RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #42 (Anthony Davis)

[DSMok1]

Just to weigh in briefly on these various statistics that are being debated.

There are a number of things involved here. First of all, remember that the box score at its best can get you 50% of defense, if you couple box score data with team results. The box score measures around 80% of offense again including team results.

As you go back in time we don't have as many statistics for this and defense gets fuzzier and fuzzier. The same goes for offense.

Once you get back to the days of Dolph Schayes, the limited box score plus team results are telling you less than half of what's really happening.

RAPM is measuring what's actually happening, but you need multi-year sample sizes it for the noise to subside enough for it to actually mean anything. I recommend three or four year stints at a minimum.

PER just a less well-calibrated box score stat than BPM (I would use win shares over it). It is also not the same calculation when used on players from in the early days when there was less data collected.

In other words, these are all crude tools at best.

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: Dolph Schayes

Schayes has such a long and consistent career and that's what it came down to for me. Schayes was consistently playing through injuries in the playoffs including a broken wrist in the 1954 NBA Finals. Davis, on the other hand, is consistently injured and missing teams which hurts his reliability to me. He brings more of an all-around offensive game compared to Davis and I view Schayes as one of the better offensive bigs of all-time. Davis has the clear advantage on defense and I can't argue with that. And while Schayes was critical of his own defense, I still view him as competent on that end. His teammates and head coach Al Cervi did certainly recognize he was more offensively-inclined and allowed him to focus more on that end to the detriment of his defense, which I believe is mentioned in The Nats by David Ramsey. But his rebounding ability and average-to-solid defense is enough to give him the nod for me here.

[Doctor MJ]

Looks like the runoff went 2-1 for Davis. Calling it.

Anthony Davis is Inducted at #42.

[trex_8063]

So I sometimes hear this and I wonder ... granting certainly in the initial phrasing it is phrased as a question.

... what do you mean by this?

Because I could easily get to "more important" on average without thinking that on average big men should look better.

In short (I'm sure others have said it but it stuck with their phrasing, and why not get another Dave Berri mention in) it's "the short supply of tall people".

Bigs could be be a wider ranging group, making them more important without the average being better. It depends on if you think you need really, really tall people but most of the major league era game has at least been played on the assumption that you do. The gap between 1st and 30th or 60th say ... five-eleven to six-four guy is likely to be smaller than 1st to 30th or 60th in a much smaller pool, say six-nine and above).

That would lead to correctly placing more bigs at the very top end of a ranking list. But would not justify box composites (and I will here note PER is not gen1 or indeed any variant of Win Produced) tilting towards bigs on average.

And given the limited supply it's possible that bad bigs with physical tools and/or solid production who may be very weak in non-box areas and are net doing significant harm might tend to get more opportunities. It might be harder for a smaller guy to get to box solid whilst being bad (a big who actually doesn't help team defensive rebound or deter/alter rim attempts could get defensive rebounds and blocks and just not box out and miss rotations and let guys sail by ... a point guard who doesn't do point guard stuff ... the box isn't perfect but I think they'll typically look bad in the box-aggregates).

I'm just postulating stuff here rather than committing hard to a position but I certainly see a route to "bigs are [on average] more 'important'" and simultaneously that we shouldn't see bigs averaging higher statistically.

I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're saying, Owly, so you'll have to correct me if I've entirely missed the point.

There are a couple principles that I cannot tell if you're speaking toward or not, which I will call: body-type scarcity (within a population), and # of body-type (within the league)......

# of Body-types (in the league)
This principle takes note of the raw numbers of various types/sizes present in the league. The statement utilizing this principle as the measuring stick for who is "more important" might go something like this: "There are more guys in the league who are 6'5" and under than there are guys who are >6'9"........therefore big men are NOT more important."

Again, I'm not clear if this is a principle you're speaking to. But if you ARE, I have a two-point reply:
1) That is NOT the definition or guiding principle of "more important" I was suggesting.
2) Personally, I don't think it's a suitable principle by which to determine who is "more important" [even if this comes down to semantic disagreement on some level]. As an exaggerated example, I might declare: "In American football, there are more special teams players than quarterbacks. Therefore, special teams players are more important." I do not believe that is the case, and think it's rather obvious that I am probably correct. I think similar relationships exist in other sports (including basketball).

This is, of course, by no means any sort of proof that bigs are more important in basketball; it's merely pointing out that I think the "# of body-types" methodology is not useful for answering the question.


Body-type scarcity
I feel like there's one paragraph above that speaks to this, but not sure. This principle basically notes that shorter players (let's say 6'5" and under) have to be so much more elite (relative to their cohort) to even find a roster spot in the NBA, than someone who is >6'9". Guys who actually are >6'9" are more of a rarity within the human race, and a relatively higher proportion of them become professional basketball players [than say....guys who are 6'3"] (I think I even read once that a study over some set of years [90s/00s, I think???] found that something like 15% of every human male 7'0" or taller played in NBA at least briefly).
Therefore, one doesn't necessarily need to be too "special" of a >6'9" guy to be in the NBA (not nearly as "special" as a guy who's ~6'3", for example).........and thus the bigs are not "more important".

Again, I'd have a two-point reply if this is what was being said:
1) This was not the guiding principle of "more important" I was suggesting.
2) I again don't feel this is a suitable approach to the question of who is more important, and also feel it's rather arbitrary to single out the characteristic of height in this fashion. One could just as easily single-out the physical features of being 6'6"-6'8" AND having "freakish" athleticism. Then he'd note that among the cohort of the human population who is both 6'6"-6'8" AND super-athletic in other ways have a very high proportion who play in the NBA........thus, they're not as "special" among their cohort [that is: of guys 6'6"-6'8" AND super-athletic], and so not "more important".


Otherwise, the only other question you ask (the ONE question I AM fairly certain you are asking about) is: do bigs simply get more credit by box-based means while not actually adding value/impact (more so than shorter players), and thus have essentially "fooled" fans, coaches, managers and executives [for generations] that they're necessary and valuable to a higher degree than other player types/sizes?

The short answer [from me] is: it's possible, but I don't personally think so.

There are things that are inherently valuable in the game of basketball; and some of those things are better carried out by "big" human beings:
*It's valuable to have someone who can deter, alter, or block shots near the rim. For obvious reasons, the guys who can reach/extend closer to that goal [bigs] are frequently better at this. Even in the space n' pace 3-ball era of present day, we've seen that paint protectors [e.g. Rudy Gobert] still carry tremendous value, in part because of this.
**Securing defensive rebounds to end a possession is inherently valuable. Guys who are bigger than everyone else can frequently carry out this function better than smaller persons.
***Teams running any sort of pick-n-roll type offense require someone set a sturdy screen. For obvious reasons, bigger guys can set a more effective screen than say Facundo Campazzo or Jose Alvarado.
Often times, a team is happy to have that guy who is setting that effective screen to also be able to play above the rim, finish well, and generally levy some rim-pressure on the roll. For reasons that I think are self-evident, big guys are generally better in this capacity.
*****Having interior threats [who finish well] near the rim in general helps keep the defense honest. For reasons already stated, often big men will be the more reliable finishers inside.
*****While a team may not make it a focused strategy or means of deployment, extending possessions through offensive rebounding provides value. For much of the same reasons, frequently the most potent offensive rebounders are big men.

