RealGM 2017 Top 100 #81 (Larry Nance)

[pandrade83]

My 2nd vote will be Webber over Rodman. I've expressed my disdain for Melo earlier and I don't see Daniels as worthy of the spot.

-Webber is more capable of leading a team than Rodman
-Webber will be useful in more situations than Rodman
-Integrating Webber into your team doesn't require as much "warping" of the team vs. Rodman


1st vote: Nance
2nd vote: Webber

[Clyde Frazier]

My 2nd vote will be Webber over Rodman. I've expressed my disdain for Melo earlier and I don't see Daniels as worthy of the spot.

-Webber is more capable of leading a team than Rodman
-Webber will be useful in more situations than Rodman
-Integrating Webber into your team doesn't require as much "warping" of the team vs. Rodman


1st vote: Nance
2nd vote: Webber

Have you had a chance to read my post on carmelo yet?

viewtopic.php?p=62242481#p62242481

[Doctor MJ]

1st: Larry Nance
2nd: Mel Daniels

Both solid 2-way players that I could easily see being a co-star on an elite team today.

[penbeast0]

Daniels v. Webber . . . Daniels is the better defender in the systems of the day. Both were expected to be post defenders; Daniels had a much stronger base and was a better post defender. Webber was better away from the ball but didn't like pushing and shoving inside so he would let opponents get good position on him then go for the highlight block (or foul) instead. Daniels did a good job of staying with Dave Cowens, the best stretch 5 of his day, in the few minutes of video I have seen of the ABA/NBA exhibition games of the day.

Daniels is clearly the better rebounder, best in his day in the ABA. Extremely strong, extremely aggressive, good positioning. Webber was not a particularly good rebounder, though decent on the offensive boards.

Scoring is roughly even relative to competition. Webber came in much more polished, Daniels came into Minnesota wanting to shoot jumpers and handle the ball, which worked poorly unlike for Webber. However, in Indiana, the coach limited him to more of a pure post up role at which he was very successful. Webber had a lot more variety, but Daniels had a good foul draw which was the weakest part of Webber's game. And, Webber liked to drift around the 3 point line, hoping someone would throw him the ball so he could dribble drive, but he was a lousy 3 point shooter and his handles, while good for a 4, weren't really up to that kind of game regularly.

Webber is one of the better passing big men in the history of the game, clear advantage over Daniels who was workmanlike but not gifted in that area.

Daniels was a team leader who won 2 MVPs and 3 titles while Webber was a malcontent in both GS and Washington and a notorious choker from his college days through key moments in Sacramento.

Webber faced a strong NBA era for forwards; Daniels faced a weak league for centers until Zelmo Beaty (a bottom of top 100 all time threat) came over from the NBA and then Artis Gilmore came into the league. This is Webber's main advantage, he was good in a strong era. Daniels was dominant in a weak one. I value what Daniels brings to the table more and think he would have been a consistent All-NBA contender in the NBA too . . . at the Dave Cowens/Wes Unseld level though not up there with Kareem.

[dhsilv2]

Daniels has a shorter career than Webber (and that is saying something). Even something like winshare which isn't a huge webber fan, gives a rather significant edge to Webber and their peaks look about the same in that metric. Daniels doesn't just have an issue with his competition but his longevity and for an MVP, there aren't any box score metrics that scream out he really was the best player in the ABA those years.

[pandrade83]

My 2nd vote will be Webber over Rodman. I've expressed my disdain for Melo earlier and I don't see Daniels as worthy of the spot.

-Webber is more capable of leading a team than Rodman
-Webber will be useful in more situations than Rodman
-Integrating Webber into your team doesn't require as much "warping" of the team vs. Rodman


1st vote: Nance
2nd vote: Webber

Have you had a chance to read my post on carmelo yet?

viewtopic.php?p=62242481#p62242481

Yes - thought it was a strong write-up.

If I remember correctly, things like per/bpm and ws gave nique a material advantage on Melo which to me explains the gap between the two. It was obviously a big pain point for you.

The most compelling part of it for me was the point guard piece. Having neglible backcourt support hurts as a frontcourt scorer - but it seemed to impact the team results more than his own performance I felt.

It’s not JUST his fault the Knicks weren’t good. But his play didn’t help and I wont remember the Melo era fondly.

