RealGM Top 25 Player Poll-#14 2018-19

[deneem4]

John wall is better than kyrie

[iggymcfrack]

Jokic and Oladipo beating Kyrie is rather disturbing. How did it take this long and this guy is still not voted in?

What’s disturbing is Kyrie getting 44x as many votes as Kyle Lowry. If you swap those two players the Celtics are clearly the best team in the East and a legitimate threat against Golden State. Maybe like a 2:1 underdog. As is, I think the Celtics are significantly worse than the Raptors and need a Stevens miracle to have any shot in the Finals should they get there. I don’t think Kyrie should be getting serious consideration until Green, Gobert, Lowry, Simmons, and Towns are off the board at a minimum, and even then I’d probably take another 10 guys ahead of him.

[Jaqua92]

So Olidipo and Jocic are better than Kyrie now too?



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[lakerz12]

Jokic and Oladipo beating Kyrie is rather disturbing. How did it take this long and this guy is still not voted in?

What’s disturbing is Kyrie getting 44x as many votes as Kyle Lowry. If you swap those two players the Celtics are clearly the best team in the East and a legitimate threat against Golden State. Maybe like a 2:1 underdog. As is, I think the Celtics are significantly worse than the Raptors and need a Stevens miracle to have any shot in the Finals should they get there. I don’t think Kyrie should be getting serious consideration until Green, Gobert, Lowry, Simmons, and Towns are off the board at a minimum, and even then I’d probably take another 10 guys ahead of him.

The Celtics had significantly more Playoff success than the Raptors last year without Kyrie and Hayward.

Now you think the "Celtics are significantly worse than the Raptors"? Why?

Obviously Kawhi is a big improvement over DD, but is it a huuuge addition compared to the addition of Kyrie/Hayward and the likely progression of Tatum & Brown?

[Flinttropics33]

Kevin Love

Sent from my Z965 using Tapatalk

[Jaqua92]

Cant help but chuckle at the incorrect use of statistics to determine this list.

For the millionth time, you dont just pick stats. For advanced stats to work, you need a proper statistical analysis, one that supports and challenges your stance. As well as tests to acknowledge significances and biases. No one here does this so advanced stats shouldnt be used to measure a player..no one in this thread uses them right. Nor could I. So i dont.

With the eye test only, no stats, the consensus top 10 wont be too different.

Stop relying on stats as gospel, it isnt. Watch games.

Lebron
Steph
Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
James Harden
Giannis
Kahwi (dont know)
Westbrook
Cousins
Embiid
Chris Paul
Kyrie Irving
Butler
Gobert
Lowry


All eye test. is this top 15 of mine really that bad?

No

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Jaqua92]

When people go out kf their wah to express just how bad Kyrie is...you know they arent being objective. Kyrie is barely a top 25 player?

Calling Kyrie a top 10 player is arguable, but slightly overrating. Calling him top 15 is reasonable.

He is a top 15 player, with elite scoring skills, best handles, playing in a defensive system where his defensive flaws are hidden. Calling him top 10-15 is more than reasonable.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[lakerz12]

Cant help but chuckle at the incorrect use of statistics to determine this list.

For the millionth time, you dont just pick stats. For advanced stats to work, you need a proper statistical analysis, one that supports and challenges your stance. As well as tests to acknowledge significances and biases. No one here does this so advanced stats shouldnt be used to measure a player..no one in this thread uses them right. Nor could I. So i dont.

With the eye test only, no stats, the consensus top 10 wont be too different.

Stop relying on stats as gospel, it isnt. Watch games.

Lebron
Steph
Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
James Harden
Giannis
Kahwi (dont know)
Westbrook
Cousins
Embiid
Chris Paul
Kyrie Irving
Butler
Gobert
Lowry


All eye test. is this top 15 of mine really that bad?

No

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

As much as I agree that (advanced) stats should not be considered authoritative, especially without context and analysis, why should we trust your eye test?

How does Lowry rank higher on an eye test than Jokic, Lillard, Oladipo, Wall, Green, George, Simmons, etc.?

I don't see how I can trust an eye test that takes Lowry over so many great players...I'd even take Mitchell, Tatum, Hayward, Porzingis, and Klay over him on the eye test.

[bondom34]

Ah the eye test.

If the eye test is all you need please watch an entire NBA game and tell us the score at the end without looking at the scoreboard. Just by the eye test.

And yes, that top 15 is off. Cousins off an ACl tear and Irving don't fit.

[Saints14]

Cant help but chuckle at the incorrect use of statistics to determine this list.

For the millionth time, you dont just pick stats. For advanced stats to work, you need a proper statistical analysis, one that supports and challenges your stance. As well as tests to acknowledge significances and biases. No one here does this so advanced stats shouldnt be used to measure a player..no one in this thread uses them right. Nor could I. So i dont.

With the eye test only, no stats, the consensus top 10 wont be too different.

Stop relying on stats as gospel, it isnt. Watch games.

Lebron
Steph
Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
James Harden
Giannis
Kahwi (dont know)
Westbrook
Cousins
Embiid
Chris Paul
Kyrie Irving
Butler
Gobert
Lowry


All eye test. is this top 15 of mine really that bad?

