RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #4 (Bill Russell)

[lessthanjake]

I don’t have time to respond to all of this at the moment, so I may come back later to some of it, but for now just a few quick responses:

That’s not really true. I’ve actually posted Taylor’s AuPM/g numbers—which have Steph Curry leading the league every season for 6 straight years. And I’ve addressed Cheema’s numbers, which have Curry leading the NBA in two five-year spans during LeBron James’s prime. Not sure what the Englemann numbers are, but the other two support my point!

Leading in two 5 year spans doesn’t make Curry “the king of the databall era” when the highest 5 year spans belong to Lebron (as well as the highest PS only spans) and include some Curry’s best years, i.e., 2012-2016, and 2013-2017. 2014-2018 Curry was higher than 2014-2018 LeBron, but not higher than three separate 5 year spans by LeBron, i.e., 2006-2010, 2012-2016, 2013-2017. Lebron also has 8 of the top 23 five-year stretches, 10 of the top 30. Curry has 4 of the top 30. Not sure how you can say “regularly” when 2017-21 LeBron is lightly ahead of 2017-2021 Curry and 2016-2020 LeBron is ahead of every Curry stretch other than 2014-2018.

Curry does really well in the AuPM numbers, but James sits atop those numbers so not sure how that supports “king of the databall era.”

But here you’re the one comparing RAPM numbers from different timespans, which you’ve otherwise labeled as made up data. The reality is that prime Steph overlapped with prime LeBron, and he outdid prime LeBron James in two different five-year spans in the Cheema data. And the Cheema RAPM measure is less bullish on Steph than the NBAshotcharts or GitHub RAPM.

Steph also outdid LeBron in a boatload of other data. I summarized a lot of it here: viewtopic.php?p=107531004#p107531004. We find that Steph in his prime years (i.e. 2013-2014), Steph outdid LeBron in:

1. Every NBAshotcharts five-year span starting with 2013-2018;
2. In GitHub RAPM for every regular season
3. In 4 out of the 6 playoffs they both played in, by GitHub RAPM
4. In RPM in 8 out of 9 seasons
5. In regular season RAPTOR in every single season
6. In playoff RAPTOR in 5 out of 6 playoffs
7. in 6 out of 9 seasons in LEBRON
8. In two five-year spans of LeBron’s prime in the Cheema RAPM data
9. In AuPM/g in six straight seasons from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 (which I posted about yesterday: viewtopic.php?p=107640153#p107640153).
10. In AuPM/g in 4 out of 6 playoffs

This is an absolute boatload of impact metrics and impact/box-score composites that have prime Steph Curry outdoing LeBron. Obviously, in some data sets, he outdoes LeBron by more than others. For instance, the Cheema RAPM is less bullish on Steph (or rather, maybe more bullish on LeBron) than the NBAshotcharts RAPM. But Steph looks good in all of this stuff, and the overall picture definitely goes Steph’s way.

Please also note that the quote of “king of the databall era” is not a real quote. I was pretty sure I never said that, and I just searched my posts and did not find it. I have said that prime Steph usurped the databall crown, and what I mean by that is that in his prime he was the king of databall metrics. I was not asserting that he was superior overall than LeBron (i.e. not necessarily that prime Steph was better in databall metrics than LeBron was before Steph’s prime). That’s a different question that we’ve already established is essentially impossible to answer properly. But their primes did overlap significantly, and Steph did outstrip LeBron during that time. So yes, in that sense he did become the databall king, but that’s a bit different than being the “king of the databall era,” which is not something I ever said.

They were posted in this very thread 3 posts up in a post you replied to as well as posted other times by other posters that you seem to never respond to.

No need to be rude about it. I replied with a general response to your point, without looking at every source you’d posted, since your point was not actually source-specific.

Anyways, while Steph gets above LeBron in some years in that Engelmann data, that’s definitely more bullish on LeBron. Ultimately, though, Steph was above LeBron in the last three seasons in the data (i.e. 2016-2017 to 2018-2019), while LeBron was above Steph for the first three years of the data that encompassed Steph’s prime. So it’s one of the better pieces of data for LeBron, but it doesn’t exactly refute the idea that prime Steph outdid prime LeBron. Put it in the list of other stuff I listed above, and the overall picture is still very much in Steph’s favor.

Finally, I’ll note that I don’t think that the 26-year and 25-year Cheema samples get to this precise question. They’re very helpful and interesting in general, but I’m not asserting that Steph was better in impact data on average over the course of his career. I don’t think that’s true! Steph started more slowly than LeBron and those years make up a decent portion of his career. So I don’t think it’s at all mutually exclusive that LeBron would be ranked higher in a career-wide average, even if Steph outdid LeBron during Steph’s prime. Indeed, the data we have overall supports both premises.

As mentioned to you several times, NBA ShotCharts data doesn’t include the playoffs, but Curry does really well in them, so I’m not sure why you posted “average“ RAPM numbers that do not exist.. Steph Curry’s numbers look great but Cheema’s numbers do not support the position that “Steph Curry has Outstripped LeBron in impact metrics.” I see what you’re saying about a direct comparison point because they’re playing at the same time (same players in the league, etc.) but you cannot be the king of the databall era by having marginally higher numbers in a few spans, when the other players has the best numbers overall and the overall highest 5-year RAPM spans AND 5 year spans in his 30s (i.e., 2016-2020 and 2017-2021) that are higher than the ones in Curry’s prime.

Again, as I posted, average RPM/average RAPM is nonsensical due to how RAPM is calculated. On a board such as this that values data and nuance, made up data doesn’t further discussion. We have 5 year intervals we can look at.

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but simultaneously saying you can’t average RAPM or RPM data across different years, while also specifically making a direct comparison between LeBron James’s RAPM numbers in one interval to Steph’s RAPM numbers in other intervals (i.e. saying LeBron has “the overall highest 5-year RAPM spans”) doesn’t really make much sense. Either you can compare RAPM numbers across different timeframes, or you can’t.

[homecourtloss]

But here you’re the one comparing RAPM numbers from different timespans, which you’ve otherwise labeled as made up data. The reality is that prime Steph overlapped with prime LeBron, and he outdid prime LeBron James in two different five-year spans in the Cheema data. And the Cheema RAPM measure is less bullish on Steph than the NBAshotcharts or GitHub RAPM.

