that. The impact indicators are not there, nor even are the attempts to translate box score production into impact.

I mean, we do have Moses on/off numbers and his offensive impact looks massive (again, despite playing with strong rosters):

1. Net rating:

1983: +8.2 net offense, +15,6 total
1984: +10.4 net offense, +3.3 total
1985: +18.8 net offense, +21.7 total
1986: +8.9 net offense, +7.2 total

2. With/without:

1983: +11.6 with, -3.7 without
1984: +3.3 with, +0.0 without
1985: +9.5 with, -12.1 without
1986: +4.6 with, -2.6 without

The only season that doesn't look elite is 1984, unsurprisingly because Moses dealt with injuries in that year.

Hm. I guess, but solely relegating Hakeem to drop coverage would be a massive waste.

I'm not only talking about drop coverages. Ewing was better at hedge or ice coverages as well, he read the game better and gambled less.

Definitely more portable, but there too I would give Ewing a comfortable edge on defence. I would need to be more clearly sold on Reed versus Frazier to really work with that.

I can bring up more Knicks games if you wish

Lanier is the one I would have closest; if he had managed more of a playoff sample in his prime, I probably would have seriously considered voting for him already, with that brief defensive peak and his incredibly flexible offensive game.

I think Lanier was clearly behind the rest defensively, but also clearly the best on offense (while not being bad on defense at all). I do have some of his prime games, but not a lot.

[falcolombardi]

So were criticisms of Westbrook winning MVP off two extra rebounds over Harden unfounded because triple doubles are the defining part of his game?

Andre drummond was not a 30 points per game scorer with solid efficiency

With the acknowledgment that this was a factitious comment to illustrate a point about assumed value of a given stat, if you think scoring was what prevented Drummond from being an impact player, we might have bigger problems. Whiteside had solid if not elite scoring volume and efficiency, and that maintained into the postseason. Finished top three in DPoY voting. How high is he on your centre peaks with that unprecedented shotblocking profile.

Well, for starters i have never said westbrook was better than harden in 2017. Let alone arguing it based on the triple double or rebound thingh

And for bench units i never argued that westbrook rebounding total over harden was any significant advantage

And for third stringers i would say that most of harden and westbrook rebounds were defensive ones they grabbed of their teams boxing out for them to start the fastbreak (a valid tactic that has the side effect of inflating your star boxscore)

I dont know if you remember but i was arguing in harden vs nash discussions with other posters that a lot of harden advantage in stats like per or bpm came from uncontested defensive rebounding. so i would be the first to say the arbitrary 10 rebound threeshold is pointless to use as part of westbrook impact

I actually think adams and co boxing out was a bigger part of westbrook and okc rebounding numbers than westbrook himself

Triple doubles are an arbitrary treeshold that looks sexy on paper. 4 offensive rebounds is a tangible and sizable value add

This is a very bad comparision here and is weird to see you make it

Peak Westbrook defining feature was his ability to absorv a huge offensive load and score at least at average efficiency (useful for flooraising offensively limited teams) while creating lots of shots for teammates (key part). Not the triple double thingh which was what media and fans focused on instead

if you think scoring was what prevented Drummond from being an impact player, we might have bigger problems.

No, i think mediocre to subpar defense (depending on year) + bad passing + bad spacing + not being a particularly useful pick and roll partner among othwr thinghs (like his awful free throw shooting back in detroit days) are what prevented him from being better

That doesnt mean his offensive rebounding was not valuable. But it does mean his negatives neutralized or even outwieghted (depending how high or low you are on drummond) his strenghts

Is possible for a mediocre player to have areas (drummond offensive rebounding) where they are a plus

Whiteside had solid if not elite scoring volume and efficiency, and that maintained into the postseason. Finished top three in DPoY voting.

?

If i actually thought whiteside was that level of defender to be worthy of a top 3 in dpoy voting then yeah, i would be higher on him? What is even this point?

Are we gonna use award votes at face value now? Was alvin robertson in 86 a more valuable defender than eaton or hakeem too?

[falcolombardi]

Please, explain how his offensive rebounds were not important. Moses didn't pad his offensive rebound numbers, he was just damn good at getting them.

I wonder whether we would ever say the same for someone like Drummond.

I wouldn't because Drummond has no value without the ball, while Moses did a lot of things when he didn't touch it.

Spoiler:

I looked at the DRB ranks of Moses' teams, because I was thinking heavily at the time about how big men who excel at getting offensive rebounds more than defensive ones, may be using their high skill of "tracking" the ball on the glass on the defensive end, thus chasing after rebounds instead of boxing out. Moses of course has one of the highest ORB to DRB ratios of all players in history, such as in 1982 having 47% of his rebounds on the offensive glass, 53% DRB. A guy I compared him to as on the opposite end of ORB/DRB ratio, Dirk, had 10% of his rebounds offensive in 2011, 90% defensive, and his team managed to have a lot of good defensive rebounding years. Here are Moses' team rebounding stats:

Moses
Rockets 77 - 5th
Rockets 78 - 15/22
Rockets 79 - 9/22
Rockets - 80 - 21/22
Rockets 81 - 11/23
Rockets 82 - 17/23
Sixers 83 - 13/23
Sixers 84 - 18/23
Sixers 85 - 15/23
Sixers 86 - 17/23 - This is a Barkley/Moses frontcourt year. WTF?
Bullets 87 - 22/23
Bullets 88 - 21/23
Hawks 89 - 22/25
Hawks 90 - 26/27
Hawks 91 - 7/27
Bucks 92 - 23/27

That's rough. I also looked at what happened to the team's after his moves - Rockets move from 17th in DRB in 82 to 18th in 83, Sixers move from 22nd DRB in 82 to 13th DRB in 83. So that's not a bad impact, though he was also replacing Daryl Dawkins, who has probably the worst size of human being to rebounding ratio ever. The Sixers are 17th in both 86 and 87, the Bullets are 20th in 86 and 22nd in 87. The Hawks go from 13th in 88 to 22nd in 89, the Bullets go from 21st in 88 to 12th in 89. The Hawks go from 7th in 91 to 8th in 92, the Bucks go from 21st in 91 to 23rd in 92. So the overall changing from team to team doesn't support Moses being an impact defensive rebounder.

I wouldn't completely rule out Moses having an impact on the defensive glass because team results have many variables, but it doesn't look that good to me

This quote is about defensive rebounding, not offensive rebounding. If we go with teams ORB%, Moses teams were consistently all-time great:

1977 Rockets: 1st
1978 Rockets: 4th (Moses missed a 22 games)
1979 Rockets: 3rd
1980 Rockets: 1st
1981 Rockets: 9th
1982 Rockets: 1st
1983 76ers: 1st
1984 76ers: 5th
1985 76ers: 1st
1986 76ers: 1st
1987 Bullets: 7th
1988 Bullets: 8th
1989 Hawks: 2nd
1990 Hawks: 3rd

Spoiler:

People often point out that defense and rebounding win championships. Yet a quick look at this season’s stats shows that there is no correlation between offensive rebounding and team success—more playoff teams were actually below the league average than above it. (This is true historically as well.) The more important rebounding figure to look at, then, is defensive rebounding in isolation, since limiting an opponent’s shots at the basket is an essential component of good defense.

That's true, because most teams that crash the glass on offense give up transition defense and it's not a good thing. I don't see any reason to believe that this trend can be just projected to individual impact. We have quite a few top tier offensive rebounders getting decent offensive impact even in 2022, despite most of them being significantly more limited than Moses on offense.

Moses could crash the glass, while the rest of the team could focus on transition defense. Moses was good enough to do that alone.

