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

[70sFan]

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=223

The first clip sees Ben giving Curry a creation credit on this fastbreak where it smacks more of poor defense from Garland considering he had Rubio a few steps behind them to pick up Curry on the weakside.

I think you descirbes a different play than what you posted here, am I right?

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=307

This next credit is a stretch at best, and straight up disingenuous at worst. This is just straight up basic Warriors split action where JTA just catches Garland (not the most heady defender) napping and slips the screen for an open back cut. To credit Curry with "creating" this play is absolutely wild to me

It is a mistake from Garland, but we have to remember why Garland even considered such type of defense. You don't defend a non-shooter this way, Curry is being defended like that consistently. I agree calling it a full creation is a stretch, but Steph definitely influenced this play.

https://youtu.be/JCks-bQbn1A?t=108

This play is also lazy, Curry whiffs on the screen and Lowry simply commits a fundamental mistake trying to go through on the high side of a backscreen. Plays like this make me wonder if Ben is going out of his way to overthink basketball here when a much simpler explanation suffices.

I agree with you, I don't share Ben's interpretation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=296&v=JCks-bQbn1A&feature=youtu.be?t=318

Here we see Pascal simply loses his place in the scheme here. Curry was able to penetrate, but no true breakdown was created directly from his action as the Raptors directly recovered on the strong side. Pascal is just drifting on the weakside low block and not sticking to the scheme where he should be back up at the elbow once the action on his side was stifled. Not sure why Curry is being credited here with a shot creation.

Is he being credited with a shot creation here? Maybe I missed it, but I don't hear anything suggesting that.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=131

This one is outrageously egregious. Curry doesn't create much of an advantage at all here, he just blows by Love on the switch. And Ben's analysis is completely wrong here which makes me question whether he's so preoccupied with trying to funnel creation assists to Curry that he completely rewrites what actually occurred on the floor. According to him, Curry's PNR pulls the big out of the paint which opens up the wide open layup, when really Draymond is the star of this play. The paint was still occupied by LeBron but Draymond just wrestles him (90s basketball enjoyers in shambles watching this) and boxes him out of the play. Don't see where Curry can be credited with this other than just giving KD the ball and watching Draymond illegally clear the help defender.

I think Ben wanted to show that bigs after switching onto Curry could not help inside, which leaves the paint more open (it's a weak example though, as you described Green did the most work here). Remember that this video is from 2018 (?), when it was still less common thing. Now this is a normal basketball possession, definitely nothing related to Curry.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=144

This credit is just as weird, given it was just JR Smith coming over for no reason to double on a FAST BREAK while Curry is already covered by LeBron. This isn't even an example of Curry's gravity in my mind because no one watching this is thinking "damn LeBron needs to get bailed out because Chef Curry is about to fry him in isolation" it's just JR Smith being JR Smith, and why LeBron freaks out on him after lol.

I mean, that's the point here - defenders make basic mistakes against Curry because they have in mind that they have to stop him from shooting. Most baskets are created because of defensive mistakes, that doesn't mean that offensive players doesn't catlyze most of them.

Overall man, it really makes you question Ben's breakdowns in some of these plays; which kinda casts doubt on whether he has suffered from similar biased analysis in regards to creation within other players in this archetype.

Have you considered that maybe he simply has different criteria for "created plays" in general? Why do you assume that it's caused by his personal biases towards one type of archetype? Have you analyzed his breakdowns of different types of playmakers? If not, then why do you assume he has a bias?

[SNPA]

And…this is why I stated I’m not interested in the videos.

[Heej]

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.

Except..there is evidence of him overstating the number of created looks in these games and clips?? He literally put a clickbait title that Curry created 33 straight points in a game where if you objectively watched all those clips there's no shot you come away with that opinion lol.

And herein lies the point that people seem to be incapable of comprehending. These are just clips from a few games where we see over-crediting. And this is literally all Ben has shared in terms of insight into how he breaks down creation from end to end in a game, and some of the examples are weak or problematic.

