Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[The-Power]

Not sure if it has been mentioned somewhere else before, or if this warrants its own thread. But ElGee's greatest peaks series is about to start officially and it's sure something to look forward to.

So in case there's a desire to discuss some things – considering the PC board itself has done and will do again its own peaks projects – I thought a separate thread could be useful. If not, the thread will just fade.

Read on Twitter

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, I think everyone needs to tune it for this series as it comes out. Even if you don't want to hear ElGee's analysis (which I think is excellent), the way he's cutting up footage would be very worthwhile on mute.

[freethedevil]

Oh, I think everyone needs to tune it for this series as it comes out. Even if you don't want to hear ElGee's analysis (which I think is excellent), the way he's cutting up footage would be very worthwhile on mute.

The more time goes by, the more and more worthless Ben's peak evaulations seem to me. He's unrivalled when it comes to marco-level asssessments, but his utter refusal to acknowedge fluctuations in induvdiual play or flat curve everything to fit his pre-conceived assumptions is bafflingly irritating.

He made a video proclaiming lebron's 2016 games 5-7 was the greatest three game stretch ever and backed that up by...

-> ignoring that draymond missed a game,
-> not even trying to compare it to other 3 game stretches

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, I think everyone needs to tune it for this series as it comes out. Even if you don't want to hear ElGee's analysis (which I think is excellent), the way he's cutting up footage would be very worthwhile on mute.

The more time goes by, the more and more worthless Ben's peak evaulations seem to me. He's unrivalled when it comes to marco-level asssessments, but his utter refusal to acknowedge fluctuations in induvdiual play or flat curve everything to fit his pre-conceived assumptions is bafflingly irritating.

He made a video proclaiming lebron's 2016 games 5-7 was the greatest three game stretch ever and backed that up by...

-> ignoring that draymond missed a game,
-> not even trying to compare it to other 3 game stretches

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I will say that this video project is particularly focused on qualitative understanding in a way you can only get by actually watching the player play with video, so I'd guess you'll like this more than his webpage-based Back Picks 40 which used video clips, but was first and foremost about written communication.

[freethedevil]

Oh, I think everyone needs to tune it for this series as it comes out. Even if you don't want to hear ElGee's analysis (which I think is excellent), the way he's cutting up footage would be very worthwhile on mute.

The more time goes by, the more and more worthless Ben's peak evaulations seem to me. He's unrivalled when it comes to marco-level asssessments, but his utter refusal to acknowedge fluctuations in induvdiual play or flat curve everything to fit his pre-conceived assumptions is bafflingly irritating.

He made a video proclaiming lebron's 2016 games 5-7 was the greatest three game stretch ever and backed that up by...

-> ignoring that draymond missed a game,
-> not even trying to compare it to other 3 game stretches

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

[Doctor MJ]

The more time goes by, the more and more worthless Ben's peak evaulations seem to me. He's unrivalled when it comes to marco-level asssessments, but his utter refusal to acknowedge fluctuations in induvdiual play or flat curve everything to fit his pre-conceived assumptions is bafflingly irritating.

He made a video proclaiming lebron's 2016 games 5-7 was the greatest three game stretch ever and backed that up by...

-> ignoring that draymond missed a game,
-> not even trying to compare it to other 3 game stretches

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

By "process" I mean how he comes to understand a player not how he comes to peg them.

HIs ratings in the end are arbitrary as they must be, but by going through the process so granularly he's able to gain insight into the player and how he evolved over time, and he's found ways to communicate that others (such as myself) can learn from.

[70sFan]

I am Ben patron and I've talked with him about the project for some time. I helped him with video creation with oldschool material I managed to find throughout years, so for anyone who's not into my work this would be the first time that some of the material will be available online.

Even though I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions, I can't understand how anyone can not find his work valuable. I agree with Doc - the process of analysis and evaluation is far more important than the results. I don't care that Ben is likely lower on Wilt or Kareem peak than I am, I'll enjoy watching his videos about them even more because of that. Contrast opinions are always fascinating when you see someone trying to contextualize that, even if you disagree with conclusion.

By the way, the project will be about 1977-2020 era, so we won't have pre-merger guys ranked.

[KTM_2813]

Ben's work as a historic player evaluator is unrivaled. I'm really excited for this series. I enjoyed the first video, although I did read a post in the RealGM GOAT project about Russell's underwhelming offensive impact that I would like to see Ben address (not the specific post, but just the general concept). As Ben showed, Russell was obviously a huge plus overall and is a legitimate GOAT candidate, but more and more I feel that is offense was perhaps damaging, which deserves discussion, at least.