Spoiler:

It is almost orthodoxy in most of the NBA today: Offensive rebounding doesn't matter, especially because it threatens the integrity of your defense.
"San Antonio set the model," says Terry Stotts, the Blazers' coach. "Offensive rebounding has never been a priority for us."
Doc Rivers, Stan Van Gundy, Steve Clifford, Erik Spoelstra and Rick Carlisle are among the coaching giants who have (mostly) gone down the Pop path.
"Right now, everything is tilted toward transition defense," Brown says. "We are all sheep."
Players feel the shift too. "Years ago, every coach was looking for offensive rebounds," says Luis Scola, Toronto's starting power forward. "And now it's so different, because coaches don't want to give up transition points. That's why players stopped doing it."
The effect has crescendoed this season. Leaguewide, offenses have rebounded just 23.8 percent of misses, on pace to be the lowest overall mark in NBA history. On the flip side, the Spurs, Hornets and Cavs all have a chance to set the all-time record in defensive rebounding rate -- a record Charlotte set just last season. "If you study the numbers," Clifford says, "you find that offensive rebounding just isn't important in winning big."
He's right in a literal sense, but there might be a chicken-and-egg thing going on. Does ignoring the offensive glass help teams win, or is it just a characteristic of most NBA teams -- including those that win? … Teams keep most of their findings secret, but the wizards at Nylon Calculus use public rebounding data to track which offenses most often have players near the basket, in rebounding position, when someone jacks a shot. They call this "chase percentage," and over the past two seasons, the top five chase teams have ranked around 19th or 20th overall in those same measures of transition defense. (This jibes with some of the non-public data I've seen.) At the same time, the paranoid offensive rebounding teams tend to be among the best at limiting fast-break points.
In other words: There may be real danger in banking too much on offensive rebounds. And that may be especially true for the best teams. Good teams have good offenses, and good offenses make almost half their shots. If the first shot is a decent bet to go in, perhaps the risk-reward calculus favors getting back on defense. This probably plays some role in explaining why good teams appear to avoid the offensive glass: because they're good, not because offensive rebounding is on its face a bad thing. Bad teams have even more incentive to crash hard; they miss more often than good teams!

Same thing here. Another fact is that we shouldn't judge players from the early 1980s by 2010s standards. The game was played differently back then and what's the "orthodoxy" now, wasn't such back then.

Funny thing is I actually agree with all this (note how little this actual case relies on a disparity in offensive rebounds). Again, coming back to “basically”. But the problem is that most of the people voting for Moses were not engaged with his true “value” in this sense — if we were, defence would have been more of a factor than was ever really given beyond “well he made the all-defensive team so he must have been good enough.” Much like with 2019 Harden, it was about the abstract “dominance” of his offence, and that abstract dominance is what Ewing approximated well.

Well, even if most people are not that aware of Moses style and impact, why you ignore things you know? I always say that Moses is very misunderstood player and only few people here actually understand his value. Most people vote for Shaq for wrong reasons as well.

If all people think about Moses is "he averaged X offensive rebounds, he must have been great!", then of course this is wrong. Moses gave his team tremendous value, because he was very good offensive player.

Spoiler:

Moses actually did have great impact with the '83 Sixers because he fit the team really well. Offensively he was in a perfect situation because he had so many guys around him who could create their own offense or for others, so you didn't need Moses to make other guys better. But you're not always going to be that lucky where you can play with three other all-stars in your backcourt, so his portability as an offensive hub in the post is still a major flaw.

But more importantly, the 76ers at the time were sorely lacking a rebounder. In '82 they were the worst rebounding team in the league (partly because of the insanely active defense they played on the perimeter which didn't allow them to crash the boards). They were 22nd out 23 in drb% and 21st in orb%, Moses came in and made them an average defensive rebounding team and the best offensive rebounding team. His defensive rebounding allowed the Sixers guards/wings to play their frenetic defense but not give up second chance points. If he had positive defensive impact that year, it would be because of that (allowing guys around him to focus on defense while he cleared the boards). At the same time though, this could be said about any good defensive rebounder...

Re: People arguing for Moses' defensive impact based on the fact Philly was the 5th best defensive team.

I'll give him solid post defense and solid defensive rebounding which allowed the perimeter guys to play pressure defense without having to worry about hitting the boards (this had hurt them in the past especially against LA), so overall was probably a positive impact defender that year (playing on a contender also naturally increases a player's willingness to play defense as well). But Philly was the best perimeter defensive team in the league. It was the unbelievably active defense applied by the backcourt and Erving/Jones which made them a top 5 defensive team year in year out. What hurts Moses to me, especially in comparison to other guys at his position like Zo or Dwight for example, is that I see them making Philly an all-time great defensive team (with all those active perimeter defenders, you put Zo or Dwight's shot blocking in the middle to shut down the paint, who also provide similar level or better defensive rebounding...how is that not the best defensive team of that era?

Again, this is where fatal9 criticizes Moses for playing in a "perfect situation" (despite Philly having horrible spacing and Julius being far from ideal co-superstar next to him), but shouldn't we start the "portability" conversation here?

Moses fits next to the great talent - he's lucky. Curry fits next to the great talent - he's so good!

I know it's a generalization and Moses indeed was lucky to play with strong team, but he also had such a great impact because he didn't take anything away from Toney, Cheeks and Jones (more so with Julius). Unlike a lot of solid offensive centers, he didn't need the ball in his hands to influence his team. If you exchange Moses with Ewing on 1983 Sixers, their offense would look significantly rougher (though, their defense would be even better). Ewing slowed down the game in halfcourt sets, he was a slow decision maker. He didn't move without the ball like Moses either.

I know that fatal9 is extremely high on Hakeem, but even Hakeem wouldn't work as well in that system. I view Hakeem as a significantly better player overall, but he doesn't fit as well next to strong offensive talent as Moses (again, this is offense-only conversation).

It's not like we haven't seen Moses next to poor offensive teammates either, in 1982 Moses skillset grew up and he showed how versatile he truly was:

Watch on YouTube

I won't touch defense here, because this is strictly an offensive comparison.

I dont know how to put the image here but ben taylor profile on moses haa a graphic of moses teams rank in offensive rebounsing every year and the year before and after him

Not only were they elite with moses in that aspect. They consistently fell off very hars after he left and improved a ton after he joined

Often going from below average before him, to elite with him, to again mediocre when he left

Moses left a huge mark in his teams offensive rebounding and from this, possesion advantage

And that is only the rebounding itself aspect

[AEnigma]

Yeah you are not going to sell me on that. The impact indicators are not there, nor even are the attempts to translate box score production into impact.

I mean, we do have Moses on/off numbers and his offensive impact looks massive (again, despite playing with strong rosters):

1. Net rating:

1983: +8.2 net offense, +15,6 total
1984: +10.4 net offense, +3.3 total
1985: +18.8 net offense, +21.7 total
1986: +8.9 net offense, +7.2 total

1. Again, obviously no one argues 1985 as his peak; simply having a situationally high value on its own is not sufficient for a top peak, especially when comparing with other players with unknown values like every non-76er pre-1994 season.

2. As has been pointed out in threads I believe you have read or otherwise been a part of, lineups matter a lot for these. If the backup centre is bad, that helps Moses. It also helps if Moses gets the most favourable distribution of starters to bench.

3. You would really need to sell 1983 as a massive defensive outlier, and that seems tough to do (contrast with 1974 Lanier, where we can easily see some of the ways that season could manifest an outlier result). More likely is that an extension of #2 is in play where he was part of good defensive lineups (Cheeks perhaps the most most obvious consistent pairing) that lacked adequate replacement.

1983: +11.6 with, -3.7 without
1984: +3.3 with, +0.0 without
1985: +9.5 with, -12.1 without
1986: +4.6 with, -2.6 without

The only season that doesn't look elite is 1984, unsurprisingly because Moses dealt with injuries in that year.

1986 is not elite either. Regardless, even relative to the on/off data we do have, 1985 is the only true outlier, but that only ends up looking just on the level of 1997 Karl Malone, without 1985 making as much sense for Moses’s peak. 1983 is right on par with 1998/99 Mourning for example — and similarly, I think Mourning benefits from lineup structures too.

