Rate between three duos

[migya]

Following are three duos, unnamed. Look at the stats for each player in each duo and rate who you think looks best in each duo:



1.

Player A;
RS- ~31.5mins, 14.3pts, 49fg%, 2.5ftm, 90ft%, 1.4 3P, 43fg% 3P, 3reb, 8.5ast, 0.7stl, 0.1blk, 2.9tos, 118OR, 111DR, 20PER, 60.5ts%, 113.7ows, 16.1dws, 129.7ws, .164ws/48, 3bpm, 48vorp, <1300gm

PO- ~35.5mins, 17.3pts, 47.3fg%, 3.3ftm, 90ft%, 1.5 3P, 40.5fg% 3P, 3.5reb, 8.8ast, 0.6stl, 0.1blk, 3.2tos, 116OR, 114DR, 19.8PER, 58.3ts%, 11.7ows, 0.1dws, 11.9ws, .133ws/48, 3.2bpm, 5.5vorp, <130gm


Player B;
RS- ~36mins, 12.6pts, 40fg%, 2.2ftm, 78.5ft%, 1.4 3P, 35fg% 3P, 6.3reb, 8.7ast, 1.9stl, 0.3blk, 2.9tos, 107OR, 102DR, 17.9PER, 50.5ts%, 63.4ows, 75.1dws, 138.6ws, .133ws/48, 3.8bpm, 73.5vorp, ~180gm more than Player A

PO- ~38.5mins, 12.9pts, 39fg%, 2.3ftm, 78ft% 1.5 3P, 32.2fg% 3P, 6.7reb, 8ast, 1.9stl, 0.3blk, 2.8tos, 105OR, 103DR, 17.1PER, 49.8ts%, 6.3ows, 8.1dws, 14.5ws, .114ws/48, 4.3bpm, 9.7vorp, ~40gm more than Player A




2.

Player C;
RS- ~34.7mins, 21.1pts, 52fg%, 6.1ftm, 73.5ft%, 10.6reb, 2.5ast, 1.4stl, 3blk, 2.4tos, 116OR, 96DR, 26.2PER, 58.3ts%, 98.5ows, 80.1dws, 178.7ws, .250ws/48, 7.5bpm, 81.9vorp, <1100gm

PO- ~34.3mins, 18.1pts, 47.9fg%, 5.6ftm, 71ft%, 10.6reb, 2.3ast, 1.2stl, 2.5blk, 2.3tos, 110OR, 96DR, 23PER, 54.7ts%, 7.8ows, 9.7dws, 17.5ws, .199ws/48, 6.2bpm, 8.7vorp, ~130gm


Player D;
RS- ~34mins, 20.7pts, 47fg%, 4.8ftm, 88ft%, 1.3 3P, 38fg% 3P, 7.5reb, 2.4ast, 0.8stl, 0.8blk, 1.6tos, 116OR, 104DR, 22.4PER, 57.7ts%, 143.8ows, 62.6dws, 206.3ws, .193ws/48, 4.5bpm, 84.8vorp, ~500gm more than Player C

PO- ~40.7mins, 25.3pts, 46.2fg%, 7.4ftm, 89ft%, 1 3P, 36.5fg% 3P, 10reb, 2.5ast, 1stl, 0.9blk, 2.3tos, 117OR, 107DR, 23.8PER, 57.7ts%, 18ows, 5.1dws, 23.1ws, .188ws/48, 5.9bpm, 11.8vorp, ~20 gms more than Player C



3.

Player E;
RS- ~36.7mins, 22.1pts, 54fg%, 5.9ftm, 73.5ft%, 0.5 3P, 26.5fg%, 3P, 11.7reb, 4ast, 1.5stl, 0.8blk, 3.1tos, 119OR, 105DR, 24.6PER, 61.2ts%, 123.3ows, 53.9dws, 177.2ws, .216ws/48, 6.1bpm, 80.5vorp, <1100gm

PO- ~39.4mins, 23pts, 51.3fg%, 6.1ftm, 71.7ft%, 0.5 3P, 25.5fg% 3P, 13reb, 4ast, 1.6stl, 0.9blk, 2.9tos, 118OR, 107DR, 24.2PER, 58.4ts%, 13.6ows, 5.9dws, 19.5ws, .193ws/48, 6.3bpm, 10.1vorp, <130gm


