Peaks Project #17

[trex_8063]

Well, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm going to stick with my same top two picks from last thread (mostly, but not entirely, same arguments). 3rd pick is new....

1st ballot: Kevin Durant '14
I freely acknowledge the Durant is a completely average defender overall. But: very good to elite as both a rebounder and playmaker for a SF. And then GOAT-level pure scorer: 41.8 pts/100 possessions @ 63.5% TS . fwiw, I'd also constructed formula founded on Moonbeam's Score+ rating (I called mine "Modified Score+").......'14 Durant is the 2nd-highest MS+ rating on record (just barely behind '88 Barkley, and just barely ahead of '83 Dantley).
He couldn't quite maintain that in the playoffs, but still......35.9 pts/100 poss @ 57.0% TS while playing 42.9 mpg; that's still very elite level scoring, and---collectively with the rs numbers---has him in contention for greatest ever pure scoring season. And bear in mind the defense he was facing in the '14 playoffs:
1st round: -2.1 rDRTG (ranked 7th of 30; being guarded primarily by Tony Allen, who I think is arguably the greatest perimeter man-defender of this generation)
2nd round: -1.9 rDRTG (9th of 30)
3rd round: -4.3 rDRTG (3rd of 30; being guarded by Kawhi Leonard)

fwiw, where portability is concerned, although obviously it's very speculative, I suspect Durant's is reasonably high, as he's primarily an off-ball player (takes less of the table), and---at least in the modern setting---provides a ton of floor spacing, which is quite important. I mean, his defender literally has to be glued to him even 25-26 ft from the hoop, and is basically taken out of help defense entirely.

.

I wouldnt really say that he had completely average defense.

He is exceptional as an isolation defender. ( I only have data up to 2/3rds into that season though)

He gave up 0.52 points per possession, good for 4th in the league, including the players who only face those possessions once or twice, meaning that he was probably the best isolation defender in the league at that point.

For comparison, He completely blows Davis, Allen, Iggy, etc out of the water.

And he is also better than people like Draymond and Paul.

He was great at defending the P and R ball handler. gave up 0.52ppp again. that ranks better than
Kawhi, Allen, Draymond, etc.

He was reasonably good at defending the post up. ranked better than Draymond and Davis (0.73 ppp)

was solid at defending the spot up as well.

the only play that he really faced regularly and had trouble defending was off-screen plays.

of the 7 "defendable" plays, he was very good at 2 of them, beyond exceptional at 2 others, and below average at 3 of them. However, the 3 plays that he wasnt good at defending, he was faced with less than 20% of the time.

so in 80% of the plays he "faced" he was solid to exceptional.

Im using a different website for these next stats, since the site I used for the stats above (other than Lebrons ppp stats) came up wierdly for some stats. the ppp for the top of the stats seemed correct though. had a strong correlation with this year, and the site I will use now.

In his seasons, lebron gave up

2010 overall = 0.840 PPP

2011 overall = 0.770 PPP

2012 overall = 0.820 PPP

2013 overall = 0.840 PPP

2014 overall = 0.870 PPP

in those seasons. (0.787 in his legendary 09 season)

in 2014, Durant gave up roughly 0.78ppp (probably rounded down since it was a biased post)

Obviously not the best way to show defense, but I wouldnt call Durant average on defense

He isnt a better defender than lebron obviously, but I feel this is enough to say he was above average.

Interesting. It's almost kinda hard to believe, that he could be this elite isolation, yet be a marginal net negative defensive player (according to DRAPM and on/off stats). What is the source on this information? Or is this an independent study?

[E-Balla]

here's my field right now:

PGs:
1. 08 Chris Paul
2. 66 Jerry West
3/4/5. 05 Nash/15 Curry/96 Penny (in order of who I'm leaning towards)

Wings:
1 03 T-Mac
2. 06 Kobe Bryant
3. 14 Kevin Durant
4. 61 Elgin Baylor
5. 97 Grant Hill

Bigs:
1/2/3. 11 Dirk/90 Pat/83 Moses (in order of who I'm leaning towards)
4. 90 Charles Barkley
5. 11 Dwight/98 Karl/00 Zo (again, in order)

My nominations will be:
1. 03 Tracy McGrady

He was a great at carrying a team and I have every reason to believe he could've fulfilled a lead role on a great team with his skill set. He was a great shooter, he was 2% over league average on 2s, shot 38% from 3 with only 50% assisted, he averaged 32/7/6, and he played great against the Pistons. Some people point out his performance once he played Tayshaun but they forget how good that team was. Without Tayshaun starting in the regular season they gave up a 100 ORTG. Tracy put up 26/8/5 on 46 TS with a 100 ORTG (due to his low turnovers) in the last two games. Not great but high volume average efficiency isn't too bad.

Why Hill over Harden, Pippen or Drexler? Grant was arguably better than Scottie and Clyde in the RS, but he proved nothing in the playoffs, compared to them.