Hm. I guess, but solely relegating Hakeem to drop coverage would be a massive waste.

I'm not only talking about drop coverages. Ewing was better at hedge or ice coverages as well[/quote]
If you have some good examples on hand, feel free to share; that really only would help my Ewing vote as is, lol.

he read the game better

That I think is at best speculative, possibly tying into…

and gambled less.

Yes, because he was less able to recover from gambles. Which Hakeem knew he could do. And frequently did. That is not a consequence of poor reads, that is a fundamentally different approach based on superior versatility and overall ability. And Hakeem did not see a Dwight-esque drop on defence once that physical ability had been significantly diminished.

Definitely more portable, but there too I would give Ewing a comfortable edge on defence. I would need to be more clearly sold on Reed versus Frazier to really work with that.

I can bring up more Knicks games if you wish

Sure, if you think they provide a clear illustration of Reed’s superior value.

I do have some of Lanier’s prime games, but not a lot.

Those would be great, especially for 1974. A few of his playoff games used to he on Youtube, but now I am struggling to find more than a couple for review. I definitely have watched your compilations on him though.

[AEnigma]

Well, for starters i have never said westbrook was better than harden in 2017. Let alone arguing it based on the triple double or rebound thingh

And for bench units i never argued that westbrook rebounding total over harden was any significant advantage

And for third stringers i would say that most of harden and westbrook rebounds were defensive ones they grabbed of their teams boxing out for them to start the fastbreak (a valid tactic that has the side effect of inflating your star boxscore)

I dont know if you remember but i was arguing in harden vs nash discussions with other posters that a lot of harden advantage in stats like per or bpm came from uncontested defensive rebounding. so i would be the first to say the arbitrary 10 rebound threeshold is pointless to use as part of westbrook impact

But Harden and Westbrook are a better rebounders regardless, and Nash could never be as successful as them even with box outs. That is valuable production, right? How can we compare Nash to Harden when Harden is clearly so much better at rebounding? Have you considered that gap?????

I actually think adams and co boxing out was a bigger part of westbrook and okc rebounding numbers than westbrook himself

I mean to the extent he could regularly hit 10 a game, sure, but he is pretty obviously one of the best ever rebounding guards. That is his thing.

Triple doubles are an arbitrary treeshold that looks sexy on paper. 4 offensive rebounds is a tangible and sizable value add

Have you considered Westbrook’s win rate when he gets triple doubles? Seems like a pretty obvious value add…

This is a very bad comparision here and is weird to see you make it

It is only a bad comparison to the extent that you arbitrarily see one as an absolute value add and the other as nothing.

Peak Westbrook defining feature was his ability to absorv a huge offensive load and score at least at average efficiency (useful for flooraising offensively limited teams) while creating lots of shots for teammates (key part). Not the triple double thingh which was what media and fans focused on instead

Much like focusing on Moses’s offensive rebounds rather than the totality of his game.

i think mediocre to subpar defense (depending on year) + bad passing + bad spacing + not being a particularly useful pick and roll partner among othwr thinghs (like his awful free throw shooting back in detroit days) are what prevented him from being better

That doesnt mean his offensive rebounding was not valuable. But it does mean his negatives neutralized or even outwieghted (depending how high or low you are on drummond) his strenghts

Is possible for a mediocre player to have areas (drummond offensive rebounding) where they are a plus

But you are taking it as a given that even his rebounding was a clear plus.

If f i actually thought whiteside was that level of defender to be worthy of a top 3 in dpoy voting then yeah, i would be higher on him? What is even this point?

Are we gonna use award votes at face value now? Was alvin robertson in 86 a more valuable defender than eaton or hakeem too?

And why do you not assess him that way. After all, he has massive outlier block rates.

Alvin Robertson another great example. Extreme outlier steal rates. That is his thing. How dare I suggest guys like Jrue might be better on defence… right?

I dont know how to put the image here but ben taylor profile on moses haa a graphic of moses teams rank in offensive rebounsing every year and the year before and after him

Not only were they elite with moses in that aspect. They consistently fell off very hars after he left and improved a ton after he joined

Often going from below average before him, to elite with him, to again mediocre when he left

Moses left a huge mark in his teams offensive rebounding and from this, possesion advantage

And that is only the rebounding itself aspect

The offensive rebounding aspect. Did you even read my post. Do you seriously not see the contradiction in saying, ah, Westbrook rebounds are fake value, and Harden rebounds are fake value, and Whiteside’s blocks are fake value… but Moses’s rebounds? Well we know that is valuable!

[70sFan]

So few things on this:

1. Again, obviously no one argues 1985 as his peak; simply having a situationally high value on its own is not sufficient for a top peak, especially when comparing with other players with unknown values like every non-76er pre-1994 season.

Sure, but you said there are no indication of him having big impact, which is just not true. If Moses past his peak could have elite impact on a good team, then it's quite a good thing - right? A lot of people argue for 1983 and it looks very good as well.

2. As has been pointed out in threads I believe you have read or otherwise been a part of, lineups matter a lot for these. If the backup centre is bad, that helps Moses. It also helps if Moses gets the most favourable distribution of starters to bench.

Sure thing, which is why I never said I have Moses high because of his lineups numbers. I just use them as the indication of him being quite impactful.

3. You would really need to sell 1983 as a massive defensive outlier, and that seems tough to do (contrast with 1974 Lanier, where we can easily see some of the ways that season could manifest an outlier result). More likely is that an extension of #2 is in play where he was part of good defensive lineups (Cheeks perhaps the most most obvious consistent pairing) that lacked adequate replacement.

I think Moses improved noticeably in 1981/82 season defensively (before then, he wasn't very good). I base it on my tape analysis, not necessarily team success. I don't think he was massively better on defense in any season during 1982-85 period, but I do think he was a clearly positive defender during that period.

1986 is not elite either, but in any sense, even relative to the on/off data we do have, 1985 is the only true outlier, but even that ends up looking just on the level of 1997 Karl Malone, without 1985 making as much sense for Moses’s peak. 1983 is right on par with 1998/99 Mourning for example — and similarly, I think Mourning benefits from lineup structures too.

Maybe 1986 isn't elite, but it's definitely a positive. Again, you act like I base everything on these numbers, while I simply use them to prove your take wrong. You don't use 1985, because it's an outlier. You don't use 1983, because of lineups and favorable fit. Then you are basically left with past prime or injured version of Moses.

Do you have any reasons why you don't find Moses impactful, outside of not liking his game?

If you have some good examples on hand, feel free to share; that really only would help my Ewing vote as is, lol.

You can basically compare any 1994 Knicks playoff game to 1994 Rockets vs Suns series for example. Hakeem got torched by KJ in P&Rs during that series. I don't have the access to my hard drive right now though, so I won't give you any specifics for now. I will try to give some examples of Ewing's P&R defense later.

That I think is at best speculative, possibly tying into…

Yes, because he was less able to recover from gambles. Which Hakeem knew he could do. And frequently did. That is not a consequence of poor reads, that is a fundamentally different approach based on superior versatility and overall ability. And Hakeem did not see a Dwight-esque drop on defence once that physical ability had been significantly diminished.

Sure, the difference is much more subtle than in Dwight's case. When I talk about gambling and reading offense, I strictly meant it for P&R defense. Hakeem was excellent at protecting the paint and helping on defense, better than Ewing - but his decision making in P&R situations are more questionable to me.

With Hakeem, he was so absurdly athletic that you can basically say him to switch everything and he'd destroy offense anyway though. Yeah, Olajuwon was ridiculous on defense.

Sure, if you think they provide a clear illustration of Reed’s superior value.

