2023-24 RealGM All-Season Awards Discussion Thread

[Special_Puppy]

Just to put specific numbers into the above discussion:

Against Minnesota, the Mavs have a 102.22 offensive rating with Luka on and Kyrie off.

Against Minnesota, the Nuggets had a 111.76 offensive rating with Jokic on and Murray off.

Obviously these are tiny sample sizes, but any analysis of offensive ratings in a playoff series is going to be using cripplingly small sample sizes. For that reason, I don’t think an argument based on offensive ratings in a single series for Jokic and Luka is worth essentially anything. And if that argument is based on data that pretty clearly is driven by the presence of a secondary star that is very clearly playing way better than the other guy’s secondary star, and the data flips when isolating out minutes without the secondary stars, then it seems even more obvious that it’s not a meaningful argument IMO.

Thanks! Where did you get the data?

It’s from the “WOWY” function on PBPstats.

For Jokic on Murray off: https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy/nba?0Exactly1OnFloor=203999&1Exactly1OffFloor=1627750&TeamId=1610612743&Season=2023-24&SeasonType=Playoffs&Type=Team&Opponent=1610612750

For Luka on Kyrie off: https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy/nba?0Exactly1OnFloor=1629029&1Exactly1OffFloor=202681&TeamId=1610612742&Season=2023-24&SeasonType=Playoffs&Type=Team&Opponent=1610612750

These are not remotely big enough samples to draw any conclusion. Come on man

[trex_8063]

I'll just point to my post to emphasize why it's a simplistic to simply equate Dallas' success here with Luka. He's fantastic don't get me wrong, but the Dallas offense when Luka's on the bench is the really incredibly positive number while the Denver offense when Jokic was on the bench was the really incredibly negative number.

To SP's question: Luka moving above Jokic and to the #1 spot is very much in play. Completely understand why people would put Luka ahead of Jokic with the presumed conclusion of Dallas taking the WCF, let alone if the Mavs keep it up against Boston.

But yeah, any notion that Minny stopped the Jokic-based offense cold but have been completely useless against the Luka-based offense is hyperbolic and likely causing oversimplistic conclusions.

The Minnesota defense has been incredible with Gobert on the court this series. I think they are around a 106-107 Defense WITH Gobert in this series [Small sample size] and > 130 Drtg without him. I wouldn't point to those exact numbers [sample size alert], but I think it is fair to say when Gobert is in the game he helps Minnesota curtail most of Dallas' offense, and when he is on the bench, Dallas shreds Minnesota.

Minnesota's defense had more success without Gobert against Denver than they are having without Gobert against Dallas. That's an interesting point, as we are talking about arguably the best defensive player in the NBA and him being a huge, net-positive against the two best offensive players in the NBA.

Bringing this back to Luka vs Jokic, Kyrie vs Murray is the biggest difference here, but I imagine this has been a thing for a while [2015 LeBron vs Curry and 2021 KD vs Giannis come to mind].

FYI, I just looked up the numbers on the PBP site lessthanjake referenced:

DEN vs MIN [playoffs] with Gobert ON: 108.29 ORtg
DEN vs MIN [playoffs] with Gobert OFF: 106.92 ORtg* (*that phenomenal game 2 shutdown is certainly playing into this; that first half was the best team defense [perimeter defense, at least] I've ever seen)

PHX vs MIN [ps] with Gobert ON: 108.39 ORtg
PHX vs MIN [ps] with Gobert OFF: 116.00 ORtg

DAL vs MIN [ps] with Gobert ON: 112.64 ORtg
DAL vs MIN [ps] with Gobert OFF: 132.97 ORtg


Tiny samples sizes, as always, apply.

[Texas Chuck]

Jokic still had a considerably better RS than Luka, and IMO a better playoff-showing through two series. Now, Luka can add from here on out and has clearly done so, but even concluding that Luka played better versus Minnesota than Jokic is not going to justify placing Luka ahead of Jokic without duly factoring in the rest of the season.

This is really the crux of it for me as well. I don't understand why so much weight is being put on Luka's team is outperforming Jokic' team against their one common playoff opponent and just setting everything else largely aside.

We all know basketball is about matchups and some players/teams just match up better against other teams. Okay. But there are 28 other teams and how each perform against any possible matchup feels more important in determining who had a better season.

This approach just feels far too simplistic. And that's even if we totally set aside the comically small sample size to rely so much on how the team plays in the 5-8 minutes the star is on the bench as a referendum on the star.