Having big men on the court generally requires that the opposing team do so as well (having someone 6'5" try to handle someone 6'11" inside often doesn't end well for the defense). Thus, if the offense has a big man who can shoot from the outside, this adds a new dimension to a big man's value: drawing the big man defender away from the rim/paint.


I know there is complexity to some of these things. For instance you noted that a big man who isn't truly a good rim/paint protector is still likely to get some blocks (thus improving his box-based metrics). However, if you straight-up replace him with someone 6'4", for example, I'd wager your team's paint-protection numbers will often look even worse.

You also noted that big guys may often get significant numbers of defensive rebounds without helping the team DREB%. However, I think the manner in which they do or do not influence the team DREB% is largely in comparison to other bigs (because every other team is flooring rotations with their own bigs, our team is subbing bigs for bigs, etc).

A team might be able to do better with a different 6'11" guy who has lesser individual drpg (but who is a better team rebounder (boxing out, etc)).......but I doubt that team would do better if they straight-up swapped out the worse team-rebounding 6'11" guy with a guy who is 6'3".

If a team decides to play a rotations that are entirely 6'5" and under for the whole season, I've little doubt that they would be the worst rebounding team in the league, and would frequently be getting murdered on the glass. The adjustment [on that team] of putting even one 6'11" guy on the court [even one we otherwise generally perceive as not moving the needle on team DREB%] is likely going to improve THAT team's DREB% substantially, I would guess.


So I personally am of the belief that bigs are more important. This is not to say that the best team would be a team of ONLY bigs; the other roles are necessary, and you need all the various pieces. But I feel bigs can frequently leave the biggest imprint on a team's success, because being big is quite simply a boon in the game of basketball, in a number of ways alluded to above; just as being super-athletic in other ways is of benefit in the game.
And some of those ways show up in the boxscore to a higher degree.


It would be interesting to do an impact [RAPM-based, perhaps??] across years and eras to assess impact vs height and/or position played. Not sure if it's been done.
Though fwiw, from my own spreadsheets (last couple years missing), I have the best 7-year combined RAPM's of the last quarter century or so [used AuPM for '94-'96] looking like this:
LeBron James (6'8" SF/PF/Point-forward)
Kevin Garnett (6'11" PF/(C))
Shaquille O'Neal (7'1" C)
Tim Duncan (6'11" PF/C)
David Robinson (7'1" C)
Chris Paul (6'0" PG)

We're down to 6th before seeing the first player <6'8", and four of the top five are PF/C's standing 6'11"+; and this in an era that skewed toward perimeter-based play for most of the sample period.

[Doctor MJ]

Just to weigh in briefly on these various statistics that are being debated.

There are a number of things involved here. First of all, remember that the box score at its best can get you 50% of defense, if you couple box score data with team results. The box score measures around 80% of offense again including team results.

As you go back in time we don't have as many statistics for this and defense gets fuzzier and fuzzier. The same goes for offense.

Once you get back to the days of Dolph Schayes, the limited box score plus team results are telling you less than half of what's really happening.

RAPM is measuring what's actually happening, but you need multi-year sample sizes it for the noise to subside enough for it to actually mean anything. I recommend three or four year stints at a minimum.

PER just a less well-calibrated box score stat than BPM (I would use win shares over it). It is also not the same calculation when used on players from in the early days when there was less data collected.

In other words, these are all crude tools at best.

I appreciate your insights in general.

I think it would be great to hear you answer how you'd compare BPM with Win Shares? I don't just mean "better" or "worse". How would you describe the improvements from WS to BPM? Do you see a difference in purpose or philosophy between the two that's worth understanding?

[Owly]

So I sometimes hear this and I wonder ... granting certainly in the initial phrasing it is phrased as a question.

... what do you mean by this?

Because I could easily get to "more important" on average without thinking that on average big men should look better.

In short (I'm sure others have said it but it stuck with their phrasing, and why not get another Dave Berri mention in) it's "the short supply of tall people".

Bigs could be be a wider ranging group, making them more important without the average being better. It depends on if you think you need really, really tall people but most of the major league era game has at least been played on the assumption that you do. The gap between 1st and 30th or 60th say ... five-eleven to six-four guy is likely to be smaller than 1st to 30th or 60th in a much smaller pool, say six-nine and above).

That would lead to correctly placing more bigs at the very top end of a ranking list. But would not justify box composites (and I will here note PER is not gen1 or indeed any variant of Win Produced) tilting towards bigs on average.

And given the limited supply it's possible that bad bigs with physical tools and/or solid production who may be very weak in non-box areas and are net doing significant harm might tend to get more opportunities. It might be harder for a smaller guy to get to box solid whilst being bad (a big who actually doesn't help team defensive rebound or deter/alter rim attempts could get defensive rebounds and blocks and just not box out and miss rotations and let guys sail by ... a point guard who doesn't do point guard stuff ... the box isn't perfect but I think they'll typically look bad in the box-aggregates).

I'm just postulating stuff here rather than committing hard to a position but I certainly see a route to "bigs are [on average] more 'important'" and simultaneously that we shouldn't see bigs averaging higher statistically.

I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're saying, Owly, so you'll have to correct me if I've entirely missed the point.

There are a couple principles that I cannot tell if you're speaking toward or not, which I will call: body-type scarcity (within a population), and # of body-type (within the league)......

# of Body-types (in the league)
This principle takes note of the raw numbers of various types/sizes present in the league. The statement utilizing this principle as the measuring stick for who is "more important" might go something like this: "There are more guys in the league who are 6'5" and under than there are guys who are >6'9"........therefore big men are NOT more important.

Again, I'm not clear if this is a principle you're speaking to. But if you ARE, I have a two-point reply:
1) That is NOT the definition or guiding principle of "more important" I was suggesting.
2) Personally, I don't think it's a suitable principle by which to determine who is "more important" [even if this comes down to semantic disagreement on some level]. As an exaggerated example, I might declare: "In American football, there are more special teams players than quarterbacks. Therefore, special teams players are more important." I do not believe that is the case, and think it's rather obvious that I am probably correct. I think similar relationships exist in other sports (including basketball).

This is, of course, by no means any sort of proof that bigs are more important in basketball; it's merely pointing out that I think the "# of body-types" methodology is not useful for answering the question.