Well, I don't know that. I am extremely high on Frazier as well. Anyway, here are some for start:

Spoiler:

https://youtu.be/HiubVJqa4XQ

https://youtu.be/HUD9lcLgROM
https://youtu.be/v9pBsoTQ_vY

https://youtu.be/3z2nmKCOSNY

https://youtu.be/xkRu59Vx9fc

https://youtu.be/FTyplnVh_e0

https://youtu.be/OdSFZ6EheHE
https://youtu.be/_EjrBbPfXzg

https://youtu.be/pCguAc0N2HE

https://youtu.be/qw3VKylRddc

https://youtu.be/X47JQ0JGs3U

https://youtu.be/XeBXYV6BbY0

https://youtu.be/qufPYfyexpc

Those would be great, especially for 1974. A few of his playoff games used to he on Youtube, but now I am struggling to find more than a couple for review. I definitely have watched your compilations on him though.

Here is all I have that wasn't available online:

Spoiler:

https://youtu.be/9AsS3RZLfLk

https://youtu.be/laOKeUrlS4Y
https://youtu.be/GFIrlKOTsVo
https://youtu.be/S04C_Jkip9U
https://youtu.be/SjDWVo3IqHg

https://youtu.be/bqX5xSCnBRw
https://youtu.be/LSnuQIwrRO4
https://youtu.be/W-zCUHylxF4

https://youtu.be/Z05vmbun9Wc
https://youtu.be/ggp0MV1_MNc
https://youtu.be/Z1lL5DppXY8

https://youtu.be/Ius5m11yChs

[AEnigma]

Sure, but you said there are no indication of him having big impact, which is just not true. If Moses past his peak could have elite impact on a good team, then it's quite a good thing - right? A lot of people argue for 1983 and it looks very good as well.

As with all things, it is a comparative question. No one has ever argued Moses had literally no impact.

1986 is not elite either, but in any sense, even relative to the on/off data we do have, 1985 is the only true outlier, but even that ends up looking just on the level of 1997 Karl Malone, without 1985 making as much sense for Moses’s peak. 1983 is right on par with 1998/99 Mourning for example — and similarly, I think Mourning benefits from lineup structures too.

Maybe 1986 isn't elite, but it's definitely a positive. Again, you act like I base everything on these numbers, while I simply use them to prove your take wrong. You don't use 1985, because it's an outlier. You don't use 1983, because of lineups and favorable fit. Then you are basically left with past prime or injured version of Moses.

Do you have any reasons why you don't find Moses impactful, outside of not liking his game?

The take is “wrong” only if you legitimately think I was trying to say Moses was equivalent to a replacement level player. Seeing as the context of this entire project is a comparative one, and this particular discussion was focused on the comparison between Ewing and Moses, does that really seem like a reasonable interpretation to you?

The argument needs to be what traits make him more impactful that other centres — most of whom are starting from a DPoY-level base while providing good (if less valuable) volume scoring of their own.

If you have some good examples on hand, feel free to share; that really only would help my Ewing vote as is, lol.

You can basically compare any 1994 Knicks playoff game to 1994 Rockets vs Suns series for example. Hakeem got torched by KJ in P&Rs during that series.

We seem to have radically different assessments of what it means to be torched. Guessing Game 2 is the best example of what you are thinking, so I will try to give that a rewatch.

Also struggling to figure out any remotely equivalent pnr threat Ewing dealt with… Tim Hardaway, I guess? Ewing definitely had the advantage in that matchup, but not sure how much I would extrapolate to the KJ/Barkley Suns… Like, Hakeem was the guy going up against the best pnr offences consistently, not Ewing.

That I think is at best speculative, possibly tying into…

Yes, because he was less able to recover from gambles. Which Hakeem knew he could do. And frequently did. That is not a consequence of poor reads, that is a fundamentally different approach based on superior versatility and overall ability. And Hakeem did not see a Dwight-esque drop on defence once that physical ability had been significantly diminished.

Sure, the difference is much more subtle than in Dwight's case. When I talk about gambling and reading offense, I strictly meant it for P&R defense. Hakeem was excellent at protecting the paint and helping on defense, better than Ewing - but his decision making in P&R situations are more questionable to me.

With Hakeem, he was so absurdly athletic that you can basically say him to switch everything and he'd destroy offense anyway though. Yeah, Olajuwon was ridiculous on defense.

Okay not asking for film here, just a consistent habitual disadvantage you have identified. What is the precise criticism in Hakeem’s decision-making that left his team poorly equipped to handle pnrs relative to Ewing.

Anyway, here are some for start /
Here is all I have that wasn't available online:

Much obliged.

[falcolombardi]

Well, for starters i have never said westbrook was better than harden in 2017. Let alone arguing it based on the triple double or rebound thingh

And for bench units i never argued that westbrook rebounding total over harden was any significant advantage

And for third stringers i would say that most of harden and westbrook rebounds were defensive ones they grabbed of their teams boxing out for them to start the fastbreak (a valid tactic that has the side effect of inflating your star boxscore)

I dont know if you remember but i was arguing in harden vs nash discussions with other posters that a lot of harden advantage in stats like per or bpm came from uncontested defensive rebounding. so i would be the first to say the arbitrary 10 rebound threeshold is pointless to use as part of westbrook impact

But Harden and Westbrook are a better rebounders regardless, and Nash could never be as successful as them even with box outs. That is valuable production, right? How can we compare Nash to Harden when Harden is clearly so much better at rebounding? Have you considered that gap?????

I actually think adams and co boxing out was a bigger part of westbrook and okc rebounding numbers than westbrook himself

I mean to the extent he could regularly hit 10 a game, sure, but he is pretty obviously one of the best ever rebounding guards. That is his thing.

Triple doubles are an arbitrary treeshold that looks sexy on paper. 4 offensive rebounds is a tangible and sizable value add

Have you considered Westbrook’s win rate when he gets triple doubles? Seems like a pretty obvious value add…

This is a very bad comparision here and is weird to see you make it

It is only a bad comparison to the extent that you arbitrarily see one as an absolute value add and the other as nothing.

Peak Westbrook defining feature was his ability to absorv a huge offensive load and score at least at average efficiency (useful for flooraising offensively limited teams) while creating lots of shots for teammates (key part). Not the triple double thingh which was what media and fans focused on instead

Much like focusing on Moses’s offensive rebounds rather than the totality of his game.

i think mediocre to subpar defense (depending on year) + bad passing + bad spacing + not being a particularly useful pick and roll partner among othwr thinghs (like his awful free throw shooting back in detroit days) are what prevented him from being better

That doesnt mean his offensive rebounding was not valuable. But it does mean his negatives neutralized or even outwieghted (depending how high or low you are on drummond) his strenghts

Is possible for a mediocre player to have areas (drummond offensive rebounding) where they are a plus

But you are taking it as a given that even his rebounding was a clear plus.

If f i actually thought whiteside was that level of defender to be worthy of a top 3 in dpoy voting then yeah, i would be higher on him? What is even this point?

Are we gonna use award votes at face value now? Was alvin robertson in 86 a more valuable defender than eaton or hakeem too?

And why do you not assess him that way. After all, he has massive outlier block rates.

Alvin Robertson another great example. Extreme outlier steal rates. That is his thing. How dare I suggest guys like Jrue might be better on defence… right?

I dont know how to put the image here but ben taylor profile on moses haa a graphic of moses teams rank in offensive rebounsing every year and the year before and after him

Not only were they elite with moses in that aspect. They consistently fell off very hars after he left and improved a ton after he joined

Often going from below average before him, to elite with him, to again mediocre when he left

Moses left a huge mark in his teams offensive rebounding and from this, possesion advantage

And that is only the rebounding itself aspect

The offensive rebounding aspect. Did you even read my post. Do you seriously not see the contradiction in saying, ah, Westbrook rebounds are fake value, and Harden rebounds are fake value, and Whiteside’s blocks are fake value… but Moses’s rebounds? Well we know that is valuable!