[Outside]

1st choice: Nance
2nd choice: Webber

I was already part of the Nance group. For second choice, it was between Webber and Carmelo. They have differences stat-wise but are pretty even overall. I understand the argument against Webber as a clutch and playoff performer, but I think that's overblown to an extent and has become more of a "thing" than it should be. I think Webber would be thought of quite differently if Horry doesn't make that three, the refs are more evenhanded, or Sacramento otherwise gets past the Lakers in 2002 since they likely win the title over the Nets. Also, it's not as if Carmelo is without his intangible negatives or can point to great playoff success himself. The tiebreaker for me is that Webber was both a better rebounder and playmaker than Carmelo.

[trex_8063]

Pts thru post #47:

Larry Nance - 11
Chris Webber - 4
Mel Daniels - 3
Carmelo Anthony - 2
Dennis Rodman - 2

With Nance being just one pt shy of an outright majority (over the other four combined), I'm still hoping more of his contingent will make themselves heard so we can avoid another 24 hours in runoff.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[SactoKingsFan]

1st vote: Chris Webber

94 ROY
5x All-Star
5x All-NBA (1x 1st, 3x 2nd, 1x 3rd)
5x Top 10 in MVP voting

Webber started off with a great rookie campaign in 94 with the Warriors, and was already the best player on a playoff team (50-32) that included Sprewell, Billy Owens, Chris Gatling, Avery Johnson and a limited post prime Mullin.

94 ROY:
26.5 PTS, 13.8 REB, 5.4 AST, 5.1 BLK+STL Per 100; 21.7 PER, 55.9 TS%, 7.8 WS, .154 WS/48, 110 ORtg, 104 DRtg

Extended peak (00-02) C-Webb did a bit of everything and was the centerpiece of some great/very good Kings teams.

Extended Peak (00-02):
32.3 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.7 AST, 4.0 BLK+STL, 3.6 TOV Per 100;
24.1 PER, 52.7 TS%, 14.1 REB%, 21.1 AST%, 10.6 TOV%, 30.4 WS, ,187 WS48, 107 ORtg, 98 DRtg

10 Year Prime (94-03):
29.2 PTS, 13.5 REB, 5.8 AST, 4.4 BLK+STL, 3.9 TOV Per 100

22.1 PER, .526 TS%, 14.7 TRB%, 20.4 AST%, 12.4 TOV%, 72.3 WS, .152 WS/48, 106 ORtg, 100 DRtg

GOAT level passer for PF/C
His 20.2 career AST% is exceptional for a big. One of only 2 bigs (Webber, Alvin Adams, with 20k + mins and career AST% >= 20. Blake Griffin will be #3.

Webber's great extended peak, prime, versatile offensive game with all-time great passing, underrated defense and decent longevity are enough to make him one of the top 75ish candidates. His issues don't look so damning since we're at a point in the project where all the remaining candidates have significant weaknesses.

2nd vote: Larry Nance

Not as high on Daniels or Anthony, so this next spot came down to Nance or Rodman. I really like the Detroit version of Rodman but have to go with Nance for his very good defense, much more useful offense and lengthy prime without all the personality issues.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[trex_8063]

Pts thru post #49:

Larry Nance - 12
Chris Webber - 6
Mel Daniels - 3
Carmelo Anthony - 2
Dennis Rodman - 2

Based on the ballot points, we'll narrow this down to Nance and Webber. Many have already made their pick between these two known:

Larry Nance - 6 (trex_8063, penbeast0, pandrade83, Outside, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier)
Chris Webber - 2 (dhsilv2, SactoKingsFan)


If your handle isn't shown here^^^, state your pick between Nance and Webber with reasons why. Only leaving this open until tomorrow morning (unless you all thing we should just call it now and move on--->unlikely we reach 13 runoff votes, and even less likely all five additional votes to reach that mark are for Webber).

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[scrabbarista]

Since you're using a formula, can you post it or a link to where you posted? I'd be interested in how it has rodman here.

And to be honest to have rodman over a few guys in this list I'd have assumed titles were 50%, not 10%. 10% seems really low here honestly.

I don't like to post my formulas in their entirety (I say "formulas," because they have tended to change over time), but I can respond to Rodman. I have him at 74th overall on my current list.