Body-type scarcity
I feel like there's one paragraph above that speaks to this, but not sure. This principle basically notes that shorter players (let's say 6'5" and under) have to be so much more elite (relative to their cohort) to even find a roster spot in the NBA, than someone who is >6'9". Guys who actually are >6'9" are more of a rarity within the human race, and a relatively higher proportion of them become professional basketball players [than say....guys who are 6'3"] (I think I even read once that a study over some set of years [90s/00s, I think???] found that something like 15% of every human male 7'0" or taller played in NBA at least briefly).
Therefore, one doesn't necessarily need to be too "special" of a >6'9" guy to be in the NBA (not nearly as "special" as a guy who's ~6'3", for example).........and thus the bigs are not "more important".

Again, I'd have a two-point reply if this is what was being said:
1) This was not the guiding principle of "more important" I was suggesting.
2) I again don't feel this is a suitable approach to the question of who is more important, and also feel it's rather arbitrary to single out the characteristic of height in this fashion. One could just as easily single-out the physical features of being 6'6"-6'8" AND having "freakish" athleticism. Then he'd note that among the cohort of the human population who is both 6'6"-6'8" AND super-athletic in other ways have a very high proportion who play in the NBA........thus, they're not as "special" among their cohort [that is: of guys 6'6"-6'8" AND super-athletic], and so not "more important".


Otherwise, the only other question you ask (the ONE question I AM fairly certain you are asking about) is: do bigs simply get more credit by box-based means while not actually adding value/impact (more so than shorter players), and thus have essentially "fooled" fans, coaches, managers and executives [for generations] that they're necessary and valuable to a higher degree than other player types/sizes?

The short answer [from me] is: it's possible, but I don't personally think so.

There are things that are inherently valuable in the game of basketball; and some of those things are better carried out by "big" human beings:
*It's valuable to have someone who can deter, alter, or block shots near the rim. For obvious reasons, the guys who can reach/extend closer to that goal [bigs] are frequently better at this. Even in the space n' pace 3-ball era of present day, we've seen that paint protectors [e.g. Rudy Gobert] still carry tremendous value, in part because of this.
**Securing defensive rebounds to end a possession is inherently valuable. Guys who are bigger than everyone else can frequently carry out this function better than smaller persons.
***Teams running any sort of pick-n-roll type offense require someone set a sturdy screen. For obvious reasons, bigger guys can set a more effective screen than say Facundo Campazzo or Jose Alvarado.
Often times, a team is happy to have that guy who is setting that effective screen to also be able to play above the rim, finish well, and generally levy some rim-pressure on the roll. For reasons that I think are self-evident, big guys are generally better in this capacity.
*****Having interior threats [who finish well] near the rim in general helps keep the defense honest. For reasons already stated, often big men will be the more reliable finishers inside.
*****While a team may not make it a focused strategy or means of deployment, extending possessions through offensive rebounding provides value. For much of the same reasons, frequently the most potent offensive rebounders are big men.

Having big men on the court generally requires that the opposing team do so as well (having someone 6'5" try to handle someone 6'11" inside often doesn't end well for the defense). Thus, if the offense has a big man who can shoot from the outside, this adds a new dimension to a big man's value: drawing the big man defender away from the rim/paint.


I know there is complexity to some of these things. For instance you noted that a big man who isn't truly a good rim/paint protector is still likely to get some blocks (thus improving his box-based metrics). However, if you straight-up replace him with someone 6'4", for example, I'd wager your team's paint-protection numbers will often look even worse.

You also noted that big guys may often get significant numbers of defensive rebounds without helping the team DREB%. However, I think the manner in which they do or do not influence the team DREB% is largely in comparison to other bigs (because every other team is flooring rotations with their own bigs, our team is subbing bigs for bigs, etc).

A team might be able to do better with a different 6'11" guy who has lesser individual drpg (but who is a better team rebounder (boxing out, etc)).......but I doubt that team would do better if they straight-up swapped out the worse team-rebounding 6'11" guy with a guy who is 6'3".

If a team decides to play a rotations that are entirely 6'5" and under for the whole season, I've little doubt that they would be the worst rebounding team in the league, and would frequently be getting murdered on the glass. The adjustment [on that team] of putting even one 6'11" guy on the court [even one we otherwise generally perceive as not moving the needle on team DREB%] is likely going to improve THAT team's DREB% substantially, I would guess.


So I personally am of the belief that bigs are more important. This is not to say that the best team would be a team of ONLY bigs; the other roles are necessary, and you need all the various pieces. But I feel bigs can frequently leave the biggest imprint on a team's success, because being big is quite simply a boon in the game of basketball, in a number of ways alluded to above; just as being super-athletic in other ways is of benefit in the game.
And some of those ways show up in the boxscore to a higher degree.


It would be interesting to do an impact [RAPM-based, perhaps??] across years and eras to assess impact vs height and/or position played. Not sure if it's been done.
Though fwiw, from my own spreadsheets (last couple years missing), I have the best 7-year combined RAPM's of the last quarter century or so [used AuPM for '94-'96] looking like this:
LeBron James (6'8" SF/PF/Point-forward)
Kevin Garnett (6'11" PF/(C))
Shaquille O'Neal (7'1" C)
Tim Duncan (6'11" PF/C)
David Robinson (7'1" C)
Chris Paul (6'0" PG)

We're down to 6th before seeing the first player <6'8", and four of the top five are PF/C's standing 6'11"+; and this in an era that skewed toward perimeter-based play for most of the sample period.

Very first glance response. It's about the supply of tall people. It's about in a population. As stated I'm not committed to it but the ideas seems plausible. Bigs are (on average) more "important". They have (on average) a greater range of impact. They do so because nobody plays a bad 6 foot 2 inch player. There's so many better. But a bad 7 foot 2 inch player ... people will/have employ(ed) the 60th best 7 footer and talk themselves into his passing or that playoff series he had, even if he's Dwayne Schintzius.

Struggling to parse what you're saying with some of your comments on this ... I'd guess maybe you haven't understood my intended message but can't be sure.



Laterly

Otherwise, the only other question you ask (the ONE question I AM fairly certain you are asking about) is: do bigs simply get more credit by box-based means while not actually adding value/impact (more so than shorter players), and thus have essentially "fooled" fans, coaches, managers and executives [for generations] that they're necessary and valuable to a higher degree than other player types/sizes?

The short answer [from me] is: it's possible, but I don't personally think so.

Per above the argument wasn't anti-bigs, bigs aren't important, which seems like it might be the read here.