Steph also outdid LeBron in a boatload of other data. I summarized a lot of it here: viewtopic.php?p=107531004#p107531004. We find that Steph in his prime years (i.e. 2013-2014), Steph outdid LeBron in:

1. Every NBAshotcharts five-year span starting with 2013-2018;
2. In GitHub RAPM for every regular season
3. In 4 out of the 6 playoffs they both played in, by GitHub RAPM
4. In RPM in 8 out of 9 seasons
5. In regular season RAPTOR in every single season
6. In playoff RAPTOR in 5 out of 6 playoffs
7. in 6 out of 9 seasons in LEBRON
8. In two five-year spans of LeBron’s prime in the Cheema RAPM data
9. In AuPM/g in six straight seasons from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 (which I posted about yesterday: viewtopic.php?p=107640153#p107640153).
10. In AuPM/g in 4 out of 6 playoffs

This is an absolute boatload of impact metrics and impact/box-score composites that have prime Steph Curry outdoing LeBron. Obviously, in some data sets, he outdoes LeBron by more than others. For instance, the Cheema RAPM is less bullish on Steph (or rather, maybe more bullish on LeBron) than the NBAshotcharts RAPM. But Steph looks good in all of this stuff, and the overall picture definitely goes Steph’s way.

You seem to not reply to the some of actual responses to your arguments and state new ones, so responding is somewhat frustrating. In any case, Steph does look good, but you said that he was the databall king and for that to be true, he has to look the absolute best, including his peaks being better than LeBron’s peaks (they’re not), his entire set looking better than James’s (it doesn’t even if we take away his first two years AND keep James’s rookie year as an 18 year old). You cannot simply rely on a few years here and there, and say they were playing at the same time, and Steph Curry’s numbers were higher when his overall and best five year stretches, and pick numbers are not as high as James’s.

1. Every NBAshotcharts five-year span starting with 2013-2018; [already explained that this does not include the postseason to respond to , and I’m not sure used or even if there is any priors being used. There was a discussion about it a while back, but I can’t remember now]
2. In GitHub RAPM for every regular season [GitHub RAPM is not taken seriously when other better sources have come about]
3. In 4 out of the 6 playoffs they both played in, by GitHub RAPM [GitHub again?]
4. In RPM in 8 out of 9 seasons [Curry looks great here but are you familiar with the fact that the RPM formula has changed multiple times, including in years in which LeBron was at the top, but wasn’t after the formula change? Are you familiar with the fact that there’s a heavy box Prior used? Are you aware that the formula is completely proprietary to ESPN and they have never revealed the weights of the priors or which priors are even being used. In any case, the discussion that this is all from talked about impact, so looking at RAPM but RPM proven to be quite productive, so this is definitely a feather in Currys cusp]
5. In regular season RAPTOR in every single season [Looks great here but RAPTOR Also uses a box prior. we also just have on/off raptor]
6. In playoff RAPTOR in 5 out of 6 playoffs [not ON/OFF RAPTOR—4 out of the top 5 belong to James INCLUDING Curry’s 2016 and 2017 years. This doesn’t include 2013, 2012, 2009]
7. in 6 out of 9 seasons in LEBRON [also has heavy box prior but Curry looks good]
8. In two five-year spans of LeBron’s prime in the Cheema RAPM data [addressed this in post— LeBron also has five year spans better than Curry including peak curry years and 8 of the 23 highest
9. In AuPM/g in six straight seasons from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 (which I posted about yesterday: viewtopic.php?p=107640153#p107640153). [addressed this too—doesn’t have the highest overall numbers so difficult to call him the real databall king]
10. In AuPM/g in 4 out of 6 playoffs

Please also note that the quote of “king of the databall era” is not a real quote. I was pretty sure I never said that, and I just searched my posts and did not find it. I have said that prime Steph usurped the databall crown, and what I mean by that is that in his prime he was the king of databall metrics. I was not asserting that he was superior overall than LeBron (i.e. not necessarily that prime Steph was better in databall metrics than LeBron was before Steph’s prime). That’s a different question that we’ve already established is essentially impossible to answer properly. But their primes did overlap significantly, and Steph did outstrip LeBron during that time. So yes, in that sense he did become the databall king, but that’s a bit different than being the “king of the databall era,” which is not something I ever said.

Please look at the bolded. You are arguing semantics—there is no meaningful difference. If curry usurped the crown from LeBron (thought to be the king of databall metrics), then what is Curry? See post #25
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2307192&p=107532426&hilit=data#p107532426

VOTE FOR #3: Michael Jordan

VOTE FOR #4: Bill Russell

Nomination: Stephen Curry

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that prime Steph was actually the league’s data ball king. He was dominant in metric after metric, including pure impact metrics and metrics like RAPTOR that have a box score component. And that’s in an era with the guy that this board overwhelmingly voted #1 all time (and who I have as my #2 all time), including when that #1 guy was in his prime years still. I don’t see how this shouldn’t lead to Steph being ranked really highly here..

Not really appreciative of this bad faith argumentation.

Until this past week, you weren’t aware of different RAPM sources yet you’re arguing with certainty using that very same data.

Seems like you’ve been building up to this by citing NBA shot charts (ignoring the other ones) and gitlab RAPM over and over and over again.

What other ones? The only other one I’m aware of is the Cheema one, but I’m not aware of actual publicly available exact numbers for that (only an unlabeled chart, but maybe the numbers are somewhere), so I couldn’t list specific numbers for that. But that Cheema chart indicates Steph peaked out above LeBron for two five-year spans anyways, so it supports the same point. Am happy for you to point out other RAPM measures that I’m not aware of.

No need to be rude about it. I replied with a general response to your point, without looking at every source you’d posted, since your point was not actually source-specific.

Again, this is not good faith argumentation. The entire point of that part of the discussion was to look at these other numbers and you are saying that you replied generally without looking at them? They were linked, labeled, and we already had a discussion about which ones to look at and you specifically didn’t look at them, yet replied.

If we look at Engelmann’s 1997–2022 PI RAPM (RS+PS), Draymond is 12th, most of his monstrous impact coming on defense (basically only Kevin Garnett, Dikembe, Mutombo, and Ben Wallace above him with a few others close by), but being a sizable positive on offense as well. do have some issues with how Draymond would fare without curry, his positive value towards winning margins is generally coming on defense.

If we look at Engelmann’s Single Season 1997–2019 PI RAPM (RS+PS), you have Draymond’s 2016 at number 8, 2015 at 78, 2017 at 195.

