Is Ben juicing the creation rates of Curry/Bird/MJ types?

[70sFan]

Being great and needing the ball < Being great and not needing the ball

Maybe it’s not a preference, maybe it’s an acknowledgment of the value of the four other guys on the floor wearing the same color jersey and how an archetype can maximize them.

FYI - no, I didn’t look at the videos…details here don’t interest me. The archetype argument is way more valuable IMO.

Archetypes works for typical stars, top tier legends transcendent such framework. In my opinion, looking at archetypes when you compare the greatest players ever isn't that useful.

[VanWest82]

These kinds of analyses are always going to suffer from not only subtle bias but outright ignorance. Like, the author doesn't have things like scouting reports. He doesn't know how the coaches are grading/coaching certain actions or what the responsibilities are all the time. You'll find similar problems in any public grading site(e.g. Chris Collinsworth's PFF).

As for creation by off ball players, I'm certainly not opposed to the idea. Typical PnR scenario: big dives hard to the hoop and pulls in weakside baseline help. Ball handler sees and skips to the corner for the open three. Who created that play? Ball handler gets the assist but the hard cut by a big with some gravity maybe makes it easier. How many times do Curry or MJ have five sets of eyes on them coming off a pin down? If Dray or Pippen choose to throw to a cutting screener under the rim for an easy assist does that mean Curry or MJ didn't have off ball creation ability? It makes sense to at least attempt to find a way to grade that and include it in the analysis.

[McBubbles]

Being great and needing the ball < Being great and not needing the ball

Maybe it’s not a preference, maybe it’s an acknowledgment of the value of the four other guys on the floor wearing the same color jersey and how an archetype can maximize them.

FYI - no, I didn’t look at the videos…details here don’t interest me. The archetype argument is way more valuable IMO.

Dafuq? "I don't care about evidence, I'm just sticking to conventional archetypical wisdom" is how basketball ends up taking 35 years to understand how the 3 point line works / how people end up underrating the defensive impact of a Draymond or KG. You basically just made a pro intellectual inbreeding argument...

That + Lebron, Magic, Nash, Oscar etc often grade out as better offensively than the Curry, Kobe, Birds. I feel like the main reason you're so invested in the Off Ball Über Alles notion is your love for Larry Bird.

[homecourtloss]

I understand that people have some concerns about Ben methodology, but at the same time I wonder how many of you have ever tried to do even a basic basketball analysis. It's extremely complicated, time consuming and hard to make it work even in some cases.

Scepticism is very valuable, but I rarely hear any alternatives. Criticizing something requires knowledge, but positive solutions are much harder and often more valuable.

Lol I mean if it's breaking down film, I've personally gone out of my way to watch quite literally hours of free FIBA coaching clinics put on by actual world class professional coaches to understand the finer nuances of the game, along with just having watched hours of other people breaking down games before trying to dissect what's going on on the court. So I dunno if you're coming at me with that statement, but best believe I'm not the one.

I may not be keeping an Excel sheet tracking plays on a possession by possession basis but I guarantee I spend more time watching what's going on during the minutiae of possessions in an average game than pretty much anyone on RealGM. And I mean it doesn't even take much to see that some of these credits are overstated, particularly the one where Curry just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it lmao.

The only "solution" imo is for people that collaborate just like we do on this forum to collectively raise our understanding of what goes on in a basketball game. And as such I think it's fair to question what exactly is the reasoning or methodology behind some of Ben's analysis.

I don't know your background, so it wasn't directly about you. I know some people are very vocal Ben haters and they haven't tried to analyze one game in their lifes. I'm glad you are not one of them.

I agree it's fair to ask about the methodology. I think you raised a good point. What I would suggest (if you have good intentions) is just contact Ben. I said it before - Ben used to be PC Board member. He's not a celebrity from another planet. He's relatively easy to reach out and he's always kind. I think he will answer your questions. Unless you already tried that of course.

About positive solutions - the thing is that criticizing something is always easier to present your own work. I really get that there are things Ben overstates and I don't agree with him on many subjects, but in the end his work is still very valuable.

The last point isn't to you, but there are people who knows who I am talking to. I don't like looking at people accusing Ben of manipulating his methodology and not presenting any alternative. Maybe Ben got some things wrong, but is it really necessary to project a bad faith or blind bias here?