But there is some skepticism that in some instances box aggregates may have been overrating bigs
If the 50s box aggregates are to be fully believed it would not be that the bigs were fooling executives but the smalls. In a small and shrinking league the following centers had one or more notable PER season:
Neil Johnston
Ed Macauley
Larry Foust
Clyde Lovellette
Ray Felix
Bob Houbregs
Charlie (Chuck) Share
Eddie Miller

for PFs its
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Kenny Sears
Maurice Stokes
Vern Mikkelsen
Jack Coleman


for SGs its
Sharman
Ramsey (if he counts as a guard)

for PGs its
Bob Cousy
Dick McGuire

and all of the smalls highest PER are lower than all of the bigs bar Coleman. (I do have some major league era guys as 40s (it would at 4 centers, 1 sg, 1 pg). Granting here positional designations (like era ones) are often arbitrary, fuzzy and debatable.

Assuming that either wider range hypothesis is wrong or doesn't explain this (because there's so many more good big seasons ... it's not a wide range it's that they're all the best players).

If (early approximation of) PER is right, the question isn't "why were these guys playing bigs", it's "why weren't they playing more bigs". Why are these executives being fooled into using small players.

The thesis wasn't ever bigs aren't important and are fooling people into playing them. It's they are more widely split and perhaps more prone to being mis-rated.

And as stated in the orignial post this isn't something I'm committed to or something I've looked into in great depth as something that seems possible or plausible. I think we've discussed the 50s example and the likes of Hickson, Faried, Gooden, Swift, Landry, McGee, Whiteside, Jordan, Warrick (won't be the exact names but similar) in the past fwiw.

There are things that are inherently valuable in the game of basketball; and some of those things are better carried out by "big" human beings:

I don't think there's anyone disputing this.

I do think you're overrating height beyond a certain point in and of itself as a defensive and rebounding tool
There are a lot of the absolute elite rebounders that are either just barely or aren't conventional bigs height ... I can't find a list that I posted somewhat recently but 6'8 and below likes of Rodman, Fortson, Evans, Unseld, Lane, Smith etc. Some of those are broad (though not so much Rodman, Lane) and occasionally you're throwing that in ("big" used in general and breadth/heft implicit in "sturdy" screen setting ... though timing, reading the defense, what you do after, "veteran savvy" [/cheating depending on perspective] ... even willingness to take the hit if the barrier is hit, I think now and always to some extent the detour is the point more than the hit).

And I'm pretty certain the following reasoning is circular and bad
"Having big men on the court generally requires that the opposing team do so as well (having someone 6'5" try to handle someone 6'11" inside often doesn't end well for the defense)"
You have to have a big because I have one, and I have to have one because you have one. And because everyone has one we all seem to be right. To the cost of having a shorter player on the court ... it depends ... does the big posting up lead to effective offense ... is the less tall player Chuck Hayes or Dennis Rodman or ... ? I think it very much depends on the particular matchup. I think if your big is Mark Eaton I'd be best suited by putting on another wing. I'll drag Eaton away from the hoop on offense. And on D if they want to keep posting up Mark Eaton ... I think that's a good outcome for us.
There's fuzziness in "generally" (and certainty in "requires") I'd grant. There may very well be some cost to the shorter player (if posting the tall guy isn't the offense falling for a trap because they're throwing out their offense or entering the ball is tricky and takes a while, or the big guy isn't good at catching or establishing position or doesn't have any moves or gets called on charges or doesn't see the floor so even if his scoring looks good, the plays where it didn't work get badly hurt ...) there may very well be upsides too though. I think you have to look at the basketball players you have (and the opponent) and look to put the most effective lineup out there.

I'll reread my post and yours but I'm presently of the impression that ...

1) You've misread my post (even just at the basic level regarding what I said on importance - this seems to be wrong consistently through the post)
2) You've ended up posting what look like wild ... I don't know ...non-sequitur? strawmen?
3) I think at least one take, perhaps more is/are still at best oversimplifications/overgeneralizations or just wrong anyway (you've got a big so I have to have one).

[trex_8063]

Very first glance response. It's about the supply of tall people. It's about in a population. As stated I'm not committed to it but the ideas seems plausible. Bigs are (on average) more "important". They have (on average) a greater range of impact. They do so because nobody plays a bad 6 foot 2 inch player. There's so many better. But a bad 7 foot 2 inch player ... people will/have employ(ed) the 60th best 7 footer and talk themselves into his passing or that playoff series he had, even if he's Dwayne Schintzius.

Struggling to parse what you're saying with some of your comments on this ... I'd guess maybe you haven't understood my intended message but can't be sure.

Yes, this is almost precisely what I was speaking to in the "body-type scarcity" section.


You say a "bad" 6'2" will never make it into the NBA; but a "bad" 7-footer might (for almost no other reason than he's a 7-footer).

I say it is an arbitrary distinction to single out height [vs other physical attributes] in this fashion.

I could just as judiciously say a "bad" 6'7" *freakishly athletic [*let's say blazing open-court speed, first-step quickness, explosive leaping ability, excellent body-control and stamina] guy might make it in the NBA (for little other reason than he's 6'7" and freakishly athletic).

What's the difference?
When you distill it down, there isn't any difference......except that we [the masses of basketball fans] tend to form these subtle biases against extreme outlier height in ways that we DON'T form [to the same degree] against other outlier physical attributes (such as freakish athelticism on a 6'7" frame).
Thus, we'll speculate on phrases such as "he's not that good, he's just tall."


You make an interesting point that people might fool themselves, trying to talk themselves into various skills (e.g. "he's a pretty good passer for a big") in order to justify playing the big guys. Certainly such a phenomenon is possible, and no doubt happens from time to time.
However, I myself am skeptical that this phenomenon has led to chronic overuse of big men, in a broad sense, for ~80 years.

But there is some skepticism that in some instances box aggregates may have been overrating bigs
If the 50s box aggregates are to be fully believed it would not be that the bigs were fooling executives but the smalls. In a small and shrinking league the following centers had one or more notable PER season:
Neil Johnston
Ed Macauley
Larry Foust
Clyde Lovellette
Ray Felix
Bob Houbregs
Charlie (Chuck) Share
Eddie Miller

for PFs its
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Kenny Sears
Maurice Stokes
Vern Mikkelsen
Jack Coleman


for SGs its
Sharman
Ramsey (if he counts as a guard)

for PGs its
Bob Cousy
Dick McGuire

and all of the smalls highest PER are lower than all of the bigs bar Coleman. (I do have some major league era guys as 40s (it would at 4 centers, 1 sg, 1 pg). Granting here positional designations (like era ones) are often arbitrary, fuzzy and debatable.

I have no doubt box-aggregates sometimes overrate bigs.
I think they sometimes overrate smalls, too (Kyrie Irving comes to mind).

Is it possible they overrate bigs more frequently than smalls? Sure, I'm willing to at least entertain that potential. To a massive degree? idk, on that I am skeptical.

