RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Magic Johnson)

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

iggymcfrack
RealGM
Posts: 11,924
And1: 9,421
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#181 » by iggymcfrack » Tue Aug 1, 2023 12:01 am

70sFan wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:Meanwhile, Magic is almost universally regarded as a poor defender with the range being from a little below average to downright being a liability.

That's not true at all, plenty of people view Magic as average defender overall, with some seasons ranking higher and some lower.

If your opinion about Magic's defense is so strong, could you make a case for him being a defensive liability? I have never seen any study that would suggest anything like that.


I'm just going on reports of people who watched him play which is the best information I have available. It feels like the range is likely somewhere in the 55th to 70th percentile for Steph and maybe like the 15th through 45th percentile for Magic with obviously a lot more uncertainty on Magic's side of the equation. That's still a very significant difference on average even if it's hard to pin down exactly where Magic falls on the spectrum.
iggymcfrack
RealGM
Posts: 11,924
And1: 9,421
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#182 » by iggymcfrack » Tue Aug 1, 2023 12:08 am

I’m gonna have to really make the case hard for David Robinson next thread. I really don’t wanna be stuck voting between Kobe, Bird, Mikan, Oscar, and West after Steph goes. I’d probably vote for Oscar out of those choices, but I have Robinson 11 spots ahead of him. He’s an all-time defender with top 5 box stats, and all-time impact numbers as well. He absolutely deserves to at least be under consideration.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,361
And1: 5,639
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#183 » by One_and_Done » Tue Aug 1, 2023 12:13 am

I'll just note I've been messaged about joining like minded chat groups to discuss the modernist candidates outside of realgm. I have no interest in interacting with anyone outside of this forum, and I think most here want to be principled about this. That said a preferential nominee vote might be prudent to nip this in the bud.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,266
And1: 2,273
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#184 » by rk2023 » Tue Aug 1, 2023 12:21 am

One_and_Done wrote:The nominations requiring a plurality is starting to become a problem. We might need a second preference. Right now there's basically an incentive for the modernists to get together and align around one player each vote until they're all nominated. If we don't do that then the opposite wll happen; West will get up on a plurality. Then the West voters will switch to Oscar and he will get up on a plurality. Then the same voters will switch to Moses or Pettit and so on. I feel like a majority of voters would prefer someone else to get up, but are being too principled to switch. This is going to lead to a clunch of oranges to choose from because there are no apples to be had.

This will impact discussion because most people will feel little need to debate the merits of candidates who don't have enough traction.

The flip side of this will be some potentially weird votes where guys like D.Rob or K.Malone will get voted in the moment their nominated, because it's them or 4 old timers.


Or people, shockingly enough, have top 10-20s that are clustered and dispersed in close groupings across vastly different eras!
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,933
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#185 » by OhayoKD » Tue Aug 1, 2023 12:25 am

rk2023 wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:The nominations requiring a plurality is starting to become a problem. We might need a second preference. Right now there's basically an incentive for the modernists to get together and align around one player each vote until they're all nominated. If we don't do that then the opposite wll happen; West will get up on a plurality. Then the West voters will switch to Oscar and he will get up on a plurality. Then the same voters will switch to Moses or Pettit and so on. I feel like a majority of voters would prefer someone else to get up, but are being too principled to switch. This is going to lead to a clunch of oranges to choose from because there are no apples to be had.

This will impact discussion because most people will feel little need to debate the merits of candidates who don't have enough traction.

The flip side of this will be some potentially weird votes where guys like D.Rob or K.Malone will get voted in the moment their nominated, because it's them or 4 old timers.


Or people, shockingly enough, have top 10-20s that are clustered and dispersed in close groupings across vastly different eras!

Yeah, but they're right about the pluarity thing.

I would have been nominating mikan for the last few threads with an alternate. I believe trex and eminence also made tactical decisions there. ShaqA too.
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,266
And1: 2,273
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#186 » by rk2023 » Tue Aug 1, 2023 12:28 am

homecourtloss wrote:
Great post! It would really be interesting to see Jerry West in a more horizontal game that spreads out the court, rewards long-distance shooting, rewards defense on long distance shooting…His defensive instincts, length, ability to contest without fouling might be even more valuable in a modern game that includes three-point shooting. Additionally, I think it’s playmaking might be more valuable in a modern era, given that he can put pressure on the defense off the dribble and is of course an outsized threat to score off the dribble.

The two players that have gone up the most in my estimation during my time here on the PC board are Jerry west and Oscar Robertson


Much appreciated in the former-most, well said for the rest! I'm very keen on his translation today in theory (though not a part of my evaluation / advocacy for West in this projects' scope) due to how decisive and poised his blending of off/on-ball scoring skills are - and more-so how I think his style of defensive "free-safety" playing is very well suited for today.

Definitely makes sense to be higher on them as a result of being exposed to new information, which various analytics/historians [with a decent overlap between the two monikers] have presented very well - while simultaneously debunking a lot of more disingenuous winning-bias oriented narratives.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,933
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#187 » by OhayoKD » Tue Aug 1, 2023 12:33 am

One_and_Done wrote:I'll just note I've been messaged about joining like minded chat groups to discuss the modernist candidates outside of realgm. I have no interest in interacting with anyone outside of this forum, and I think most here want to be principled about this. That said a preferential nominee vote might be prudent to nip this in the bud.