Well I thought about it and I think 15 Harden and 01 Vince are a clear step above Pippen and Drexler who in my mind who are closer to Melo, Ray, Reggie, Gervin, Jones, and Pierce. Originally I was debating Harden vs Vince and leaning towards Vince when it hit me that I was forgetting Grant Hill. Now Grant wasn't an amazing playoff performer but neither was Scottie (against NY he averaged 22/8/5 on 51 TS with a 103 ORTG which isn't bad but isn't really good for a guy with a spotty postseason history) and Clyde was but I just flat out have doubt a that he was better. Grant in his prime averaged 21/7/6 on 51 TS with a 24 PER and 106 ORTG in the playoffs even if he only got to play 3 series.

The real question is whether he should be over 01 Vince and 15 Harden (IMO Vince > Harden for now) and I have time to sort that out.

[E-Balla]

Would love to know why Cp3 is considered better than Penny and Nash?
They are roughly on the same level to me.

I'd rank them:

1.Nash
2.Penny
3.CP

Nash is just on another level offensively. Basically, he didn't have a bad playoff series in his prime. Dominated top teams and delivered in big games. Can't say the same for CP. Penny also stepped up in the postseason but never reached the same ceiling. Penny's performances in 95-97 are really nowhere near what Nash was doing in 05-07. Penny didn't have a 30/12/6 playoff series, or 24/13 vs. Bruce Bowen etc. What Nash was doing was unprecedented and he was doing that while leading historically good playoff offenses. Of course both Penny and CP are better than Nash on defense but the gap on offense is pretty huge to me.

Honestly Nash is the best offensive player left and the only player who is even close is Kobe 08 imo (also led great offense while putting up huge individual performances vs high level competition).

Umm... 97 vs Orlando comes pretty close... Vs the best defense in the league who was giving up a 100.6 ORTG (despite missing Zo for 15 games), starting 20/3/9 PG Tim Hardaway (held to 14/4/10 on 40 TS%), and second seed to the champion Bulls (they held 97 MJ to 30/8/3 on 48 TS% and Scottie to 17/5/3 on 53 TS in the ECF) Penny put up 31/6/3 on 58 TS with a 118 ORTG. He was also the only other player to perform against the Bulls in 96 along with Shaq (26/4/4 on 55 TS) and he had the Hawks series in 96 too (24/5/7 on 56 TS with a 128 ORTG). This is a guy that played with young Shaq and looked better than him at many times. Now I'm not saying he's better than Nash offensively but with his major defensive edge on Nash he doesn't need to be.

[therealbig3]

I don't know where you're getting this "information". Just watch the damn series. I've seen it, Curry was a terrible defender. And yes, Prince was the reason TMac's shooting dropped so dramatically. If you watch the series, casters talk about it all the time. There are highlights and all you want proving that to be true. Really no reason for me to argue anything more on this point, with all due respect but all of you are just plain wrong in that regard. Some of your "information" is completely counter-factual. During the series there are stats with McGrady vs. Prince and vs. everybody else. Let's just say that he wasn't the same player facing Prince. You really need to watch more games to know what I'm talking about.

Similarly, you can't look at the boxscore to know the context behind G7 Spurs-Hornets from 2008. Paul was absolutely terrible for his standards. You could easily see his inexperience affecting him.

But...I actually did watch the series. I also kept track of T-Mac's shooting when Prince was guarding him vs when others were guarding him, and in games 5-7, T-Mac shot poorly regardless of who was on him. And just because you say Curry was a bad defender doesn't mean he was. You're creating a narrative to try and prove a point, when in reality, the only reason Curry was in the NBA was because of his defense. My eye test is different than yours, and objective data says Curry was a good defender.

I'm re-watching the Magic-Pistons series, and using play by play data, and Prince started guarding T-Mac in game 2 after Curry got in foul trouble in the 3rd quarter. After Prince started guarding him, T-Mac went 3-8 from the field (including a 3) and 5-6 from the line for 12 points (56.4% TS).

In game 3, against Prince, T-Mac went 2-5 from the field (including a 3) and 3-4 from the line for 8 points (59.2% TS).

Prince didn't play in game 4.

In game 5, against Prince, T-Mac went 3-11 from the field and 2-3 from the line for 8 points (32.5% TS). This was a huge blowout win for the Pistons.

In game 6, against Prince, T-Mac went 5-14 from the field and 6-7 from the line for 16 points (46.8% TS). As ElGee pointed out, two of those shots were desperation shots at the end of the game (one of them was blocked by Wallace). So really, it was more like 5-12 from the field, which means his TS% was "really" 56.4%.

In game 7, against Prince, T-Mac went 5-13 (including a 3) and 3-3 from the line for 14 points (48.9% TS). Another blowout win for the Pistons.


It's really game 5, which Detroit won by 31 points, that Prince really had a lot of success against T-Mac. T-Mac more or less lit him up in games 2, 3, and 6, while Prince again had decent success against him in a 15 point win in game 7. But it was really nowhere close to T-Mac getting shut down or anything like that. Overall, T-Mac averaged 11.6 ppg on 47.4% TS. If we account for the two desperation heaves by T-Mac in game 6, he had a 49.1% TS.