But Harden and Westbrook are a better rebounders regardless, and Nash could never be as successful as them even with box outs. That is valuable production, right? How can we compare Nash to Harden when Harden is clearly so much better at rebounding? Have you considered that gap?????

Grabbing all the easy defensive rebounds by scheme in a league that doesnt charge the offensive rebounds as much anymore is very different from taking a historically outlier amoung of offensive rebounds in a league where everyone went for them

Nash didnt charge the defensive rebounds but he was still better per game watching at pushing the pace after a miss and starting and finishing a fastbreak than either harden or westbrook.

So what would be the maing advantage of a high defense rebounding guard (stsrting the break quickly) was not an advantage for them in comparision to nash

Offensive rebounding is very different. You cannot "statpad" offensive rebounds. The defense will never let you take offensive boards for free the way a offense can concede the easy defensive rebound by not charging the boards and focusing on running back on defense. Nor can your teammates just box you out for them as in defense* (there are some possesions where a teanmate boxing out lets someone else take the offensive boards but they are uncommon)

Again these are very false equivalencies you are going for

Now if i thought that harden and westbrook significatively improved their teams defensive rebounding? Now -that- would be a sizable advantage to consider.

In fact didnt you just argue earlier for the value of defensive rebounding when comparing other centrrs to moses and showing moses teams didnt have great defensive rebounding?

Do i think west/harden raised their teams defensive rebounding significatively compared to nash? Not in particular. But if i saw data that said so then it
-would- be noteworthy

Just like we have team data that shows how much moses raised his teams offensive rebounding (and hence possesion advantage) ranks. The rockets and sixers were mediocre offensive rebounding teams before and after moses but fantastic with him

Possesion advantage matters

That is his thing.

The triple doubles are westbrook think as much as shooting granny free throws was barry thingh or dating a kardashian was blake griffing thingh(/s)

Aka, the thingh they were famous for but not the one that defined their game or impact

Have you considered Westbrook’s win rate when he gets triple doubles? Seems like a pretty obvious value add…

Games where westbrook gets 10 assists probably have better scoring by his teammates -on average- than ganes where he doesnt

Games where westbrook gets tons of rebounds likely have -on average- more missed shots by rivals (hence more defensive rebounding chances) which leads to more fastbreaks opportunities than a game with less rival bricks. Missing lots of shots hurts a defense by forcing it to defend more in the full court

There is a correlation, but not necesarrily a causation

It is only a bad comparison to the extent that you arbitrarily see one as an absolute value add and the other as nothing.

i already argued why i see moses offensive rebounding as more valuable than westbrook defensive rebounding

I have explained it in this and previous posts. I would apprecciate if you argued the point i made in comparing them rather than accusing me of arbitrarily valuing one more than the other when i already explained why i think so

Just like i imagine you value ewing defense more than moses rebounding. I value moses off rebounding more than westbrook def one

Much like focusing on Moses’s offensive rebounds rather than the totality of his game.

Again, once more

i have been arguing from the start the offensive rebounding part of moses game. It was my first comment (that moses grabbed much more offensive rebounds than ewing and why that is a -significant- advantage)

I argue that part because that part was the one i wanted to comment on

I have literally zero issue with you prefering ewing over moses. I have a "issue" or disagreement with your opinion on moses rebounding game as somethingh of limited value

But you are taking it as a given that even his rebounding was a clear plus.

.....Yes?. Getting extra shots is a good thingh

Now if we thought that by focusing on getting those rebounds drummond (or moses) was doing other negative thinghs like clogging the paint, not running back on defense, etc

THEN, his overall -approach- wouldbt be positive, while the offensive rebounds themselves would be

Is the same reasoning as high steal defenders. A possesion than ends with a steal is a great thingh. A possesion where a whiffed steal attempt breaks the defense is bad. The balance of it determines if said player approach to steals is a positive or a negative

If a players gets a ton of steals without compromising the defense by gambling in doing so then that is awesome. If he causes a lot of breakdowns by hunting steals then it becomes less awesome and arguably a negative

But the steal possesion themselves remain a possitive

Now, do you think drummond or moses were hurtinh their teams on other areas by going for offensive rebounds? That is the argument you should go for and explain why you think so

And why do you not assess him that way. After all, he has massive outlier block rates.

Alvin Robertson another great example. Extreme outlier steal rates. That is his thing. How dare I suggest guys like Jrue might be better on defence… right?

????

I dont asses players defense by dpoy votes* (although i admit to use them to get an idea on players i have not watched yet) just like i dont use steals or blocks to think they are good defensive players. I think i have been consistent on not using awards for arguments?

Like i literally dont remember ever arguing somethingh based on league awards

I am also as high on jrue defense as it gets

I already explained that while high steals/blocks dont mean someone is a good defender....all else being equal having high steals and blocks is a great thingh that is my whole point

If jrue could do exactly the same defensively but somehow have the ability to grab 1 or 2 more steals a game he would be a even better defender

If jordan could get the same amount of steals with less gambles he would be even better

That is like...my whole point here

Moses grabbed a lot of offensive rebounds, amd improved his team offensive rebounding a ton.... that is -inarguably- a great thingh by itself

Do you think by doing so he hurt his teams in other areas? If so which and why?

If you think by going for so many offensive boards moses caused losses to his teams in other aspects (clogging the paint, conceding easier fastbreaks) then that is perfectly fine by me

I would have no issue -at all- with a reasoning like that. I had an issue with saying that a 4 offensive rebounds advantage (aka a 4 extra shots advantage) was not valuable or an advantage to considet

That is the thingh i want to discuss here

Westbrook rebounds are fake value, and Harden rebounds are fake value, and Whiteside’s blocks are fake value… but Moses’s rebounds? Well we know that is valuable!

That is quite the extrapolation here.....

I never said they are "fake value" but marginal one in the sense they are defensive reboundings that for the most part their teams were going to get regardless

As in westbrook grabbing it doesnt raise oklahoma defensive rebound percentage more than if he let adams take it and give him the ball

Moses taking offensive rebounds -does-, unarguably raise his team offensive rebound percentage (and if you are skeptical we can see how moses teams explode in offensive reboundinh when he joined and fell off when he left)

Possesion advantage matters, a lot. Stealing a lot of offensive rebounds helps to gain it.

Taking uncontested defensive rebounds than the other teammates could also grab doesnt

Is why i am high on great boxing out players like adams or marc gasol defensive reboinding

Theu wont get too many but will raise their teams defensive rebounding which is what actually matters

Does this mean harden and westbrook defensive rebounding is worthless? No. As not -all- are uncontested balls falling between 5 rockets/okc players -and- them getting them may accelerate fastbreaks a bit (how much value this adds i am honestly unsure of but is somethingh to look into)

But yeah. Moses 7 offensive rebounds >>>westbrook 8 defensive ones

[70sFan]

As with all things, it is a comparative question. No one has ever argued Moses had literally no impact.

Then what makes you believe that Moses had less impact than Ewing?

The take is “wrong” only if you legitimately think I was trying to say Moses was equivalent to a replacement level player. Seeing as the context of this entire project is a comparative one, and this particular discussion was focused on the comparison between Ewing and Moses, does that really seem like a reasonable interpretation to you?

The argument needs to be what traits make him more impactful that other centres — most of whom are starting from a DPoY-level base while providing good (if less valuable) volume scoring of their own.

We don't have the numbers for Ewing unfortunately, but why do you assume he'd look better? Moses looks elite, it doesn't mean he was elite but it is an indicator.

We seem to have radically different assessments of what it means to be torched. Guessing Game 2 is the best example of what you are thinking, so I will try to give that a rewatch.

A few examples, take out what you want from them:

Watch on YouTube

5:40
11:40
36:28
37:11
40:46
57:03

It's not the game I was talking about, but not all of them are available anymore.

