why do people rank bird over kob?

[therealbig3]

I think Kobe has a good case over Bird, based on his superior longevity and durability. I think Bird peaked as the better player, but there weren’t a lot of seasons that we able to maintain that throughout an entire playoff run.

[lessthanjake]

I'm not talking about the volume, I'm talking about his passer-rating which is a measure of creation quality built on factors like offensive load, 3pa, height, 3-point efficiency, layup assist percentage. If we were considering both I'd say all 5 look significantly better and that includes two on/off-ball hybrids(mj, steph) and a guy who gets more of his offensive off-ball than anyone ever(steph). Why is a shorter, more off-ball, and less skilled passer beating Bird on both fronts?

There’s not really any mystery here. Passer Rating is just a formula using box-stat numbers. So Passer Rating for any individual player is not revealing how those individual players scored in a hand-counted analysis of their passes. It’s just saying what the formula spits out for them (in a formula that is designed to fit the hand-counting, in the aggregate, not for every specific data point). And given that we know what Bird’s box score numbers are in the inputs to the formula, we can understand pretty easily where his score in Passer Rating comes from.

For Larry Bird, the reason he doesn’t have a super high Passer Rating is that he was a volume scorer and his assist numbers are pretty high but not through the roof. So the model is basically in large part just seeing a guy who, in his prime, averaged about 25 points a game and 6 assists and ranking him commensurately with that.

And this gets to a really key point that I think you need to understand about models like this. They are designed to be accurate in the aggregate. As in, the formula is chosen to generally fit with the underlying data overall. But just because a formula is a pretty good fit for overall data in the aggregate does not mean that the formula accurately describes each individual data point. In fact, it definitely doesn’t; the formula is just an approximation—a line of best fit, if you will. There can and absolutely will be players for whom the formula would be significantly off, even as compared to hand-counting that the model was based on.

It is likely that Bird is one of those examples. The guy who did the hand-counting himself regards Bird’s passing as elite after watching tons of film of Bird, but yet the model that is based on that same guy’s film analysis does not really score Bird’s passing as elite. So, on its face, this would seem to be a pretty obvious example of the formula not accurately portraying a specific data point.

And we can understand some possible reasons why Bird might be an outlier data point that the formula doesn’t accurately portray. For instance, one may be that the model doesn’t realize how little Bird has the ball. As a primarily off-ball scorer, the model’s reliance on assist/load ratio may penalize Bird for having fewer assists than you’d think a great passer might have with his level of offensive load, because the model doesn’t realize that he had the ball substantially less than the typical person with his offensive load. That’s just one example of a significant reason why Passer Rating might underrate Bird’s passing quality, but, regardless of the exact mechanism through which it is underrating his passing, I think it’s pretty obvious that it does, given that the number that the Passer Rating formula spits out for Bird is not consistent with the subjective evaluation of the same guy whose subjective evaluations formed the basis for the Passer Rating formula. Basically, Passer Rating is merely meant to approximate Ben Taylor’s assessment from his study of film, and so when we know more directly what Ben Taylor’s assessment from film study was about a guy (and it differs significantly from the Passer Rating) then we can probably mostly just discard Passer Rating as not providing much of any additional helpful information (unless we think the sample of film Ben watched of Bird wasn’t representative, which is possible to at least some degree, but then I’d also note that Ben’s view on Bird isn’t at all idiosyncratic compared to other people—including me—who watched different games of Bird).

[OhayoKD]

Per usual you just address what you want while justifying your take with an appeal to authority...

I'm not talking about the volume, I'm talking about his passer-rating which is a measure of creation quality built on factors like offensive load, 3pa, height, 3-point efficiency, layup assist percentage. If we were considering both I'd say all 5 look significantly better and that includes two on/off-ball hybrids(mj, steph) and a guy who gets more of his offensive off-ball than anyone ever(steph). Why is a shorter, more off-ball, and less skilled passer beating Bird on both fronts?

There’s not really any mystery here. Passer Rating is just a formula using box-stat numbers. So Passer Rating for any individual player is not revealing how those individual players scored in a hand-counted analysis of their passes. It’s just saying what the formula spits out for them (in a formula that is designed to fit the hand-counting, in the aggregate, not for every specific data point). And given that we know what Bird’s box score numbers are in the inputs to the formula, we can understand pretty easily where his score in Passer Rating comes from.

