RealGM Top 100 List #11

[Doctor MJ]

People really need to stop using +/- when evaluating players, its a garbage method that proves nothing at all. Bball is 5 on 5 not 1 on 1. You can have a garbage game and still have a positive +/- if your teammates pick up the slack. Its flawed as hell.

We know what we're doing dude. Not saying it's flawless but if you think we're a bunch of yokels who don't know what "garbage" is, think otherwise.

[Texas Chuck]

I just wanted to respond to this little bit: a seven point drop in efficiency given a player's minutes and usage is like a drop of 1 to 1.4 points per game, which is dwarfed by the RAPM results in most cases. Plus, you're not taking into account any increases in efficiency or adjustments in schedule strength.

As I've said, the changes in his efficiency are not statistically significant, and ElGee has posted the similar stats Garnett and Duncan have versus similar defenses. There's just this weird bias people have about Garnett's offensive game, and I don't know how it can ever be destroyed despite mountains of evidence and data.

This post makes me want to talk about efficiency. Now first I understand the motivation behind this post was a defense of KG. And since KG and Kobe are 2 of the three guys who are currently in the lead for this spot I'd like to briefly mention that I agree that both guys take too much of a hit based on TS%. ElGee has talked about it before and I agree that sometimes guys fetishize TS% just the way other guys fetishize RAPM.

Just like drza and thereabig3 have done an amazing job of detailing why KG is having great impact and then linking it back to the RAPM results saying the same thing--we need to do that with efficiency and TS%. We should be efforting to not always start with the stats and work backwards because in doing so we look for justifications for the numbers rather than the reality.

Take Kevin Martin and Dirk for example: Kevin Martin has great TS% numbers, but when we look at his game and look at some other measurements we aren't seeing a huge benefit to his teams. But when we look at Dirk, we are seeing that. Well why? They both score 20+ and Martin's TS% is even better than Dirk's.

Well Dirk has great TS% because why? He shoots the 3 well, he draws FTs at a high rate and knocks them down at an elite rate, plus he's a great mid-range shooter. Thus great TS%. So what does this do to a defense? First you have to guard him with a big or he simply shoots over the top. You have to guard him all the way out to the 3-pt line because giving him open looks anywhere is not going to end well. And this pulls a big away from being able to protect the rim and provide help defense--a hugely important role for bigs defensively. Plus he's almost always guarded by guys not really comfortable guarding out on the perimeter. He puts opposing teams (and players) in foul trouble which was especially beneficial because the Mavs were always an elite FT shooting team and approached the very best rates of all-time in multiple seasons. He did this both from dribble drives(primarily in the first half of his career) and from the post(2nd half), but also because his combo of length and shooting ability means its likely no player in NBA history has ever been fouled as often while shooting jump shots. And Dirk is great at turning many of those in 3-pt plays.

When we look at KG--we also see an ability to shoot from range. KG from 16-3pt shoots .452 (Dirk .477 for reference). This too creates issues especially as he moved to playing more and more center. Pulling bigs out from the basket puts them in tough defensive assignments they aren't used to and it takes them away from protecting the basket. This is magnified with Dirk obviously because of his increased range. KG also has good vision and is a willing passer and if he sees a better opportunity for a teammate he willingly moves the ball.

Anyway I don't think we should attempt to put a firm number on what a rise or drop in efficiency means in points for a team because it's not looking at what being that efficient means to defenses. We have to look at each player and their TS% individually and combine what the data says with other sources of information including watching how they go about achieving it.

It my opinion that both Kobe and KG were great offensive players during their prime(remember the standard isnt Mike or Shaq) and good offensive players even outside their prime. I don't think we should overreact to their TS% or their ORAPM numbers without attempting to put them into more context.

[PaulieWal]

If this was a thread with the premise of educating posters on the circumstances/history of each player that would be different. This is a ranking thread....and please don't act naive that people will not reference this thread as a point of proof when making future comparisons.

"Look at where ________ was ranked in the recent top 100 list....see! I'm right!"

You can learn a lot about anything...does not mean it changes your mind. In fact education is not an indication of compliance. The public is constantly bombarded with the benefits of eating healthier and exercising but we still have a lot of fat, out of shape people walking around. But the bright side is it provides job security to doctors, nutritionists and organic farmers.......