And that guys like Vern Mikkelsen [maybe only the 4th-6th best PF] might have inflicted more raw value/impact than Dick McGuire [the 2nd or 3rd-best PG].......to me, that's not a hard sell.

If (early approximation of) PER is right, the question isn't "why were these guys playing bigs", it's "why weren't they playing more bigs". Why are these executives being fooled into using small players.

The thesis wasn't ever bigs aren't important and are fooling people into playing them. It's they are more widely split and perhaps more prone to being mis-rated.

It's possible they're more prone to being mis-rated. It's a hard hypothesis to prove, though.

That said, the one comment I'll make is that execs aren't "fooled" into using smalls; it's about balance. Certain roles simply need to be filled (and there are roles for which smaller players are generally more capable).
I'll again make an [exaggerated] American football analogy: the 2nd-option running back is [overall] a more important ["better"] player than the punter. Why are execs fooled into wasting salary on a punter? Just let the 2nd-option RB do it (he's the "better" player, after all).

Why? Because he doesn't fill that role, even if that role is generally not as important/valuable.

Roles are obviously not this divided and distinct in basketball; but I think the same basic premise still applies.

There are things that are inherently valuable in the game of basketball; and some of those things are better carried out by "big" human beings:

I don't think there's anyone disputing this.

I do think you're overrating height beyond a certain point in and of itself as a defensive and rebounding tool
There are a lot of the absolute elite rebounders that are either just barely or aren't conventional bigs height ... I can't find a list that I posted somewhat recently but 6'8 and below likes of Rodman, Fortson, Evans, Unseld, Lane, Smith etc. Some of those are broad (though not so much Rodman, Lane) and occasionally you're throwing that in ("big" used in general and breadth/heft implicit in "sturdy" screen setting ... though timing, reading the defense, what you do after, "veteran savvy" [/cheating depending on perspective] ... even willingness to take the hit if the barrier is hit, I think now and always to some extent the detour is the point more than the hit).

Well, of course I'm not saying a taller guy is automatically the better rebounder (e.g. a 7'0" guy is absolutely and in all instances a better team rebounder than a 6'8" or 6'9" guy). And of course you look at your SPECIFIC personnel, the synergy, the game-plan, the opponent, etc.
You don't floor a 7'0" over a 6'8" or 6'9" option simply because he's taller, with NO other consideration of ANYTHING else.

These are not things I have said, or am saying now, nor ever would say.

I feel like the above is conflating me saying "height/length is valuable in toward rebounding and rim protection/defense" with me saying "the tallest guy will always be the best at these things".
Just this is absolutely clear: I'm not saying that.

And I'm pretty certain the following reasoning is circular and bad
"Having big men on the court generally requires that the opposing team do so as well (having someone 6'5" try to handle someone 6'11" inside often doesn't end well for the defense)"
You have to have a big because I have one, and I have to have one because you have one. And because everyone has one we all seem to be right. To the cost of having a shorter player on the court ... it depends ... does the big posting up lead to effective offense ... is the less tall player Chuck Hayes or Dennis Rodman or ... ? I think it very much depends on the particular matchup. I think if your big is Mark Eaton I'd be best suited by putting on another wing. I'll drag Eaton away from the hoop on offense. And on D if they want to keep posting up Mark Eaton ... I think that's a good outcome for us.

Again: of course things like specific personnel, match-ups, synergy, opponent, game-plan, etc, would all be considered.

wrt circular reasoning, I guess I don't fully agree.....

Suppose we're at war.
You have swords.
I have guns and artillery.

So your generals say, "We really need to obtain guns and artillery to deal with this foe."
Do you then say, "That's circular reasoning. We don't need guns simply because they have guns."?

Yeah, I realize I'm again engaging in hyperbole and/or false equivalence here, but you see what I'm driving at, yeah? You need the appropriate pieces to counter what the other guy has. And yes, I realize smalls pose some problem for bigs.

But if this analogy is not convincing, I'll say this: I feel like the scheming, strategy, philosophy of what is/is not a good shot, and general "brains" of basketball has come SO far even in the last 30-35 years (and even more so in the last 75 years).
And yet still today there are big men on the court, the average height in the league is still close to 6'7"; even in a game that has trended toward perimeter-play, 3pt shooting, etc.

For me, that's strongly indicative that bigs are necessary, and execs aren't being tricked by the "fool's gold" of tall fellows.

I'll reread my post and yours but I'm presently of the impression that ...

1) You've misread my post (even just at the basic level regarding what I said on importance - this seems to be wrong consistently through the post)
2) You've ended up posting what look like wild ... I don't know ...non-sequitur? strawmen?
3) I think at least one take, perhaps more is/are still at best oversimplifications/overgeneralizations or just wrong anyway (you've got a big so I have to have one).

Well, hopefully you don't stil feel this way.

[DSMok1]

Just to weigh in briefly on these various statistics that are being debated.

There are a number of things involved here. First of all, remember that the box score at its best can get you 50% of defense, if you couple box score data with team results. The box score measures around 80% of offense again including team results.

As you go back in time we don't have as many statistics for this and defense gets fuzzier and fuzzier. The same goes for offense.

Once you get back to the days of Dolph Schayes, the limited box score plus team results are telling you less than half of what's really happening.

RAPM is measuring what's actually happening, but you need multi-year sample sizes it for the noise to subside enough for it to actually mean anything. I recommend three or four year stints at a minimum.

PER just a less well-calibrated box score stat than BPM (I would use win shares over it). It is also not the same calculation when used on players from in the early days when there was less data collected.

In other words, these are all crude tools at best.

I appreciate your insights in general.

I think it would be great to hear you answer how you'd compare BPM with Win Shares? I don't just mean "better" or "worse". How would you describe the improvements from WS to BPM? Do you see a difference in purpose or philosophy between the two that's worth understanding?

Win Shares I would consider the second best box score - only metric. If we have BPM, use that, but also look at win shares for a counterpoint.

Here is a good overall analysis of one group of stats. It is written by the author of estimated plus minus so keep that in mind, but as far as comparison of other statistics I see no potential for bias really: https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparison

[Owly]

Very first glance response. It's about the supply of tall people. It's about in a population. As stated I'm not committed to it but the ideas seems plausible. Bigs are (on average) more "important". They have (on average) a greater range of impact. They do so because nobody plays a bad 6 foot 2 inch player. There's so many better. But a bad 7 foot 2 inch player ... people will/have employ(ed) the 60th best 7 footer and talk themselves into his passing or that playoff series he had, even if he's Dwayne Schintzius.

Struggling to parse what you're saying with some of your comments on this ... I'd guess maybe you haven't understood my intended message but can't be sure.

Yes, this is almost precisely what I was speaking to in the "body-type scarcity" section.