Winning championships: 9.5% of total score

Postseason points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 21.7% of total

Regular season points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 29.3%

Finishing in the Top 5 in 18 different statistical categories (RS only): 11.3%

All-Defense and All-NBA honors: 6.1%

Ranking on previous RGM Top 100: 19.9%

Penalty for era: minus about 2%

Penalty for playing on multiple teams: minus about 5%




I know the numbers only add up to 98%. Still, it gives you the gist of things.

The key here is is that 10% - if another player has a zero in that category - can end up being very significant. This is what I meant when I said that some would probably consider 10% to be very high. But it's also what I meant when I said I just value championships that much.

[dhsilv2]

Since you're using a formula, can you post it or a link to where you posted? I'd be interested in how it has rodman here.

And to be honest to have rodman over a few guys in this list I'd have assumed titles were 50%, not 10%. 10% seems really low here honestly.

I don't like to post my formulas in their entirety (I say "formulas," because they have tended to change over time), but I can respond to Rodman. I have him at 74th overall on my current list.



Winning championships: 9.5% of total score

Postseason points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 21.7% of total

Regular season points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 29.3%

Finishing in the Top 5 in 18 different statistical categories (RS only): 11.3%

All-Defense and All-NBA honors: 6.1%

Ranking on previous RGM Top 100: 19.9%

Penalty for era: minus about 2%

Penalty for playing on multiple teams: minus about 5%




I know the numbers only add up to 98%. Still, it gives you the gist of things.

The key here is is that 10%, if another player has a zero in that category, can end up being very significant. This is what I meant when I said that some would probably consider 10% to be very high. But it's also what I meant when I said I just value championships that much.

So you stress counting stats without context for a HUGE portion of that metrics? That seems different, almost a baseball like system.

[scrabbarista]

Since you're using a formula, can you post it or a link to where you posted? I'd be interested in how it has rodman here.

And to be honest to have rodman over a few guys in this list I'd have assumed titles were 50%, not 10%. 10% seems really low here honestly.

I don't like to post my formulas in their entirety (I say "formulas," because they have tended to change over time), but I can respond to Rodman. I have him at 74th overall on my current list.



Winning championships: 9.5% of total score

Postseason points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 21.7% of total

Regular season points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 29.3%

Finishing in the Top 5 in 18 different statistical categories (RS only): 11.3%

All-Defense and All-NBA honors: 6.1%

Ranking on previous RGM Top 100: 19.9%

Penalty for era: minus about 2%

Penalty for playing on multiple teams: minus about 5%




I know the numbers only add up to 98%. Still, it gives you the gist of things.

The key here is is that 10%, if another player has a zero in that category, can end up being very significant. This is what I meant when I said that some would probably consider 10% to be very high. But it's also what I meant when I said I just value championships that much.

So you stress counting stats without context for a HUGE portion of that metrics? That seems different, almost a baseball like system.

Yes.

I used to have an extremely different formula that I liked a little more, but due to my Excel skills not being refined enough, it was unreasonably time-consuming to maintain. My Excel skills have sharpened, though, so I will probably go back to something similar before long. For now, though, counting stats (i.e., longevity) and elite production (Top 5 finishes) comprise a large portion of my formula. I tend to be very skeptical of what people like to call "context," as I find that more often than not it seems to be an excuse to introduce subjectivity/biases into the discussion. [Coincidentally, I think those biases are even more prevalent in historical discussions like the one we're all having, because time skews perceptions as much as anything. Therefore, I'm much more amenable to subjectivity when it comes to discussing current players.] I know subjectivity is unavoidable, but I prefer to embed it into a formula, so that if I'm subjective and biased (we all are), at least I'm forced to be consistent about it.

Some might say, "without context." I prefer to say, "without bias." For example, I've struggled to find a way to rank Olajuwon, my all-time favorite player, higher than 9th, but haven't been able to do it. Right now, I happen to have him 11th. It's true, he had weaker teammates than all ten of the guys ahead of him, but on principle, I can't bring myself to rank him higher simply because I just "feel" he was better than Kobe, Bird, etc. (Don't get caught up on those three names. It's just an example.) I believe in the theory that over the course of a long career, guys are pretty much what their results say they are - i.e., life is essentially fair (or, if it isn't, then I'm not the one to judge each individual case); for that reason, I'm very comfortable making formulas to define my rankings.