If we look at Cheema’s 1997-2022 RAPM 5 year peaks (RS+PS), you have Draymond with seven 5-year stretches in the top 320, one of them at 60, and four from 107 to 118 out of 16,000+, ahead of several Kobe, Steve Nash, Nikola Jokić, Dirk, Kawhi, Leonard, Chris, Paul, Tim Duncan, etc., stretches.

If we want to use the wonky GitLab data, we have Draymond at 22nd/30th in the RS/PS in 2014, 5th/1st in 2015, 1st/1st in 2016, 6th/2nd in 2017, 40th/2nd in 2018, 32nd/6th in 2019.

If we want to use NBA ShotCharts RAPM, we have Dray at 48th in 2014, 3rd in 2015, 1st in 2016, 4th in 2017, 49th in 2018, 23rd in 2019.

As mentioned to you several times, NBA ShotCharts data doesn’t include the playoffs, but Curry does really well in them, so I’m not sure why you posted “average“ RAPM numbers that do not exist.. Steph Curry’s numbers look great but Cheema’s numbers do not support the position that “Steph Curry has Outstripped LeBron in impact metrics.” I see what you’re saying about a direct comparison point because they’re playing at the same time (same players in the league, etc.) but you cannot be the king of the databall era by having marginally higher numbers in a few spans, when the other players has the best numbers overall and the overall highest 5-year RAPM spans AND 5 year spans in his 30s (i.e., 2016-2020 and 2017-2021) that are higher than the ones in Curry’s prime.

Again, as I posted, average RPM/average RAPM is nonsensical due to how RAPM is calculated. On a board such as this that values data and nuance, made up data doesn’t further discussion. We have 5 year intervals we can look at.

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but simultaneously saying you can’t average RAPM or RPM data across different years, while also specifically making a direct comparison between LeBron James’s RAPM numbers in one interval to Steph’s RAPM numbers in other intervals (i.e. saying LeBron has “the overall highest 5-year RAPM spans”) doesn’t really make much sense. Either you can compare RAPM numbers across different timeframes, or you can’t.

You do not understand that comparing intervals, though not perfect, is a lot different than “averaging” RAPM, something you had not thought about and tried to post the data. And again, not really addressing any of the points.

Not going to continue this type of bad faith argumentation.

[SpreeS]

Draymond Green comes out looking extraordinarily well. How do you reconcile that with Curry’s impact?

2015-23 Postseason Warriors
Draymond without Steph: +8.43, 1144 minutes
Steph without Draymond: +2.47, 847 minutes

Draymond without Steph or Durant: +8.62, 826 minutes
Steph without Draymond or Durant: +1.02, 682 minutes

Draymond without Steph or Klay: +20.99, 122 minutes
Steph without Draymond or Klay: +3.20, 346 minutes

Pretty small samples there so…
Draymond and Klay without Steph: +6.83, 1022 minutes
Steph and Klay without Draymond: +1.93, 502 minutes

It has been rightly pointed out this is partially skewed by easier opponents missed by Steph. We can adjust accordingly:

Draymond without Steph in shared games: +3.05, 699 minutes
Steph without Draymond in shared games: +1.80, 770 minutes

Draymond without Steph or Klay in shared games: +15.93, 92 minutes
Steph without Draymond or Klay in shared games: +1.58, 327 minutes
Draymond and Klay without Steph in shared games: +0.89, 718 minutes
Steph and Klay without Draymond in shared games: +1.79, 441 minutes

1998-2019 Playoff RAPM: Draymond = +7.66 (tied #1), Steph = +4.38 (#10)

Time and time again we see that in the postseason it is the symbiosis of these two that carries through.

Look better at RS with 2500min sample size and not to PO with 92min

Green w/o KD/Curry/Klay 2470min -2.87 nrtg

This is all about players replacing. Green is very good and impactful player. All Green combinations with elite scorers like Klay or Curry or Durant will be net positive, b/c they meshes very well.

When Green sits, GSW doesnt have nothing similar to send to the floor. Now we could replace Klay into Bam and things change dramatically

Green + Curry
Bam + Curry

And

Green + Bam

[lessthanjake]

You seem to not reply to the some of actual responses to your arguments and state new ones, so responding is somewhat frustrating. In any case, Steph does look good, but you said that he was the databall king and for that to be true, he has to look the absolute best, including his peaks being better than LeBron’s peaks (they’re not), his entire set looking better than James’s (it doesn’t even if we take away his first two years AND keep James’s rookie year as an 18 year old). You cannot simply rely on a few years here and there, and say they were playing at the same time, and Steph Curry’s numbers were higher when his overall and best five year stretches, and pick numbers are not as high as James’s.

1. Every NBAshotcharts five-year span starting with 2013-2018; [already explained that this does not include the postseason to respond to , and I’m not sure used or even if there is any priors being used. There was a discussion about it a while back, but I can’t remember now]
2. In GitHub RAPM for every regular season [GitHub RAPM is not taken seriously when other better sources have come about]
3. In 4 out of the 6 playoffs they both played in, by GitHub RAPM [GitHub again?]
4. In RPM in 8 out of 9 seasons [Curry looks great here but are you familiar with the fact that the RPM formula has changed multiple times, including in years in which LeBron was at the top, but wasn’t after the formula change? Are you familiar with the fact that there’s a heavy box Prior used? Are you aware that the formula is completely proprietary to ESPN and they have never revealed the weights of the priors or which priors are even being used. In any case, the discussion that this is all from talked about impact, so looking at RAPM but RPM proven to be quite productive, so this is definitely a feather in Currys cusp]
5. In regular season RAPTOR in every single season [Looks great here but RAPTOR Also uses a box prior. we also just have on/off raptor]
6. In playoff RAPTOR in 5 out of 6 playoffs [not ON/OFF RAPTOR—4 out of the top 5 belong to James INCLUDING Curry’s 2016 and 2017 years. This doesn’t include 2013, 2012, 2009]
7. in 6 out of 9 seasons in LEBRON [also has heavy box prior but Curry looks good]
8. In two five-year spans of LeBron’s prime in the Cheema RAPM data [addressed this in post— LeBron also has five year spans better than Curry including peak curry years and 8 of the 23 highest
9. In AuPM/g in six straight seasons from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 (which I posted about yesterday: viewtopic.php?p=107640153#p107640153). [addressed this too—doesn’t have the highest overall numbers so difficult to call him the real databall king]
10. In AuPM/g in 4 out of 6 playoffs

This is just you finding reasons to discount everything under the sun. Yes, I know some of these have box-score components—have never said otherwise. They still are part of the overall “data-ball” picture, and are aimed at measuring impact, just not using a pure RAPM method.

