Talent vs. specialty, beat this talent defensive team defensively

[ardee]

If we're talking ONLY defense, here's a team I think would be better

PG: Payton
SG: Kawhi
SF: Rodman
PF: Garnett
C: Robinson

[OhayoKD]

Yeah, if I remember correctly Giannis' Luck Adjusted RAPM for 2020 is añkdjf48465 levels of insane (like, he led with a 50% higher score than 2nd or something -- EDIT: he has +3.19 vs +2.07 for #2).

Then again,

1) we have bigger samples (3-year, 5-year) from the same source that still capture Giannis' peak but put him at "only" top 5 in the league, not "Bill Russell ++" level, which feels more accurate. (Post-prime Garnett including the Brooklyn years leads the league in dRAPM in the 12-15 and 13-16 periods, by the way -- of course inability to play big minutes, role, blah blah)

Some of that's probably a product of coasting. Bucks RS defense has dropped off signficantly, but they go back to historically great in the postseason

2) luck adjustment adjusts opposing 3pt% in a way that does not really feel logical given Milwaukee's defensive scheme

Elaborate?

3) HUGE collinearity issues

Huger than boston KG's? Also just how huge are they. Bucks were still the best defense in the league without brook from 2019-2020 IIRC(effect was not replicated when it was brook, and no giannis

2+3 combine in such a way that, for example, the top 4 in 2020 LA dRAPM is all Milwaukee.

Well, the alternative explanation is that regularization misattributed Giannis's value to his teammates. His 2019/2020 looks crazy taking the raw approach, 2020 definitely could be reaching outlier territory.

Yeah, now that I think about it, hard to see “RAPM suggests the Bucks had the league’s top four most impactful defenders” as anything other than a rousing endorsement of Giannis.

[dygaction]

If we're talking ONLY defense, here's a team I think would be better

PG: Payton
SG: Kawhi
SF: Rodman
PF: Garnett
C: Robinson

My question was exactly to compare a team like what I listed to a team like this - when MJ, LeBron, and Giannis can focus on D and don't have to worry about O, would they be as good or better than the "Kawhi/Rodman/KG" counterparts?

[kcktiny]

Marcus Camby earned two first-team all-defence nods over Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard and is therefore at the same level as Wilt.

Are you of the opinion that this is some sort of clever comment on your part?

Camby was all-defensive team 4 times, all-defensive 2nd team in 2004-05 and 2005-06, and all-defensive 1st team in 2006-07 and 2007-08. This is voted on by sportwriters and broadcasters, you know the people that watch the NBA for a living, and watch a lot more than you and I do.

He was also DPOY in 2006-07, with 70 1st place votes and no one else had more than 22 1st place votes. He also got the 2nd most 1st place votes in 2007-08. This is voted on by NBA head coaches, you know the people that have to game plan against players all season.

So what does it tell you about the impact a player has on defense when over multiple seasons both the sportswriters/broadcasters and NBA head coaches all vote for a player as one of the very best defensively (at C), during a time when other great defensive Cs like Wallace and Howard played, not to mention other good defensive Cs like Shaq, Mutombo, and Mourning also played.

Or are you of the opinion that you know better all these years later than those voters that watched them play at that time?

Accolades shouldn't even be the measuring stick in the regard of assessing defense,

Of course they should. In lieu of no or little defensive data the opinions of those that saw them play the most is quite valuable. Or are you of the opinion you know better than those that saw them play the most?

as the two of them likely would have won a well share of 1st team selections through the 60s.

Yes they would have.

When I say this, I am referring to the nuances of how defense was played back then compared to how it is played now.

Saying this says nothing. What "nuances" are you referring to?

I think there are many on here and across the world whom watch basketball that understand both eras

Are you one of these people? Why don't you explain to us what these nuances are? Why don't you explain to us how defense was played then as opposed to now?

and it's likely that them considering Russell more valuable a defender than Wilt whether it's peak, prime, career value, longevity serves as a reinforcement / litmus test of such.

Oh I see. So now you are speaking for these "many"? You know how they all think?

as I am not denying your original premise on how Wilt wasn't solely a paint camper on defense.

As you shouldn't. Because anyone who actually watched him play at that time, or has watched plenty of video of him (especially when he was young), know he was as mobile as any big man, including Russell.

If you question the accuracy of pace estimations from this era, wouldn't this be an issue that applies across the league and not just specifically towards Russell's Celtics?

Jesus no - didn't you read the thread? Whoever made the estimates for the Celtics game pace did so by assuming a far lower defensive FG% allowed, and in doing so estimated far more FGAs faced on defense, which ups the game pace. And they did this routinely in the 1960s for Boston. Others have pointed this out too.

A problem pertaining to that era wouldn't just skew the Celtics numbers

My lord read the thread. The game pace shown at Basketball-Reference for Boston assumed a far lower defensive FG% allowed, even far lower than the defensive FG% allowed that 70sFan posted.

Wait, so your level of "nuances" shows you that all players selected in all-defensive first team across different years are on the same level? Do you equate Marcus Camby and Wilt Chamberlain on defense as well?

Not to mention that Russell won only one all-defensive team, because they introduced such voting in his last season...

And Chamberlain only two all-defensive 1st teams.

So does it mean they are on the same level? That's all you need? Seriously?

"That's all you need" was voted on by those that watched the NBA the most, and who's living was to watch those games. I trust their opinion far more than someone who many years after the fact claims one's defense is "on another level" compared to another, when in fact both were voted all-defensive 1st team.

Just because they are seen as the top centers in the league, it doesn't mean that all of them are equal on defense...

But all these years later it is you who decides who is on another level defensively??

I've read plenty of articles and watched enough video to know many opinions of who the greatest defensive Cs of the 1960s were, and the vast majority - including Russell himself, who you realize actually played against Chamberlain - thought both were great and similar defensively.

So you can't differentiate between good defenders? That's news to me, care to elaborate?

Oh but you can? Is this or is this not data you posted?

1964 Celtics (63 games): 40.9 DFG%
1965 Celtics (69 games): 40.3 DFG%
1966 Celtics (69 games): 40.4 DFG%
1967 Celtics (68 games): 41.2 DFG%
1968 Celtics (73 games): 42.8 DFG%
1969 Celtics (73 games): 40.8 DFG%

1964 Warriors (80 games): 41.4 DFG%
1965 Sixers (35 games with Wilt): 42.7 DFG%
1966 Sixers (80 games): 42.2 DFG%
1967 Sixers (81 games): 42.4 DFG%
1968 Sixers (82 games): 43.0 DFG%

This data shows that over multiple seasons Russell's teams had a DFG% that was all of what - just 1% - lower than Chamberlain? An average of about 41.1% vs. 42.3%?

And based on this you claim Russell's defense "was on another level" compared to Chamberlain? That's laughable.

Yeah, I don't see anything contradictional here.

Of course not.

You started comparing the best defense in the league with second best and concluded that the gap isn't massive, therefore Russell Celtics weren't dominant defensively.

Where did I say Boston was not dominant defensively? You are putting words into other's mouths to try to prove your point.

You ignored the fact that you picked the best Wilt defensive teams of his career and compared it to average Russell team.

No I looked at the above data you provided and showed how the difference in FG% allowed was marginal at best.

You started comparing the difference between best defenses and average ones in the 1970s to the difference between the best and second best team in the league.

I compared FG%s allowed on defense from best to worst teams in a season to show how miniscule a 1% difference as above was.

So no, I didn't do anything wrong here.

Of course not.

You just ignored my points.

On the contrary I showed you the DFG% data you provided shows little difference between Russell's and Chamberlain's teams.

Manute Bol and Mark Eaton were late 1980s players... what are you talking about?

You do know your league history don't you?

Yes, Johnson and Rollins were dominant shotblockers, but they were in minority compared to the 1990s players.

Guess you don't.

Tree Rollins blocked 343 shots in 1982-83. That's the early 1980s. At that point in time that was the 2nd most shots blocked in a single season in league history.

Mark Eaton came into the league in 1982-83. In 1983-84 he blocked 351 shots, in 1984-85 he blocked a league record (to the present) 456 shots, and in 1985-86 blocked 369 shots. Bol blocked 397 shots in 1985-86.

We're not even past the mid-1980s yet.

In the 1990's just once - just one time - did a player block more shots in a season than Rollins did in 1982-83 (Olajuwon in 1989-90 with 376).

Nice try though.

It's not meaningless, it's less accurate.

How can you say it's less accurate when you don't even know what accurate is? You don't know the true values, so how can you say it's less accurate? Ok I'll bite - how much less accurate is it without knowing the true team defensive game pace and defensive ratings?

Does it mean that it's not possible that some of these estimates have higher error?

Again, if you do not know what the accurate number is, how can you tell what your error is?

Yes, because even this imperfect methodology gives us some data with certain errors.

Yes, your imperfect methodology leads to your imperfect assessment of Russell's defense being on another level compared to Chamberlain and Thurmond.

I used such argument because I know that you value such opinions highly. I definitely agree with Russell that he was also a great defender, why wouldn't I? Where did I state that Wilt wasn't a great defender? It seems that you struggle to understand that there can be a gradation of greatness.

Did you or did you not write this:

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

Are you aware that these numbers still show Celtics as much more dominant that Wilt teams on defense?

Your own DFG% numbers say otherwise, and any game pace estimates you employ have to show defensive FGAs by team and the league total has to match team/league FGAs on offense. You clearly have not shown this. Nor have you shown estimates for turnovers which you also need for game pace.

