Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
migya wrote:MiamiBulls wrote:Win Shares is fairly junky and archaic. One thing that's very obvious about Win Shares is that WS overweights Rebounding specifically Defensive Rebounding.
Yet Garnett has low ws/48 compared to most star bigs and he rebounds among the best.
OhayoKD wrote:ty 4191 wrote:Which players have the highest career on/off in the playoffs, all time?
Going off ben's videos(note it doesn't include non jordan pre-97 players), going by 3 year stretches you have Duncan/Drob topping, 16-18 Lebron second(among the players he shows), and then curry, shaq and jordan tied for 3rd iirc(shaq actually shows up at 2nd but then unibro and 70's found ben made a statistical error.
OhayoKD wrote:70sFan wrote:migya wrote:
How?
You can read about it here:
https://fansided.com/2019/01/08/nylon-calculus-best-advanced-stat/
You may have seen this before, but for posterity, this study builds off ben's base(or at least claims to):
https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparisonceoofkobefans wrote:Funnily enough WS (and especially adjusting it to /48 minutes) is up there for one of the worst impact metrics there is lol. I love WS so I try not to **** on it but it is based on the player versions of ORTG and DRTG which makes it one of the worst metrics at evaluating defense and it’s ok at evaluating offense. Some of the best impact metrics are EPM DARKO DPM RAPTOR And everyone’s favorite RAPM (although needs a large sample). Historically RAPTOR and Back Picks’ version of BPM are probably the best impact metrics you’ll get
Eh........RAPTOR and BPM don't have historical plus-minus data pre-97 which means they're basically just ws/48 or PER when it comes to "historic" players.
You're probably better off using WOWY(and then applying knowledge to account for fit, team context, ect). At least for players we don't have other methods for(jordan has on/off and some rapm from his peak, Hakeem has some RAPM in off-years).
ty 4191 wrote:OhayoKD wrote:ty 4191 wrote:Which players have the highest career on/off in the playoffs, all time?
Going off ben's videos(note it doesn't include non jordan pre-97 players), going by 3 year stretches you have Duncan/Drob topping, 16-18 Lebron second(among the players he shows), and then curry, shaq and jordan tied for 3rd iirc(shaq actually shows up at 2nd but then unibro and 70's found ben made a statistical error.
To clarify further, per 100 possessions.
A few notables (don't know how to sort this on BBRef):
-KG: +14.5 (career) Prime (97'-08'): +13.3
-LeBron: +10.8 (career) Prime (08'-18'): +13.1
-Duncan: +7.5 (career) Prime (98'-08'): +9.0
-Curry: +11.7 (career) Prime (12'-19'): +14.6
Anyone have on/off per 100 poss organized in a database for pre 96'-97' players?
Thanks!
ceoofkobefans wrote:OhayoKD wrote:70sFan wrote:You may have seen this before, but for posterity, this study builds off ben's base(or at least claims to):
https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparison
Eh........RAPTOR and BPM don't have historical plus-minus data pre-97 which means they're basically just ws/48 or PER when it comes to "historic" players.
You're probably better off using WOWY(and then applying knowledge to account for fit, team context, ect). At least for players we don't have other methods for(jordan has on/off and some rapm from his peak, Hakeem has some RAPM in off-years).
1. I never said that RAPTOR or BPM have historical +/- data I just said they’re the best IMPACT METRICS pre +/- which they are (impact metric ≠ Plus minus data an impact metric is just something trying to capture how impactful a player is. Technically PER isn’t an impact metric)
2. No they are a lot better than WS (and especially PER).
3. WOWY only works if you have a sample and even then it still has noise issues like most on/off data does
rk2023 wrote:migya wrote:Of all the advanced metrics winshares seems to be the best at indicating the value of a player. Contribution to winning is the aim of any player and the team. An owner of a franchise wants to win the most possible as that is success in basketball.
On/off stats are often mentioned as a good indication of the value of a player. It seems logical that the higher the number in this metric the higher the value of a player and thus the higher the contribution to winning.