[/quote]
Box-creation is lower on Bird than passer-rating is(and lower than Kobe's). Maybe you should read the totality of what someone says before leaping in with a wall of mostly redundant text. The question is not "does adjusted passer-rating hate bird" because passer-rating is the metric that is highest on him.

The question is whether Bird scoring worse than his rep in every creation metric is a result of bias or a result of his own limitations as an offensive player. And rather aptly, you addressed none of the criticisms, or the analysis of objective results, or the film-analysis. While also making points literally addressed in the post you replied to.

You could have just said "well ben and I think bird is a great passer so??" and left it at that.

In fact, it definitely doesn’t; the formula is just an approximation—a line of best fit, if you will. There can and absolutely will be players for whom the formula would be significantly off, even as compared to hand-counting that the model was based on.

It is likely that Bird is one of those examples. The guy who did the hand-counting himself regards Bird’s passing as elite after watching tons of film of Bird, but yet the model that is based on that same guy’s film analysis does not really score Bird’s passing as elite. So, on its face, this would seem to be a pretty obvious example of the formula not accurately portraying a specific data point.

And now you will make the case that Bird is being screwed over due to bias based on evidence and reasoning?

and so when we know more directly what Ben Taylor’s assessment from film study was about a guy (and it differs significantly from the Passer Rating) then we can probably mostly just discard Passer Rating

Nope. Feel free to cite when you or Ben actually film-studied and compared what he does through the duration of a possession vs an on-ball playmaker, how many defenders he takes out, or how open the shots are. Passer-rating is an efficiency metric, and naturally you have yet to explain how any of the "biases" here are a reflection on Bird's creation being more efficient than the data reflects.

And we can understand some possible reasons why Bird might be an outlier data point that the formula doesn’t accurately portray. For instance, one may be that the model doesn’t realize how little Bird has the ball.

now explain why players who have the ball less ranking lower is inaccurate. I outlined multiple reasons why Bird not having the ball would hamper his creation both in terms of volume and efficiency. You addressed none of them.

As a primarily off-ball scorer, the model’s reliance on assist/load ratio may penalize Bird for having fewer assists than you’d think a great passer might have with his level of offensive load, because the model doesn’t realize that he had the ball substantially less than the typical person with his offensive load

Why should the model be adjusting for Bird not being a strong ball-handler? Ball-handling is an important aspect of creating looks both in terms of volume and efficiency. As covered, ball-dominance leads to goat offenses. Not ball-dominance does not.

but, regardless of the exact mechanism through which it is underrating his passing, I think it’s pretty obvious that it does,

Given you whiffed on your "one example" I'm going to say no, actually it is not "pretty obvious" though again, feel free to disregard passer-rating because without it Bird looks worse.

Bird does not have great rim-gravity, he is not a high-volume 3-point shooter, he is not a strong slasher, and he is not a strong ball-handler. The goal is not to pass pretty. It is to remove variables that might make scoring harder for your teammates. Maybe the box-score underrates the guy whose offenses are way worse than the guys he's typically compared to. Or maybe there's more to creation than how much you like the aesthetics of a pass.

[lessthanjake]

Box-creation is lower on Bird than passer-rating is(and lower than Kobe's). Maybe you should read the totality of what someone says before leaping in with a wall of mostly redundant text. The question is not "does adjusted passer-rating hate bird" because passer-rating is the metric that is highest on him.

The question is whether Bird scoring worse than his rep in every creation metric is a result of bias or a result of his own limitations as an offensive player. And rather aptly, you addressed none of the criticisms, or the analysis of objective results, or the film-analysis. While also making points literally addressed in the post you replied to.

You could have just said "well ben and I think bird is a great passer so??" and left it at that.

It’s no surprise that he wouldn’t rate super highly in Box Creation, because we know he was not a massive *volume* playmaker (a consequence of playing off ball a lot in an era without as much spacing). What I’m talking about is the quality of his passing (i.e., the thing that Passer Rating is meant to estimate), which we have good reason to think is underrated by Passer Rating, not least of which because his Passer Rating is not consistent with the film analysis of the person whose film analysis Passer Rating is built to approximate.

And by the way, I’d think that Ben’s assessment of how good someone is as a passer would matter a lot to you when you’re specifically touting the output of a model that is merely meant to approximate Ben’s assessments of how good people are as passers.

And we can understand some possible reasons why Bird might be an outlier data point that the formula doesn’t accurately portray. For instance, one may be that the model doesn’t realize how little Bird has the ball.

now explain why players who have the ball less ranking lower is inaccurate. I outlined multiple reasons why Bird not having the ball would hamper his creation both in terms of volume and efficiency. You addressed none of them.