You say a "bad" 6'2" will never make it into the NBA; but a "bad" 7-footer might (for almost no other reason than he's a 7-footer).

I say it is an arbitrary distinction to single out height [vs other physical attributes] in this fashion.

I could just as judiciously say a "bad" 6'7" *freakishly athletic [*let's say blazing open-court speed, first-step quickness, explosive leaping ability, excellent body-control and stamina] guy might make it in the NBA (for little other reason than he's 6'7" and freakishly athletic).

What's the difference?
When you distill it down, there isn't any difference......except that we [the masses of basketball fans] tend to form these subtle biases against extreme outlier height in ways that we DON'T form [to the same degree] against other outlier physical attributes (such as freakish athelticism on a 6'7" frame).
Thus, we'll speculate on phrases such as "he's not that good, he's just tall."


You make an interesting point that people might fool themselves, trying to talk themselves into various skills (e.g. "he's a pretty good passer for a big") in order to justify playing the big guys. Certainly such a phenomenon is possible, and no doubt happens from time to time.
However, I myself am skeptical that this phenomenon has led to chronic overuse of big men, in a broad sense, for ~80 years.

But there is some skepticism that in some instances box aggregates may have been overrating bigs
If the 50s box aggregates are to be fully believed it would not be that the bigs were fooling executives but the smalls. In a small and shrinking league the following centers had one or more notable PER season:
Neil Johnston
Ed Macauley
Larry Foust
Clyde Lovellette
Ray Felix
Bob Houbregs
Charlie (Chuck) Share
Eddie Miller

for PFs its
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Harry Gallatin
George Yardley
Kenny Sears
Maurice Stokes
Vern Mikkelsen
Jack Coleman


for SGs its
Sharman
Ramsey (if he counts as a guard)

for PGs its
Bob Cousy
Dick McGuire

and all of the smalls highest PER are lower than all of the bigs bar Coleman. (I do have some major league era guys as 40s (it would at 4 centers, 1 sg, 1 pg). Granting here positional designations (like era ones) are often arbitrary, fuzzy and debatable.

I have no doubt box-aggregates sometimes overrate bigs.
I think they sometimes overrate smalls, too (Kyrie Irving comes to mind).

Is it possible they overrate bigs more frequently than smalls? Sure, I'm willing to at least entertain that potential. To a massive degree? idk, on that I am skeptical.

And that guys like Vern Mikkelsen [maybe only the 4th-6th best PF] might have inflicted more raw value/impact than Dick McGuire [the 2nd or 3rd-best PG].......to me, that's not a hard sell.

If (early approximation of) PER is right, the question isn't "why were these guys playing bigs", it's "why weren't they playing more bigs". Why are these executives being fooled into using small players.

The thesis wasn't ever bigs aren't important and are fooling people into playing them. It's they are more widely split and perhaps more prone to being mis-rated.

It's possible they're more prone to being mis-rated. It's a hard hypothesis to prove, though.

That said, the one comment I'll make is that execs aren't "fooled" into using smalls; it's about balance. Certain roles simply need to be filled (and there are roles for which smaller players are generally more capable).
I'll again make an [exaggerated] American football analogy: the 2nd-option running back is [overall] a more important ["better"] player than the punter. Why are execs fooled into wasting salary on a punter? Just let the 2nd-option RB do it (he's the "better" player, after all).

Why? Because he doesn't fill that role, even if that role is generally not as important/valuable.

Roles are obviously not this divided and distinct in basketball; but I think the same basic premise still applies.

There are things that are inherently valuable in the game of basketball; and some of those things are better carried out by "big" human beings:

I don't think there's anyone disputing this.

I do think you're overrating height beyond a certain point in and of itself as a defensive and rebounding tool
There are a lot of the absolute elite rebounders that are either just barely or aren't conventional bigs height ... I can't find a list that I posted somewhat recently but 6'8 and below likes of Rodman, Fortson, Evans, Unseld, Lane, Smith etc. Some of those are broad (though not so much Rodman, Lane) and occasionally you're throwing that in ("big" used in general and breadth/heft implicit in "sturdy" screen setting ... though timing, reading the defense, what you do after, "veteran savvy" [/cheating depending on perspective] ... even willingness to take the hit if the barrier is hit, I think now and always to some extent the detour is the point more than the hit).

Well, of course I'm not saying a taller guy is automatically the better rebounder (e.g. a 7'0" guy is absolutely and in all instances a better team rebounder than a 6'8" or 6'9" guy). And of course you look at your SPECIFIC personnel, the synergy, the game-plan, the opponent, etc.
You don't floor a 7'0" over a 6'8" or 6'9" option simply because he's taller, with NO other consideration of ANYTHING else.

These are not things I have said, or am saying now, nor ever would say.

I feel like the above is conflating me saying "height/length is valuable in toward rebounding and rim protection/defense" with me saying "the tallest guy will always be the best at these things".
Just this is absolutely clear: I'm not saying that.

And I'm pretty certain the following reasoning is circular and bad
"Having big men on the court generally requires that the opposing team do so as well (having someone 6'5" try to handle someone 6'11" inside often doesn't end well for the defense)"
You have to have a big because I have one, and I have to have one because you have one. And because everyone has one we all seem to be right. To the cost of having a shorter player on the court ... it depends ... does the big posting up lead to effective offense ... is the less tall player Chuck Hayes or Dennis Rodman or ... ? I think it very much depends on the particular matchup. I think if your big is Mark Eaton I'd be best suited by putting on another wing. I'll drag Eaton away from the hoop on offense. And on D if they want to keep posting up Mark Eaton ... I think that's a good outcome for us.

Again: of course things like specific personnel, match-ups, synergy, opponent, game-plan, etc, would all be considered.

wrt circular reasoning, I guess I don't fully agree.....

Suppose we're at war.
You have swords.
I have guns and artillery.

So your generals say, "We really need to obtain guns and artillery to deal with this foe."
Do you then say, "That's circular reasoning. We don't need guns simply because they have guns."?

Yeah, I realize I'm again engaging in hyperbole and/or false equivalence here, but you see what I'm driving at, yeah? You need the appropriate pieces to counter what the other guy has. And yes, I realize smalls pose some problem for bigs.

But if this analogy is not convincing, I'll say this: I feel like the scheming, strategy, philosophy of what is/is not a good shot, and general "brains" of basketball has come SO far even in the last 30-35 years (and even more so in the last 75 years).
And yet still today there are big men on the court, the average height in the league is still close to 6'7"; even in a game that has trended toward perimeter-play, 3pt shooting, etc.

For me, that's strongly indicative that bigs are necessary, and execs aren't being tricked by the "fool's gold" of tall fellows.

I'll reread my post and yours but I'm presently of the impression that ...