Player F;
RS- ~34.5mins, 17.8pts, 49.7fg%, 3.3ftm, 79ft%, 10reb, 3.7ast, 1.3stl, 1.4blk, 2.2tos, 110OR, 99DR, 22.7PER, 54.6ts%, 99.9ows, 91.5dws, 191.4ws, .182ws/48, 5.6bpm, 96.9vorp, ~400gm more than Player E

PO- ~36.9mins, 18.2pts, 48fg%, 3.3ftm, 79ft%, 10.7reb, 3.3ast, 1.2stl, 1.3blk, 2.4tos, 105OR, 99DR, 21.1PER, 52.5ts%, 7.1ows, 9.3dws, 16.4ws, .149ws/48, 5.1bpm, 9.4vorp, ~20gm more than Player E

[migya]

Will name the players after, interested on people's takes

[70sFan]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

[MyUniBroDavis]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

It’s not even just too, that it’s mad annoying to look at lol

[migya]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

That's all the information needed. Raw and advanced stats.

[Owly]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

That's all the information needed. Raw and advanced stats.

Well
1) per above formatting isn't user friendly, don't know if we could do better here in terms of tables but honestly even fresh lines would be slightly more readable though an aligned table would be clearly best.
2) Not all the same info is in for each making it at the margin even harder to read, granting that the value of C and F's 3s isn't that relevant to the value they provided.
3) There are some advanced stats but nothing in the way of impact stuff, as implied above there's an awful lot of defense missing. And there's a consensus that there's a defensive gap in each of these pairs.
4) Career averages and totals whilst very useful are an incomplete picture. It's the additional value of a higher highs that just gets mushed in. Looking at say Moses Malone, his later years add win shares and VORP, pull down on his averages and thereby disguise the data on the more relevant part of his career.
5) On much of the raw production, efficiency stats, era norms will differ. Thus whilst C and D overlap they are not primarily playing in the same league, so league norms might or might not be the same.
6) Playoffs especially the data is troubles and this applies even when we know the names but people can (and hopefully do) try to curve to acknowledge context ... a Gary Payton arguably plays three of his 4 longest runs outside his prime, arguably 4 of Cassell's top 6 do whilst Isiah Thomas misses the playoffs in his weakest years. I would argue that Elton Brand plays the majority of his playoff minutes post prime. Playoffs can be substantially uneven in distribution and opponent and other context that it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions about player quality absent context.

Fwiw, knowing the players, lazy otoh thoughts, I'd take A over B, C over D and F over E.

[Dutchball97]

I'm interested in the angle of these comparisons. Because obviously if you just want to compare players you'd list them normally but I'm assuming you're seeing a dissonance between general perception and these stats?

Without spoiling too much about the actual names of the players (although just looking at career VORP will get you there in under a minute) player A is much higher regarded than player B despite looking comparable to player B at best, while also playing much less. However, player A has the advantage in +- based stats. What also gets lost here in the career numbers is player A having a better prime with a longer time among the top players in the league. I'm personally lower on player A than most here but even then this just does not show the full picture.

Player E and F are the most explainable tbh. Player E is pretty much offense only, while player F is an elite defender. We don't have extensive +- for player E but player F excells in that front as well.

The comparison between player C and D I'm not so sure about. This is the main one I'm not sure about what you'd hope to hear from people as it does seem like you clearly favor B over A and E over F. Especially since these players are usually ranked right next to each other instead of the 10+ ranking gaps between the other two duos. I'm guessing you're arguing for player C here as he was a much better regular season player than player D and while C's play-off drop-off is well documented, it's still not far behind player D's post-season stats?

The players for who just wants to know and understand my comment better:

Spoiler:

F - Kevin Garnett
E - Charles Barkley
D - Dirk Nowitzki
C - David Robinson
B - Jason Kidd
A - Steve Nash

[70sFan]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

That's all the information needed. Raw and advanced stats.

That's all the information you need I suppose, but I don't rank players based on looking at basketball-reference advances stats page.

[migya]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

That's all the information needed. Raw and advanced stats.