Please look at the bolded. You are arguing semantics—there is no meaningful difference. If curry usurped the crown from LeBron (thought to be the king of databall metrics), then what is Curry? See post #25
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2307192&p=107532426&hilit=data#p107532426

No, I’m not arguing semantics. What’s actually happening is that you’re not understanding what I’ve meant and are arguing a straw man. I’m not saying Steph is the “king of the data ball era.” What I’m saying is that in the time period that was Steph Curry’s prime (i.e. the last decade), he was the databall king. It’s a substantively different concept. The “databall era” and the era of Steph Curry’s prime are not the same thing, which makes what I’m saying and what you’re arguing against completely different concepts. I understand that it’s possible my wording was imprecise or confusing enough that you might’ve gotten the wrong impression, but I do think I’ve actually clarified this already, and certainly with this post I am doing so.

Not really appreciative of this bad faith argumentation.

Until this past week, you weren’t aware of different RAPM sources yet you’re arguing with certainty using that very same data.

Why the hostility? I’ve not been rude to you at all. Perhaps you might try to be polite in your responses. And, to address this, I’d say I’m perfectly capable of rapidly taking in and understanding things, so I don’t see your point.

Again, this is not good faith argumentation. The entire point of that part of the discussion was to look at these other numbers and you are saying that you replied generally without looking at them? They were linked, labeled, and we already had a discussion about which ones to look at and you specifically didn’t look at them, yet replied.

No, you were making a general point that Draymond Green looks really good in impact metrics, and asking what that does to Steph’s case. Your point was not remotely specific to any particular source, and I did not feel the need to delve deeply into each one you cited, rather than just reading your summary of what they said about Draymond. There’s limited time in the day. I’m sorry if it upset you that I took what you reported about the sources at face value without further investigation, and responded to your general point. But I think it is not at all fair to suggest that I was not engaging in “good faith argumentation,” when your point was not based on anything specific about any particular measure but rather about the general fact that Draymond looks really good in impact metrics. I read your post and responded to that general point. And, again, I’m not sure why you’re responding with hostility to me.

You do not understand that comparing intervals, though not perfect, is a lot different than “averaging” RAPM, something you had not thought about and tried to post the data. And again, not really addressing any of the points.

Not going to continue this type of bad faith argumentation.

This is just splitting hairs. Comparing RAPM values across different five-year spans isn’t any more valid than comparing RAPM values across different one-year spans. They both have the same fundamental flaw. If you think that doing the latter constitutes “made up” data, then I don’t see how you can base arguments on the former.

[homecourtloss]

You seem to not reply to the some of actual responses to your arguments and state new ones, so responding is somewhat frustrating. In any case, Steph does look good, but you said that he was the databall king and for that to be true, he has to look the absolute best, including his peaks being better than LeBron’s peaks (they’re not), his entire set looking better than James’s (it doesn’t even if we take away his first two years AND keep James’s rookie year as an 18 year old). You cannot simply rely on a few years here and there, and say they were playing at the same time, and Steph Curry’s numbers were higher when his overall and best five year stretches, and pick numbers are not as high as James’s.

1. Every NBAshotcharts five-year span starting with 2013-2018; [already explained that this does not include the postseason to respond to , and I’m not sure used or even if there is any priors being used. There was a discussion about it a while back, but I can’t remember now]
2. In GitHub RAPM for every regular season [GitHub RAPM is not taken seriously when other better sources have come about]
3. In 4 out of the 6 playoffs they both played in, by GitHub RAPM [GitHub again?]
4. In RPM in 8 out of 9 seasons [Curry looks great here but are you familiar with the fact that the RPM formula has changed multiple times, including in years in which LeBron was at the top, but wasn’t after the formula change? Are you familiar with the fact that there’s a heavy box Prior used? Are you aware that the formula is completely proprietary to ESPN and they have never revealed the weights of the priors or which priors are even being used. In any case, the discussion that this is all from talked about impact, so looking at RAPM but RPM proven to be quite productive, so this is definitely a feather in Currys cusp]
5. In regular season RAPTOR in every single season [Looks great here but RAPTOR Also uses a box prior. we also just have on/off raptor]
6. In playoff RAPTOR in 5 out of 6 playoffs [not ON/OFF RAPTOR—4 out of the top 5 belong to James INCLUDING Curry’s 2016 and 2017 years. This doesn’t include 2013, 2012, 2009]
7. in 6 out of 9 seasons in LEBRON [also has heavy box prior but Curry looks good]
8. In two five-year spans of LeBron’s prime in the Cheema RAPM data [addressed this in post— LeBron also has five year spans better than Curry including peak curry years and 8 of the 23 highest
9. In AuPM/g in six straight seasons from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 (which I posted about yesterday: viewtopic.php?p=107640153#p107640153). [addressed this too—doesn’t have the highest overall numbers so difficult to call him the real databall king]
10. In AuPM/g in 4 out of 6 playoffs

This is just you finding reasons to discount everything under the sun. Yes, I know some of these have box-score components—have never said otherwise. They still are part of the overall “data-ball” picture, and are aimed at measuring impact, just not using a pure RAPM method.

Please look at the bolded. You are arguing semantics—there is no meaningful difference. If curry usurped the crown from LeBron (thought to be the king of databall metrics), then what is Curry? See post #25
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2307192&p=107532426&hilit=data#p107532426

No, I’m not arguing semantics. What’s actually happening is that you’re not understanding what I’ve meant and are arguing a straw man. I’m not saying Steph is the “king of the data ball era.” What I’m saying is that in the time period that was Steph Curry’s prime (i.e. the last decade), he was the databall king. It’s a substantively different concept. The “databall era” and the era of Steph Curry’s prime are not the same thing, which makes what I’m saying and what you’re arguing against completely different concepts. I understand that it’s possible my wording was imprecise or confusing enough that you might’ve gotten the wrong impression, but I do think I’ve actually clarified this already, and certainly with this post I am doing so.

Not really appreciative of this bad faith argumentation.

Until this past week, you weren’t aware of different RAPM sources yet you’re arguing with certainty using that very same data.

Why the hostility? I’ve not been rude to you at all. Perhaps you might try to be polite in your responses. And, to address this, I’d say I’m perfectly capable of rapidly taking in and understanding things, so I don’t see your point.