Maybe these people exist elsewhere, but I haven’t seen that on this board. When people criticize Ben for some of his takes and analyses, they’re not necessarily “Ben haters”; in fact, most of those who do criticize him for certain stances often remark about the positive input and value he’s brought to basketball discussion, cite his work in their own arguments, etc., etc. Every single poster here who has criticized him for a stance has also recognized him either explicitly or implicitly by citing his work/using his work as a de facto beginning reference point, etc. I have never read any post that out right dismisses everything that he has done or said or posited.

Most of the criticisms I’ve seen about his work has been about the relative importance he’s given to subjective quantification when everything else in his work is data-driven, e.g., his -1 to +1 or -2 to +2 portability scores affecting his overall player evaluations.

[70sFan]

Lol I mean if it's breaking down film, I've personally gone out of my way to watch quite literally hours of free FIBA coaching clinics put on by actual world class professional coaches to understand the finer nuances of the game, along with just having watched hours of other people breaking down games before trying to dissect what's going on on the court. So I dunno if you're coming at me with that statement, but best believe I'm not the one.

I may not be keeping an Excel sheet tracking plays on a possession by possession basis but I guarantee I spend more time watching what's going on during the minutiae of possessions in an average game than pretty much anyone on RealGM. And I mean it doesn't even take much to see that some of these credits are overstated, particularly the one where Curry just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it lmao.

The only "solution" imo is for people that collaborate just like we do on this forum to collectively raise our understanding of what goes on in a basketball game. And as such I think it's fair to question what exactly is the reasoning or methodology behind some of Ben's analysis.

I don't know your background, so it wasn't directly about you. I know some people are very vocal Ben haters and they haven't tried to analyze one game in their lifes. I'm glad you are not one of them.

I agree it's fair to ask about the methodology. I think you raised a good point. What I would suggest (if you have good intentions) is just contact Ben. I said it before - Ben used to be PC Board member. He's not a celebrity from another planet. He's relatively easy to reach out and he's always kind. I think he will answer your questions. Unless you already tried that of course.

About positive solutions - the thing is that criticizing something is always easier to present your own work. I really get that there are things Ben overstates and I don't agree with him on many subjects, but in the end his work is still very valuable.

The last point isn't to you, but there are people who knows who I am talking to. I don't like looking at people accusing Ben of manipulating his methodology and not presenting any alternative. Maybe Ben got some things wrong, but is it really necessary to project a bad faith or blind bias here?

Maybe these people exist elsewhere, but I haven’t seen that on this board. When people criticize Ben for some of his takes and analyses, they’re not necessarily “Ben haters”; in fact, most of those who do criticize him for certain stances often remark about the positive input and value he’s brought to basketball discussion, cite his work in their own arguments, etc., etc. Every single poster here who has criticized him for a stance has also recognized him either explicitly or implicitly by citing his work/using his work as a de facto beginning reference point, etc. I have never read any post that out right dismisses everything that he has done or said or posited.

Most of the criticisms I’ve seen about his work has been about the relative importance he’s given to subjective quantification when everything else in his work is data-driven, e.g., his -1 to +1 or -2 to +2 portability scores affecting his overall player evaluations.

Maybe that's my bias and I remember those situations. Selective bias is a thing.

[eminence]

Yeah except this reply has no nuance to it whatsoever because some defensive breakdowns are simply a result of the defender making a low IQ decision as opposed to being forced into a precarious situation where the offensive player outmaneuvers their defenders.

You can look at it as the equivalent of "unforced errors" in baseball where sometimes it's really just a guy screwing up vs the batter hitting a dinger. If you take the time to actually comprehend and look at what I'm pointing out it's that Curry is being randomly credited with the baseball equivalent of a good hit when really it's the defender just fumbling.

Kudos to him for being in the general area on some of those, but to credit him as being the engine of that particular play is simply foolish at best or disingenuous at worst. This is like saying we should give LeBron creation credit for throwing an outlet pass to a guy cherry picking on the other end while his defender trips on the floor. "B-b-b-but who cares if the defense tripped over itself and LeBron's teammate never ran back on defense, that's still creation because he passed the ball!" That's how you sound right now lmao.

LeBron didn't do anything special in that situation, he just happened to be there lmao and yet we're gonna give him a creation credit as if he was the one responsible for creating that scoring opportunity? Sounds pretty flawed to me. If we're talking about all time players here and grading them out against each other you need to be looking at what they did on the floor possession by possession that makes them stand out against other greats. I don't see any Rondo truthers stumbling over themselves to use his passes to a wide open Ray Allen coming off a pindown as evidence for why he was such a savant as a playmaker.

