mysticbb wrote:kaima wrote:He's still jumping three spots.
Yes, and I feel fine with that.
Well, that's one thing that I didn't think was up for debate.
kaima wrote:My question would be how many times you've gone with a vote like this. It's not offense, so much as curiosity.
A couple of times already, although I think this was the biggest difference in terms of those boxscore stats.
That must be why it sticks out to me.
I'm not seeing the justification. Other than playoffs, which you now seem to value far more than you did in other years.
kaima wrote:Don't see why losing 3-1 versus 3-0 is enough to jump him three spots. Particularly over two guys who played really well in the playoffs themselves and, even according to your formula, had the better overall individual seasons, period.
It is not losing 3-0 vs. 3-1, it is losing in a sweep as as a 2nd seeded team to the 7th seeded team vs. losing as the 5th seeded team to the 4th seeded team.
Semantics.
I find it curious that Malone/Stockton aren't getting more credit for getting the two seed rather than being swept with it, considering your prior arguments about the primacy and overall dominance of regular season play over playoff play.
But in this case, you argue that one win means everything. That's pretty problematic.
A star player should be able to win at least one playoff game by himself, especially when he has the HCA. Malone/Stockton couldn't do that.
Should a star player lose almost ten points off his average in a playoff series?
Stockton and Malone played well. Yet you dock them, and even leave Malone off your list.
Because of the playoffs, which you've said are overvalued in the past.
Yet now, the sum of one win vaults a guy three spots in your rankings. That's a pretty big leap, in more ways than one.
kaima wrote:How much credit did you give Malone when, say, the Jazz upset the Spurs because of his matchup defense in either 94 or 96? I don't recall you voting him over Robinson, even though the Jazz lacked home court in both series, and his play against Robinson was strikingly one-sided, and in his favor.
Enough credit, but it wasn't enough to overcome the difference between them in the regular season.
Well, that's an answer.
Though, without looking again, I rather doubt that you gave Malone any credit for a much more impressive feat than winning a single playoff game.
I doubt he jumped even a spot. Maybe that was the credit: not to dump a spot or two.
Different standards. But that's kind of the point.
kaima wrote:In fact you jumped Robinson over Malone in at least one season where Malone led in formula (93?) as I recall. I don't think the inverse has ever happened.
Malone had a very slight lead over Robinson and I punished Malone for his really poor playoffs performance more.
So Malone's playoffs were really poor in 93. What would you call Robinson's 94 playoff performance? Good? Passable?
By the standards of Utah being shamed in having the two seed and being swept, wouldn't the same standard apply to an awesome regular season player that put up atrocious numbers and was outscored by the other post star by over 9 a game in the playoffs?
I especially find this contrast problematic, as you individuate the loss to Malone's side -- he should have won one game -- and punish him unduly for it, even as he does something like score 37 or 33, with 17 in the final quarter. But another player has an individual breakdown in the playoffs and he isn't punished nearly as severely by you, even though that speaks more to him as a star and individual than your example against Malone in this case.
I'm sensing a pattern: Malone gets punished for "poor" playoffs even when he plays well, while others receive no such punishment from you.
And to the other side, when you have a guy like Robinson who looks good with metrics like PER, but can't cut it in the playoffs, or in matchup battles, perhaps the formula you're counting on that ranks him so highly just doesn't work in this case. Maybe by way of the player's problems, we discover a problem with the system that ranks him so highly.
That you've never considered this is problematic. And speaks to you valuing your statistical markers very highly, in almost all cases. Which makes this latest case all the more atypical.
And you are right, Malone was never close enough and had the better playoff performance to do that the other way around.
Yeah. But then, we're only discussing your shifting standards.
Seems to me moving Olajuwon three spots, and two over players he trailed by decent sums, is not all that coherent compared to your prior statements as to judgment.
To then key your argument on the playoffs, after you complained that some over-valued the post-season, seems even more contradictory.
kaima wrote:Also, I think we had a major disagreement over how much the playoffs mattered -- how I was over-valuing them -- yet now a three-one series versus a sweep is worth jumping a guy 3 spots according to you.
Hm.
If you respect your own formula, shouldn't it mean at least as much that Akeem ranks behind KJ?
I think the major mistake here is your idea I base my ranking purely on those numbers.
Purely? No. But you also have stated that if the gap is wide enough, you can't move a player up. Yet the Akeem jump seems to violate this wholly, compounded by a justification that's purely about the playoffs -- when you had shunned the idea that the playoffs mattered that much previously.
That's a pretty big contradiction.
First of all that isn't a formula at all, just 3 different approaches to put boxscore numbers into one single number.
Why wouldn't that be a formula? A formula is at its base, a series of numerical standards rather than deviations.
The only way this isn't a formula is through violation and contradiction of and towards its, however limited, values.
I didn't say it was complex. But that's not an automatic for a formulation.
The sum of those 3 is just that, a sum, nothing spectacular.
OK, then why do you, at other times, act as if the readout from that, yes, formula is so important that certain players can't be moved up due to its very factor?
It either matters a great deal, or it doesn't. You seem to want it both ways.
If a player can excel in all three ways, he has a bigger chance to finish ahead, nothing more.
Now you're underselling. If the formula doesn't matter much at all, then you were evidently never basing your votes on it.
Yet you've justified votes by these very sums. In the past, that is. As opposed to this time.
I don't see the coherence. But I'll leave it that.