Again, this is not good faith argumentation. The entire point of that part of the discussion was to look at these other numbers and you are saying that you replied generally without looking at them? They were linked, labeled, and we already had a discussion about which ones to look at and you specifically didn’t look at them, yet replied.

No, you were making a general point that Draymond Green looks really good in impact metrics, and asking what that does to Steph’s case. Your point was not remotely specific to any particular source, and I did not feel the need to delve deeply into each one you cited, rather than just reading your summary of what they said about Draymond. There’s limited time in the day. I’m sorry if it upset you that I took what you reported about the sources at face value without further investigation, and responded to your general point. But I think it is not at all fair to suggest that I was not engaging in “good faith argumentation,” when your point was not based on anything specific about any particular measure but rather about the general fact that Draymond looks really good in impact metrics. I read your post and responded to that general point. And, again, I’m not sure why you’re responding with hostility to me.

You do not understand that comparing intervals, though not perfect, is a lot different than “averaging” RAPM, something you had not thought about and tried to post the data. And again, not really addressing any of the points.

Not going to continue this type of bad faith argumentation.

This is just splitting hairs. Comparing RAPM values across different five-year spans isn’t any more valid than comparing RAPM values across different one-year spans. They both have the same fundamental flaw. If you think that doing the latter constitutes “made up” data, then I don’t see how you can base arguments on the former.

Again more avoiding the arguments, selective responses, and bad faith argumentation. No need to further continue this.

[lessthanjake]

One other thing I’d note about the playoff on-off thing is that, beyond the low-sample-size issue, I’m pretty sure that the data is largely caused by Draymond having advantages in easy early rounds—even beyond just the effect of Steph missing some of those games. If we just look at the Finals, WCFs, or a first-round or conference-semifinals that went to at least 6 games from 2015-2023, then, by my count of their minutes and basketball-reference’s reporting of their plus-minus in each game, the Warriors outscored opponents by +6.65 per 48 minutes with Steph on the floor, and by +6.07 per 48 minutes with Draymond on the floor (not sure how to get per 100 possession data for combinations of particular series’s like this, but per 48 mins is comparable/valid way of looking at it).

So, I’m not sure I’d put much credence in an argument that is based on relatively low-sample-size playoff data that are apparently caused by +/- disparities in blowout early-round series’. It’s basically just Draymond being on the court for more running up the score against weak opponents. And, I’ll note that there’s actually one playoff opponent that drops out using this method that actually was pretty decent in the regular season (the 2017 Jazz, which won 51 games and had a 4.0 SRS). And that’s actually a series where the Warriors clearly had a better net rating with Steph than with Draymond—with the Warriors outscoring the Jazz by +23.7 per 48 minutes with Steph on the floor and by +17.12 per 48 minutes with Draymond the floor.

In general, higher sample sizes are better, so we should look at regular season + playoff data, and if we do that then Steph’s on-off stats look clearly superior to Draymond’s. The rationale for preferencing playoff data despite it being much noisier is that it’s higher stakes and more difficult, but when an argument hinges on playoff data that reverses when you take out easy playoff series against weak opponents, then it’s hard to really see why much value should be put on it.

[ShaqAttac]

I have Bam Russell leading Duncan 12-7 if anyone is curious, though most Russell voters have Duncan 2nd anyway. Maybe we can cut the next vote down a day if it becomes clear Duncan us going to stroll to victory.

What purpose did this serve?

are jokes illegal?

[rk2023]

I have Bam Russell leading Duncan 12-7 if anyone is curious, though most Russell voters have Duncan 2nd anyway. Maybe we can cut the next vote down a day if it becomes clear Duncan us going to stroll to victory.

What purpose did this serve?

are jokes illegal?

No. Just felt this one was rather disrespectful.

[LukaTheGOAT]

You seem to not reply to the some of actual responses to your arguments and state new ones, so responding is somewhat frustrating. In any case, Steph does look good, but you said that he was the databall king and for that to be true, he has to look the absolute best, including his peaks being better than LeBron’s peaks (they’re not), his entire set looking better than James’s (it doesn’t even if we take away his first two years AND keep James’s rookie year as an 18 year old). You cannot simply rely on a few years here and there, and say they were playing at the same time, and Steph Curry’s numbers were higher when his overall and best five year stretches, and pick numbers are not as high as James’s.

1. Every NBAshotcharts five-year span starting with 2013-2018; [already explained that this does not include the postseason to respond to , and I’m not sure used or even if there is any priors being used. There was a discussion about it a while back, but I can’t remember now]
2. In GitHub RAPM for every regular season [GitHub RAPM is not taken seriously when other better sources have come about]
3. In 4 out of the 6 playoffs they both played in, by GitHub RAPM [GitHub again?]
4. In RPM in 8 out of 9 seasons [Curry looks great here but are you familiar with the fact that the RPM formula has changed multiple times, including in years in which LeBron was at the top, but wasn’t after the formula change? Are you familiar with the fact that there’s a heavy box Prior used? Are you aware that the formula is completely proprietary to ESPN and they have never revealed the weights of the priors or which priors are even being used. In any case, the discussion that this is all from talked about impact, so looking at RAPM but RPM proven to be quite productive, so this is definitely a feather in Currys cusp]
5. In regular season RAPTOR in every single season [Looks great here but RAPTOR Also uses a box prior. we also just have on/off raptor]
6. In playoff RAPTOR in 5 out of 6 playoffs [not ON/OFF RAPTOR—4 out of the top 5 belong to James INCLUDING Curry’s 2016 and 2017 years. This doesn’t include 2013, 2012, 2009]
7. in 6 out of 9 seasons in LEBRON [also has heavy box prior but Curry looks good]
8. In two five-year spans of LeBron’s prime in the Cheema RAPM data [addressed this in post— LeBron also has five year spans better than Curry including peak curry years and 8 of the 23 highest
9. In AuPM/g in six straight seasons from 2013-2014 to 2018-2019 (which I posted about yesterday: viewtopic.php?p=107640153#p107640153). [addressed this too—doesn’t have the highest overall numbers so difficult to call him the real databall king]
10. In AuPM/g in 4 out of 6 playoffs

This is just you finding reasons to discount everything under the sun. Yes, I know some of these have box-score components—have never said otherwise. They still are part of the overall “data-ball” picture, and are aimed at measuring impact, just not using a pure RAPM method.