[dhsilv2]

I don't like to post my formulas in their entirety (I say "formulas," because they have tended to change over time), but I can respond to Rodman. I have him at 74th overall on my current list.



Winning championships: 9.5% of total score

Postseason points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 21.7% of total

Regular season points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 29.3%

Finishing in the Top 5 in 18 different statistical categories (RS only): 11.3%

All-Defense and All-NBA honors: 6.1%

Ranking on previous RGM Top 100: 19.9%

Penalty for era: minus about 2%

Penalty for playing on multiple teams: minus about 5%




I know the numbers only add up to 98%. Still, it gives you the gist of things.

The key here is is that 10%, if another player has a zero in that category, can end up being very significant. This is what I meant when I said that some would probably consider 10% to be very high. But it's also what I meant when I said I just value championships that much.

So you stress counting stats without context for a HUGE portion of that metrics? That seems different, almost a baseball like system.

Yes.

I used to have an extremely different formula that I liked a little more, but due to my Excel skills not being refined enough, it was unreasonably time-consuming to maintain. My Excel skills have sharpened, though, so I will probably go back to something similar before long. For now, though, counting stats (i.e., longevity) and elite production (Top 5 finishes) comprise a large portion of my formula. I tend to be very skeptical of what people like to call "context," as I find that more often than not it seems to be an excuse to introduce subjectivity/biases into the discussion. [Coincidentally, I think those biases are even more prevalent in historical discussions like the one we're all having, because time skews perceptions as much as anything. Therefore, I'm much more amenable to subjectivity when it comes to discussing current players.] I know subjectivity is unavoidable, but I prefer to embed it into a formula, so that if I'm subjective and biased (we all are), at least I'm forced to be consistent about it.

Some might say, "without context." I prefer to say, "without bias." For example, I've struggled to find a way to rank Olajuwon, my all-time favorite player, higher than 9th, but haven't been able to do it. Right now, I happen to have him 11th. It's true, he had weaker teammates than all ten of the guys ahead of him, but on principle, I can't bring myself to rank him higher simply because I just "feel" he was better than Kobe, Bird, etc. (Don't get caught up on those three names. It's just an example.) I believe in the theory that over the course of a long career, guys are pretty much what their results say they are - i.e., life is essentially fair (or, if it isn't, then I'm not the one to judge each individual case); for that reason, I'm very comfortable making formulas to define my rankings.

When i say context, i'm talking about putting stats in context which is what winshare and PER and VORP and RPM try and do. Those stats look at the league as a whole, they look at team results, they look at positives (the counting) with the context of field goal percentage, free throw rates, turnovers, and yes team and league pace. Without that the counting stats imo are worthless. Even the top 5's in per game stats are still more or less worthless without some context. Why should a player get the benefit of the doubt for being on say the 80's nuggets or why should a 70's team at an absurd pace get credit over say the early 00's teams that played at a snails pace?

[scrabbarista]

So you stress counting stats without context for a HUGE portion of that metrics? That seems different, almost a baseball like system.

Yes.

I used to have an extremely different formula that I liked a little more, but due to my Excel skills not being refined enough, it was unreasonably time-consuming to maintain. My Excel skills have sharpened, though, so I will probably go back to something similar before long. For now, though, counting stats (i.e., longevity) and elite production (Top 5 finishes) comprise a large portion of my formula. I tend to be very skeptical of what people like to call "context," as I find that more often than not it seems to be an excuse to introduce subjectivity/biases into the discussion. [Coincidentally, I think those biases are even more prevalent in historical discussions like the one we're all having, because time skews perceptions as much as anything. Therefore, I'm much more amenable to subjectivity when it comes to discussing current players.] I know subjectivity is unavoidable, but I prefer to embed it into a formula, so that if I'm subjective and biased (we all are), at least I'm forced to be consistent about it.

Some might say, "without context." I prefer to say, "without bias." For example, I've struggled to find a way to rank Olajuwon, my all-time favorite player, higher than 9th, but haven't been able to do it. Right now, I happen to have him 11th. It's true, he had weaker teammates than all ten of the guys ahead of him, but on principle, I can't bring myself to rank him higher simply because I just "feel" he was better than Kobe, Bird, etc. (Don't get caught up on those three names. It's just an example.) I believe in the theory that over the course of a long career, guys are pretty much what their results say they are - i.e., life is essentially fair (or, if it isn't, then I'm not the one to judge each individual case); for that reason, I'm very comfortable making formulas to define my rankings.