Well
1) per above formatting isn't user friendly, don't know if we could do better here in terms of tables but honestly even fresh lines would be slightly more readable though an aligned table would be clearly best.
2) Not all the same info is in for each making it at the margin even harder to read, granting that the value of C and F's 3s isn't that relevant to the value they provided.
3) There are some advanced stats but nothing in the way of impact stuff, as implied above there's an awful lot of defense missing. And there's a consensus that there's a defensive gap in each of these pairs.
4) Career averages and totals whilst very useful are an incomplete picture. It's the additional value of a higher highs that just gets mushed in. Looking at say Moses Malone, his later years add win shares and VORP, pull down on his averages and thereby disguise the data on the more relevant part of his career.
5) On much of the raw production, efficiency stats, era norms will differ. Thus whilst C and D overlap they are not primarily playing in the same league, so league norms might or might not be the same.
6) Playoffs especially the data is troubles and this applies even when we know the names but people can (and hopefully do) try to curve to acknowledge context ... a Gary Payton arguably plays three of his 4 longest runs outside his prime, arguably 4 of Cassell's top 6 do whilst Isiah Thomas misses the playoffs in his weakest years. I would argue that Elton Brand plays the majority of his playoff minutes post prime. Playoffs can be substantially uneven in distribution and opponent and other context that it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions about player quality absent context.

Fwiw, knowing the players, lazy otoh thoughts, I'd take A over B, C over D and F over E.

Look better now?

The stats included are the main ones from BR and provide much information. Are you saying BR isn't good enough?

It's just for career so yes, doesn't give very clear detail for career by not showing each season but does show totality for career, which is the main information needed.

[Jaivl]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

That's all the information needed. Raw and advanced stats.

The post of the year, right at the buzzer.

[migya]

I'm interested in the angle of these comparisons. Because obviously if you just want to compare players you'd list them normally but I'm assuming you're seeing a dissonance between general perception and these stats?

Without spoiling too much about the actual names of the players (although just looking at career VORP will get you there in under a minute) player A is much higher regarded than player B despite looking comparable to player B at best, while also playing much less. However, player A has the advantage in +- based stats. What also gets lost here in the career numbers is player A having a better prime with a longer time among the top players in the league. I'm personally lower on player A than most here but even then this just does not show the full picture.

Player E and F are the most explainable tbh. Player E is pretty much offense only, while player F is an elite defender. We don't have extensive +- for player E but player F excells in that front as well.

The comparison between player C and D I'm not so sure about. This is the main one I'm not sure about what you'd hope to hear from people as it does seem like you clearly favor B over A and E over F. Especially since these players are usually ranked right next to each other instead of the 10+ ranking gaps between the other two duos. I'm guessing you're arguing for player C here as he was a much better regular season player than player D and while C's play-off drop-off is well documented, it's still not far behind player D's post-season stats?

The players for who just wants to know and understand my comment better:

Spoiler:

F - Kevin Garnett
E - Charles Barkley
D - Dirk Nowitzki
C - David Robinson
B - Jason Kidd
A - Steve Nash

Point is to give your evaluations.

My point is not to push my view, just to get people's view so to see if it is consistent. I think there certainly is inconsistency in some views between similar players comparisons. I think these comparisons will show that.

[70sFan]

I'm interested in the angle of these comparisons. Because obviously if you just want to compare players you'd list them normally but I'm assuming you're seeing a dissonance between general perception and these stats?

Without spoiling too much about the actual names of the players (although just looking at career VORP will get you there in under a minute) player A is much higher regarded than player B despite looking comparable to player B at best, while also playing much less. However, player A has the advantage in +- based stats. What also gets lost here in the career numbers is player A having a better prime with a longer time among the top players in the league. I'm personally lower on player A than most here but even then this just does not show the full picture.

Player E and F are the most explainable tbh. Player E is pretty much offense only, while player F is an elite defender. We don't have extensive +- for player E but player F excells in that front as well.

The comparison between player C and D I'm not so sure about. This is the main one I'm not sure about what you'd hope to hear from people as it does seem like you clearly favor B over A and E over F. Especially since these players are usually ranked right next to each other instead of the 10+ ranking gaps between the other two duos. I'm guessing you're arguing for player C here as he was a much better regular season player than player D and while C's play-off drop-off is well documented, it's still not far behind player D's post-season stats?

The players for who just wants to know and understand my comment better:

Spoiler:

F - Kevin Garnett
E - Charles Barkley
D - Dirk Nowitzki
C - David Robinson
B - Jason Kidd
A - Steve Nash

Point is to give your evaluations.

My point is not to push my view, just to get people's view so to see if it is consistent. I think there certainly is inconsistency in some views between similar players comparisons. I think these comparisons will show that.

Do you think these stats show anything that most posters here miss?

[Dutchball97]

I'm interested in the angle of these comparisons. Because obviously if you just want to compare players you'd list them normally but I'm assuming you're seeing a dissonance between general perception and these stats?

