freethedevil wrote:I don't feel like writing an essay explaining why I think policing people's thinking processes isn't good practice
Of course not, it would be the world's most hypocritical essay.
The tldr of the hypotethetical is: as people should be defined by what they do, not what they think... arguments should be judged as they are, not based on what you assume motivated the crafting of said arguments.
This is not how reality works. What you think colours everything you do. Arguing with those with bad intent is a consistently miserable and unproductive experience, and I encourage less pathological people to avoid it whenever possible.
liamliam1234 wrote:Because I do not value your "forest".
Reminder... you... have posted with the explicit goal of showcasing my inconsistency. So whether you value what my forest is does not matter. You are arguing I'm inconsistent. To show I'm inconsistent, you'd actually have to show, my conclusions contradict with my forest. Unless off course you're using a different definition of inconsistent, in which I'd ask you define inconistent as you want us to use it.
I am not arguing to convince you. It became clear pretty early on that you were never going to meaningfully come to terms with the inconsistency of your impact metrics. And since I am not arguing to convince you, I am not arguing against the inchoate ideal of "portability".
Oh, sorry, I should have been more sensitive to your arbitrary evaluation that says "impact metrics matter until they go against the guy I like, in which case I can subjectively declare him more portable and thus advantaged."
Except that I cited "portability" from the get go:
That fact you gave yourself an out from the beginning does not disqualify the point. Whenever there is an indication Curry is disadvantaged by an impact metric, you can just cite portability and be done with it. There is zero reason anyone ever would, let alone could, go along with that specific assessment, and yet you continue to ask people to do it and to make cases against it.
freethedevil wrote:Top ten.
is one of the most impactful players ever by any standard.
Is one of the most portable players too.
Was the most important player on a championship winner well past his prime.
Typically the first argument you see against him is an accusation of "analytics bias" from posters or a "why are we even considering this" which indicates to me the case against him as a top ten player is a weak one. Once you get that you have people cherrypicking his obpm in the playoffs instead of using his overall bpm because...
reasons?
If you use factors outside of play to evaluate greatness, fair enough. Greatest doesn't have to equal best. But if you're going to equate the best, the data says he's top ten, and context tells you his game is highly portable(aka, he fits well on better and better teams), something which is backed up with a past prime kg being the clear cut #1 on winning celtics side.
This post was ages before i started arguing for curry. Impact #'s supported my conclusion and i still went on to highlight portability AND winning.
See above. Impact numbers have not universally supported your conclusion, and I doubt even you were under the impression that Curry sat at the top of every single impact metric.
Whether you value it or not, it's nonsensical to assume I use portability when impact #'s contradict my conclusions. Since I have used them in the absence of such a contradiction, you asserting otherwise doesn't make sense.
Where I did I say the sole citation of portability happened as a response to impact contradictions. I was describing the base effect, not a universal law of your behaviour.
in which case I can subjectively declare him more portable and thus advantaged."
You have an issue with "subjective" arguments now? Well, then, I'm sure you won't use a "subjective" argument then...adversity
Oh.
I warned you about excessively harping on fallacies.
This is a blatant strawman. Where did I ever say no one could use subjective arguments. My issue is with you challenging everyone for not using your subjective means of assessment.
It's also amazing you've accused me of being reliant on formulas but go out of your way to paint anything not formula based as bad for being "subjective."
Another strawman. I did not say it was inherently bad for being subjective. I said it was bad as an objective test, which is in effect what you act like this is by telling people their personal rankings need to somehow "deal with" impact metrics and portability.
Oh, look, more disingenuous framing. Yes, whine about having Klay as a second option, as if none of us can remember when he was enough of a second option to win 140 regular season games over two years.
I'm sorry, are you using an achievement curry contributed to, to argue the extent of credit of curry recieves for a later achievement? You realize that's circular reasoning?
Like, this is the equivalent of me saying "gasol was a good enough second option that the lakers won b2b"... therefore "kobe leading good offenses vs great defenses" doesn't mean kobe overcame adversity."
No, I am saying it does not qualify as adversity for him to be put in a slightly less favourable situation. What you said about Steph playing with only Klay as the other major scoring threat can be applied to literally every pre-2017 game.
A couple of years ago Elgee did this neat little calculation, with PIPM I believe, on relative team quality (http://www.backpicks.com/2017/07/06/supporting-casts-are-more-important-than-stars/). Wade never led a positive supporting cast. Kobe led a strongly positive supporting cast once. I wonder, if they were available for Curry, what do you think those numbers would indicate? Especially given what we know of Draymond's and Durant's impact scores.
What #'s. Team #'s? Or induvidual #"s? Team #'s would plummet. The notion that impact #"s would go down rather than up isn't supported tho.
Why do players on bad teams generally have higher impact #"s then players on good ones? Is it possible it takes better players to life better ones?...