Overall, yes, he did struggle with his shooting against Prince, but nowhere close to the extent that was implied. He was around 50% TS, and around 53% TS outside of his horrible game 5, (league average that year was 52% anyway), and he was being swarmed by the Pistons defense. From what I've seen, what was said about Kobe is true of T-Mac as well...he's getting by Prince pretty easily, Detroit's help defense was really good. Where Prince helped was that he was long enough to challenge T-Mac's outside shot, but T-Mac was also drawing fouls on Prince regularly.

Adjusting for the 2 missed desperation heaves by T-Mac in game 6, he had a 55% TS overall...he had 56% TS when Prince guarded him.

In game 7, T-Mac had a 40% TS overall...he had 49% TS when Prince guarded him.

Pretty much the only game in the last 3 when T-Mac actually shot worse when Prince guarded him was game 5, a huge blowout win for the Pistons. T-Mac shot better when Prince was on him in games 6 and 7.

Commentators saw T-Mac struggle when Prince started guarding him in game 5, and ran with that narrative, but other than game 5, Prince wasn't really slowing him down...T-Mac just wasn't hitting shots at the same ridiculous rate as he was before, regardless of who was defending him.

He destroyed Prince in games 2, 3, and 6, and still shot better than he did in general against Prince in game 7.

[eminence]

1st Ballot: Stephen Curry 14-15 I see Curry is still here... No ball handler puts as much pressure on a defense as Curry does, none. His off the dribble shooting is absolutely unprecedented and cannot be replicated by any other player who has played. He made the GSW offense possible.

2nd Ballot: Chris Paul 07-08 Offensive presence equal to anyone left other than Curry in my opinion (Nash/Dirk being the other big two). Prefer PGs for offense building, and have him equal to Nash offensively but far ahead defensively.

3rd Ballot: Jerry West 65-66 Great scorer at this point in his career, and finally was on the court for most of a season. Defensively has one of the best reputations I've ever seen for a guard, must be something there.

HM: Ewing, Dirk

[E-Balla]

Continuing from the previous thread on Ewing...

You're ignoring the context. Knicks had an injury spree in the spring. They were going for a 60W season with Ewing which shows how much higher his impact was since Barkley's Sixers were nowhere near that level.

Actually, it is Ewing's team which was nowhere near Barkley's level.

Knicks in 47 games with Ewing/Oak/Strickland was at 2.96 MOV.
Barkley's 76ers over the entire season was at 4.99 MOV.
Sixers in their best 47 game stretch was at 7.47 MOV.

Difference is that the Sixers didn't really deal with injuries (of their players with over 1000 minutes only 25 games were missed total), they kept their rotation short and good (only 7 players over 1000 minutes and Scott Brooks at 975), and his supporting cast was actually pretty good (defensively they were 16th and Barkley wasn't good on that end, offensively only 3 of those top 8 rotation guys had lower than league average TS% and those guys all had low TOV%s which meant not a single one of them had a below average ORTG).

We have Barkley's +/- for that year and an estimate of his on/off. He has a +8.9 ORTG and +0.6 DRTG that year but looking at the rest of the starting lineup Hawkins and Mahorn both had higher on/off estimates. I think that Chuck did a great job leading that average supporting cast to the 2nd best offense but I think Pat making it work with the turnover he had and the lack of talent outside of Oak is even better.

The argument for Ewing over Barkley is very simple. While he's clearly worse on the offensive end, he still produces a lot on that end. Meanwhile, Ewing is a defensive monster. Today, he'd be by far the best defensive player in the league. At the same time, Barkley is a defensive liability. Plus, they are both bigs, where defense is more important than offense.

The simple argument you proposed also applies for Ewing vs Magic. And it's interesting how a player who would be by far the best defensive player in the league today while simultaneously producing a lot on the offensive end couldn't lift his team to anything better than an average offense and defense. Meanwhile in the same division, Barkley takes the 76ers with a similar level of supporting cast to the 2nd best offense behind Magic's Lakers with a defense only -0.4 worse than Ewing's Knicks. If Barkley was more impactful overall than Ewing, he should be ranked ahead in this peak project regardless of your personal preference for a big man in a team building context.

Yeah I don't see how they're a similar level of supporting cast. Chuck had an average defensive supporting cast that produced offensively especially from the G spots (he had Hawkins putting up 19/4/3, Dawkins putting up 14/3/7, and Derek Smith/Scott Brooks off the bench).

Regarding the posts you are quoting:

He was seen as a better center than Hakeem that year, made the all-NBA first over him and had coaches around the league saying he was the best center in the league.

The 1990 survey of NBA GMs, coaches and assistant coaches has the following results:
What starting five would you select? Robinson/Malone/Barkley/Jordan/Magic
If you could add any player in the league to your roster, who would it be? 1. Robinson 2. Magic 3. Jordan
OTOH, the All-NBA teams voted by the media has Ewing as the #1 center by a thin 344-326 margin.
It appears that Ewing was more beloved by the media while it is rookie Robinson who was more highly regarded by the coaches.

