Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[sansterre]

Would you mind sharing the way you compute Post-Season SRS?

My model seems to undervalue the Celtics compared to yours :

Code: Select all

Season         sansterre       s0ciety        Difference
1957           8.67            6.70           1.97
1958           8.69            6.14           2.55
1959           10.33           9.66           0.67
1960           9.28            8.03           1.25
1961           13.94           14.06         -0.12
1962           8.53            7.02           1.51
1963           5.57            4.10           1.47
1964           10.83           10.62          0.21
1965           8.78            7.63           1.15
1966           8.60            8.26           0.34
1967           2.40            1.90           0.50
1968           7.10            7.07           0.03
1969           9.14            7.75           1.39


Sorry man, I should have mentioned. I'm using a weird formula that updates regular season SRS as more data comes in. So a team that plays the '01 Lakers in the playoffs isn't credited with playing a decent regular season team, they're credited with playing a decent regular season team that turned into a juggernaut in the playoffs and so is somewhere between. It's a major component in my Top 100 Teams project (and the exact formula is in my master list post).

So your numbers are absolutely correct (I infer) if you're working off of only regular season SRS for establishing strength of schedule.

Out of curiosity, how do you both adjust for strength of schedule in the playoffs? Do you adjust margin-of-victory per game to the opponent's (regular-season vs post-season) SRS? What is the exact equation?

I know you use a factor 7 to weigh play-off games more heavily sansterre, but I was wondering how to do a regular SRS calculation. It seems a bit circular to me intuitively based on what I read from sports-reference:

Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I won't pretend to understand *at all* how regular season SRS is calculated.

I'm cheating and treating playoff SRS more like ELO. So two teams play each other, and as a result of the number of games / regular Season SRS / MoV a new SRS is generated for both teams. The team that advanced now uses this new SRS number for the calculation against the next team.

'16 Cavs (+5.5 SRS) face '16 Pistons (+0.4 SRS) and win by +8.5 ppg in 4: new SRS = +6.34
'16 Raptors (+4.1 SRS) face '16 Pacers (+1.6 SRS) and win by -1.4 ppg in 7: new SRS = +2.64
'16 Heat (+1.5 SRS) face '16 Hornets (+2.4 SRS) and win by +8.8 ppg in 7: new SRS = +5.11
'16 Hawks (+3.5 SRS) face '16 Celtics (+2.8 SRS) and win by +6.7 ppg in 6: new SRS = +5.54

'16 Cavs (+6.34 SRS) face '16 Hawks (+5.54 SRS) and win by +12.5 ppg in 4: new SRS = +8.71
'16 Raptors (+2.64 SRS) face '16 Heat (+5.11 SRS) and win by +2.5 ppg in 7: new SRS = +3.99

'16 Cavs (+8.71 SRS) face '16 Raptors (+3.99 SRS) and win by +15.5 ppg in 6: new SRS = +11.23

Hopefully the above demonstrates how each round you earn a new SRS, which is used in the calculation for the subsequent round. The upside, it's pretty easy to calculate. Downside, there's no retroactive credit - if you get smoked by a team that turned out to be awesome but hadn't shown it yet, you're penalized unfairly.

[WestGOAT]

Sorry man, I should have mentioned. I'm using a weird formula that updates regular season SRS as more data comes in. So a team that plays the '01 Lakers in the playoffs isn't credited with playing a decent regular season team, they're credited with playing a decent regular season team that turned into a juggernaut in the playoffs and so is somewhere between. It's a major component in my Top 100 Teams project (and the exact formula is in my master list post).

So your numbers are absolutely correct (I infer) if you're working off of only regular season SRS for establishing strength of schedule.

Out of curiosity, how do you both adjust for strength of schedule in the playoffs? Do you adjust margin-of-victory per game to the opponent's (regular-season vs post-season) SRS? What is the exact equation?

I know you use a factor 7 to weigh play-off games more heavily sansterre, but I was wondering how to do a regular SRS calculation. It seems a bit circular to me intuitively based on what I read from sports-reference:

Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I won't pretend to understand *at all* how regular season SRS is calculated.