And yet Durant and Curry and Draymond all cluster near the top of impact lists together. Yet Kobe had some of his best impact numbers in 2001. Yet Chris Paul and Harden had incredible impact numbers playing together. Oh, sorry, I forgot, that all works because "good teams should have good players".
Regardless, you've yet to make the case peak kobe was better at "overcoming adversity" than peak curry, whatever that means. The existince of greater adversity does not mean such adversity was overcome. Kobe faced greater adversity, and he was less successful facing it. On what basis was he better at overcoming it? Since both curry and kobe have burned good defenses, i'm not really sure what your basis for asserting there was a disparity here.
Except Kobe was not less successful. He went to three straight Finals, winning two of them, with a supporting cast worse than the pre-Durant Warriors.
The case for Wade here is certainly better, but Kobe's defensive reputation among media, analysts, and other players is not wholly invented just because he was a popular guy on the Lakers.
And of course it is a lot easier for Curry to basically play into a limited role behind Draymond than it is for Kobe to replicate the same on a team like the 2005-07 Lakers.
You're appealing to authority?
Rejecting authority entirely in subjective discussions tends to be to the detriment of understanding. Unless you literally think numbers perfectly capture every element of basketball, there is an element of experience we do not have when it comes to what Kobe was doing on the court and how players felt impacted by it.
I'll take it you consider pierce more important to the wolves beating the lakers in 2008 than the media analysts did?
What?
Also not sure what gives you the impression kobe was any more than a complimentary defensive piece. He was never the centerpiece of his team's defenses. I also don't know why you think having a bigger role would hurt your defensive impact. Assuming you're decent at it, a bigger role gives you more chances to improve your team's d. How does curry's role being "limited" help him here?
Where did I say he was a centrepiece.
It goes back to Curry always needing to do less.
Distinction to the point of extenuating eight different types of three-pointers is not "nuance".
Huh? I didn't point out 8. I'm also not sure what your issue with this distinction is. Most players are significant better or worse depending on where the three is taken from. Bledsoe for example sucks on catch and shoot threes. Raptors won a championship partially because they adjusted for that.
Yeah, because when we discuss three-point shooting, most people talk in terms of location.
And what does this have to do with spacing?
... What does great three-point shooting have to do with spacing?
A team scoring on a possession from you making a three is a distinct event from a team scoring on a possession because a defender went up to guard your shot. Hence they're listed separately.
Distinct but profoundly related.
How do you claim to be a proponent of seeing the whole story while getting sarcastic whenever you're presented with specific breakdowns?
Because your "breakdowns" are not the whole story.
At no point was this ever about me wanting clarification
Huh?
I present you... asking for clarification on how information relevant to my criteria affects my judgement:
The last two of those were rhetorical. The first was an early matter of curiosity over your behaviour; in that sense, alright, I wanted to "clarify" for myself how you would respond to a contradicting point, but that is different from the clarification we were discussing. I am not uncertain in my rankings as they pertain to your assessments.
You've literally been asking a **** ton of questions these posts about how I apply my criteria.
Not for education.
My criteria is the focus of these posts because you're making them so.
I did not make them so. You started this by challenging my vote for not corresponding to your criteria, inherently saying, "This is the criteria we should be using." That makes it the focus.
You keep whining about me being fixated on my criteria, and then repeatedly shift the focus of the discussion back on my criteria. If you don't want me to discuss my criteria, don't ask about it. I certainly didn't force you too...
Yes, no one is literally being forced to do anything. Great observation. Yes, I could have, and should have, just ignored your question, but as I said, I was naive and regrettably gave you the benefit of the doubt. But you started this discussion, and this discussion at is core is about how I did not vote based on your criteria.
what is their argument? What parts of the story do kobe, robinson, and wade's season have that overrules the winning, impact, and fit of 2017 curry
After you asserted you don't care about my criteria, i adjusted accordingly asking you to set the table.
No, this is definitively not what happened. Again, the receipts are there, but seeing as you continue to try to lie your way around them, I may as well walk you through from the start.
1. I post my vote.
2. You respond, saying, "2017 broke impact stats as the lynchpin for the best team ever. I don't see any case against him from anyone on your list."
3. I say I do not care if you vote for 2017.
4. You say you want me to make the case anyway.
5. I say I do not put total value on impact metrics and think Wade and Kobe brought proportionally more to their teams than 2017 Curry did playing next to Durant (the last bit is implicit, so I will make it explicit). I specifically compare 2017 Curry to 2001 Kobe.
6. You say, "We also have to look at skill set. Curry's off ball play also makes him more portable than the people on your list." Emphasis mine. Again, you framing this as something that is necessary. You also say I am not properly valuing impact metrics, which will populate most of the ensuing discussion.
7. I respond to the metrics point in an attempt to show that impact metrics are not this universal standard which can possibly be upheld at all costs. I then respond with a thorough explanation why portability is not important to me.