Passer Rating is not aimed at measuring volume of creation. It is aimed at measuring quality of passing. How much Bird has the ball has nothing to do with the quality of his passing (i.e. what percent of the time he identifies and completes possible good passes), except insofar as the fact that he has less of the ball than a typical person with his offensive load means that a measure of passing quality that uses assist/load ratio as a significant input would likely be underestimating his passing quality.

As a primarily off-ball scorer, the model’s reliance on assist/load ratio may penalize Bird for having fewer assists than you’d think a great passer might have with his level of offensive load, because the model doesn’t realize that he had the ball substantially less than the typical person with his offensive load

Why should the model be adjusting for Bird not being a strong ball-handler? Ball-handling is an important aspect of creating looks both in terms of volume and efficiency. As covered, ball-dominance leads to goat offenses. Not ball-dominance does not.

Ball-handling ability is quite tangential to the quality of passes (Passer Rating is not meant to look at how much someone breaks down the defense, but rather only their ability to identify and complete good passes). So ball-handling ability is simply not what Passer Rating is trying to look at. Instead, Passer Rating is in essence using assist/load ratio in order to help approximate how often players made good passes compared to how often they had the ball/were directly involved in the offense. If someone had the ball much less than this would assume, then the metric will underrate their passing quality, because in reality they’d have converted time on the ball to an assist much more than the model thinks (which would, of course, suggest they were identifying and completing a much higher percent of possible good passes than the model thinks). And that’s actually exactly how Bird operated as a passer. The thing that made him elite as a passer was precisely the fact that he made genius passes while having barely possessed the ball—the kind of one-touch passes that we sometimes see Jokic do in this era. If you’d actually watched Larry Bird play basketball, then I feel like you’d intuitively understand this. The nature of the model would naturally underrate Bird’s unique passing quality. And the fact that the person whose assessments Passer Rating is meant to approximate actually assesses Bird as possessing elite passing quality should make it further obvious that that’s the case.

but, regardless of the exact mechanism through which it is underrating his passing, I think it’s pretty obvious that it does,

Given you whiffed on your "one example" I'm going to say no, actually it is not "pretty obvious" though again, feel free to disregard passer-rating because without it Bird looks worse.

Bird does not have great rim-gravity, he is not a high-volume 3-point shooter, he is not a strong slasher, and he is not a strong ball-handler. The goal is not to pass pretty. It is to remove variables that might make scoring harder for your teammates. Maybe the box-score underrates the guy whose offenses are way worse than the guys he's typically compared to. Or maybe there's more to creation than how much you like the aesthetics of a pass.

You’re talking about things that are relevant to Box Creation, not Passer Rating. Passer Rating is simply about the quality of the passes that someone makes (or misses). It is not meant to measure the ability to create opportunities by pressuring the defense. It is simply meant to measure the ability to see and complete good passes. I’m talking about Bird’s Passer Rating stat, not his Box Creation.

[SNPA]

Kobe > passer than Bird is a hell of a hill to die on.

[Jaivl]

Kobe > passer than Bird is a hell of a hill to die on.

A hill is probably not big enough of a topographic feature.

[kcktiny]

For Larry Bird, the reason he doesn’t have a super high Passer Rating is that he was a volume scorer and his assist numbers are pretty high but not through the roof.

Actually for a frontcourt player in the 1980s/early 1990s his assists numbers were outrageously high.

In his career (ages 22-34) he averaged 520 assists per 82 games, and over his 13 seasons (1979-80 to 1991-92) he threw for 1700+ more assists than did any other frontcourt player in the league.

This despite the fact that in 12 of those seasons (he missed all of 1988-89 with injury) there was also a PG on Boston passing for something like 400-600 assists/year.

For comparison In the 11 the years Lebron played for Cleveland, another Cavaliers player passed for 400+ assists in a season just once.

[lessthanjake]

For Larry Bird, the reason he doesn’t have a super high Passer Rating is that he was a volume scorer and his assist numbers are pretty high but not through the roof.

Actually for a frontcourt player in the 1980s/early 1990s his assists numbers were outrageously high.

In his career (ages 22-34) he averaged 520 assists per 82 games, and over his 13 seasons (1979-80 to 1991-92) he threw for 1700+ more assists than did any other frontcourt player in the league.

This despite the fact that in 12 of those seasons (he missed all of 1988-89 with injury) there was also a PG on Boston passing for something like 400-600 assists/year.

