Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
TheLand13 wrote:ZombieKilla wrote:TheLand13 wrote:
It’s stupid takes like this that make me wonder what someone’s thought process is going into a post.
Stupid take?
Please list all of the championships LeBron won before he joined a super team.
Please list all the championships Michael Jordan won before Horace Grant joined his team.
alevirfe wrote:Shaq/KD/KG/CP3 are definitely too low
Shaq to me is a top 5 player all time. Durant easily is top 10. KG/CP3 are top 15 players easily
to make room, I would move some of the older generation dudes, Kobe, and even Duncan a few spots
curious, who you guys got between KD & Duncan? Shaq & Duncan? I love Timmy and respect the hell out of everything he accomplished, but from a talent perspective I take both guys before him. same exact thing if you replace Timmy with Kobe in my questions above
dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:Can someone proffer a reasonable argument for why Reggie Miller should be ranked higher than George Gervin?
If we're talking NBA only, there's roughly a 600 game gap. Reggie doubles the ice man's nba career VORP and then some. Nearly 100 more winshare.
That seems like a pretty easy one to argue to be honest.
-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:Can someone proffer a reasonable argument for why Reggie Miller should be ranked higher than George Gervin?
If we're talking NBA only, there's roughly a 600 game gap. Reggie doubles the ice man's nba career VORP and then some. Nearly 100 more winshare.
That seems like a pretty easy one to argue to be honest.
Miller only doubles+ Gervin's VORP if you leave out the latter's ABA years (as you noted), but that's moot for me, because I'm not particularly swayed by cumulative metrics such as VORP and win shares; Miller played more games, but his stats, averages, and honors are still dwarfed by Gervin's.
I'd bet that Miller's higher ranking is largely about a handful of memorable playoff games and his higher-profile optics.
dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
If we're talking NBA only, there's roughly a 600 game gap. Reggie doubles the ice man's nba career VORP and then some. Nearly 100 more winshare.
That seems like a pretty easy one to argue to be honest.
Miller only doubles+ Gervin's VORP if you leave out the latter's ABA years (as you noted), but that's moot for me, because I'm not particularly swayed by cumulative metrics such as VORP and win shares; Miller played more games, but his stats, averages, and honors are still dwarfed by Gervin's.
I'd bet that Miller's higher ranking is largely about a handful of memorable playoff games and his higher-profile optics.
People rank players differently. If we're discussing NBA only, I have Million unquestionably over Gervin because he was a high impact player for FAR longer. His career was simply massively more valuable than Gervins. The problem with accolades is that Miller was criminally underrated when he played.
As for who was better at their best? Again...it's not clear that it was Gervin.
Peak VORP 5.8 vs 4.9
Peak WS 12.5 vs 12.0
Both favor Miller as well.
Team success which is always a difficult thing to look at, but Miller made 6 conference finals to Gervin's 2. Miller's playoff stats were consistently better than his regular season stats conversely Gervin's were pretty much flat though he had a few really epic runs.
Gervin was your more traditional ball dominate scorer while Miller was the often undervalued off ball master before Curry. I don't have any issue with choosing either player as the better one, but don't say there isn't a case for Miller over Gervin. There isn't just a case, it's a very strong one. You don't have to agree, but I can't imagine someone can't look at the stats and their success and not realize that Miller was much better than his accolades (the man wasn't on an allstar team while BJ Armstrong made it for crying out loud).
-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:
Miller only doubles+ Gervin's VORP if you leave out the latter's ABA years (as you noted), but that's moot for me, because I'm not particularly swayed by cumulative metrics such as VORP and win shares; Miller played more games, but his stats, averages, and honors are still dwarfed by Gervin's.
I'd bet that Miller's higher ranking is largely about a handful of memorable playoff games and his higher-profile optics.
People rank players differently. If we're discussing NBA only, I have Million unquestionably over Gervin because he was a high impact player for FAR longer. His career was simply massively more valuable than Gervins. The problem with accolades is that Miller was criminally underrated when he played.
As for who was better at their best? Again...it's not clear that it was Gervin.
Peak VORP 5.8 vs 4.9
Peak WS 12.5 vs 12.0
Both favor Miller as well.
Team success which is always a difficult thing to look at, but Miller made 6 conference finals to Gervin's 2. Miller's playoff stats were consistently better than his regular season stats conversely Gervin's were pretty much flat though he had a few really epic runs.