Another two examples:

Watch on YouTube

22:15
34:10

Also struggling to figure out any remotely equivalent pnr threat Ewing dealt with… Tim Hardaway, I guess? Ewing definitely had the advantage in that matchup, but not sure how much I would extrapolate to the KJ/Barkley Suns… Like, Hakeem was the guy going up against the best pnr offences consistently, not Ewing.

Good point.

Okay not asking for film here, just a consistent habitual disadvantage you have identified. What is the precise criticism in Hakeem’s decision-making that left his team poorly equipped to handle pnrs relative to Ewing.

His positioning when he drops, often causing him being out of action. Ewing slided better in front of ball-handler and his length certainly helped him.

In hedge possessions, Hakeem often did awkward "lean into" perimeter player movement, doing actually nothing and recovering slowly. I won't have much time to go in-detail here, maybe I will write a bit more later.

[AEnigma]

Offensive rebounding is very different. You cannot "statpad" offensive rebounds. The defense will never let you take offensive boards for free the way a offense can concede the easy defensive rebound by not charging the boards and focusing on running back on defense. Nor can your teammates just box you out for them

Again these are very false equivalencies you are going for

So if Harden and Westbrook would be better if they played in an era where defensive rebounds were more contested?

Steals and blocks are not freely given either. So are they all inherently valuable?

In fact didnt you just argue earlier for the value of defensive rebounding when comparing other centrrs to moses and showing moses teams didnt have great defensive rebounding?

Oh good so you at the very least did in fact skim some of what I posted.

The triple doubles are westbrook think as much as shooting granny free throws was barry thingh or dating a kardashian was blake griffing thingh(/s)

Aka, the thingh they were famous for but not the one that defined their game or impact

So… still like Moses?

Have you considered Westbrook’s win rate when he gets triple doubles? Seems like a pretty obvious value add…

There is a correlation, but not necesarrily a causation

If only offensive rebounds correlated as well to wins.

It is only a bad comparison to the extent that you arbitrarily see one as an absolute value add and the other as nothing.

Have you considered that i already argued why i see moses offensive rebounding as more valuable than westbrook defensive rebounding

I have explained it in this and previous posts. I would apprecciate if you argued the point i made in comparing them rather than accusing me of arbitrarily valuing one more than the other when i already explained why i think so

Just like i imagine you value ewing defense more than moses rebounding. I value moses off rebounding more than westbrook def one

Again, once more

i have been arguing from the start the offensive rebounding part of moses game. It was ny first comment (that moses grabbed much more offensive rebounds than ewing and why that is a -significant- advantage)

I argue that part because that part was the one i wanted to comment on

I have literally zero issue with prefering ewing over moses. I have a "issue" or disagreement with your opinion on moses rebounding game as somethingh of limited value

As a matter of fact you have not made a point why they are in themselves valuable. What you did do was ignore everything I posted suggesting they are not valuable.

But you are taking it as a given that even his rebounding was a clear plus.

.....Yes?. Getting extra shots is a good thingh

And getting steals and blocking shots are good things too. Getting an assist, good thing. Scoring efficiently, good thing.

Wow this is such insightful discourse.

Now if we thought that by focusing on getting those rebounds drummond (or moses) was doing other negative thinghs like clogging the paint, not running back on defense, etc

THEN, his overall -approach- wouldbt be positive, while the offensive rebounds themselves would be

Is the same reasoning as high steal defenders. A possesion than ends with a steal is a great thingh. A possesion where a whiffed steal attempt breaks the defense is bad

If a players gets a ton of steals without compromising the defense by gambling in doing so then that is awesome. If he causes a lot of breakdowns by hubting steals then it becomes less awesome and arguably a negative

But the steal possesion themselves remain a possitive

So in other words nothing is inherently valuable.

Now, do you think drummond or moses were hurtinh their teams on other areas by going for offensive rebounds? That is the argument you should go for and explain why you think so

And why do you not assess him that way. After all, he has massive outlier block rates.

Alvin Robertson another great example. Extreme outlier steal rates. That is his thing. How dare I suggest guys like Jrue might be better on defence… right?

????

I dont asses players defense by dpoy votes* (although i admit to use them to get an idea on players i have not watched) just like i dont use steals or blocks to think they are good defensive players. I think i have been very consistent on this?

I am also as high on jrue defense

I already explained that while high steals/blocks dont mean someone is a good defender....all else being equal having high steals and blocks is a great thingh that is my whole point

If jrue could do exactly the same defensively but somehow have the ability to grab 1 or 2 more steals a game he would be a even better defender

If jordan could get the same amount of steals with less gambles he would be even better

That is like...my whole point here

“If you can do good things without consequence, that is good.” More excellent insight.

Moses grabbed a lot of offensive rebounds, amd improved his team offensive rebounding a ton.... that is -inarguably- a great thingh by itself

Do you think by doing so he hurt his teams in other areas? If so which and why?

If you think by goint for so many offensive boards moses caused losses to his teams in other aspects (clogging the paint, conceding easier fastbreaks) then that is perfectly fine by me

I would have no issue -at all-with a reasoning like that. I had an issue with saying that a 4 offensive rebounds advantage (aka a 4 extra shots advantage) was not valuable

That is the thingh i want to discuss here

Maybe you should read posts rather than just quoting them in full. No, I do not think offensive rebounds are that inherently valuable because no they do not come with zero possible tradeoff. Saying Moses is positively distinct because he has double Ewing’s offensive rebounds is a garbage argument on par with all the other “false equivalences” that you have been far more interested in contextualising.

Moses taking offensive rebounds -does-, unarguably raise his team offensive rebound percentage (and if you are skeptical we can see how moses teams explode in offensive reboundinh when he joined and fell off when he left)

Possesion advantage matters, a lot. Stealing a lot of offensive rebounds helps to gain it.

Preventing transition opportunities matters more. Not hampering your team’s ability to limit those opportunities helps more.

[AEnigma]

As with all things, it is a comparative question. No one has ever argued Moses had literally no impact.

Then what makes you believe that Moses had less impact than Ewing? We don't have the numbers for Ewing unfortunately, but why do you assume he'd look better? Moses looks elite, it doesn't mean he was elite but it is an indicator.

He has better WOWY(R) in every form, better GPM, better box metrics (harkening back to the idea of trying to use them as approximations), solid impact past his peak on Knicks squads that did not offer much opportunity for any lineup juicing… More subjectively I prefer his team results as a solo star, think defence scales well independently of any lineup noise, and grade him higher than Alonzo Mourning by stylistic comparison.

A few examples, take out what you want from them:

Watch on YouTube

5:40
11:40
36:28
37:11
40:46
57:03

It's not the game I was talking about, but not all of them are available anymore.

Another two examples:

Watch on YouTube

22:15
34:10

Cool, will review.

His positioning when he drops, often causing him being out of action. Ewing slided better in front of ball-handler and his length certainly helped him.

In hedge possessions, Hakeem often did awkward "lean into" perimeter player movement, doing actually nothing and recovering slowly. I won't have much time to go in-detail here, maybe I will write a bit more later.

Hm. Alright, noted, will make a point to watch for that and determine whether I agree it is a demonstrably negative habit.

(Did not notice this immediately, but that 1974 Game 5 is a great find. Excited to watch that one especially; too bad Lanier had to be on the losing end of a Bob Love hotstreak lol.)

[falcolombardi]

Offensive rebounding is very different. You cannot "statpad" offensive rebounds. The defense will never let you take offensive boards for free the way a offense can concede the easy defensive rebound by not charging the boards and focusing on running back on defense. Nor can your teammates just box you out for them

Again these are very false equivalencies you are going for

So if Harden and Westbrook would be better if they played in an era where defensive rebounds were more contested?

Steals and blocks are not freely given either. So are they all inherently valuable?

In fact didnt you just argue earlier for the value of defensive rebounding when comparing other centrrs to moses and showing moses teams didnt have great defensive rebounding?