Maybe I would give you more reasons if you showed the minimum of good faith in this discussion, but instead you decided to do your things and call every other opinion "nonsense".

No one is asking you for more reasons.

And you are incorrect. I have not called every other opinion nonsense. Try re-reading this thread. Just the statement that Russell's defense was on another level compared to Chamberlain.

Of course Wilt didn't just "park himself under the basket" in literal way, but it's true that he was less active outside the paint and wasn't willing to defend P&Rs high in the same frequency as Russell.

Well, an admission on your part. How quaint.

However just because Russell may have defended against more outside shooters and pick-n-rolls than did Chamberlain does not put his defense "on another level" compared to Chamberlain.

If Russell was on the outside more than Chamberlain, how do you know whether or not Chamberlain was on the inside more? No one played more minutes than Chamberlain and Russell in the 1960s. If Chamberlain was on the inside more than Russell perhaps he blocked more shots and defended against more shots that had a higher percentage of success than the outside shooters Russell was guarding. If he is stopping higher percentage shots than Russell wouldn't that make him a better defender?

What makes your assessment any more valid than this assessment?

I want to remind you that Wilt never got voted in all-defensive 1st team when Russell was active.

But Thurmond did. And again you said:

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

I also want to remind you that not every all-defensive 1st team member is identical on defense.

I also want to remind you that every all-defensive 1st team member was voted on by those who watched them play the most, and they chose who they believed were the best on defense. In 1968-69 both Russell and Thurmond were voted to the all-defensive 1st team.

And you claim Russell's defense was on another level compared to Thurmond? At that time Russell was age 35 and Thurmond 27. So are you saying that Russell at age 35 was a better defender than Thurmond was at 27?

[70sFan]

...

I made broader calculations for you:

1961/62

BOS (54 games): 40.5 DFG%, 45.7 DTS%
PHI (79 games): 42.2 DFG%, 47.3 DTS%
Difference: -1.7 DFG%, -1.6 DTS%
League average: 42.6 DFG%, 47.9 DTS%

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers: -3.2
Difference in Basketball-Reference DRtg: -7.3
Difference in Thinking Basketball DRtg: -5.7

1962/63

BOS (52 games): 41.3 DFG%, 47.2 DTS%
PHI (80 games): 45.4 DFG%, 50.2 DTS%
Difference: -4.1 DFG%, -3.0 DTS%
League average: 44.1 DFG%, 49.3 DTS%

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers: -6.0
Difference in Basketball-Reference DRtg: -9.4
Difference in Thinking Basketball DRtg: -7.3

1963/64

BOS (63 games): 40.8 DFG%, 45.6 DTS%
PHI (80 games): 41.4 DFG%, 46.4 DTS%
Difference: -0.6 DFG%, -0.8 DTS%
League average: 43.3 DFG%, 48.5 DTS%

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers: -1.6
Difference in Basketball-Reference DRtg: -4.8
Difference in Thinking Basketball DRtg: -3.2

1964/65

BOS (64 games): 40.3 DFG%, 45.9 DTS%
GSW (38 games with Wilt): 42.3 DFG%, 47.6 DTS%
Difference: -2.0 DFG%, -1.7 DTS%
League average: 42.6 DFG%, 47.9 DTS%

BOS (64 games): 40.3 DFG%, 45.9 DTS%
PHI (35 games with Wilt): 42.7 DFG%, 47.7 DTS%
Difference: -2.4 DFG%, -1.8 DTS%
League average: 42.6 DFG%, 47.9 DTS%

Full DRtg unavailable because Wilt got traded.


1965/66

BOS (69 games): 40.4 DFG%, 46.2 DTS%
PHI (80 games): 42.2 DFG%, 47.7 DTS%
Difference: -1.8 DFG%, -1.5 DTS%
League average: 43.3 DFG%, 48.7 DTS%

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers: -3.0
Difference in Basketball-Reference DRtg: -3.2
Difference in Thinking Basketball DRtg: -1.4

1966/67

BOS (68 games): 41.2 DFG%, 46.6 DTS%
PHI (81 games): 42.4 DFG%, 46.9 DTS%
Difference: -1.2 DFG%, -0.3 DTS%
League average: 44.1 DFG%, 49.3 DTS%

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers: -0.6
Difference in Basketball-Reference DRtg: -2.9
Difference in Thinking Basketball DRtg: -1.5

1967/68

BOS (71 games): 42.8 DFG%, 48.3 DTS%
PHI (82 games): 43.0 DFG%, 47.2 DTS%
Difference: -0.2 DFG%, +1.1 DTS%
League average: 44.6 DFG%, 49.8 DTS%

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers: +2.2
Difference in Basketball-Reference DRtg: +1.2
Difference in Thinking Basketball DRtg: +1.8

1968/69

BOS (73 games): 40.8 DFG%, 46.2 DTS%
LAL (79 games): 43.3 DFG%, 47.8 DTS%
Difference: -2.5 DFG%, -1.6 DTS%
League average: 44.1 DFG%, 49.1 DTS%

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers: -3.2
Difference in Basketball-Reference DRtg: -5.8
Difference in Thinking Basketball DRtg: -2.3

Overall, there is a substantial difference between Celtics and Wilt teams defensively in all season, with the exception of 1964 and 1967 (and Wilt has the clear edge in 1968). Ben Taylor estimates are closer to the raw opponent efficiency difference, which is expected considering that he upgraded his previous model.

No matter what criteria you want to use, Russell's teams come out as clearly better defensively than Wilt's teams. If we do the crude average of all FG% and TS% values (which isn't mathematically correct), then we get such numbers:

Average DFG% for BOS: 41.0%
Average DFG% for Wilt teams: 42.8%
Difference: 1.8%

Average DTS% for BOS: 46.5%
Average DTS% for Wilt teams: 47.7%
Difference: 1.2%

If you think that 1.2% in TS% is nothing, then keep in mind that in a smaller and less efficient league such difference can exist between top defense in the league and average defense - and Wilt's teams are far better than average defensively. Raw differences in FG% and TS% are lower because the league was less efficient on average as well, if you calculate relative differences the gap becomes larger.

Now to your post:

Camby was all-defensive team 4 times, all-defensive 2nd team in 2004-05 and 2005-06, and all-defensive 1st team in 2006-07 and 2007-08. This is voted on by sportwriters and broadcasters, you know the people that watch the NBA for a living, and watch a lot more than you and I do.

He was also DPOY in 2006-07, with 70 1st place votes and no one else had more than 22 1st place votes. He also got the 2nd most 1st place votes in 2007-08. This is voted on by NBA head coaches, you know the people that have to game plan against players all season.

Nobody says that Camby sucks defensively, but if you think he's on the same level as Howard, Duncan or Garnett during that period then I am afraid I am not the one who misses some nuances here. We have a lot of statistical evidences that Camby wasn't top tier defender and he got his accolades mostly because of high blocks numbers.

As you shouldn't. Because anyone who actually watched him play at that time, or has watched plenty of video of him (especially when he was young), know he was as mobile as any big man, including Russell.

No, Wilt wasn't as mobile as Russell. It's actually very clear for anyone who watches them play.

Jesus no - didn't you read the thread? Whoever made the estimates for the Celtics game pace did so by assuming a far lower defensive FG% allowed, and in doing so estimated far more FGAs faced on defense, which ups the game pace. And they did this routinely in the 1960s for Boston. Others have pointed this out too.

Nobody "assumed" lower DFG% during the process, it was just a statistical error in a formula. If you think that someone just assumes numbers for each teams to get the results, then I can assure you that estimations don't work that way. Have you ever seen the Basketball-Reference formula?

"That's all you need" was voted on by those that watched the NBA the most, and who's living was to watch those games. I trust their opinion far more than someone who many years after the fact claims one's defense is "on another level" compared to another, when in fact both were voted all-defensive 1st team.

But are you aware that not all seasons have the same level of competition? Your argumentation is on the same level as assuming that all MVPs in NBA history were on the same level, because they won MVPs. That means you can't differentiate Derrick Rose from Steph Curry for example.

Are you aware how limited such view is?

But all these years later it is you who decides who is on another level defensively??

I've read plenty of articles and watched enough video to know many opinions of who the greatest defensive Cs of the 1960s were, and the vast majority - including Russell himself, who you realize actually played against Chamberlain - thought both were great and similar defensively.

Not me, majority of people who study 1960s basketball.

By the way, I have read plenty of articles and watched more video than you do and it's not true that majority players considered Wilt to be as good as Russell defensively. There are some reports calling Wilt's effort just as good, but they are in minority and there are plenty of reports from contemporary sources citing that Wilt had limitations on defense that Russell didn't have.

This data shows that over multiple seasons Russell's teams had a DFG% that was all of what - just 1% - lower than Chamberlain? An average of about 41.1% vs. 42.3%?

I already presented that the difference is bigger, but even 1% is meaningful - especially when you consider that Wilt was mainly a rim protector who didn't have the same turnover creation ability as Russell (no, I don't have numbers for that, but I have watched a lot of footage to conclude it) and that Russell seems to be a better defensive rebounder than Wilt based on available data. Better DFG%, creating more turnovers and securing the board better can give you significant differences between two elite defenders.

Where did I say Boston was not dominant defensively? You are putting words into other's mouths to try to prove your point.

Sorry, I shouldn't say that. You don't want to admit that Celtics were more dominant defensively than Wilt teams though.

