ceiling raiser wrote:Not that he needs the defense, but I need to stand in support of Doc here. He (along with ElGee and drza back in the day) has always been someone willing to take and defend heterodox positions, for well over a decade. This isn’t contrarianism, but a sound theory-based approach. Everybody has their biases of course, and there are a ton of other very adept analysts here who go against the grain in different ways, or use an evidence-based approach to show that CW is in some cases correct — but Doc’s track record here is legendary.
For a theoretical approach to be sound(i am unsure what specifically you are referencing), then it should be able to meet this standard:
uberhikari wrote:Heej wrote:f4p wrote:What makes any theory or concept useful is explanatory adequacy. In other words, does this theory help us gain a better understanding of some phenomenon by explaining it?
What is explained? What actually justifies whatever approach we're talking about? I'm not really concerned with the popularity of a stance but "willingness to defend" and the heterodoxy of a hypothesis are another matter.
DoctorMJ wrote:No matter WHAT we do, we're never able to bring the entirety of the situation to bear by quoting enough statistics, and thus whenever we bring stats into the conversation, we only get partial visibility of the situation.
What you're suggesting here is a reason to avoid using statistics at all in discussion, and why in many contexts where people aren't really used to intellectual discussion, it's probably better not to
No. As the "only" in the bit your quoted implies, what I'm suggesting is we analyze the value of a stat in whatever context it's being used as well as whatever other data is present before, during, or after we present it. I do think "career on/off" should be avoided in this specific instance(or at least presented/interpreted as a weak counterpunch against everything else) and have argued accordingly.
Assuming you are interested in eventually weeding out those weeds, then this sort of methodological analysis is an important step. Simply "pushing data" onto the stack only goes so far. Cross-examining what other people are presenting as well as their interpretations is how we(or third-party onlookers)can come to an understanding/new perspective regarding how we are using data.
To that end, I'd encourage you to consider what raw plus-minus or on/off offers here. I could add 100 variants of whatever was used to produce the IBM award to this "stack" and say "robinson and rodman are statistical monsters" but what does that actually achieve?
WOWY or 2019 stuff is more direct(and accessible). Taking out rotations as a variable and increasing the sample of "off" substantially. The lineup splits cover the rest if you distrust rapm scales that much. Posting raw on/off which presents a collinearity benefactor(as can be verified by looking at the drop-off in adjusted data or what happens when we use wowy/indirect samples) as comparably valuable to someone who does not experience that benefit(can also be verified the same way) can mislead people into thinking that they have comparable value when the output is likely just a byproduct of rotation wonkyness. Iow, it is misleading, and therefore to my mind of negative value when you neglect to mention the other stuff suggests a different conclusion.
Stats are not inherently useful. They can even be harmful. Assessing whether an approach is the former or the latter is a potentially valuable aspect of "intellectual discussion". As is challenging how others utilize data/evidence. You yourself do this, and I think my skepticism of your rationale is justified. To this end I have a made a point to highlight potential internal inconsistencies with your reasoning and what pieces of evidence you give weight to.
I think you should consider why you feel the need to frame it in such a rhetorically aggressive way.
Just as there is a time and place for deference, there is also a time and place for conviction. Stronger rhetoric can elicit more direct responses/consideration. Soft rhetoric can be good icebreaker and increase the likelihood of recieving some form of consideration even if it's less direct(it also is a decent way to hedge if you aren't confident you understand someone's position). In this case, you have used basic plus-minus splits in this way often as a comparative point for this specific player while also explicitly outlining certain aspects of your approach with evaluating the other. This use of plus-minus also has repeatedly been a topic of contention between you and many other posters in several threads over the last half-year.
Keeping in mind I try to consider not just how the person I'm responding to reads something, but how things are received by onlookers, there are several factors coming into play when I decided how to frame things:
-> This is a subject of significant interest to posters on the board, I don't really need to break-the-ice for readers to dive in
-> We generally seem to interact positively so I see little need to sugarcoat my thoughts
-> On this specific topic, "Softer" rhetoric has been met with more tangential responses with discussion not really being "furthered"
-> As methodological analysis is not necessarily "accessible", so I need to make what people read interesting stylistically
-> I'd wager I have a decent understanding of how you're arriving at your conclusion so there's not much reason to hedge
All of the above led me to opt for some
fuega. That said, if you feel attacked here, I'm happy to soften my approach
You're responding to a factoring in of a specific incident having specific on-court impact in a playoff series with a general what-about. This is counterproductive rhetoric in a comparative exercise for a number of reasons, but one clear cut one is that it means we're operating as if we're doing two different exercises and talking past each other.