I'm cheating and treating playoff SRS more like ELO. So two teams play each other, and as a result of the number of games / regular Season SRS / MoV a new SRS is generated for both teams. The team that advanced now uses this new SRS number for the calculation against the next team.

'16 Cavs (+5.5 SRS) face '16 Pistons (+0.4 SRS) and win by +8.5 ppg in 4: new SRS = +6.34

I think I follow your calculations; it's basically the following right:
82 regular-season games
4 post-season games in this series
7 to weigh play-off games more heavily

MOV adjusted to opponent SRS: +8.5+0.4 = 8.9
Updated SRS: (82*5.5 + 8.9*4*7) / (82+4*7) = 6.366..

More in less in line with your +6.34. Correct?

Without the "7" adjustment it would be +5.69.

[sansterre]

Out of curiosity, how do you both adjust for strength of schedule in the playoffs? Do you adjust margin-of-victory per game to the opponent's (regular-season vs post-season) SRS? What is the exact equation?

I know you use a factor 7 to weigh play-off games more heavily sansterre, but I was wondering how to do a regular SRS calculation. It seems a bit circular to me intuitively based on what I read from sports-reference:

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I won't pretend to understand *at all* how regular season SRS is calculated.

I'm cheating and treating playoff SRS more like ELO. So two teams play each other, and as a result of the number of games / regular Season SRS / MoV a new SRS is generated for both teams. The team that advanced now uses this new SRS number for the calculation against the next team.

'16 Cavs (+5.5 SRS) face '16 Pistons (+0.4 SRS) and win by +8.5 ppg in 4: new SRS = +6.34

I think I follow your calculations; it's basically the following right:
82 regular-season games
4 post-season games in this series
7 to weigh play-off games more heavily

MOV adjusted to opponent SRS: +8.5+0.4 = 8.9
Updated SRS: (82*5.5 + 8.9*4*7) / (82+4*7) = 6.366..

More in less in line with your +6.34. Correct?

Without the "7" adjustment it would be +5.69.

Absolutely sir. The '16 Cavs regular season SRS was +5.45, so my rounding is why there was a difference when you ran the numbers.

[eminence]

I won't pretend to understand *at all* how regular season SRS is calculated.

SRS isn't too complicated: It's just MOV+SOS. For example the 2006-07 Spurs won games by an average of 8.43 points per game and played a schedule with opponents that were 0.08 points worse than average, giving them an SRS of 8.35. For an NBA regular season it very rarely separates from MOV in a meaningful way.

[WestGOAT]

I won't pretend to understand *at all* how regular season SRS is calculated.

SRS isn't too complicated: It's just MOV+SOS. For example the 2006-07 Spurs won games by an average of 8.43 points per game and played a schedule with opponents that were 0.08 points worse than average, giving them an SRS of 8.35. For an NBA regular season it very rarely separates from MOV in a meaningful way.

The calculations seem circular to me, MOV for Spurs is 8.43 and when you adjust for Strength-of-Schedule, which is basically the opponent's average SRS, then you have the Spurs SRS, but how do you calculate the opponent's SRS?

The ratings keep changing untill they reach an "equilibirum" somehow:

Uh oh! Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing. When that happens, you know you've arrived at the solution.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I was just wondering what formula/calculations you need to exactly apply.

[eminence]

I won't pretend to understand *at all* how regular season SRS is calculated.

SRS isn't too complicated: It's just MOV+SOS. For example the 2006-07 Spurs won games by an average of 8.43 points per game and played a schedule with opponents that were 0.08 points worse than average, giving them an SRS of 8.35. For an NBA regular season it very rarely separates from MOV in a meaningful way.

The calculations seem circular to me, MOV for Spurs is 8.43 and when you adjust for Strength-of-Schedule, which is basically the opponent's average SRS, then you have the Spurs SRS, but how do you calculate the opponent's SRS?

The ratings keep changing untill they reach an "equilibirum" somehow:

Uh oh! Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing. When that happens, you know you've arrived at the solution.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I was just wondering what formula/calculations you need to exactly apply.

Oh yeah, it's all in the matrix, can't just do one team at a time.

