Peaks project update: #12

[DatAsh]

Does Chris Paul deserve mention here? One of the best offensive players ever, and arguably the greatest defensive PG ever. HIs injuries hold him back for career value, but for peak?

[E-Balla]

But the numbers do not clearly show that because you could not be bothered to provide all the context. I have no idea what series are being selected for Robinson, or how many. I have no idea if pace is a factor. Nor do I have a clear idea what the outside rates are as comparison; if Ewing were just a bit below Robinson against mediocre/bad defences, that would speak to your point a lot more than if Ewing simply had a base level offensive performance regardless of opponent.

Sure if you care about how they do against bottom 5 defenses. I don't. Performances against 23rd ranked defenses isn't how I judge first options.

And you can reasonably assumed pace isn't a factor and if it is it's in advantage of Robinson given how faster his team's played. Either way unless you've gone post to post asking for pace data whenever anyone had mentioned raw numbers (you haven't) this sounds like a nitpick you're using to ignore a pretty well supported larger point. Sure you say it's not well supported, but honestly you haven't shown any consistency in asking for those numbers.

1993 Blazers were third in defensive rating. And that was better than any defence Ewing faced because the Knicks were the best and the Sonics and Blazers were the next two.

The 93 Blazers were a -2.8 defense. That's not great by any stretch and it's better than any defense he played in 93 specifically maybe.

His scoring was admittedly garbage (still won 3-1, though). But you know, that is an interesting point. Because by that little average sample you posted, it seemed like Robinson played enough great defences to showcase a clear inferiority against them. So where exactly did those numbers come from? This is what I am talking about with you making broad declarations without bothering to show your work.

No those numbers I grabbed were from him against average to good defenses. Not a single great defense. My argument is that his production fell off a cliff against anyone but BAD defenses. Maybe that's why you don't get exactly how damning those numbers are even if you are ignoring them because you're too lazy to go look at the pace.

You want to make a case built on a total rejection of analytics and then throw a tantrum when I ask you to do more work than just providing scoring average and personal opinion.

No one is rejecting analytics. I'm rejecting useless boxscore aggregates. If WS and BPM is that important to you, calculate them yourself. I've never used those to trump up my argument for a player though because they're (and I mean this literally) useless. We're comparing guys' offensive production, what is OBPM going to tell you the numbers used to calculate OBPM aren't?

It is not clear and comparable if there is an empty void of context.

No the empty void of context is the boxscore aggregates. They literally have zero context, just punch some numbers and there you go. Actually looking at production by level of opponent is inherently adding context to the raw boxscore you yourself are using.

You play who is in front of you. And if Robinson performed poorly in, what, two series against top five defences, yeah, that is a knock on him, but it is also not worth extrapolating to his entire career.

And what about his series against even average defenses? Can you admit you didn't even look at the numbers now? You aren't even getting the very basics of what I posted, maybe you need to stop commenting on them and ask me to clarify what you're looking at if you need clarification?

Outside of 1990, how often did Ewing mimic Robinson’s offence? He was not playing top five defences every season, so he certainly had enough opportunity (at least more opportunity than Robinson had against top defences).

Again these games consisted of about 60% of both of their playoff games between those seasons, are you going to read even a single post I make? How can you criticize what you so obviously glossed over and don't understand?

Most of us do not extrapolate entire career conclusions off a couple of series.

I literally pulled the numbers from his whole career so again are you going to actually read what was written?

More useful than points per game.

Maybe alone it is. Is it more useful that ppg, ts%, aog, and topg? Nope, how can it be it's literally a number based off of punching those numbers into a formula.

No DBPM needed. The Celtics had like a 119 offensive rating against the Knicks in 1990. Detroit had 114.5. Both were better than their regular season offensive rating (very obviously in Boston’s case). Wow, what incredible defensive impact by Ewing.

If you're talking about his defense in the playoffs I agree, he wasn't up to par. Still I'm not arguing for him right now so...

But he was not comparable. On defence, sure, but again, by far his worst defensive year. Robinson was better basically as soon as he entered the league.

Do most people consider Kobe to be the first option over Shaq after 2000?

Umm... Shaq had a higher USG% than Kobe in 01 and 02. I mean outside of Kobe's 31.8 USG% vs Shaq's 31.6 in the regular season (Shaq had a considerably higher one in the postseason). From 03 on I would say Kobe became the #1, that's what **** up the dynamic actually.

Kobe stans rejoice. Finally, missing shots pays off.

Getting defensive attention does. Taking the tough shots late in the clock does.

Gee, I thought Robinson only struggled against good defences and just padded stats against bad ones. It is almost as if there is a lot more nuance than what you are trying to portray.

No it's as if you never read my posts or understood them completely and decided to dismiss them completely because you didn't even want to take the time to understand the argument against Robinson.

Does any of this disprove my numbers that showed he has worse production in the playoffs against defenses better than a +2 through their primes? No? Then what exactly are we discussing here?

How those numbers do not tell me anything because of how little context you gave.

Seems a lot more intellectually lazy to dismiss the majority

Yeah I'm done here, understand the original post and what it says before critiquing it or don't, I'm not explaining something 50 times for you to not read it.

[DatAsh]

No one is rejecting analytics. I'm rejecting useless boxscore aggregates. If WS and BPM is that important to you, calculate them yourself. I've never used those to trump up my argument for a player though because they're (and I mean this literally) useless. We're comparing guys' offensive production, what is OBPM going to tell you the numbers used to calculate OBPM aren't?