No I looked at the above data you provided and showed how the difference in FG% allowed was marginal at best.

It's not marginal, it's a meaningful difference when we talk about two good defensive teams. Of course you shouldn't expect a gigantic difference between two elite teams.

I compared FG%s allowed on defense from best to worst teams in a season to show how miniscule a 1% difference as above was.

That doesn't make any sense though, because Wilt's teams were always good defensively. You should compare the best defense in the league to the other top 4 defenses instead, usually these differences are significantly lower than 1.8%.

You do know your league history don't you?

Guess you don't.

Tree Rollins blocked 343 shots in 1982-83. That's the early 1980s. At that point in time that was the 2nd most shots blocked in a single season in league history.

Mark Eaton came into the league in 1982-83. In 1983-84 he blocked 351 shots, in 1984-85 he blocked a league record (to the present) 456 shots, and in 1985-86 blocked 369 shots. Bol blocked 397 shots in 1985-86.

We're not even past the mid-1980s yet.

In the 1990's just once - just one time - did a player block more shots in a season than Rollins did in 1982-83 (Olajuwon in 1989-90 with 376).

Nice try though.

You don't understand what I say again...

Mark Eaton played in 1983-1993 period. That's the definition of late 1980s player. You may cherrypick and say that 1985 wasn't "late 1980s" yet, so I guess I should have said from mid-80s, but it doesn't really change my original point. Likewise, I said that Johnson was an outlier, not that he was a worse shotblocker.

If you bothered to have a normal discussion, you'd understand my point but you never did. My point was that there were more prolific shotblockers in the late 1980s and early 1990s than in the 1970s. You want an evidence? Here is an average of top 5 shotblockers in the league year by year:

1974: 3.54
1975: 2.64
1976: 2.80
1977: 2.80
1978: 2.80
1979: 3.14
1980: 2.92
1981: 2.84
1982: 2.74
1983: 3.24
1984: 2.90
1985: 3.18

1986: 3.70
1987: 3.24
1988: 3.10
1989: 3.56
1990: 3.66
1991: 3.30
1992: 3.56
1993: 3.58
1994: 3.44
1995: 3.34

1974-79 average: 2.95
1989-94 average: 3.52

Seasons above 3.0 before 1986: 4 out of 12
Seasons above 3.0 after 1985: 10 out of 10

Seasons above 3.3 before 1986: 1 out of 12
Seasons above 3.3 after 1985: 6 out of 10

1974 (the first year with blocks as official stats) is a massive outlier in the 1970s, but it wouldn't even look high in 1986-95 period.

But I am the one who doesn't know the league history, right?

How can you say it's less accurate when you don't even know what accurate is? You don't know the true values, so how can you say it's less accurate? Ok I'll bite - how much less accurate is it without knowing the true team defensive game pace and defensive ratings?

It's very easy - you can test the formula for years we have data for. That's a huge sample and you can estimate the error rate for later eras. It's not perfect, but it's typical methodology in such situations.

Does it mean that all the values will be within the margin of error? Definitely not, but we can estimate that as well. All these methods are very basic statistical toolbox.

Yes, your imperfect methodology leads to your imperfect assessment of Russell's defense being on another level compared to Chamberlain and Thurmond.

It's not my methodology, but I agree - conclusions driven from imperfect methodology are also imperfect. Are you aware that even in the most strict branches of science like physics you deal with imperfect methodology all the time? Does it mean that we shouldn't even try and end up with epistemological nihilism?

Well, an admission on your part. How quaint.

Is this really necessary? I wasn't even the one who described Wilt that way...

However just because Russell may have defended against more outside shooters and pick-n-rolls than did Chamberlain does not put his defense "on another level" compared to Chamberlain.

This alone doesn't, but the fact that he could do that while being just as effective as Wilt inside does.

If Russell was on the outside more than Chamberlain, how do you know whether or not Chamberlain was on the inside more? No one played more minutes than Chamberlain and Russell in the 1960s. If Chamberlain was on the inside more than Russell perhaps he blocked more shots and defended against more shots that had a higher percentage of success than the outside shooters Russell was guarding. If he is stopping higher percentage shots than Russell wouldn't that make him a better defender?

I am 100% sure that Wilt spent more time inside than Russell. It doesn't mean he was more impactful inside. It seems that you have very simplistic view on defensive evaluation. Protecting the paint is the most important thing in basketball, but there are situations when you are expected to come outside and help his teammates. Russell did it more frequently and with more success. It's not that hard to understand.

By the way, based on my tracking data Wilt didn't contest more shots inside than Russell and he made more mistakes as well.

What makes your assessment any more valid than this assessment?

I am not sure if my assessment is more valid, but I know I put a lot more effort than you to get my opinion. I watch everything that is available (and what is not). I track possessions and count the frequency of defensive plays. I look at various estimations of team and individual impact. I don't base everything on counting stats (which you don't have in this case) and accolades like you.

In the end, you could be right and I could be wrong, but at least I put an effort to defend my claim and I don't call your opinions "nonsense".

But Thurmond did.

Along with Russell, so he didn't compete against Bill.

I also want to remind you that every all-defensive 1st team member was voted on by those who watched them play the most, and they chose who they believed were the best on defense. In 1968-69 both Russell and Thurmond were voted to the all-defensive 1st team.

Do you know their methodology? If not, then being alive at the time isn't enough to use it as definitive proof to me.

And you claim Russell's defense was on another level compared to Thurmond? At that time Russell was age 35 and Thurmond 27. So are you saying that Russell at age 35 was a better defender than Thurmond was at 27?

I would say that 35 years old Russell was comparable, or slightly better defender than peak Thurmond, which makes peak Russell clearly better than peak Thurmond.

Again - clearly doesn't mean that there are tiers between them, it just means that to me Russell was a better defender and I don't find any evidence to say otherwise (while having plenty of evidences for Russell's superiority).

[OhayoKD]

So what does it tell you about the impact a player has on defens

Vastly less than actual reality does. We can track how defenses shifted or didn't shift when players left, joined, or fluctuated. And we can make adjustments for shifts in a player's roster. If you have an explanation from these writers or yourself for why Russell's defensive presence correlated with his team's defenses improving by a comically larger margin, go ahead. Otherwise, I, and no one really, should give anything that resembles a f--k.

Eyetests are largely only accurate to the extent it can reflect and predict reality. Ditto with perception. If you have to ignore reality to make your claim, these claims suck, and your eyetest probably does as well

[kcktiny]

On the one hand you write this:

If you think that someone just assumes numbers for each teams to get the results, then I can assure you that estimations don't work that way.

But just before that - in the very same post - you wrote this:

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers:

You are a conundrum to say the least. You say one thing, as if to profess expertise, yet do another, just the opposite.

Assuming the same rates for team turnovers and rebounds makes your estimates for DRtg for all intent and purpose meaningless. Any difference is literally based only on defensive FG% allowed.

From 1963-64 to 1967-68 the difference in FG% allowed you posted is just 1.3%, marginal at best. If Chamberlain's teams - and I said if - had better rates for turnovers and defensive rebounding, they could easily have been the better team defensively. That's how small that 1.3% DFG% difference is.

And this doesn't even take into consideration who their teammates were. Over the 8 year period you posted data for Russell played with some very good defenders in K.C. Jones, John Havlicek, and Satch Sanders. They combined to play 49130 minutes over those 8 seasons. Chamberlain's best defensive teammates during that time were Hal Greer, Luke Jackson, Al Attles, Jerry West, and Nate Thurmond. But they combined to play just 32365 minutes (unless you want to argue that any of Chet Walker, Guy Rodgers, Tom Meschery, Wali Jones, or Billy Cunningham were very good defenders).

That's a difference of 2100 minutes a season with another very good defender. That too could easily account for a 1.3% or 1.8% DFG% difference.

So for what you are claiming is defensive superiority due to only Russell can easily be argued as being due to having better defensive teammates.

You simply do not have data to say otherwise - other than data that you are estimating or just plain making up (DRtg).

No matter what criteria you want to use, Russell's teams come out as clearly better defensively than Wilt's teams.

I've never argued this point. Have only stated the difference is far smaller than you claim.

What I have stated is that your statement:

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

And this statement:

Wilt is not, despite what people (including Russell) have said, ever up to Russ's level even when he WAS focused on defense.

Are patently false.

If you think that 1.2% in TS% is nothing

I never said this. You are again putting words in the mouths of others to try to validate your point.

I said that difference was marginal at best.

then keep in mind that in a smaller and less efficient league such difference can exist between top defense in the league and average defense - and Wilt's teams are far better than average defensively.

Fine. Then post the DFG%s of all NBA teams from 1961-62 to 1968-69 (if you have the data). It's only 9-14 teams per season. Then we can see what is and what is not significant.

Nobody says that Camby sucks defensively, but if you think he's on the same level as Howard, Duncan or Garnett during that period then I am afraid I am not the one who misses some nuances here.

No. But you are the one who misses the obvious.

Camby was named the DPOY in 2006-07. A year in which Howard, Duncan, and Garnett all played. And the vote wasn't even close. Camby had 70 1st place votes. Howard, Duncan, and Garnett combined for just 16.

So those who voted made it loud and clear who is their minds was the best defensive player they saw that season. It wasn't very close. In their minds it was pretty much a landslide vote for Camby.

We have a lot of statistical evidences

Really. Just who is "We"?

that Camby wasn't top tier defender

What statistical evidence is this?

and he got his accolades mostly because of high blocks numbers.