Gervin was your more traditional ball dominate scorer while Miller was the often undervalued off ball master before Curry. I don't have any issue with choosing either player as the better one, but don't say there isn't a case for Miller over Gervin. There isn't just a case, it's a very strong one. You don't have to agree, but I can't imagine someone can't look at the stats and their success and not realize that Miller was much better than his accolades (the man wasn't on an allstar team while BJ Armstrong made it for crying out loud).
No, I can't say there's no case; it looks like it comes down to which metrics one finds more relevant.
As for VORP, I acknowledge that the numbers on the high end favor Miller, but taking each players total VORP and dividing it by games played, Gervin's is slightly higher. As for win shares, it's a somewhat dubious stat and my understanding is that almost nobody involved in basketball analytics gives it much regard anymore.
As to team success, as you acknowledged, it's difficult to speak on, but it's not overly-significant to me when the issue is individual player evaluation. And while it's true that Miller's playoff numbers increase more than Gervin's do, Gervin's numbers still totally outclass Miller's.
You may be right that Miller was underrated when he played, but I can't speak to the what-ifs; the fact is that Gervin's resume' does trump Miller's, regardless whether any of us thinks it should.
I think there's also a tendency toward era recency bias in championing Miller as underrated; it's certainly true that he would do FAR better in this era of basketball than the one he played in, but what does tat tell us? Who's to say this is the era all other eras should be measured against just because it's the most recent one?
John Murdoch wrote:KG getting disrespected ...if u gave him the same infrastructure as Duncan with the Spurs/Pop he would have performed on par or better in terms of titles . Im glad to see West, Baylor, Oscar start to slip on these all time list...also Dr J seems high. I dont think i could ever allow Giannis to pass Curry on this list
ZombieKilla wrote:TheLand13 wrote:ZombieKilla wrote:
Stupid take?
Please list all of the championships LeBron won before he joined a super team.
Please list all the championships Michael Jordan won before Horace Grant joined his team.
Horace... Grant?
That's what you're going with?
You would have been better off just not replying.
TheLand13 wrote:ZombieKilla wrote:TheLand13 wrote:
Please list all the championships Michael Jordan won before Horace Grant joined his team.
Horace... Grant?
That's what you're going with?
You would have been better off just not replying.
Yes, that is what I'm going with.
You are making the insanely idiotic argument that LeBron could have never won without superteams, and your way of backing that up is "how many did he win before he formed a superteam?"
So I'm going to do the same. Tell me how many championships Michael Jordan won before Horace Grant joined his team. Answer the question.
ZombieKilla wrote:TheLand13 wrote:ZombieKilla wrote:
Horace... Grant?
That's what you're going with?
You would have been better off just not replying.
Yes, that is what I'm going with.
You are making the insanely idiotic argument that LeBron could have never won without superteams, and your way of backing that up is "how many did he win before he formed a superteam?"
So I'm going to do the same. Tell me how many championships Michael Jordan won before Horace Grant joined his team. Answer the question.
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Calm down Junior.
Mommy's gonna make you sign off and go to bed early if you keep acting up.
TheLand13 wrote:ZombieKilla wrote:TheLand13 wrote:
Yes, that is what I'm going with.
You are making the insanely idiotic argument that LeBron could have never won without superteams, and your way of backing that up is "how many did he win before he formed a superteam?"
So I'm going to do the same. Tell me how many championships Michael Jordan won before Horace Grant joined his team. Answer the question.
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Calm down Junior.
Mommy's gonna make you sign off and go to bed early if you keep acting up.
Okay. Continue to dodge the question after realizing how stupid your argument is. That makes this easier for me.
Also, my mom is dead. Bringing parents into the equation because you know you’ve been duped is a pretty cowardly and sad retort.
ZombieKilla wrote:TheLand13 wrote:ZombieKilla wrote:
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Calm down Junior.
Mommy's gonna make you sign off and go to bed early if you keep acting up.
Okay. Continue to dodge the question after realizing how stupid your argument is. That makes this easier for me.
Also, my mom is dead. Bringing parents into the equation because you know you’ve been duped is a pretty cowardly and sad retort.
Sure, Jan.
You’re the ***** that thinks ‘11 points per game’ Horace Grant is the reason that Michael Jordan won championships.
dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
People rank players differently. If we're discussing NBA only, I have Million unquestionably over Gervin because he was a high impact player for FAR longer. His career was simply massively more valuable than Gervins. The problem with accolades is that Miller was criminally underrated when he played.
As for who was better at their best? Again...it's not clear that it was Gervin.