They loved him because of his youth as far as that add one player to your roster question goes. I mean Robinson had Terry Cummings putting up 22/8/3 and the San Antonio offense was worse than NY's. As far as the defense goes I already mentioned how I think coaching matters just as much as players on that end and Larry Brown is a defensive savant. Still you are right that it looks like the media favored Patrick more than coaches whether that's right or wrong. Also after looking I can't find that coach poll.

I'm going to guess a better moving version of the guy who was anchoring historic defenses a year and a half later was still pretty damn effective on defense. Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

Estimating Ewing's defensive impact based on later years is not the point of this project. That would be those hypothetical super peak ideas where you get to combine a player at his offensive peak and defensive peak together to form a super player. By that same measure, we should evaluate 1967 Wilt based on his defense in 1972... and nobody does that for obvious reasons.

Yes but if young Ewing could lead great defenses and a slightly older Ewing could too I see no reason why 89-91 Ewing couldn't lead a defense better than 10th. To me that seems to be more of a coaching/personnel issue.

Why was he so much better offensively? As I've been mentioning, he had more variety in his offensive game, this was something everyone in the league was talking about. He went from being a predictable offensive player who was easy to game plan for, to being a lot more well rounded who mixed up and expanded his scoring repertoire. He was better at creating space on his shots, got that extra bit of separation he wasn't quite getting later as the years went on and a result he was having a lot of success as a one on one scorer in the post. He was at his physical peak in the NBA, insane stamina, a lot more athletic, moved better, had a bit more spring in his legs, which naturally allowed him to have a better conversion rate around the basket. His aggressiveness is completely different, he wasn't content to bail you out with fadeaways all game, he attacked the defense more often ever and consequently posted the best FTA numbers of his career (combined with a career best FT% which further raised his efficiency). His passing also took a big leap that year. While he wasn't Shaq or prime Hakeem, he was competent at reading doubles, this is another observation that is obvious to me from watching games and also reading/listening to what people around the league were saying.

Ewing's offense improved significantly since his college years... but there is still no evidence that he was actually a dominating offensive force. And if the sole argument for that is his ppg and TS%, I hope you will be voting for 2000 Mourning soon given that he is actually not too far off from Ewing as a scorer (-2.7 points per 100 poss on +1.1% rTS) and is a similarly dominant defender.

2000 Zo scored 22 ppg (yeah I understand the per 100 but volume scorers lose less touches than role players as the game slows down and the Knicks were at the same pace as Golden State last year) for a 16th ranked offense. 90 Pat scored 29 ppg for a 13th ranked offense with terrible guard play. The year before when the team was healthy and Rod/Mark were performing well (a combined 26/7/13 per game on 54 TS with a 112 combined ORTG from the PG spot compared to 20/7/12 per game on 49 TS with a 105 combined ORTG pre trade) the Knicks had the 6th ranked offense with Pat only averaging 22.7 ppg and 2.4 apg on 60.7 TS% with a 115 ORTG (he finished 4th in MVP voting in 89 too). I don't see how a player who was already seen as top 5 and on or around Chuck's level in 89 took such a huge step forward while Chuck took a small step forward (if he even took a step forward) and didn't get better than him.

I have Ewing as the best peak center left but I can't justify putting him ahead of Barkley when the latter had a noticeable offensive impact throughout the entire season while elevating his team to a much higher level when the quality of rest of their teammates weren't that much different. And FWIW, here is a quote from Jordan after the MVP voting: "I seriously thought that Charles would win it because of what I believe the credentials were - to make your team better and improve the situation within a team. You look at what was expected of Philly and what they did and who was the main reason for that, and it all led to Charles Barkley."

Again a quote about how much they won. The only differences between Chuck's 89 and 90 seasons are Hersey Hawkins improving and Rick Mahorn + Hawk improving Philly to be around average defensively instead of worst in the league. Pat improved in every way from the previous season statistically but because the team around him got worse and they won less the perception of his game shifted.

[The-Power]

Same ballots as last time:

1st ballot: 2015 Curry
2nd ballot: 2011 Nowitzki
3rd ballot: (2008) Paul

[Dr Spaceman]

Spoiler:

I'm not sure you have enough data to support the underlined. Dirk and Curry both had casts that fit their skill-sets perfectly, even if the top-end talent wasn't as high as the Heatles. And in both cases their casts had skillsets to fit productive roles around a transcendant superstar. If you gave Wade a cast of similar overall caliber, but tailored to his strengths, I don't doubt he could have led a contender from a high primacy/high usage role that would have been very high impact. I agree with you that Wade's portability isn't as strong as Dirk's or Curry's because of their shooting ability/spacing impacts, but I'm not sure that we have any evidence that he couldn't scale to an excellent team if he was surrounded by more talent that fit his game.

I don't doubt that either. What I doubt is that he would be putting up 36% USG in such a situation, because even Russell Westbrook has more of a conscience than that.

The point is Wade delivered a lot of raw production because his team needed raw production more than anything else.

Curry and Dirk did not provide the same raw production because there were other players capable of producing and their teams needed other things.

And because of this line of reasoning, I take serious issue with the notion that Wade is better than the other two because he beats them in raw production.