You want me to do my own film work? What if I tell you I do and have frequently undertaken personal studies taking notes on old MJ games so that I can actually be informed during debates. Hell, I was one of the loudest proponents watching the Cavs-Warriors Finals of the idea that Curry was the focal point of the Cavs defense and deserved the FMVP over KD.

The issue here is that I have nothing else to compare my work to Ben's work with as far as game breakdowns go. And as someone who really is just into this stuff I find it disappointing that a guy who I value as one of the OGs here when I was first getting my bearings in PC Board is kinda showing a pattern of problematic behavior in regards to assessments of on-ball vs off-ball stars

[Heej]

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=223

The first clip sees Ben giving Curry a creation credit on this fastbreak where it smacks more of poor defense from Garland considering he had Rubio a few steps behind them to pick up Curry on the weakside.

I think you descirbes a different play than what you posted here, am I right?

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=307

This next credit is a stretch at best, and straight up disingenuous at worst. This is just straight up basic Warriors split action where JTA just catches Garland (not the most heady defender) napping and slips the screen for an open back cut. To credit Curry with "creating" this play is absolutely wild to me

It is a mistake from Garland, but we have to remember why Garland even considered such type of defense. You don't defend a non-shooter this way, Curry is being defended like that consistently. I agree calling it a full creation is a stretch, but Steph definitely influenced this play.

https://youtu.be/JCks-bQbn1A?t=108

This play is also lazy, Curry whiffs on the screen and Lowry simply commits a fundamental mistake trying to go through on the high side of a backscreen. Plays like this make me wonder if Ben is going out of his way to overthink basketball here when a much simpler explanation suffices.

I agree with you, I don't share Ben's interpretation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=296&v=JCks-bQbn1A&feature=youtu.be?t=318

Here we see Pascal simply loses his place in the scheme here. Curry was able to penetrate, but no true breakdown was created directly from his action as the Raptors directly recovered on the strong side. Pascal is just drifting on the weakside low block and not sticking to the scheme where he should be back up at the elbow once the action on his side was stifled. Not sure why Curry is being credited here with a shot creation.

Is he being credited with a shot creation here? Maybe I missed it, but I don't hear anything suggesting that.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=131

This one is outrageously egregious. Curry doesn't create much of an advantage at all here, he just blows by Love on the switch. And Ben's analysis is completely wrong here which makes me question whether he's so preoccupied with trying to funnel creation assists to Curry that he completely rewrites what actually occurred on the floor. According to him, Curry's PNR pulls the big out of the paint which opens up the wide open layup, when really Draymond is the star of this play. The paint was still occupied by LeBron but Draymond just wrestles him (90s basketball enjoyers in shambles watching this) and boxes him out of the play. Don't see where Curry can be credited with this other than just giving KD the ball and watching Draymond illegally clear the help defender.

I think Ben wanted to show that bigs after switching onto Curry could not help inside, which leaves the paint more open (it's a weak example though, as you described Green did the most work here). Remember that this video is from 2018 (?), when it was still less common thing. Now this is a normal basketball possession, definitely nothing related to Curry.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=144

This credit is just as weird, given it was just JR Smith coming over for no reason to double on a FAST BREAK while Curry is already covered by LeBron. This isn't even an example of Curry's gravity in my mind because no one watching this is thinking "damn LeBron needs to get bailed out because Chef Curry is about to fry him in isolation" it's just JR Smith being JR Smith, and why LeBron freaks out on him after lol.

I mean, that's the point here - defenders make basic mistakes against Curry because they have in mind that they have to stop him from shooting. Most baskets are created because of defensive mistakes, that doesn't mean that offensive players doesn't catlyze most of them.

Overall man, it really makes you question Ben's breakdowns in some of these plays; which kinda casts doubt on whether he has suffered from similar biased analysis in regards to creation within other players in this archetype.

Have you considered that maybe he simply has different criteria for "created plays" in general? Why do you assume that it's caused by his personal biases towards one type of archetype? Have you analyzed his breakdowns of different types of playmakers? If not, then why do you assume he has a bias?

Nope first play is an overstated creation credit, Garland was just standing in no-man's-land during a fast break.