Peak VORP 5.8 vs 4.9
Peak WS 12.5 vs 12.0
Both favor Miller as well.
Team success which is always a difficult thing to look at, but Miller made 6 conference finals to Gervin's 2. Miller's playoff stats were consistently better than his regular season stats conversely Gervin's were pretty much flat though he had a few really epic runs.
Gervin was your more traditional ball dominate scorer while Miller was the often undervalued off ball master before Curry. I don't have any issue with choosing either player as the better one, but don't say there isn't a case for Miller over Gervin. There isn't just a case, it's a very strong one. You don't have to agree, but I can't imagine someone can't look at the stats and their success and not realize that Miller was much better than his accolades (the man wasn't on an allstar team while BJ Armstrong made it for crying out loud).
No, I can't say there's no case; it looks like it comes down to which metrics one finds more relevant.
As for VORP, I acknowledge that the numbers on the high end favor Miller, but taking each players total VORP and dividing it by games played, Gervin's is slightly higher. As for win shares, it's a somewhat dubious stat and my understanding is that almost nobody involved in basketball analytics gives it much regard anymore.
As to team success, as you acknowledged, it's difficult to speak on, but it's not overly-significant to me when the issue is individual player evaluation. And while it's true that Miller's playoff numbers increase more than Gervin's do, Gervin's numbers still totally outclass Miller's.
You may be right that Miller was underrated when he played, but I can't speak to the what-ifs; the fact is that Gervin's resume' does trump Miller's, regardless whether any of us thinks it should.
I think there's also a tendency toward era recency bias in championing Miller as underrated; it's certainly true that he would do FAR better in this era of basketball than the one he played in, but what does tat tell us? Who's to say this is the era all other eras should be measured against just because it's the most recent one?
If you take their VORP/games played it's like .037 for Gervin vs .047 (rounding down) for Miller. Career BPM is roughly 3.5 vs 2.5 favoring Miller and this doesn't change if we do or don't count ABA games.
As for playoff numbers...they don't outclass miller's. Just to be lazy including ABA. Playoff box score based stats.
Gervin's PER was 21.2, BPM 3.4, and WS/48 was .146
Miller PER 19.5, BPM 5.0, and WS/48 .180
Only PER which favors volume players, comes out with Gerving on top. The gap is however larger on BPM and WS/48. You can make a case if you want that we should favor PER because volume scorers are hard to find or something, but you can't claim there is a clear "out class" measure here.
As we are talking different pace and different eras, lets take per 100 playoff stats and again lazy so lets leave ABA in.
Gervin 33.5 PTS 8.5 TRB 3.6 AST ORtg 113
Miller 30.5 PTS 4.3 TRB 3.7 AST ORtg 119
A nice advantage in terms of rebounding but otherwise I see no outclassing here. The ORtg shows how much more efficient Miller was relative to era in his scoring/ball usage. I left out blanks and steals and turnovers but Gervin has a boost on blocks with a bit more turnovers. I don't think I'm skewing anything with this take.
And again this includes Miller playing until he was 39 years old. Gervin retired at 33.
If we adjust and take 24-32 age years on the per 100's we don't move the points much Gervin up to 33.7. Rebounds drop for Gervin as he rebounded MUCH more in his ABA days, so they drop to 7.2 vs 8.5. Meanwhile Miller's assists go up to 4.8 vs 3.9 for Gerin. We also end up with a bit of a gap in turnovers 3.9 for Gervin vs 3.0 for Miller. Also ORtg goes to 124 vs 111 widening that gap pretty massively.
So per 100 in the playoffs in their "prime" years we have something along the lines of this.
Gervin scored 3 points per 100 more while doing so with almost 1 less assist, almost 1 more turnover, and on good but still much lower efficiency.
I think the box metrics, leaving out rebounds and blocks for a second, show miller as the clear better offensive player. And per 100 is nice here because both played about 37 minutes a game for their career in the playoffs so there's no weird bench role or something skewing this.
Miller was simply MUCH better in his era than the media gave him credit for. Playing for the pacers in an era where we used dial up internet (if you even had it as I doubt you did at the start of his career) and where we were lucky to see a pacers highlight before the second half of sports center outside of the playoffs greatly hurt Miller. If you rank players on resume and not how good they were. You'd clearly take Gervin. If you rank players on stats however, you would take Miller. He has better stats.
-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:
No, I can't say there's no case; it looks like it comes down to which metrics one finds more relevant.