Really? You don't say.

Try again. Camby blocked 231 shots in 2006-07, won DPOY. He blocked 285 shots the next season - almost 20% more - but not only did not get voted the DPOY, but he got less 1st place votes than did the player who got the next most 1st place votes the year he did win the DPOY.

Again, nice try. But you're wrong. Otherwise why did he not win DPOY again with 20% more blocked shots?

I'll tell you something else. In 1985-86 Manute Bol blocked 397 shots, 2nd most ever in a season in league history. He did not win the DPOY (Alvin Robertson), nor was he even named to the all-defensive team. Hakeem Olajuwon blocked a league 4th most 376 shots in 1989-90, did not win the DPOY (Dennis Rodman).

Maybe just maybe you should give a little more credit to the people who vote for these awards.

No, Wilt wasn't as mobile as Russell. It's actually very clear for anyone who watches them play.

Nonsense.

You make a nonsensical statement, it will get called out as nonsense.

I watched him play, especially a young Chamberlain, and he was as mobile a big man that ever played the game.

Nobody "assumed" lower DFG% during the process, it was just a statistical error in a formula.

Wrong - again.

The game pace they calculated for Boston was artificially high, much higher than all the other teams, for multiple seasons in the 1960s. This was due to them estimating a very high number of FGAs faced on defense because they assumed a much lower DFG% than reality. Re-read the "Russell's defensive impact" thread.

But are you aware that not all seasons have the same level of competition?

Really? Says who, you?

OK, I'll bite. Let's test your statement, because you have a habit of making statements as if they are fact based on some expertise you think you have when in truth they are not.

Since 1959-60 there have been 64 NBA seasons, including the current one. Which have been of the highest competition, and which have been of the lowest competition?

I'll even make this easy for you, not take up too much of your time. How about you name just the top 5 in highest competition and then the 5 in lowest competition. And let's hear why.

This should be interesting.

Are you aware how limited such view is?

Like I said - this should be interesting.

Not me, majority of people who study 1960s basketball.

I did not know you speak for the majority of people knowledgeable in 1960s NBA.

By the way, I have read plenty of articles and watched more video than you do

And you know this how?

I already presented that the difference is bigger, but even 1% is meaningful - especially when you consider that Wilt was mainly a rim protector who didn't have the same turnover creation ability as Russell

And you know this how?

no, I don't have numbers for that

Uh-huh.

Russell seems to be a better defensive rebounder than Wilt based on available data

From the ages of 23-34, Chamberlain grabbed 23.6 reb/g, Russell 22.6 reb/g. You say the above based on what data? Because I'd be willing to bet any difference is very small, too small to make some conclusive statement as to which was the better defensive (or offensive) rebounder.

Better DFG%, creating more turnovers and securing the board better can give you significant differences between two elite defenders.

I agree with the statement, but your numbers are assumed/guesstimated.

Sorry, I shouldn't say that.

Putting words into the mouths of others does not validate your point.

You don't want to admit that Celtics were more dominant defensively than Wilt teams though.

But you keep doing so.

I never said this. Only took issue with you stating Russell's defense was on another level compared to Chamberlain and Thurmond.

You don't understand what I say again...

You said - and this is a direct quote:

We don't know how many blocks Russell and Wilt averaged, but we do know that all the most prolific shotblockers since the 1974 played in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.

The best shot blockers had their best shot blocking seasons in the early to mid-1980s - Eaton with 456 in 1984-85 and Bol with 397 in 1985-86, not to mention Elmore Smith with 393 in 1973-74.

Olajuwon did block 376 in 1989-90, but the next most were by Eaton with 351 in 1983-84 and 369 in 1985-86.

So 5 of the 6 best shot blocking seasons occurred 1985-86 and earlier.

Mark Eaton played in 1983-1993 period. That's the definition of late 1980s player. You may cherrypick and say that 1985 wasn't "late 1980s" yet, so I guess I should have said from mid-80s,

Yes, you should have. But you didn't.

If you bothered to have a normal discussion

Kinda tough with you. Putting words in the mouths of others to validate your points. Saying one thing then later saying that's not what you meant to say.

My point was that there were more prolific shotblockers in the late 1980s and early 1990s than in the 1970s.

This may have been your point but this is not what you said.

But I am the one who doesn't know the league history, right?

You are the one who wrote the statement, then said later that wasn't what you meant. Don't try to blame someone else for your lapses.

Are you aware that even in the most strict branches of science like physics

You by chance a physicist? Or do you just play one on TV?

you deal with imperfect methodology all the time? Does it mean that we shouldn't even try and end up with epistemological nihilism?

Gotta admit this one I had to look up.

I am 100% sure that Wilt spent more time inside than Russell. It doesn't mean he was more impactful inside.

Wait a minute. You're saying Russell spent more time on the outside, and was better on defense there, but admit Chamberlain spent more time on the inside, but he wasn't?

It seems that you have very simplistic view on defensive evaluation.

Aren't you prescience.

Protecting the paint is the most important thing in basketball

No argument here.

but there are situations when you are expected to come outside and help his teammates.

Rudy Gobert is known for not getting out to the deep 2 range and 3pt line very often, yet he has 3 DPOY awards.

Russell did it more frequently and with more success. It's not that hard to understand.

Well thank you for explaining it so eloquently.

By the way, based on my tracking data Wilt didn't contest more shots inside than Russell and he made more mistakes as well.

Then make this data available, lest no one knows it. And what do you mean by mistakes?

Oh - by the way. From the ages of 23-34, Russell committed almost 50% more fouls than Chamberlain did. That's over 13 years. Russell averaged 204 personal fouls a season, Wilt just 141. That is a huge advantage defensively, to be able to play great defense without sending the opponent to the FT line. Russell's foul rate was low, but Chamberlain's was extremely low.

I am not sure if my assessment is more valid, but I know I put a lot more effort than you to get my opinion.

Once again a self-professed expertise. How do you know what effort I put in to know the game?

I watch everything that is available

Or how much video I watch.

I don't base everything on counting stats (which you don't have in this case)

But you do? Then present it.

and accolades like you.

I find the opinions of those that watch the game the most - the sportwriters, broadcasters, and NBA coaches - to be quite valuable. Especially in lieu of no or little data and especially the further back in time you go.

In the end, you could be right and I could be wrong, but at least I put an effort to defend my claim and I don't call your opinions "nonsense".

Isn't taking the time to debunk your claims effort?

We can all state our opinions, but if you are going to claim something as fact that it outside the norm, then expect to be called out.

Claiming Russell's defense was on another level compared to Chamberlain and Thurmond is just that, as they are likely the 3 greatest defenders of the 1960s.

Do you know their methodology?

Don't know and don't care. They are sportwriters, broadcasters, and NBA coaches that watched a ton of basketball and voted with their opinions. I find that to be quite valuable.

If not, then being alive at the time isn't enough to use it as definitive proof to me.

But making statements about players decades after they played to you is proof?

I would say that 35 years old Russell was comparable, or slightly better defender than peak Thurmond, which makes peak Russell clearly better than peak Thurmond.

Don't buy it for a minute. I only saw Russell in real time at the very end of his career, but saw a lot of Thurmond. And he was a defensive savant. In the very late 60s and early 70s Thurmond, Wilt, and Jabbar were terrors on defense.

[dygaction]

oh my, now the average length of posts are longer than my semester end essay

[70sFan]

On the one hand you write this:

If you think that someone just assumes numbers for each teams to get the results, then I can assure you that estimations don't work that way.

But just before that - in the very same post - you wrote this:

Difference in DRtg assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers:

You are a conundrum to say the least. You say one thing, as if to profess expertise, yet do another, just the opposite.

Again, you don't understand the point of this exercise. My extremely rough estimations were only to show that the difference only in scoring efficiency suggests that Celtics were notably better than Wilt teams. Even if we ignore everything else, the gap is noticeable.

My point wasn't to give you the perfect values, they are significantly less accurate than what we have from Ben's database.

Assuming the same rates for team turnovers and rebounds makes your estimates for DRtg for all intent and purpose meaningless. Any difference is literally based only on defensive FG% allowed.

Not only that, but also FT rate and FT%.

Real pace estimations also include rpg, opponent rpg, points scored and allowed, FTA for both teams... We have enough information to draw a decent picture, even if not perfect.

From 1963-64 to 1967-68 the difference in FG% allowed you posted is just 1.3%, marginal at best. If Chamberlain's teams - and I said if - had better rates for turnovers and defensive rebounding, they could easily have been the better team defensively. That's how small that 1.3% DFG% difference is.

That's why we have pace estimations. We don't have TOV% and DRB%, but we can create a formula that gives you pace numbers with reasonably low statistical error. It's possible that Wilt teams were massive outliers in one way or another, but it'd require to believe that Celtics were outliers in negative way, while Wilt teams would have to be elite in both aspects, which is unlikely - especially considering that Russell Celtics were consistently a team with highest rebounding averages - which isn't possible without either playing fast (which you deny) or being the best rebounding team in the league.

And this doesn't even take into consideration who their teammates were. Over the 8 year period you posted data for Russell played with some very good defenders in K.C. Jones, John Havlicek, and Satch Sanders. They combined to play 49130 minutes over those 8 seasons. Chamberlain's best defensive teammates during that time were Hal Greer, Luke Jackson, Al Attles, Jerry West, and Nate Thurmond. But they combined to play just 32365 minutes (unless you want to argue that any of Chet Walker, Guy Rodgers, Tom Meschery, Wali Jones, or Billy Cunningham were very good defenders).