OK, but to me that seems like a weaker condition than what you said in the last message in the quote because the pro-Wade argument in fact wouldn't go away. I would think that the case for having Wade in before Curry and Dirk was a combo of several things, including raw production and impact. In 2010, the year I voted for Wade (note, I voted him ahead of Curry but behind Dirk), he had (as far as I can tell) a better RAPM score than Curry's was last year and similar to 2011 Dirk. In addition to the incredible raw production.

So I was taking your stance to be, he couldn't be as good/impactful overall on a better team as he was on a lesser team while using Dirk and Curry as examples of players that could do that. To that, I argue that if you put a team of similar caliber around Wade that fit his skill set, he could still put up stellar boxscore numbers with a similar impact on a championship caliber team. But if you aren't arguing about his overall value in this scenario (which would be directly relevant to a peak discussion) but instead are arguing about whether his raw boxscore numbers would decrease (without consideration of impact) then I guess I'd say..."ok, maybe" but that the point of such a statement on your part no longer seems worth much because it doesn't affect the "pro-Wade argument" in any noticeable way.

But drza, that's exactly what I'm saying, because when I brought up skepticism about Wade based on some sporadic team performance metrics, I was met with a cacophony of "That's a team stat, you can't use that to judge Wade, individual players need to be judged independent of team results", and this is an approach I am diametrically opposed to, for a few reasons:

1. It places a far higher degree of faith in box score metrics than I am comfortable with
2. It creates a precedent where "Player x is better than player y because player x's stats are better" is acceptable without further justification
3. There is a yawning chasm between "ring counting" and the approach I am using, which attempts to answer the "better than" question by figuring "who did more to help their team win"
4. Those who are truly interested in being 100% consistent with this approach should be bringing up Adrian Dantley or freaking Pistol Pete by now

I don't see a good reason for voting 09 Wade over 11 Wade other than his raw production. He very obviously peaked defensively in 11, his off-ball game was sublime and he was on the whole more portable, and his playoff performance (especially finals) was one for the ages. And yet not a single person brought up 11 as Wade's peak (the year I would have voted for) ostensibly because Wade's stats were worse and it would be harder to argue him over Dirk or another player when he doesn't have that big volume edge.

I ran into the same thing this year in a Durant vs. Curry thread, where essentially the counter to me was "Durant scored on so much more volume, it's not even comparable, he had to carry a much larger load than curry", and again my response is always "by itself, why is that enough to say durant is a better player?"

And again this year we saw Russell Westbrook immediately jump into people's top 5 because of the crazy production. Was he doing anything this season he couldn't have done in 2014? NO! It's just that the context of the situation demanded certain things from him and those things happen to be tracked by the box score and the box score happens to be a lot of people's preferred way to do analysis.

One final point: are we sure Dirk couldn't have scored on the volume Wade or durant did? He certainly has the skills for it, and he certainly ups his volume and efficiency output every single year in the postseason. Where does the reasonable doubt come from?

[mischievous]

I edited my post and put in 08 Kobe as my 3rd ballot.

[PaulieWal]

^^

I disagree with pretty much all of what you said but the problem was that we have someone like Wade who had great raw stats, advanced stats, and his team was considerably worse without him on the floor and yet all we saw was some point about ORTG or offensive team impact solely relying on ORTG which I am not ready to treat as an end all, be all of everything.

And as many others have repeatedly mentioned impact does not equal goodness or at least not for most people. And the irony is Wade's impact stats are pretty good anyway if you are looking at RAPM. It's not like he was some ball dominant, shot-chucking star with no regard for efficiency. He was insanely efficient on high volume.

As for 09 vs. 11 Wade, you could argue for 11 but many feel 09 was better because of the crap he was carrying around him and how dominant he was, because of how complete he was as a player in 09, and because of his relentless motor on both ends of the floor. I am pretty certain that he could have just been as portable in 09 if he had a Bron or even an Igoudala with him.

You are doing the same thing you accuse others of doing. You are elevating someone like a Curry based on his impact when for the first time he had the perfect supporting cast around him and perfect utilization with a new coach who played him more off the ball.

In one breath you argue for Green as a top 5 guy but then fail to acknowledge it yourself that having a top 5 or (15-20) for me makes the overall game easier for me. Curry played with like 4 guys who would all be the 2nd best player on 09 Heat by a LARGE margin (Green, Klay, Iggy, Bogut).

I'll just leave this from picc here to summarize why many think Wade peaked in 09 over his other seasons:

Aside from Wade, the 09 Heat had only one player who posted a positive on-court ORTG, and played over 1000 minutes: Daequan Cook, at a +0.9. A career spot-up shooter. Everyone else, including Marion and rookie Beasley, was in the negative, and Jermaine O'Neal's +4.9 was only available for 27 games.

It's not just about Wade's raw stats as you seem to think it's more about what and how much he was carrying and still producing excellent raw/advanced stats.

[mischievous]

The Heat won 15 games when Wade was hurt in 08. When he was healthy and played most of the games next year, that win total went up to 43. Thats excellent impact.