As for VORP, I acknowledge that the numbers on the high end favor Miller, but taking each players total VORP and dividing it by games played, Gervin's is slightly higher. As for win shares, it's a somewhat dubious stat and my understanding is that almost nobody involved in basketball analytics gives it much regard anymore.
As to team success, as you acknowledged, it's difficult to speak on, but it's not overly-significant to me when the issue is individual player evaluation. And while it's true that Miller's playoff numbers increase more than Gervin's do, Gervin's numbers still totally outclass Miller's.
You may be right that Miller was underrated when he played, but I can't speak to the what-ifs; the fact is that Gervin's resume' does trump Miller's, regardless whether any of us thinks it should.
I think there's also a tendency toward era recency bias in championing Miller as underrated; it's certainly true that he would do FAR better in this era of basketball than the one he played in, but what does tat tell us? Who's to say this is the era all other eras should be measured against just because it's the most recent one?
If you take their VORP/games played it's like .037 for Gervin vs .047 (rounding down) for Miller. Career BPM is roughly 3.5 vs 2.5 favoring Miller and this doesn't change if we do or don't count ABA games.
As for playoff numbers...they don't outclass miller's. Just to be lazy including ABA. Playoff box score based stats.
Gervin's PER was 21.2, BPM 3.4, and WS/48 was .146
Miller PER 19.5, BPM 5.0, and WS/48 .180
Only PER which favors volume players, comes out with Gerving on top. The gap is however larger on BPM and WS/48. You can make a case if you want that we should favor PER because volume scorers are hard to find or something, but you can't claim there is a clear "out class" measure here.
As we are talking different pace and different eras, lets take per 100 playoff stats and again lazy so lets leave ABA in.
Gervin 33.5 PTS 8.5 TRB 3.6 AST ORtg 113
Miller 30.5 PTS 4.3 TRB 3.7 AST ORtg 119
A nice advantage in terms of rebounding but otherwise I see no outclassing here. The ORtg shows how much more efficient Miller was relative to era in his scoring/ball usage. I left out blanks and steals and turnovers but Gervin has a boost on blocks with a bit more turnovers. I don't think I'm skewing anything with this take.
And again this includes Miller playing until he was 39 years old. Gervin retired at 33.
If we adjust and take 24-32 age years on the per 100's we don't move the points much Gervin up to 33.7. Rebounds drop for Gervin as he rebounded MUCH more in his ABA days, so they drop to 7.2 vs 8.5. Meanwhile Miller's assists go up to 4.8 vs 3.9 for Gerin. We also end up with a bit of a gap in turnovers 3.9 for Gervin vs 3.0 for Miller. Also ORtg goes to 124 vs 111 widening that gap pretty massively.
So per 100 in the playoffs in their "prime" years we have something along the lines of this.
Gervin scored 3 points per 100 more while doing so with almost 1 less assist, almost 1 more turnover, and on good but still much lower efficiency.
I think the box metrics, leaving out rebounds and blocks for a second, show miller as the clear better offensive player. And per 100 is nice here because both played about 37 minutes a game for their career in the playoffs so there's no weird bench role or something skewing this.
Miller was simply MUCH better in his era than the media gave him credit for. Playing for the pacers in an era where we used dial up internet (if you even had it as I doubt you did at the start of his career) and where we were lucky to see a pacers highlight before the second half of sports center outside of the playoffs greatly hurt Miller. If you rank players on resume and not how good they were. You'd clearly take Gervin. If you rank players on stats however, you would take Miller. He has better stats.
Apologies on the VORP/games number; I did the math wrong and your numbers here are correct.
Regarding playoff numbers, I was referencing the counting stats, not the advanced/analytic stats. Gervin's are 26.5, 6.9, and 2.9 on 50% shooting, to Miller's 20.6, 2.9, and 2.5 on 45%; that's what I meant by 'outclassed'.
You dismiss PER on the grounds that it dismisses volume players, but I dismiss VORP and win shares on the grounds that they favor longevity, which is less important to me than it may be to you. I'm also not generally compelled by pace-of-play arguments, though I acknowledge your points on them.
I may be exposing myself here, but to me, Miller vs. Gervin is decided by the eyeball test and the 'traditional' stats, though my fandom probably has something to do with why your presentation on analytics doesn't sway me. I do appreciate the time and effort you've put into the dialogue, though.
celticfan42487 wrote:alevirfe wrote:Shaq/KD/KG/CP3 are definitely too low
Shaq to me is a top 5 player all time. Durant easily is top 10. KG/CP3 are top 15 players easily
to make room, I would move some of the older generation dudes, Kobe, and even Duncan a few spots
curious, who you guys got between KD & Duncan? Shaq & Duncan? I love Timmy and respect the hell out of everything he accomplished, but from a talent perspective I take both guys before him. same exact thing if you replace Timmy with Kobe in my questions above
I ditto basically every point you made here.