"there are a lot of dudes from realgm" as "let's discuss modernist candidates" is an interesting interpretation...
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,348
And1: 3,008
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#188 » by lessthanjake » Tue Aug 1, 2023 1:09 am

OhayoKD wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
No, you are just objectively incorrect that Passer Rating is trying to measure the quality of off-ball creation. It just isn’t.

No, box-creation does, because Box-creation is a volume metric. So the number of indirect looks Steph, Bird or Kobe generate is relevant.

Passer rating is an effeciency metric. What is included and not included is specifcally aimed at estimating the worth of what they are creating. All those indirect looks are indicative of Steph being a high-volume creator. They do not make him a more efficient one. The more "creation" is contingent on a teammate doing something correctly, the less valuable it is.

If Magic Johnson passes for an open layup with no in-between, the quality of the in-between player is less relevant. If Steph Curry is creating something indirectly, then the middle-men get a bigger chunk of that value. The off-ball creation is reflected in box-creatoin. It is not and should not be included in anything that is measuring creation quality.


Okay, so we are in agreement that Passer Rating does not in any way measure the quality of looks created by off-ball creation, I guess? And that means that it is objectively not measuring the efficiency of Box Creation. Which is the point I have been making. They’re not directly related stats.

We actually saw this when "shot quality differential" suddenly swung in Lebron's favor when you account for contested or uncontested looks. Steph's creation is more teammate dependent and his teammates are doing more lifting. Account for some of that, and we see that Lebron is a more effecient creator(and incidentally has generally better passer-rating)


That’s not really what happened. The measure of shot quality that “accounted for contested or uncontested looks” only did so in a binary way (i.e. “guarded” or “unguarded”) for a small subset of FGAs for which we know that adding even better non-binary information about exact defender distance wouldn’t add much in terms of accuracy to the other model. So it’s objectively of minimal consequence. Meanwhile, that other model that doesn’t include that information includes a bunch of more detailed info about other things that the other measure doesn’t. It’s by no means clear which measure is superior.

A few additional notes about the shot quality measure/analysis you refer to:

- While Steph still looked great, it didn’t include one of Steph’s very best years in this regard and another really good year, because it only started at 2016. So there’s good reason to think Steph would’ve also been 1st in probably two prior two-year timeframes too, but they just weren’t included in the analysis.

- Related to the above, what I looked at was over longer time horizons and went further back than 2016, which makes it a fuller analysis. This other measure looks at snippets of time only starting at 2016, and that matters a lot here. For instance, this is comparing Steph to easily LeBron’s *best* time period in terms of improving shot quality—his first Cavs stint was a good bit lower, and in the Heat stint he barely had any effect on shot quality at all. So it’s showing LeBron’s best period and, as mentioned above, cutting off a couple of Steph’s best years (and, despite that, they still look essentially equal—each above the other in 3 out of 6 timeframes—which strongly suggests Steph’s superior in this regard overall). More generally, when we take the less full timeframe into account, this other measure actually isn’t particularly inconsistent with the output of the analysis I did—it just is looking at snippets within a less full timeframe. Which makes it a bit of a fool’s errand to attempt to draw some conclusion that a difference between the results was caused by a difference in what information one measure included. A huge reason the results are different is just that my analysis looked at a different (and more complete) timeframe!

- Adding to the “more complete timeframe thing,” the measure I looked at included playoffs shot quality too, which I imagine could potentially have had a significant effect in certain cases.


For one thing, the entire concept is that it is a formula designed to fit with an evaluation of passes specifically. So the aim of the entire thing is to measure passing quality specifically, and the formula is not designed to fit with anything beyond that.

And passing quality here is "the quality of looks you are generating". What is the most valuable look? A layup. Hence why Layup% is thrown in. So "for one thing", I do not know why you keep playing word-games. "passing quality" = "creation quality" in this context. The metric has no means of measuring passing beyond **** that is directly tied to scoring and height. Nash breaks the metric because he has a high layup assist%. He also kills playval and also generates better offenses than anyone in history. Me thinks passer-rating knows whats it's doing(and it does correlate with higher offensive ratings despite only measuring efficiency).


You’re talking around the issue being discussed. What I’m saying is that Passer Rating is not in any way measuring the “efficiency” of creation that is not directly from a pass. So if Steph’s off-ball gravity creates an opportunity, the efficiency of that creation is not something Passer Rating is in any way trying to measure. Which means that Passer Rating is not a useful measure for comparing the “efficiency” of the creation between Magic Johnson and Steph Curry (nor is it more generally a measure of the “efficiency” of the creation that Box Creation is looking at).

Also, please note that the layup percentage thing is not included in Passer Rating for Magic Johnson, since the layup % stat does not exist prior to the early 2000s. Which, by the way, also means that Passer Rating is a materially different stat for Magic and Steph.


Second of all, to the extent the formula incorporates scoring (through use of Offensive Load within the formula), Ben himself has indicated that it actually *penalizes* scoring

Correct. Because there is a trade-off between scoring and creation. Possessions you take to score are possessions you are not making it easier for someone else to score. Again passer-rating is an efficiency metric. Creating more looks because of "Gravity" is a matter of volume, which is why high-volume scorers generate high box-creation.