That is not the case with some players. This is the case with Garnett who has among the highest on/off numbers and relatively low winshares and winshares per 48 minutes, particularly compared to other great players.
What is the view in relation to these statistics?
Hello Migya,
It seems you are a sage mind when it comes to leveraging basketball reference as a source of analysis. Being one who hasn't toggled with the platform as much, am curious as to how Chris Paul stacks up to Stephen Curry and Magic Johnson with that as a point of reference - and how would you rank (arguably) the 3 best points guards of the last 40 years? Your intel would be appreciated
migya wrote:Of all the advanced metrics winshares seems to be the best at indicating the value of a player. Contribution to winning is the aim of any player and the team. An owner of a franchise wants to win the most possible as that is success in basketball.
On/off stats are often mentioned as a good indication of the value of a player. It seems logical that the higher the number in this metric the higher the value of a player and thus the higher the contribution to winning.
That is not the case with some players. This is the case with Garnett who has among the highest on/off numbers and relatively low winshares and winshares per 48 minutes, particularly compared to other great players.
What is the view in relation to these statistics?
migya wrote:rk2023 wrote:migya wrote:Of all the advanced metrics winshares seems to be the best at indicating the value of a player. Contribution to winning is the aim of any player and the team. An owner of a franchise wants to win the most possible as that is success in basketball.
On/off stats are often mentioned as a good indication of the value of a player. It seems logical that the higher the number in this metric the higher the value of a player and thus the higher the contribution to winning.
That is not the case with some players. This is the case with Garnett who has among the highest on/off numbers and relatively low winshares and winshares per 48 minutes, particularly compared to other great players.
What is the view in relation to these statistics?
Hello Migya,
It seems you are a sage mind when it comes to leveraging basketball reference as a source of analysis. Being one who hasn't toggled with the platform as much, am curious as to how Chris Paul stacks up to Stephen Curry and Magic Johnson with that as a point of reference - and how would you rank (arguably) the 3 best points guards of the last 40 years? Your intel would be appreciated
Hi rk.
Looking at the ws, ws/48 and offensive and defensive ratings for all three:
Magic- 110.6ows, 45.2dws, 155.8ws, .225ws/48, 121OR, 104DR
Curry - 90.8ows, 33.6dws, 124.4ws, .204ws/48, 118OR, 107DR
CP - 146.3ows, 54.8dws, 201.1ws, .238ws/48, 120OR, 108DR
I've always included offensive(OR) and defensive(DR) rating as it shows impact on both ends for a player.
As expected Magic and CP look the best as their primes were longer and they were both the primary playmakers for their teams. CP had much impact on his teams, like him or not. With the Clippers he was huge as they needed a good PG and he maximised the players on that team. He did similar in NO. Curry took a few years to reach his prime and has only had about ten years. Curry's peak looks higher, as agreed by many views. Magic was the SG for the Lakers his fist three years and his impact wasn't as high as he wasn't the absolute playmaker for that team, sharing with Nixon. It is to note that when Kareem was older and not the scorer he was Magic's impact was higher, hence his significantly higher ws/48. He showed his value to raise his team without Kareem from 86 onwards and even took his team to the finals in 91. CP had a few good scorers on his teams but he was outright the best player and it stands out.
I have Magic in my top 10 and CP border top 20, Curry not even top 25. Magic took his teams to greater heights in a much tougher era. Bpm is even between Magic and CP, while Curry is a little less which is consistent with the value of their careers.
My top three PGs the last 40 years are Magic, Stockton and Chris Paul.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:migya wrote:rk2023 wrote:
Hello Migya,
It seems you are a sage mind when it comes to leveraging basketball reference as a source of analysis. Being one who hasn't toggled with the platform as much, am curious as to how Chris Paul stacks up to Stephen Curry and Magic Johnson with that as a point of reference - and how would you rank (arguably) the 3 best points guards of the last 40 years? Your intel would be appreciated
Hi rk.