When i say context, i'm talking about putting stats in context which is what winshare and PER and VORP and RPM try and do. Those stats look at the league as a whole, they look at team results, they look at positives (the counting) with the context of field goal percentage, free throw rates, turnovers, and yes team and league pace. Without that the counting stats imo are worthless. Even the top 5's in per game stats are still more or less worthless without some context. Why should a player get the benefit of the doubt for being on say the 80's nuggets or why should a 70's team at an absurd pace get credit over say the early 00's teams that played at a snails pace?

WS, PER, VORP, and RPM are all included in my current formula. FG% is, too. So is USG%. I even include minutes. (Those are all among the 18 stats that I record Top 5 finishes for.) League pace is adjusted for in all Top 5 finishes, obviously: if a guy leads the league with 20ppg, he gets the same credit as a guy who leads the league with 50 ppg. Same goes for all 18 stats I use. I use a small multiplier to adjust for era, but I find that the counting stats tend to do that of themselves anyway. I.e., guys in the 2000's tend to have much longer careers, are much less likely to suffer career-ending injuries, than guys in previous decades. More modern guys also play far more playoff games. Therefore, more modern guys have larger counting stat totals. This is also true in that, the further back in time you go the fewer stats there were that were actually recorded. I've been fiddling with these formulas for six or seven years, so there's really not likely to be any kind of macro-considerations that haven't occurred to me.

[dhsilv2]

Yes.

I used to have an extremely different formula that I liked a little more, but due to my Excel skills not being refined enough, it was unreasonably time-consuming to maintain. My Excel skills have sharpened, though, so I will probably go back to something similar before long. For now, though, counting stats (i.e., longevity) and elite production (Top 5 finishes) comprise a large portion of my formula. I tend to be very skeptical of what people like to call "context," as I find that more often than not it seems to be an excuse to introduce subjectivity/biases into the discussion. [Coincidentally, I think those biases are even more prevalent in historical discussions like the one we're all having, because time skews perceptions as much as anything. Therefore, I'm much more amenable to subjectivity when it comes to discussing current players.] I know subjectivity is unavoidable, but I prefer to embed it into a formula, so that if I'm subjective and biased (we all are), at least I'm forced to be consistent about it.

Some might say, "without context." I prefer to say, "without bias." For example, I've struggled to find a way to rank Olajuwon, my all-time favorite player, higher than 9th, but haven't been able to do it. Right now, I happen to have him 11th. It's true, he had weaker teammates than all ten of the guys ahead of him, but on principle, I can't bring myself to rank him higher simply because I just "feel" he was better than Kobe, Bird, etc. (Don't get caught up on those three names. It's just an example.) I believe in the theory that over the course of a long career, guys are pretty much what their results say they are - i.e., life is essentially fair (or, if it isn't, then I'm not the one to judge each individual case); for that reason, I'm very comfortable making formulas to define my rankings.

When i say context, i'm talking about putting stats in context which is what winshare and PER and VORP and RPM try and do. Those stats look at the league as a whole, they look at team results, they look at positives (the counting) with the context of field goal percentage, free throw rates, turnovers, and yes team and league pace. Without that the counting stats imo are worthless. Even the top 5's in per game stats are still more or less worthless without some context. Why should a player get the benefit of the doubt for being on say the 80's nuggets or why should a 70's team at an absurd pace get credit over say the early 00's teams that played at a snails pace?

WS, PER, VORP, and RPM are all included in my current formula. FG% is, too. So is USG%. I even include minutes. (Those are all among the 18 stats that I record Top 5 finishes for.) League pace is adjusted for in all Top 5 finishes, obviously: if a guy leads the league with 20ppg, he gets the same credit as a guy who leads the league with 50 ppg. Same goes for all 18 stats I use. I use a small multiplier to adjust for era, but I find that the counting stats tend to do that of themselves anyway. I.e., guys in the 2000's tend to have much longer careers, are much less likely to suffer career-ending injuries, than guys in previous decades. More modern guys also play far more playoff games. Therefore, more modern guys have larger counting stat totals. This is also true in that, the further back in time you go the fewer stats there were that were actually recorded. I've been fiddling with these formulas for six or seven years, so there's really not likely to be any kind of macro-considerations that haven't occurred to me.