Please look at the bolded. You are arguing semantics—there is no meaningful difference. If curry usurped the crown from LeBron (thought to be the king of databall metrics), then what is Curry? See post #25
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2307192&p=107532426&hilit=data#p107532426

No, I’m not arguing semantics. What’s actually happening is that you’re not understanding what I’ve meant and are arguing a straw man. I’m not saying Steph is the “king of the data ball era.” What I’m saying is that in the time period that was Steph Curry’s prime (i.e. the last decade), he was the databall king. It’s a substantively different concept. The “databall era” and the era of Steph Curry’s prime are not the same thing, which makes what I’m saying and what you’re arguing against completely different concepts. I understand that it’s possible my wording was imprecise or confusing enough that you might’ve gotten the wrong impression, but I do think I’ve actually clarified this already, and certainly with this post I am doing so.

Not really appreciative of this bad faith argumentation.

Until this past week, you weren’t aware of different RAPM sources yet you’re arguing with certainty using that very same data.

Why the hostility? I’ve not been rude to you at all. Perhaps you might try to be polite in your responses. And, to address this, I’d say I’m perfectly capable of rapidly taking in and understanding things, so I don’t see your point.

Again, this is not good faith argumentation. The entire point of that part of the discussion was to look at these other numbers and you are saying that you replied generally without looking at them? They were linked, labeled, and we already had a discussion about which ones to look at and you specifically didn’t look at them, yet replied.

No, you were making a general point that Draymond Green looks really good in impact metrics, and asking what that does to Steph’s case. Your point was not remotely specific to any particular source, and I did not feel the need to delve deeply into each one you cited, rather than just reading your summary of what they said about Draymond. There’s limited time in the day. I’m sorry if it upset you that I took what you reported about the sources at face value without further investigation, and responded to your general point. But I think it is not at all fair to suggest that I was not engaging in “good faith argumentation,” when your point was not based on anything specific about any particular measure but rather about the general fact that Draymond looks really good in impact metrics. I read your post and responded to that general point. And, again, I’m not sure why you’re responding with hostility to me.

You do not understand that comparing intervals, though not perfect, is a lot different than “averaging” RAPM, something you had not thought about and tried to post the data. And again, not really addressing any of the points.

Not going to continue this type of bad faith argumentation.

This is just splitting hairs. Comparing RAPM values across different five-year spans isn’t any more valid than comparing RAPM values across different one-year spans. They both have the same fundamental flaw. If you think that doing the latter constitutes “made up” data, then I don’t see how you can base arguments on the former.

Know your post is valid, I would just argue going season by season to compare guys, properly doesn't give accurate credit to longer AuPM/G span. Yes, Steph had single PS, ahead of Lebron in the stat, however if we go by 3-year PS spans encompassing 2014 via Backpicks:

2014-2016 AuPM/G
Steph AuPM/G-5.7
Lebron AuPM/G-5.8

2015-2017
Steph AuPM/G-4.3
Lebron AuPM/G-7.4

2016-2018
Steph AuPM/G-4
Lebron AuPM/G-7.6

2017-2019
Steph AuPM/G-5.5
Lebron-N/A (I don't why we have scores for non-Curry PS years, but not this year of Lebron)

2018-2020 (Yes, I know Steph doesn't make the PS in 20 and 21).
Steph AuPM/G-4.2
Lebron AuPM/G-4.7

2019-2021
Steph AuPM/G-5.2
Lebron AuPM/G-6.8

We don't have 3-year data including 22 and 23 on Backpicks.

The 3-year numbers are not done by averaging numbers together, but through another method. However, if we go by 3-year AuPM/G measures that should give additional insights, Lebron is better in every 3-year stretch up to 21.

[lessthanjake]

Know your post is valid, I would just argue going season by season to compare guys, properly doesn't give accurate credit to longer AuPM/G span. Yes, Steph had single PS, ahead of Lebron in the stat, however if we go by 3-year PS spans encompassing 2014 via Backpicks:

2014-2016 AuPM/G
Steph AuPM/G-5.7
Lebron AuPM/G-5.8

2015-2017
Steph AuPM/G-4.3
Lebron AuPM/G-7.4

2016-2018
Steph AuPM/G-4
Lebron AuPM/G-7.6

2017-2019
Steph AuPM/G-5.5
Lebron-N/A (I don't why we have scores for non-Curry PS years, but not this year of Lebron)

2018-2020 (Yes, I know Steph doesn't make the PS in 20 and 21).
Steph AuPM/G-4.2
Lebron AuPM/G-4.7

2019-2021
Steph AuPM/G-5.2
Lebron AuPM/G-6.8

We don't have 3-year data including 22 and 23 on Backpicks.

The 3-year numbers are not done by averaging numbers together, but through another method. However, if we go by 3-year AuPM/G measures that should give additional insights, Lebron is better in every 3-year stretch up to 21.

Yeah, sure, that’s true, but it’s a pretty minor gripe IMO. To begin with, we should also acknowledge that if we look at 3-year regular season AuPM/g, we also have Steph ahead of LeBron in *every single* three-year span, instead of LeBron actually popping ahead a couple times like he does in the single-year spans. So shifting to three-year spans would make Steph look *better* than single-year spans in regular season AuPM/g. But yes, three-year playoff AuPM/g looks a good deal better for LeBron than one-year playoff AuPM/g does (and has LeBron consistently ahead), mostly because the 2015-2016 playoffs (where Steph was injured and substantially underperformed) is smack in the middle of a bunch of Steph’s other best years and therefore messes up some three-year spans for him (followed by other spans not really being three-year spans because these guys were missing playoffs). So yeah, if you throw the 2015-2016 playoffs into a three-playoff timespan, it’ll lead to LeBron being higher in PS AuPM/g over that three-year span, but it’s also true that Steph had a higher AuPM/g in more individual playoffs. So it’s kind of just a question of average vs. median, in a sense. And I certainly don’t think that LeBron being ahead of Steph in three-year postseason AuPM/g (but not in most one-year postseason AuPM/g’s) comes anywhere near outweighing prime Steph’s dominance overall in metrics in the last decade (see a summary listed here: viewtopic.php?p=107669040#p107669040). It’s just an undeniable thing, and given how great LeBron is, I think this has to be grappled with as a major plus factor for Steph.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Know your post is valid, I would just argue going season by season to compare guys, properly doesn't give accurate credit to longer AuPM/G span. Yes, Steph had single PS, ahead of Lebron in the stat, however if we go by 3-year PS spans encompassing 2014 via Backpicks:

2014-2016 AuPM/G
Steph AuPM/G-5.7
Lebron AuPM/G-5.8

2015-2017
Steph AuPM/G-4.3
Lebron AuPM/G-7.4

2016-2018
Steph AuPM/G-4
Lebron AuPM/G-7.6

2017-2019
Steph AuPM/G-5.5
Lebron-N/A (I don't why we have scores for non-Curry PS years, but not this year of Lebron)

2018-2020 (Yes, I know Steph doesn't make the PS in 20 and 21).
Steph AuPM/G-4.2
Lebron AuPM/G-4.7

2019-2021
Steph AuPM/G-5.2
Lebron AuPM/G-6.8

We don't have 3-year data including 22 and 23 on Backpicks.