I don’t know where you’re going here. You previously tried to say that Passer Rating was measuring the efficiency of off ball creation. And your evidence of that was that scoring is part of the Passer Rating formula—with the implication being that it was there in order to help measure the quality of gravity assists. I pointed out that actually Passer Rating penalizes scoring. And now you’re just ignoring that. The fact is that Passer Rating is in no way trying to measure the efficiency of off-ball creation. I’m hopeful that after this post you will just acknowledge that that’s the case and move on.


But we aren’t comparing a player from the 1950s to a more modern player. Offenses in the 1980s weren’t inefficient.

They were compared to modern offenses. Just like 2000's offenses were. So guess whose rating sees a boost? Nash and Magic. Who also top playval, and also generate better era-relative offenses than Steph does.


No, that’s not true (and, by the way, with you saying 1980s offense was “just like 2000’s offenses,” I question how much you’ve really watched 1980s basketball). The league’s average offensive efficiency over the course of Steph’s peak years (2015-2019) was 107.96. Meanwhile, the league’s average offensive efficiency in Magic’s peak years (I’ll say 1985-1991, but the exact timeframe doesn’t really matter much here) was 107.89. So they were essentially exactly the same. Of course, offensive efficiency has gone up a lot in the last three years or so. But even if we looked at Steph’s entire prime (2014-2023, excluding 2020) and compared to Magic’s entire prime (1980-1991), the average offensive efficiency in Steph’s prime years was 109.51 and the average offensive efficiency in Magic’s prime was 107.10

There is absolutely zero way to look at those league efficiency numbers and reasonably think that they somehow justify a 20-40% artificial bump in Box Creation on the basis of points being more valuable in Magic’s era. It just obviously makes no sense whatsoever.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,348
And1: 3,008
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#189 » by lessthanjake » Tue Aug 1, 2023 1:32 am

One_and_Done wrote:The nominations requiring a plurality is starting to become a problem. We might need a second preference. Right now there's basically an incentive for the modernists to get together and align around one player each vote until they're all nominated. If we don't do that then the opposite wll happen; West will get up on a plurality. Then the West voters will switch to Oscar and he will get up on a plurality. Then the same voters will switch to Moses or Pettit and so on. I feel like a majority of voters would prefer someone else to get up, but are being too principled to switch. This is going to lead to a clunch of oranges to choose from because there are no apples to be had.

This will impact discussion because most people will feel little need to debate the merits of candidates who don't have enough traction.

The flip side of this will be some potentially weird votes where guys like D.Rob or K.Malone will get voted in the moment their nominated, because it's them or 4 old timers.


Wouldn’t mind nominations having a second preference system layered onto them. I think Moses should be next, but it’s apparently sort of throwing away my vote for now, and I could use an alternate nomination to vote for someone with a better chance (perhaps David Robinson or Karl Malone—not sure exactly who I’d give that alternate nomination vote to).
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,933
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#190 » by OhayoKD » Tue Aug 1, 2023 1:33 am

Voting post

9. Kobe

He's already there if you go by Ben's corp and the more I look into things, the more I feel that Ben has massively undersold him.

-> A versatile player who is effecient to hypereffecient at every type of offensive play
-> Best tough-shot-maker
-> Statistically a bird-tier creator whatever approach you take
-> Has a decent case as the best performer on the team that posted the highest playoff differential ever
-> solid defense that at times was elite
-> mostly mantained in the playoffs despite heavy heavy minuites
-> decent impact portfolio with immense longetvity
-> 5 championshps with 2 coming with a different co-star as the clear-cut best player
-> pretty solid impact case for bitw in 2008 and 2nd best behind this projects #1 in 2009 and 2010
-> was able to mantain arguably bitw impact even when rosters changed multiple times within a single-season

10. Magic
-> #1 playoff win percentage
-> #1 regular season win percentage
-> led better offenses than anyone on the board
-> best impact portfolio of his era and probably anyone on the board(maybe oscar challenges?)
-> was on pace for the best resume post-russell before a forced retirement
-> in a tier of his own as a creator statistically along with nash
-> won with not great help in 88
-> made 2 of 3 finals without Jabbar before an early retirement, may have fared better in both with better injury luck

Nomination

Mikan
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,361
And1: 5,639
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#191 » by One_and_Done » Tue Aug 1, 2023 1:36 am

Mikan is already nominated.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,266
And1: 2,273
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#192 » by rk2023 » Tue Aug 1, 2023 1:54 am

iggymcfrack wrote:I’m gonna have to really make the case hard for David Robinson next thread. I really don’t wanna be stuck voting between Kobe, Bird, Mikan, Oscar, and West after Steph goes. I’d probably vote for Oscar out of those choices, but I have Robinson 11 spots ahead of him. He’s an all-time defender with top 5 box stats, and all-time impact numbers as well. He absolutely deserves to at least be under consideration.