[Dr Spaceman]

The Heat won 15 games when Wade was hurt in 08. When he was healthy and played most of the games next year, that win total went up to 43. Thats excellent impact.

I have never said otherwise. Dwayne Wade has the single highest ORAPM score ever recorded in 2010. I'd never argue he wasn't an impact player.

What I am saying, and read this closely, is "Dwyane Wade's impact came in a situation that was very conducive to a player having massive impact, and thus it shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value in comparison to other greats that were not in positions where their teams demanded so much from them".

[Texas Chuck]

^^


And as many others have repeatedly mentioned impact does not equal goodness or at least not for most people. .

Amen.

KG's RAPM in his peak year of 2004 is 8.6. In 2005 its 4.4. In 2003 its 5.4.

So it seems obvious that the poorly named "impact" stats are also heavily influenced by those around them. Suggesting that box scores aren't worth much because of casts without acknowledging the same very much holds true for "impact" stats feels off to me.

Or to stay on Wade: 09 has him at 6.4. 10 has him at 8.4 11 has him at 5.3. Again, feels like the team around him plays a pretty big part.

In other words I agree wholeheartedly that we have to look at a player's performance within the team concept. This idea of ignoring the team in an attempt to focus on the individual will forever be misguided. Where I strongly disagree is with this notion that "impact" stats really account for teammates in the way some would have you believe.

[E-Balla]

I don't doubt that either. What I doubt is that he would be putting up 36% USG in such a situation, because even Russell Westbrook has more of a conscience than that.

The point is Wade delivered a lot of raw production because his team needed raw production more than anything else.

Curry and Dirk did not provide the same raw production because there were other players capable of producing and their teams needed other things.

And because of this line of reasoning, I take serious issue with the notion that Wade is better than the other two because he beats them in raw production.

OK, but to me that seems like a weaker condition than what you said in the last message in the quote because the pro-Wade argument in fact wouldn't go away. I would think that the case for having Wade in before Curry and Dirk was a combo of several things, including raw production and impact. In 2010, the year I voted for Wade (note, I voted him ahead of Curry but behind Dirk), he had (as far as I can tell) a better RAPM score than Curry's was last year and similar to 2011 Dirk. In addition to the incredible raw production.

So I was taking your stance to be, he couldn't be as good/impactful overall on a better team as he was on a lesser team while using Dirk and Curry as examples of players that could do that. To that, I argue that if you put a team of similar caliber around Wade that fit his skill set, he could still put up stellar boxscore numbers with a similar impact on a championship caliber team. But if you aren't arguing about his overall value in this scenario (which would be directly relevant to a peak discussion) but instead are arguing about whether his raw boxscore numbers would decrease (without consideration of impact) then I guess I'd say..."ok, maybe" but that the point of such a statement on your part no longer seems worth much because it doesn't affect the "pro-Wade argument" in any noticeable way.

But drza, that's exactly what I'm saying, because when I brought up skepticism about Wade based on some sporadic team performance metrics, I was met with a cacophony of "That's a team stat, you can't use that to judge Wade, individual players need to be judged independent of team results", and this is an approach I am diametrically opposed to, for a few reasons:

Wait I'm sorry but what? No you were met with people saying his team stunk and then mentioning 05 and 11 where his team performed well and actually had talent to which you said something to the effect of "Lebron and Shaq were MVP candidates and are already in the project so we can't use those years". You can't remove the times his offense has done good because his teams were talented and then complain about him not being able to lead an offense with rookie Beas as the second option to a top 10 finish.

1. It places a far higher degree of faith in box score metrics than I am comfortable with

Wade kills in all metrics not just boxscore. His RAPM from 09-11 was 4th, 2nd (well over 3rd place too), and 9th. The 2nd highest ORAPM from 97-15 is Wade in 2010. Wade is 7th in combined RAPM from 97-14 and 5th among players over 33 mpg. His on/off numbers are some of the best ever and his offensive on/off in 2010 is one of the 5 highest ever.

2. It creates a precedent where "Player x is better than player y because player x's stats are better" is acceptable without further justification
3. There is a yawning chasm between "ring counting" and the approach I am using, which attempts to answer the "better than" question by figuring "who did more to help their team win"
4. Those who are truly interested in being 100% consistent with this approach should be bringing up Adrian Dantley or freaking Pistol Pete by now

Well no because Dantley and Pete only look good on the boxscore but of the impact numbers we have for them WOWY they look mediocre. This is bordering on trolling at this point.

I don't see a good reason for voting 09 Wade over 11 Wade other than his raw production. He very obviously peaked defensively in 11, his off-ball game was sublime and he was on the whole more portable, and his playoff performance (especially finals) was one for the ages. And yet not a single person brought up 11 as Wade's peak (the year I would have voted for) ostensibly because Wade's stats were worse and it would be harder to argue him over Dirk or another player when he doesn't have that big volume edge.