Steph has gotten suspended for mouth-piece throwing in a playoff game. While a "what about" may not be an apple to an apple, both apples and oranges need to be weighed when assessing "off-court impact". When we are thinking predictively(as I know you like to), likelihood of replication is relevant, so it is worth considering that "self-injury" has occurred once in a longer career, while the mouth-piece thing has happened multiple times in a shorter one,
That said, unless I'm missing something here, you specifically took issue with how this affected Lebron's on-court play. Unless you think Lebron played worse than Steph afterwards, this doesn't really work to Curry's comparative favor.
I'm am also curious why you put more emphasis on the departure of a late first round pick than the aquisition of Anthony Davis when superstars are typically alot more valuable than first round picks in the pursuit of a championship.
"Why should we ignore..." Did I tell you that you should ignore something?
I am curious if
you're ignoring it. Didn't you ask "how is it relevant what Lebron is doing in 2023 to the question of who was better offensively during their primes" earlier? You are using title-belt logic when you bring up Durant's post and pre-curry failing to win "again and again", but you're hesitant to do this with Lebron. Unless I'm missing something, two big question marks for you were Lebron's willingness/ability to adapt to other players having the ball and how he retains offensive value in the absence of good spacing in the modern nba. Is Lebron's 2023(where he dramatically outpaces what we would expect given his age and minute load relative to Steph) not relevant to those questions?
It's not like this is the first time Lebron has succeeded with multiple ball-handlers. Lebron is a league impact-leader(2nd behind Giannis in the plus-minus all-in-ones) before major injury on a 4th seed(despite an understandably slow start) at a point in his career where most anyone else is well, well past their primes. He's also looking as valuable as anyone in the modern nba during 12/13(years he beat historically strong opponents in the finals) paired next to wade:
From 12-14 Miami posted a net-rating of -3.5 in games without Lebron(7.5 with). In the title-winning years Miami were a +8.4 team with Lebron and a -2.5 team without. That actually looks like a 30ish win team rather than a 40ish won but presumably missed time and opponent quality shift the lebron-less heat towards neutrality with SRS.
Switching from WOWY, to lineup-ratings, the Heat were +11.04 with Lebron/Wade lineups, +2.7 with with Wade, no Lebron lineups, 10.87 with Lebron/Bosh lineups, -1.19 with Bosh, no Lebron lineups, +10.28 with the big-three, and -4.48 with the big-three minus Lebron. The heat were also +2.77 in lineups with Lebron and without Wade or bosh. Overall, Lebron lineups scored at +9.62 while Lebron-less lineups scored at +0.75
In the title-winning years, the Heat were -3.25 with just Wade and Bosh and +12 with all three, +5.88 with Lebron and no wade or bosh, and +0.48 without any of the big three. Overall, for 12 and 13, Lebron lineups scored at 11.96 while Lebron-less lineups were -0.36.
All considered the heat were a roughly average team without Lebron which makes it rather impressive they beat a 89/90 pistons level opponent in the 13 spurs and dominated a better version of the 92/93 knicks when they crushed OKC(who, like the Spurs, had posted a higher PSRS than any team Jordan's beat).
We have 3 instances with Lebron performing unusually or unprecedentedly well(relative to where he's at in his career) while delegating to other ball-handlers instead of physically dominating the ball. This constitutes a trend now, no?
We also have 04-06(peaks at 56-win, +6.6 full-strength offense), 2023(pre-trade), 2020, 2019 and 2015(dismissing 2012 based on your aforementioned caveat of "outshooting" playoff 3/4 opponents) as examples of where, in some way or another, lebron is looking unusually or unprecedentedly valuable(relative to where he's at) with rosters that don't prioritize shooting.
That's a fairly frequent occurrence now and it seems to fit with certain historical trends...