How do you feel about those numbers, at-least at first glance, not translating to a playoff setting per-se or not quite translating against elite defenses in a holistic sense?
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,858
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#193 » by Colbinii » Tue Aug 1, 2023 2:46 am

OhayoKD wrote:Voting post

9. Kobe

He's already there if you go by Ben's corp and the more I look into things, the more I feel that Ben has massively undersold him.

-> A versatile player who is effecient to hypereffecient at every type of offensive play
-> Best tough-shot-maker
-> Statistically a bird-tier creator whatever approach you take
-> Has a decent case as the best performer on the team that posted the highest playoff differential ever
-> solid defense that at times was elite
-> mostly mantained in the playoffs despite heavy heavy minuites
-> decent impact portfolio with immense longetvity
-> 5 championshps with 2 coming with a different co-star as the clear-cut best player
-> pretty solid impact case for bitw in 2008 and 2nd best behind this projects #1 in 2009 and 2010
-> was able to mantain arguably bitw impact even when rosters changed multiple times within a single-season

10. Magic
-> #1 playoff win percentage
-> #1 regular season win percentage
-> led better offenses than anyone on the board
-> best impact portfolio of his era and probably anyone on the board(maybe oscar challenges?)
-> was on pace for the best resume post-russell before a forced retirement
-> in a tier of his own as a creator statistically along with nash
-> won with not great help in 88
-> made 2 of 3 finals without Jabbar before an early retirement, may have fared better in both with better injury luck


Nomination

Mikan


Isn't this #10 and #11 :wink:
iggymcfrack
RealGM
Posts: 11,924
And1: 9,421
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#194 » by iggymcfrack » Tue Aug 1, 2023 2:54 am

rk2023 wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:I’m gonna have to really make the case hard for David Robinson next thread. I really don’t wanna be stuck voting between Kobe, Bird, Mikan, Oscar, and West after Steph goes. I’d probably vote for Oscar out of those choices, but I have Robinson 11 spots ahead of him. He’s an all-time defender with top 5 box stats, and all-time impact numbers as well. He absolutely deserves to at least be under consideration.


How do you feel about those numbers, at-least at first glance, not translating to a playoff setting per-se or not quite translating against elite defenses in a holistic sense?


I feel like he was in a pretty similar situation to KG where he had a lot of pretty rough supporting casts and showed incredible lift anyway. I also feel like his contributions to the 1999 title are vastly underrated and he really showed a lot of playoff value that year even if Duncan was the leading scorer. Really, the fact that his playoff on/off was so incredible from ‘98 through ‘01 basically ameliorates any concerns I might have about his playoff value.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,850
And1: 16,408
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#195 » by Dr Positivity » Tue Aug 1, 2023 2:56 am

Vote

1. Stephen Curry
2. Kobe Bryant

Really high on Curry's impact as it's a positive every time he's on the floor, excellent teammate and played in advanced era. Kobe's peak is not as dominant but he does have good longeivty.

Nominate Dirk
Liberate The Zoomers
iggymcfrack
RealGM
Posts: 11,924
And1: 9,421
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#196 » by iggymcfrack » Tue Aug 1, 2023 3:07 am

Robinson’s also the kind of player you’d expect the box score to underrate since he’s such an elite defender. His career playoff BPM was 6.2 compared to 5.9 for Duncan, 5.5 for Shaq, 5.4 for Kobe, and 5.1 for KG. There’s no reason he shouldn’t be at least put in the same tier as the other elite 2 way bigs.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,526
And1: 22,530
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#197 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Aug 1, 2023 4:06 am

lessthanjake wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:I’m generally pretty low on almost all the Backpicks-created box stats, to be honest. They seem pretty dubious to me, since they’re basically just Ben Taylor fitting a formula to fit his own hand-counted subjective assessments from some film (and likely peeking at the output while he did so, to make sure that output of the formula actually had people on top that he thought should be on top). But I’m not aware of the specifics of what PlayVal actually even is.


Hmm. What's given you the impression is creating statistics to be released to others specifically for the purpose of convincing others to his pet beliefs?

fwiw, I think the stat-as-drunken-man's-lamppost is always a danger for a stat-maker, but when you're talking about someone who is primarily using this stuff to inform his analysis rather than to make an argument, he'd be really screwing himself over if he was falling prey to this.


I wasn’t really suggesting Ben Taylor makes statistics to convince others of his personal pet beliefs. What I was saying is that the formulas are going to be created with an idea in mind that the output should probably have the guys you’d expect at the top (otherwise a lot of people will glance at it and immediately decide it must be garbage—which is bad for business). So, let’s say we have hand-counted data and there’s two possible formulas (i.e. combination of variables and coefficients on those variables) that “fit” the data similarly well, but one formula puts the guys you’d expect at the top while the other one doesn’t. I think the one that puts the guys you’d expect at the top will inevitably be chosen. And that’s not some unlikely hypothetical—practically speaking, it’s basically always how an exercise like this would work. This “find a formula that fits the hand-counted data” exercise is not one where there’s going to be only one possible formula that fits the data—nothing will fit the data perfectly so there’s inevitably a choice between options that fit it similarly well. Of course, it’s *probably* true that a formula that puts the expected guys at the top *is* better than one that doesn’t. But it’s just to say that an exercise like this has a bit of an inherent bias towards reinforcing prior notions. And that’s just on top of the pretty huge issue that the “fit” in question is just a fit against one person’s subjective assessment (and that that subjective assessment is itself only based on a sample of games). So there’s just a lot of reasons to not find those metrics particularly compelling IMO. The issue about the underlying data just being one person’s subjective assessment of a sample of games is the biggest issue, though.