For comparison In the 11 the years Lebron played for Cleveland, another Cavaliers player passed for 400+ assists in a season just once.

Yeah, that’s true, but the model isn’t really seeing that much, except to the extent it gives Bird a bit of a boost for his height. What it’s seeing is for the most part a 25 PPG, 6 APG guy who is 6 foot 9. And that looks like someone who is a good passer (and it does give Bird a good Passer Rating), but it doesn’t look as good as Bird actually was in terms of passing quality.

[ShaqAttac]

Kobe > passer than Bird is a hell of a hill to die on.

A hill is probably not big enough of a topographic feature.

then why bird fans the ones dyin

if all u got is jokes and excuses maybe bird shouldnt be so high

[SNPA]

Kobe > passer than Bird is a hell of a hill to die on.

A hill is probably not big enough of a topographic feature.

then why bird fans the ones dyin

if all u got is jokes and excuses maybe bird shouldnt be so high

Bird is arguably the GOAT passer. He is clearly, by far, the GOAT off ball passer. He is in the top tier with Magic. Kobe is no where near that tier. He isn’t in the next tier down. He isn’t in the following tier. He’d be luckily to be considered in the tier below the tier of that tier.

This is all very obvious to people that watched Bird play. It doesn’t require pages of debate. It’s like debating if 1+1=2 or not. It’s completely worthless. It’s like Bird fans arguing he was a better dunker than Kobe…just dumb and obviously not true.

[Darthlukey]

A hill is probably not big enough of a topographic feature.

then why bird fans the ones dyin

if all u got is jokes and excuses maybe bird shouldnt be so high

Bird is arguably the GOAT passer. He is clearly, by far, the GOAT off ball passer. He is in the top tier with Magic. Kobe is no where near that tier. He isn’t in the next tier down. He isn’t in the following tier. He’d be luckily to be considered in the tier below the tier of that tier.

This is all very obvious to people that watched Bird play. It doesn’t require pages of debate. It’s like debating if 1+1=2 or not. It’s completely worthless. It’s like Bird fans arguing he was a better dunker than Kobe…just dumb and obviously not true.

Kobe wasn't even a willing passer. He was a volume passer (as in, have the ball enough and take enough shots, eventually you will get bulk assists - see Russell Westbrook). But passing wasn't Kobe's game, it was elite scoring that made him special. Passing is one of many facets that made Bird special, especially playing the 3 or 4

[SNPA]

then why bird fans the ones dyin

if all u got is jokes and excuses maybe bird shouldnt be so high

Bird is arguably the GOAT passer. He is clearly, by far, the GOAT off ball passer. He is in the top tier with Magic. Kobe is no where near that tier. He isn’t in the next tier down. He isn’t in the following tier. He’d be luckily to be considered in the tier below the tier of that tier.

This is all very obvious to people that watched Bird play. It doesn’t require pages of debate. It’s like debating if 1+1=2 or not. It’s completely worthless. It’s like Bird fans arguing he was a better dunker than Kobe…just dumb and obviously not true.

Kobe wasn't even a willing passer. He was a volume passer (as in, have the ball enough and take enough shots, eventually you will get bulk assists - see Russell Westbrook). But passing wasn't Kobe's game, it was elite scoring that made him special. Passing is one of many facets that made Bird special, especially playing the 3 or 4

So true.

46 shots. 81 points. 2 assists. That’s 1 assist per 23 shots. Bird would regularly get 2 assists with less than 2.3 seconds of ball possession.

[OhayoKD]

Passer Rating is not aimed at measuring volume of creation. It is aimed at measuring quality of passing

A strawman followed by a semantic backflip. It is measuring the quality of what a pass creates. Aka effeciency. If you or ben are not willing to defend that Bird's "quality of creation" is being underrated, then you do not have a case.

Ball-handling ability is quite tangential to the quality of passes (Passer Rating is not meant to look at how much someone breaks down the defense, but rather only their ability to identify and complete good passes).

We have the inputs, quite literally the only thing it can actually look at is height(relevant to angle and range), the relationshp between scoring and box creation, and what creation is indirect(aka: less valuable), and whether layups are being generated. "Good passes' is defined as "creates quality looks" or "assists a basket". There is no way for this metric to judge "passing quality" without some tie to "effect on scoring".

You, Jaivl, and SNPA keep playing word-games, but you could at least stop misrepresenting what it actually looks at. It is trying ti guess when a player missess oppurtunities to break down a defense for a score and when they do(and to what extent a defense is broken down).