That's a difference of 2100 minutes a season with another very good defender. That too could easily account for a 1.3% or 1.8% DFG% difference.

Of course teammates matter, that's why I don't end my analysis on team performance.

I'd definitely add Tom Gola to Wilt's top defensive teammates.

So for what you are claiming is defensive superiority due to only Russell can easily be argued as being due to having better defensive teammates.

You simply do not have data to say otherwise - other than data that you are estimating or just plain making up (DRtg).

No, because I also combine team results with my tracking analysis, where Russell comes up considerably better than Wilt.

I've never argued this point. Have only stated the difference is far smaller than you claim.

What I have stated is that your statement:

Players like Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond are absolutely among the greatest defenders ever, but they weren't on Russell level.

And this statement:

Wilt is not, despite what people (including Russell) have said, ever up to Russ's level even when he WAS focused on defense.

Are patently false.

But you didn't show any evidence of me being wrong. You argued about the margins being smaller than I think, but you provided nothing to suggest that Wilt was on Russell level defensively... outside of all-defensive teams voting when Russell was retired.

I never said this. You are again putting words in the mouths of others to try to validate your point.

I said that difference was marginal at best.

Sorry, but I interpret this as basically "nothing".

Fine. Then post the DFG%s of all NBA teams from 1961-62 to 1968-69 (if you have the data). It's only 9-14 teams per season. Then we can see what is and what is not significant.

I won't do that for all teams from that period, because it is way too much time to do so and you don't bring anything valuable to discussion in contrast. I will do one season for you though.

1966:

BOS (69 games): 40.4 DFG%, 46.2 DTS%
PHI (80 games): 42.2 DFG%, 47.7 DTS%
CIN (80 games): 43.3 DFG%, 48.4 DTS%
NYK (76 games): 45.5 DFG%, 51.1 DTS%
LAL (80 games): 45.3 DFG%, 50.2 DTS%
BAL (62 games): 43.6 DFG%, 49.0 DTS%
STL (80 games): 44.2 DFG%, 50.1 DTS%
SFW (80 games): 43.4 DFG%, 48.9 DTS%
DET (63 games): 44.8 DFG%, 50.0 DTS%

League average: 43.3 FG%, 48.7 TS%

The difference between the best and the worst team is 5.1% in DFG% and 4.9% in TS%, all in a less efficient league which makes smaller margins more significant (5% is more significant in ~45% environment than in ~52% environment).

No. But you are the one who misses the obvious.

Camby was named the DPOY in 2006-07. A year in which Howard, Duncan, and Garnett all played. And the vote wasn't even close. Camby had 70 1st place votes. Howard, Duncan, and Garnett combined for just 16.

So those who voted made it loud and clear who is their minds was the best defensive player they saw that season. It wasn't very close. In their minds it was pretty much a landslide vote for Camby.

Yes, votes can be wrong - especially if they don't have any refined methodology of looking at what makes a player good defender.

Really. Just who is "We"?

Everyone who spent the minimum time to understand all the metrics we have available online.

What statistical evidence is this?

Various impact metrics like RAPM data and on/off numbers, along with simple watching games.

Did you know that Denver in 2007 were better defensively without Camby on the floor for example? Did you know that he doesn't rate out among the best defenders of his era in RAPM studies? Do you know that basically by any evidences Camby has no case over Duncan for DPOY in 2007... outside of blocks?

Really? You don't say.

Try again. Camby blocked 231 shots in 2006-07, won DPOY. He blocked 285 shots the next season - almost 20% more - but not only did not get voted the DPOY, but he got less 1st place votes than did the player who got the next most 1st place votes the year he did win the DPOY.

Again, nice try. But you're wrong. Otherwise why did he not win DPOY again with 20% more blocked shots?

About 2008 - yeah, Camby didn't win that one because KG made a big trade and turned Celtics into defensive powerhouse. People like such narratives, so they went for it. In this case, it was a good decision, because Garnett was a better defender than Camby.

I'll tell you something else. In 1985-86 Manute Bol blocked 397 shots, 2nd most ever in a season in league history. He did not win the DPOY (Alvin Robertson), nor was he even named to the all-defensive team. Hakeem Olajuwon blocked a league 4th most 376 shots in 1989-90, did not win the DPOY (Dennis Rodman).

Maybe just maybe you should give a little more credit to the people who vote for these awards.

Basketball narratives were different in 1986 than 2007. Back then people loved giving DPOY to guards and smaller defenders who weren't as impactful as prolific shotblockers. Alvin's award is the purest example of looking at raw stats beyond anything else - because Robertson played on horrible Spurs team that were among the worst defensive teams in the league and he never showed that he had quantitive impact on defense outside of huge steals numbers.

I still don't see why I should give more credit to them.

Nonsense.

You make a nonsensical statement, it will get called out as nonsense.

I watched him play, especially a young Chamberlain, and he was as mobile a big man that ever played the game.

No, he wasn't. Young Wilt was very mobile for his size, but even at his athletic peak he clearly had issues with staying in front of perimeter players.

If you are so high on your knowledge of 1960s footage, show me Wilt making plays like these ones:

Wrong - again.

The game pace they calculated for Boston was artificially high, much higher than all the other teams, for multiple seasons in the 1960s. This was due to them estimating a very high number of FGAs faced on defense because they assumed a much lower DFG% than reality. Re-read the "Russell's defensive impact" thread.

No, the high pace is estimated by Celtics rebounding and shot attempts averages, which are significantly higher than the other teams in the 1960s. You don't understand how it works.

Really? Says who, you?

OK, I'll bite. Let's test your statement, because you have a habit of making statements as if they are fact based on some expertise you think you have when in truth they are not.

Since 1959-60 there have been 64 NBA seasons, including the current one. Which have been of the highest competition, and which have been of the lowest competition?

I'll even make this easy for you, not take up too much of your time. How about you name just the top 5 in highest competition and then the 5 in lowest competition. And let's hear why.

This should be interesting.

I'm not going to bite this strawman, of course you can believe that every DPOY and every MVP are on the same level - it's up to you, you can choose whatever criteria you want. Just don't call more reasonable ones "nonsense", ok?

I did not know you speak for the majority of people knowledgeable in 1960s NBA.

Now you know.

And you know this how?

Because without me, you wouldn't have half of the Wilt footage available now on YouTube. I spent years and thousands of dolars to give you as much 1960s NBA footage as possible. Before I started, we didn't even have the half of 1960s footage we now have.

And you know this how?

By tracking the available footage.

From the ages of 23-34, Chamberlain grabbed 23.6 reb/g, Russell 22.6 reb/g. You say the above based on what data? Because I'd be willing to bet any difference is very small, too small to make some conclusive statement as to which was the better defensive (or offensive) rebounder.

You miss small nuance that Wilt was significantly better offensive rebounder than Russell...

I agree with the statement, but your numbers are assumed/guesstimated.

My numbers are based on all the footage we have, which is a limited sample - but it's still better than nothing.

Putting words into the mouths of others does not validate your point.

I already apologized for that, why are you such a prick?

We don't know how many blocks Russell and Wilt averaged, but we do know that all the most prolific shotblockers since the 1974 played in the late 1980s and the early 1990s.

The best shot blockers had their best shot blocking seasons in the early to mid-1980s - Eaton with 456 in 1984-85 and Bol with 397 in 1985-86, not to mention Elmore Smith with 393 in 1973-74.

Olajuwon did block 376 in 1989-90, but the next most were by Eaton with 351 in 1983-84 and 369 in 1985-86.

So 5 of the 6 best shot blocking seasons occurred 1985-86 and earlier.

I already showed you that there were significantly more top tier shotblockers in the early 1990s and late 1980s than in the 1970s. Elmore is a huge outlier in the 1970s and he didn't replicate such number in any other season.

You focus on one massive outlier to prove your point, along with shouting that 1986 is not "late 1980s" but "mid-1980s". It's quite telling that you didn't quote the numbers I provided.

Yes, you should have. But you didn't.

Then I correct my statement - the most prolific shotblockers played from mid-1980s to mid-1990s.

This may have been your point but this is not what you said.

This is literally what I said. Maybe you understood it differently, but I already explained my intentions. Now you should focus on the actual point, not fighting a languistic discussion.

You by chance a physicist? Or do you just play one on TV?

I am PhD student on physics, doing my doctorate on semi-empirical calculations of complex atoms energy structure. So yes, I am a physicist.

you deal with imperfect methodology all the time? Does it mean that we shouldn't even try and end up with epistemological nihilism?

Wait a minute. You're saying Russell spent more time on the outside, and was better on defense there, but admit Chamberlain spent more time on the inside, but he wasn't?

Yes? There is no contradiction here.

Rudy Gobert is known for not getting out to the deep 2 range and 3pt line very often, yet he has 3 DPOY awards.

Rudy Gobert is also a player who is consistently criticized for his defense not translating to postseason, because he's passive on perimeter. Rudy Gobert is also much more engaged on perimeter than you give him credit for.

Then make this data available, lest no one knows it.

Sure, I base my numbers on watching 22 (incomplete) games of Russell and 19 (incomplete) games of Wilt:

Bill Russell number of successful contest and good help rotation inside: 10.4 and 3.1 per game
Bill Russell number of bad contest and bad/lack of help rotation inside: 2.7 and 0.9 per game

Wilt Chamberlain number of successful contest and good help rotation inside: 7.2 and 1.0 per game
Wilt Chamberlain number of bad contest and bad/lack of help rotation inside: 2.7 and 1.2 per game

And what do you mean by mistakes?