The 3-year numbers are not done by averaging numbers together, but through another method. However, if we go by 3-year AuPM/G measures that should give additional insights, Lebron is better in every 3-year stretch up to 21.

Yeah, sure, that’s true, but it’s a pretty minor gripe IMO. To begin with, we should also acknowledge that if we look at 3-year regular season AuPM/g, we also have Steph ahead of LeBron in *every single* three-year span, instead of LeBron actually popping ahead a couple times like he does in the single-year spans. So shifting to three-year spans would make Steph look *better* than single-year spans in regular season AuPM/g. But yes, three-year playoff AuPM/g looks a good deal better for LeBron than one-year playoff AuPM/g does (and has LeBron consistently ahead), mostly because the 2015-2016 playoffs (where Steph was injured and substantially underperformed) is smack in the middle of a bunch of Steph’s other best years and therefore messes up some three-year spans for him (followed by other spans not really being three-year spans because these guys were missing playoffs). So yeah, if you throw the 2015-2016 playoffs into a three-playoff timespan, it’ll lead to LeBron being higher in PS AuPM/g over that three-year span, but it’s also true that Steph had a higher AuPM/g in more individual playoffs. So it’s kind of just a question of average vs. median, in a sense. And I certainly don’t think that LeBron being ahead of Steph in three-year postseason AuPM/g (but not in most one-year postseason AuPM/g’s) comes anywhere near outweighing prime Steph’s dominance overall in metrics in the last decade (see a summary listed here: viewtopic.php?p=107669040#p107669040). It’s just an undeniable thing, and given how great LeBron is, I think this has to be grappled with as a major plus factor for Steph.

The reason Lebron's prime from 15 onward or so is considered better than Steph is because of PS play, which is why I posted it. I think there was a a thread a few weeks ago, and people picked Lebron because of PS play

viewtopic.php?t=2290454

[lessthanjake]

Know your post is valid, I would just argue going season by season to compare guys, properly doesn't give accurate credit to longer AuPM/G span. Yes, Steph had single PS, ahead of Lebron in the stat, however if we go by 3-year PS spans encompassing 2014 via Backpicks:

2014-2016 AuPM/G
Steph AuPM/G-5.7
Lebron AuPM/G-5.8

2015-2017
Steph AuPM/G-4.3
Lebron AuPM/G-7.4

2016-2018
Steph AuPM/G-4
Lebron AuPM/G-7.6

2017-2019
Steph AuPM/G-5.5
Lebron-N/A (I don't why we have scores for non-Curry PS years, but not this year of Lebron)

2018-2020 (Yes, I know Steph doesn't make the PS in 20 and 21).
Steph AuPM/G-4.2
Lebron AuPM/G-4.7

2019-2021
Steph AuPM/G-5.2
Lebron AuPM/G-6.8

We don't have 3-year data including 22 and 23 on Backpicks.

The 3-year numbers are not done by averaging numbers together, but through another method. However, if we go by 3-year AuPM/G measures that should give additional insights, Lebron is better in every 3-year stretch up to 21.

Yeah, sure, that’s true, but it’s a pretty minor gripe IMO. To begin with, we should also acknowledge that if we look at 3-year regular season AuPM/g, we also have Steph ahead of LeBron in *every single* three-year span, instead of LeBron actually popping ahead a couple times like he does in the single-year spans. So shifting to three-year spans would make Steph look *better* than single-year spans in regular season AuPM/g. But yes, three-year playoff AuPM/g looks a good deal better for LeBron than one-year playoff AuPM/g does (and has LeBron consistently ahead), mostly because the 2015-2016 playoffs (where Steph was injured and substantially underperformed) is smack in the middle of a bunch of Steph’s other best years and therefore messes up some three-year spans for him (followed by other spans not really being three-year spans because these guys were missing playoffs). So yeah, if you throw the 2015-2016 playoffs into a three-playoff timespan, it’ll lead to LeBron being higher in PS AuPM/g over that three-year span, but it’s also true that Steph had a higher AuPM/g in more individual playoffs. So it’s kind of just a question of average vs. median, in a sense. And I certainly don’t think that LeBron being ahead of Steph in three-year postseason AuPM/g (but not in most one-year postseason AuPM/g’s) comes anywhere near outweighing prime Steph’s dominance overall in metrics in the last decade (see a summary listed here: viewtopic.php?p=107669040#p107669040). It’s just an undeniable thing, and given how great LeBron is, I think this has to be grappled with as a major plus factor for Steph.

The reason Lebron's prime from 14 onward or so is considered better than Steph is because of PS play, which is why I posted it. I think there was a a thread a few weeks ago, and people picked Lebron because of PS play.