Oh good so you at the very least did in fact skim some of what I posted.

The triple doubles are westbrook think as much as shooting granny free throws was barry thingh or dating a kardashian was blake griffing thingh(/s)

Aka, the thingh they were famous for but not the one that defined their game or impact

So… still like Moses?

Have you considered Westbrook’s win rate when he gets triple doubles? Seems like a pretty obvious value add…

There is a correlation, but not necesarrily a causation

If only offensive rebounds correlated as well to wins.

It is only a bad comparison to the extent that you arbitrarily see one as an absolute value add and the other as nothing.

Have you considered that i already argued why i see moses offensive rebounding as more valuable than westbrook defensive rebounding

I have explained it in this and previous posts. I would apprecciate if you argued the point i made in comparing them rather than accusing me of arbitrarily valuing one more than the other when i already explained why i think so

Just like i imagine you value ewing defense more than moses rebounding. I value moses off rebounding more than westbrook def one

Again, once more

i have been arguing from the start the offensive rebounding part of moses game. It was ny first comment (that moses grabbed much more offensive rebounds than ewing and why that is a -significant- advantage)

I argue that part because that part was the one i wanted to comment on

I have literally zero issue with prefering ewing over moses. I have a "issue" or disagreement with your opinion on moses rebounding game as somethingh of limited value

As a matter of fact you have not made a point why they are in themselves valuable. What you did do was ignore everything I posted suggesting they are not valuable.

But you are taking it as a given that even his rebounding was a clear plus.

.....Yes?. Getting extra shots is a good thingh

And getting steals and blocking shots are good things too. Getting an assist, good thing. Scoring efficiently, good thing.

Wow this is such insightful discourse.

Now if we thought that by focusing on getting those rebounds drummond (or moses) was doing other negative thinghs like clogging the paint, not running back on defense, etc

THEN, his overall -approach- wouldbt be positive, while the offensive rebounds themselves would be

Is the same reasoning as high steal defenders. A possesion than ends with a steal is a great thingh. A possesion where a whiffed steal attempt breaks the defense is bad

If a players gets a ton of steals without compromising the defense by gambling in doing so then that is awesome. If he causes a lot of breakdowns by hubting steals then it becomes less awesome and arguably a negative

But the steal possesion themselves remain a possitive

So in other words nothing is inherently valuable.

Now, do you think drummond or moses were hurtinh their teams on other areas by going for offensive rebounds? That is the argument you should go for and explain why you think so

And why do you not assess him that way. After all, he has massive outlier block rates.

Alvin Robertson another great example. Extreme outlier steal rates. That is his thing. How dare I suggest guys like Jrue might be better on defence… right?

????

I dont asses players defense by dpoy votes* (although i admit to use them to get an idea on players i have not watched) just like i dont use steals or blocks to think they are good defensive players. I think i have been very consistent on this?

I am also as high on jrue defense

I already explained that while high steals/blocks dont mean someone is a good defender....all else being equal having high steals and blocks is a great thingh that is my whole point

If jrue could do exactly the same defensively but somehow have the ability to grab 1 or 2 more steals a game he would be a even better defender

If jordan could get the same amount of steals with less gambles he would be even better

That is like...my whole point here[/quote]
“If you can do good things without consequence, that is good.” More excellent insight.

Moses grabbed a lot of offensive rebounds, amd improved his team offensive rebounding a ton.... that is -inarguably- a great thingh by itself

Do you think by doing so he hurt his teams in other areas? If so which and why?

If you think by goint for so many offensive boards moses caused losses to his teams in other aspects (clogging the paint, conceding easier fastbreaks) then that is perfectly fine by me

I would have no issue -at all-with a reasoning like that. I had an issue with saying that a 4 offensive rebounds advantage (aka a 4 extra shots advantage) was not valuable

That is the thingh i want to discuss here

Maybe you should read posts rather than just quoting them in full. No, I do not think offensive rebounds are that inherently valuable because no they do not come with zero possible tradeoff. Saying Moses is positively distinct because he has double Ewing’s offensive rebounds is a garbage argument on par with all the other “false equivalences” that you have been far more interested in contextualising.

Moses taking offensive rebounds -does-, unarguably raise his team offensive rebound percentage (and if you are skeptical we can see how moses teams explode in offensive reboundinh when he joined and fell off when he left)

Possesion advantage matters, a lot. Stealing a lot of offensive rebounds helps to gain it.

Preventing transition opportunities matters more. Not hampering your team’s ability to limit those opportunities helps more.[/quote]

So if Harden and Westbrook would be better if they played in an era where defensive rebounds were more contested?

No, they would be better if they grabbed the same rebounds in a league where it was harder to get them

Grabbing a really though rebound that most players wouldnt get (whether it be a really tougg defensive board or an offensive ones) is more valuable than being the one to grab by scheme defensive boards that are falling in between 4 teammates With all rival 5 players already running to their court

Not all rebounds are created equal

Steals and blocks are not freely given either. So are they all inherently valuable?

They are inherently valuable in the same sense assists and scoring are, yes

Scoring a basket is good. Scoring inneficiently is not

Gettimg a steal is good, causing more defensive breakdowns by going for steals than possesions saved is not

The principle is the same as scoring efficiency

Oh good so you at the very least did in fact skim some of what I posted.

Yes? Why do you always accuse people of not reading your posts when they disagree with you?

So… still like Moses?

Moses is famous for his offensive rebounding the way westbrook ks famous for his triple doubles? Yeah

But offensive rebounding is a big part of moses game. If he was am average rebounder he would be a significatively worse player

A westbrook who averaged 9.9 rebounds wouldnt be a significatively worse player to that degree

These two thinghs are not like each other at all

If only offensive rebounds correlated as well to wins

.

Possesion advantage definitely correlates to winning

So in other words nothing is inherently valuable.

Yes at least in offense

Scoring a lot is not inherently valuable. It can be inneficient or black hole ish (not passing back)

Stealing a lot is not inherently valuable, some players bleed a ton of value going for their high steal numbers (not all high steal players gamble for steels this way)

Getting a lot of offensive rebounds is not inherently valuable (you may clog the paint or not run back on defense)

Getting a lot of assists is good, but getting them not by creating advantage but by pouncing the ball off the ball then passing to someone to take a tpugh shot wouldnt be

“If you can do good things without consequence, that is good.” More excellent insight

Yes?

Jordan scoring 30 points vs iverson scoring 30 points is not the same as the former does it with less missed shots. It is a basic principle of basketball

Everyone can gamble to get a lot of steals. But a player who can pressure the passing lines and force live dribble turnovers without compromising the defense much is much more valuable

Preventing transition opportunities matters more. Not hampering your team’s ability to limit those opportunities helps more.

In moses era it was still the norm to charge for offensive rebounds and moses did it better than everyone else

Lets say than the average offensive rebounder would be bettet off for his team by not even trying to go for them and instead just always running back. Is a possibility

The issue is that moses was not an average rebounder

For the normal team it doesnt make sense to let your guard take tons of tough and really long off the dribble 3's, but curry or lillard are outliers in that regard

For the normal team with a normal rebounding center it may make sense to not have their center crash the boards, but moses was npt the averahe rebounding center

he has double Ewing’s offensive rebounds is a garbage argument on par with all the other “false equivalences” that you have been far more interested in contextualising.

Saying that 7 offensive rebounds is better than 3 is not a garbagr argument, saying that moses is automatically as good or better than ewing based on only it would be

Good thingh i didnt do that

In fact i didnt even argue ewing vs moses. I argued against you handwaving away the offensive rebound advantage as somethingh that doesnt matter

[70sFan]

He has better WOWY(R) in every form, better GPM, better box metrics (harkening back to the idea of trying to use them as approximations), solid impact past his peak on Knicks squads that did not offer much opportunity for any lineup juicing…

WOWY are basically pointless, because Ewing didn't miss any time in his prime.