I don't think it's hard to see where it's reasonable to make a distinction in these scenarios otherwise you run the risk of the concept of these creation credits becoming meaningless if we come at it with the same laissez-faire approach you seem to be promoting.

So... by basically every stat ever created to track creation - LeBron does get at least some credit for 'creating' that look.

Eg the most basic of them all - the assist.

"Notoriously one of the most perfect stats ever created" is what I presume you meant to say next? Otherwise this response is unnecessary and irrelevant

I mean, your example sucked. What do you want me to say? 'Ha, look at this situation where nobody reasonable would give much credit to LeBron' - every creation stat ever credits LeBron for the play.

No stat is perfect and will have examples of it 'mis'-attributing credit - if you have an actual analysis of Bens tracking and aren't just out here cherry picking it could be an interesting discovery/discussion. But so far, you're out here cherry picking.

[zimpy27]

I think the bias is simply that impact stats show Curry to have high impact and Ben is trying to produce visuals of that. It's a hard thing to capture or explain it.

Defenders make mistakes in those plays. Defenders make mistakes all the time but they aren't always scored on because of it. Curry's movement creates more mistakes but also Curry takes advantage of those mistakes.

This is subtle and Ben does his best

[Heej]

So... by basically every stat ever created to track creation - LeBron does get at least some credit for 'creating' that look.

Eg the most basic of them all - the assist.

"Notoriously one of the most perfect stats ever created" is what I presume you meant to say next? Otherwise this response is unnecessary and irrelevant

I mean, your example sucked. What do you want me to say? 'Ha, look at this situation where nobody reasonable would give much credit to LeBron' - every creation stat ever credits LeBron for the play.

No stat is perfect and will have examples of it 'mis'-attributing credit - if you have an actual analysis of Bens tracking and aren't just out here cherry picking it could be an interesting discovery/discussion. But so far, you're out here cherry picking.

Cope response. "Cherry picking" to you, pointing out obvious examples of over-crediting creation to me. If you're going to be eye-tracking someone's creation as an objective metric to be used to compare to other all time greats then it's fair to question whether there are gaps in the methodology.

And my example may have sucked to you, but nothing sucked as bad as Ben crediting Curry with creating a basket where he just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it . If you're seeing stuff like that consistently in these analysis videos (hell others have chimed in on dodgy ones that I missed) then it stands to reason that this is a consistent theme in these ratings and as such it deserves to be pointed out.

I'm sorry it makes you so uncomfortable that you feel the need to white knight Ben, but if your argument is something as basic as "every creation stat credits LeBron for the play" then maybe it's no wonder why you can't fathom why we're questioning whether Ben has disaplayed subpar criteria for creation in his breakdown videos

[Heej]

I think the bias is simply that impact stats show Curry to have high impact and Ben is trying to produce visuals of that. It's a hard thing to capture or explain it.

Defenders make mistakes in those plays. Defenders make mistakes all the time but they aren't always scored on because of it. Curry's movement creates more mistakes but also Curry takes advantage of those mistakes.

This is subtle and Ben does his best

Well for one, I just think there's better examples you can use. And maybe it doesn't take THAT much to have high impact in a basketball game. There's no need to clickbait saying Curry created 33 points straight in a game when even if he created 25 out of the 33 he reached that high impact bar.

And this is why it's unfortunate that Ben doesn't have other videos where he's doing the same breakdowns within Jordan, Bird, Miller, Dirk, or other off ball scorer types' games. Because in my mind Curry's the best off-ball player ever due to the fact that him and Stockton are the best screening point guards in NBA history imo.

But some of these other guys weren't good or enthusiastic screen setters at all, which is where Curry derives A LOT of his off-ball value from alongside basic system split action cuts. And that's why I'd really like to see what Ben is crediting as creation for those types of characters because if he's doing what I think he's doing, and that's going out of his subconsciously to juice creation credits for guys like Steph whose playstyles he prefers, it should make anyone question how much more is he bending over backwards to juice other players.

Because Curry does enough as it is to impact plays off the ball and Ben's still going out of his way to pump it lmao. And this then makes you question his methodology as far as creation overall if that's the case like OhayoKD said.

[Heej]

Based on the examples you provided, I agree. I don't think these plays are attributable to Steph. That said, I don't think it's a huge exaggeration, and I don't blame youtube creaters for small exaggerations. It helps get views. He's still one of(if not) the best basketball minds on youtube, and maybe on the internet.