I wouldn't really recommend doing it, MOV is equally as useful in the modern NBA.

[Doctor MJ]

I won't pretend to understand *at all* how regular season SRS is calculated.

SRS isn't too complicated: It's just MOV+SOS. For example the 2006-07 Spurs won games by an average of 8.43 points per game and played a schedule with opponents that were 0.08 points worse than average, giving them an SRS of 8.35. For an NBA regular season it very rarely separates from MOV in a meaningful way.

The calculations seem circular to me, MOV for Spurs is 8.43 and when you adjust for Strength-of-Schedule, which is basically the opponent's average SRS, then you have the Spurs SRS, but how do you calculate the opponent's SRS?

The ratings keep changing untill they reach an "equilibirum" somehow:

Uh oh! Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing. When that happens, you know you've arrived at the solution.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I was just wondering what formula/calculations you need to exactly apply.

Are you coder? What we're talking about here is basically a while loop - keep going in circles until the exit condition is reached. In this case the exit condition pertains to how much the weights are still changing. Keep going until it settles down.

If you're wondering how things "magically" reach equilibrium, well I think the reality is that you're talking about waiting for the change to fall below some threshold and perhaps waiting for to stay there a certain number of iterations as opposed to truly waiting for change to reach zero.

Also, if you're doing stuff in a spreadsheet it's not the most conducive to loops, but there are things like Solver add-ons you can use.

Hope that helps.

[Doctor MJ]

SRS isn't too complicated: It's just MOV+SOS. For example the 2006-07 Spurs won games by an average of 8.43 points per game and played a schedule with opponents that were 0.08 points worse than average, giving them an SRS of 8.35. For an NBA regular season it very rarely separates from MOV in a meaningful way.

The calculations seem circular to me, MOV for Spurs is 8.43 and when you adjust for Strength-of-Schedule, which is basically the opponent's average SRS, then you have the Spurs SRS, but how do you calculate the opponent's SRS?

The ratings keep changing untill they reach an "equilibirum" somehow:

Uh oh! Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing. When that happens, you know you've arrived at the solution.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I was just wondering what formula/calculations you need to exactly apply.

Oh yeah, it's all in the matrix, can't just do one team at a time.

I wouldn't really recommend doing it, MOV is equally as useful in the modern NBA.

When you're doing playoff analysis, I do think it makes sense to do individual SRS estimates based on who they played in the playoffs, and you could do that either by using an approach similar to their RS SRS - which would require the "matrix" approach you speak of, or by just taking RS SRS' as absolutes and avoid the recursive algorithm.

Both approaches are useful, neither is perfect if for no other reason than the team in November is not the same team in April even if it's the same players.

[Clyde Frazier]

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.

You may have seen, but just remembered, ElGee gave you a shoutout on twitter!

Read on Twitter

Will definitely be checking out the series, looks great.

[eminence]

Oh yeah, it's all in the matrix, can't just do one team at a time.

I wouldn't really recommend doing it, MOV is equally as useful in the modern NBA.

When you're doing playoff analysis, I do think it makes sense to do individual SRS estimates based on who they played in the playoffs, and you could do that either by using an approach similar to their RS SRS - which would require the "matrix" approach you speak of, or by just taking RS SRS' as absolutes and avoid the recursive algorithm.

Both approaches are useful, neither is perfect if for no other reason than the team in November is not the same team in April even if it's the same players.

Oh yeah, still do 'relative' playoff adjustments for sure, but you can just as easily do that using MOV as SRS in the second manner you suggested.

[s0ciety]

Okay, I can supply data to address the following:

1) The Bill Russell Celtics regular season SRS vs Postseason SRS
2) The Standard Deviations of SRS through NBA History

Since it seems like these are topics of discussion.