Second Clip overstated

3rd clip Ben is crediting Curry with the breakdown that caused the shot, which I disagree with

I would argue that JR Smith made a basic mistake moreso because he's JR Smith and attempting to attribute credit to Curry here is doing too much

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here. As far as Ben's criteria for "created plays" being different, yes that's the point of this thread actually. I find it inconsistent and jives with the fact that he inanely rated LeBron 3rd in POY back in 2016 . And from how he underrates the fact that Magic Bron and Nash as heliocentric stars produced the best playoff offenses of all time during portability sections. There is a history of problematic behavior here which is what prompted me to consider this thread in the first place.

[falcolombardi]

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.

I dont think there is anythingh wrong with criticizing ben work, nor is a bad approach to take the examples handpicked by ben himself as representative of what he considers a off ball creation. We are not cherrypicking plays, we are literally looking at the plays ben picked to showcase curry creation

I literally got into analizing basketball in depth thanks to ben work and i still reread his backpick profiles periodically years later. Yet that doesnt stop me from giving criticism to him ( when i think his criticisms on someone like wilt are wrong or biased (more often alongside you)

Why would be us (as in me and you and others) criticizing some ben taylor conclusions be fine but not others? Ben himself has said that he wants his analysis and videos to spark debate and further argument and conversations. That includes by definition disagreements with his conclusions

[70sFan]

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.

Except..there is evidence of him overstating the number of created looks in these games and clips?? He literally put a clickbait title that Curry created 33 straight points in a game where if you objectively watched all those clips there's no shot you come away with that opinion lol.

And herein lies the point that people seem to be incapable of comprehending. These are just clips from a few games where we see over-crediting. And this is literally all Ben has shared in terms of insight into how he breaks down creation from end to end in a game, and some of the examples are weak or problematic.

You want me to do my own film work? What if I tell you I do and have frequently undertaken personal studies taking notes on old MJ games so that I can actually be informed during debates. Hell, I was one of the loudest proponents watching the Cavs-Warriors Finals of the idea that Curry was the focal point of the Cavs defense and deserved the FMVP over KD.

The issue here is that I have nothing else to compare my work to Ben's work with as far as game breakdowns go. And as someone who really is just into this stuff I find it disappointing that a guy who I value as one of the OGs here when I was first getting my bearings in PC Board is kinda showing a pattern of problematic behavior in regards to assessments of on-ball vs off-ball stars

I already said you that I believe you did the tape analysis, but you didn't post them and didn't compare your results to his. You just disagreed with the interpretation of 5 Curry plays and concluded that Ben manipulates his stats to make off-ball players look better. You also didn't compare the results to how he evaluates on-ball players.

I am open to the idea that Ben overrates off-ball creators, but it would be nice to see a better evidence than that.

[falcolombardi]

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=223

The first clip sees Ben giving Curry a creation credit on this fastbreak where it smacks more of poor defense from Garland considering he had Rubio a few steps behind them to pick up Curry on the weakside.

I think you descirbes a different play than what you posted here, am I right?

https://youtu.be/Qq-ewGMk73A?t=307

This next credit is a stretch at best, and straight up disingenuous at worst. This is just straight up basic Warriors split action where JTA just catches Garland (not the most heady defender) napping and slips the screen for an open back cut. To credit Curry with "creating" this play is absolutely wild to me

It is a mistake from Garland, but we have to remember why Garland even considered such type of defense. You don't defend a non-shooter this way, Curry is being defended like that consistently. I agree calling it a full creation is a stretch, but Steph definitely influenced this play.

https://youtu.be/JCks-bQbn1A?t=108

This play is also lazy, Curry whiffs on the screen and Lowry simply commits a fundamental mistake trying to go through on the high side of a backscreen. Plays like this make me wonder if Ben is going out of his way to overthink basketball here when a much simpler explanation suffices.