Without spoiling too much about the actual names of the players (although just looking at career VORP will get you there in under a minute) player A is much higher regarded than player B despite looking comparable to player B at best, while also playing much less. However, player A has the advantage in +- based stats. What also gets lost here in the career numbers is player A having a better prime with a longer time among the top players in the league. I'm personally lower on player A than most here but even then this just does not show the full picture.

Player E and F are the most explainable tbh. Player E is pretty much offense only, while player F is an elite defender. We don't have extensive +- for player E but player F excells in that front as well.

The comparison between player C and D I'm not so sure about. This is the main one I'm not sure about what you'd hope to hear from people as it does seem like you clearly favor B over A and E over F. Especially since these players are usually ranked right next to each other instead of the 10+ ranking gaps between the other two duos. I'm guessing you're arguing for player C here as he was a much better regular season player than player D and while C's play-off drop-off is well documented, it's still not far behind player D's post-season stats?

The players for who just wants to know and understand my comment better:

Spoiler:

F - Kevin Garnett
E - Charles Barkley
D - Dirk Nowitzki
C - David Robinson
B - Jason Kidd
A - Steve Nash

Point is to give your evaluations.

My point is not to push my view, just to get people's view so to see if it is consistent. I think there certainly is inconsistency in some views between similar players comparisons. I think these comparisons will show that.

Basketballreference is a great source for a lot of things but just about everyone already takes what they offer into account for their comparisons. What happens here is we're stripped off raw +- and RAPM type stats, team context and year by year breakdowns. In short you're not showing a bad dataset, it's just significantly more limited than what people usually take into account.

A lot of the discrepancies in rankings compared to the raw and boxscore stats can be explained by the factors I just mentioned.

[homecourtloss]

These informations are way too incomplete to draw even a decent conclusion. We have no idea about their defense, shooting, styles, fit...

That's all the information needed. Raw and advanced stats.

What about defense? And no, defense isn’t captured by DWS and not by DBPM which wasn’t even listed.

Maybe include some RAPM and at least on-off numbers available for entire or partial careers on your list. What about prime numbers? Peak numbers?

[migya]

I'm interested in the angle of these comparisons. Because obviously if you just want to compare players you'd list them normally but I'm assuming you're seeing a dissonance between general perception and these stats?

Without spoiling too much about the actual names of the players (although just looking at career VORP will get you there in under a minute) player A is much higher regarded than player B despite looking comparable to player B at best, while also playing much less. However, player A has the advantage in +- based stats. What also gets lost here in the career numbers is player A having a better prime with a longer time among the top players in the league. I'm personally lower on player A than most here but even then this just does not show the full picture.

Player E and F are the most explainable tbh. Player E is pretty much offense only, while player F is an elite defender. We don't have extensive +- for player E but player F excells in that front as well.

The comparison between player C and D I'm not so sure about. This is the main one I'm not sure about what you'd hope to hear from people as it does seem like you clearly favor B over A and E over F. Especially since these players are usually ranked right next to each other instead of the 10+ ranking gaps between the other two duos. I'm guessing you're arguing for player C here as he was a much better regular season player than player D and while C's play-off drop-off is well documented, it's still not far behind player D's post-season stats?

The players for who just wants to know and understand my comment better:

Spoiler:

F - Kevin Garnett
E - Charles Barkley
D - Dirk Nowitzki
C - David Robinson
B - Jason Kidd
A - Steve Nash

Point is to give your evaluations.

My point is not to push my view, just to get people's view so to see if it is consistent. I think there certainly is inconsistency in some views between similar players comparisons. I think these comparisons will show that.

Basketballreference is a great source for a lot of things but just about everyone already takes what they offer into account for their comparisons. What happens here is we're stripped off raw +- and RAPM type stats, team context and year by year breakdowns. In short you're not showing a bad dataset, it's just significantly more limited than what people usually take into account.

A lot of the discrepancies in rankings compared to the raw and boxscore stats can be explained by the factors I just mentioned.

Don't have much faith in numbers that look like they are not totally provable and those data sets bring doubt. There is variance between the sites I've seen and seems much to the interpretation of the analyser. BR stats are more valid in their measure and not as arbitrary. DWS looks a definite indicator of defensive value and is consistent in relation to the eye test.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Point is to give your evaluations.

My point is not to push my view, just to get people's view so to see if it is consistent. I think there certainly is inconsistency in some views between similar players comparisons. I think these comparisons will show that.