1957: RSRS +4.78, PSRS +8.67
1958: RSRS +5.02, PSRS +8.69
1959: RSRS +5.84, PSRS +10.33
1960: RSRS +7.62, PSRS +9.28
1961: RSRS +4.94, PSRS +13.94
1962: RSRS +8.26, PSRS +8.53
1963: RSRS +6.38, PSRS +5.57
1964: RSRS +6.93, PSRS +10.83
1965: RSRS +7.46, PSRS +8.78
1966: RSRS +4.34, PSRS +8.60
1967: RSRS +7.24, PSRS +2.40
1968: RSRS +3.87, PSRS +7.10
1969: RSRS +5.35, PSRS +9.14

Would you mind sharing the way you compute Post-Season SRS?

My model seems to undervalue the Celtics compared to yours :

Code: Select all

Season         sansterre       s0ciety        Difference
1957           8.67            6.70           1.97
1958           8.69            6.14           2.55
1959           10.33           9.66           0.67
1960           9.28            8.03           1.25
1961           13.94           14.06         -0.12
1962           8.53            7.02           1.51
1963           5.57            4.10           1.47
1964           10.83           10.62          0.21
1965           8.78            7.63           1.15
1966           8.60            8.26           0.34
1967           2.40            1.90           0.50
1968           7.10            7.07           0.03
1969           9.14            7.75           1.39


Sorry man, I should have mentioned. I'm using a weird formula that updates regular season SRS as more data comes in. So a team that plays the '01 Lakers in the playoffs isn't credited with playing a decent regular season team, they're credited with playing a decent regular season team that turned into a juggernaut in the playoffs and so is somewhere between. It's a major component in my Top 100 Teams project (and the exact formula is in my master list post).

So your numbers are absolutely correct (I infer) if you're working off of only regular season SRS for establishing strength of schedule.

Thank you!
Saw it on your other post.

[s0ciety]

Would you mind sharing the way you compute Post-Season SRS?

My model seems to undervalue the Celtics compared to yours :

Code: Select all

Season         sansterre       s0ciety        Difference
1957           8.67            6.70           1.97
1958           8.69            6.14           2.55
1959           10.33           9.66           0.67
1960           9.28            8.03           1.25
1961           13.94           14.06         -0.12
1962           8.53            7.02           1.51
1963           5.57            4.10           1.47
1964           10.83           10.62          0.21
1965           8.78            7.63           1.15
1966           8.60            8.26           0.34
1967           2.40            1.90           0.50
1968           7.10            7.07           0.03
1969           9.14            7.75           1.39


Sorry man, I should have mentioned. I'm using a weird formula that updates regular season SRS as more data comes in. So a team that plays the '01 Lakers in the playoffs isn't credited with playing a decent regular season team, they're credited with playing a decent regular season team that turned into a juggernaut in the playoffs and so is somewhere between. It's a major component in my Top 100 Teams project (and the exact formula is in my master list post).

So your numbers are absolutely correct (I infer) if you're working off of only regular season SRS for establishing strength of schedule.

Out of curiosity, how do you both adjust for strength of schedule in the playoffs? Do you adjust margin-of-victory per game to the opponent's (regular-season vs post-season) SRS? What is the exact equation?

I know you use a factor 7 to weigh play-off games more heavily sansterre, but I was wondering how to do a regular SRS calculation. It seems a bit circular to me intuitively based on what I read from sports-reference:

Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

Mine is pretty straight-forward, you only really need a team Playoffs MOV + its opponents Regular Season SRS.

I will use the 2020 Lakers as an example :

Lakers Playoffs MOV = 6.80

The Lakers played :

- The Blazers 5 times (-0.61 SRS)
- The Rockets 5 times (3.13 SRS)
- The Nuggets 5 times (2.35 SRS)
- The Heat 6 times (2.59 SRS)

Thus, the full formula looks like :

6.80+(((-0.61*5)+(3.13*5)+(2.35*5)+(2.59*6))/21) = 8.70 SRS


The main issue with it is that it doesn't adjust for your opponent actual Playoffs level, it assumes that the opponent is playing at its season long generated SRS.

[70sFan]

I just want to say that I just watched Kareem video and even though I and Ben probably don't agree with our conclusion, it's excellent breakdown. I won't talk about details, but it's definitely worth watching

[WestGOAT]

SRS isn't too complicated: It's just MOV+SOS. For example the 2006-07 Spurs won games by an average of 8.43 points per game and played a schedule with opponents that were 0.08 points worse than average, giving them an SRS of 8.35. For an NBA regular season it very rarely separates from MOV in a meaningful way.