Can you provide the examples for Bird/Jordan? You mention them too, but provide no examples, so I have to judge them separately and disagree for now.


That said, while I do think he's exaggerating the impact of some of those Curry plays, I really do think S tier off ball scorers like Curry, Jordan, Bird, and Durant create far more opportunities/baskets for their teammates than the box scores show.

Believe me lol I have immense respect for the creation of off-ball players lol. Hell my whole life I've been a 3 point shooting swingman that likes playing off ball just as much as on ball so I always laugh when I notice my gravity creates an open shot or layup for someone else. And I have enormous respect for Curry being a cut above every other off-ball player in NBA history because he's literally a guard that can set screens like a big man lmao.

But like you said some of these baskets just aren't attributable to him and I think it's fair for me to point it out. As far as Jordan and Bird, no Ben doesn't have any videos where he explains his grades on their creation in a game so that's why the best I can do is extrapolate from what he's treating as credits in his Curry videos. Maybe I'll do what 70sFan said and reach out respectfully to ask if he can share one on those 2 so we can get a better sense of his criteria.

Cuz I could do breakdowns on my own (and hell, I have my own personal breakdown on the 89 conference Finals that I did for my own education) but it really doesn't matter unless I can compare it to what Ben's got going on.

[eminence]

"Notoriously one of the most perfect stats ever created" is what I presume you meant to say next? Otherwise this response is unnecessary and irrelevant

I mean, your example sucked. What do you want me to say? 'Ha, look at this situation where nobody reasonable would give much credit to LeBron' - every creation stat ever credits LeBron for the play.

No stat is perfect and will have examples of it 'mis'-attributing credit - if you have an actual analysis of Bens tracking and aren't just out here cherry picking it could be an interesting discovery/discussion. But so far, you're out here cherry picking.

Cope response. "Cherry picking" to you, pointing out obvious examples of over-crediting creation to me. If you're going to be eye-tracking someone's creation as an objective metric to be used to compare to other all time greats then it's fair to question whether there are gaps in the methodology.

And my example may have sucked to you, but nothing sucked as bad as Ben crediting Curry with creating a basket where he just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it . If you're seeing stuff like that consistently in these analysis videos (hell others have chimed in on dodgy ones that I missed) then it stands to reason that this is a consistent theme in these ratings and as such it deserves to be pointed out.

I'm sorry it makes you so uncomfortable that you feel the need to white knight Ben, but if your argument is something as basic as "every creation stat credits LeBron for the play" then maybe it's no wonder why you can't fathom why we're questioning whether Ben has disaplayed subpar criteria for creation in his breakdown videos

So you've done it for other players then? Gone through multiple videos and found examples of where you disagree with Bens analysis? Correctly so in some cases like the KD drive on Korver -whom you appear to call Love- with Dray/LeBron in the paint. Compared those rates and found he favors Curry compared to others (by your analysis).

Or are you cherry picking?

If you'd come in and said something along the lines of 'I disagree with Bens assessment of these plays' your entire thing would be fine, but you came in with the click-bait 'Is Ben juicing creation rates of players he likes?'.

[OhayoKD]

So... by basically every stat ever created to track creation - LeBron does get at least some credit for 'creating' that look.

Eg the most basic of them all - the assist.

"Notoriously one of the most perfect stats ever created" is what I presume you meant to say next? Otherwise this response is unnecessary and irrelevant

No stat is perfect and will have examples of it 'mis'-attributing credit - if you have an actual analysis of Bens tracking and aren't just out here cherry picking it could be an interesting discovery/discussion. But so far, you're out here cherry picking.

You're aware by this standard plenty of Ben's own film analysis doesn't count as "actual analysis"?

I also have no clue what your basis for Heej "cherrypicking" is. Do you have some reason to think the sample of film he looked at was chosen because it would be especially error-prone?

Engage with the film analysis or don't, but trying to spin this as some negative because it challenges a guy you like is pretty silly.

Rationally, one could
A. Consider if Ben overcounts off-ball creations and apply whatever curves they deem fit
B. Loook into things deeper and see if they can corraborate the tape that is provided
C. Challenge the analysis
D. Shrug and move on

Instead you chose
E. Complain and make baseless accusations because there might be reason for people to question their priors

Pretty bad-faith tbh

[Heej]

I mean, your example sucked. What do you want me to say? 'Ha, look at this situation where nobody reasonable would give much credit to LeBron' - every creation stat ever credits LeBron for the play.