Good post, but I disagree with your implication here. Advanced box score aggregate metrics give you a far better view of the box score than the box score itself. Unless you're some sort of math savant, it's very difficult to compare two box scores and keep track of every minute difference and weight it accordingly in your head to come out with a better conclusion than that of a mathematically derived aggregate weighting. I'd honestly be surprised if anyone could out predict something like BPM by just weighting the box scores in their head.

[liamliam1234]

But the numbers do not clearly show that because you could not be bothered to provide all the context. I have no idea what series are being selected for Robinson, or how many. I have no idea if pace is a factor. Nor do I have a clear idea what the outside rates are as comparison; if Ewing were just a bit below Robinson against mediocre/bad defences, that would speak to your point a lot more than if Ewing simply had a base level offensive performance regardless of opponent.

Sure if you care about how they do against bottom 5 defenses. I don't. Performances against 23rd ranked defenses isn't how I judge first options.

And you can reasonably assumed pace isn't a factor and if it is it's in advantage of Robinson given how faster his team's played. Either way unless you've gone post to post asking for pace data whenever anyone had mentioned raw numbers (you haven't) this sounds like a nitpick you're using to ignore a pretty well supported larger point. Sure you say it's not well supported, but honestly you haven't shown any consistency in asking for those numbers.

What, I need to ask for the same thing five consecutive times before you deign to give it? But yes, it was not exactly the crux of my point; more an example of you not caring to increase the substance of what you provided.

1993 Blazers were third in defensive rating. And that was better than any defence Ewing faced because the Knicks were the best and the Sonics and Blazers were the next two.

The 93 Blazers were a -2.8 defense. That's not great by any stretch and it's better than any defense he played in 93 specifically maybe.

Then maybe define “great” if a top three defence does not qualify.

His scoring was admittedly garbage (still won 3-1, though). But you know, that is an interesting point. Because by that little average sample you posted, it seemed like Robinson played enough great defences to showcase a clear inferiority against them. So where exactly did those numbers come from? This is what I am talking about with you making broad declarations without bothering to show your work.

No those numbers I grabbed were from him against average to good defenses. Not a single great defense. My argument is that his production fell off a cliff against anyone but BAD defenses. Maybe that's why you don't get exactly how damning those numbers are even if you are ignoring them because you're too lazy to go look at the pace.

So you set the ranges from -2 to -4 and +2 to -2. Now you seem to be indicating that the former is in fact more of a -2 to -3 range for Robinson because he had nothing beyond that. Alright, that is a stronger point for Ewing... one which was not at all present until now because you refused to be clear. Imagine if you broke it up even further. “This is the two of them against -2 to -3 defences, based on x and y number of series.” Now, maybe Ewing mostly persisted in how he played against even better defences (a point to his reliability), or maybe he had a drop there but was so much better than Robinson from -2 to -3 that he still ends up better overall from -2 to -4 (a point to how easy Robinson had it even though he failed anyway). Both have cases to be made, but instead I just see a minor base advantage for Ewing from -2 to -4 with no other information.

This problem is exacerbated even further with the -2 to +2 range.

You want to make a case built on a total rejection of analytics and then throw a tantrum when I ask you to do more work than just providing scoring average and personal opinion.

No one is rejecting analytics. I'm rejecting useless boxscore aggregates. If WS and BPM is that important to you, calculate them yourself. I've never used those to trump up my argument for a player though because they're (and I mean this literally) useless. We're comparing guys' offensive production, what is OBPM going to tell you the numbers used to calculate OBPM aren't?

Yes, as we all know, if you just look at the basic box score line that right away tells you their relative OBPM and Win Shares. That is why casual fans are so good at matching their rankings to what those metrics say. Players like Garnett and Robinson would be super popular if casual fans just bothered to look at their base averages.

It is not clear and comparable if there is an empty void of context.

No the empty void of context is the boxscore aggregates. They literally have zero context, just punch some numbers and there you go. Actually looking at production by level of opponent is inherently adding context to the raw boxscore you yourself are using.

Lol, yes, compiled forms say so much less than their isolated components.

You play who is in front of you. And if Robinson performed poorly in, what, two series against top five defences, yeah, that is a knock on him, but it is also not worth extrapolating to his entire career.

And what about his series against even average defenses? Can you admit you didn't even look at the numbers now? You aren't even getting the very basics of what I posted, maybe you need to stop commenting on them and ask me to clarify what you're looking at if you need clarification?

I am not getting the basics because your organisation was dreadful. -2 to +2 is an absurd range. I have no idea how much either player benefits from the back half or suffers from the front half, nor do I have a frame for their average opponent in that range, nor do I know whether one has more of a series than another. You vomit numbers without proper context and then act like that is such a massive improvement over BPM.

And the funny thing is, if you broke it down you could probably even further support your Ewing argument – at least I would hope so, given how incensed you are over this – but instead you want to sit here and repeatedly whine about the injustice of me asking you to give additional context to the data.

Outside of 1990, how often did Ewing mimic Robinson’s offence? He was not playing top five defences every season, so he certainly had enough opportunity (at least more opportunity than Robinson had against top defences).

Again these games consisted of about 60% of both of their playoff games between those seasons, are you going to read even a single post I make? How can you criticize what you so obviously glossed over and don't understand?

You have spent a lot more effort responding to my complaints with your lack of clarifying data than you would have if you simply gave the bloody data. Any confusion is based on your own stubborn refusal to back up your point beyond the cursory data you initially gave.

Most of us do not extrapolate entire career conclusions off a couple of series.

I literally pulled the numbers from his whole career so again are you going to actually read what was written?

Oh, you pulled numbers from his whole career. That clears things up.