The most experienced posters in this project keep telling people to focus less on the actual rankings and more on the discussion. That doesn't mean we succeed in convincing everyone of this, but the whole ranking thing is just a gimmick. The community we have here, which we know exists because people say "only on RealGM", exists in no small part because of the projects we've run and how they turned out. What makes the projects special aren't the results - plenty of other forums emulate the projects and have their own results - but the stuff that gets said along the way.

Re: "does not mean it changes your mind". But as I said, my mind does get changed, and quite clearly I'm one of the more influential people here. There is all sorts of mind-changing going on things like this, and the fact you've missed that is telling, and goes right along with you not changing your mind.

There's something good here. Something that a lot of us find worthwhile. If you can't appreciate it, I feel sorry for you, but it would be best if you just ignored the whole thing rather than popping in just to be a Debbie downer.

I have no dog in this fight. I have Kobe at 10 personally and would have voted for him around 10-11 if I were participating. This isn't to say I would have come in with my own rigid list and stuck to it. I have a lot more appreciation for KG now after this project and will look to move up on my list as I can see a lot of the points being made by the KG supporters. It also needs to be noted that there isn't some anti-Kobe "conspiracy" going on. Two of the leading KG supporters are Lakers fans (Doc and fpliii, coincidentally also two of the best posters here). That's the beauty of this project. As you and others keep repeating, it's not about the ranking anyway, it's about learning more and I have pretty much learned more about the players being discussed so far with the exceptions of a few.

[MisterHibachi]

From what I understand of RAPM, it only measures how well the player did in the role that he played in. So eccentric results such as Amir Johnson being better than Shaq or KG better than Wade in 09 only says that Amir Johnson does a better job at his role of hustle big than Shaq did at his role of first option or that KG was better at his limited role of defensive quarterback than Wade was at his huge role.

It doesn't mean that certain players (like KG over Wade) are better than others in a vacuum. RAPM depends a lot on what role you play. It should only be used to compare players with similar responsibilities, such as Wade and LeBron in 09 or Shaq and Duncan and any other such similar roles.

Now this could be completely wrong because I'm not an expert in RAPM. So someone more informed please correct me if this is all wrong.

[ardee]

People really need to stop using +/- when evaluating players, its a garbage method that proves nothing at all. Bball is 5 on 5 not 1 on 1. You can have a garbage game and still have a positive +/- if your teammates pick up the slack. Its flawed as hell.

The only one who can decide this is penbeast, I've been saying since the beginning that +/- would ruin the project.

[DannyNoonan1221]

I don't want to get involved in what I would consider "bickering" that seems to be taking over now that each spot has a larger number of contenders.

I will say, in reference to the discussion about changing minds, that there are some very smart people with a lot of information on players that I have never seen. And unfortunately, now every time i go to write a post with my vote, i question my decision. I fear i have missed something or don't have enough support to validate the different points i am trying to make.

In reality, I want to put my vote in but don't feel like I will add anything to the discussion. But I also don't want to resign from this project, because then I will lose my motivation to stay on top of the discussions and will stop learning.

I was going to vote for Oscar. But finding it hard to not vote KG. I am going to try and hopefully will be confident enough to hit submit before #11 voting ends.

[An Unbiased Fan]

1) You basically answer your own question "I find it strange that peer-review is OK for guys like West & Oscar, but not Kobe in terms of defense", "what will you use to measure Oscar's defense". The former asks why peer review etc is okay, the latter essentially acknowledges that there are no exclusively defensive based measures of impact for that time frame(I guess you could split WoWY numbers in into offensive and defensive). And people have used peer review stuff on Kobe, just not exclusively the all-NBA stuff which has known flaws (pro-stars, often lazy based on stats or reputation, limited to position comparisons where there may be a relatively small range of impact). And I'm not saying Kobe's a bad defender, that I fully buy in to +/- variants or that his all D things are garbage. But you know why what's being used is being used. I don't know that many have voted West or Oscar doing so based on expressed high levels of confidence in high levels of (specifically) defensive impact (though they might assume that some WoWY "impact" was on the defensive end). And it's not like people haven't tried to look at net impact.

The point still stands though. I posted a quote from Doc Rivers about Kobe's defense, and it was dismissed. Obviously All-D teams have no traction here, but when you have NBA players, coaches, GMs, analysts consitently calling him a great defender, one has to wonder why peopel are so quick to overlook such peer review.