[Colbinii]

Jokic still had a considerably better RS than Luka, and IMO a better playoff-showing through two series. Now, Luka can add from here on out and has clearly done so, but even concluding that Luka played better versus Minnesota than Jokic is not going to justify placing Luka ahead of Jokic without duly factoring in the rest of the season.

This is really the crux of it for me as well. I don't understand why so much weight is being put on Luka's team is outperforming Jokic' team against their one common playoff opponent and just setting everything else largely aside.

We all know basketball is about matchups and some players/teams just match up better against other teams. Okay. But there are 28 other teams and how each perform against any possible matchup feels more important in determining who had a better season.

This approach just feels far too simplistic. And that's even if we totally set aside the comically small sample size to rely so much on how the team plays in the 5-8 minutes the star is on the bench as a referendum on the star.

I'm personally a big fan of narrative with awards [which is different than how I view and approach a Top 100 Type Project or Greatest Peaks], so for me, post-season team success does play a factor in how I vote for Player of the Year. It doesn't hold any weight for best Offensive/Defensive player on the season, though.

I still need to re-assess the whole as obviously, at this point, I am fairly entrenched in a Timberwolves Box and all of my time and energy for basketball has been put into that small box.

[OhayoKD]

Even if we take as true for a moment that Luka fares better against Minnesota than Jokic:

The gap between their performance against the Timberwolves is an order of magnitude better than any imagined gap for Jokic vs Luka in the RS. Credit to Jokic for inflating his assist count by a 1/4th off DHO's, inflating his points average and true-shooting by several points off game 3 garbage time, but even if you want to take BBR "production" at face-value to pretend the offense was comparable, Jokic being a much larger liability on defense, a factor that has led to him giving up a higher opposing percentage than any other high-minute player in the playoffs.


Luka was much better against the Wolves. Additionally, if the Mavs close this in 4 or 5, SGA will also have the argument of leading the better postseason team, and the better rs team, with a team that was worse without him.

Jokic still had a considerably better RS than Luka

He did not, and people thinking he did is why Jokic being taken down a peg is long overdue.

This approach just feels far too simplistic. And that's even if we totally set aside the comically small sample size to rely so much on how the team plays in the 5-8 minutes the star is on the bench as a referendum on the star.

Would you then prefer the "comically" larger sample of 48 minutes a game, where Jokic's cast was winning more than Luka or SGA's? Or perhaps the playoff sample where Jokic is barely a positive over his last 4 runs and lower overall.

What is simplistic is pretending assists are created equal and that paint-protection nor ball-handling matter, so one can argue Jokic is on the same level as a playmaker as Luka is and has been comparable to Luka vs Minny. Perhaps the support puts up better numbers if they aren't bailing Jokic out on one end, and, at times(paticularly in game 3), bailing him out on the other.

Jokic's argument is basically that Luka was on one leg for two rounds. Despite that, paired with a flat-earther who blew up his last team and tried to blow up his team before that, on a team that has consistently been very bad without him for his career, Luka is 3-0 up on the Timberwolves, and achieved that without the league blatantly putting their thumb on the scale.

There's a reason when faced with basketball, Jokic defenders jump to meta-commentary on there being criticism in the first place, instead of the basketball. He has not been the guy they thought he was, and the jury's still out on whether he really can be.

[Special_Puppy]

Even if we take as true for a moment that Luka fares better against Minnesota than Jokic:

The gap between their performance against the Timberwolves is an order of magnitude better than any imagined gap for Jokic vs Luka in the RS. Credit to Jokic for inflating his assist count by a 1/4th off DHO's, inflating his points average and true-shooting by several points off game 3 garbage time, but even if you want to take BBR "production" at face-value to pretend the offense was comparable, Jokic being a much larger liability on defense, a factor that has led to him giving up a higher opposing percentage than any other high-minute player in the playoffs.

The evidence for any of this is very weak. Jokic's average prior EPM is +5.7 in the TWolves series. Luka's average prior EPM in the TWolves series is +5.1 They've played roughly the same against the TWolves. The evidence that Jokic was a much larger liability on defense is very weak and basically is just relying on incredibly small samples and people's incredibly flawed and biased "eye tests"

[AEnigma]

Personally I do not know why we bother voting or watching when EPM provides all answers for us.

[Special_Puppy]

Personally I do not know why we bother voting or watching when EPM provides all answers for us.