Looking at the ws, ws/48 and offensive and defensive ratings for all three:
Magic- 110.6ows, 45.2dws, 155.8ws, .225ws/48, 121OR, 104DR
Curry - 90.8ows, 33.6dws, 124.4ws, .204ws/48, 118OR, 107DR
CP - 146.3ows, 54.8dws, 201.1ws, .238ws/48, 120OR, 108DR
I've always included offensive(OR) and defensive(DR) rating as it shows impact on both ends for a player.
As expected Magic and CP look the best as their primes were longer and they were both the primary playmakers for their teams. CP had much impact on his teams, like him or not. With the Clippers he was huge as they needed a good PG and he maximised the players on that team. He did similar in NO. Curry took a few years to reach his prime and has only had about ten years. Curry's peak looks higher, as agreed by many views. Magic was the SG for the Lakers his fist three years and his impact wasn't as high as he wasn't the absolute playmaker for that team, sharing with Nixon. It is to note that when Kareem was older and not the scorer he was Magic's impact was higher, hence his significantly higher ws/48. He showed his value to raise his team without Kareem from 86 onwards and even took his team to the finals in 91. CP had a few good scorers on his teams but he was outright the best player and it stands out.
I have Magic in my top 10 and CP border top 20, Curry not even top 25. Magic took his teams to greater heights in a much tougher era. Bpm is even between Magic and CP, while Curry is a little less which is consistent with the value of their careers.
My top three PGs the last 40 years are Magic, Stockton and Chris Paul.
Uhh, Chris Paul over Curry all time is a pretty disgusting take my guy
MyUniBroDavis wrote:migya wrote:rk2023 wrote:
Hello Migya,
It seems you are a sage mind when it comes to leveraging basketball reference as a source of analysis. Being one who hasn't toggled with the platform as much, am curious as to how Chris Paul stacks up to Stephen Curry and Magic Johnson with that as a point of reference - and how would you rank (arguably) the 3 best points guards of the last 40 years? Your intel would be appreciated
Hi rk.
Looking at the ws, ws/48 and offensive and defensive ratings for all three:
Magic- 110.6ows, 45.2dws, 155.8ws, .225ws/48, 121OR, 104DR
Curry - 90.8ows, 33.6dws, 124.4ws, .204ws/48, 118OR, 107DR
CP - 146.3ows, 54.8dws, 201.1ws, .238ws/48, 120OR, 108DR
I've always included offensive(OR) and defensive(DR) rating as it shows impact on both ends for a player.
As expected Magic and CP look the best as their primes were longer and they were both the primary playmakers for their teams. CP had much impact on his teams, like him or not. With the Clippers he was huge as they needed a good PG and he maximised the players on that team. He did similar in NO. Curry took a few years to reach his prime and has only had about ten years. Curry's peak looks higher, as agreed by many views. Magic was the SG for the Lakers his fist three years and his impact wasn't as high as he wasn't the absolute playmaker for that team, sharing with Nixon. It is to note that when Kareem was older and not the scorer he was Magic's impact was higher, hence his significantly higher ws/48. He showed his value to raise his team without Kareem from 86 onwards and even took his team to the finals in 91. CP had a few good scorers on his teams but he was outright the best player and it stands out.
I have Magic in my top 10 and CP border top 20, Curry not even top 25. Magic took his teams to greater heights in a much tougher era. Bpm is even between Magic and CP, while Curry is a little less which is consistent with the value of their careers.
My top three PGs the last 40 years are Magic, Stockton and Chris Paul.
Uhh, Chris Paul over Curry all time is a pretty disgusting take my guy
LukaTheGOAT wrote:MyUniBroDavis wrote:migya wrote:
Hi rk.