No

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

As much as I agree that (advanced) stats should not be considered authoritative, especially without context and analysis, why should we trust your eye test?

How does Lowry rank higher on an eye test than Jokic, Lillard, Oladipo, Wall, Green, George, Simmons, etc.?

I don't see how I can trust an eye test that takes Lowry over so many great players...I'd even take Mitchell, Tatum, Hayward, Porzingis, and Klay over him on the eye test.

The biggest problem with the "eye test" is that it's mostly done by people with untrained eyes.

[Homerclease]

Cant help but chuckle at the incorrect use of statistics to determine this list.

For the millionth time, you dont just pick stats. For advanced stats to work, you need a proper statistical analysis, one that supports and challenges your stance. As well as tests to acknowledge significances and biases. No one here does this so advanced stats shouldnt be used to measure a player..no one in this thread uses them right. Nor could I. So i dont.

With the eye test only, no stats, the consensus top 10 wont be too different.

Stop relying on stats as gospel, it isnt. Watch games.

Lebron
Steph
Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
James Harden
Giannis
Kahwi (dont know)
Westbrook
Cousins
Embiid
Chris Paul
Kyrie Irving
Butler
Gobert
Lowry


All eye test. is this top 15 of mine really that bad?

No

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

As much as I agree that (advanced) stats should not be considered authoritative, especially without context and analysis, why should we trust your eye test?

How does Lowry rank higher on an eye test than Jokic, Lillard, Oladipo, Wall, Green, George, Simmons, etc.?

I don't see how I can trust an eye test that takes Lowry over so many great players...I'd even take Mitchell, Tatum, Hayward, Porzingis, and Klay over him on the eye test.

The biggest problem with the "eye test" is that it's mostly done by people with untrained eyes.

And the biggest problem with advanced statistics is that people reference them and have no idea how to apply them, how they are calculated or how they even work.

[loserX]

Every professional team has scouts *and* analysts. Neither source is complete or inherently bias-proof, but both can be extremely useful.

[Saints14]

As much as I agree that (advanced) stats should not be considered authoritative, especially without context and analysis, why should we trust your eye test?

How does Lowry rank higher on an eye test than Jokic, Lillard, Oladipo, Wall, Green, George, Simmons, etc.?

I don't see how I can trust an eye test that takes Lowry over so many great players...I'd even take Mitchell, Tatum, Hayward, Porzingis, and Klay over him on the eye test.

The biggest problem with the "eye test" is that it's mostly done by people with untrained eyes.

And the biggest problem with advanced statistics is that people reference them and have no idea how to apply them, how they are calculated or how they even work.

Very true

[a8bil]

Criminal that Klay is not yet on the list. Casual NBA fans discount on-ball defense and off-ball movement on offense.

[bgwc]

The whole nature of this is difficult as a player's value depends on what is around them. For a really bad team, adding Kyrie would be more useful than adding Draymond, Klay, or Gobert.

If you're talking about an elite team though, there are probably 5-10 players that still go ahead of him. Adding Klay to the Rockets would be way more useful than adding Kyrie for example. For elite teams, adding someone who is at least average to above average at everything is better than adding someone who is top-3 at something but severely below league average at other areas.

[youngthegiant]

Wait I'm confused, how did it go from a near tie between Jokic/Irving and then Oladipo takes the #13 spot lol.

[lakerz12]

Wait I'm confused, how did it go from a near tie between Jokic/Irving and then Oladipo takes the #13 spot lol.

Because a lot of the Jokic voters probably then moved on to Oladipo. The Kyrie voters stayed on Kyrie. He was very close to beating Oladipo (2 votes separated them).

[rcc8884]

Wait I'm confused, how did it go from a near tie between Jokic/Irving and then Oladipo takes the #13 spot lol.

All the Jokic voters went for Oladipo where there was already a significant amount of voters.

Although it doesn't seem like many outside of Celtics fans agree with me, I think Irving should be the choice here. I don't see the argument of him not being a top 20 player, let alone not a top 25 player. I think this 12-16 range is just about right for him. Although statistically he may not seem like the best choice to some, you can not deny his talent and ability to take over a game with his ability to handle the ball and score.

[iggymcfrack]

Cant help but chuckle at the incorrect use of statistics to determine this list.

For the millionth time, you dont just pick stats. For advanced stats to work, you need a proper statistical analysis, one that supports and challenges your stance. As well as tests to acknowledge significances and biases. No one here does this so advanced stats shouldnt be used to measure a player..no one in this thread uses them right. Nor could I. So i dont.

With the eye test only, no stats, the consensus top 10 wont be too different.

Stop relying on stats as gospel, it isnt. Watch games.

Lebron
Steph
Kevin Durant
Anthony Davis
James Harden
Giannis
Kahwi (dont know)
Westbrook
Cousins
Embiid
Chris Paul
Kyrie Irving
Butler
Gobert
Lowry


All eye test. is this top 15 of mine really that bad?