Basketballreference is a great source for a lot of things but just about everyone already takes what they offer into account for their comparisons. What happens here is we're stripped off raw +- and RAPM type stats, team context and year by year breakdowns. In short you're not showing a bad dataset, it's just significantly more limited than what people usually take into account.

A lot of the discrepancies in rankings compared to the raw and boxscore stats can be explained by the factors I just mentioned.

Don't have much faith in numbers that look like they are not totally provable and those data sets bring doubt. There is variance between the sites I've seen and seems much to the interpretation of the analyser. BR stats are more valid in their measure and not as arbitrary. DWS looks a definite indicator of defensive value and is consistent in relation to the eye test.

Winshares doesn’t predict or do well in testing iirc

I like all in ones more nowadays though, but if they don’t have an impact component of any kind they’re not all too useful at all, esp since they’re usually made so stupidly lol

[migya]

Though noone has contributed here, the three duos being compared can show inconsistency in some stated views.

Duo 1 is Nash for Player A and Kidd for Player B. Nash had been rated higher but the numbers show Kidd had a slightly better career. He was far better defensively while both were equal playmakers, thigh I think Kidd less to work with in his career. I haven't looked at prime only here but Nash had a shorter one.

Duo 2 is Robinson for Player C and Nowitzki for Player D. Nowitzki had been rated higher but even with a much longer career he does not have much higher ws and vorp and Robinson has significantly more dws. Again, no focus on prime but Robison played half of his playoff games as the number one (only real) significant scorer and the half after age 32 and not ther first option, became the fourth or fifth his last season. Nowitzki played 21 of his 145 playoff games after 2011, where he was 32 years of age. That favors Nowitzki for playoffs, yet Robinson has higher ws/48 and bpm.

Duo 3 is Barkley for Player E and Garnett for Player F. Garnett had been rated higher but even with almost 400 more games he is only slightly ahead in ws and not significantly ahead in vorp. In the playoffs Barkley is very significantly better in almost all numbers, ws, ws/48, PER, ts% and bpm standing out tremendously.

[homecourtloss]

Though noone has contributed here, the three duos being compared can show inconsistency in some stated views.

Duo 1 is Nash for Player A and Kidd for Player B. Nash had been rated higher but the numbers show Kidd had a slightly better career. He was far better defensively while both were equal playmakers, thigh I think Kidd less to work with in his career. I haven't looked at prime only here but Nash had a shorter one.

Duo 2 is Robinson for Player C and Nowitzki for Player D. Nowitzki had been rated higher but even with a much longer career he does not have much higher ws and vorp and Robinson has significantly more dws. Again, no focus on prime but Robison played half of his playoff games as the number one (only real) significant scorer and the half after age 32 and not ther first option, became the fourth or fifth his last season. Nowitzki played 21 of his 145 playoff games after 2011, where he was 32 years of age. That favors Nowitzki for playoffs, yet Robinson has higher ws/48 and bpm.

Duo 3 is Barkley for Player E and Garnett for Player F. Garnett had been rated higher but even with almost 400 more games he is only slightly ahead in ws and not significantly ahead in vorp. In the playoffs Barkley is very significantly better in almost all numbers, ws, ws/48, PER, ts% and bpm standing out tremendously.

Well, you’re not either—you’re just reading off of BKREF

[homecourtloss]

Though noone has contributed here, the three duos being compared can show inconsistency in some stated views.

Duo 1 is Nash for Player A and Kidd for Player B. Nash had been rated higher but the numbers show Kidd had a slightly better career. He was far better defensively while both were equal playmakers, thigh I think Kidd less to work with in his career. I haven't looked at prime only here but Nash had a shorter one.

Duo 2 is Robinson for Player C and Nowitzki for Player D. Nowitzki had been rated higher but even with a much longer career he does not have much higher ws and vorp and Robinson has significantly more dws. Again, no focus on prime but Robison played half of his playoff games as the number one (only real) significant scorer and the half after age 32 and not ther first option, became the fourth or fifth his last season. Nowitzki played 21 of his 145 playoff games after 2011, where he was 32 years of age. That favors Nowitzki for playoffs, yet Robinson has higher ws/48 and bpm.

Duo 3 is Barkley for Player E and Garnett for Player F. Garnett had been rated higher but even with almost 400 more games he is only slightly ahead in ws and not significantly ahead in vorp. In the playoffs Barkley is very significantly better in almost all numbers, ws, ws/48, PER, ts% and bpm standing out tremendously.