I agree with you, I don't share Ben's interpretation here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=296&v=JCks-bQbn1A&feature=youtu.be?t=318

Here we see Pascal simply loses his place in the scheme here. Curry was able to penetrate, but no true breakdown was created directly from his action as the Raptors directly recovered on the strong side. Pascal is just drifting on the weakside low block and not sticking to the scheme where he should be back up at the elbow once the action on his side was stifled. Not sure why Curry is being credited here with a shot creation.

Is he being credited with a shot creation here? Maybe I missed it, but I don't hear anything suggesting that.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=131

This one is outrageously egregious. Curry doesn't create much of an advantage at all here, he just blows by Love on the switch. And Ben's analysis is completely wrong here which makes me question whether he's so preoccupied with trying to funnel creation assists to Curry that he completely rewrites what actually occurred on the floor. According to him, Curry's PNR pulls the big out of the paint which opens up the wide open layup, when really Draymond is the star of this play. The paint was still occupied by LeBron but Draymond just wrestles him (90s basketball enjoyers in shambles watching this) and boxes him out of the play. Don't see where Curry can be credited with this other than just giving KD the ball and watching Draymond illegally clear the help defender.

I think Ben wanted to show that bigs after switching onto Curry could not help inside, which leaves the paint more open (it's a weak example though, as you described Green did the most work here). Remember that this video is from 2018 (?), when it was still less common thing. Now this is a normal basketball possession, definitely nothing related to Curry.

https://youtu.be/GuP6-puSfRs?t=144

This credit is just as weird, given it was just JR Smith coming over for no reason to double on a FAST BREAK while Curry is already covered by LeBron. This isn't even an example of Curry's gravity in my mind because no one watching this is thinking "damn LeBron needs to get bailed out because Chef Curry is about to fry him in isolation" it's just JR Smith being JR Smith, and why LeBron freaks out on him after lol.

I mean, that's the point here - defenders make basic mistakes against Curry because they have in mind that they have to stop him from shooting. Most baskets are created because of defensive mistakes, that doesn't mean that offensive players doesn't catlyze most of them.

Overall man, it really makes you question Ben's breakdowns in some of these plays; which kinda casts doubt on whether he has suffered from similar biased analysis in regards to creation within other players in this archetype.

Have you considered that maybe he simply has different criteria for "created plays" in general? Why do you assume that it's caused by his personal biases towards one type of archetype? Have you analyzed his breakdowns of different types of playmakers? If not, then why do you assume he has a bias?

Nope first play is an overstated creation credit, Garland was just standing in no-man's-land during a fast break.

Second Clip overstated

3rd clip Ben is crediting Curry with the breakdown that caused the shot, which I disagree with

I would argue that JR Smith made a basic mistake moreso because he's JR Smith and attempting to attribute credit to Curry here is doing too much

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here. As far as Ben's criteria for "created plays" being different, yes that's the point of this thread actually. I find it inconsistent and jives with the fact that he inanely rated LeBron 3rd in POY back in 2016 . And from how he underrates the fact that Magic Bron and Nash as heliocentric stars produced the best playoff offenses of all time during portability sections. There is a history of problematic behavior here which is what prompted me to consider this thread in the first place.

The bolded part is so key

The 3 best offense runs of all time by the measure most of us care about the most (playoffs in your prime) are 3 guys whose on-ball approach supposedly makes them weaker " ceiling raisers" (a term itself often only applied to the offensive end while ignoring defense more often than not)

How can the 3 guys who led teams to the highest offensive ceilings be limited (offensive) ceiling raisers?

At some point the theory on this breaks down vs real results

[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

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

So my initial engagement here was simply that Heejs example was a poor one (the LeBron outlet pass scenario).

Bens youtube vidoes are pretty surface level analysis at best (there can be real analysis behind them, but they're highlights of potential real analysis, understandably as Ben makes videos for a wide audience and wants to make money, of course he doesn't publish videos of him breaking down 20 games of film play by play).

Umm, it's pretty clearly cherry picked, were those random clips from the videos? Or does Ben have a 100% error rate? The reasonable answer to both of those questions - No. Heej picked clips he most disagreed with (like Ben cherrypicked examples where he thought Curry was showing good gravity playmaking for the videos).