I think my biggest confusion here is what category you're putting under. It sounds like you're talking about something with any kind of weighted formula even those determined by regression. If that's the case, why are you singling out Backpicks? What kind of stats are immune from these potential issues in your eyes?

To the specific concern of data-fit choice, I would just emphasize that Ben is primarily a user of this data to learn things himself, not someone whose ever tried to be a Statistician as his main thing. If he falls prey to these concerns, he's literally shooting himself in the foot, and he knows it.

And of course this is also a reason why using regression is helpful in my opinion. The idea of tinkering with your settings and re-rolling until you get something you like is just so obviously a problematic thing to do. I think folks are in much more danger of this when they try to manually setting categorical weights based on what they see as "common sense", but which can easily devolve into rationalized guesswork.

To the point about "one person's subjective assessment", I'd say the most important thing for people to understand is basically analogous to what scorekeepers are doing every day. Is it better that there are tons and tons of them compared to just one? In some ways yes, but I think there's a bit of an underlying assumption here:

If you think Ben has an excellent eye, then you value this at least to some degree. If you just seem as a random dude, you don't.

For the record, I do think he has an excellent eye, so I don't not value it, but I've also never taken the time to really explore it and incorporate it into my general process. I'll defend Ben's professionalism, but don't have a dog in the fight when it comes what the stat seems to say about any given player.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,526
And1: 22,530
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#198 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Aug 1, 2023 4:20 am

Repeating Induction votes:

Vote 1: Magic Johnson

Image

Spoiler:
Original Nomination Post:

Speaking of Magic, he'll be my first Nominee. To tell a bit of my journey here:

When I started on RealGM, I had Magic higher than the Olajuwons/Shaqs/Duncan/KGs. Then I started focusing on two things:

1. Longevity - where Magic's HIV diagnosis forever damaged what he could achieve.

2. Impact - Shaq, Duncan & KG had such high impact, and impact on both sides of the ball, that it was hard to imagine that Magic was enough better to make up for longevity issues.

Also, related to impact, was me consider how lucky Magic was to arrive on the Lakers. Incredible team success to be sure, but to be expect to a degree with that talent around you, right?

On the longevity front, I've walked it back a bit. While I'm still fine using extended longevity as a tiebreaker, I'm generally more focused in what a player can do in 5-10 years, because for the most part that's when a franchise can expect to build a contender with you. And of course, Magic had that. In Magic's 12 years before the HIV retirement, the Lakers had an amount of success that's just plain staggering for any career.

12 years. 12 years 50+ wins. 32 playoff series wins.

For the record, if my count is correct, LeBron himself only has 12 50+ win years (though he does have 41 playoff series victories).

So yeah, Magic packed in so much success into his career, that it's hard to take seriously longevity as that big of concern to me. Tiebreaker at most really.

Of course he had help and I don't want to just elevate the guy because he had more help...but being the star and leader of the team having the most dominant decade run since Russell is not something to be brushed aside lightly. I think we need to be very careful about assuming other guys have a comparable realistic ceiling.

Going back to LeBron, I'll say that watching him through his career has also helped me gain more confidence in Magic's ability to find ways to control the game around him no matter the context or how his body changed. I think Magic had an extremely strong intuition about how to win the arm-wrestling contest of basketball, finding little affordances to gain leverage over time, and I think it's offensive geniuses who in general have this capacity in the modern (and even somewhat-near-modern game).

Actual voting post
Alright so I want to first vote the context within this project. This is the first time my prior vote for Nominee will immediately translate into my vote for Inductee, and it feels awkward, but I know it won't be the last time this happens.

Without further ado...

Bird and Magic, the Beautiful Rivalry

I can't help but think about Magic with the rivalry and comparison to Larry Bird in mind. Obviously we all know them to be an amazing rivalry that dominated a decade, and probably all of us are aware that it's with the two of them that the NBA regains its momentum, and this is a big deal for a lot of reasons but its bigness isn't that relevant to this particular project.

What's just amazing about this rivalry to me is that both players weren't just very, very good at basketball, but that both players feel so qualitatively distinct from the players that came before. Magic's the most obvious one here because while you can point to transition-offense legends and tall guards of the past, I'm sure no one looked at Magic and though "Hey, he should try to play a bit like Bob Cousy!".

I find Bird's uniqueness - at least such that I perceive it - to be the more profound. In Bird you have a player with off-the-charts level awareness and (while young) an incredibly high motor, and he begins positioned - literally and figuratively - where you'd expect for a guy with his size and touch given contemporary thought, and from there he just vibrates all around based on what his utterly-unique instincts told him to do.

Bird to me feels like something of a self-taught genius in the sense that he's so incredibly good at the things he applies his mind to do, and this is a weird thing to me because he's from Indiana, the land of high school basketball for more than half a century before then. You would hope that a player who came of age there with prodigious talent would come out of their pyramid highly optimized.