Slow rotations, lack of contest at the rim, missing open man inside, ball-watching.

Oh - by the way. From the ages of 23-34, Russell committed almost 50% more fouls than Chamberlain did. That's over 13 years. Russell averaged 204 personal fouls a season, Wilt just 141. That is a huge advantage defensively, to be able to play great defense without sending the opponent to the FT line. Russell's foul rate was low, but Chamberlain's was extremely low.

Low foul rate doesn't indicate great defense, far from it in fact.

Once again a self-professed expertise. How do you know what effort I put in to know the game?

I assume it based on your contribution to this forum. All you do is quote accolades, post highlight videos and show total numbers for cherry picked periods. I have never seen you doing any kind of tape analysis or anything that goes beyond bringing up boxscore numbers.

You can prove me wrong though.

Or how much video I watch.

Well, if you are not my patron and you don't have any contacts with NBA Archives, I think it's very reasonable that you haven't seen everything I did.

But you do? Then present it.

No, I don't, isn't that my point?

Isn't taking the time to debunk your claims effort?

We can all state our opinions, but if you are going to claim something as fact that it outside the norm, then expect to be called out.

Claiming Russell's defense was on another level compared to Chamberlain and Thurmond is just that, as they are likely the 3 greatest defenders of the 1960s.

Excpet that my opinion isn't really outside the norm, that's the whole point. No, Russell and Wilt and Thurmond weren't seen as the exact same level of defenders. Everybody recognised they were the best in the league, but contemporary reports are in majority clear that Russell was the best among them.

Do you know their methodology?

Don't know and don't care.

I think that should tell everyone all we need to know then...

But making statements about players decades after they played to you is proof?

No, but analyzing what happens is a valuable evidence. Notice that I'm not the one calling everyone's opinion "nonsense", so you shouldn't act like I'm the one knowing everything.

Don't buy it for a minute. I only saw Russell in real time at the very end of his career, but saw a lot of Thurmond. And he was a defensive savant. In the very late 60s and early 70s Thurmond, Wilt, and Jabbar were terrors on defense.

So you don't believe that Russell could be better than Thurmond, because Thurmond was "a defensive savant"? Seriously?

[70sFan]

oh my, now the average length of posts are longer than my semester end essay

Isn't it what's beautiful about PC Board?

[cupcakesnake]

If we're talking ONLY defense, here's a team I think would be better

PG: Payton
SG: Kawhi
SF: Rodman
PF: Garnett
C: Robinson

My question was exactly to compare a team like what I listed to a team like this - when MJ, LeBron, and Giannis can focus on D and don't have to worry about O, would they be as good or better than the "Kawhi/Rodman/KG" counterparts?

I don't see a strong argument for MJ>Kawhi (assuming were talking about peak defensive Kawhi) or Giannis>KG. Kawhi is so much bigger than Jordan, was more disruptive with his hands, and more focused/disciplined. MJ has a foot speed advantage but was a little too gambley and mistake prone. I guess if you're telling me that MJ has been convinced that perfect defense is the competition he has to win... we can apply some mythical MJ magic and assume he can do anything he puts his mind to. I'm not sure what defensive advantage Giannis has over Garnett. Maybe a little bit of strength? I see Giannis' best advantages being offensive (his speed and rim pressure). Defensively, Garnett was more cerebral, read the floor better, and a little more balanced. People might push back on this next point but: I think Garnett was a better perimeter defender than Giannis. I always hear people talk like Giannis can guard 1-through-5 and I think he can a little bit. But I never find Giannis looks particularly lockdown on the perimeter. Fans screamed for him to guard Jimmy Butler in the playoffs, but when it happened, it didn't look amazing. Giannis gets too square on the perimeter rather than angling them towards help (or the sideline/baseline). It makes him vulnerable to giving up a step and not being in good position to slide for recovery. Garnett did a LOT less perimeter defense than we've seen Giannis do because of era related schemes, but when he did slide out (or that year he played SF), KG stayed smart and disciplined on the perimeter, and never looked too slow.

As for the other picks.
Payton is so much bigger than CP3. Lebron vs. Rodman is a reasonable argument. Rodman is a way better man-to-man defender than Lebron full stop. I don't care that Lebron occasionally flashed lockdown perimeter defense for 2 straight possessions. That's not evidence to me that he could do that non-stop if he just "focused". But Lebron's the better help defender, both in terms of being diligent in his rotations and being able to rim protect from the wing. I know people love Rodman, but I think of him ultimately as a defensive specialist (he just does matchup defending and rebounding), where I probably like Lebron's all-around defense more. (I'm not the biggest fan of either of these players as ATG defenders).

Robinson vs. Wilt is a reasonable argument I think? I tend to lump these two together as some of the best rim protectors ever. Wilt probably has more room to scale up than the Admiral does.

[kcktiny]

But you didn't show any evidence of me being wrong.

You haven't shown evidence of you being right.

I won't do that for all teams from that period, because it is way too much time to do so and you don't bring anything valuable to discussion in contrast.

You want to claim you are right but do not want to show the evidence.

Sorry, but I interpret this as basically "nothing".

So when someone says marginal you interpret that as nothing? Sorry, but that makes little sense.

Yes, votes can be wrong - especially if they don't have any refined methodology of looking at what makes a player good defender.

Oh I get it. Their opinion is wrong because it is you who are the expert, because it is you that have a refined methodology.

Even though they are the ones who watched NBA games and not you, year after year after year. How many games did you watch in the 1980s? In the 1990s? Where you even alive then? Just a toddler?

Everyone who spent the minimum time to understand all the metrics we have available online.

All what metrics?

Various impact metrics like RAPM data and on/off numbers.

RAPM is just one metric. And a flawed one. It is so flawed that a one season listing is so noisy that those who calculate it have to lump multiple seasons together just to get enough data for what they feel is a reasonable estimate.

RPM was so noisy it evolved into BPM, where they actually had to add what they originally claimed was poor data - box score stats.

Wasn't the mantra of early attempts at RPM was that it looked only at the points differential and not at box score stats, which supposedly weren't - according to those who calculated RPM - very useful for evaluating NBA players?

That didn't work so well so RPM then evolved into RAPM. But again, it's very noisy in a one year sampling and thus - again - multiple seasons have to be aggregated to make any sense of the data.

So what kind of sense does it make to rely on a methodology that over one season it not very reliable, is too noisy?

Then there is RAPTOR. Combining plus-minus with box score data didn't work, so to those two sets of data they added even more - some player tracking data. But again, the same problem of the little amount of data for a lot of players in just one season is too noisy.

The there's DPM and EPM. They all at one time or another have claimed to be the most accurate method for player evaluation.

Until you question some of their results.

Did you know that Denver in 2007 were better defensively without Camby on the floor for example?

Did you know that this is likely the key reason why on-off metrics are so unreliable? That their value is very dependant on whether a starter's primary backup is very good or very bad?

The basic premise of claiming a player is good or bad based on what happened when he did not play is flawed. So much so that they keep adding non-on-off data such as box score stats or player tracking data to try to make any sense out of the results.

And for one who has complained about players named to all-defensive teams because of high steals or high blocks, what's your comment on the fact that at www.dunksandthrees.com 2023 EPM stats the top four players for the defensive portion of EPM listed today are Jaren Jackson Jr., Alex Caruso, Matisse Thybulle, and OG Anunoby, players who have some of the very highest block and steal rates in the league.

Did you know that he doesn't rate out among the best defenders of his era in RAPM studies?

Does not surprise me in the least as RAPM is a flawed stat, especially in a one year sampling.

Do you know that basically by any evidences Camby has no case over Duncan for DPOY in 2007... outside of blocks?

Let me guess - this is because you are going to state that RAPM says so. You weren't alive then, did not watch him play, and now some 17 years later are claiming expertise because of a flawed calculation?

Not surprising.

On the contrary the evidence for Camby as DPOY is very persuasive, an overwhelming number of 1st place votes for DPOY by those who watched him play the most.

And why Duncan for DPOY? San Antonio was only the 2nd best defensive team in 2006-07. Chicago was the top defensive team. The Bulls were 5th best team defensively the year before, but added Ben Wallace, DPOY 4 of the previous 5 seasons, and shot up to number one defensively. Why wouldn't Wallace be the DPOY?

About 2008 - yeah, Camby didn't win that one... because Garnett was a better defender than Camby.

Was he a better defender than either Duncan or Yao Ming? You want Duncan for DPOY in 2006-07, why not in 2007-08? Boston was the best defensive team but Houston was 2nd best and San Antonio 3rd?

Alvin's award is the purest example of looking at raw stats beyond anything else - because Robertson played on horrible Spurs team that were among the worst defensive teams in the league and he never showed that he had quantitive impact on defense outside of huge steals numbers.

This statement alone should almost certainly preclude you from ever being taken seriously concerning player evaluation.

Alvin Robertson is considered one of the greatest guard perimeter defenders in league history. Not only does he have a DPOY but he was also named to the all-defensive team 6 straight years.

And the idea that he was named DPOY and all-defensive (multiple times) just because of huge steal numbers is nonsense.

Yes nonsense.

Had you watched him play you would know this. Very few hounded players on defense like he did.

Let me guess why you made the above statement. RAPM? Or some other also flawed plus-minus metric?