Well, you’re not either—you’re just reading off of BKREF

I'm interested in the angle of these comparisons. Because obviously if you just want to compare players you'd list them normally but I'm assuming you're seeing a dissonance between general perception and these stats?

Without spoiling too much about the actual names of the players (although just looking at career VORP will get you there in under a minute) player A is much higher regarded than player B despite looking comparable to player B at best, while also playing much less. However, player A has the advantage in +- based stats. What also gets lost here in the career numbers is player A having a better prime with a longer time among the top players in the league. I'm personally lower on player A than most here but even then this just does not show the full picture.

Player E and F are the most explainable tbh. Player E is pretty much offense only, while player F is an elite defender. We don't have extensive +- for player E but player F excells in that front as well.

The comparison between player C and D I'm not so sure about. This is the main one I'm not sure about what you'd hope to hear from people as it does seem like you clearly favor B over A and E over F. Especially since these players are usually ranked right next to each other instead of the 10+ ranking gaps between the other two duos. I'm guessing you're arguing for player C here as he was a much better regular season player than player D and while C's play-off drop-off is well documented, it's still not far behind player D's post-season stats?

The players for who just wants to know and understand my comment better:

Spoiler:

F - Kevin Garnett
E - Charles Barkley
D - Dirk Nowitzki
C - David Robinson
B - Jason Kidd
A - Steve Nash

Point is to give your evaluations.

My point is not to push my view, just to get people's view so to see if it is consistent. I think there certainly is inconsistency in some views between similar players comparisons. I think these comparisons will show that.

Hmmm

[migya]

Though noone has contributed here, the three duos being compared can show inconsistency in some stated views.

Duo 1 is Nash for Player A and Kidd for Player B. Nash had been rated higher but the numbers show Kidd had a slightly better career. He was far better defensively while both were equal playmakers, thigh I think Kidd less to work with in his career. I haven't looked at prime only here but Nash had a shorter one.

Duo 2 is Robinson for Player C and Nowitzki for Player D. Nowitzki had been rated higher but even with a much longer career he does not have much higher ws and vorp and Robinson has significantly more dws. Again, no focus on prime but Robison played half of his playoff games as the number one (only real) significant scorer and the half after age 32 and not ther first option, became the fourth or fifth his last season. Nowitzki played 21 of his 145 playoff games after 2011, where he was 32 years of age. That favors Nowitzki for playoffs, yet Robinson has higher ws/48 and bpm.

Duo 3 is Barkley for Player E and Garnett for Player F. Garnett had been rated higher but even with almost 400 more games he is only slightly ahead in ws and not significantly ahead in vorp. In the playoffs Barkley is very significantly better in almost all numbers, ws, ws/48, PER, ts% and bpm standing out tremendously.

Well, you’re not either—you’re just reading off of BKREF

I'm interested in the angle of these comparisons. Because obviously if you just want to compare players you'd list them normally but I'm assuming you're seeing a dissonance between general perception and these stats?

Without spoiling too much about the actual names of the players (although just looking at career VORP will get you there in under a minute) player A is much higher regarded than player B despite looking comparable to player B at best, while also playing much less. However, player A has the advantage in +- based stats. What also gets lost here in the career numbers is player A having a better prime with a longer time among the top players in the league. I'm personally lower on player A than most here but even then this just does not show the full picture.

Player E and F are the most explainable tbh. Player E is pretty much offense only, while player F is an elite defender. We don't have extensive +- for player E but player F excells in that front as well.

The comparison between player C and D I'm not so sure about. This is the main one I'm not sure about what you'd hope to hear from people as it does seem like you clearly favor B over A and E over F. Especially since these players are usually ranked right next to each other instead of the 10+ ranking gaps between the other two duos. I'm guessing you're arguing for player C here as he was a much better regular season player than player D and while C's play-off drop-off is well documented, it's still not far behind player D's post-season stats?

The players for who just wants to know and understand my comment better:

Spoiler:

F - Kevin Garnett
E - Charles Barkley
D - Dirk Nowitzki
C - David Robinson
B - Jason Kidd
A - Steve Nash

Point is to give your evaluations.

My point is not to push my view, just to get people's view so to see if it is consistent. I think there certainly is inconsistency in some views between similar players comparisons. I think these comparisons will show that.

Hmmm

Contributing to the subject rather than playing a troll would be more appropriate.