It's as if Bird's in-the-moment BBIQ was so overpowering that coaches really had no idea what they could do with it other than just let him keep doing his thing.

But while that led to a career that will places him very high on my list, there was a time where I actually had him higher than Magic, and times after that where I agonized between the two of them. At this point, I have to give Magic the nod by a good distance.

It wouldn't be so strange perhaps if I said this was because of Magic's longevity - though that in itself is debatable - but there's another thing on the forefront of my mind.

I think that fundamentally on offense, there's just a real cost to have an insane in-the-moment basketball intelligence not having the ball for any extended period of time. However valuable you are off-ball, you have less decision making power because the ball is the thing.

Magic's instinct to keep control of the ball and the offense in a way allowed him considerably more impact than Bird on offense, even though I think Bird's in-the-moment BBIQ was even higher than Magic's. It's possible Bird could have been even better than Magic at being Magic if that's what he were groomed to do. It's also possible that in an age with mature 3-point shooting Bird's gravitational value would significantly change the equation. But as things played out in our universe, to some degree it's like Bird brought a knife to a gun fight with Magic.

Now let me say: This isn't factoring in defense, where I'm considerably more impressed early on by Bird, nor is it me trying to say Magic reached the tippy top tear as quickly as Bird did, but just looking at ability for offensive impact, Magic's approach was the killer app.

Top 5 ALL 11 healthy years? Really?

This is a place where I completely understand if you think I'm too eager to give Magic such credit early on. He only makes Top 5 in the NBA MVP voting 9 times. Now, I'd note that it's still AMAZINGLY impressive that he proceeded to be in the Top 3 of the MVP race each of the 9 next seasons before his diagnosis - I don't believe any other player in NBA history can claim they have 9 in a row with the debatable caveat of Jordan depending whether you consider '93-94 & '94-95 as dealbreakers.

But yeah, I think he deserves an All-Season POY Top 5 nod in both '79-80 & '81-82 as well, and that's also what the consensus was during the RetroPOY project too. So while we can disagree, I feel pretty settled on him making my Top 5 for those seasons too.

And so yeah, that's all 11 of his healthy years, which puts him in very rare air.

You can bring up that he was in a fortuitous context, cool, and yeah it helped him win more, but lots of guys go into fortuitous contexts, and they don't bat a thousand at it like Magic did. Further, we should keep in mind that we wouldn't give Magic those nods simply for being on Kareem's team. Magic got the accolades he got because he was so good, he made Kareem into a sidekick.

Now, Kareem's already voted in and I wouldn't have it any other way. Obviously it's an older Kareem that we're talking about here...but while that's not fair apples-to-apples, it's worth pondering what it would have taken to do that to Jordan or LeBron at the same age. Even if you want to say Kareem was X% lower a summit to summit, it still speaks to how incredible Magic was.

Anyway, this gets back to the thing where I think Magic had more (or the same in Wilt's case) Top 5 level seasons than any of the other guy's remaining, and this makes it hard for me to knock him too hard for longevity.

What about Defense?

The question of whether guys like, say Hakeem/Duncan/KG, are overall better or more valuable than Magic is something I've chewed on a lot over the years. While Magic moved down my list below those guys in the past partially due to ideas of longevity, there was also that 2-way advantage in my head, as well as how great KG & Duncan's on/off looked.

I've come to the conclusion that in practice, the Lakers' ability to have a good-enough defense to win playoff series was quite robust. And while I've had questions about how well this could be achieved today in this era of spacing, not only is that technically irrelevant to the criteria I'm personally using at this time, I just witnessed arguably the closest thing to Magic play out in the 2023 playoffs with Jokic and the Nuggets, and it really seemed okay.

Magic looks great in the +/- stats we have, but the sample is very small. It's possible I'll see bad enough stuff in the future to lower my assessment of Magic, but I have to say that that unless it was something really dramatic, I don't know if I'd be swayed even if he looked a bit weaker than these other guys. As I've alluded to, Magic has such profound ability to apply control and add impact on offense, that I think it would make his teams a very hard out as a matter of course...kinda like LeBron.

A moment to mourn for what might have been

Not factoring into his placement here, but I think it's critical to just appreciate how this project would look if not for the HIV diagnosis, or a better understanding of HIV at the time. Magic at age 31 was showing no signs of slowing down. We know that incredible floor generals can thrive into a late age - demonstrated most crazily by what we might call the age-inverse of Magic in Steve Nash who only began his MVP-candidacy at age 30 - and we know that Magic 2.0, aka LeBron, has stayed amazing for an incredibly long time (not identical players, but more in common than most superstars to be sure).

It's quite plausible that Magic could have kept up his game without much fall off for another half decade, and that if he did, I wouldn't be talking about how no one's ever had more Top 5 seasons than Russell, because Magic could've been rocking 15 by then.

It's quite possible, in other words, that in another basketball universe, I'd have Magic as my GOAT.


Vote 2: Steph Curry

Spoiler:
Image

So, along with Magic, Curry is benefitting from my perspective shaped by how many Top 5 years he has achieved. For different reasons, Curry also is seeing as having weak longevity. Unlike Magic there's an aspect of this that's just utterly mundane:

In my experience with Career GOAT lists, our sense of a player's longevity tends to lag behind what it actually is while he is in prime. It's as if we don't actually look to quantify a player's longevity until it's basically over and done with.