No stat is perfect and will have examples of it 'mis'-attributing credit - if you have an actual analysis of Bens tracking and aren't just out here cherry picking it could be an interesting discovery/discussion. But so far, you're out here cherry picking.

Cope response. "Cherry picking" to you, pointing out obvious examples of over-crediting creation to me. If you're going to be eye-tracking someone's creation as an objective metric to be used to compare to other all time greats then it's fair to question whether there are gaps in the methodology.

And my example may have sucked to you, but nothing sucked as bad as Ben crediting Curry with creating a basket where he just hands the ball to KD and watches him go dunk it . If you're seeing stuff like that consistently in these analysis videos (hell others have chimed in on dodgy ones that I missed) then it stands to reason that this is a consistent theme in these ratings and as such it deserves to be pointed out.

I'm sorry it makes you so uncomfortable that you feel the need to white knight Ben, but if your argument is something as basic as "every creation stat credits LeBron for the play" then maybe it's no wonder why you can't fathom why we're questioning whether Ben has disaplayed subpar criteria for creation in his breakdown videos

So you've done it for other players then? Gone through multiple videos and found examples of where you disagree with Bens analysis? Correctly so in some cases like the KD drive on Korver -whom you appear to call Love- with Dray/LeBron in the paint. Compared those rates and found he favors Curry compared to others (by your analysis).

Or are you cherry picking?

If you'd come in and said something along the lines of 'I disagree with Bens assessment of these plays' your entire thing would be fine, but you came in with the click-bait 'Is Ben juicing creation rates of players he likes?'.

Unfortunately Ben doesn't have videos of other players I can comb through if you actually bothered to read through my posts (doesn't seem like you did), otherwise I absolutely would be combing through them and I'll likely reach out to him via email and request that he does a similar creation type video on these other guys. Cuz if he did best believe I'd actually be in there dissecting these plays, but unfortunately best I can do for now is extrapolate from Curry videos and start a dialogue.

As for Korver , well to be completely honest Ben refers to him as Love in the video as well so I just went with it being that I'm looking at this stuff on my small phone screen and paying attention to the stuff that actually mattered in the play; like Draymond wrestling LeBron out of help position

[AEnigma]

Instead you chose
E. Complain and make baseless accusations because there might be reason for people to question their priors

Pretty bad-faith tbh

No need to equate Eminence with people who actually do that. He is not some Ben Taylor super-fan or someone just looking to confirm biases however possible.

More constructively, I would be interested to hear from Eminence how he feels about that passing lens as applied to Garnett. Major gulf in passing vision compared to people like Curry or Jordan, but a player Ben has been willing to assess generously, so maybe he would make for a worthwhile middle ground point of analysis.

[SNPA]

Being great and needing the ball < Being great and not needing the ball

Maybe it’s not a preference, maybe it’s an acknowledgment of the value of the four other guys on the floor wearing the same color jersey and how an archetype can maximize them.

FYI - no, I didn’t look at the videos…details here don’t interest me. The archetype argument is way more valuable IMO.

Dafuq? "I don't care about evidence, I'm just sticking to conventional archetypical wisdom" is how basketball ends up taking 35 years to understand how the 3 point line works / how people end up underrating the defensive impact of a Draymond or KG. You basically just made a pro intellectual inbreeding argument...

That + Lebron, Magic, Nash, Oscar etc often grade out as better offensively than the Curry, Kobe, Birds. I feel like the main reason you're so invested in the Off Ball Über Alles notion is your love for Larry Bird.

You’ll have to show me where I said I don’t care about evidence. I said I don’t care about the details of the videos. Getting into that nuanced a take on this subject doesn’t interest me at this time.

I disagree with 70’s fan on the archetype not mattering at the highest levels. How a player is great, and how it relates to his era, and how that impacts his teammates is of paramount importance IMO.

Making your teammates better matters. Sharing the ball is a major way to do that offensively. Seems like straight forward stuff to me. There’s a reason AI isn’t a big topic of conversation on this board.

[70sFan]

To question methodology, you should do much more than disagree with the interpretation of a few plays here and there. I'm with eminence here, you can't accuse Ben for inflating creation rates based on such a small sample.

[frica]

I think picking those clips without context or in isolation is a little unfair.

Those kind of plays (you could call them defensive breakdowns) happen more often with Curry than other players. In isolation those plays look like your basic defensive mistakes, but when it keeps happening with the same player around, isn't it logical to give him credit? Or is Curry just the luckiest player on court, where everyone just happens to make defensive mistakes when he's around.
Not buying it. That gravity is real.