We didn't vote 2011 Wade because we have the ability to separate team performance from player performance. You're acting like some people didn't vote 2006 Wade. In 2009 Wade was just as good off ball as he was in 2011 he just didn't play off ball as much because he didn't play with Lebron (and in later years Wade's off ball game improved waaay more). You're the only person who sees these differences in 11 and 09 Wade for a reason. In 09 Wade was healthier, his jumper was more accurate than any other season before 2014, and he played giving 100% effort way more often. Its easy to see why that would be the top season here for all of those reasons.

I ran into the same thing this year in a Durant vs. Curry thread, where essentially the counter to me was "Durant scored on so much more volume, it's not even comparable, he had to carry a much larger load than curry", and again my response is always "by itself, why is that enough to say durant is a better player?"

Its not by itself enough to say that he's better but when combined with a crapload of other factors, for instance the 2013 Thunder being better than the 2015 Warriors offense and the 2013 Thunder before Westbrook went down looking nearly as good as the Warriors this year (9.15 SRS vs 10.01) in what many see as a more competitive season, then it becomes easy to see why someone would think KD is better when he was able to lead that same team minus KMart and with WB injured to 59 wins and a 6.7 SRS especially when Curry without these coaches never even approached that sort of impact.

And again this year we saw Russell Westbrook immediately jump into people's top 5 because of the crazy production. Was he doing anything this season he couldn't have done in 2014? NO! It's just that the context of the situation demanded certain things from him and those things happen to be tracked by the box score and the box score happens to be a lot of people's preferred way to do analysis.

Well yeah he was because he was actually playing but if you are talking in terms of how he could've produced when he was healthy you must've forgot how people felt about Russell in 2014 around here. I remember me and Ronnymac talking up WB as a top 5ish player and I personally saw him as knocking on KD's doopstep. Westbrook even got a RPOY vote after only playing 46 regular season games and there was talk of him winning RPOY if he took OKC to a Finals win the way he was playing. He entered the top 5 this year because we finally got to see if he could produce without KD and if his play from last year was a result of him not playing many games and not getting a chance to cool off (it wasn't).

One final point: are we sure Dirk couldn't have scored on the volume Wade or durant did? He certainly has the skills for it, and he certainly ups his volume and efficiency output every single year in the postseason. Where does the reasonable doubt come from?

I'm going to say yes I'm sure because in the modern era of the NBA no PF has ever pulled it off. His postseason production never approached that level either (career high 27.7 ppg on 60.9 TS in the playoffs - Wade's postseason averages in 09 and 10 are 30.8 ppg on 60 TS and his best extended run is his 28.4 ppg on 59.3 TS in 06 - KD's career postseason average removing 2010 is 29.2 ppg on 59.1 TS). The reasonable doubt comes from the fact that even comparing Dirk's postseason career highs to what Wade and KD regularly got Dirk still pales in comparison.

[Dr Spaceman]

^^


And as many others have repeatedly mentioned impact does not equal goodness or at least not for most people. .

Amen.

KG's RAPM in his peak year of 2004 is 8.6. In 2005 its 4.4. In 2003 its 5.4.

So it seems obvious that the poorly named "impact" stats are also heavily influenced by those around them. Suggesting that box scores aren't worth much because of casts without acknowledging the same very much holds true for "impact" stats feels off to me.

Or to stay on Wade: 09 has him at 6.4. 10 has him at 8.4 11 has him at 5.3. Again, feels like the team around him plays a pretty big part.

In other words I agree wholeheartedly that we have to look at a player's performance within the team concept. This idea of ignoring the team in an attempt to focus on the individual will forever be misguided. Where I strongly disagree is with this notion that "impact" stats really account for teammates in the way some would have you believe.

The only time I've mentioned RAPM in this project has been to point out that Wade's is a huge outlier in terms of how good it is. My argument should be read as an argument against the over-reliance on any stat.

Again, I am attempting to account for team context by saying "Wade's stats are huge and his impact is huge, but his team also needed that from him in a way healthy teams wouldn't (and don't, in the case of the real-life players we're debating)."

[Texas Chuck]

yeah I don't think its realistic to expect much more volume from Dirk. It would be nearly impossible for a team to be more dependent on a player offensively than the Mavs have been since Nash left and Dirk's volume remained fairly capped. Now teams paid dearly for doubling Dirk and keeping his volume in check, but its just so hard for a true big to match the volume of a guard or wing.

Dirk having more offensive impact than Wade is certainly something worth a debate. But I don't really see much argument for the idea that Dirk could match Wade's production in terms of volume. Not over the course of an entire season.

[SideshowBob]

But drza, that's exactly what I'm saying, because when I brought up skepticism about Wade based on some sporadic team performance metrics, I was met with a cacophony of "That's a team stat, you can't use that to judge Wade, individual players need to be judged independent of team results", and this is an approach I am diametrically opposed to, for a few reasons:

1. It places a far higher degree of faith in box score metrics than I am comfortable with
2. It creates a precedent where "Player x is better than player y because player x's stats are better" is acceptable without further justification
3. There is a yawning chasm between "ring counting" and the approach I am using, which attempts to answer the "better than" question by figuring "who did more to help their team win"
4. Those who are truly interested in being 100% consistent with this approach should be bringing up Adrian Dantley or freaking Pistol Pete by now

I don't see a good reason for voting 09 Wade over 11 Wade other than his raw production. He very obviously peaked defensively in 11, his off-ball game was sublime and he was on the whole more portable, and his playoff performance (especially finals) was one for the ages. And yet not a single person brought up 11 as Wade's peak (the year I would have voted for) ostensibly because Wade's stats were worse and it would be harder to argue him over Dirk or another player when he doesn't have that big volume edge.