Its very hard to evaluate players in the post-season, but EPM gives you a very rough idea of what's going on. There's a pretty big margin of error in prior EPM but there's a large margin of error in any post-season and especially single series evaluation of a player. Jokic averaging +5.7 in prior EPM and Luka averaging +5.1 doesn't mean that Jokic was better but it does probably rule out of the possibility that Luka was "much" better against the Timberwolves

[The-Power]

Not really interested in having a discussion with someone who declares anyone who dares to have Jokic ahead of Luka or continues to think highly of Jokic to be a deluded ‘Jokic defender’ who only engages in ‘meta-commentary’ (I can only presume that this refers to people thinking about basketball seasons and players holistically), and who has the expressed agenda of ‘taking Jokic down a peg’ which supposedly has been ‘long overdue’.

Sorry, there's a reason I have largely refrained from the recent discussions around Jokic on this board. I sense a level of emotionality and desperation among those who view Jokic as hopelessly overrated and feel the need to ‘set people straight’, and I honestly do not want to be a part of that discourse. Feel free to interpret that in any way you need to; I'll present my reasoning when I submit my ballot and leave it at that.

[Special_Puppy]

Even if we take as true for a moment that Luka fares better against Minnesota than Jokic:

inflating his points average and true-shooting by several points off game 3 garbage time
[quote]

This is so funny:
Jokic points per 100 overall in the playoffs: 36.7 on 63.3% TS
Jokic points per 100 with low leverage minutes removed: 36.3 on 62.4% TS

That's not an enormous difference lol

https://www.pbpstats.com/totals/nba/player?Season=2023-24&SeasonType=Playoffs&TeamId=1610612743&Leverage=Medium,High,VeryHigh

[OhayoKD]

Not really interested in having a discussion with someone who declares anyone who dares to have Jokic ahead of Luka or continues to think highly of Jokic to be a deluded ‘Jokic defender’ who only engages in ‘meta-commentary’

Proceeds to engage in meta-commentary.

Sorry, there's a reason I have largely refrained from the recent discussions around Jokic on this board. I sense a level of emotionality and desperation among those who view Jokic as hopelessly overrated and feel the need to ‘set people straight’, and I honestly do not want to be a part of that discourse. Feel free to see interpret that in any way you need to; I'll present my reasoning when I submit my ballot and leave it at that.

I sense a great fear of discussing basketball when evaluating Jokic the basketball player. Which is why the preferred tactic of most of the people defending Jokic seems to be engaging in bad-faith, ducking the basketball portion, and then project the bad-faith onto others as a deflationary tactic to avoid the basketball.

[tsherkin]

Not really interested in having a discussion with someone who declares anyone who dares to have Jokic ahead of Luka or continues to think highly of Jokic to be a deluded ‘Jokic defender’ who only engages in ‘meta-commentary’

Proceeds to engage in meta-commentary.

Sorry, there's a reason I have largely refrained from the recent discussions around Jokic on this board. I sense a level of emotionality and desperation among those who view Jokic as hopelessly overrated and feel the need to ‘set people straight’, and I honestly do not want to be a part of that discourse. Feel free to see interpret that in any way you need to; I'll present my reasoning when I submit my ballot and leave it at that.

I sense a great fear of discussing basketball when evaluating Jokic the basketball player. Which is why the preferred tactic of most of the people defending Jokic seems to be engaging in bad-faith, ducking the basketball portion, and then project the bad-faith onto others as a deflationary tactic to avoid the basketball.

You're probably better off just not acknowledging sections of commentary like that, as opposed to engaging them. If you stick to the basketball-only portions, you're never the bad guy and we can all focus on just trying to talk ball.

[OhayoKD]

Not really interested in having a discussion with someone who declares anyone who dares to have Jokic ahead of Luka or continues to think highly of Jokic to be a deluded ‘Jokic defender’ who only engages in ‘meta-commentary’

Proceeds to engage in meta-commentary.

Sorry, there's a reason I have largely refrained from the recent discussions around Jokic on this board. I sense a level of emotionality and desperation among those who view Jokic as hopelessly overrated and feel the need to ‘set people straight’, and I honestly do not want to be a part of that discourse. Feel free to see interpret that in any way you need to; I'll present my reasoning when I submit my ballot and leave it at that.

I sense a great fear of discussing basketball when evaluating Jokic the basketball player. Which is why the preferred tactic of most of the people defending Jokic seems to be engaging in bad-faith, ducking the basketball portion, and then project the bad-faith onto others as a deflationary tactic to avoid the basketball.