Full agreement.
rand wrote:sp6r=underrated wrote:rand wrote:I don't understand any of the rationale in your post.
If two players are both All-NBA nine times, and 1st or 2nd team every times, but one has six first teams to the other's four, how can there not be a clear winner here (before you consider the false non-overlap issue)? The variables couldn't have lined up better for a comparison (same # of selections, and only 1st and 2nds), making it as simple as 6 > 4.
As for the non-overlap, only a handful of players on this Top-75 list overlapped with each other for the majority of their careers. Are you saying only All-NBA teams can't be compare between them but other attributes like stats, MVPs, and rings can be? That seems arbitrary to me, and if we can't put together any comparison of these things cross eras (especially when the players' careers do partially overlap), how can we compare any two players who didn't share the same seasons for the majority of their careers?
I also don't understand what you mean by "Dirk's 2011 campaign would have resulted in 1st NBA". Would have if what?
What I mean was if the 2011 PS was included Dirk would have unanimously gotten 1st team over Durant, who would have gotten the 2nd so you're left with the exact same count 5-4. Even on RS alone the Mavs had 2 more wins than Thunder despite Durant's supporting cast of Russ, Ibaka and Westbrook.
Does anyone think Durant's 2011 campaign was better than Dirk? I don't even think his mom would. But if you're making a big deal about All NBA teams you have to claim that Durant's 2011 campaign was better otherwise there is no difference.
Ok, but this is true for a very large number of all All-NBA selections, including other seasons for both of these players. Either someone thinks a different player should have won 1st team based on the regular season or would have if postseasons were included. It doesn't seem valid to selectively choose a particular season for adjustment in one H2H comparison.
dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
If you take their VORP/games played it's like .037 for Gervin vs .047 (rounding down) for Miller. Career BPM is roughly 3.5 vs 2.5 favoring Miller and this doesn't change if we do or don't count ABA games.
As for playoff numbers...they don't outclass miller's. Just to be lazy including ABA. Playoff box score based stats.
Gervin's PER was 21.2, BPM 3.4, and WS/48 was .146
Miller PER 19.5, BPM 5.0, and WS/48 .180
Only PER which favors volume players, comes out with Gerving on top. The gap is however larger on BPM and WS/48. You can make a case if you want that we should favor PER because volume scorers are hard to find or something, but you can't claim there is a clear "out class" measure here.
As we are talking different pace and different eras, lets take per 100 playoff stats and again lazy so lets leave ABA in.
Gervin 33.5 PTS 8.5 TRB 3.6 AST ORtg 113
Miller 30.5 PTS 4.3 TRB 3.7 AST ORtg 119
A nice advantage in terms of rebounding but otherwise I see no outclassing here. The ORtg shows how much more efficient Miller was relative to era in his scoring/ball usage. I left out blanks and steals and turnovers but Gervin has a boost on blocks with a bit more turnovers. I don't think I'm skewing anything with this take.
And again this includes Miller playing until he was 39 years old. Gervin retired at 33.
If we adjust and take 24-32 age years on the per 100's we don't move the points much Gervin up to 33.7. Rebounds drop for Gervin as he rebounded MUCH more in his ABA days, so they drop to 7.2 vs 8.5. Meanwhile Miller's assists go up to 4.8 vs 3.9 for Gerin. We also end up with a bit of a gap in turnovers 3.9 for Gervin vs 3.0 for Miller. Also ORtg goes to 124 vs 111 widening that gap pretty massively.
So per 100 in the playoffs in their "prime" years we have something along the lines of this.
Gervin scored 3 points per 100 more while doing so with almost 1 less assist, almost 1 more turnover, and on good but still much lower efficiency.
I think the box metrics, leaving out rebounds and blocks for a second, show miller as the clear better offensive player. And per 100 is nice here because both played about 37 minutes a game for their career in the playoffs so there's no weird bench role or something skewing this.
Miller was simply MUCH better in his era than the media gave him credit for. Playing for the pacers in an era where we used dial up internet (if you even had it as I doubt you did at the start of his career) and where we were lucky to see a pacers highlight before the second half of sports center outside of the playoffs greatly hurt Miller. If you rank players on resume and not how good they were. You'd clearly take Gervin. If you rank players on stats however, you would take Miller. He has better stats.