The calculations seem circular to me, MOV for Spurs is 8.43 and when you adjust for Strength-of-Schedule, which is basically the opponent's average SRS, then you have the Spurs SRS, but how do you calculate the opponent's SRS?

The ratings keep changing untill they reach an "equilibirum" somehow:

Uh oh! Everyone else's ratings just changed again, so we've got to run through the same procedure again. And again. And again. And eventually the numbers stop changing. When that happens, you know you've arrived at the solution.

From: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

I was just wondering what formula/calculations you need to exactly apply.

Are you coder? What we're talking about here is basically a while loop - keep going in circles until the exit condition is reached. In this case the exit condition pertains to how much the weights are still changing. Keep going until it settles down.

If you're wondering how things "magically" reach equilibrium, well I think the reality is that you're talking about waiting for the change to fall below some threshold and perhaps waiting for to stay there a certain number of iterations as opposed to truly waiting for change to reach zero.

Also, if you're doing stuff in a spreadsheet it's not the most conducive to loops, but there are things like Solver add-ons you can use.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the explanation, it helped for sure. I wouldn't call myself coder, I have been doing some self-studying to do data analysis with Python and associated libraries. I haven't implemented my own algorithms yet, but I'm always curious to (try to) understand how stuff works under the hood.

[Odinn21]

I just want to say that I just watched Kareem video and even though I and Ben probably don't agree with our conclusion, it's excellent breakdown. I won't talk about details, but it's definitely worth watching

I think Taylor has to address (ideally solve) the injury effects a player can have on his +/- driven numbers. Walton's wowyr is skyrocketed by the fact that Walton missed so many games. The similar thing applies for Garnett in Boston.

Taylor mentioned that Abdul-Jabbar having to carry such an offensive load did not help with his defensive efforts. But he talked about it too short, it almost looked like he just brushed it off quickly and kept on stating what could've been done different and/or better. Also, he failed to mention that the Lakers did not have great defensive help / construction either. It wasn't just on offense.
I want to believe that Taylor managed to get his hands on the '70s games more than I did and he watched way more than me. But it feels like he didn't. I'm saying this because he points out the early '70s as Abdul-Jabbar's defensive peak but doesn't mention why. There are some possessions on the video Taylor basically criticize Abdul-Jabbar for not being more stationary / not holding his ground and being more reactionary / twitchy. Abdul-Jabbar did not do those things while playing next to Dandridge. He chose to keep his feet solidify his position, not being reactionary. When he got to LA in '75, after the All-Star break, Abdul-Jabbar started to become more reactionary to a possible pass to a cutting player or a spot up shooter because the best thing that could prevent those passes was his wingspan. Not the perimeter defense the Lakers had. You can see that Abdul-Jabbar becoming more stationary once again with Jamaal Wilkes presence in '78-79 season.
His points about Abdul-Jabbar's off-ball movements of his man were so on point though. That's the thing what separated Abdul-Jabbar from defensive bigs like Ewing and Robinson.

I also think he could do better job at explaining Abdul-Jabbar's rebounding performance. He's not wrong or inaccurate. It's just that Abdul-Jabbar was able to go toe to toe with Wilt Chamberlain and Moses Malone and he clearly outrebounded any other C matchups he had in the playoffs in the '70s. It's like prime Duncan scoring 21 per game in a regular season game 25+ per game after playoffs 1st round. He could do it on a more regular basis, he didn't. But he still did when it was necessary.

I agree that it was an excellent breakdown. These are the points I think Taylor could've done slightly better but it's already more and better than good.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I just want to say that I just watched Kareem video and even though I and Ben probably don't agree with our conclusion, it's excellent breakdown. I won't talk about details, but it's definitely worth watching

I think Taylor has to address (ideally solve) the injury effects a player can have on his +/- driven numbers. Walton's wowyr is skyrocketed by the fact that Walton missed so many games. The similar thing applies for Garnett in Boston.