Weird stance from someone who starting point was “Just posting whole career numbers do not capture how they got those career numbers.” I guess you only care to a point that you can express your own narrative, huh?

More useful than points per game.

Maybe alone it is. Is it more useful that ppg, ts%, aog, and topg? Nope, how can it be it's literally a number based off of punching those numbers into a formula.

Ask a Kobe fan. Or a Garnett fan.

No DBPM needed. The Celtics had like a 119 offensive rating against the Knicks in 1990. Detroit had 114.5. Both were better than their regular season offensive rating (very obviously in Boston’s case). Wow, what incredible defensive impact by Ewing.

If you're talking about his defense in the playoffs I agree, he wasn't up to par. Still I'm not arguing for him right now so...

Then maybe you should not have said 1990 Ewing was better in totality than any Robinson season.

But he was not comparable. On defence, sure, but again, by far his worst defensive year. Robinson was better basically as soon as he entered the league.

Do most people consider Kobe to be the first option over Shaq after 2000?

Umm... Shaq had a higher USG% than Kobe in 01 and 02. I mean outside of Kobe's 31.8 USG% vs Shaq's 31.6 in the regular season (Shaq had a considerably higher one in the postseason). From 03 on I would say Kobe became the #1, that's what **** up the dynamic actually.

And playoffs are a small sample. My point is that even though Kyrie famously led in usage rating in 2017, zero people thought he had become the first option over Lebron. And it was not a case of everyone noticing and then going, “Eh, whatever, we can wait for the playoffs.” Lebron led in scoring, so everyone marked him as the first option. Since when have centres (or scorers like Lebron) definitively needed to take more shots than their all-NBA guard teammates to prove they have the offensive advantage?

Kobe stans rejoice. Finally, missing shots pays off.

Getting defensive attention does. Taking the tough shots late in the clock does.

And both apply to Kobe.

Gee, I thought Robinson only struggled against good defences and just padded stats against bad ones. It is almost as if there is a lot more nuance than what you are trying to portray.

No it's as if you never read my posts or understood them completely and decided to dismiss them completely because you didn't even want to take the time to understand the argument against Robinson.

I have been taking the time. You, on the other hand, have now spent several hours specifically trying to not clarify the argument.

Does any of this disprove my numbers that showed he has worse production in the playoffs against defenses better than a +2 through their primes? No? Then what exactly are we discussing here?

How those numbers do not tell me anything because of how little context you gave. Seems a lot more intellectually lazy to dismiss the majority

Yeah I'm done here, understand the original post and what it says before critiquing it or don't, I'm not explaining something 50 times for you to not read it.

You never bothered after the first time. Sorry to disrupt your ever-so-perfect data set, but if you want to make a convincing argument, be ready to back it up rather than acting petulant because someone dared to want additional information.

[Morb]

Cherrypicking stats for your favourite player, meh. Boring.
Just post highlights and full games, really.

1. T-Mac 2003
2. Wade 2009
3. McAdoo 1975

[Narigo]

1.1996 David Robinson
2.1964 Oscar Robertson
3.2016 Stephen Curry

[euroleague]

People who haven't justified their votes - please provide a defense of your votes, and explain your rankings. Unsupported rankings shouldn't count here.

1. Steph Curry 2016 - Talked about it already
2. Julius Erving 1976 - Ditto
3. Bill Walton 1977 - One of the best defensive seasons ever, what made Walton exceptional was his passing. He was like a point-center, and he could outlet and hit open men to open up the whole offense while playing out of the post. His passing, rebounding, and willingness to push the pace made him an excellent offensive player as well as defensive player. His help defense was his strongest suite, and it was excellent - while he didn't stop KAJ, the rest of the Lakers were utterly shut down. In the Finals, he stopped every scorer but Erving - and he stopped enough of Erving to allow his team to win. His excellent two-way play puts his peak here - although DRob is close on his heels for the next spot, his playoff failure puts him behind Walton.

On DRob vs Ewing - the arguments are quite laughable regarding team defenses. When each player is a first option, playing the ball through them and being defended m2m, the team defense of the opposition isn't that important so much as how often they help. DRob was often doubled while teams rarely needed to double Ewing.

In 95, DRob's peak season, he was defended by …peak Hakeem, peak Mutombo, prime Divac and in 96 he was defended by Karl Malone (who had to take DRob quite a bit) and Felton Spencer.

In 90, Ewin'g peak, he dominated against 36 year old Robert Parish and had a bad series with 1 good game and 1 empty stats game while getting blown out against the bad boy pistons...defended by Laimbeer.

DRob's competition at Center was so much higher, the comparison is absurd. Even in 1990, DRob held his own as a rookie head to head. In 95, DRob was blowing Ewing out of the water. While Ewing was better before his injury, he didn't reach the levels of DRob. Furthermore, being able to dominate against mediocre defenses is a valuable skill - many teams dominate offensively while having an average defense (such as Barkley teams) and still do very well.

[E-Balla]

No one is rejecting analytics. I'm rejecting useless boxscore aggregates. If WS and BPM is that important to you, calculate them yourself. I've never used those to trump up my argument for a player though because they're (and I mean this literally) useless. We're comparing guys' offensive production, what is OBPM going to tell you the numbers used to calculate OBPM aren't?

Good post, but I disagree with your implication here. Advanced box score aggregate metrics give you a far better view of the box score than the box score itself. Unless you're some sort of math savant, it's very difficult to compare two box scores and keep track of every minute difference and weight it accordingly in your head to come out with a better conclusion than that of a mathematically derived aggregate weighting. I'd honestly be surprised if anyone could out predict something like BPM by just weighting the box scores in their head.