In that way it is actually biased towards Bird because it doesn't care what Bird fails to do before it's time to get an assist or a score.

For Larry Bird, the reason he doesn’t have a super high Passer Rating is that he was a volume scorer and his assist numbers are pretty high but not through the roof.

Actually for a frontcourt player in the 1980s/early 1990s his assists numbers were outrageously high.

In his career (ages 22-34) he averaged 520 assists per 82 games, and over his 13 seasons (1979-80 to 1991-92) he threw for 1700+ more assists than did any other frontcourt player in the league.

This despite the fact that in 12 of those seasons (he missed all of 1988-89 with injury) there was also a PG on Boston passing for something like 400-600 assists/year.

For comparison In the 11 the years Lebron played for Cleveland, another Cavaliers player passed for 400+ assists in a season just once.

Yeah, that’s true, but the model isn’t really seeing that much, except to the extent it gives Bird a bit of a boost for his height. What it’s seeing is for the most part a 25 PPG, 6 APG guy who is 6 foot 9. And that looks like someone who is a good passer (and it does give Bird a good Passer Rating), but it doesn’t look as good as Bird actually was in terms of passing quality.

*in terms of passing ability by the standard of "looks nice"

let me know when you two want to explain why bird is actually being misrepresented in terms of
-> generating better looks
-> missing or not missing passing opportunities much better on-ball ball-handlers(like kobe) wouldn't miss

I can think of a way such a metric overrates him(not counting anything that happens before the end of a possession where being a strong ball-handler is a big advantage)

Kobe > passer than Bird is a hell of a hill to die on.

A hill is probably not big enough of a topographic feature.

then why bird fans the ones dyin

if all u got is jokes and excuses maybe bird shouldnt be so high

They are not dying, they're living off the vibes.

Actual basketball analysis is not welcome I guess.

[lessthanjake]

let me know when you two want to explain why bird is actually being misrepresented in terms of
-> generating better looks
-> missing or not missing passing opportunities much better on-ball ball-handlers(like kobe) wouldn't miss

I’ve already explained this, so I’m not really sure you’re discussing in good faith at this point. The model is aimed at getting to how consistent someone was at completing good passing opportunities that presented themselves to him. So the model is trying to identify how many good passes someone made (and the exact quality of those passes) compared to the amount and quality of the passing *opportunities* they had. The metric underrates Bird because including assist/load ratio as an input in the formula is naturally going to overestimate the amount of good passing opportunities Bird had since he was on the ball a lot less than the typical person with his offensive load. In essence, the model thinks he had more passing opportunities than he did, so it thinks he missed more opportunities than he did. Again, I’ve explained this repeatedly now. And you’ve simply chosen to ignore it, while saying things like the above.

Of course, another reason to think Bird is being underrated here is that Passer Rating is a stat specifically designed to approximate Ben Taylor’s assessments of peoples’ passing based on his film study, and, based on his film study of Bird, Ben Taylor has concluded that Bird was all-time level at identifying and making good passes. So we actually know that the very thing Passer Rating is merely trying to approximate doesn’t agree with Passer Rating when it comes to Bird specifically.

[OhayoKD]

let me know when you two want to explain why bird is actually being misrepresented in terms of
-> generating better looks
-> missing or not missing passing opportunities much better on-ball ball-handlers(like kobe) wouldn't miss

I’ve already explained this

Do not explain what you don't understand

passer-rating was explicitly created "to compliment box-creation", estimate when players find open men and don't, and differentiate between "elite" passes, "good" passes, "missed elite" passed, and "missed good" passes and then ben postes "expected value" chart that mentions "layup assists" specifically on the basis that layups generate higher quality looks.

You have ducked analysis of the actual inputs beyond height because those inputs are very clearly tied to "creation".
Assist/load only underrates Bird if and only if Bird being off-ball --doesn't-- affect the quality of what he creates.

It only underrates Bird if assists do not reflect what Bird offers

And cruically, if ball-handling is important for creative efficiency, then the metric not being able to account for what Bird is doing pre-pass may potentially overrate him. I have made the case that what Bird generates is hampered by his limited ball-handling. And instead of addressing that, you have decided to appeal to a conclusion as justification...for that very same conclusion(this is called circular reasoning).

If you or Ben have film-tracking showing that Bird is generating higher quality looks than Kobe, is doing more to break a defense before an assist than Kobe, or is missing less opportunities a stronger ball-handler might have found or generated by pressuring the defense with their driving game/slashing, then we may have a decent starting point for "passer-rating underrates the gap", otherwise, you are wasting my and your time.