You're probably better off just not acknowledging sections of commentary like that, as opposed to engaging them. If you stick to the basketball-only portions, you're never the bad guy and we can all focus on just trying to talk ball.

You're probably right

[lessthanjake]

Thanks! Where did you get the data?

It’s from the “WOWY” function on PBPstats.

For Jokic on Murray off: https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy/nba?0Exactly1OnFloor=203999&1Exactly1OffFloor=1627750&TeamId=1610612743&Season=2023-24&SeasonType=Playoffs&Type=Team&Opponent=1610612750

For Luka on Kyrie off: https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy/nba?0Exactly1OnFloor=1629029&1Exactly1OffFloor=202681&TeamId=1610612742&Season=2023-24&SeasonType=Playoffs&Type=Team&Opponent=1610612750

These are not remotely big enough samples to draw any conclusion. Come on man

Yeah, that’s part of my point (read my prior post). The sample size for single-series on-off is cripplingly small and therefore virtually useless. It’s just *also* the case that if one wants to try to use that sort of data to go after Jokic’s offense (as others in this thread have tried to do), then we can see that the data is driven by what happened in the minutes with the secondary stars also on and and we all know that Luka’s secondary star has played a lot better than Jokic’s did. Basically, we shouldn’t care about this data at all because the sample sizes are tiny, but if we are being silly enough to care about this data then we should also acknowledge that it indicates Kyrie has played better than Murray offensively, rather than that Luka has played better than Jokic offensively. But yeah, in my view we just shouldn’t care either way, because the samples are tiny.

[lessthanjake]

Even if we take as true for a moment that Luka fares better against Minnesota than Jokic:

The gap between their performance against the Timberwolves is an order of magnitude better than any imagined gap for Jokic vs Luka in the RS. Credit to Jokic for inflating his assist count by a 1/4th off DHO's, inflating his points average and true-shooting by several points off game 3 garbage time, but even if you want to take BBR "production" at face-value to pretend the offense was comparable, Jokic being a much larger liability on defense, a factor that has led to him giving up a higher opposing percentage than any other high-minute player in the playoffs.

I’ve seen you make this bolded assertion a bunch, but I really don’t understand it at all. Jokic had 4 points on 50.0% TS% in the 4th quarter of Game 3. That quarter actually brought down his scoring and efficiency averages, so the garbage time of that game *hurt* Jokic’s stats. It’s the 3rd quarter of that game where Jokic scored a lot and at high efficiency. Is your assertion that the third quarter of like a 20-point game in 2024 is “garbage time”? That seems really incorrect, and is a particularly odd assertion to make in the context of a series where the Nuggets lost Game 7 due to quickly losing a 20-point 3rd quarter lead.

[OhayoKD]

Even if we take as true for a moment that Luka fares better against Minnesota than Jokic:

The gap between their performance against the Timberwolves is an order of magnitude better than any imagined gap for Jokic vs Luka in the RS. Credit to Jokic for inflating his assist count by a 1/4th off DHO's, inflating his points average and true-shooting by several points off game 3 garbage time, but even if you want to take BBR "production" at face-value to pretend the offense was comparable, Jokic being a much larger liability on defense, a factor that has led to him giving up a higher opposing percentage than any other high-minute player in the playoffs.

I’ve seen you make this bolded assertion a bunch, but I really don’t understand it at all. Jokic had 4 points on 50.0% TS% in the 4th quarter of Game 3. That quarter actually brought down his scoring and efficiency averages, so the garbage time of that game *hurt* Jokic’s stats. It’s the 3rd quarter of that game where Jokic scored a lot and at high efficiency. Is your assertion that the third quarter of like a 20-point game in 2024 is “garbage time”? That seems really incorrect, and is a particularly odd assertion to make in the context of a series where the Nuggets lost Game 7 due to quickly losing a 20-point 3rd quarter lead.

You're right. I shall strive to be more accurate and less blinded by my Rudy Gobert for POY bias:

Jokic scored his 7th point on 8 shots and 9 total scoring possessions to make it a...17-point game

Jokic scores his 9th point on 10 shots and 13 total scoring possessions to make it a...20 point game

Jokic scored his 11th point on 11 shots and 14 total scoring possessions to make it a...20 point game.