In terms of "The whole thing is weird how criteria seems to shift when Kobe's name is mentioned" you might want to address this at specific individuals or it's going to be hard to respond to.

Well, I did reply to MacGill's post, specifically his assertions about Kobe's "minimal" defensive impact, while at the same time bringing up Oscar who was on the worst defense teams of his era. Doesn't seem consistent if he values 2-way players.

In fact, the whole "Kobe wasn't a great defender' meme seems off. It's like when I'm having to argue Kobe vs Bird on defense when Bird himself would say Kobe was clearly better. There's a lot of this getting in the way of deeper discussions.

2) Those pace adjusted numbers haven't accounted for the meanness in scorekeeping with regard to assists. You also notably ignore the efg% calculated or made any attempt to calculated ts% versus league norms.

Here's the ts% leaders for the span cited http://bkref.com/tiny/FM1rK

pick an equivalent Kobe span if you go 04-05 to 12-13 (Kobe as first option years, but feel free to try a different range)
http://bkref.com/tiny/1Z8ZC
http://bkref.com/tiny/LbGQq
Kobe at 122. A much bigger league sure but still that's another area with a substantial Robertson edge. Kobe is very big volume, above average efficiency. Oscar is big volume (2nd in points over that span), tremendous (best in the league) efficiency.

So basically the numbers you've posted are very misleading and by ignoring relative ts% and artificially diminishing the assist numbers you're hiding the two areas where Oscar evidently had a large impact on offense.

Don't see how the numbers are misleading considering I sourced them. The point of pace-adjusting is the same thing we did for Wilt/Shaq. One wouldn't compare Wilt's raw numbers...would they?

If you want to discuss things like TS5, then good. i would argue that Kobe faced far superior perimeter defense, while Oscar was in a very weak era for perimeter defense. Both their 2p% shooting was around 48-49%, so even if you put Kobe in that era with no 3pt line, he's just as efficient. Oscar feasted on the FT line back in the 60's. His athleticism was at a much higher deviation back then than Kobe by the time the 00's came. There are a lot of things to compare across eras.

Kobe was the more prolific scorer, Oscar was the better playmaker. If you feel Oscar had a bigger offensive imapct, I would need more specifics. I have both fairly even offensively. Kobe however, did it longer. Defensively, I would be interested in how Oscar's the better 2-way player.

[ardee]

From what I understand of RAPM, it only measures how well the player did in the role that he played in. So eccentric results such as Amir Johnson being better than Shaq or KG better than Wade in 09 only says that Amir Johnson does a better job at his role of hustle big than Shaq did at his role of first option or that KG was better at his limited role of defensive quarterback than Wade was at his huge role.

It doesn't mean that certain players (like KG over Wade) are better than others in a vacuum. RAPM depends a lot on what role you play. It should only be used to compare players with similar responsibilities, such as Wade and LeBron in 09 or Shaq and Duncan and any other such similar roles.

Now this could be completely wrong because I'm not an expert in RAPM. So someone more informed please correct me if this is all wrong.

People have said that but I consider it a cop-out way to explain away inane results so that they can use RAPM for their own purposes without having to admit that it gives you goofy rankings.

It just sounds like an excuse to keep using RAPM rather than admit it's a flawed way to evaluate players. I mean, why exactly can we not compare players using different roles? Is different math used to determine the number that represents KG and the one that represents Wade? Like I said, it's a cop-out to allow RAPM to retain credibility.

And assuming this is the thinking people have, why compare KG to Kobe then? It only means KG is better at HIS role than Kobe is at HIS. Doesn't mean KG is better than him overall (I don't endorse this kind of thinking, I'm just pointing out a flaw in the argument).

[Reservoirdawgs]

The only one who can decide this is penbeast, I've been saying since the beginning that +/- would ruin the project.

How has the project been ruined? The conversation has been absolutely fantastic, which is the entire point of this project. I know I (and others) have found the wealth of knowledge and data supplied (of all ranges) very fascinating and I have absolutely changed my opinion of several players simply due to the discussion. Simply saying "we should leave out a certain kind of statistic" is silly...otherwise anyone else could just say "using team success as a qualifier is going to ruin the project" or "focusing on efficiency is going to ruin the project" or "focusing on raw statistics is going to ruin the project". We have a wealth of data and very smart posters in here, and for the most part, people have been open and respectful. Going into this project I was most afraid that people were going to be agenda-driven instead of open-minded, and with a few exceptions of some posters who are clearly agenda-driven, they have mainly been ignored.