[freethedevil]

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

By "process" I mean how he comes to understand a player not how he comes to peg them.

HIs ratings in the end are arbitrary as they must be, but by going through the process so granularly he's able to gain insight into the player and how he evolved over time, and he's found ways to communicate that others (such as myself) can learn from.

True. Even when I'm slandering Ben I still am citing the **** he put on the map, OC for example.

[ShotCreator]

The more time goes by, the more and more worthless Ben's peak evaulations seem to me. He's unrivalled when it comes to marco-level asssessments, but his utter refusal to acknowedge fluctuations in induvdiual play or flat curve everything to fit his pre-conceived assumptions is bafflingly irritating.

He made a video proclaiming lebron's 2016 games 5-7 was the greatest three game stretch ever and backed that up by...

-> ignoring that draymond missed a game,
-> not even trying to compare it to other 3 game stretches

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

You're pretty much 100% right but he has a chance to grow his credibility with casuals, which far outnumber guys like us, which would make him much more money.

Why die on a Draymond > literally everyone in 2016 kind of hill even if you could argue it logically? I mean I would for fun, my credibility means nothing.

His does, so he’ll gauge, generalize, or play into winning bias and so on just to not be controversial or over the top in general.

And that’s not even to say it’s all pressure. He clearly has favorites and guys he doesn’t have an intimate understanding of or care about career wise.

Which in essence means he isn’t perfect. But like you said, macro level stuff? Brilliant. Nobody has his attention to detail in basketball analysis.

[Statlanta]

Or you can just use the search feature on every post he's made on former RealGM Peaks Projects.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

You're pretty much 100% right but he has a chance to grow his credibility with casuals, which far outnumber guys like us, which would make him much more money.

Why die on a Draymond > literally everyone in 2016 kind of hill even if you could argue it logically? I mean I would for fun, my credibility means nothing.

His does, so he’ll gauge, generalize, or play into winning bias and so on just to not be controversial or over the top in general.

And that’s not even to say it’s all pressure. He clearly has favorites and guys he doesn’t have an intimate understanding of or care about career wise.

Which in essence means he isn’t perfect. But like you said, macro level stuff? Brilliant. Nobody has his attention to detail in basketball analysis.

Did he ever say draymond in 2016>everyone? I feel everyone knew that draymond was a player with alot of weaknesses and some key strengths, and in a perfect situation for his strengths and for his weaknesses to be hidden. Just curious lol

I dont meccessarily agree with all of his takes but I appreciate the way he deep dives into film

[LukaTheGOAT]

The more time goes by, the more and more worthless Ben's peak evaulations seem to me. He's unrivalled when it comes to marco-level asssessments, but his utter refusal to acknowedge fluctuations in induvdiual play or flat curve everything to fit his pre-conceived assumptions is bafflingly irritating.

He made a video proclaiming lebron's 2016 games 5-7 was the greatest three game stretch ever and backed that up by...

-> ignoring that draymond missed a game,
-> not even trying to compare it to other 3 game stretches

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

-He doesn't just use eye-test for port. He has a formula he uses that helps him estimate one's portability, based on the way they score, passing, etc.

-I agree that I don't always agree with his defensive performance measures, but he says the valuations are based on what he believes players would do in a playoff setting. He basically says RS does not matter a ton, and therefore, if someone is lax in the regular season which leads to a decline defensively- that same person can still get a great defensive valuation if they turn up the intensity in the PS.

-I don't think he ignores what happens in the PS, however he just is swayed as easily as some us on this forum might be by PS performance. For example, he penalized Giannis and had him move from what would be the #1 player in the league to the #3 player in the league because he is not confident in his offense against good playoff defenses.

-This is my biggest gripe with Ben, but also might be inevitable. He values eye-test and stats, but if the stats do not necessarily back up what he is seeing, he will at times completely disregard the metrics and count it as noise (his peak KG>peak Duncan take very much rubs me the wrong way and I think it is libel but whatever). But then again, I guess we all to some degree might do this, because we believe stats can only capture certain things and are limited.

-Your right he does believe in the simulation model, because the fact of the matter is we are living in just one of many potential realities. If a player does something that is unsustainable (AD hitting like 50-mid 55s in midrange jumpers and being a GOAT mid-range shooter is one), then the odds are that if you were to run things again, Anthony Davis would not be hitting all the jumpers he did in the PS. Furthermore, a player can look better or worse depending on the situation they find themselves in.