Estimate of the exact number? Why would you need one anyway? When you look at Steve Nash do you see an ATG or a career 1.3 BPM guy? I get it's application in probability models completely, but I have yet to find a use for it in comparisons. There's just no guarantee it's telling you anything about any single specific player worth knowing.

[cecilthesheep]

1. 1964 Oscar Robertson - by far the most complete offensive player remaining; elite floor general in what we now think of as the Chris Paul mold, but also had the size for a Dirk-esque scoring game.

2. 1966 Jerry West - would be my first vote if his scoring and playmaking had peaked at the same time; 1966 is probably the best combo year, plus a ridiculously dominant playoff run (one of many). Great defensive player too, used his length to hawk the ball and bother/block opponents' shots.

3. 1963 Oscar Robertson - same reasoning, second-best year; West's second-place vote between two Oscar years should tell you how close I think they are

[E-Balla]

What, I need to ask for the same thing five consecutive times before you deign to give it? But yes, it was not exactly the crux of my point; more an example of you not caring to increase the substance of what you provided.

Give it? I said exactly what I said the other 4 times, you just clearly weren't reading my damn post. I said repeatedly you have no reason to assume pace was a factor, and a quick look at the regular season pace of both teams would've tipped you off to that. You already knew the 90s Knicks weren't the SSOL Suns.

Then maybe define “great” if a top three defence does not qualify.

I did. Read my posts.

So you set the ranges from -2 to -4 and +2 to -2. Now you seem to be indicating that the former is in fact more of a -2 to -3 range for Robinson because he had nothing beyond that. Alright, that is a stronger point for Ewing... one which was not at all present until now because you refused to be clear.

It would've been if you read my post. I didn't add any extra data to it with my last post outside of telling you to read my already made posts. Don't attempt to flip this on me like you had any business replying on a post you never read.

Imagine if you broke it up even further. “This is the two of them against -2 to -3 defences, based on x and y number of series.” Now, maybe Ewing mostly persisted in how he played against even better defences (a point to his reliability), or maybe he had a drop there but was so much better than Robinson from -2 to -3 that he still ends up better overall from -2 to -4 (a point to how easy Robinson had it even though he failed anyway). Both have cases to be made, but instead I just see a minor base advantage for Ewing from -2 to -4 with no other information.

This problem is exacerbated even further with the -2 to +2 range.

-2 to +2 is a broad range to catch a bunch of series together and that's it. In an average year a -2 defense is borderline top 10 level (example is the 2016 Cavs who were -1.9 and ranked 10th defensively) and a +2 defense is bottom 10 level, that was the reason for the ranges. Again if you wanted information like that, ask for it individually. "Why choose those as the ranges instead of going more in depth," would be a completely valid question. I can't go through explaining literally every decision made in every post when most guys here have all the relevant background knowledge to know a +2 or -2 defense is still close to league average.

You're basically now pivoting to "well now that I read the data it's solid but it isn't perfect" as if perfect data exists. Just admit you should've read the post in the first place and that it's relevant and keep it moving.

Yes, as we all know, if you just look at the basic box score line that right away tells you their relative OBPM and Win Shares. That is why casual fans are so good at matching their rankings to what those metrics say. Players like Garnett and Robinson would be super popular if casual fans just bothered to look at their base averages.

Why is someone's win shares and OBPM relevant at all? It's a number that's not at all even remotely close to be guaranteed to be correct for a player. Is Mitchell Robinson the best defender in basketball right now? Are Moses Malone and Steve Nash under +2 guys for their careers? Did Westbrook peak as the 2nd best defender in basketball? Why is it assumed OBPM and WS have ANY value in head to head comparisons between players?

I am not getting the basics because your organisation was dreadful. -2 to +2 is an absurd range. I have no idea how much either player benefits from the back half or suffers from the front half, nor do I have a frame for their average opponent in that range, nor do I know whether one has more of a series than another. You vomit numbers without proper context and then act like that is such a massive improvement over BPM.

And the funny thing is, if you broke it down you could probably even further support your Ewing argument – at least I would hope so, given how incensed you are over this – but instead you want to sit here and repeatedly whine about the injustice of me asking you to give additional context to the data.

Yes I should've split up the data further, I mean you're already saying it's a sample size issue, you totally wouldn't have made these same exact criticisms otherwise (:lol: you didn't even read the post, of course you would've made the same criticism) or new ones like how the data was too splintered. Totally.

You have spent a lot more effort responding to my complaints with your lack of clarifying data than you would have if you simply gave the bloody data. Any confusion is based on your own stubborn refusal to back up your point beyond the cursory data you initially gave.

But I have you no additional clarifying data, I just told you read the damn posts and go to bball ref before assuminf my data was bunk.

Oh, you pulled numbers from his whole career. That clears things up.

Weird stance from someone who starting point was “Just posting whole career numbers do not capture how they got those career numbers.” I guess you only care to a point that you can express your own narrative, huh?

Oh my bad for not going series to series? This is exactly what I mean stop pretending like no matter what the data said you wouldn't have found a nitpick to dismiss it, again, you originally started this whole conversation while NOT reading my post.

Ask a Kobe fan. Or a Garnett fan.

Their boxscore stats are great, their BPM is great, their PER is great. Anyone looking at their boxscore numbers could tell you those things already, what's the value in having BPM specifically tell you those things?

Then maybe you should not have said 1990 Ewing was better in totality than any Robinson season.

Maybe you shouldn't have latched on to a small sentence in a post about Robinson to attempt to start and irrelevant conversation instead of the one being made? It's a far time from that first post and at no point did you even look at the numbers or consider the case being made against Robinson.