I do not care about what you think you are independently knowledgeable about and you've very blatantly misrepresented the stat you are assuming underrates Bird. Bias does not just go the direction you want it to because it would support your priors. You have done nothing to argue that adjusted passer-rating, box-creation, raw assists, ast percentage, or any of the box-stuff underrates Bird as a creator. You have just insisted they do. Passing skill=/passing value. And Ben's metrics do not seem to think Bird's passing value matched-up with his skill. That does not make them biased. That is a claim you actually have to justify. And that requires talking basketball, which thus far you have been almost completely unwilling to do.

[SNPA]

let me know when you two want to explain why bird is actually being misrepresented in terms of
-> generating better looks
-> missing or not missing passing opportunities much better on-ball ball-handlers(like kobe) wouldn't miss

I’ve already explained this

Do not explain what you don't understand

passer-rating was explicitly created "to compliment box-creation", estimate when players find open men and don't, and differentiate between "elite" passes, "good" passes, "missed elite" passed, and "missed good" passes and then ben postes "expected value" chart that mentions "layup assists" specifically on the basis that layups generate higher quality looks.

You have ducked analysis of the actual inputs beyond height because those inputs are very clearly tied to "creation".
Assist/load only underrates Bird if and only if Bird being off-ball --doesn't-- affect the quality of what he creates.

It only underrates Bird if assists do not reflect what Bird offers

And cruically, if ball-handling is important for creative efficiency, then the metric not being able to account for what Bird is doing pre-pass may potentially overrate him. I have made the case that what Bird generates is hampered by his limited ball-handling. And instead of addressing that, you have decided to appeal to a conclusion as justification...for that very same conclusion(this is called circular reasoning).

If you or Ben have film-tracking showing that Bird is generating higher quality looks than Kobe, is doing more to break a defense before an assist than Kobe, or is missing less opportunities a stronger ball-handler might have found or generated by pressuring the defense with their driving game/slashing, then we may have a decent starting point for "passer-rating underrates the gap", otherwise, you are wasting my and your time.

I do not care about what you think you are independently knowledgeable about and you've very blatantly misrepresented the stat you are assuming underrates Bird. Bias does not just go the direction you want it to because it would support your priors. You have done nothing to argue that adjusted passer-rating, box-creation, raw assists, ast percentage, or any of the box-stuff underrates Bird as a creator. You have just insisted they do. Passing skill=/passing value. And Ben's metrics do not seem to think Bird's passing value matched-up with his skill. That does not make them biased. That is a claim you actually have to justify. And that requires talking basketball, which thus far you have been almost completely unwilling to do.

Most of this I can’t address. It’s noise to me, if others can appreciate it I’m happy for them.

The part I’ve highlighted is telling to me though. What Bird creates is not hampered by ball handling skill, not needing the ball to be great is better than needing the ball to be great. It’s closer to a superpower than a hindrance. It leaves the other four guys full room to flourish, it’s a game of 5x5.

[lessthanjake]

let me know when you two want to explain why bird is actually being misrepresented in terms of
-> generating better looks
-> missing or not missing passing opportunities much better on-ball ball-handlers(like kobe) wouldn't miss

I’ve already explained this

Do not explain what you don't understand

passer-rating was explicitly created "to compliment box-creation", estimate when players find open men and don't, and differentiate between "elite" passes, "good" passes, "missed elite" passed, and "missed good" passes and then ben postes "expected value" chart that mentions "layup assists" specifically on the basis that layups generate higher quality looks.

You have ducked analysis of the actual inputs beyond height because those inputs are very clearly tied to "creation".
Assist/load only underrates Bird if and only if Bird being off-ball --doesn't-- affect the quality of what he creates.

It only underrates Bird if assists do not reflect what Bird offers

And cruically, if ball-handling is important for creative efficiency, then the metric not being able to account for what Bird is doing pre-pass may potentially overrate him. I have made the case that what Bird generates is hampered by his limited ball-handling. And instead of addressing that, you have decided to appeal to a conclusion as justification...for that very same conclusion(this is called circular reasoning).

If you or Ben have film-tracking showing that Bird is generating higher quality looks than Kobe, is doing more to break a defense before an assist than Kobe, or is missing less opportunities a stronger ball-handler might have found or generated by pressuring the defense with their driving game/slashing, then we may have a decent starting point for "passer-rating underrates the gap", otherwise, you are wasting my and your time.