Sigh. It's starting to feel that people are so prone to polarization in their analysis that people are trying to make the claim defenders don't really tend to move toward offensive players who might score...which is all that "gravity" is really intended to point to.
I did not imply they don't. What I implied was that the value of drawing defenders via one's scoring threat is overrated. And while not indicated, it was specifically directed at how some people use "gravity" in their evaluations of Steph's offensive influence. You cannot take steph's box-numbers at face-value when comparing him to say...durant, because he is creating off-the ball in a way which is not reflected in the box-score, cool! But then we get to people arguing that he is the most impactful offensive player ever because the box-score does not capture everything which is all fine and dandy till you realize that isn't supported with the methods we have to discern "impact" without box-score bias.
As it so happens, the offensive difference for Lebron's teams when he's on and when he's off arguably sees an even bigger delta with what one might derive from box-aggregates. When Lebron is giving props to Jokic for his iq and saying people don't really understand his greatness like he does, I suspect what he's really talking about is the mental side of things. As Steph's own teammate Dray has repeatedly pointed out, the cavs/warriors battles were in some ways a chess match between the warriors(and arguably draymond) and Lebron:
-> The absence of a draymond or kerr equivalent for the Raptors leads to Lebron "solving them" schematically and anticipating what they do
-> Because kerr/draymond can allegedly anticipate everything the cavs do, Lebron's advantage here is neutralized allowing talent and effort to decide the outcome in a way it couldn't with the Raptors
As I have said, we give lipservice to "iq" as a factor, but I'm not sure we actually value it. JR and Reddick have specifically noted that Lebron's teammates were more effective with what they were physically doing because Lebron
directed them. In this most recent lebron-curry matchup, we saw the Lakers clinch game 4 with Lebron directing Davis to exploit a subtle mistake in execution with some hammer-action. In game 6, we saw Lebron recognize the Warriors had shifted to zonal defense and direct his teammates accordingly.
"Steph is the system", but Steph is not the one who conceives of that system nor is he the one who fine-tunes it for specific opponents or scenarios. The result is he doesn't look like he does under Kerr when he is playing under Mark Jackson. You have said that the this sort of offensive archetype(someone who leverages scoring gravity to compensate for weaker passing) requires a certain infrastructure because of limitations regarding what they can do
physically. But there is also a limitation in what they can get
other players to physically do. Incidentally players who can actually run everything, verbally and physically, like Magic, Nash, Lebron(and potentially Jokic) lead better relative playoff offenses and see the best results when operating outside of a specific system or with significantly different looking rosters. Magic seamlessly transitions from giannis-esque show-time to a slower-paced half-court bball as he ramps up his scoring as Kareem fades. Even as a ball-dominant offensive force, Lebron shows adapts between different types of playmaking depending on the needs of his team:
In Miami, from 2012-2014 LeBron was an on-ball creator as a passing hub out of the mid-post. That allowed him to optimize Miami's offense.
In Cleveland, from 2015-2018 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated from the perimeter which allowed him to manufacture skip passes and attack the paint from the perimeter.
In LA in 2020 LeBron was an on-ball creator but operated as a "do-everything" point guard.
We have 3 completely different contexts where LeBron is an on-ball creator but in each context, LeBron has uniquely modified his game to maximize his effectiveness and the team around him.
With the Lakers we've now repeatedly seen Lebron retain incredible influence
without dominating the ball. He's graded(statistically) at Curry-level in lineups with westbrook, reeves, diangelo, lonzo, and rondo both taking a raw and/or an adjusted approach on teams ranging from atg to mediocre. This is
proof of concept, and it potentially speaks to not physical versatility(what can one do), but a mental flexibility that is made possible because he can anticipate and read the game differently.
You've asked what is Duncan without Pop and Manu though Duncan has actually demonstrated his own "proof of concept" pre-Manu(99 and 2003). I'd say an even better question is what is Steph without Dray and Kerr? It's not really a question that we need to ask about Lebron and it's probably worth considering why, even when the likes of Reeves and Dlo are apparently "carrying" Lebron so to speak. Even with the injured variant of Lebron, the post-trade Lakers saw their record improve dramatically with Lebron on the court, limited production and all. If we're going to look at "intangibles", that's a pretty good place to start.
