Prologue: Dray the AdultYou:
Possibility 4: Enigma just lied.
You,
actually lying:
Takeaway: I’m not to here to accuse another poster of outright trying. But Heej, if you’re going to accuse some poster of making up false numbers, you think it would be the one who claimed they manually tracked 253 LeBron games on their own and are refusing to show work
A. Link me DrayYou
DraymondGold wrote:Re:
Ben doesn't explicitly tell us what years he includes... yes he does!
Pleases refer to the database links I cited in the previous comment
You, a sentence later
Re: does he include 154 off sample in WOWYR, that's a good question. I believe the rules he set are to consider off samples as games that a player misses for the teams they're on. For WOWYR, he doesn't use trades/moves to help buff up the off sample (though I wish he would, just to see how the scores differ). Jordan was on the team and playing in 95, so he's guaranteed to use the off sample in 95. Jordan was also still on the payroll and technically on the team in 94, so that's why I believe he used the 94 season as an off-sample (compared to someone like Russell in 1970 Celtics, who was no longer on the Celtics' payroll).
Having
actually read the articles you linked, I will inform you that Ben mentions he decides "prime" or "non-prime" based on how many minutes are played and it is not made explicit whether he averages MPG based on how much is played during a season or during the specific games in a season a player plays. Since bball reference uses the latter I'll be nice and say 1995 is included. I see no reason to assume that for 1994, leaving us with an off sample of 72(over 10 years!).
For the sake of discussion, I'll add 1994 back, but not knowing the
size of your sample is a problem when discussing...the size of your sample.
B. What Does Ben Say?Since you don't
actually have a consensus to appeal to(this is why we're pretending "game-level" works the same as "lineup-level"), we've gone to
"Ben is highlighting worse data for the audience"That he cites the individual samples of raw WOWY in his articles may just be a function of simplicity and communicability... it's quicker to explain a single sample of raw WOWY than it is for him to explain individual samples of raw WOWY -> full prime raw WOWY -> adjusted WOWYR, especially for an audience unfamiliar with his work.
Thing is, this
"worse data" directly informs Ben's conclusions:
His on-ball approach is heavier on scoring than pass-first wizards like Steve Nash and Magic Johnson, but volume passing and volume scoring won’t maximize most top-end talent. Instead, James is the greatest floor-raiser in NBA history, able to do more with spare parts than anyone ever by simultaneously bolstering an offense while upgrading the defense.
Ben critiques Lebron with concerns about fit, film analysis, and
concentrated data from Miami. His "10-year WOWYR" is never mentioned.
Ben is actually pretty explicit with what he thinks of 10-year or "prime" averages in his Russell write-up:
Boston was a 35-win team (-1.9 SRS) in 28 games he missed from 1958-69, and for the other 915 games of his career they played at a 59-win pace (6.4 SRS). This is a tiny piece of evidence – the years are spread out, teams change, and so on — but it echoes the same story as Russell’s other value signals.
It is a
supplement which can help "echo" other
more substantial signals. You might also notice that Ben brings up WOWY,
not the WOWYR(which suggests Russell won most of his rings with
40-win help). Luckily, Ben offers a potential explanation.
In order to accurately solve for “what’s the most likely impact for Larry Bird on all of his lineups?” we need to know about the value of his teammates, like Reggie Lewis. And since Lewis only played a few years, his estimate is a bit fuzzy, and that in turn effects Bird’s estimate
The regression can
distort a player's data instead of correcting it. But the real kicker comes next
Second, like any RAPM study that’s too long, it smoothes over differences between peak years, ignoring aging and injury. There are some ways around this — one of which is to use smaller time periods
Peep that last line.
Amazing what happens when we actually read
C. MathBut for the record, 666 + 154 games > the sample you're dealing with. Your on sample consists of 82 games in 85 (to compare to when he was out in 84), 18 games in 86 (to compare to when he was out in 86), 82 games in 88 (to look at Jordan pre-Pippen), 78 games in 93 (to compare to when he was out in 94), and 17 games in 95 (to compare to when he was out in 95).
My on sample is as big as your on sample. The Bulls year to year SRS, full strength SRS, and playoff SRS are not obscure mysteries. Everyone here can look at the on, derive various "offs" and adjust for whatever context they deem fit. The only difference in sample size is the "off". And since I'm not tossing out indirect data, my sample is bigger. Since I'm deriving "off" from seasons where there was an abundance of it, my per-season sample is vastly bigger.
This also doesn't touch on the likes of Lebron and Russell having plenty of available "off" that is entirely excluded from WOWYR. So again. Math. My sample is bigger. Your sample is smaller. Saying you're wrong isn't banter, it's a
statement of fact.D. Adjusting the VoidI think it's time...