I firmly believe this is something that has been hurting Curry in people's eyes at least in prior projects, and I'd advise folks to ruminate on whether it might be hurting him here.

As I've pointed out, in my estimation he's actually had a pretty long career as star player. Not enough that he should kill other candidates in play right now based on longevity, but enough that I don't think anyone should get an automatic longevity-win over Curry until they've really thought about it remembering it's 2023 now.

I chose an image for Curry emphasizing his shot, which is obviously his big weapon. He's the greatest shooter in basketball history, bar none, easy to see how that's helped him have a legendary career.

The most interesting thing to me about Curry's shot sequence is the fact that it's so clearly NOT about about having a form that helps him be the most accurate 3-point shooter in a vacuum. It's a form crafted to allow him to get his shot off so quickly that it's hard to block, even though Curry is a small guard by modern NBA standards. This isn't the first time a new standard has emerged that's about preventing blocked shots even if it means sacrificing accuracy - that's what the jump shot is after all, and that's what all manners of floaters are.

But the fact that I don't believe ever had a shooter be this impactful before in all the decades of basketball, and he's doing it with such a non-vacuum-optimal approach that adds to the degree of difficulty is breathtaking, as is the fact we are now more than a decade point the point where Curry became the clear-cut best shooter in history...and we haven't seen anyone from new draft classes to this point who seems like he's going to be even close. That could change in a hurry, but is hasn't yet, and to be honest, I'm surprised.

Just a bit of context here: I tend to mark the evolution of the game from a horrifically small sample size playing once or twice a year against teams at my high school. Feel free to chuckle at my expense here, but what I can't help but notice as a 6'9" man:

I used to block their shots like crazy and the games were close.
Now I basically don't block shots and the teams kill us, and it's not because I'm older and even more out-of-shape (ahem, though both things are true).
It's because they aren't even trying to attack the interior except in transition or rebounding situations where the defense (eh, me) isn't set.
And they haven't changed this out of strategy to beat me...that's just how they play now.
If you give them room to shoot a 3, they'll take it, and they all seem to have proficient form modeled after Curry.
They just plain torch us every time, boys or girls. They all shoot from range with a proficiency that us old guys just don't have.

I'll note that I don't teach at a school where students come for hopes of athletic scholarship. Rationally I know these kids aren't great within their own generations standards...yet they are considerably more effective than they were 5-10 years ago because of the way they shoot 3's. And this is why I think Curry is going to go down as one of the most influential players in NBA history.

But again, his influence is irrelevant here and it's not why I'm nominating him. I'm nominating him because that shooting - along with his roving off-ball play and the rest of his game to whatever amount its added to his success - has led him to achieve so, so much as the fulcrum of everything the great dynastic run of this era has implemented.

Okay, only other thing I really feel a need to touch upon here is my man KG:

Breaks my heart having him sink on my list if I'm honest. I desperately want others to be as in awe of what he was capable of as I am, and in another universe, he'd be higher on my list. To some degree I suppose, it's the fact that I'm irritated with what happened in my own universe that I feel such a need to champion a guy like KG.

I realized though as I was going through that last pass year-by-year and considering something like where he belonged in my DPOY ballot that I'd been tying myself in some logical knots putting him above a guy like Duncan. While I can intellectually justify why KG's team defenses weren't stronger based on things that were unfair to him about his context (teammates, scheme, etc), the reality is that in doing so I was effectively projecting what I "knew" about KG back into those earlier years when I did that rather than judging his achievement based on what actually happened - and that gets me back to the question I kept circling back to:

Do I want to do this project by imagining how things would go if...?, or, Do I want to talk about what guys actually did?

Based on the latter, KG just spent a good chunk of his career in a place where he didn't have the opportunity to define an epoch the way that Curry has. Not his fault - you might call that a minor basketball tragedy, but that's life. I can't normalize for opportunity and still talk about what actually happened, so I chose the latter.


Nominate: Jerry West

Image

So, I'm flipping back and forth when it comes to Oscar & West. Remains a hell of a debate to me.

Here's what I'll say right now: I think Jerry West was better at basketball than Oscar Robertson, and I also think he had more team success overall. Hence, an argument for Oscar is essentially using a degree-of-difficulty factor to elevate someone I don't think was quite as good over someone whose teams accomplished more. It's not really a position I relish being in. It feels more right to side with West, even if there's a careful analytic argument I can make for Oscar.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
ijspeelman
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 2,655
And1: 1,219
Joined: Feb 17, 2022
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#199 » by ijspeelman » Tue Aug 1, 2023 4:26 am

Vote: Magic Johnson

Image

I am late to the voting post so I am going to be lame and just quote things I've said earlier and add a conclusion :P

I am not yet ready to make a distinction between Curry and Magic's creation on a team level yet. This basically goes without saying for Magic, but I really love the high level passes he's able to make on a consistent basis.




I think I downplayed his help defense a bit. He still does not possess enough jump for me to love him here, but he definitely brings some positive value. I love his work in the passing lanes and I think he is a fairly smart rotator to help at the rim or in the lane.