8. More about the awesomeness of impact metrics. You also say Curry is uniquely portable, even after I already established that portability is at best a marginal consideration for me. You then talk about the magnificent combination of portability and impact, still ignoring that I am not weighing either much on their own. The posts have ballooned grossly.
9. I again reiterate that I am not making my assessment in terms of impact and portability. Several times. I also respond to the impact metrics stuff, and to the subjectivity of your portability perception.
10. You continue to argue for Curry on the basis of portability and impact metrics and now add winning. We have an early case of your gaslighting attempt: "you have yet to bring up anything outside of winning(favors 2017 curry), imapct(favors 2017 curry), and portability(2017 curry)". Reminder that basically every post to this point has featured me saying that I am not basing my argument off impact or portability (and in this case, wins is irrelevant because all three players won championships, although only two of them were the undeniable leader). This is also where you first argue Curry is a universally better shooter and scorer, as well as passer and defender and off-ball player. You conclude by again bringing it back to impact, portability, and team quality. All of which I have rejected for the past several posts.
11. I remind you of the reasoning I gave because you kept saying I never gave any. The rest is me walking through and again explaining none of those metrics are things I value and why I do not think they work as the primary determinant of player quality.
12. Yet again, you showcase Curry's advantage in impact metrics, and continue to work to dismiss Draymond's comparable excellence. That has been going on periodically, but I am mentioning it now because I think this is pretty much the end of it as I turn my attention to more broadly critiquing impact metrics than just juxtaposing Curry with players like Draymond and David Robinson. This is also where you start stanning for PIPM. None of this really responds to the assessment I quoted for you in the preceding post, although at the end you make an attempt to address a small part of it and then call them system players (which is, as typical, missing the point).
13. I make two short responses continuing to reject the idea of impact metrics being this point of sole superiority.
14. You make a quick reply.
15. I respond to the remainder of 12. I maintain the usual impact metrics criticism, although now there is a bit of a shift to discussing playoffs outside of impact metrics. I conclude, in a precursor to the current "carrying" question, that Curry has never really had to support a bad team for any prolonged period of time and that his early struggles/failings suggest to me that he is not as well-suited for that type of situation as Kobe or Wade. And I only allude to it in this post, but I will mention that previously I had said Curry works better on a great team, but success in a favourable situation is not how I assess a player's capabilities. That is the end of our discussion in this thread, and it was the end of it until you brought it back up a week later.
So no, you did not "adjust" after I dismissed your criteria. I routinely dismissed your criteria and you consistently responded by trying to argue your criteria was actually the best. You rarely evidenced the slightest thought toward my own criteria, and on the rare occasions you did take a stab at it, you misinterpreted or talked past the point completely.
Then you did, asserting that curry can't do as much. So, I broke down what each he and kobe can do.
1. A dishonest breakdown. 2. A severe misinterpretation of what I meant by saying he could not do as much, a meaning I have clarified and referenced often enough that you should have been able to figure it out.
You've also wanted to focus on the sample size of the postseason, so i used, postseason data. Fun fact, corp is almost exclusively considering postseason performance. I provided it to you to answer your qualms regarding 2017 being an isolated incident. You randomly assumed it was an rs stat, when again, it was provided to you considering issues you brought up.
Is CORP an impact metric?
Finally, I've answered your questions on my own inconsistencies in spite of me considering them tangential.
If you did not, how else would you have talked more about impact metrics.
This is, yet another example, of me letting you set the table.
No, you shoved food in my face I said I did not care for, and then you "graciously" said I could eat it with my hands or with cutlery.
If you are going to pick up a discussion a week later, it should not be too much to ask you to remember how the discussion actually developed.
All in all, you have been dictating the terms of the discussion all the while complaining that I haven't given you the reigns.
Again, cute gaslighting attempt.
It isn't my ego that's makin you keep bringing the discussion back to my criteria and me. Now you're mad i'm "fixating" on the table you've set for us. Hence why I'm giving you this:
What is there to bring the discussion "back" to. This discussion has been about almost nothing other than the metrics you like. How deeply self-absorbed does someone have to be to know that a.) they started the conversation by talking about their preferred metrics, b.) the entire conversation has focused on those preferred metrics, and c.) the other person has repeatedly said they do not agree with those metrics... and then conclude, "Wow, I cannot believe this person thinks this discussion revolves around me." Or do you just think "control" of the conversation shifts with every post, as if the fact I respond to your comments about impact metrics means each time I am going, "Golly, I sure cannot wait to talk more about impact metrics." When only one party is trying to convince the other that they have the perfect means of assessment, who exactly do you think is driving the conversation? Ah, whoops, I forgot, I need to be careful about using rhetorical questions, because otherwise you might think it is because I am in need of actual "clarification".