1) You've misread my post (even just at the basic level regarding what I said on importance - this seems to be wrong consistently through the post)
2) You've ended up posting what look like wild ... I don't know ...non-sequitur? strawmen?
3) I think at least one take, perhaps more is/are still at best oversimplifications/overgeneralizations or just wrong anyway (you've got a big so I have to have one).

Well, hopefully you don't stil feel this way.

Has to be quick ... and after only a skim read.

This seems to read as a ... better faith/accuracy response ... It doesn't at first glance seem to acknowledge that you read the post wrong and didn't see that I said height was important, but hey ...

I'd say there is a difference between
1 category alone being a disbarring factor
and
2 in concert being a disbarring factor.

Now other things will be too if they are enough of the thing.
And fwiw, this supports your point (not against anything I said) that height is recognised to be important.

However, I myself am skeptical that this phenomenon has led to chronic overuse of big men, in a broad sense, for ~80 years.

Yeah, again ... read the original post again. (Actual suggestion here)

Trying to get to where you you've come to your reading from ... like I say it's something I've considered a little not a strong backing
I talk about " It depends on if you think you need really, really tall people but most of the major league era game has at least been played on the assumption that you do"
This is supporting the inference in the idea that NBA teams have a wide range. And at the bottom end this means lower end bigs. I don't think there's been a statement about chronic for 80 years. It's a subtler argument than that. And 80 would have to include now. And I think we see far less guys that are just "big bodies" now than at several points in the leagues past.

You make an interesting point that people might fool themselves, trying to talk themselves into various skills (e.g. "he's a pretty good passer for a big") in order to justify playing the big guys. Certainly such a phenomenon is possible, and no doubt happens from time to time.
However, I myself am skeptical that this phenomenon has led to chronic overuse of big men, in a broad sense, for ~80 years.

So I think the end statement is an overstong version of it. But think of the term stiff. We don't have a term for guys who made the league excusively on speed or shooting ability, with the implication that they possibly shouldn't be here. We have stiffs for bigs who are just big. Some overuse and end up describing a Bradley (who was highly dexterous for his height and a hugely impactful defender). But teams have quite often took flyers on guys because they were big bodies that never figured it out - and not just second rounders. Hollinger looked at bigs taken in (more or less) the lottery and put them into three bins ... can't find the original but an update summary in Bynums rookie report
brief summary look at guys 7ft+ and 250pounds+ and drafted between picks 4 and 15. 19 such players in the last 20 years (at that time)
1 - Mutombo - [my recollection is reporting that he was at least somewhat in play at 2 and 3 (think Nelly may have said after the fact he'd have preferred Mutombo ... easy to say after ... think a few in NJ were unsure but tilted towards Owens but ownership wanted Anderson)] made an all-star game
"Only three others (Roy Tarpley, Bryant Reeves, and Chris Mihm) were any good for any length of time. The rest have been notorious bust - guys like Alex Radojevic, Yinka Dare, William Bedford and DeSagana Diop." [note: look where the bar is for "any good" (Tarpley ... was good ... maybe would have gone higher if not for personal demons? I also think he might be below 250, I have him listed 240 circa 1989, in another somewhat similar study he included Kemp off a late career weight, I might throw him out but whatever; Bryant Reeves: I would read as an empty calories scorer on a really bad expansion team and Chris Mihm ...)

"Project" too. I guess now it's also long wings or wing/bigs who can't shoot. But until recently ... that's a big .. maybe (not always) some athletic tools ... can't really play.

tangent: stiff often has had a race attached. This might be felt to allude to other motivations in their signing. It might also relate to the talent pool aspect. I'm not going to delve here.

I think a lot of the skillball stuff has been ... we're okay to trade 1-3 inches off our "PF" and have him be someone who has a lot of basketball skill. It's become a third wing. And whilst rules make all cross era stuff somewhat dicey ... I'm inclined to say this is generally a better more effective way of playing. For the most part the backup center market is tepid, I'm pretty sure it's talked about on the podcast Hollinger is on. Because there aren't 60 conventional center sized guys who should be in a rotation. Because Zubac, Marjonovic, Harrell (sorry Clippers of a few years ago) can

If one looks for guys who stayed out on the court the most who did harm to their teams ... I do think it's at least possible that it's more overplayed bigs.
97-14 RAPM points above (below) average [i.e. cumulative, not rate] to me 8 of the bottom 10 are bigs (Jack and Stevenson the exceptions). I do think some of these bigs sometimes played SF [J Howard, A Walker, Abdur-Rahim, early Gooden] (perhaps because teams tried to play too many bigs) but it seems they typically lost the matchup ... I haven't looked closely maybe the trend doesn't pan out it does seem possible that teams have tended to play bigs too much.

I have no doubt box-aggregates sometimes overrate bigs.
I think they sometimes overrate smalls, too (Kyrie Irving comes to mind).

Is it possible they overrate bigs more frequently than smalls? Sure, I'm willing to at least entertain that potential. To a massive degree? idk, on that I am skeptical.

And that guys like Vern Mikkelsen [maybe only the 4th-6th best PF] might have inflicted more raw value/impact than Dick McGuire [the 2nd or 3rd-best PG].......to me, that's not a hard sell.

So Kyrie that's the boxscore missing
bad defender
often injured
undorthadox worldview and potential to alienate teammates, fanbase etc
maybe likes having the ball too much, maybe?

That could all get missed on bigs too. And I think it's probably mostly ballpark rightly valuing the stuff it sees, there's just stuff missing. The argument for miscalulation on bigs is you either the range of defensive impact that's largely missed is wider (relating to rim-protection adjacent stuff - a bad big rapidly affects the defense of 5 players ... now defense on a string, especially in the modern game, if you're bad enough maybe you can do that on the perimeter but there's at least a chance to cut it off at the basket and recover) and/or the box stuff can actively miss. I'll swing in the positive direction here but think the converse may be more prevelant with bigs, Clifford Robinson late-career was a pretty bad box defensive rebounder, but [depending how you weight that final year] https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/3125/onoff#tab-team_efficiency ... I think teams rebounded the defensive glass fine with him on. Maybe matchups protected him. Maybe some of the box stuff correlates quite well with goodness but can miss really badly? It doesn't even have to mean the player is bad, early Ibaka has a season where he's blocking the ball at Bol like rates, I think impact stuff suggests he's merely good at altering opponent shooting percentage.

Fair enough on Vern versus McGuire. What about Felix, Houbregs, Share, Miller peaking way north of any non-cited guard (Braun, Walther, Seymour, Martin etc) ... for me I don't know, limited info but if the limited version of PER from the time is right it inverts your earlier argument, why weren't teams playing more bigs. Have GMs been fooled etc? My buest guess is there's probably necessary floor game stuff that wasn't valued well by the box score, especially at that time.