If you use say winshare, you don't need points or rebounds at all. It's already accounted for. Using points or rebounds is useless here. By using say rebounds, you're using a counting stat with no context. Mind you I wouldn't want to ignore that say Rodman was freakishly great as a rebounder, but the question is if that added meaningfully to team wins and well his career winshare of just under 90 tells me the story of what his rebounding did pretty well. Missing is the value of his man defense, but no counting stat is going to capture that one.

[scrabbarista]

When i say context, i'm talking about putting stats in context which is what winshare and PER and VORP and RPM try and do. Those stats look at the league as a whole, they look at team results, they look at positives (the counting) with the context of field goal percentage, free throw rates, turnovers, and yes team and league pace. Without that the counting stats imo are worthless. Even the top 5's in per game stats are still more or less worthless without some context. Why should a player get the benefit of the doubt for being on say the 80's nuggets or why should a 70's team at an absurd pace get credit over say the early 00's teams that played at a snails pace?

WS, PER, VORP, and RPM are all included in my current formula. FG% is, too. So is USG%. I even include minutes. (Those are all among the 18 stats that I record Top 5 finishes for.) League pace is adjusted for in all Top 5 finishes, obviously: if a guy leads the league with 20ppg, he gets the same credit as a guy who leads the league with 50 ppg. Same goes for all 18 stats I use. I use a small multiplier to adjust for era, but I find that the counting stats tend to do that of themselves anyway. I.e., guys in the 2000's tend to have much longer careers, are much less likely to suffer career-ending injuries, than guys in previous decades. More modern guys also play far more playoff games. Therefore, more modern guys have larger counting stat totals. This is also true in that, the further back in time you go the fewer stats there were that were actually recorded. I've been fiddling with these formulas for six or seven years, so there's really not likely to be any kind of macro-considerations that haven't occurred to me.

If you use say winshare, you don't need points or rebounds at all. It's already accounted for. Using points or rebounds is useless here. By using say rebounds, you're using a counting stat with no context. Mind you I wouldn't want to ignore that say Rodman was freakishly great as a rebounder, but the question is if that added meaningfully to team wins and well his career winshare of just under 90 tells me the story of what his rebounding did pretty well. Missing is the value of his man defense, but no counting stat is going to capture that one.

I overlap stats all over the place. My old formula did so even more. As long as the rankings make sense when I eyeball them, then the more information I can put into my formula, the better. This will help give me that quality I see so often, where people look at my list and struggle to decipher what exactly I'm valuing. [The goal, of course, is to value "contributions to wins."] The only things I leave out are things that I believe tend to be so arbitrary as to be nearly meaningless, such as MVP's (I don't value the actual winners, per se, but I value the Top 5 finishers each year, on a sliding scale), Finals MVP's, DPOY's, and All-Star appearances.

In regards to Rodman's rebounds, you say it's a flaw to use rebounds, and in the very next phrase you admit that I shouldn't ignore his rebounds.
You say that I need to measure whether his rebounds are adding to team wins, and that I can do so by looking at his win shares, but rather than letting an advanced metric do all of the work for me, I prefer to look at:

A) his championships (this, unlike win shares, accounts for the real-world quality of some wins being worth more than others)
B) his playoff numbers (if a guy is accumulating massive career playoff stat totals, do you really need to ask whether he's contributing to wins? clearly, he is - in the regular season, too, or his teams wouldn't be advancing through the playoffs in the first place)
C) honors (these nearly always go to guys on winning teams)
D) his minutes played (how many coaches give minutes to guys who don't help the team win?)

I may be forgetting some things, but that's the beauty of a formula with a large number of inputs: sometimes the formula will remember things that I forget.

And, of course, none of this is to say that I've ignored win shares, because they do, in fact, appear in my formula. They'll be more prominent in the next iteration, but they appear in this one nonetheless.