Taylor mentioned that Abdul-Jabbar having to carry such an offensive load did not help with his defensive efforts. But he talked about it too short, it almost looked like he just brushed it off quickly and kept on stating what could've been done different and/or better. Also, he failed to mention that the Lakers did not have great defensive help / construction either. It wasn't just on offense.
I want to believe that Taylor managed to get his hands on the '70s games more than I did and he watched way more than me. But it feels like he didn't. I'm saying this because he points out the early '70s as Abdul-Jabbar's defensive peak but doesn't mention why. There are some possessions on the video Taylor basically criticize Abdul-Jabbar for not being more stationary / not holding his ground and being more reactionary / twitchy. Abdul-Jabbar did not do those things while playing next to Dandridge. He chose to keep his feet solidify his position, not being reactionary. When he got to LA in '75, after the All-Star break, Abdul-Jabbar started to become more reactionary to a possible pass to a cutting player or a spot up shooter because the best thing that could prevent those passes was his wingspan. Not the perimeter defense the Lakers had. You can see that Abdul-Jabbar becoming more stationary once again with Jamaal Wilkes presence in '78-79 season.
His points about Abdul-Jabbar's off-ball movements of his man were so on point though. That's the thing what separated Abdul-Jabbar from defensive bigs like Ewing and Robinson.

I also think he could do better job at explaining Abdul-Jabbar's rebounding performance. He's not wrong or inaccurate. It's just that Abdul-Jabbar was able to go toe to toe with Wilt Chamberlain and Moses Malone and he clearly outrebounded any other C matchups he had in the playoffs in the '70s. It's like prime Duncan scoring 21 per game in a regular season game 25+ per game after playoffs 1st round. He could do it on a more regular basis, he didn't. But he still did when it was necessary.

I agree that it was an excellent breakdown. These are the points I think Taylor could've done slightly better but it's already more and better than good.

He said in the video that the Milwaukee Kareem had younger legs under him which is why he believes he peaked earlier. That could be interpreted as his motor being a bit higher, and or just being faster to react to a shot.

[Djoker]

Watching Milawaukee Kareem in the 1972 WCF (I've seen footage from Game 3/4/6) left me convinced that his motor in the early 70's was terrific and much better than later on. He was a hound dog on the glass and Wilt is the one who actually struggled to keep Jabbar off the boards not vice versa.

[Odinn21]

He said in the video that the Milwaukee Kareem had younger legs under him which is why he believes he peaked earlier. That could be interpreted as his motor being a bit higher, and or just being faster to react to a shot.

I agree with his motor being higher in Milwaukee. But that's not the only reason for some (many of defensive) his assessments.

BTW, I wish he had postseason resilience in his explanations. I'm not sure if he has it in his process, I think he's more focused on shift in Rtg numbers than per game / per 75 numbers, and with postseason +/- data being already problematic with too small sample size, I'm not sure his approach is entirely accurate. At least the way he present his thoughts / method. I guess it'll be a factor in the rankings but I'd like to see that in the videos.

[frica]

I also think he could do better job at explaining Abdul-Jabbar's rebounding performance. He's not wrong or inaccurate. It's just that Abdul-Jabbar was able to go toe to toe with Wilt Chamberlain and Moses Malone and he clearly outrebounded any other C matchups he had in the playoffs in the '70s.

Wes Unseld actually outrebounded Jabbar in the playoffs:

https://stathead.com/basketball/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1=abdulka01&player_id2=unselwe01

[Odinn21]

I also think he could do better job at explaining Abdul-Jabbar's rebounding performance. He's not wrong or inaccurate. It's just that Abdul-Jabbar was able to go toe to toe with Wilt Chamberlain and Moses Malone and he clearly outrebounded any other C matchups he had in the playoffs in the '70s.

Wes Unseld actually outrebounded Jabbar in the playoffs:

https://stathead.com/basketball/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1=abdulka01&player_id2=unselwe01

Yeah.
When I was looking over the matchups Abdul-Jabbar had, I saw him and Unseld went toe to toe, then forgot that by the time I reached 1981.

19.0 to 18.5 is hardly a significant difference, but yeah I should have Unseld in there as well.