Jokic then scored his 13th point on 12 shots and 15 total scoring possessions to make it a...22 point game

Jokic then scores his 16th point on 13 shots and 16 scoring possessions to make it a...24 point game

Jokic then scores his 18th point on 14 shots and 17 total scoring possessions to make it a...24 point game

Jokic then scores his 20th point on 14 shots and 18 total scoring possessions to make it a...29 point game

Jokic then scores his 22nd point on 15 shots and 19 total scoring possessions to make it a...25 point game

Jokic then scores his 24th point on 16 shots and 20 total scoring possessions to make it a...32 point game

Truly one of the best frontrunning performances of history.

[lessthanjake]

The gap between their performance against the Timberwolves is an order of magnitude better than any imagined gap for Jokic vs Luka in the RS. Credit to Jokic for inflating his assist count by a 1/4th off DHO's, inflating his points average and true-shooting by several points off game 3 garbage time, but even if you want to take BBR "production" at face-value to pretend the offense was comparable, Jokic being a much larger liability on defense, a factor that has led to him giving up a higher opposing percentage than any other high-minute player in the playoffs.

I’ve seen you make this bolded assertion a bunch, but I really don’t understand it at all. Jokic had 4 points on 50.0% TS% in the 4th quarter of Game 3. That quarter actually brought down his scoring and efficiency averages, so the garbage time of that game *hurt* Jokic’s stats. It’s the 3rd quarter of that game where Jokic scored a lot and at high efficiency. Is your assertion that the third quarter of like a 20-point game in 2024 is “garbage time”? That seems really incorrect, and is a particularly odd assertion to make in the context of a series where the Nuggets lost Game 7 due to quickly losing a 20-point 3rd quarter lead.

You're right. I shall strive to be more accurate and less blinded by my Rudy Gobert for POY bias:

Jokic scored his 7th point on 8 shots and 9 total scoring possessions to make it a...17-point game

Jokic scores his 9th point on 10 shots and 13 total scoring possessions to make it a...20 point game

Jokic scored his 11th point on 11 shots and 14 total scoring possessions to make it a...20 point game.

Jokic then scored his 13th point on 12 shots and 15 total scoring possessions to make it a...22 point game

Jokic then scores his 16th point on 13 shots and 16 scoring possessions to make it a...24 point game

Jokic then scores his 18th point on 14 shots and 17 total scoring possessions to make it a...24 point game

Jokic then scores his 20th point on 14 shots and 18 total scoring possessions to make it a...29 point game

Jokic then scores his 22nd point on 15 shots and 19 total scoring possessions to make it a...25 point game

Jokic then scores his 24th point on 16 shots and 20 total scoring possessions to make it a...32 point game

Truly one of the best frontrunning performances of history.

Again, is your view that a 20-point game in the 3rd quarter in 2024 is “garbage time”? For all but 6 points Jokic scored in the second half of that game, the Nuggets had a 18-22 point lead before he scored, with over a quarter of basketball left to play. You actually think that that’s garbage time? And you think that despite the fact that in that very same series the Nuggets lost a 20-point lead in the span of less than a quarter? I don’t think this is serious analysis. If you want to define his last 6 points as “garbage time,” that starts to make more sense, but then that’s just 6 points in more than a quarter (and with a TS% that wasn’t super high), so that time period of Game 3 really didn’t help Jokic’s numbers. There’s no serious argument that Jokic “inflat[ed]” his numbers with “garbage time” in Game 3, unless you define “garbage time” so broadly that it encompasses situations that really aren’t seen as “garbage time” and that certainly shouldn’t be seen that way in the context of this series.

[trex_8063]

Personally I do not know why we bother voting or watching when EPM provides all answers for us.

This kind of reply (i.e. "you cite statisitics, therefore it's the only thing relevant to you for player evaluation [and in fact, you probably don't even watch games at all]...") really has whiskers on this forum.

All of us [yourself included] cite statistics, because otherwise all you're left with is your opinion (and you know the saying about opinions).
Supportive stats have always/will always be used on this forum in attempt to validate or otherwise lend credibility to one's opinion; a means of basically saying, "Don't just take my word for it; there's this, this, and this that say I might be largely correct."

Sometimes posters are a little less broad, a little more "cherry-picky" in what stats they choose to highlight; everyone does or has done that from time to time (yourself included). It's not in overt "bad faith" each and every time it happens.

And if a LARGE swath of statistics (even from different "families" of stats) are largely supportive of a viewpoint, many might find that highly suggestive that the viewpoint leans toward being correct(ish).
Whether a poster is working backwards from the statistics, or seeking to find support/explanation for what they see when they watch games (btw, I for one don't believe there is any regular poster on this forum who does NOT watch the NBA at least semi-regularly), may vary by user; and I'm not inclined to mandate that one method is better than the other for all individuals.