[dhsilv2]

WS, PER, VORP, and RPM are all included in my current formula. FG% is, too. So is USG%. I even include minutes. (Those are all among the 18 stats that I record Top 5 finishes for.) League pace is adjusted for in all Top 5 finishes, obviously: if a guy leads the league with 20ppg, he gets the same credit as a guy who leads the league with 50 ppg. Same goes for all 18 stats I use. I use a small multiplier to adjust for era, but I find that the counting stats tend to do that of themselves anyway. I.e., guys in the 2000's tend to have much longer careers, are much less likely to suffer career-ending injuries, than guys in previous decades. More modern guys also play far more playoff games. Therefore, more modern guys have larger counting stat totals. This is also true in that, the further back in time you go the fewer stats there were that were actually recorded. I've been fiddling with these formulas for six or seven years, so there's really not likely to be any kind of macro-considerations that haven't occurred to me.

If you use say winshare, you don't need points or rebounds at all. It's already accounted for. Using points or rebounds is useless here. By using say rebounds, you're using a counting stat with no context. Mind you I wouldn't want to ignore that say Rodman was freakishly great as a rebounder, but the question is if that added meaningfully to team wins and well his career winshare of just under 90 tells me the story of what his rebounding did pretty well. Missing is the value of his man defense, but no counting stat is going to capture that one.

I overlap stats all over the place. My old formula did so even more. As long as the rankings make sense when I eyeball them, then the more information I can put into my formula, the better. This will help give me that quality I see so often, where people look at my list and struggle to decipher what exactly I'm valuing. [The goal, of course, is to value "contributions to wins."] The only things I leave out are things that I believe tend to be so arbitrary as to be nearly meaningless, such as MVP's (I don't value the actual winners, per se, but I value the Top 5 finishers each year, on a sliding scale), Finals MVP's, DPOY's, and All-Star appearances.

In regards to Rodman's rebounds, you say it's a flaw to use rebounds, and in the very next phrase you admit that I shouldn't ignore his rebounds.
You say that I need to measure whether his rebounds are adding to team wins, and that I can do so by looking at his win shares, but rather than letting an advanced metric do all of the work for me, I prefer to look at:

A) his championships (this, unlike win shares, accounts for the real-world quality of some wins being worth more than others)
B) his playoff numbers (if a guy is accumulating massive career playoff stat totals, do you really need to ask whether he's contributing to wins? clearly, he is - in the regular season, too, or his teams wouldn't be advancing through the playoffs in the first place)
C) honors (these nearly always go to guys on winning teams)
D) his minutes played (how many coaches give minutes to guys who don't help the team win?)

I may be forgetting some things, but that's the beauty of a formula with a large number of inputs: sometimes the formula will remember things that I forget.

And, of course, none of this is to say that I've ignored win shares, because they do, in fact, appear in my formula. They'll be more prominent in the next iteration, but they appear in this one nonetheless.

You're creating what sounds like your own "winshare" but your test of it's accuracy is if it looks reasonable.

BUt it says show why you were so much higher than Hayes then most, because you place a huge value on the counting stats.

[scrabbarista]

If you use say winshare, you don't need points or rebounds at all. It's already accounted for. Using points or rebounds is useless here. By using say rebounds, you're using a counting stat with no context. Mind you I wouldn't want to ignore that say Rodman was freakishly great as a rebounder, but the question is if that added meaningfully to team wins and well his career winshare of just under 90 tells me the story of what his rebounding did pretty well. Missing is the value of his man defense, but no counting stat is going to capture that one.

I overlap stats all over the place. My old formula did so even more. As long as the rankings make sense when I eyeball them, then the more information I can put into my formula, the better. This will help give me that quality I see so often, where people look at my list and struggle to decipher what exactly I'm valuing. [The goal, of course, is to value "contributions to wins."] The only things I leave out are things that I believe tend to be so arbitrary as to be nearly meaningless, such as MVP's (I don't value the actual winners, per se, but I value the Top 5 finishers each year, on a sliding scale), Finals MVP's, DPOY's, and All-Star appearances.

In regards to Rodman's rebounds, you say it's a flaw to use rebounds, and in the very next phrase you admit that I shouldn't ignore his rebounds.
You say that I need to measure whether his rebounds are adding to team wins, and that I can do so by looking at his win shares, but rather than letting an advanced metric do all of the work for me, I prefer to look at:

A) his championships (this, unlike win shares, accounts for the real-world quality of some wins being worth more than others)
B) his playoff numbers (if a guy is accumulating massive career playoff stat totals, do you really need to ask whether he's contributing to wins? clearly, he is - in the regular season, too, or his teams wouldn't be advancing through the playoffs in the first place)
C) honors (these nearly always go to guys on winning teams)
D) his minutes played (how many coaches give minutes to guys who don't help the team win?)