[Basketballefan]

I don't want to get involved in what I would consider "bickering" that seems to be taking over now that each spot has a larger number of contenders.

I will say, in reference to the discussion about changing minds, that there are some very smart people with a lot of information on players that I have never seen. And unfortunately, now every time i go to write a post with my vote, i question my decision. I fear i have missed something or don't have enough support to validate the different points i am trying to make.

In reality, I want to put my vote in but don't feel like I will add anything to the discussion. But I also don't want to resign from this project, because then I will lose my motivation to stay on top of the discussions and will stop learning.

I was going to vote for Oscar. But finding it hard to not vote KG. I am going to try and hopefully will be confident enough to hit submit before #11 voting ends.

People keep saying they've been convinced that KG deserves this spot, i've read most of the posts and nothing has made me think he deserves this spot at all.

[PCProductions]

Saying RAPM can't find individual value is like saying we can't prove the existence of black holes because we can't see them.

No bro, just no.

I dunno, I thought it was an apt comparison. Measuring the impact of something's existence is an alternative to seeing it. It's similar to how CERN confirmed the existence of Higgs boson in that it only made sense that it is rather than isn't with mathematical modeling. I personally subscribe to the notion that with more lineups and all of their combinations, we get the most unbiased and elegant solution to what is considered the holy grail of sports: measuring impact.

It doesn't do it flawlessly, but its the best we have, and I'm thrilled to see where we go with it.

[ardee]

The only one who can decide this is penbeast, I've been saying since the beginning that +/- would ruin the project.

How has the project been ruined? The conversation has been absolutely fantastic, which is the entire point of this project. I know I (and others) have found the wealth of knowledge and data supplied (of all ranges) very fascinating and I have absolutely changed my opinion of several players simply due to the discussion. Simply saying "we should leave out a certain kind of statistic" is silly...otherwise anyone else could just say "using team success as a qualifier is going to ruin the project" or "focusing on efficiency is going to ruin the project" or "focusing on raw statistics is going to ruin the project". We have a wealth of data and very smart posters in here, and for the most part, people have been open and respectful. Going into this project I was most afraid that people were going to be agenda-driven instead of open-minded, and with a few exceptions of some posters who are clearly agenda-driven, they have mainly been ignored.

It's been great so far but if this continues it'll be down the toilet from here on out.

And sorry if I'm being rude, but this is also a general statement to other people who've said the same thing. Stop trying to be elitist in saying that you're only here for the conversation.

If we didn't care about rankings, we'd just have a thread for each player and discuss them. It's the rankings that drive the conversation, if someone didn't care about where a player was ranked, he wouldn't be driven to provide a great argument in favor of or against.

[MacGill]

Well, I did reply to MacGill's post, specifically his assertions about Kobe's "minimal" defensive impact, while at the same time bringing up Oscar who was on the worst defense teams of his era. Doesn't seem consistent if he values 2-way players.

Kobe's a 2 guard. Tell me how he is a better defender than KG? Or how he can impact the game at a higher level than KG? I never said Oscar was better than Kobe defensively, however with the information I am reading of Oscar I am leaning to him from an overall offensive standpoint. I also said that I was unsure of Oscar's impact defensively, so if you're going to quote me, at least be accurate.

So yes, if I am leaning towards KG that the 2-way impact as my later post indicates. Kobe is being discussed and I am being open of unsure about Oscar defense versus him.

[MisterHibachi]

From what I understand of RAPM, it only measures how well the player did in the role that he played in. So eccentric results such as Amir Johnson being better than Shaq or KG better than Wade in 09 only says that Amir Johnson does a better job at his role of hustle big than Shaq did at his role of first option or that KG was better at his limited role of defensive quarterback than Wade was at his huge role.

It doesn't mean that certain players (like KG over Wade) are better than others in a vacuum. RAPM depends a lot on what role you play. It should only be used to compare players with similar responsibilities, such as Wade and LeBron in 09 or Shaq and Duncan and any other such similar roles.