Meanwhile, the adjusted WOWYR sample includes both that data for the on sample as well as teammate WOWY data from that time period to better pin down Jordan's value.
...to call a CEO:
ceoofkobefans wrote:Not responding to the other things atm but while yes WOWYR and GPM Tries to adjust for other teammates missing iirc the bulk of the calculation is based on that players WOWY sample so still the WOWY sample being small still matters (there’s a reason why John Stockton is 2nd all time in WOWYR and it’s not because he has a goat argument)
Adjusting a sample doesn't magically enlargen that sample. It corrects or
distorts it. For, example: Pippen. GPM takes 1989-98, WOWYR takes his prime as 1989-01, but true star Pippen’s range is 1991-97, so if you dilute those values right as the Bulls’ SRS exploded, it can start misattributing a lot of value back to Jordan.
But second off, again your sample ignores almost all of Jordan's best years.
It ignores worse-looking data and then ignores Jordan's best teammate to pretend Jordan was the only reason the 1988 Bulls were 8 points better than the 1984 Bulls. We can make extrapolations for all those other years but as we've covered, all that would do is
hurt Jordan. I am ignoring the other years as a kindness. I'm also not sure you know what "dilute" means. "Dilute" describes when something is
spread thin. Cutting out smaller samples when I make an appraisal for 1988
concentrates. In case you're wondering, "concentrate" is the polar opposite of "dilute".
E. Reading...and Bullsh--tThis section was not originally planned, but er...it feels like a public service at this point
insisted incorrectly that Jordan isn’t above Russell in WOWYR 4 times
Here is what I insisted(and you repeatedly ignored):
And for all that, if we account for
certain eras requiring lower SRS for high championship probability...
At the height of their dynasty, the Celtics were comically dominant. From 1962-65, their average margin-of-victory (MOV) was over 8 points per game. During the same time span, only two other teams even eclipsed 4 points per game – the ’64 Royals and the ’64 Warriors. And all of Boston’s separation was created by its historic defense, anchored by Russell:
...Jordan is still
well behind Russell(and by extension Wilt):
Notably, if we take WOWYR seriously, Bill Russell led the greatest team ever with 35 win help throughout his prime while Jordan barely won half as much with 40-50 win help. While Jordan looks marginally better than Lebron, he's not really within range of GOAThood.Correction: Using prime WOWYR, which ben decides is less useful than prime WOWY in his Bill write-up, Russell merely won 11 rings with 40-win help
If your entire point is to say which number is higher, yes, Jordan's number is higher. But that only gets MJ to
4th. He's
6th if we value championships over raw-win totals. And potentially
7th if we use corrected Kareem data:
70sFan wrote:About WOWY - Jordan's biggest samples don't show him as the better one than Kareem (from Ben's database):
...
I'm afraid Ben's database has an error with 1978 sample, as it shows as clear negative for Kareem, despite all the calculations I made and his own words in Kareem profile:
...
Which shows a +5.8 SRS change again. The biggest samples we have show Kareem having a clear advantage.
Using "prime" or "10-year" WOWYR,
4-7 is your range. Great if your bar is "elite", but if your bar is
Lebron...
but he considers both raw WOWY and adjusted WOWY can be used as evidence for Jordan having the GOAT prime/peak
I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but no. Ben never said anything about WOWY, Adjusted WOWY or Impact being evidence that Jordan was
the greatest. He simply said his non-box
and box was
Goat-Worthy, never specifically outlining how many players would be included in that tier(
"top 4" comes from absolutely nowhere). More importantly, all Ben actually claimed with Jordan's WOWYR(featured in one sentence), was that it potrays him as
"one of the most valuable players ever". A take
no one in this thread has disputed. Jordan does great by the standard of "elite"(Colts). He does badly by the standard of
Lebron:
Lebron James who pretty much reaches the standard of
"absolute-consensus #1 player across all impact metrics" for the data-ball era. Most RAPM-Data sets have Lebron
miles ahead of anyone post-1997. Using Ben Taylor's own 5-year RAPM, the gap between Lebron and 2nd place KG is as big as the gap between KG and 7th place Steve Nash. Looking at his prime as a whole...
2018 is the 25th season of league-wide plus-minus data, which covers nearly 40 percent of the shot-clock era and touches 12 of the top-20 players on this list. None have achieved LeBron’s heights: He holds four of the top-five scaled APM seasons on record, and six of the top eight. Since 2007, 10 of his 11 years land in the 99th percentile.