And playoffs are a small sample. My point is that even though Kyrie famously led in usage rating in 2017, zero people thought he had become the first option over Lebron. And it was not a case of everyone noticing and then going, “Eh, whatever, we can wait for the playoffs.” Lebron led in scoring, so everyone marked him as the first option. Since when have centres (or scorers like Lebron) definitively needed to take more shots than their all-NBA guard teammates to prove they have the offensive advantage?

Just like with Shaq and Kobe LeBron and Kyrie's usage ratings were extremely close in the regular season and flipped (LeBron had the lead) in the playoffs. So the same as Kobe vs Shaq, of course no one thought Kyrie was the first option, he wasn't. Cummings led Robinson in usage by a distance, he was a clear first option. What argument is there that someone using less possessions in the regular and postseason is the first option?

I have been taking the time. You, on the other hand, have now spent several hours specifically trying to not clarify the argument.

No you just now took the time, you never asked any clarifying questions you just wholly said the numbers don't matter, see how that might get you no clarification, especially when you showed you didn't read the original post at all all through your replies? I'm not spoon-feeding someone that's not even reading the posts it's a waste of my time.

You never bothered after the first time. Sorry to disrupt your ever-so-perfect data set, but if you want to make a convincing argument, be ready to back it up rather than acting petulant because someone dared to want additional information.

This is your problem, no data set ever is perfect. You're tacitly admitting here no matter what you would've found fault with the data, and of course you would've you already found tons of "faults" in the data without even reading it previously. Don't get all holier than thou when you can't even admit you didn't read the post.

[Mavericksfan]

Why is someone's win shares and OBPM relevant at all? It's a number that's not at all even remotely close to be guaranteed to be correct for a player. Is Mitchell Robinson the best defender in basketball right now? Are Moses Malone and Steve Nash under +2 guys for their careers? Did Westbrook peak as the 2nd best defender in basketball? Why is it assumed OBPM and WS have ANY value in head to head comparisons between players?

I'm sorry but this is a very poor response. You can't sit there and complain about him asking you to provide further context while simultaneously requesting he break down exactly why he likes using OBPM and WS. Also you're clearly arguing in bad faith if you're looking to catch specific instances of the data not agreeing with your assessment. Every metric has examples that make us pause and look into additional context. If you look at WS and BPM stats overall they tend to confirm the better seasons/players.

Their boxscore stats are great, their BPM is great, their PER is great. Anyone looking at their boxscore numbers could tell you those things already, what's the value in having BPM specifically tell you those things?

This is another poor response. What makes PER any better than BPM? You can't complain that he's using a metric but not the boxcore stats yet at the same time give an example of another metric that just sums up boxscore stats. You're cherry picking whatever data you prefer while trying to dismiss anything that supports his argument.

This is your problem, no data set ever is perfect. You're tacitly admitting here no matter what you would've found fault with the data, and of course you would've you already found tons of "faults" in the data without even reading it previously. Don't get all holier than thou when you can't even admit you didn't read the post.

So if you acknowledge no data set is perfect why are you dismissing the data he provides? You're cherry picking what constitutes as valid information to help support your argument instead of having an honest discussion.

You argue with ego instead of analyzing all information presented. Take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of trying to force your narratives. You make overall good points but you aren't very receptive when someone presents information that challenges your opinion.

I only wanted to comment on that because this back and forth has been a bit ridiculous as y'all moved further from the Ewing vs D-rob topic to arguing about the validity of metrics

[liamliam1234]

What, I need to ask for the same thing five consecutive times before you deign to give it? But yes, it was not exactly the crux of my point; more an example of you not caring to increase the substance of what you provided.

Give it? I said exactly what I said the other 4 times, you just clearly weren't reading my damn post. I said repeatedly you have no reason to assume pace was a factor, and a quick look at the regular season pace of both teams would've tipped you off to that. You already knew the 90s Knicks weren't the SSOL Suns.

For someone who spends half this post harping on reading, you sure do a poor job of it.

That was in response to you saying I was inconsistent in my requests. And corresponding to what I had been doing the entire time, I explained that possession or minute adjustment was an easy example of contextual information which was absent. No, I did not think the Knicks were some speed demons, but the gaps between the two averages you showed were small enough for that to have possibly mattered. And plenty of parts could have mattered, and I have variably mentioned those. I have been consistent in asking for added context, and each time you respond as petulantly as possible. If you did not want to waste time with per possessions, fine; again, I acknowledged it was not an essential point. But you did not spend time on any kind-of addition. I said your framing left a lot of possibly context unacknowledged (e.g. advanced stats, sample size, average defence, pace, minutes, you name it), and we are now like ten or fifteen posts deep with you still refusing to say anything more.

Then maybe define “great” if a top three defence does not qualify.

I did. Read my posts.

Read your own posts. You set two separate ranges, I offered a defence which fit into the stricter of the two, and you immediately say, “Nope, not a great defence.” If your metric is only -3 qualifying, fine, but you never said that, nor did you suggest it.

So you set the ranges from -2 to -4 and +2 to -2. Now you seem to be indicating that the former is in fact more of a -2 to -3 range for Robinson because he had nothing beyond that. Alright, that is a stronger point for Ewing... one which was not at all present until now because you refused to be clear.

It would've been if you read my post. I didn't add any extra data to it with my last post outside of telling you to read my already made posts. Don't attempt to flip this on me like you had any business replying on a post you never read.

Where did you say Robinson’s range was actually -2 to -2.8? Feel free to point it out to me. Should I have assumed you set a data range which was only half-applicable to one of the subjects? Again, sounds like you need to double-check your own posts.