By my count, Magic has 10 high All-NBA to MVP seasons (1981-82 to 1990-91) compared to Steph's 9 (2013-14 to 2018-19, 2020-21 to 2022-23). Its not as simple as 10 > 9. I still think I like to account for longevity relative to era and Magic gets a small, but not insignificant boost there.

I like that Magic has some value on the defensive end where I had previously had thought he had none. I do think we think of Steph as an at worst average defender because of his recent success on that end, but (just like Magic) he was hunted down on that end for a lot of his career.

Ignoring the box creation stat from Thinking Basketball and just thinking of the concept of creation, it makes sense to think of creation relative to era. From watching film, Magic did have gravity in a sense (despite his lack of volume scoring). Watching a lot of games where he posts up smaller or even similar sized players, he is constantly doubled and quickly passes to the opening even if its a crazy pass. If he's not doubled and his man is smaller, he can fairly easily rise up and drain the shot.



As others have said, give it two to three years of Steph doing relatively similar things to his previous ten and I think I put Steph ahead of Magic. I cannot gift Steph the free longevity.

To me, Steph has had the greater peak. His ability as an offensive player, even relative to era, puts him ahead of Magic in that category, but not by far enough for me to currently take him.

Through my film sessions, I found Magic to be a better defender than I originally gave him credit for. I also really like Magic's spacing as he gets older. It allowed him to punish sagging defenders and space the floor.



Also, just want to add in a few more extra clips of passes, but we all know Magic is potentially the GOAT passer so I didn't talk about it too much.



Nomination: Jerry West

Image

Copying and pasting my nomination explanation from last time.

Spoiler:
Last time I said it was between Kobe and West for this spot. I picked Kobe last time mainly because I haven't delved deep enough into Jerry to show that he is above Kobe yet.

Image
*1960-61 to 1972-73 are rFGA/36 and 1973-74 is rFGA/75

West's scoring numbers show him to a highly efficient volume scorer. Being with guys like Elgin Baylor, he did not pound the rock as much some of the other nominees (outside of Magic), but he seemed to be a very good passer (especially when Wilt got to the Lakers where his ASTs skyrocket). From the little bit of film I've watched of Jerry, he seems to also be a good perimeter defender.
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,348
And1: 3,008
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/31/23) 

Post#200 » by lessthanjake » Tue Aug 1, 2023 4:29 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Hmm. What's given you the impression is creating statistics to be released to others specifically for the purpose of convincing others to his pet beliefs?

fwiw, I think the stat-as-drunken-man's-lamppost is always a danger for a stat-maker, but when you're talking about someone who is primarily using this stuff to inform his analysis rather than to make an argument, he'd be really screwing himself over if he was falling prey to this.


I wasn’t really suggesting Ben Taylor makes statistics to convince others of his personal pet beliefs. What I was saying is that the formulas are going to be created with an idea in mind that the output should probably have the guys you’d expect at the top (otherwise a lot of people will glance at it and immediately decide it must be garbage—which is bad for business). So, let’s say we have hand-counted data and there’s two possible formulas (i.e. combination of variables and coefficients on those variables) that “fit” the data similarly well, but one formula puts the guys you’d expect at the top while the other one doesn’t. I think the one that puts the guys you’d expect at the top will inevitably be chosen. And that’s not some unlikely hypothetical—practically speaking, it’s basically always how an exercise like this would work. This “find a formula that fits the hand-counted data” exercise is not one where there’s going to be only one possible formula that fits the data—nothing will fit the data perfectly so there’s inevitably a choice between options that fit it similarly well. Of course, it’s *probably* true that a formula that puts the expected guys at the top *is* better than one that doesn’t. But it’s just to say that an exercise like this has a bit of an inherent bias towards reinforcing prior notions. And that’s just on top of the pretty huge issue that the “fit” in question is just a fit against one person’s subjective assessment (and that that subjective assessment is itself only based on a sample of games). So there’s just a lot of reasons to not find those metrics particularly compelling IMO. The issue about the underlying data just being one person’s subjective assessment of a sample of games is the biggest issue, though.


I think my biggest confusion here is what category you're putting under. It sounds like you're talking about something with any kind of weighted formula even those determined by regression. If that's the case, why are you singling out Backpicks? What kind of stats are immune from these potential issues in your eyes?


It depends on what the formula is being regressed to fit to. I see a significant difference between something that is regressed to fit to one person’s subjective assessment (i.e. Ben Taylor’s assessment of pass quality) and something that is regressed to fit something more objective (such as RAPM, team offensive rating, etc.). The latter wouldn’t necessarily be without flaws, of course, but fitting to a subjective assessment has the additional very significant flaw that that subjective assessment might be wrong (and indeed almost certainly *is* wrong to at least some degree—it’s more just a question of by how much). And it also has the additional flaw that that subjective assessment is being made only on a certain sample of film, and it may be that that film is not a representative sample (this is not as much of an issue if regressing to fit to a bunch of years of RAPM data or something like that, because in that case the data set you’re fitting to is almost certainly going to be substantially larger and therefore not as prone to sampling error).
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.

Return to Player Comparisons


cron