Also KI is one name, I already threw out a bunch of bigs. At a lower level Felicio, Hamilton, Aldrich looked at least average whilst probably being more marginal players . Faried and Plumlee were making Team USA appearances.

Well, of course I'm not saying a taller guy is automatically the better rebounder ...

These are not things I have said, or am saying now, nor ever would say.

Okay but there were gestures in that direction that didn't seem to account for who the personnel actually are

If a team decides to play a rotations that are entirely 6'5" and under for the whole season, I've little doubt that they would be the worst rebounding team in the league, and would frequently be getting murdered on the glass.

Barkley's was said to be actually 6-4 and a fraction. 6-5s and below is an awfully low bar but if I shave an inch off Unseld he's acknowledged he was really 6-6. Lets make him 6-5 (and give his game the attendant costs). Maybe Dantley at the 3 (I'd like to keep doing elite rebound but Lane's listed 1 inch above your threshold, Rodman is perhaps rounded to 6-7). Kidd, Robertson, Walker, Westbrook, Lever ...

IDK ... this just seem to be a thrown together not tightly explained (not "a rotation of present day players, 6-5 or below and games typical of that stature") ... pushing the height bar that low kind of saves it but "little doubt" sounded like there really isn't room for doubt that a capped team gets murdered on the glass. And that's where, and I now think we agree, it's contextual.


Circularity doesn't make an argument intrinsically wrong.
"Having big men on the court generally requires that the opposing team do so as well (having someone 6'5" try to handle someone 6'11" inside often doesn't end well for the defense)"
Here though I think we disagree. I don't think you're "required" to guard a big with a big. For various reasons, many outlined above, I think you see what works best in the particular context which might not be put on my big guy because their guy is a big guy. Circularity would lead to statis though. It's also a purely reactive strategy. I think good teams might often force opponent to react to them (and not always with size).
Fwiw where I think your analogy falls down is ... one team has to make a choice. So presumably they've invested into projectiles and done well with it and got good accurate, fast to reload guns and and so I can say "Well I think we can conjure up some good archers and slingers in that time ..." or we can choose to try to make the game different. They've chosen a lineup that's big and I assume that's because it's a strength (or the argument is circular - or invalid as these "guns" might be piles of mud) and I have to match it with my similar weakness rather than something different.


On "not fooled" for guards ... I think my question would be okay but they are seen as less productive by PER (having a lower replacement level) the implication would be ... those skillsets that they are providing and are implicitly seen as necessary ... aren't being captured by the box, no?

the average height in the league is still close to 6'7"...
For me, that's strongly indicative that bigs are necessary, and execs aren't being tricked by the "fool's gold" of tall fellows.

I mean ... that's not really that close to anything I've said. It's a pretty sweeping statement. It's getting close to the "you don't think tall is beneficial" arguments. And as ever it's more that at the margins early box aggregates tend to miss high on limited big men, that such box aggregates may tend to tilt higher on bigs, that big being more important doesn't require them being on average better and that it it is possible that they are not and, fwiw, that one of your arguments can be consistently inverted regarding trusting history ... teams have played 2s and 1s even though PER's creator says they have a lower replacement level because they typically won't produce as much as bigs.

IDK that took too long (without doing a proper edit/check, so sorry if any errors, tone issues etc). There are times where I think we're not that far apart in that I'm venturing an idea, there seemed more nuance here and I'm not averse to PER and would have to look closer at what it values. On the other there are times where it felt like "height is beneficial" is produced like some kind of trump card and I'm wondering where it comes from.

Anyway I'm out here I think. I'm not sure it's productive and it's quite a jumbled discussion and a timesink.

[penbeast0]

You made the point that counting stats favor bigs, or at least that they did in the 20th century. I would tend to say that's because counting stats include rebounds. Height helps with rebounding (not the only factor but one reasonably strongly correlated). When you are basically just counting points, assists, and rebound, that's 1/3 of the mix. There may also be advantages to height for scoring, particularly in the pre-3 era where shots closer to the basket tended to be higher percentages, disadvantages to height for dribble type playmaking (as opposed to the stationary passing hub model) as the dribble is higher thus easier to disrupt. So one would expect taller players to dominate box score stats.

I do think as the 3 pointer became more and more widely used, the advantage of height because less of a factor and shooting became more of one.

[OhayoKD]

I'm saying there's literally a bias in PER toward big men,

Or is it simply that big men are "more important" in the game of basketball (generally and historically speaking)? This is perhaps another philosophical axe. As I'd posted regarding the demographics of our top 35: big men are "over-represented" (I think because it is, quite simply, a big man's game).

Anyway, I'll stop there I think.

So, the reason I keep pointing to Drummond is because his existence really makes clear that big men get overrated by the stat. It's not just a case of big men being more valuable because Drummond was not actually valuable, yet still looked like an all-star by box score all-in-ones, which led him to get a max contract and all-star appearances despite never developing the on-court awareness to be someone a contender wants on the floor when things actually matter.

Let me extend this out beyond PER. On bkref, there are 3 main box score all-in-ones that get used:

1. PER
2. Win Shares
3. BPM/VORP

Of those 3, I'd say that PER is the most biased toward Drummond-types and BPM is the least biased...but it is still biased because it still ranks Drummond as having more career value-add than Middleton, Crowder & Barnes, 3 players that I would consider to be not just better basketball players, but drastically so. I think it's correct that neither Crowder or Barnes were all-stars, nevertheless, they are far closer to all-star level players than Drummond ever should have been considered.

None of this is meant to imply I don't use these stats, but I'm cautious in using them, and more cautious in using them to make definitive statements the greater the difference in player type being compared.

A not paticularly good defensive big getting overrated in PER doesn't mean bigs are generally overrated less alone underrated at the highest levels which are relevant to this project.

The rest is basically just "noise=/bias towards certain archetypes". RAPM has the former, box-stats have the latter and for whatever reason we keep pretending "box-score" is not just whatever people decide to count and there aren't various other things we can choose to count(and arguably should depending on the comparison in question).

The box-score is fine I think, when it's treated as an extension of granular analysis and not one specific thing. It's more useful to count rim-load with certain queries, and it might be more useful to count off-ball screens in another. If one was to compare rebounders, things like rebound-assists and uncontested rebounds/contested rebounds should obviously be part of the "box-score" I think.

It's better to think of it as an extended eye-test that supplements cold-data as opposed to the cold-data itself. And on that note, good impact(or "cold data") analysis, even just statistically, is also alot more than just rapm(which isn't strictly "cold" but maybe cold-adjacent)

Also not a fan of language likening this ranking as proofinofirself but I get the gist.

Was going to copy and paste a vote and then play "slay the princess" but I couldn't resist the detour