Imagine if you broke it up even further. “This is the two of them against -2 to -3 defences, based on x and y number of series.” Now, maybe Ewing mostly persisted in how he played against even better defences (a point to his reliability), or maybe he had a drop there but was so much better than Robinson from -2 to -3 that he still ends up better overall from -2 to -4 (a point to how easy Robinson had it even though he failed anyway). Both have cases to be made, but instead I just see a minor base advantage for Ewing from -2 to -4 with no other information.

This problem is exacerbated even further with the -2 to +2 range.

-2 to +2 is a broad range to catch a bunch of series together and that's it. In an average year a -2 defense is borderline top 10 level (example is the 2016 Cavs who were -1.9 and ranked 10th defensively) and a +2 defense is bottom 10 level, that was the reason for the ranges. Again if you wanted information like that, ask for it individually. "Why choose those as the ranges instead of going more in depth," would be a completely valid question. I can't go through explaining literally every decision made in every post when most guys here have all the relevant background knowledge to know a +2 or -2 defense is still close to league average.

You're basically now pivoting to "well now that I read the data it's solid but it isn't perfect" as if perfect data exists. Just admit you should've read the post in the first place and that it's relevant and keep it moving.

Point to me where I said your data has no possible value. Does repeatedly asking for more information equate to, “Nope, this is a total fabrication and has zero legitimacy”?

Just admit you pitched a fit over nothing. Or if not nothing, over the idea of your data set feeling incomplete in terms of information conveyed.

Yes, as we all know, if you just look at the basic box score line that right away tells you their relative OBPM and Win Shares. That is why casual fans are so good at matching their rankings to what those metrics say. Players like Garnett and Robinson would be super popular if casual fans just bothered to look at their base averages.

Why is someone's win shares and OBPM relevant at all? It's a number that's not at all even remotely close to be guaranteed to be correct for a player. Is Mitchell Robinson the best defender in basketball right now? Are Moses Malone and Steve Nash under +2 guys for their careers? Did Westbrook peak as the 2nd best defender in basketball? Why is it assumed OBPM and WS have ANY value in head to head comparisons between players?

MavericksFan kindly already weighed in on this, but to add to his point I can do the same with the basic box score stuff you gave (did Harden have the greatest offensive season in NBA history? Did 1962 Wilt?). That is the benefit of looking at a broad sample of data.

I am not getting the basics because your organisation was dreadful. -2 to +2 is an absurd range. I have no idea how much either player benefits from the back half or suffers from the front half, nor do I have a frame for their average opponent in that range, nor do I know whether one has more of a series than another. You vomit numbers without proper context and then act like that is such a massive improvement over BPM.

And the funny thing is, if you broke it down you could probably even further support your Ewing argument – at least I would hope so, given how incensed you are over this – but instead you want to sit here and repeatedly whine about the injustice of me asking you to give additional context to the data.

Yes I should've split up the data further, I mean you're already saying it's a sample size issue, you totally wouldn't have made these same exact criticisms otherwise (:lol: you didn't even read the post, of course you would've made the same criticism) or new ones like how the data was too splintered. Totally.

I probably would have had some comment on sample size, but at least we could have that discussion. Instead, you decided no one need concern themselves with trivial information like that, and how dare anyone try to suggest otherwise.

For splintering, no, splintered data is pretty interesting to me if it actually seems to indicate a legitimate trend. But please, keep acting like no one could possibly be interested in information like that. Really makes your point look legitimate and not at all manipulated.

You have spent a lot more effort responding to my complaints with your lack of clarifying data than you would have if you simply gave the bloody data. Any confusion is based on your own stubborn refusal to back up your point beyond the cursory data you initially gave.

But I have you no additional clarifying data, I just told you read the damn posts and go to bball ref before assuminf my data was bunk.

I did not assume the data was bunk. I correctly pointed out your data was not the whole story. And yes, you instead acting as if it is all explained in the initial post is the problem. Why are you so terrified of acknowledging that there is more beyond your initial data set?

Oh, you pulled numbers from his whole career. That clears things up.

Weird stance from someone who starting point was “Just posting whole career numbers do not capture how they got those career numbers.” I guess you only care to a point that you can express your own narrative, huh?

Oh my bad for not going series to series? This is exactly what I mean stop pretending like no matter what the data said you wouldn't have found a nitpick to dismiss it, again, you originally started this whole conversation while NOT reading my post.

Lazy defence (shocker), borderline fallacious. “People are going to nitpick my analysis, so I should not try to address any nitpicks.” Can you imagine if actual data analysis worked like that? Actually, you probably can, as you seem to operate on the presumption that people should just reflexively accept everything you say.

Ask a Kobe fan. Or a Garnett fan.

Their boxscore stats are great, their BPM is great, their PER is great. Anyone looking at their boxscore numbers could tell you those things already, what's the value in having BPM specifically tell you those things?

Plenty of casuals rip on players like Garnett and Duncan for their lack of explosive box score numbers. Plenty of “blogboys” rip on Kobe for not tracking especially well in them compared to other top twelves players. Do you have any idea how many fans place Kobe’s 2006 season as the pinnacle of offence because of his basic boxscore numbers?

Then maybe you should not have said 1990 Ewing was better in totality than any Robinson season.

Maybe you shouldn't have latched on to a small sentence in a post about Robinson to attempt to start and irrelevant conversation instead of the one being made? It's a far time from that first post and at no point did you even look at the numbers or consider the case being made against Robinson.

It is not irrelevant, it speaks to how you are evaluating these players. If you start with an unjustified bias toward Ewing, why would this dataset be any different. Part of the case against Robinson is comparative, so stop complaining when I address the other half of that comparison.