This is also an especially weird point to make in a comparison with Lebron James who pretty much reaches the standard of "absolute-consensus #1 player across all impact metrics" for the data-ball era.
near-universally favor Lebron in the majority of comparative frames
Lebron dominates PIPM, has a WOWY/WOWYR profile only really rivalled by Kareem, Russell and Wilt(more on that later), looks the best in most AUPM comparisons, looks the best in Circle's "playoff on/off" sample(role player Robinson notwithstanding). and is 1 or 2(depending on comparative frame) in pretty much every box-metric(becoming a clear 1 if you so much as hedge between defensive impact and defensive box-score).
For those reading, this is one of countless arguments Dray entirely ignored while repeating points/claims these arguments
directly addressed. Example:
I posted the AuPM (which has peak Jordan > LeBron) is based on real plus minus data.
See that
"majority of comparative frames"? My argument was never that it was impossible to find a specific comparison where Jordan comes out ahead. It was that these metrics all
generally favored Lebron. Lebron has the best individual years in all of these
adjusted metrics including AUPM. He also has a higher
average over a majority of time-frames. You chose one specific frame where AUPM favors Jordan. Considering what I'm actually arguing(and have reiterated numerous times to no avail), that Jordan's "3-year AUPM" comes out a bit ahead of Lebron(while still not ranking #1) does not suffice as a rebuttal.
But it's with this next misreading we get to the heart of the matter:
However…. you accuse me of being emotionally biased for throwing out “every stat that disagrees with my priors”, simply because I say that I trust adjusted impact metrics more than raw impact metrics.... a claim is supported by the multitude of NBA analysts who agree with me above (more on this below!).
No, I accused you of being emotionally biased because you applied an argument that could be made against every metric mentioned(adjusted or otherwise), to one that preferred Lebron:
Is your position that every stat that disagrees with your priors isn't valuable? All metrics produce wonky results.
You cherrypicked a bunch of outputs you found questionable, something that I could do to every statistic mentioned on this thread. You then proceeded
to throw out data, so that the other "better' stats which
also generally favor Lebron would look good for MJ
The years which "murk" would be 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016. As in, they are all higher than any Jordan RAPM score. Both averages dray uses exclude 3 of those scores.
Without this bit of cherrypicking:
2009-2017 Lebron scores an average of +8.15. 2009-2013 Lebron scores an average of
+8.6. The
very best single-year score available for Jordan has him at
+7.47.Lebron's average RAPM(including a plethora of pre and post-prime years) is higher.
Lebron's prime RAPM(1-year, 2-year, 3-year, 4-year, 5-year...8-year) is much higher, and most damningly, I can cherrypick
Jordan's very best regular season(at least per rapm), and it would not match any of these averages.(well okay, it would probably match the career one
)
This was actually explained in a post you directly quoted:
1. Lebron is, generally, playing significantly more minutes and games over the stretches we're comparing. Averages tend to go down, the longer someone plays.
2. Lebron generally staggered more with his co-stars than Jordan did. Typically this would depress a player's on/off. All things considered, "team context" probably juices Jordan, not Lebron.
Maybe #2 is why lineup-adjustment puts Lebron's 8-year average higher than the very best 1-year signal we have for Mike. Truly inconsistent.
This is off course, not the first time in this thread, you've tossed out data to make a stat that predominantly favors Lebron...
But he doesn't. You specifically chose a favorable frame of comparison for Jordan(3-years consecutive), and Lebron has, not one, but two better stretches when we utilize that frame. Going off the data RK listed, Lebron has the 2 highest scoring years(with 2009 being far ahead of anything else), and 5 of the best scoring 7. I could literally chuck the best scoring year by far, and Lebron would still look better. Jordan does not look comparable, and he does not rank 3rd-all time, he ranks 3rd among the players we actually have data for. PIPM dates back to 1977. That leaves at least 2 players with consistently better impact indicators completely out of the room.
...look "arguable" for Jordan:
3rd all time.* Jordan's ahead of Miami LeBron, which is usually considered LeBron's peak (although LeBron has other samples that creep ahead).
And that if Jordan looks comparable to LeBron
And it seems even the "not-stat" guys are noticing:
ShaqAttac wrote:rapm, pippm, onoff, all that wowwy **** or whatver clearly favors bron. aupm favors bron mostly. if u gotta ignore a guy's best scores to make your arg, you prob dont have an arg.
Heej wrote:Still tho, don't think Jordan had that in him to really be able to orchestrate on both ends of the floor; and that's partly why he needed Pippen and Phil more than people like to admit. Also seems to contribute to why a lot of these impact numbers need to be heavily massaged in order to prop Jordan up vs LeBron lol
Some of these DraymondGold posts are starting to give off some serious "I cooka da Pasta (data)" vibes and we need to start a dialogue
See Dray, this might work with people less familiar with these types of numbers, but the PC Board is littered with posters with at least
some statistical literacy. This means that when you try and bulls--t this blatantly, some of us might notice.