No

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Even if you watch 130 games a year, you’re still only seeing about 10% of the total basketball played. What if you just happen to catch a certain player when he’s having good nights or bad nights? What if you don’t happen to catch the Hornets much and you miss what Kemba Walker’s doing? Are you really gonna say that relying just on that is a better more objective way to rank players than looking at data?

Yeah, statistics aren’t perfect, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t supplement them with things you pick up watching games, but there’s just no way that you can come up with anywhere near as accurate of a picture from the eye test as from watching games unless you do like Haralabob used to and literally have 5 TVs next to each other and watch film on the ones you miss to try to catch every single one. Plus you can’t just follow the ball like 99% of these “eye test” people do for their judgment. You have to actually pay attention to how people are defending away from the ball. Who’s rotating quickly, who’s a step slow and has to have someone else cover him which leads to a basket two passes down the line, etc., etc. When Haralabob was making millions of dollars betting the NBA, he would actually mainly watch the games to pay attention to how people are defending and let the stats in his models judge the offense since that was pretty well covered anyway. I promise none of the “Kyrie >>>> Oladipo, Draymond, and Gobert crew” are spending hundreds of hours analyzing defense.

If you’re not doing that, then yes, looking at which players make their team better when they’re on the floor as judged objectively by unbiased data can be a very useful tool. These formulas aren’t as complicated and bewildering as they’re made out to be. They basically just look at how well the team performs with a player on the floor and then use a regression to adjust for their teammates. It’s really quite simple. It’s only “advanced” compared to the box scores that were printed in the newspaper in 1975.

If one player consistently makes his team a lot better when he’s on the floor and another doesn’t whether you adjust for teammates or not, then hey maybe the guy who keeps making his team better is a better player! Rocket science, right?

The lack of understanding basically comes from people trying to tear down the formulas to support their own views which came about largely from watching who put the ball in the basket without paying attention to what happened anywhere else on the floor. “I saw Kyrie put the ball in the basket a bunch, especially in the only 3 games I actually remember from the 2016 seasons and he was really good at it so he must be Top 15! Any analysis that says otherwise is full of ****!” Never mind that in 8 seasons, his team has consistently been only impacted a small amount whether he plays or not.

It’s funny too how you project about how other people can’t look at stats objectively because that’s how you are. Personally, Draymond Green’s my least favorite player in the league. When I’m watching games for enjoyment I root against him more than anyone in the league. However I’ve still been able to see that he’s very good at what he does. Due in part to what I’ve seen with my eyes, but in larger part due to what I’ve seen in the data, I had him ranked around #14 or #15 in the league. After seeing some more detailed data about what he’s done in the postseason during this very project, I’ve decided that was too low. Now I would rank him probably more like #10 or #11 and I’m currently supporting him in the vote.

If you approach this kind of exercise as just advocate for your guy and ignore anything to the contrary and that’s what’s fun for you, then of course you’re never gonna get anything out of the stats you look at. If on the other hand, you find it enjoyable to try to learn as much about the players as possible and rank them objectively for your own amusement, then you can pick up a lot. Personally I fall into the second category. I would much rather have a lively exchange of ideas where both sides learn from each other and come to a better understanding than I would argue in favor of some vague memories of watching games from previous seasons. To each their own though.

[iggymcfrack]

Wait I'm confused, how did it go from a near tie between Jokic/Irving and then Oladipo takes the #13 spot lol.

All the Jokic voters went for Oladipo where there was already a significant amount of voters.

Although it doesn't seem like many outside of Celtics fans agree with me, I think Irving should be the choice here. I don't see the argument of him not being a top 20 player, let alone not a top 25 player. I think this 12-16 range is just about right for him. Although statistically he may not seem like the best choice to some, you can not deny his talent and ability to take over a game with his ability to handle the ball and score.

The argument is that he’s very injury prone and his defense severely hampers his overall impact and this is shown by his on/off data, impact stats, and how the team performs when he’s injured. He missed 20+ games in both 2016 and 2018 and when he was hurt, both times the team had near identical records with him in the lineup or out. Meanwhile, the Jazz had a losing record with Gobert out last year and still managed to finish the season with the 5 seed due to the incredible record they put together in the games he was in the lineup. Over Kyrie’s career in the postseason, his teams have been 1 point better when he’s on the floor vs. the bench. Over Draymond Green’s career in the postseason, his teams have been 13.5 points better with him on the floor than the bench.

Several formulas have been derived to try to isolate teammate effects and none of them are perfect, but they seem to pretty consistently show Kyrie outside the Top 30 in this kind of impact year after year after year. 82 games isn’t much of a sample when dealing with lineups where certain players will share the floor a lot so people will look at occasional wonky data where someone like Tyus Jones will rank higher than he should due to having even less minutes to analyze than a starter and want to throw out impact stats altogether, but if you start looking at multi-year samples, it’s kinda surprising how much sense they make and how closely they align with the eye test.

The fact that Kyrie’s outside the Top 30 not just once in one formula, but every single year in every ranking I’ve seen makes me think he’s really not having that much impact. And the formulas aren’t even disputing his offensive skill. RPM, the formula I trust most generally has him as a Top 10-15 offensive player. It’s just that those defensive shortcomings are enough to make a Top 15 offensive player only fall in the 30-40 range overall.