Cherrypicking can be a useful thing to make points/give examples (like a highlight video), but there needs to be real depth behind it. Heej has no depth in this OP, there's 6 plays across 3 videos where he disagrees with Bens analysis (I ~agree in 4 cases - not the trap and pass to JTA and the JR fastbreak double).

And Ben and I aren't currently on speaking terms, lol.

[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.

I dont think there is anythingh wrong with criticizing ben work, nor is a bad approach to take the examples handpicked by ben himself as representative of what he considers a off ball creation. We are not cherrypicking plays, we are literally looking at the plays ben picked to showcase curry creation

I literally got into analizing basketball in depth thanks to ben work and i still reread his backpick profiles periodically years later. Yet that doesnt stop me from giving criticism to him ( when i think his criticisms on someone like wilt are wrong or biased (more often alongside you)

Why would be us (as in me and you and others) criticizing some ben taylor conclusions be fine but not others? Ben himself has said that he wants his analysis and videos to spark debate and further argument and conversations. That includes by definition disagreements with his conclusions

It's not about criticizing Ben's work, but more of how it is criticized. I don't agree with Ben's conclusions many times, but I never played the card of him being biased and manipulating his stats for his preferences. You can disagree with his opinions and bring up limitations of his methods, but if you want to say that his whole methodology is flawed due to his manipulations, then I this is much more serious accusation than just an "academic" disagreement with his methodology.

[Heej]

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

So my initial engagement here was simply that Heejs example was a poor one (the LeBron outlet pass scenario).

Bens youtube vidoes are pretty surface level analysis at best (there can be real analysis behind them, but they're highlights of potential real analysis, understandably as Ben makes videos for a wide audience and wants to make money, of course he doesn't publish videos of him breaking down 20 games of film play by play).

Umm, it's pretty clearly cherry picked, were those random clips from the videos? Or does Ben have a 100% error rate? The reasonable answer to both of those questions - No. Heej picked clips he most disagreed with (like Ben cherrypicked examples where he thought Curry was showing good gravity playmaking for the videos).

Cherrypicking can be a useful thing to make points/give examples (like a highlight video), but there needs to be real depth behind it. Heej has no depth in this OP, there's 6 plays across 3 videos where he disagrees with Bens analysis (I ~agree in 4 cases - not the trap and pass to JTA and the JR fastbreak double).

And Ben and I aren't currently on speaking terms, lol.

Good thing we have even worse examples from the actual videos so you don't have to keep strawmanning to make a point

Funny how I only needed to provide 6 and guys like falcolombardi was able to provide more plays within those videos that were disagreeable. Almost as if a pattern is being recognized that's being deflected by people that want to disagree with by crying "cherry picking"

Ain't like it's my fault that these are some of the only videos Ben has showing how he evaluates creation, and if you've got that many spotty clips throughout the videos then it's fair to question whether there's a flaw in his analysis. But apparently according to many in this thread, it's actually NOT cool to question him

[falcolombardi]

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.

I dont think there is anythingh wrong with criticizing ben work, nor is a bad approach to take the examples handpicked by ben himself as representative of what he considers a off ball creation. We are not cherrypicking plays, we are literally looking at the plays ben picked to showcase curry creation

I literally got into analizing basketball in depth thanks to ben work and i still reread his backpick profiles periodically years later. Yet that doesnt stop me from giving criticism to him ( when i think his criticisms on someone like wilt are wrong or biased (more often alongside you)

Why would be us (as in me and you and others) criticizing some ben taylor conclusions be fine but not others? Ben himself has said that he wants his analysis and videos to spark debate and further argument and conversations. That includes by definition disagreements with his conclusions

It's not about criticizing Ben's work, but more of how it is criticized. I don't agree with Ben's conclusions many times, but I never played the card of him being biased and manipulating his stats for his preferences. You can disagree with his opinions and bring up limitations of his methods, but if you want to say that his whole methodology is flawed due to his manipulations, then I this is much more serious accusation than just an "academic" disagreement with his methodology.