Now this could be completely wrong because I'm not an expert in RAPM. So someone more informed please correct me if this is all wrong.

People have said that but I consider it a cop-out way to explain away inane results so that they can use RAPM for their own purposes without having to admit that it gives you goofy rankings.

It just sounds like an excuse to keep using RAPM rather than admit it's a flawed way to evaluate players. I mean, why exactly can we not compare players using different roles? Is different math used to determine the number that represents KG and the one that represents Wade? Like I said, it's a cop-out to allow RAPM to retain credibility.

And assuming this is the thinking people have, why compare KG to Kobe then? It only means KG is better at HIS role than Kobe is at HIS. Doesn't mean KG is better than him overall (I don't endorse this kind of thinking, I'm just pointing out a flaw in the argument).

To the bold, that is my point. They have different roles, so you can't really use RAPM to compare them. My broader point was that RAPM itself is not a bad stat, but that its used to prove points that it can't prove. Such as, comparing players with different roles (Kobe and KG). It's not a stat that can be used in a vacuum. A lot of context is required, as with any other stat. I think the trouble arises when it's used as an all in one stat and a way of evaluating players with different roles.

This line of thinking is contingent on my original point being correct, that being that RAPM only measures how good you are in your role.

[An Unbiased Fan]

It doesn't do it flawlessly, but its the best we have, and I'm thrilled to see where we go with it.

Hey look man, I would honestly love to see more work into things like RAPM, ASPM, and so on. My critique is not a condemnation. I think the big problem is that RAPM backers aren't being self-critical enough, which can happen in any community.

The concepts of using PbP data is truly something I'm fully behind. It's just the interpretation of RAPM results that I have a problem with. Take RAPM for what it is, not for what it isn't. When it oversahdows other criteria beign used, it just causes many of us to disengage from discussions. Why expound on the difference between Player A vs Player B, if RAPM results will negate much of anything actually said. The KG vs DRob discussions kinda showed that.

[MisterHibachi]

I also have an issue with using impact to rank players. Impact depends a lot on circumstances and teammates. Michael Jordan will have better on/off numbers (which is what impact really is) if his back up is Nick Young rather than Manu Ginobili. It doesn't change anything about the player in question himself. Jordan is still Jordan with the same abilities regardless of how good his back up is or how good his team is. I think its a lot better to rank players based on their skill set and not impact.

I think voters should've posted their criteria at the beginning of the project just so we had an idea of what everyone was looking for and also to make sure people stay consistent and don't change criteria based on the player.

[ardee]

Well, I did reply to MacGill's post, specifically his assertions about Kobe's "minimal" defensive impact, while at the same time bringing up Oscar who was on the worst defense teams of his era. Doesn't seem consistent if he values 2-way players.

Or how he can impact the game at a higher level than KG?.

I've done this before but a summation of my views on the matter:

1. KG is a better defender, but the lead is smaller than people think. KG was an all-time defender in Boston but his style of play on that end was not conducive to his team's success in Minny. His 'middle linebacker' (I am sick of that now by the way) role where he was practically a perimeter player left the paint open season for 'Sota. In three straight seasons, 2002-04, the teams that knocked them out absolutely roasted them in the paint on ridiculous volume (65%+ in there every season, in the toughest defensive era of modern NBA history). Why defend mid-range jumpers and come out on PGs when you're leaving the paint wide open for the most efficient shot in basketball? Sounds like irresponsible defensive play (Kobe gets CRUSHED for this). This is why Minny had terrible team defenses even though he had guys like Hassell, Cassell, Rasho, etc. on his team through his career.

2. Kobe's offensive lead is bigger. Kobe is an offensive constant, meaning you can rely on him 100% of the time or close to that to make your offense run. Whether it's him creating a shot for himself or someone else, it doesn't matter, it just keeps things moving. KG is not. His entire Minny career in the Playoffs (except for a few games in 2004) is punctuated by him looking lost a good part of the time and unable to do anything other than take mid-range jumpers. Sometimes, they go in. Cool, he'll have good games like he did against the 2003 Lakers. Otherwise, in general, it's just hurting your offense.

In essence, I see KG as a talented guy, who unfortunately, spent a lot of time in the Playoffs:

a. defending the most inefficient shot in basketball, at the expense of giving up the most efficient ones.
b. taking the most inefficient shots in basketball, at the expense of not working to get the most efficient ones.