I ran into the same thing this year in a Durant vs. Curry thread, where essentially the counter to me was "Durant scored on so much more volume, it's not even comparable, he had to carry a much larger load than curry", and again my response is always "by itself, why is that enough to say durant is a better player?"

And again this year we saw Russell Westbrook immediately jump into people's top 5 because of the crazy production. Was he doing anything this season he couldn't have done in 2014? NO! It's just that the context of the situation demanded certain things from him and those things happen to be tracked by the box score and the box score happens to be a lot of people's preferred way to do analysis.

One final point: are we sure Dirk couldn't have scored on the volume Wade or durant did? He certainly has the skills for it, and he certainly ups his volume and efficiency output every single year in the postseason. Where does the reasonable doubt come from?

I did, briefly I have preference for 09 because IMO his jumpshot was better and he was a bit more consistent, but I think 11 Wade is a good case for his peak; I actually think he's as good, if not better than Lebron that same year Wade is clearly the better offensive player IMO and on par with 11 Dirk.

I agree on Westbrook (but I had him top 5 in 2014 already) and actually I'd argue the same for 14 vs. 13 Durant as well (though again, I have preference for 14 Durant because he added a little upper body mass without yielding agility/movement and thus was a better finishing threat). Even 15 Harden actually (maybe slightly less bad on defense).

Sorry, kind of not on the same train of thought, but I suppose all these guys are coming into the discussion now.

[Texas Chuck]

The only time I've mentioned RAPM in this project has been to point out that Wade's is a huge outlier in terms of how good it is. My argument should be read as an argument against the over-reliance on any stat.

Again, I am attempting to account for team context by saying "Wade's stats are huge and his impact is huge, but his team also needed that from him in a way healthy teams wouldn't (and don't, in the case of the real-life players we're debating)."

My apologies for misunderstanding that portion of your post.

I do agree with some of what you were saying. I guess one area where I disagree is that I don't think it likely that Dirk, in particular, but also Curry could match Wade's volume in a similar situation. I think it would be hard to pry much more volume out of Dirk as the team pretty much ran everything off him for the vast majority of his prime post-Nash. It's just easier for teams to force the ball out of his hands than it is Wade.

So I think its to Wade's credit that he has the ability to go Kobe and put up huge volume in a way that really helps his team or put up less volume but with great efficiency like Curry/Dirk. I'm not sure there really are that many guys who can do both to the level Wade has shown.

[E-Balla]

The Heat won 15 games when Wade was hurt in 08. When he was healthy and played most of the games next year, that win total went up to 43. Thats excellent impact.

I have never said otherwise. Dwayne Wade has the single highest ORAPM score ever recorded in 2010. I'd never argue he wasn't an impact player.

What I am saying, and read this closely, is "Dwyane Wade's impact came in a situation that was very conducive to a player having massive impact, and thus it shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value in comparison to other greats that were not in positions where their teams demanded so much from them".

So did Curry's and Dirk's. Curry had the benefit of Bogut rarely touching the floor without him and playing almost all of his minutes with the rest of the starting 5 on the court. He played only 224 minutes without one of Draymond or Klay on the floor. Dirk played with teams actually built around him too.

Wade was also in a situation where if he didn't carry the team he would'be failed completely and he's never had a team built around him properly before. There's 2 sides to every coin.

[Dr Spaceman]

The Heat won 15 games when Wade was hurt in 08. When he was healthy and played most of the games next year, that win total went up to 43. Thats excellent impact.

I have never said otherwise. Dwayne Wade has the single highest ORAPM score ever recorded in 2010. I'd never argue he wasn't an impact player.

What I am saying, and read this closely, is "Dwyane Wade's impact came in a situation that was very conducive to a player having massive impact, and thus it shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value in comparison to other greats that were not in positions where their teams demanded so much from them".

So did Curry's and Dirk's. Curry had the benefit of Bogut rarely touching the floor without him and playing almost all of his minutes with the rest of the starting 5 on the court. He played only 224 minutes without one of Draymond or Klay on the floor. Dirk played with teams actually built around him too.

Wade was also in a situation where if he didn't carry the team he would've failed completely. There's 2 sides to every coin.

Hmm. I've seen a tendency a lot to say that players on better teams are more likely to have bigger impact. I don't agree that this is the case, as historically what we see is the better a team is, the lower the average impact of each individual player. We actually see this with shocking consistency, and players who have to carry bad teams look like gods in impact stats.

The true outliers are the ones who have huge impact on truly dominant teams, because team dominance is rare and when it occurs it's doubly rare that it's because of an outsized influence of a single player.

There are numbers to back up exactly what I'm saying.