-Examples? He does say somethings are noise (for example McGrady's offensive jump shooting in 03 is an example). But if a player makes actual tangible improvements in their game that allows them to raise the ceiling of a team, then I think he usually does give credit.

-False. As with the Giannis example, he absolutely does. He said in a podcast, that if KG could boost his scoring in the PS like Duncan could, he thinks KG would be probably the greatest player ever. Instead KG is quite a bit below that because of his PS scoring. Heck he acknowledges in his writeup that KG beats Duncan in box-score and plus-minus metrics, while being much more portable and a better peak defender through their careers, yet he ranked Duncan higher all-time.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Or you can just use the search feature on every post he's made on former RealGM Peaks Projects.

He went back and evaluated different players' peaks, so there is a possibility he will hold some players in higher regard (or be lower on them), since those posts/Backpicks project was created.

[DQuinn1575]

Spoiler:

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

-He doesn't just use eye-test for port. He has a formula he uses that helps him estimate one's portability, based on the way they score, passing, etc.

-I agree that I don't always agree with his defensive performance measures, but he says the valuations are based on what he believes players would do in a playoff setting. He basically says RS does not matter a ton, and therefore, if someone is lax in the regular season which leads to a decline defensively- that same person can still get a great defensive valuation if they turn up the intensity in the PS.

-I don't think he ignores what happens in the PS, however he just is swayed as easily as some us on this forum might be by PS performance. For example, he penalized Giannis and had him move from what would be the #1 player in the league to the #3 player in the league because he is not confident in his offense against good playoff defenses.

-This is my biggest gripe with Ben, but also might be inevitable. He values eye-test and stats, but if the stats do not necessarily back up what he is seeing, he will at times completely disregard the metrics and count it as noise (his peak KG>peak Duncan take very much rubs me the wrong way and I think it is libel but whatever). But then again, I guess we all to some degree might do this, because we believe stats can only capture certain things and are limited.

-Your right he does believe in the simulation model, because the fact of the matter is we are living in just one of many potential realities. If a player does something that is unsustainable (AD hitting like 50-mid 55s in midrange jumpers and being a GOAT mid-range shooter is one), then the odds are that if you were to run things again, Anthony Davis would not be hitting all the jumpers he did in the PS. Furthermore, a player can look better or worse depending on the situation they find themselves in.

-Examples? He does say somethings are noise (for example McGrady's offensive jump shooting in 03 is an example). But if a player makes actual tangible improvements in their game that allows them to raise the ceiling of a team, then I think he usually does give credit.

-False. As with the Giannis example, he absolutely does. He said in a podcast, that if KG could boost his scoring in the PS like Duncan could, he thinks KG would be probably the greatest player ever. Instead KG is quite a bit below that because of his PS scoring. Heck he acknowledges in his writeup that KG beats Duncan in box-score and plus-minus metrics, while being much more portable and a better peak defender through their careers, yet he ranked Duncan higher all-time.

Do you have a link or reference where he has a formula for portability? He uses it a fair amount and I thought it was just an eye test thing, which is why I’m not too big on it. I’m not sure how to tell how portable someone is who played as the star for one team their whole prime years.

[freethedevil]

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't place that much value in where he actually pegs a guy numerically. I'd say he'd tell you that that's the least important part. The real value is in the process that leads to that, and people are bound to disagree at the final marking.

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

-He doesn't just use eye-test for port. He has a formula he uses that helps him estimate one's portability, based on the way they score, passing, etc.
the formula has zero grounding in his stated end game here, assessg championship equity. How much he takes away points based on port is just random and that becomes especially clear when you lineup his assessement of team quality with the supposed portablity related ddecline in corp.
-I agree that I don't always agree with his defensive performance measures, but he says the valuations are based on what he believes players would do in a playoff setting. He basically says RS does not matter a ton, and therefore, if someone is lax in the regular season which leads to a decline defensively- that same person can still get a great defensive valuation if they turn up the intensity in the PS.

-I don't think he ignores what happens in the PS, however he just is swayed as easily as some us on this forum might be by PS performance. For example, he penalized Giannis and had him move from what would be the #1 player in the league to the #3 player in the league because he is not confident in his offense against good playoff defenses.
he had giannis at#2 before health adjustment and it was because davis and lebron weren't able to make the playoffs, per his own reasoning and even then he sees it close.
-This is my biggest gripe with Ben, but also might be inevitable. He values eye-test and stats, but if the stats do not necessarily back up what he is seeing, he will at times completely disregard the metrics and count it as noise (his peak KG>peak Duncan take very much rubs me the wrong way and I think it is libel but whatever). But then again, I guess we all to some degree might do this, because we believe stats can only capture certain things and are limited.
the issue comes when he has holistic big picture stats and completely disregards them, ie, kobe's raw corp is 9th but he somehow gets tanked to 14th based on ben's eyes on what isa massive discrepancy between corp and final corp.
-Your right he does believe in the simulation model, because the fact of the matter is we are living in just one of many potential realities. we live in one reality. That reality si the one we're assessing here.If a player does something that is unsustainable (AD hitting like 50-mid 55s in midrange jumpers and being a GOAT mid-range shooter is one),