I may be forgetting some things, but that's the beauty of a formula with a large number of inputs: sometimes the formula will remember things that I forget.

And, of course, none of this is to say that I've ignored win shares, because they do, in fact, appear in my formula. They'll be more prominent in the next iteration, but they appear in this one nonetheless.

You're creating what sounds like your own "winshare" but your test of it's accuracy is if it looks reasonable.

BUt it says show why you were so much higher than Hayes then most, because you place a huge value on the counting stats.

Fwiw, my old formula, which had less value on counting stats, was even higher on Hayes. His championship in '78 and two other Finals appearances were bigger factors in that formula. And my current formula gives him a big hit for being ranked so low on rgm, which my previous formula didn't. But that proves my point that a great player should be one that measures up to multiple standards. Hayes does. The only arguments against Hayes are "context" and efficiency, but I tend to ignore context (not because it doesn't matter, but because I believe that over the long run the numbers sort it out), and I prefer effectiveness over efficiency. Three Finals appearances, one championship, and mammoth career numbers constitute all of the effectiveness I need to overrule the many arguments I've seen against him.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first sentence you wrote. Every creator of advanced metrics that I'm aware of creates in exactly that way: start with a formula, then refine it toward coherence with past performances so that it attains an objective sheen and/or predictive value.

[dhsilv2]

I overlap stats all over the place. My old formula did so even more. As long as the rankings make sense when I eyeball them, then the more information I can put into my formula, the better. This will help give me that quality I see so often, where people look at my list and struggle to decipher what exactly I'm valuing. [The goal, of course, is to value "contributions to wins."] The only things I leave out are things that I believe tend to be so arbitrary as to be nearly meaningless, such as MVP's (I don't value the actual winners, per se, but I value the Top 5 finishers each year, on a sliding scale), Finals MVP's, DPOY's, and All-Star appearances.

In regards to Rodman's rebounds, you say it's a flaw to use rebounds, and in the very next phrase you admit that I shouldn't ignore his rebounds.
You say that I need to measure whether his rebounds are adding to team wins, and that I can do so by looking at his win shares, but rather than letting an advanced metric do all of the work for me, I prefer to look at:

A) his championships (this, unlike win shares, accounts for the real-world quality of some wins being worth more than others)
B) his playoff numbers (if a guy is accumulating massive career playoff stat totals, do you really need to ask whether he's contributing to wins? clearly, he is - in the regular season, too, or his teams wouldn't be advancing through the playoffs in the first place)
C) honors (these nearly always go to guys on winning teams)
D) his minutes played (how many coaches give minutes to guys who don't help the team win?)

I may be forgetting some things, but that's the beauty of a formula with a large number of inputs: sometimes the formula will remember things that I forget.

And, of course, none of this is to say that I've ignored win shares, because they do, in fact, appear in my formula. They'll be more prominent in the next iteration, but they appear in this one nonetheless.

You're creating what sounds like your own "winshare" but your test of it's accuracy is if it looks reasonable.

BUt it says show why you were so much higher than Hayes then most, because you place a huge value on the counting stats.

Fwiw, my old formula, which had less value on counting stats, was even higher on Hayes. His championship in '78 and two other Finals appearances were bigger factors in that formula. And my current formula gives him a big hit for being ranked so low on rgm, which my previous formula didn't. But that proves my point that a great player should be one that measures up to multiple standards. Hayes does. The only arguments against Hayes are "context" and efficiency, but I tend to ignore context (not because it doesn't matter, but because I believe that over the long run the numbers sort it out), and I prefer effectiveness over efficiency. Three Finals appearances, one championship, and mammoth career numbers constitute all of the effectiveness I need to overrule the many arguments I've seen against him.

I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first sentence you wrote. Every creator of advanced metrics that I'm aware of creates in exactly that way: start with a formula, then refine it toward coherence with past performances so that it attains an objective sheen and/or predictive value.

Hayes is also getting a huge boost from your metric because he played in a high pace era. If you're ok with that, then so be it. I think using counting stats is going to over rate that era.

If you used it for predictive power, do you think it would hold up?