This idea that you can't have an excellent defender - especially a guard - on a poor defensive team is flat out nonsense. One of the best defending guards in the early to mid-1980s played on one of the very worst defensive teams - T.R. Dunn on the Denver Nuggets.

And for you who seems to think all-defensive team voters only look at steals and blocks - T.R. Dunn was named all-defensive 2nd team from 1982-83 to 1984-85, years that players with 220+ steals in a season like Michael-Ray Richardson, Johnny Moore, and Rickey Green were not.

Lots of players with high steals (200+) never sniffed an all-defensive team - Johnny Moore, Rickey Green, Allen Iverson, Eddie Jordan, Tim Hardaway, Ron Lee, Larry Steele, Tim Hardaway, and a number of others.

I still don't see why I should give more credit to them.

Nobody cares who you give more credit to. But if you want to learn about the history of the game, the voters for the awards teams are a valuable resource.

Especially for someone who thinks Alvin Robertson:

never showed that he had quantitive impact on defense outside of huge steals numbers

No, he wasn't. Young Wilt was very mobile for his size, but even at his athletic peak he clearly had issues with staying in front of perimeter players.

Laughable.

If you are so high on your knowledge of 1960s footage, show me Wilt making plays like these ones:

Are you serious? Four video clips each less than ten seconds long? You think this shows absolutely anything?

If I showed you a 3 minute video of all 39 of Muggsy Bogues' career blocked shots, what would that tell you?

No, the high pace is estimated by Celtics rebounding and shot attempts averages, which are significantly higher than the other teams in the 1960s. You don't understand how it works.

Wrong - again.

The only way to get a very high game pace, one that is clearly flawed and much higher than reality, and much higher than all other teams in the league, and especially with assuming the same TOV% and ORB% numbers, and to make the team excellent on defense, is with a very low defensive FG% allowed presumed which necessitates a very high estimate of FGAs faced on defense. Thus an inflated game pace.

Which is exactly why others have called this out too.

I'm not going to bite this strawman

Your response to my response on this statement:

But are you aware that not all seasons have the same level of competition?

If you don't want to bite the strawman, don't make statements professing expertise but that you have no hope of substantiating. You'll be called out on it every time.

Because without me, you wouldn't have half of the Wilt footage available now on YouTube. I spent years and thousands of dolars to give you as much 1960s NBA footage as possible. Before I started, we didn't even have the half of 1960s footage we now have.

Everyone is grateful for your efforts, myself included. I am also grateful to anyone who posts NBA games (complete games) to YouTube, recent and from the past.

while Wilt teams would have to be elite in both aspects, which is unlikely - especially considering that Russell Celtics were consistently a team with highest rebounding averages - which isn't possible without either playing fast (which you deny)

You just can't help yourself can you? Putting words into the mouths of others to try to substantiate your point of view.

I never denied they played fast. I simply showed that their game pace estimates were overtly high, resulting in a much better/lower team DRtg than what is true.

And not only that, later in the "Russell's defensive impact" someone else posted a tweet from grisingTRS (whom I do not know) which said the exact same thing:

I suspect that Celtics (ultra-high) DRtg is too high and their (ultra-low) Ortg is too low. Reason: I think BBRef overestimates the number of Celtics possessions (both Off & Def). With fewer poss but same number of O & D points, ORtg is higher (better) & DRtg higher (worse).

I already apologized for that, why are you such a prick?

As General Beringer said to McKittrick in the movie WarGames "...Oh, I was hoping for something a little better than that from you, sir. A man of your education".

I am PhD student on physics, doing my doctorate on semi-empirical calculations of complex atoms energy structure. So yes, I am a physicist.

Which I would guess means you are age 30 or younger, which if true clearly shows that you did not watch the NBA in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.

My numbers are based on all the footage we have, which is a limited sample

Sure, I base my numbers on watching 22 (incomplete) games of Russell and 19 (incomplete) games of Wilt:

Wait just a minute.

Let me get this straight. All of these threads on Russell and Chamberlain, all your claims - are based on what you have gleaned from all of just 22 games for one and only 19 games for the other??

Including the playoffs Chamberlain played in 1205 games, Russell 1128 games. So your self-proclaimed perceived expertise is based on watching less than 2% of the games these players played in??

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I assume it based on your contribution to this forum. All you do is quote accolades, post highlight videos and show total numbers for cherry picked periods. I have never seen you doing any kind of tape analysis or anything that goes beyond bringing up boxscore numbers.

This from the guy that watches less than 2% of the games some players played in yet professes to be an expert in evaluating them?

My lord.

I've been watching the NBA since the late 1960s. At least I saw all these players play that you and your RAPM metric have no clue about.

And if you are really interested in learning more about Wilt Chamberlain, and the NBA and it's history, rather than making supposedly factual statements based off of just 19 games, search out the books put out by Harvey Pollack. They are a very valuable resource. Pollack was in the league as the statistician of the 76ers since the start of the BAA in 1946.

[rk2023]

70s, this kcktiny guy is a carbon copy of the JGD / “just got done 6” account on Twitter when it comes to stubbornness and a bunch of nothingness in argument. Probably isn’t worth fighting over what nonsense has already been debunked

[70sFan]

You haven't shown evidence of you being right.

I did, you just ignored them. You may think my evidences aren't enough, but you can't accuse me of not backing up my statement.

You want to claim you are right but do not want to show the evidence.

I provided data for one season, you can calculate for the rest. It's another time when I bring up data and you ignore it - why should I waste more time on you then?

Oh I get it. Their opinion is wrong because it is you who are the expert, because it is you that have a refined methodology.

No, you didn't get it. Their opinion can be right or wrong, but without any methodology I can't make a good evaluation of their opinion. Maybe they voted that way because they had a very knowledgeable opinion about all these players, or maybe they voted that way because they have personal preferences. You can't know that without methodology.

I also want you to show me when I said they have to use my methodology... I am waiting and I won't back down.

Even though they are the ones who watched NBA games and not you, year after year after year. How many games did you watch in the 1980s? In the 1990s? Where you even alive then? Just a toddler?

Why should it matter if I was alive back then or not? We are talking about methodology of players evaluation.

All what metrics?

Seriously? You've been long enough on this board to know this.

RAPM is just one metric. And a flawed one. It is so flawed that a one season listing is so noisy that those who calculate it have to lump multiple seasons together just to get enough data for what they feel is a reasonable estimate.

Every attempt to capture something is flawed, but at least we can reasonably understand limitations of RAPM studies. Please, tell me how to differentiate truth from flaws and personal biases in a voter opinion when we don't have his methodology of choosing players.

RPM was so noisy it evolved into BPM, where they actually had to add what they originally claimed was poor data - box score stats.

Again, it's not something I rely on (I don't use RPM at all) - but it's still better than base everything on opinions that are not backed up with anything other than empty authority.

So what kind of sense does it make to rely on a methodology that over one season it not very reliable, is too noisy?

You can use it for multiple seasons sample. You see - you can get flaws of each method and use it properly. I hate to tell you that, but you can't do that with unjustified votes.

Then there is RAPTOR. Combining plus-minus with box score data didn't work, so to those two sets of data they added even more - some player tracking data. But again, the same problem of the little amount of data for a lot of players in just one season is too noisy.

The there's DPM and EPM. They all at one time or another have claimed to be the most accurate method for player evaluation.

Until you question some of their results.

At this point, it seems that you imply that you can't use a methodology which isn't perfect. I will repeat the same thing - if that's your way of thinking, I hope you are consistent and you reject every scientific studies. Of course you don't, because you write on your computer everything, but your statement leaves us here.

There are no perfect ways to describe the world at its fullest level of sophistication. It doesn't mean we can't abstract idnividual phenomena from the whole picture. Extreme reductionism is unjustified, but nobody does it here. Meanwhile, your way of thinking leaves us at the beginning of human mental progression.

Did you know that this is likely the key reason why on-off metrics are so unreliable? That their value is very dependant on whether a starter's primary backup is very good or very bad?

Do you have any evidence that Camby was super impactful other than your feelings?

The basic premise of claiming a player is good or bad based on what happened when he did not play is flawed. So much so that they keep adding non-on-off data such as box score stats or player tracking data to try to make any sense out of the results.

I agree, it is flawed. That's why we can also look at Denver with him on the floor and he still doesn't touch Duncan in that aspect.

And for one who has complained about players named to all-defensive teams because of high steals or high blocks, what's your comment on the fact that at www.dunksandthrees.com 2023 EPM stats the top four players for the defensive portion of EPM listed today are Jaren Jackson Jr., Alex Caruso, Matisse Thybulle, and OG Anunoby, players who have some of the very highest block and steal rates in the league.

I don't use EPM, so I don't know their methodology. We can check it out to see if they give a premium for deflection for their numbers or if they rely on boxscore numbers.

Who said that you have to define your opinions only by a single metric results though? Another strawman?

Does not surprise me in the least as RAPM is a flawed stat, especially in a one year sampling.

I'm talking about 1997-2014 sample, not single year. Do you have any evidences that he should be in top tier?

Let me guess - this is because you are going to state that RAPM says so. You weren't alive then, did not watch him play, and now some 17 years later are claiming expertise because of a flawed calculation?

Not surprising.

Wait, do you think I wasn't born in 2007? Do you think I am 16 years old?