But that is the thingh. We are not actually criticizing his methodology, we are criticizing his conclusions on this topic

Notice how my or heej posts were "i disagree with these plays (picked by ben himself as his own examples) ben considers curry creations being so"

Remember how you have criticized ben takes on wilt when he says he was passive on offense compared to shaq but didnt bring up the tiring pace of the 60's, the higher minutes or tighter reffing?

We were not questioning his film tracking methodoligy or his general approach to evaluating players through stats, film tracking and impact metrics. We were looking at the same plays he highlighted and disagreeing with his conclusions on those plays

[70sFan]

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here.

Then do it before you start such thread with accusing Ben of being a manipulator. Your guts won't convince me without any real evidences.

As far as Ben's criteria for "created plays" being different, yes that's the point of this thread actually. I find it inconsistent

How when you didn't compare it to how he evaluates other players?

and jives with the fact that he inanely rated LeBron 3rd in POY back in 2016 . And from how he underrates the fact that Magic Bron and Nash as heliocentric stars produced the best playoff offenses of all time during portability sections. There is a history of problematic behavior here which is what prompted me to consider this thread in the first place.

His opinions doesn't mean his methodology is biased. I think he is aware that he has preferences, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't try to be as objective as possible when he actually does his work. You know, you can use his methods and come up with different conclusions. His opinions about players rating are not a part of his real work really.

[Heej]

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here.

Then do it before you start such thread with accusing Ben of being a manipulator. Your guts won't convince me without any real evidences.

As far as Ben's criteria for "created plays" being different, yes that's the point of this thread actually. I find it inconsistent

How when you didn't compare it to how he evaluates other players?

and jives with the fact that he inanely rated LeBron 3rd in POY back in 2016 . And from how he underrates the fact that Magic Bron and Nash as heliocentric stars produced the best playoff offenses of all time during portability sections. There is a history of problematic behavior here which is what prompted me to consider this thread in the first place.

His opinions doesn't mean his methodology is biased. I think he is aware that he has preferences, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't try to be as objective as possible when he actually does his work. You know, you can use his methods and come up with different conclusions. His opinions about players rating are not a part of his real work really.

Me: literally provides evidence where Ben overrates creation by an off-ball player in Curry

70sFan: you can only criticize Ben when you actually have evidence that he's overrating players like Curry!!

Make it make f***in sense

[eminence]

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.

I dont think there is anythingh wrong with criticizing ben work, nor is a bad approach to take the examples handpicked by ben himself as representative of what he considers a off ball creation. We are not cherrypicking plays, we are literally looking at the plays ben picked to showcase curry creation

I literally got into analizing basketball in depth thanks to ben work and i still reread his backpick profiles periodically years later. Yet that doesnt stop me from giving criticism to him ( when i think his criticisms on someone like wilt are wrong or biased (more often alongside you)

Why would be us (as in me and you and others) criticizing some ben taylor conclusions be fine but not others? Ben himself has said that he wants his analysis and videos to spark debate and further argument and conversations. That includes by definition disagreements with his conclusions

There is such a massive gap from 'criticizing some ben taylor conclusions' to 'pretty implicitly implying you think he's intentionally fudging numbers to favor players he likes'.

And that's the gist of what 70sFan and I are on about.

The highlighted clips, I largely disagree with Ben on (and am with Heej). Heej went with a wild accusatory title to clickbait his thread and has maintained that tone.

[70sFan]

I think you descirbes a different play than what you posted here, am I right?


It is a mistake from Garland, but we have to remember why Garland even considered such type of defense. You don't defend a non-shooter this way, Curry is being defended like that consistently. I agree calling it a full creation is a stretch, but Steph definitely influenced this play.


I agree with you, I don't share Ben's interpretation here.


Is he being credited with a shot creation here? Maybe I missed it, but I don't hear anything suggesting that.


I think Ben wanted to show that bigs after switching onto Curry could not help inside, which leaves the paint more open (it's a weak example though, as you described Green did the most work here). Remember that this video is from 2018 (?), when it was still less common thing. Now this is a normal basketball possession, definitely nothing related to Curry.