Yeah, I get that, but even there the metrics don’t have LeBron ahead more often year-to-year, but rather largely have LeBron ahead over various timespans because of a year where Steph was injured in the playoffs and LeBron played a lot better than him. In a sense, Steph being injured in those 2016 playoffs is part of the story rather than something we can just erase, so it’s not unfair to include it, but the fact that metrics have Steph ahead in more playoffs than LeBron is also part of the story. As is the regular season. And, overall, I don’t think it can fairly be said that LeBron outdid Steph in impact/impact-box metrics during Steph’s prime. That is very relevant here. Not as a way to say Steph should be above LeBron—LeBron has already been voted in, and I had LeBron ahead of Steph myself—but by way of analogy regarding how good Steph’s prime was.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Yeah, sure, that’s true, but it’s a pretty minor gripe IMO. To begin with, we should also acknowledge that if we look at 3-year regular season AuPM/g, we also have Steph ahead of LeBron in *every single* three-year span, instead of LeBron actually popping ahead a couple times like he does in the single-year spans. So shifting to three-year spans would make Steph look *better* than single-year spans in regular season AuPM/g. But yes, three-year playoff AuPM/g looks a good deal better for LeBron than one-year playoff AuPM/g does (and has LeBron consistently ahead), mostly because the 2015-2016 playoffs (where Steph was injured and substantially underperformed) is smack in the middle of a bunch of Steph’s other best years and therefore messes up some three-year spans for him (followed by other spans not really being three-year spans because these guys were missing playoffs). So yeah, if you throw the 2015-2016 playoffs into a three-playoff timespan, it’ll lead to LeBron being higher in PS AuPM/g over that three-year span, but it’s also true that Steph had a higher AuPM/g in more individual playoffs. So it’s kind of just a question of average vs. median, in a sense. And I certainly don’t think that LeBron being ahead of Steph in three-year postseason AuPM/g (but not in most one-year postseason AuPM/g’s) comes anywhere near outweighing prime Steph’s dominance overall in metrics in the last decade (see a summary listed here: viewtopic.php?p=107669040#p107669040). It’s just an undeniable thing, and given how great LeBron is, I think this has to be grappled with as a major plus factor for Steph.

The reason Lebron's prime from 14 onward or so is considered better than Steph is because of PS play, which is why I posted it. I think there was a a thread a few weeks ago, and people picked Lebron because of PS play.

Yeah, I get that, but even there the metrics don’t have LeBron ahead more often year-to-year, but rather largely have LeBron ahead over various timespans because of a year where Steph was injured in the playoffs and LeBron played a lot better than him. In a sense, Steph being injured in those 2016 playoffs is part of the story rather than something we can just erase, so it’s not unfair to include it, but the fact that metrics have Steph ahead in more playoffs than LeBron is also part of the story. As is the regular season. And, overall, I don’t think it can fairly be said that LeBron outdid Steph in impact/impact-box metrics during Steph’s prime. That is very relevant here. Not as a way to say Steph should be above LeBron—LeBron has already been voted in, and I had LeBron ahead of Steph myself—but by way of analogy regarding how good Steph’s prime was.

Ehhh, I made a post on it in the thread. I have Steph winning more years, but had Lebron winning the overall time-frame due time the specialty of his peak years (16-18 time span).

[therealbig3]

Shaq was SO dominant in 2000 though, in a way we had never seen Duncan be.

What exactly makes you believe it's the case? Duncan didn't score as many points as Shaq, is there anything else though?

In 2002...felt like a LeBron vs KD in 2014 year, where the playoffs kind of proved who the best really was.

It would be a good analogy if Durant outplayed James in the playoffs h2h. I have no idea how you can come up with the conclusion that Shaq was better after their h2h encounter.

I think looking through their matchups, Duncan actually did get the better of Shaq in 3 out of 5 matchups (99, 02, 03), and Shaq outplayed Duncan in the other two (01 and 04). So I retract my statement, you are correct, LeBron vs KD is not a good analogy. However, H2H doesn't always tell the whole story, and Shaq did go on to dominate other teams offensively after their 02 matchup and was considered the consensus best player in the league after the season. It's also fair to point out that in 4/5 matchups, Duncan had David Robinson next to him sharing a lot of the defensive burden and being the primary cover on Shaq. Other than Shaq, did the Lakers have another defensive big man that could effectively slow down Duncan? Grant in 01 and K. Malone in 04...two series in which Duncan notoriously struggled and the Spurs got owned.

I don't think Shaq simply scores more than Duncan...I think his overall offensive impact is clearly way above Duncan's. It goes back to what I said in the beginning, Duncan is better defensively, Shaq is better offensively...I don't see a point in arguing either of those things, because it's so obvious. I think Shaq at his peak leveled up his defense in terms of his focus and commitment to the point that Duncan's advantage on that end was smaller. I don't think offensively, Duncan could ever actually match Shaq, because even if their stat lines were similar, Shaq's effect on opposing defenses was still greater. Similar to what Steph Curry does on the perimeter, Shaq did that to interior defenses.

At his peak (00-02), the Lakers ranked 1st, 21st, and 7th defensively. I think they coasted in a pretty obvious way in the 01 RS. In the PS, they were dominant again defensively. Those teams are also some of the best PS offenses of all time. Shaq was able to anchor an elite team on both ends of the court at his peak. Duncan did not, as his Spurs' offenses were never elite, especially in the PS.

[70sFan]

I don't think Shaq simply scores more than Duncan...I think his overall offensive impact is clearly way above Duncan's. It goes back to what I said in the beginning, Duncan is better defensively, Shaq is better offensively...I don't see a point in arguing either of those things, because it's so obvious.

We are in agreement here.

I think Shaq at his peak leveled up his defense in terms of his focus and commitment to the point that Duncan's advantage on that end was smaller. I don't think offensively, Duncan could ever actually match Shaq, because even if their stat lines were similar, Shaq's effect on opposing defenses was still greater. Similar to what Steph Curry does on the perimeter, Shaq did that to interior defenses.

Yeah and Shaq even at his absolute best defensively can't match Duncan's defensive impact. It doesn't matter that he "leveled up", Shaq could never match Duncan's defense. It goes both ways.

At his peak (00-02), the Lakers ranked 1st, 21st, and 7th defensively. I think they coasted in a pretty obvious way in the 01 RS. In the PS, they were dominant again defensively. Those teams are also some of the best PS offenses of all time. Shaq was able to anchor an elite team on both ends of the court at his peak. Duncan did not, as his Spurs' offenses were never elite, especially in the PS.

I don't think we can tell that Shaq "anchored" these teams on defense and if he did, the results aren't nearly as great as you describe them. You already mentioned their horrible defensive performance in 2001 season (explaining it by coasting), but how can you explain that the Lakers went from the best defense in the league in RS to below average rDRtg in the playoffs in 2000? In 2002, the Lakers were better defensively with Shaq on the bench (102.75 ON DRtg vs 100.69 OFF DRtg), although to his credit the Lakers were still good in the playoffs with him on the court, but there were some very rough moments against the Kings.

Then of course there are surrounding seasons that were definitely within Shaq's peak (1998, 1999, 2003) where his defense looked straight bad in the playoffs.

Again, I fail to see how you can understand that Shaq's offensive advantage goes beyond numbers, but you fail to admit the same on defense.