Looking at the ws, ws/48 and offensive and defensive ratings for all three:
Magic- 110.6ows, 45.2dws, 155.8ws, .225ws/48, 121OR, 104DR
Curry - 90.8ows, 33.6dws, 124.4ws, .204ws/48, 118OR, 107DR
CP - 146.3ows, 54.8dws, 201.1ws, .238ws/48, 120OR, 108DR
I've always included offensive(OR) and defensive(DR) rating as it shows impact on both ends for a player.
As expected Magic and CP look the best as their primes were longer and they were both the primary playmakers for their teams. CP had much impact on his teams, like him or not. With the Clippers he was huge as they needed a good PG and he maximised the players on that team. He did similar in NO. Curry took a few years to reach his prime and has only had about ten years. Curry's peak looks higher, as agreed by many views. Magic was the SG for the Lakers his fist three years and his impact wasn't as high as he wasn't the absolute playmaker for that team, sharing with Nixon. It is to note that when Kareem was older and not the scorer he was Magic's impact was higher, hence his significantly higher ws/48. He showed his value to raise his team without Kareem from 86 onwards and even took his team to the finals in 91. CP had a few good scorers on his teams but he was outright the best player and it stands out.
I have Magic in my top 10 and CP border top 20, Curry not even top 25. Magic took his teams to greater heights in a much tougher era. Bpm is even between Magic and CP, while Curry is a little less which is consistent with the value of their careers.
My top three PGs the last 40 years are Magic, Stockton and Chris Paul.
Uhh, Chris Paul over Curry all time is a pretty disgusting take my guy
No, it isn't.
migya wrote:MyUniBroDavis wrote:migya wrote:
Hi rk.
Looking at the ws, ws/48 and offensive and defensive ratings for all three:
Magic- 110.6ows, 45.2dws, 155.8ws, .225ws/48, 121OR, 104DR
Curry - 90.8ows, 33.6dws, 124.4ws, .204ws/48, 118OR, 107DR
CP - 146.3ows, 54.8dws, 201.1ws, .238ws/48, 120OR, 108DR
I've always included offensive(OR) and defensive(DR) rating as it shows impact on both ends for a player.
As expected Magic and CP look the best as their primes were longer and they were both the primary playmakers for their teams. CP had much impact on his teams, like him or not. With the Clippers he was huge as they needed a good PG and he maximised the players on that team. He did similar in NO. Curry took a few years to reach his prime and has only had about ten years. Curry's peak looks higher, as agreed by many views. Magic was the SG for the Lakers his fist three years and his impact wasn't as high as he wasn't the absolute playmaker for that team, sharing with Nixon. It is to note that when Kareem was older and not the scorer he was Magic's impact was higher, hence his significantly higher ws/48. He showed his value to raise his team without Kareem from 86 onwards and even took his team to the finals in 91. CP had a few good scorers on his teams but he was outright the best player and it stands out.
I have Magic in my top 10 and CP border top 20, Curry not even top 25. Magic took his teams to greater heights in a much tougher era. Bpm is even between Magic and CP, while Curry is a little less which is consistent with the value of their careers.
My top three PGs the last 40 years are Magic, Stockton and Chris Paul.
Uhh, Chris Paul over Curry all time is a pretty disgusting take my guy
It's the opposite. Curry is a scorer and shooter, he had nothing else on CP.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:LukaTheGOAT wrote:MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Uhh, Chris Paul over Curry all time is a pretty disgusting take my guy
No, it isn't.
Uhhh, all time? I don’t really see how one could argue Paul over Curry given the past few years lol
LukaTheGOAT wrote:MyUniBroDavis wrote:LukaTheGOAT wrote:
No, it isn't.
Uhhh, all time? I don’t really see how one could argue Paul over Curry given the past few years lol
Yeah, the past few years Curry has been trying to catchup with Paul. They weren't in lockstep in terms of career value before that.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:LukaTheGOAT wrote:MyUniBroDavis wrote:
Uhhh, all time? I don’t really see how one could argue Paul over Curry given the past few years lol
Yeah, the past few years Curry has been trying to catchup with Paul. They weren't in lockstep in terms of career value before that.