I mean, that's the point here - defenders make basic mistakes against Curry because they have in mind that they have to stop him from shooting. Most baskets are created because of defensive mistakes, that doesn't mean that offensive players doesn't catlyze most of them.


Have you considered that maybe he simply has different criteria for "created plays" in general? Why do you assume that it's caused by his personal biases towards one type of archetype? Have you analyzed his breakdowns of different types of playmakers? If not, then why do you assume he has a bias?

Nope first play is an overstated creation credit, Garland was just standing in no-man's-land during a fast break.

Second Clip overstated

3rd clip Ben is crediting Curry with the breakdown that caused the shot, which I disagree with

I would argue that JR Smith made a basic mistake moreso because he's JR Smith and attempting to attribute credit to Curry here is doing too much

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here. As far as Ben's criteria for "created plays" being different, yes that's the point of this thread actually. I find it inconsistent and jives with the fact that he inanely rated LeBron 3rd in POY back in 2016 . And from how he underrates the fact that Magic Bron and Nash as heliocentric stars produced the best playoff offenses of all time during portability sections. There is a history of problematic behavior here which is what prompted me to consider this thread in the first place.

The bolded part is so key

The 3 best offense runs of all time by the measure most of us care about the most (playoffs in your prime) are 3 guys whose on-ball approach supposedly makes them weaker " ceiling raisers" (a term itself often only applied to the offensive end while ignoring defense more often than not)

How can the 3 guys who led teams to the highest offensive ceilings be limited (offensive) ceiling raisers?

At some point the theory on this breaks down vs real results

How Ben's portability values have anything to do with his Box Creation model?

It almost reminds me people who say we can't read and apply St. Thomas Aquinas achievements because he used Aristotelian physics. Not that I equate Ben to Thomas, but I think you get the point

[falcolombardi]

Nope first play is an overstated creation credit, Garland was just standing in no-man's-land during a fast break.

Second Clip overstated

3rd clip Ben is crediting Curry with the breakdown that caused the shot, which I disagree with

I would argue that JR Smith made a basic mistake moreso because he's JR Smith and attempting to attribute credit to Curry here is doing too much

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here. As far as Ben's criteria for "created plays" being different, yes that's the point of this thread actually. I find it inconsistent and jives with the fact that he inanely rated LeBron 3rd in POY back in 2016 . And from how he underrates the fact that Magic Bron and Nash as heliocentric stars produced the best playoff offenses of all time during portability sections. There is a history of problematic behavior here which is what prompted me to consider this thread in the first place.

The bolded part is so key

The 3 best offense runs of all time by the measure most of us care about the most (playoffs in your prime) are 3 guys whose on-ball approach supposedly makes them weaker " ceiling raisers" (a term itself often only applied to the offensive end while ignoring defense more often than not)

How can the 3 guys who led teams to the highest offensive ceilings be limited (offensive) ceiling raisers?

At some point the theory on this breaks down vs real results

How Ben's portability values have anything to do with his Box Creation model?

It almost reminds me people who say we can't read and apply St. Thomas Aquinas achievements because he used Aristotelian physics. Not that I equate Ben to Thomas, but I think you get the point

Nah, that comment was more about my general disagreement with players like nash, magic and lebron being diminished as ceiling raisers (a term itself only ever used in offense for some reason) despite leading arguably the top 3 offensive dinasties ever

A bit of a tangent off this topic that i always love to bring up when opportunity appears

[70sFan]

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here.

Then do it before you start such thread with accusing Ben of being a manipulator. Your guts won't convince me without any real evidences.

As far as Ben's criteria for "created plays" being different, yes that's the point of this thread actually. I find it inconsistent

How when you didn't compare it to how he evaluates other players?

and jives with the fact that he inanely rated LeBron 3rd in POY back in 2016 . And from how he underrates the fact that Magic Bron and Nash as heliocentric stars produced the best playoff offenses of all time during portability sections. There is a history of problematic behavior here which is what prompted me to consider this thread in the first place.

His opinions doesn't mean his methodology is biased. I think he is aware that he has preferences, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't try to be as objective as possible when he actually does his work. You know, you can use his methods and come up with different conclusions. His opinions about players rating are not a part of his real work really.