I know it's the internet, so our own opinions are always the best ones, and anyone who disagrees is obviously dumb or misled; but just realize the owners of opposing views might, sometimes, have the very same feelings.
It's not a competition; we don't have to "win" these discussions.

Bottom line: undermining inconvenient stats [or stats in general] in seeming effort to add to your own credibility and/or remove credibility from an opposing view is only occasionally productive. Doing so by way of a sarcastic jab is virtually never productive.

[OhayoKD]

I’ve seen you make this bolded assertion a bunch, but I really don’t understand it at all. Jokic had 4 points on 50.0% TS% in the 4th quarter of Game 3. That quarter actually brought down his scoring and efficiency averages, so the garbage time of that game *hurt* Jokic’s stats. It’s the 3rd quarter of that game where Jokic scored a lot and at high efficiency. Is your assertion that the third quarter of like a 20-point game in 2024 is “garbage time”? That seems really incorrect, and is a particularly odd assertion to make in the context of a series where the Nuggets lost Game 7 due to quickly losing a 20-point 3rd quarter lead.

You're right. I shall strive to be more accurate and less blinded by my Rudy Gobert for POY bias:

Jokic scored his 7th point on 8 shots and 9 total scoring possessions to make it a...17-point game

Jokic scores his 9th point on 10 shots and 13 total scoring possessions to make it a...20 point game

Jokic scored his 11th point on 11 shots and 14 total scoring possessions to make it a...20 point game.

Jokic then scored his 13th point on 12 shots and 15 total scoring possessions to make it a...22 point game

Jokic then scores his 16th point on 13 shots and 16 scoring possessions to make it a...24 point game

Jokic then scores his 18th point on 14 shots and 17 total scoring possessions to make it a...24 point game

Jokic then scores his 20th point on 14 shots and 18 total scoring possessions to make it a...29 point game

Jokic then scores his 22nd point on 15 shots and 19 total scoring possessions to make it a...25 point game

Jokic then scores his 24th point on 16 shots and 20 total scoring possessions to make it a...32 point game

Truly one of the best frontrunning performances of history.

Again, is your view that a 20-point game in the 3rd quarter in 2024 is “garbage time”? For all but 6 points Jokic scored in the second half of that game, the Nuggets had a 18-22 point lead before he scored, with over a quarter of basketball left to play. You actually think that that’s garbage time? And you think that despite the fact that in that very same series the Nuggets lost a 20-point lead in the span of less than a quarter? I don’t think this is serious analysis. If you want to define his last 6 points as “garbage time,” that starts to make more sense, but then that’s just 6 points in more than a quarter (and with a TS% that wasn’t super high), so that time period of Game 3 really didn’t help Jokic’s numbers. There’s no serious argument that Jokic “inflat[ed]” his numbers with “garbage time” in Game 3, unless you define “garbage time” so broadly that it encompasses situations that really aren’t seen as “garbage time” and that certainly shouldn’t be seen that way in the context of this series.

Hmm, I guess garbage time is hyperbolic from my part.

[OhayoKD]

Personally I do not know why we bother voting or watching when EPM provides all answers for us.

This kind of reply (i.e. "you cite statisitics, therefore it's the only thing relevant to you for player evaluation [and in fact, you probably don't even watch games at all]...") really has whiskers on this forum.

All of us [yourself included] cite statistics, because otherwise all you're left with is your opinion (and you know the saying about opinions).
Supportive stats have always/will always be used on this forum in attempt to validate or otherwise lend credibility to one's opinion; a means of basically saying, "Don't just take my word for it; there's this, this, and this that say I might be largely correct."

Sometimes posters are a little less broad, a little more "cherry-picky" in what stats they choose to highlight; everyone does or has done that from time to time (yourself included). It's not in overt "bad faith" each and every time it happens.

And if a LARGE swath of statistics (even from different "families" of stats) are largely supportive of a viewpoint, many might find that highly suggestive that the viewpoint leans toward being correct(ish).

Yeah, that's the part I think we disagree with. You can create an infinitely large swath of outputs from "different familes" of approaches for any posiition. The actual support offered depends on the inputs and approaches and the relevance of said inputs and approaches to the claim(or in this context, the players compared).

Stat-use isn't a democracy.