And playoffs are a small sample. My point is that even though Kyrie famously led in usage rating in 2017, zero people thought he had become the first option over Lebron. And it was not a case of everyone noticing and then going, “Eh, whatever, we can wait for the playoffs.” Lebron led in scoring, so everyone marked him as the first option. Since when have centres (or scorers like Lebron) definitively needed to take more shots than their all-NBA guard teammates to prove they have the offensive advantage?

Just like with Shaq and Kobe LeBron and Kyrie's usage ratings were extremely close in the regular season and flipped (LeBron had the lead) in the playoffs. So the same as Kobe vs Shaq, of course no one thought Kyrie was the first option, he wasn't. Cummings led Robinson in usage by a distance, he was a clear first option. What argument is there that someone using less possessions in the regular and postseason is the first option?

Actual points scored. Robinson was the better scorer. He was more efficient, and until the playoffs he scored more.

I have been taking the time. You, on the other hand, have now spent several hours specifically trying to not clarify the argument.

No you just now took the time, you never asked any clarifying questions you just wholly said the numbers don't matter, see how that might get you no clarification, especially when you showed you didn't read the original post at all all through your replies? I'm not spoon-feeding someone that's not even reading the posts it's a waste of my time.

See, the problem with devoting so much time accusing someone of not reading is that it can look really embarrassing when you have a comment like this. “The lady doth protest too much” and all that.

Again, feel free to point to where I said the numbers did not matter at all.

You never bothered after the first time. Sorry to disrupt your ever-so-perfect data set, but if you want to make a convincing argument, be ready to back it up rather than acting petulant because someone dared to want additional information.

This is your problem, no data set ever is perfect. You're tacitly admitting here no matter what you would've found fault with the data, and of course you would've you already found tons of "faults" in the data without even reading it previously. Don't get all holier than thou when you can't even admit you didn't read the post.

Accuse me of being “holier than thou” while implicitly taking issue with your provided data set possibly being imperfect. Woof.

[E-Balla]

I'm sorry but this is a very poor response. You can't sit there and complain about him asking you to provide further context while simultaneously requesting he break down exactly why he likes using OBPM and WS.

What? How is OBPM and WS further context? It's a completely relevant question to ask someone that considers that context, how it is context?

And then we get into my first argument which is that those numbers literally don't exist. Can you find them? Can you find a way to calculate them without calculating them for literally every team in the playoffs series to series in that postseason? We have 2 days in these threads, this is akin to saying you want "more context" and the only thing you'd consider "more context" is a full 82+ game to game breakdown of every play either guy was involved in offensively and defensively. It's a dumb thing to ask for meant to discredit legitimate data for not being perfect. Like I said if those numbers are so important to you you can go compile them yourself over the next few months.

Also you're clearly arguing in bad faith if you're looking to catch specific instances of the data not agreeing with your assessment. Every metric has examples that make us pause and look into additional context. If you look at WS and BPM stats overall they tend to confirm the better seasons/players.

You still haven't explained why BPM and WS are useful in player to player comparisons. At all. Minutes played also tends to confirm who had the better season, we're not ranking players by it. Tell me what additional context will be added by you knowing their WS or BPM? I've asked multiple times, no answer (common pattern I'm starting to see with some of you guys).

Their boxscore stats are great, their BPM is great, their PER is great. Anyone looking at their boxscore numbers could tell you those things already, what's the value in having BPM specifically tell you those things?

This is another poor response. What makes PER any better than BPM? You can't complain that he's using a metric but not the boxcore stats yet at the same time give an example of another metric that just sums up boxscore stats. You're cherry picking whatever data you prefer while trying to dismiss anything that supports his argument.

Umm... Read that again. I'm not saying PER is better than BPM I'm saying they're equally useful, which is to say not at all.

And to the last part, how am I cherry picking by not using data that quite literally doesn't exist?

Was I cherry picking data when I didn't do RAPM analysis for 1990 Jordan?

So if you acknowledge no data set is perfect why are you dismissing the data he provides?

I haven't? What are you even referring to here?

You argue with ego instead of analyzing all information presented. Take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of trying to force your narratives. You make overall good points but you aren't very receptive when someone presents information that challenges your opinion.

Oh my bad you're apparently just mad I said Curry wasn't injured. My bad, don't quote me if you don't have anything meaningful to say it's a waste of both our time.

[E-Balla]

I'm only responding to one point here because honestly this is tiring when you won't just admit you were wrong originally...

Read your own posts. You set two separate ranges, I offered a defence which fit into the stricter of the two, and you immediately say, “Nope, not a great defence.” If your metric is only -3 qualifying, fine, but you never said that, nor did you suggest it.

Here's the relevant part of my original post:

First I want to address you saying Robinson in the playoffs was like Ewing's regular seasons. If anything he was worse that Ewing himself.

Against teams in the playoffs with a good (-2 to -4 DRTG) defense here's their averages.

Robinson (90-98): 21.0 ppg, 3.3 apg, 2.4 topg, 51.7 TS%

Ewing (88-97): 21.2 ppg, 2.5 apg, 2.8 topg, 53.4 TS%

Against teams in the playoffs with an averaged (-2 to +2 DRTG) defense here's their averages.

Robinson (90-98): 23.6 ppg, 2.8 apg, 3.1 topg, 53.8 TS%

Ewing (88-97): 24.2 ppg, 3.0 apg, 2.8 topg, 54.6 TS%

To me Ewing has a very slight, but clear, edge here so I feel like you should say Robinson compares less than favorably to Ewing period, not regular season Ewing.