Me: literally provides evidence where Ben overrates creation by an off-ball player in Curry

70sFan: you can only criticize Ben when you actually have evidence that he's overrating players like Curry!!

Make it make f***in sense

Overrates compared to what? To who? If he overrates creation for on-ball players to similar degree, then it wouldn't mean he has a bias for off-ball players. You just admited that you have no point of comparison here.

I really don't get it what is so tough to understand here. Maybe you should try to discuss instead of showing everyone how stupid or biased they are...

[Heej]

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.

I dont think there is anythingh wrong with criticizing ben work, nor is a bad approach to take the examples handpicked by ben himself as representative of what he considers a off ball creation. We are not cherrypicking plays, we are literally looking at the plays ben picked to showcase curry creation

I literally got into analizing basketball in depth thanks to ben work and i still reread his backpick profiles periodically years later. Yet that doesnt stop me from giving criticism to him ( when i think his criticisms on someone like wilt are wrong or biased (more often alongside you)

Why would be us (as in me and you and others) criticizing some ben taylor conclusions be fine but not others? Ben himself has said that he wants his analysis and videos to spark debate and further argument and conversations. That includes by definition disagreements with his conclusions

There is such a massive gap from 'criticizing some ben taylor conclusions' to 'pretty implicitly implying you think he's intentionally fudging numbers to favor players he likes'.

And that's the gist of what 70sFan and I are on about.

The highlighted clips, I largely disagree with Ben on (and am with Heej). Heej went with a wild accusatory title to clickbait his thread and has maintained that tone.

Wouldn't have been something on my radar if Ben didn't have a history of showing selective preference towards off-ball players in his portability arguments that are flying in the face of the evidence that on-ball heliocentric players have produced the highest rated offenses, and with biased takes in old POY threads. But sure, let's pretend this is a one off thing and not a pattern of problematic behavior

[70sFan]

The bolded part is so key

The 3 best offense runs of all time by the measure most of us care about the most (playoffs in your prime) are 3 guys whose on-ball approach supposedly makes them weaker " ceiling raisers" (a term itself often only applied to the offensive end while ignoring defense more often than not)

How can the 3 guys who led teams to the highest offensive ceilings be limited (offensive) ceiling raisers?

At some point the theory on this breaks down vs real results

How Ben's portability values have anything to do with his Box Creation model?

It almost reminds me people who say we can't read and apply St. Thomas Aquinas achievements because he used Aristotelian physics. Not that I equate Ben to Thomas, but I think you get the point

Nah, that comment was more about my general disagreement with players like nash, magic and lebron being diminished as ceiling raisers (a term itself only ever used in offense for some reason) despite leading arguably the top 3 offensive dinasties ever

A bit of a tangent off this topic that i always love to bring up when opportunity appears

I am with you here, but that's not the point of this thread. I disagree with Ben's conclusion about on-ball vs off-ball players - I literally has been defending Magic against Curry in many discussions for years here.

[OhayoKD]

And yup, that's my next undertaking to look at how be credits on-ball stars because my gut tells me there's a lot less ticky tack creation credits being handed out here.

Then do it before you start such thread with accusing Ben of being a manipulator. Your guts won't convince me without any real evidences.
.

Pretty impractical to want people to wait till they have mountains before they start asking questions. This is supposed to be collarborative. One person opens the question, other people look into it, consider it, scrutinize it, blah blah blah.

It's also really wierd given the types of analysis we've seen not only accepted, but fervently defended. Present a variation of +/- that doesn't actually achieve anything the publicly available stuff doesn't, make positive claims which neglect a variety of potential caveats, and then when people walk on eggshells not only politely pointing out the various problems, but actually go out of their way to compliment you, it's actually an unfair attack and proof no one is willing to change their mind, and society/the forums are on a downward slide. Something something greenappleness something.

But Heej breaks down some film, presents a potential issue which exploring might actually be insightful, oh he shouldn't have created the thread. Alright then. I guess his post didn't meet the word-count necessary to be considered substantive