[OhayoKD]

To question methodology, you should do much more than disagree with the interpretation of a few plays here and there. I'm with eminence here, you can't accuse Ben for inflating creation rates based on such a small sample.

Okay point-blank, is it a good thing this analysis was brought up or not, because eminence is potrying it as a negative

Also, it's hardly an isolated signal. The Kawhi defense thread covered alot of various indicators which you mostly sidestepped

Edit: I'm being way to passive here tbh.

No. The three videos are available for all of you to watch and check. If you think Heej is somehow being unfair, then go and look at the videos and find examples of Ben "undervaluing" curry's creation. Becuase if you can't find those, than the samples of him overvaluing would be distorting at least his tracking for that game.

**** hell. People cook and doctor data, no worries. Bro does film analysis, ah no Heej, how **** dare you

[Heej]

I think picking those clips without context or in isolation is a little unfair.

Those kind of plays (you could call them defensive breakdowns) happen more often with Curry than other players. In isolation those plays look like your basic defensive mistakes, but when it keeps happening with the same player around, isn't it logical to give him credit? Or is Curry just the luckiest player on court, where everyone just happens to make defensive mistakes when he's around.
Not buying it. That gravity is real.

Of course gravity is real, but the effects are HIGHLY overstated in some of these clips lmao. And if you can't see that's the point of this thread idk what to tell you

And as for your question as to whether Curry is the luckiest player in the world, you do realize these kinds of mistakes happen all the time on the court right? And especially around star players. The whole point here is if you're going to be objectively rating and assessing values to the impact of all time greats and using that to make cut and dry rankings based on this analysis then you should probably hold these players to a higher standard if you're actually trying to define the impact that separates them from others in their rarified air lol.

Like I said, this is just from a few Curry videos who is literally the easiest off-ball player to ever assess gravity for, where you only have to do the bare minimum in terms of film work to see where he's creating plays using that. And yet you're still bending over backwards to assign points on mundane or straight up inapplicable plays? How much worse is it for other players? How much slippage is in the criteria overall?

Like I've said time and again, this is all we have to work with when it comes to a direct insight into the full catalogue of plays that Ben rates as high level creation. And some of these are just straight up problematic lmao. Hopefully there will be others with Jordan and Bird after I reach out to him, because I think it's fair that as fans of his work we do point these oversights out because it's easy to miss when you're a content creator looking to churn out videos

I find it especially ironic that a lot of people in here are hung up on the idea of defensive mistakes and completely missing the forest from the trees in this discussion. But alas, looks like I'll have to find some heliocentric creation videos to see whether Ben has the same slippage with those types of players that he does with his Curry off-ball clips. My guess is going to be that he doesn't attribute nearly as many "ticky-tack" creation points to on-ball possessions as he does to off-ball ones but we shall see

[70sFan]

To question methodology, you should do much more than disagree with the interpretation of a few plays here and there. I'm with eminence here, you can't accuse Ben for inflating creation rates based on such a small sample.

Okay point-blank, is it a good thing this analysis was brought up or not, because eminence is potrying it as a negative

Also, it's hardly an isolated signal. The Kawhi defense thread covered alot of various indicators which you mostly sidestepped

Edit: I'm being way to passive here tbh.

No. The three videos are available for all of you to watch and check. If you think Heej is somehow being unfair, then go and look at the videos and find examples of Ben "undervaluing" curry's creation. Becuase if you can't find those, than the samples of him overvaluing would be distorting at least his tracking for that game.

**** hell. People cook and doctor data, no worries. Bro does film analysis, ah no Heej, how **** dare you

Ben's work doesn't end at his videos created by casual fans on YT. I'm not going to make a clear stance here, I haven't done a lot of work on estimating created opportunities myself. It's about something different - this criticism is all based on videos created by Ben to the bigger audience. It doesn't have any evidences of Ben overstating the number of such created looks. If you want to suggest that Ben inflates them, then do your own work and try to estimate it. Also, compare it to other players. If you don't really know Ben's methodology, then what do you mean by "inflating" numbers? Inflated to what? To your own definition of created look? Inflated compared to other players? Do you know what kind of plays Ben includes for different players? If not, then how can you say anything?

If you see something concerning in a particular methodology, try to go deeper before accusing the creator of manipulating numbers.

About this particular example, I will answer to the OP in a moment.