But you're right, I didn't qualify my criteria of what a good and average defense was in my post. Totally.

I'm dropping this, it's all way off topic and really I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you while you're consistently telling blatant lies.

[No-more-rings]

The fighting in this thread is going overboard lol.

[Mavericksfan]

nonsense

I just wanted to offer some perspective. I think you’re a very knowledgable and intelligent guy. You’ve swayed my opinion on a few players in this project. I just hope you learn to stop arguing to be right instead of holding a meaningful two-way discussion. You’re downright dismissive of any information that doesnt fit into whatever beliefs you have.

That said I’m not wasting my time with another back and forth with you. So good luck trying to convince the world you’re the only sane person on the planet.

[liamliam1234]

I'm only responding to one point here because honestly this is tiring when you won't just admit you were wrong originally...

Read your own posts. You set two separate ranges, I offered a defence which fit into the stricter of the two, and you immediately say, “Nope, not a great defence.” If your metric is only -3 qualifying, fine, but you never said that, nor did you suggest it.

Here's the relevant part of my original post:

First I want to address you saying Robinson in the playoffs was like Ewing's regular seasons. If anything he was worse that Ewing himself.

Against teams in the playoffs with a good (-2 to -4 DRTG) defense here's their averages.

Robinson (90-98): 21.0 ppg, 3.3 apg, 2.4 topg, 51.7 TS%

Ewing (88-97): 21.2 ppg, 2.5 apg, 2.8 topg, 53.4 TS%

Against teams in the playoffs with an averaged (-2 to +2 DRTG) defense here's their averages.

Robinson (90-98): 23.6 ppg, 2.8 apg, 3.1 topg, 53.8 TS%

Ewing (88-97): 24.2 ppg, 3.0 apg, 2.8 topg, 54.6 TS%

To me Ewing has a very slight, but clear, edge here so I feel like you should say Robinson compares less than favorably to Ewing period, not regular season Ewing.

But you're right, I didn't qualify my criteria of what a good and average defense was in my post. Totally.

I'm dropping this, it's all way off topic and really I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you while you're consistently telling blatant lies.

This is the funniest possible response after you spent however many posts disingenuously crying about inadequate reading and being misunderstood, and as usual you will never bother to figure out why.

[E-Balla]

nonsense

I just wanted to offer some perspective. I think you’re a very knowledgable and intelligent guy. You’ve swayed my opinion on a few players in this project. I just hope you learn to stop arguing to be right instead of holding a meaningful two-way discussion. You’re downright dismissive of any information that doesnt fit into whatever beliefs you have.

That said I’m not wasting my time with another back and forth with you. So good luck trying to convince the world you’re the only sane person on the planet.

I'm arguing to be right but you can't tell me what context BPM and WS is adding... Totally...

[Mavericksfan]

I'm arguing to be right but you can't tell me what context BPM and WS is adding... Totally...

So you dont see the blatant hypocrisy? You’re asked for further context and you refuse because it’s “spoonfeeding” and the other guy is “lazy” for not looking it up. Yet you expects others to break down their reasoning for using every single metric?

BPM gives you the benefit of an easy to read summary of a player’s statistical contributions on both ends.

WS’s provides the same. It’s a way to helping compare players across eras/teams. Is it exact? No. But it’ll give you more info than plain boxscores when discussing different eras/seasons/teams.

[E-Balla]

So you dont see the blatant hypocrisy? You’re asked for further context and you refuse because it’s “spoonfeeding”

No I "refused" because it doesn't exist. The numbers literally don't exist. I can't use what doesn't exist. If I was talking about their regular seasons and someone asked me to post their OBPM and OWS I could and would easily do that. If I could easily get that data I would (quick example, it's time consuming but I can get PER for those series, not really relevant because we were talking offense only, but still it's something I can calculate in a reasonable amount of time). I've said this from my first reply to him:

And exactly what advanced metrics exist from 1988 and 1990 to be used here? How is it at all disingenuous to compare what are literally the only stats we have from back then (basic boxscore stats)? What else would you like to see here?

and the other guy is “lazy” for not looking it up. Yet you expects others to break down their reasoning for using every single metric?

I'm not going on anyone's post questioning why they use BPM am I? I only questioned you guys when you wanted to make me use BPM. The lazy part is asking someone to run calculations for each individual series between 1988 and 1998 to get an all in one stat while not being willing to do it yourself. I'd never (and have never) asked someone to calculate something that doesn't exist before I took the chance to address their point and their post. It's clearly not a request being asked in good faith if anyone does that.

BPM gives you the benefit of an easy to read summary of a player’s statistical contributions on both ends.

WS’s provides the same. It’s a way to helping compare players across eras/teams. Is it exact? No. But it’ll give you more info than plain boxscores when discussing different eras/seasons/teams.

Is that good enough or will it just be dismissed because you said so?

It's going to be dismissed because now you've gone from arguing OBPM and OWS adds context to ppg, topg, apg, ts%, etc. to arguing not that it provides more context, but that it allows you to remove the context of individual boxscore averages to give you a nice context free number to represent their contributions.

And then to add to that WS and BPM scale between eras/seasons/teams horribly so the reason you claim to use them doesn't hold up to that either. The highest OBPM in a season prior to 87 is 37th all time. There's only 6 player seasons between the merger and 87 in the top 100 for single season OBPM. I mean it's a stat created using the 01-14 period to create it's statistical weights, it is horrible to use for previous eras given the fact it wasn't made with them in mind at all. It wasn't even really made with individual players in mind. WS on the other hand doesn't even have the same formula year to year so IDK how it can provide context of numbers in between different seasons when it's not even attempting to.