Worth noting, that a major source of the inaccuracy with your on/off data wasn't your method of calculation. Rather it was you
tossing out 1995 thereby inflating Jordan's averages. You say you weigh on/off less, but that didn't stop you from
"cooking". Fortunately not one, not two, not three, not four, but
five different posters immediately noticed something was amiss. And the worst part is, instead of acknowledging you messed up, you implied the one guy who didn't assume it was intentional was lying...by lying yourself to make them look bad. I used "f---ed" instead of "messed" because to my ear it sonically flows better. If that was perceived as a tantrum, that's on me, but you're really in no position to give a lecture on civility.
For posterity, i will offer a more "honest" empirical breakdown of the various metrics in question employing the frames Bidofo and Draymond were using with on/off(
"consecutive average" and
"average the best years"). I will note exceptions where they are present(some of that is guess-work so please check and correct), but I am going by the standard of "most comparative frames"
JORDAN VS LEBRON IMPACT BREAKDOWNWOWY/Indirect/Raw(there are various degrees of adjustment to some of these samples but they do not use "10 years" of data like WOWYR)
- Best Years - Lebron(Big Gap) MJ looks fringe top-10
WOWY/Indirect/Raw - Averages - Lebron(Big Gap) MJ looks solidly top-10
10-year/prime WOWYR/GPM/ALT- Averages(there is no "best year") - Jordan(Marginal Gap) MJ's range is 4-7 depending on if you use raw wins or championships/relative SRS as your on
Exception: Lebron has a decent advantage in ALT-scaled WOWYR
PIPM - Average - Lebron(big gap) - Jordan is 2nd-4th(no data pre-1977)
PIPM - Best Years - Lebron(bigger gap) - Jordan is 2(no data pre-1977)
AUPM - Average - Lebron
Exception: Jordan has slight edge in 3-year(4 year?), MJ comes 2nd(Duncan has better 1-3 but Jordan advantage otherwise, no data pre-1997 except for MJ)
AUPM - Best Years[/b] - Lebron(big gap) - Jordan comes 3rd(no data pre-1997 except for MJ)
RAPM - Average - Lebron(Big gap) - Jordan looks somewhere between 2-5, is 8th overall(different creators/scales, partial data, ect make things really tricky, no data-pre 1997 except for MJ)
RAPM - Best Years - Lebron(Big Gap) - Ditto with above
ON/OFF PLAYOFFS - Average - Lebron(Big Gap) -
Exceptions: 1-year tied, 8-year tied, 2-year and 3-year favor MJ - MJ ranks? No **** clue. Duncan, KG, Shaq, Curry are probably the candidates. I am not hand-calcing all that
ON/OFF PLAYOFFS - Best Years -Lebron(Gigantic Gap) -
Exceptions: 1-year tied, ditto for his overall rank
ON/OFF REGULAR SEASON - Best Years and Average - Lebron(Big Gap), since only 97 and 98 are the only mj regular seasons, i'm specifically comparing it to non-peak lebron seasons here. TLDR: 97 is worse than
seventeen of Lebron's
20 rs scores,
98 is worse than
eighteen. Not exactly "peak", but it is a clobbering when we compare 97-98 MJ to low-end Bron stuff - MJ ranks at? No **** clue
BONUS: NON IMPACTSummary: RS leans MJ, Postseason favors lebron. The margin in the playoffs varies depending on how much you lean towards "best years" and how much you lean towards "consecutive".
CONCLUSIONExcluding the bonus we get
1 type of signal favoring Jordan(over Lebron) that places him somewhere between 4 and 7. That signal happens to have the smallest possible "off sample"(per season for Jordan though it's also tiny
overall for Russell/Lebron, and currently not accurate for Kareem. Keep in mind it's also miniscule for Jordan unless Dray's assumptions regarding the sample, which he's admitted he isn't sure of, are correct).
Overall Lebron has a
5-1 advantage.
3-0 with Line-up adjustment,
2-1 with no Lineup adjustment. In terms of impact(or at least the metrics me and dray agreed to consider "impact" for this discussion), Jordan has
nothing that
generally puts him #1. It is possible there is a specific type of comparative frame he scores the best(i am too lazy to hand-track more on/off for other players and maybe 4-year AUPM does the trick), but, I always caveated my initial answer("no") with "most comparative frames" and "generally". Dray just completely ignored that distinction, but whatever.
Heej wrote:Some of these DraymondGold posts are starting to give off some serious "I cooka da Pasta (data)" vibes and we need to start a dialogue
Looking forward to the WOWYR breakdown tho
Dialogue started. WOWYR brokendown. Now I go...
) or you if you continue with the needless attacks and swears. Let’s act like adults, or not at all.
[post 3, 7, 22, 28, 34]