I do not care about what you think you are independently knowledgeable about and you've very blatantly misrepresented the stat you are assuming underrates Bird. Bias does not just go the direction you want it to because it would support your priors. You have done nothing to argue that adjusted passer-rating, box-creation, raw assists, ast percentage, or any of the box-stuff underrates Bird as a creator. You have just insisted they do. Passing skill=/passing value. And Ben's metrics do not seem to think Bird's passing value matched-up with his skill. That does not make them biased. That is a claim you actually have to justify. And that requires talking basketball, which thus far you have been almost completely unwilling to do.

Okay, you *really* need to tone down the rudeness in your posts. It’s not remotely acceptable.

I genuinely don’t understand how you’re saying a lot of what you’re saying here after the discussion we’ve been having, so I don’t know if this can possibly be a productive discussion. You accuse me of having “ducked analysis of the actual inputs beyond height,” when I’ve been very explicitly discussing the effect of the assist/load ratio input. You say that I’ve “done nothing to argue that . . . box-creation, raw assists, ast percentage, or any of the box-stuff underrates Bird as a creator” and that I “have just insisted they do,” when actually I’ve only been talking about passer rating, so have not been discussing those other measures, let alone “insisting” anything about them. You say I “have to justify” a claim about Bird’s “passing value,” when I’ve made no claim about his passing value and have only been discussing pass quality—indeed, I’ve explicitly said in this discussion that “we know he was not a massive *volume* playmaker” and that “What I’m talking about is the quality of his passing.” You say Passer Rating “only underrates Bird if assists do not reflect what Bird offers,” while ignoring my repeated point that assist/load ratio is part of the formula and therefore the formula underrates Bird if using Load overestimates how many passing opportunities he had (which it very likely does, given that he played so much off ball). You are talking about generating opportunities with ball-handling when, as I’ve pointed out already, Passer Rating is not at all meant to get at the question of whether someone could’ve or did use ball-handling to generate an opportunity for a good pass that wouldn’t otherwise have been there—it is merely meant to measure passing quality taking the opportunities as given (as is clear from the fact that it’s a formula that was fit to an assessment of what passes someone made or missed that were actually there, not some assessment of what passes *could’ve* potentially been there).

And while saying these pretty inexplicable things, you sprinkle in repeated personal attacks. For instance, you start your post with the very aggressive “Do not explain what you don't understand,” without an explanation of what it is I purportedly don’t understand, so this is just a standalone personal attack at the outset. You say that I’ve “very blatantly misrepresented” the Passer Rating stat (with no explanation as to how I purportedly did so). You say that I “have been almost completely unwilling to” “talk basketball,” despite that obviously being what I’ve been doing. You need to tone it down. And just a pro-tip: Haphazard quasi-personal attacks like that don’t make your argument stronger, and in fact actually make it look weaker to the average reader.

[OhayoKD]

I’ve already explained this

Do not explain what you don't understand

passer-rating was explicitly created "to compliment box-creation", estimate when players find open men and don't, and differentiate between "elite" passes, "good" passes, "missed elite" passed, and "missed good" passes and then ben postes "expected value" chart that mentions "layup assists" specifically on the basis that layups generate higher quality looks.

You have ducked analysis of the actual inputs beyond height because those inputs are very clearly tied to "creation".
Assist/load only underrates Bird if and only if Bird being off-ball --doesn't-- affect the quality of what he creates.

It only underrates Bird if assists do not reflect what Bird offers

And cruically, if ball-handling is important for creative efficiency, then the metric not being able to account for what Bird is doing pre-pass may potentially overrate him. I have made the case that what Bird generates is hampered by his limited ball-handling. And instead of addressing that, you have decided to appeal to a conclusion as justification...for that very same conclusion(this is called circular reasoning).

If you or Ben have film-tracking showing that Bird is generating higher quality looks than Kobe, is doing more to break a defense before an assist than Kobe, or is missing less opportunities a stronger ball-handler might have found or generated by pressuring the defense with their driving game/slashing, then we may have a decent starting point for "passer-rating underrates the gap", otherwise, you are wasting my and your time.

I do not care about what you think you are independently knowledgeable about and you've very blatantly misrepresented the stat you are assuming underrates Bird. Bias does not just go the direction you want it to because it would support your priors. You have done nothing to argue that adjusted passer-rating, box-creation, raw assists, ast percentage, or any of the box-stuff underrates Bird as a creator. You have just insisted they do. Passing skill=/passing value. And Ben's metrics do not seem to think Bird's passing value matched-up with his skill. That does not make them biased. That is a claim you actually have to justify. And that requires talking basketball, which thus far you have been almost completely unwilling to do.