-Examples? He does say somethings are noise (for example McGrady's offensive jump shooting in 03 is an example). But if a player makes actual tangible improvements in their game that allows them to raise the ceiling of a team, then I think he usually does give credit.

-False. As with the Giannis example, he absolutely does. He said in a podcast, that if KG could boost his scoring in the PS like Duncan could, he thinks KG would be probably the greatest player ever. Instead KG is quite a bit below that because of his PS scoring. Heck he acknowledges in his writeup that KG beats Duncan in box-score and plus-minus metrics, while being much more portable and a better peak defender through their careers, yet he ranked Duncan higher all-time.
1. He brought up giannis's opipm against non firs t round opponents, and then didn't even bother comparing that to other stars

2. He actually has KG as the higher peak, he has duncan ahead because of longetvity.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Spoiler:

I mean i'm specifically taking issue with his process.

-> The amount of stock he puts on port. aren't based on anything whatsoever. Players can manage far more lift on teams he'll outright say he considers marginally worse than another team they manage far less lift on, and he'll rate the second season way higher because his eyes decide versaility>singular effiency

-> Just handwaves drastic differences in defensive performance season to season away

-> He compeltely disgregards what actually transpires in the playoffs and even mega regular season outcome shifts

-> He will make asssessmnets that massively disagree with the outputs of his formula on a whim

-> A player who he considers otherwise identical can literally add a significant upgrade to their game and he'll dismiss it as noise.

-> Penalizes players for droppign off against "better playoff teams' but doesn' tbother tracking how players play against good playoff defenses or offenses

He just ignores what players actually do for his theoretical predictions on what they would have done if he resimmed the season a million times, and that seems fundemetnally nonsensical to me.

-He doesn't just use eye-test for port. He has a formula he uses that helps him estimate one's portability, based on the way they score, passing, etc.

-I agree that I don't always agree with his defensive performance measures, but he says the valuations are based on what he believes players would do in a playoff setting. He basically says RS does not matter a ton, and therefore, if someone is lax in the regular season which leads to a decline defensively- that same person can still get a great defensive valuation if they turn up the intensity in the PS.

-I don't think he ignores what happens in the PS, however he just is swayed as easily as some us on this forum might be by PS performance. For example, he penalized Giannis and had him move from what would be the #1 player in the league to the #3 player in the league because he is not confident in his offense against good playoff defenses.

-This is my biggest gripe with Ben, but also might be inevitable. He values eye-test and stats, but if the stats do not necessarily back up what he is seeing, he will at times completely disregard the metrics and count it as noise (his peak KG>peak Duncan take very much rubs me the wrong way and I think it is libel but whatever). But then again, I guess we all to some degree might do this, because we believe stats can only capture certain things and are limited.

-Your right he does believe in the simulation model, because the fact of the matter is we are living in just one of many potential realities. If a player does something that is unsustainable (AD hitting like 50-mid 55s in midrange jumpers and being a GOAT mid-range shooter is one), then the odds are that if you were to run things again, Anthony Davis would not be hitting all the jumpers he did in the PS. Furthermore, a player can look better or worse depending on the situation they find themselves in.

-Examples? He does say somethings are noise (for example McGrady's offensive jump shooting in 03 is an example). But if a player makes actual tangible improvements in their game that allows them to raise the ceiling of a team, then I think he usually does give credit.

-False. As with the Giannis example, he absolutely does. He said in a podcast, that if KG could boost his scoring in the PS like Duncan could, he thinks KG would be probably the greatest player ever. Instead KG is quite a bit below that because of his PS scoring. Heck he acknowledges in his writeup that KG beats Duncan in box-score and plus-minus metrics, while being much more portable and a better peak defender through their careers, yet he ranked Duncan higher all-time.

Do you have a link or reference where he has a formula for portability? He uses it a fair amount and I thought it was just an eye test thing, which is why I’m not too big on it. I’m not sure how to tell how portable someone is who played as the star for one team their whole prime years.

