nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:At a certain point all this stuff just becomes a matter of assertion -- say it twice & it's more likely to be true than the first time; say it repeatedly & how can anyone doubt it? For that reason, I'm not going to respond by saying, "sorry, no. Porzingis wasn't as good as any of those guys." I'm just going to say that I would expect someone who claims that Porzingis is the 6th best Center in the game to back it up with numbers.
Not that there are no numbers at all to point to! KP scored a lot of points at an above average TS%. That was a very good thing to do, a thing very few players can do -- meaning that it's evidence of his being good. But once points & TS% are significant evidence, then so are other numbers that can be shown to have a relationship to game outcomes -- b/c good in a competitive sport is quantitative not qualitative. This ain't ballet.
Thus...
...which is better 6 offensive rebounds or 2.2 offensive rebounds? Over the same number of minutes. & which is better 13 defensive rebounds or 10 defensive rebounds?
If you don't think there's an obvious answer to that question, i.e. if you can't say which is better until you know the names involved, then no discussion of how good a player is compared to other players is possible -- people have to agree on the meaning of numbers to compare two players.
Those numbers & their differences have to count as ways that player A is better than player B -- assuming that A is the guy that got both the bigger numbers -- in the same sense that more points & a higher TS% count.
If they do, then great -- a discussion is possible. If they don't, i.e. if you have to know both A's & B's names first before you can decide whether & how much numbers matter, then no comparison of players is possible. In fact no assessment of an individual player is possible either unless the answer is in the numbers independent of the player's name.
If not, it's just assertion, as I wrote above. & if the assertion is taken seriously here on the Wizards Board, well... that doesn't add much to the evidential basis, does it?
I did back it up with numbers. I posted the EPM chart. EPM is the publicly available advanced stat that is highest regarding among NBA front offices.
The problem is, you don't believe any statistical analysis except your own hard-headed version of calculating possessions gained versus possessions lost on an individual basis and refusing to factor team effects like floor spacing and the diminishing returns in efficiency that comes with high usage. We're not going to make any headway in our disagreements so I'm not going to waste the time trying.
What? I waste my time trying -- why shouldn't you?
I'd love to learn more about EPM, nate, but I can't find the formula explaining how it's calculated.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being interested. Why don't you simply explain how to calculate a player's epm.