I view boxscore metrics as almost useless, but they at least give fuzzy picture on offense (and they give no picture on defense). Moses destroys Ewing in terms of OBPM, he has 6 seasons better than Ewing's best. Moses also looks notably better in more granual boxscore estimates created by Ben Taylor.

More subjectively I prefer his team results as a solo star, think defence scales well independently of any lineup noise, and grade him higher than Alonzo Mourning by stylistic comparison.

I'd say that Ewing has considerably more talent in 1990 than Moses had before the Philly trade, but fair enough. I think we don't need to go too far with Moses vs Ewing, it's better look at him vs the other centers available.

(Did not notice this immediately, but that 1974 Game 5 is a great find. Excited to watch that one especially; too bad Lanier had to be on the losing end of a Bob Love hotstreak lol.)

It's a shame that the game isn't complete, but it's more than nothing. I may try to get more Lanier footage next month.

[AEnigma]

So if Harden and Westbrook would be better if they played in an era where defensive rebounds were more contested?

No, they would be better if they grabbed the same rebounds in a league where it was harder to get them

Grabbing a really though rebound that most players wouldnt get (whether it be a really tougg defensive board or an offensive ones) is more valuable than being the one to grab by scheme defensive boards that are falling in between 4 teammates With all rival 5 players already running to their court

Not all rebounds are created equal

Correct, and offensive rebounds are not equally valuable.

Steals and blocks are not freely given either. So are they all inherently valuable?

They are inherently valuable in the same sense assists and scoring are, yes

Scoring a basket is good. Scoring inneficiently is not

Gettimg a steal is good, causing more defensive breakdowns by going for steals than possesions saved is not

The principle is the same as scoring efficiency

Unfortunately none of this happens in a vacuum.

Oh good so you at the very least did in fact skim some of what I posted.

Yes? Why do you always accuse people of not reading your posts when they disagree with you?

Either you did not read it or you are actively ignoring it.

So… still like Moses?

Moses is famous for his offensive rebounding the way westbrook ks famous for his triple doubles? Yeah

But offensive rebounding is a big part of moses game. If he was am average rebounder he would be a significatively worse player

A westbrook who averaged 9.9 rebounds wouldnt be a significatively worse player to that degree

These two thinghs are not like each other at all

And how exactly would Moses be a worse player if he prioritised offensive rebounds less.

If only offensive rebounds correlated as well to wins

.

Possesion advantage definitely correlates to winning

Yet not offensive rebounds. Almost as if there is a tradeoff in pursuing them, hmmmmmm.

So in other words nothing is inherently valuable.

Yes at least in offense

Scoring a lot is not inherently valuable. It can be inneficient or black hole ish (not passing back)

Stealing a lot is not inherently valuable, some players bleed a ton of value going for their high steal numbers (not all high steal players gamble for steels this way)

Getting a lot of offensive rebounds is not inherently valuable (you may clog the paint or not run back on defense)

Getting a lot of assists is good, but getting them not by creating advantage but by pouncing the ball off the ball then passing to someone to take a tpugh shot wouldnt be

So why do you keep acting as if Moses’s offensive rebounds are inherently valuable.

Preventing transition opportunities matters more. Not hampering your team’s ability to limit those opportunities helps more.

In moses era it was still the norm to charge for offensive rebounds and moses did it better than everyone else

Lets say than the average offensive rebounder would be bettet off for his team by not even trying to go for them and instead just always running back. Is a possibility

The issue is that moses was not an average rebounder

For the normal team it doesnt make sense to let your guard take tons of tough and really long off the dribble 3's, but curry or lillard are outliers in that regard

For the normal team with a normal rebounding center it may make sense to not have their center crash the boards, but moses was npt the averahe rebounding center

That is not an argument — or at least not one which can be applied to basically any star situation. “1962 Wilt was not an average scorer. For a normal team with a normal scoring centre it may make more sense to not score 50 points a game, but Wilt was not the average scoring centre.”

he has double Ewing’s offensive rebounds is a garbage argument on par with all the other “false equivalences” that you have been far more interested in contextualising.

Saying that 7 offensive rebounds is better than 3 is not a garbagr argument, saying that moses is automatically as good or better than ewing based on only it would be

Good thingh i didnt do that

In fact i didnt even argue ewing vs moses. I argued against you handwaving away the offensive rebound advantage as somethingh that doesnt matter

In order for the difference to matter you need to think it qualifies as a marked advantage for Moses. Seeing as the goal of the game is not to boost offensive rebound totals, I do not see it as one.

[AEnigma]

He has better WOWY(R) in every form, better GPM, better box metrics (harkening back to the idea of trying to use them as approximations), solid impact past his peak on Knicks squads that did not offer much opportunity for any lineup juicing…

WOWY are basically pointless, because Ewing didn't miss any time in his prime.

Which is why looking at all the WOWY-related adjustments is more worthwhile. You want to disregard all of them, that is fine, but it is a shared indicator of impact advantaging Ewing.

I view boxscore metrics as almost useless, but they at least give fuzzy picture on offense (and they give no picture on defense). Moses destroys Ewing in terms of OBPM, he has 6 seasons better than Ewing's best. Moses also looks notably better in more granual boxscore estimates created by Ben Taylor.

In full agreement on their limitations, but again, using what we have, Ewing grading better in overall BPM (not sure about Backpicks) and PIPM (probably the box score metric I like most if I had to pick) is worth acknowledging, especially if we think their defensive shortcomings might be worse at assessing Ewing.

None of this by itself is that meaningful, but they all add up, and my subjective eyetest and general “theory of basketball” (or whatever) are already inclined toward Ewing.

[70sFan]

In full agreement on their limitations, but again, using what we have, Ewing grading better in overall BPM (not sure about Backpicks) and PIPM (probably the box score metric I like most if I had to pick) is worth acknowledging, especially if we think their defensive shortcomings might be worse at assessing Ewing.

None of this by itself is that meaningful, but they all add up, and my subjective eyetest and general “theory of basketball” or whatever is already inclined toward Ewing.

Ewing graded better in BPM, but not in OBPM and I think we all agree that DBPM is a useless stat.

I understand why you go with Ewing, I just don't think I agree with your low Moses evaluation.

[AEnigma]

Is it a low evaluation? Again, all comparative, right. Is it inherently low to put him below all these other fringe MVP level centres?

I have him above McAdoo, if that helps. Around par with Gilmore? That one is tougher.

And yeah DBPM is dumb but just using OBPM to assess players in totality when we already agree who is better on which side of the ball achieves even less.

[70sFan]

Is it a low evaluation? Again, all comparative, right. Is it inherently low to put him below all these other fringe MVP level centres?

I have him above McAdoo, if that helps. Around par with Gilmore? That one is tougher.

And yeah DBPM is dumb but just using OBPM to assess players in totality when we already agree who is better on which side of the ball achieves even less.

I think it is low to have him outside top 15 peaks for centers, yes.

I don't mean to throw away defense from the equation, I just mean to throw away DBPM because it sucks. You can't measure defense by boxscore numbers and you know it.

[AEnigma]

Did I say I had him out of the top 15? Quickly doing it in my head, I would go anywhere from #11-16 — but he is just always guaranteed to finish above most those names, so I am rarely forced to decide how I care to weigh him against Mourning or Gilmore or Thurmond or Cowens or Reed. Right away I think he is a better playoff performer than Mourning. Playing high minutes is a good advantage for him too. I would take Moses for the Rockets specifically over all those names. Idk kind-of the problem with playing in different eras with structurally different rosters (and in Gilmore’s case, outright different leagues), but none of that uncertainty feels unfair relative to three league MVPs and two runners-up.

I am not arguing DBPM is some key reason to think Ewing’s defensive advantage outweighs Moses’s offensive advantage, but it — or any box measure — is a point to his favour for how that advantage can manifest.