The post-up numbers are nice, but volume matters. Shaun Livingston let the league in PPP this season on barely any volume. His defense worked in Boston because he had a great rim protector (at the time) in Perkins to keep the paint under control while Garnett went out on perimeter players.

Meanwhile, Kobe is a guy who can be relied on to do great things on offense, sticks to his man on defense (no one can dispute this). He will not make the correct rotation at times, but that does not overcome the host of negatives that KG brings (and there are a LOT, like I've shown, but people choose to ignore them).

[PCProductions]

I also have an issue with using impact to rank players. Impact depends a lot on circumstances and teammates. Michael Jordan will have better on/off numbers (which is what impact really is) if his back up is Nick Young rather than Manu Ginobili. It doesn't change anything about the player in question himself. Jordan is still Jordan with the same abilities regardless of how good his back up is or how good his team is. I think its a lot better to rank players based on their skill set and not impact.

I think voters should've posted their criteria at the beginning of the project just so we had an idea of what everyone was looking for and also to make sure people stay consistent and don't change criteria based on the player.

I think RAPM attempts to be On/Off with the entire sample of NBA players instead of just his team. Michael Jordan over an average NBA player rather than his literal replacement, for instance.

[colts18]

People have said that but I consider it a cop-out way to explain away inane results so that they can use RAPM for their own purposes without having to admit that it gives you goofy rankings.

It just sounds like an excuse to keep using RAPM rather than admit it's a flawed way to evaluate players. I mean, why exactly can we not compare players using different roles? Is different math used to determine the number that represents KG and the one that represents Wade? Like I said, it's a cop-out to allow RAPM to retain credibility.

And assuming this is the thinking people have, why compare KG to Kobe then? It only means KG is better at HIS role than Kobe is at HIS. Doesn't mean KG is better than him overall (I don't endorse this kind of thinking, I'm just pointing out a flaw in the argument).

Is Amir Johnson a better offensive player than Kobe?

117 O rating .603 TS% vs Kobe's .555 TS%, 111 O rating

Is Adrian Dantley a better offensive player than Kobe:

24.3 PPG, .617 TS% vs 25.5 PPG, .555 TS%

[An Unbiased Fan]

Well, I did reply to MacGill's post, specifically his assertions about Kobe's "minimal" defensive impact, while at the same time bringing up Oscar who was on the worst defense teams of his era. Doesn't seem consistent if he values 2-way players.

Kobe's a 2 guard. Tell me how he is a better defender than KG? Or how he can impact the game at a higher level than KG? I never said Oscar was better than Kobe defensively, however with the information I am reading of Oscar I am leaning to him from an overall offensive standpoint. I also said that I was unsure of Oscar's impact defensively, so if you're going to quote me, at least be accurate.

So yes, if I am leaning towards KG that the 2-way impact as my later post indicates. Kobe is being discussed and I am being open of unsure about Oscar defense versus him.

I never said Kobe had bigger defensive impact than KG at all, just that Kobe was a great defender too. That's the thing. Most concede that Kobe was better on offense, but that KG was good too. Both were good 2-way players.

So in terms of comparisons, we have to ask, what had the bigger impact, Kobe's offense vs KG's defense. Kobe as an offensive anchor has consistently led good offenses, even when surrounded by bad talent like in the Smush days. KG's defense however, didn't anchor his Minny teams in a comparable fashion. Further, when you look at what Thibs did in Chicago, one has to wonder how much to attribute the Celtic's gaudy DRtg's to KG too alone. Clearly he was utilized better, but just the year before Minny has dismal numbers.

In the playoffs again, Kobe's offense was consistently more dominant than KG's defense. In 2001 for example, SA has no answer to stop Kobe, that's the power of individual offense. With no great perimeter defender to check him, Kobe ran wild. KG's defense however could only do so much. TD shot only 51% TS, which showed he was having an effect, but still....there's only so much individual defense can do.

Obviously there are limitations. Kobe couldn't get LA past the Suns in 06 or 07, nor could MJ will Chicago past the like of the 86 Celtiics. it's all relative. But looking at their careers, and spans like 06/07 where Kobe led the Smush teams to #8 & #7 offenses and the playoffs, while KG missed them, we can see what is happening.