Most of this I can’t address. It’s noise to me, if others can appreciate it I’m happy for them.

The part I’ve highlighted is telling to me though. What Bird creates is not hampered by ball handling skill, not needing the ball to be great is better than needing the ball to be great. It’s closer to a superpower than a hindrance. It leaves the other four guys full room to flourish, it’s a game of 5x5.

Nope.

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Being good at ball-handling is good! Needing teammates who are good at ball-handling is bad!

Mr. Natural talent was pretty mid at a very important basketball skill which nuetered his ability to translate that "natural talent" into value. That's why he wasn't as good!

[lessthanjake]

Do not explain what you don't understand

passer-rating was explicitly created "to compliment box-creation", estimate when players find open men and don't, and differentiate between "elite" passes, "good" passes, "missed elite" passed, and "missed good" passes and then ben postes "expected value" chart that mentions "layup assists" specifically on the basis that layups generate higher quality looks.

You have ducked analysis of the actual inputs beyond height because those inputs are very clearly tied to "creation".
Assist/load only underrates Bird if and only if Bird being off-ball --doesn't-- affect the quality of what he creates.

It only underrates Bird if assists do not reflect what Bird offers

And cruically, if ball-handling is important for creative efficiency, then the metric not being able to account for what Bird is doing pre-pass may potentially overrate him. I have made the case that what Bird generates is hampered by his limited ball-handling. And instead of addressing that, you have decided to appeal to a conclusion as justification...for that very same conclusion(this is called circular reasoning).

If you or Ben have film-tracking showing that Bird is generating higher quality looks than Kobe, is doing more to break a defense before an assist than Kobe, or is missing less opportunities a stronger ball-handler might have found or generated by pressuring the defense with their driving game/slashing, then we may have a decent starting point for "passer-rating underrates the gap", otherwise, you are wasting my and your time.

I do not care about what you think you are independently knowledgeable about and you've very blatantly misrepresented the stat you are assuming underrates Bird. Bias does not just go the direction you want it to because it would support your priors. You have done nothing to argue that adjusted passer-rating, box-creation, raw assists, ast percentage, or any of the box-stuff underrates Bird as a creator. You have just insisted they do. Passing skill=/passing value. And Ben's metrics do not seem to think Bird's passing value matched-up with his skill. That does not make them biased. That is a claim you actually have to justify. And that requires talking basketball, which thus far you have been almost completely unwilling to do.

Most of this I can’t address. It’s noise to me, if others can appreciate it I’m happy for them.

The part I’ve highlighted is telling to me though. What Bird creates is not hampered by ball handling skill, not needing the ball to be great is better than needing the ball to be great. It’s closer to a superpower than a hindrance. It leaves the other four guys full room to flourish, it’s a game of 5x5.

Nope.

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Being good at ball-handling is good! Needing teammates who are good at ball-handling is bad!

Mr. Natural talent was pretty mid at a very important basketball skill which nuetered his ability to translate that "natural talent" into value. That's why he wasn't as good!

Magic Johnson was a better offensive player than Bird, but this particular analysis is missing the context that Magic Johnson’s teams had more offensive talent than Bird’s (Bird’s teams were tilted more towards defense). I’m actually kind of surprised these numbers are as close as they are to be honest—I don’t think they make Bird look bad at all.

[OhayoKD]

Most of this I can’t address. It’s noise to me, if others can appreciate it I’m happy for them.

The part I’ve highlighted is telling to me though. What Bird creates is not hampered by ball handling skill, not needing the ball to be great is better than needing the ball to be great. It’s closer to a superpower than a hindrance. It leaves the other four guys full room to flourish, it’s a game of 5x5.

Nope.

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Being good at ball-handling is good! Needing teammates who are good at ball-handling is bad!

Mr. Natural talent was pretty mid at a very important basketball skill which nuetered his ability to translate that "natural talent" into value. That's why he wasn't as good!

Magic Johnson was a better offensive player than Bird, but this particular analysis is missing the context that Magic Johnson’s teams had more offensive talent than Bird’s (Bird’s teams were tilted more towards defense). I’m actually kind of surprised these numbers are as close as they are to be honest—I don’t think they make Bird look bad at all.

if you say so