I think if you were to just go by like a summation of career value I kind of get that, but I also Think it just is a tad bit absurd thinking what’s gone on over the past 7-8 years, even if it’s cheesy or narrative driven I find it hard to compare someone thats probably had the most success in the nba since he hit his stride vs a guy who gets memed for the past few years lol
I think cp3 has been a victim of unfortunate circumstance to an extent for sure though
ceoofkobefans wrote:migya wrote:MiamiBulls wrote:Win Shares is fairly junky and archaic. One thing that's very obvious about Win Shares is that WS overweights Rebounding specifically Defensive Rebounding.
Yet Garnett has low ws/48 compared to most star bigs and he rebounds among the best.
That’s because the other thing that is heavily overvalued by WS is raw efficiency which KG isn’t great in (usually around +2 to +3 rTS in his prime)
OhayoKD wrote:You may have seen this before, but for posterity, this study builds off ben's base(or at least claims to):
https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparison
migya wrote:ceoofkobefans wrote:migya wrote:
Yet Garnett has low ws/48 compared to most star bigs and he rebounds among the best.
That’s because the other thing that is heavily overvalued by WS is raw efficiency which KG isn’t great in (usually around +2 to +3 rTS in his prime)
The playoff numbers don't show that for Garnett. For 03, 2010 and 12, his ts% was 53.9, 53 and 54.1 and his ws/48 was .141, .148, .149. In comparison Robinson only had comparatively low ws/48 in 94. In 93, 95, 98, 00 and 01 his ts% was 52.9, 53.6, 49.6, 46.3, 53.8 and his ws/48 was .172, .176, .183, .220 and .207. That's much higher than Garnett. Even Garnett's best PO runs in 04 and 08 were 51.3ts% and .163ws/48, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48. That's also low comparable to Robinson's low PO performances. Robinson's 96 and 99 PO runs are much better than Garnett's.
Interesting that Webber had two POs with low ts% and higher ws/48, with high bpm himself. 00 and 02 he had 48.8ts%, .153ws/48 and 9.5bpm, 53.7ts%, .157ws/48 and 5.6bpm.
migya wrote:MyUniBroDavis wrote:LukaTheGOAT wrote:
Yeah, the past few years Curry has been trying to catchup with Paul. They weren't in lockstep in terms of career value before that.
I think if you were to just go by like a summation of career value I kind of get that, but I also Think it just is a tad bit absurd thinking what’s gone on over the past 7-8 years, even if it’s cheesy or narrative driven I find it hard to compare someone thats probably had the most success in the nba since he hit his stride vs a guy who gets memed for the past few years lol
I think cp3 has been a victim of unfortunate circumstance to an extent for sure though
That is actually like someone in 2013 saying that Dwight had surpassed Garnett because of the past five years. There was much before that.
migya wrote:ceoofkobefans wrote:migya wrote:
Yet Garnett has low ws/48 compared to most star bigs and he rebounds among the best.
That’s because the other thing that is heavily overvalued by WS is raw efficiency which KG isn’t great in (usually around +2 to +3 rTS in his prime)
The playoff numbers don't show that for Garnett. For 03, 2010 and 12, his ts% was 53.9, 53 and 54.1 and his ws/48 was .141, .148, .149. In comparison Robinson only had comparatively low ws/48 in 94. In 93, 95, 98, 00 and 01 his ts% was 52.9, 53.6, 49.6, 46.3, 53.8 and his ws/48 was .172, .176, .183, .220 and .207. That's much higher than Garnett. Even Garnett's best PO runs in 04 and 08 were 51.3ts% and .163ws/48, 54.2ts%, .199ws/48. That's also low comparable to Robinson's low PO performances. Robinson's 96 and 99 PO runs are much better than Garnett's.
Interesting that Webber had two POs with low ts% and higher ws/48, with high bpm himself. 00 and 02 he had 48.8ts%, .153ws/48 and 9.5bpm, 53.7ts%, .157ws/48 and 5.6bpm.