Apologies on the VORP/games number; I did the math wrong and your numbers here are correct.
Regarding playoff numbers, I was referencing the counting stats, not the advanced/analytic stats. Gervin's are 26.5, 6.9, and 2.9 on 50% shooting, to Miller's 20.6, 2.9, and 2.5 on 45%; that's what I meant by 'outclassed'.
You dismiss PER on the grounds that it dismisses volume players, but I dismiss VORP and win shares on the grounds that they favor longevity, which is less important to me than it may be to you. I'm also not generally compelled by pace-of-play arguments, though I acknowledge your points on them.
I may be exposing myself here, but to me, Miller vs. Gervin is decided by the eyeball test and the 'traditional' stats, though my fandom probably has something to do with why your presentation on analytics doesn't sway me. I do appreciate the time and effort you've put into the dialogue, though.
Well again, I used single season VORP and WS. Not career to point peak vs peak that Miller was higher. You can use WS/48 or BPM to get a per metric and we can still use PER...it's still basically the same. These are all traditional box based stats.
The per 100 was just to compare one of the highest scoring eras to lowest. And we see that their box score stats don't favor Girvin but actually favor Miller. So the outclass thing is simply false. Again I don't have any issue if you take either player here, but if we're talking stats you can't claim their playoff stats aren't similar or that Girvin has a clear advantage. He just doesn't.
dygaction wrote:celticfan42487 wrote:alevirfe wrote:Shaq/KD/KG/CP3 are definitely too low
Shaq to me is a top 5 player all time. Durant easily is top 10. KG/CP3 are top 15 players easily
to make room, I would move some of the older generation dudes, Kobe, and even Duncan a few spots
curious, who you guys got between KD & Duncan? Shaq & Duncan? I love Timmy and respect the hell out of everything he accomplished, but from a talent perspective I take both guys before him. same exact thing if you replace Timmy with Kobe in my questions above
I ditto basically every point you made here.
Full agreement.
I ditto half of the points there.
"Shaq/KD/KG/CP3 are definitely too low" to Shaq/KD/KG/CP3 are a little bit low.
Shaq 5-10, KD 10-15, KG 18-20, and CP3 25-30 are reasonable for me.
Oh, KD is nowhere close to Duncan, peak, prime, longevity, personal accolades, team success..., you name it.
mintsa wrote: Yeah….the “new car smell” is starting to wear off with Scottie.
bongmarley wrote:I thought he was supposed to be an elite defender. He is horrible. On the perimeter he gets blown by everytime Its really bad
-Sammy- wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:-Sammy- wrote:
Apologies on the VORP/games number; I did the math wrong and your numbers here are correct.
Regarding playoff numbers, I was referencing the counting stats, not the advanced/analytic stats. Gervin's are 26.5, 6.9, and 2.9 on 50% shooting, to Miller's 20.6, 2.9, and 2.5 on 45%; that's what I meant by 'outclassed'.
You dismiss PER on the grounds that it dismisses volume players, but I dismiss VORP and win shares on the grounds that they favor longevity, which is less important to me than it may be to you. I'm also not generally compelled by pace-of-play arguments, though I acknowledge your points on them.
I may be exposing myself here, but to me, Miller vs. Gervin is decided by the eyeball test and the 'traditional' stats, though my fandom probably has something to do with why your presentation on analytics doesn't sway me. I do appreciate the time and effort you've put into the dialogue, though.
Well again, I used single season VORP and WS. Not career to point peak vs peak that Miller was higher. You can use WS/48 or BPM to get a per metric and we can still use PER...it's still basically the same. These are all traditional box based stats.
The per 100 was just to compare one of the highest scoring eras to lowest. And we see that their box score stats don't favor Girvin but actually favor Miller. So the outclass thing is simply false. Again I don't have any issue if you take either player here, but if we're talking stats you can't claim their playoff stats aren't similar or that Girvin has a clear advantage. He just doesn't.
That's fine, but as I've said, it's obvious to me that we're simply leaning on different criteria for our viewpoints. I certainly can claim that Gervin has a clear statistical advantage, as 26.5/6.9/2.9/50% are better stats than 20.6/2.9/2.5/45%. They just are, and you can (and have) counter by digging into the more nuanced analytics, but at this point, it's coming down to criteria and methodology and what each of us regards as the most salient data to focus on.