The metric is proprietary so unfortunately we do not know. However, I believed he mentioned the metric in the following podcast (I could be wrong). https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/52-the-best-off-ball-players-of-the-3-point-era/id1428290303?i=1000472115014

He does have some articles detailing his thoughts on portability, though you will have to skim through the articles it to find his points relating specifically to it. To be fair, portability is still somewhat subjective and we aren't always certain on how to understand how some players will gel with others. Happy reading!

https://backpicks.com/2018/02/12/backpicks-goat-philosophy-of-player-ranking/

https://backpicks.com/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/

https://fansided.com/2017/10/19/nylon-calculus-championship-odds-short-lived-megastars-corp/

[No-more-rings]

Oh, I think everyone needs to tune it for this series as it comes out. Even if you don't want to hear ElGee's analysis (which I think is excellent), the way he's cutting up footage would be very worthwhile on mute.

The more time goes by, the more and more worthless Ben's peak evaulations seem to me. He's unrivalled when it comes to marco-level asssessments, but his utter refusal to acknowedge fluctuations in induvdiual play or flat curve everything to fit his pre-conceived assumptions is bafflingly irritating.

He made a video proclaiming lebron's 2016 games 5-7 was the greatest three game stretch ever and backed that up by...

-> ignoring that draymond missed a game,
-> not even trying to compare it to other 3 game stretches

Let's not also forget that Kyrie had 41 points on 82 ts% in game 5. Every player is allowed help, but if someone has that type of game i don't think you can say another player carried his teammates which is often the narrative in those last 3 games.

[No-more-rings]

I wouldn't call Elgee's analysis worthless, but i did notice he seems to have sort of a blind faith in some players and their seasons and at some point people shouldn't just take his opinions as gospel.

Some examples, his season evaluations already has rookie Bird well into the MVP range and only a little bit worse than where he has someone like a peak Kobe or Dirk and ahead of many of their prime seasons. Like i know he helped the Celtics make a big turn around but i don't see anything in his actual production to suggest he was already on that kind of level. Going by that rookie Bird is better than all but one of Wade's seasons and all but 2 of Kobe's. I can't really fathom that unless you are just granting Bird the all around game that he later developed.

I know at least up through 2017 he has 2016 as KD's best season. This is baffling to me. KD was worse in both the regular season and post season than 2014, and there's really nothing he improved on aside from a series or 2 where he was a legitimately impactful defender. KD's postseason offense in OKC had real questions of reliability, and 2016 didn't answer those questions at all as far as I'm concerned.

There's a few more i could talk about but like 89 and 90 Hakeem being as good or better than 94 Hakeem, but i think you get the point. Some of his seasonal rankings i really have trouble understanding and since he didn't break each of these seasons down I'm not going to just look at it and go along with it just because he said so. I don't think anyone is 100% consistent, but some of those I'm not sure how much thought he really put into.

[Doctor MJ]

I wouldn't call Elgee's analysis worthless, but i did notice he seems to have sort of a blind faith in some players and their seasons and at some point people shouldn't just take his opinions as gospel.

Some examples, his season evaluations already has rookie Bird well into the MVP range and only a little bit worse than where he has someone like a peak Kobe or Dirk and ahead of many of their prime seasons. Like i know he helped the Celtics make a big turn around but i don't see anything in his actual production to suggest he was already on that kind of level. Going by that rookie Bird is better than all but one of Wade's seasons and all but 2 of Kobe's. I can't really fathom that unless you are just granting Bird the all around game that he later developed.

I know at least up through 2017 he has 2016 as KD's best season. This is baffling to me. KD was worse in both the regular season and post season than 2014, and there's really nothing he improved on aside from a series or 2 where he was a legitimately impactful defender. KD's postseason offense in OKC had real questions of reliability, and 2016 didn't answer those questions at all as far as I'm concerned.

There's a few more i could talk about but like 89 and 90 Hakeem being as good or better than 94 Hakeem, but i think you get the point. Some of his seasonal rankings i really have trouble understanding and since he didn't break each of these seasons down I'm not going to just look at it and go along with it just because he said so. I don't think anyone is 100% consistent, but some of those I'm not sure how much thought he really put into.

I'm not going to get into everything but I will say this:

You're note going to find complete evidence of Bird's impact by looking at box score data. I'd suggest finding some footage and watch what Bird's doing when he's not doing something that directly leads to box score tallies. While you may still conclude that he's overrated, Bird's play pops off the screen like few others in history, and this was also why you had people right in that season saying Bird was better than anyone who had played basketball before. Was rookie Bird the GOAT? No. Was he displaying the quickest basketball brain in history? Quite possibly.