On the contrary the evidence for Camby as DPOY is very persuasive, an overwhelming number of 1st place votes for DPOY by those who watched him play the most.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

And why Duncan for DPOY? San Antonio was only the 2nd best defensive team in 2006-07. Chicago was the top defensive team. The Bulls were 5th best team defensively the year before, but added Ben Wallace, DPOY 4 of the previous 5 seasons, and shot up to number one defensively. Why wouldn't Wallace be the DPOY?

"San Antonio was only the 2nd best defensive team" but Denver is 11th and Camby is fine?

Anyway, I don't have much problems with picking Wallace. Duncan rates considerably better in most impact metrics we have, but Wallace is a reasonable choice as well. Both were significantly better defensive players than Camby.

Was he a better defender than either Duncan or Yao Ming? You want Duncan for DPOY in 2006-07, why not in 2007-08? Boston was the best defensive team but Houston was 2nd best and San Antonio 3rd?

Garnett and Duncan were both definitely better than Yao Ming, even though Yao is an underrated defender.

Celtics were significantly better defensively than Spurs during that season. You keep mentioning places, but I hope you realize that 1st defense can be much better than 2nd or 3rd. Again - I wouldn't mind giving it to Duncan, but Garnett is my choice for the 2008 DPOY.

This statement alone should almost certainly preclude you from ever being taken seriously concerning player evaluation.

Then don't treat majority of this board seriously. I don't think anyone should feel bad about that.

Alvin Robertson is considered one of the greatest guard perimeter defenders in league history. Not only does he have a DPOY but he was also named to the all-defensive team 6 straight years.

And the idea that he was named DPOY and all-defensive (multiple times) just because of huge steal numbers is nonsense.

Yes nonsense.

Had you watched him play you would know this. Very few hounded players on defense like he did.

1. He's considered one of the greatest guards perimeter defenders in league history... because of what? Can you break down his defensive game for me? Do you know his strengths or weaknesses? Do you know what made him good other than high steal numbers?
2. The problem with your assumption that only you watch games on basketball forum is that it's nonsense. Yes, this is something I can legitimately call nonsense.

Let me guess why you made the above statement. RAPM? Or some other also flawed plus-minus metric?

Actually, I made this statement because I watched a lot of late 1980s Spurs games. I am a big Artis Gilmore fan, so I watched everything I could from 1985-87 period and I watched later games as well. I used to go deep for games of the players with best defensive reputation to get a good idea how they played and I came out relatively unimpressed by Alvin's gambling style. I don't say he was a bad defender, but there are many players I'd take over him at his position.

This idea that you can't have an excellent defender - especially a guard - on a poor defensive team is flat out nonsense. One of the best defending guards in the early to mid-1980s played on one of the very worst defensive teams - T.R. Dunn on the Denver Nuggets.

I agree, but that's not the case here. T.R. Dunn is someone I'd take over Robertson defensively.

And for you who seems to think all-defensive team voters only look at steals and blocks - T.R. Dunn was named all-defensive 2nd team from 1982-83 to 1984-85, years that players with 220+ steals in a season like Michael-Ray Richardson, Johnny Moore, and Rickey Green were not.

Lots of players with high steals (200+) never sniffed an all-defensive team - Johnny Moore, Rickey Green, Allen Iverson, Eddie Jordan, Tim Hardaway, Ron Lee, Larry Steele, Tim Hardaway, and a number of others.

Another strawman.

Nobody cares who you give more credit to. But if you want to learn about the history of the game, the voters for the awards teams are a valuable resource.

It's a good start to learn about history, but at some point you want to and should start digging deeper. I hope you will get to that point sooner or later.

Especially for someone who thinks Alvin Robertson:

never showed that he had quantitive impact on defense outside of huge steals numbers

Well, you didn't provide anything that would falsify my statement, so I don't feel offended by having different opinion than you.

Laughable.

You are not a kind person, are you?

Are you serious? Four video clips each less than ten seconds long? You think this shows absolutely anything?

If I showed you a 3 minute video of all 39 of Muggsy Bogues' career blocked shots, what would that tell you?

It doesn't prove anything, but Russell did it consistently. I know it because I watch 1960s footage all the time.

If it's nothing, show me Wilt doing similar plays. At least for once stop calling everyone "laughable" and do something productive.

Everyone is grateful for your efforts, myself included. I am also grateful to anyone who posts NBA games (complete games) to YouTube, recent and from the past.

I appreciate that.

You just can't help yourself can you? Putting words into the mouths of others to try to substantiate your point of view.

I never denied they played fast. I simply showed that their game pace estimates were overtly high, resulting in a much better/lower team DRtg than what is true.

But how can you know they are "overtly high"? You don't have any own estimations. It's your wishful thinking.

And not only that, later in the "Russell's defensive impact" someone else posted a tweet from grisingTRS (whom I do not know) which said the exact same thing:

I suspect that Celtics (ultra-high) DRtg is too high and their (ultra-low) Ortg is too low. Reason: I think BBRef overestimates the number of Celtics possessions (both Off & Def). With fewer poss but same number of O & D points, ORtg is higher (better) & DRtg higher (worse).

Yes, that's why I use upgraded formula of pace estimations created by Ben Taylor. It reduces the difference between Celtics defense and the league average, but it still puts them clearly at the top - both in terms of defense and pace played.

Which I would guess means you are age 30 or younger, which if true clearly shows that you did not watch the NBA in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s.

I am 25, yes I wasn't alive in the 1970s. It doesn't mean I didn't watch 1970s NBA games. I did, probably more than 95% of this board. I watch more old games than contemporary games in fact.

Wait just a minute.

Let me get this straight. All of these threads on Russell and Chamberlain, all your claims - are based on what you have gleaned from all of just 22 games for one and only 19 games for the other??

Including the playoffs Chamberlain played in 1205 games, Russell 1128 games. So your self-proclaimed perceived expertise is based on watching less than 2% of the games these players played in??

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

As opposed to you who claimed to never watch prime Wilt and Russell?

Nobody outside very few members were alive back in the 1960s to watch them play, I guess you can satisfy your mind with just repeating fuzzy opinions from contemporary sources, but some of us want to do as much as possible with what we have.

You would know how much work it requires to track and analyze footage correctly if you ever bother to do that. Watching 20 games in such ways can be even a full month of hard work. I know it's easier to just ignore the effort, but at least I'm doing something.

This from the guy that watches less than 2% of the games some players played in yet professes to be an expert in evaluating them?

My lord.

I've been watching the NBA since the late 1960s. At least I saw all these players play that you and your RAPM metric have no clue about.

And if you are really interested in learning more about Wilt Chamberlain, and the NBA and it's history, rather than making supposedly factual statements based off of just 19 games, search out the books put out by Harvey Pollack. They are a very valuable resource. Pollack was in the league as the statistician of the 76ers since the start of the BAA in 1946.

You again just laughed off my work, ignored data I provided and acted in very rude way. I don't think we will continue to discuss if your point is to laugh at everything I write.

I am aware of contemporary sources, like Pollack. He's did an incredible job and his stats are a huge asset for such work. You are mistaken if you think that I don't use or care about experts opinions and conclusions from the 1960s. There is a gigantic difference between reading Pollack, Newell, Auerbach and other great minds of that era and just looking at accolades.

That's your problem - you made a bunch of false assumptions about me, decided that I'm too young to have educated opinion and created a bunch of strawmans like that I base everything on RAPM studies or watching limited footage we have. You reject anything that doesn't support your opinion and bring no value to the topic. For someone who is self-claimed researcher of old footage, at least you should be able to provide clips with good examples of Wilt's mobility but you even didn't do that.

I won't reply to your next post if you keep being so rude and you won't try to have a civil discussion. I have other things to do. My goal on this board is to gain knowledge about the NBA history, but I'm not here to talk with someone who laughs at everything I provide while doing nothing else.

[70sFan]

70s, this kcktiny guy is a carbon copy of the JGD / “just got done 6” account on Twitter when it comes to stubbornness and a bunch of nothingness in argument. Probably isn’t worth fighting over what nonsense has already been debunked

I had a hope to have a civil discussion with him, but at this point I lost my willingness to talk with him anymore.

[OhayoKD]

70s, this kcktiny guy is a carbon copy of the JGD / “just got done 6” account on Twitter when it comes to stubbornness and a bunch of nothingness in argument. Probably isn’t worth fighting over what nonsense has already been debunked

posterity though

[Red Beast]

70s, this kcktiny guy is a carbon copy of the JGD / “just got done 6” account on Twitter when it comes to stubbornness and a bunch of nothingness in argument. Probably isn’t worth fighting over what nonsense has already been debunked

I'm sorry, I thought both parties made very interesting points. I was very interested in both aspects and perspectives. Not sure what your post achieved?

[penbeast0]

From the fact that most of the last 5 posts have insulted other posters for one reason or another, rather than write up multiple warnings, I am closing this discussion. All of you who are doing this, consider yourself warned . . . AGAIN in many cases. If another mod chooses to add something on top of this, this does not foreclose that option.

This board has been good for discussion because people are civil and willing to disagree civilly. Recently we have had an outbreak of personal attacks and general nasty snark. If that's the kind of discussion you want, please go somewhere else.

[PaulieWal]

[quote="kcktiny"][/quote]

Warned for aggressive posting throughout the thread

[PaulieWal]

70s, this kcktiny guy is a carbon copy of the JGD / “just got done 6” account on Twitter when it comes to stubbornness and a bunch of nothingness in argument. Probably isn’t worth fighting over what nonsense has already been debunked

Not allowed to bait like this, report a post you think is offside.