|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ That's it ... Let it all go, baby. Don't hold anything back. Feel better now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Artis Gilmore at #36, Elgin Baylor at #37, Kevin McHale at #38, Clyde Drexler at #39, Ray Allen at #40
The short form write ups are not as interesting. He comments that Gary Payton does not make the list and is overvalued on defense. It's a shame he didn't elaborate. He also leaves Isiah Thomas off the list. I also have a low opinion of Isiah, but I wish he had spelled it out.
As for the list, Gilmore surprised me a little. I guess I discount him because of the ABA factor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kevin Garnett at #8
This is a hard sell, and the author knows it. He explains the history of the TWolves during the Garnett era. I had forgotten just how bad some of those teams were. Still, I have a hard time buying the idea that Garnett was more impactful than Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Kobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Kevin Garnett at #8
This is a hard sell, and the author knows it. He explains the history of the TWolves during the Garnett era. I had forgotten just how bad some of those teams were. Still, I have a hard time buying the idea that Garnett was more impactful than Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Kobe. |
You probably have a similar reaction to the similar proposition that water is dry.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corey78
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2001
Posts: 1677
Location: Cerritos, California
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Kevin Garnett at #8
This is a hard sell, and the author knows it. He explains the history of the TWolves during the Garnett era. I had forgotten just how bad some of those teams were. Still, I have a hard time buying the idea that Garnett was more impactful than Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Kobe. |
Perhaps the author is from Minnesota or shares the same initials. Although I do feel that Garnett is underrated, saying he is the eighth best player ever seems a bit farfetched. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Corey78 wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Kevin Garnett at #8
This is a hard sell, and the author knows it. He explains the history of the TWolves during the Garnett era. I had forgotten just how bad some of those teams were. Still, I have a hard time buying the idea that Garnett was more impactful than Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Kobe. |
Perhaps the author is from Minnesota or shares the same initials. Although I do feel that Garnett is underrated, saying he is the eighth best player ever seems a bit farfetched. |
The author is from LA. I think he went to UCLA.
Anyway, he is using a different sort of methodology, focusing on game impact. He does not consider rings or aesthetics, and he does not give special weight to the playoffs (or at least not much). There is merit in looking at players this way, but of course this is not the way that fans rate players. When he says that Garnett had a greater game impact than, say, Magic or Kobe, I'm skeptical but willing to listen. But he is ranking the best "careers" in NBA history, and I have a hard time ranking a "career" just on the basis of game impact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Kevin Garnett at #8
This is a hard sell, and the author knows it. He explains the history of the TWolves during the Garnett era. I had forgotten just how bad some of those teams were. Still, I have a hard time buying the idea that Garnett was more impactful than Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Kobe. |
I get the argument though. In his prime, Garnett was one of the most amazing defenders I've ever seen, along with a rare combination of scoring, rebounding and playmaking skills. We'll never know how he would have been with better teammates, but he's hard to judge and easy to underrate because he spent most of his best years in the wastelands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Kevin Garnett at #8
This is a hard sell, and the author knows it. He explains the history of the TWolves during the Garnett era. I had forgotten just how bad some of those teams were. Still, I have a hard time buying the idea that Garnett was more impactful than Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Kobe. |
I get the argument though. In his prime, Garnett was one of the most amazing defenders I've ever seen, along with a rare combination of scoring, rebounding and playmaking skills. We'll never know how he would have been with better teammates, but he's hard to judge and easy to underrate because he spent most of his best years in the wastelands. |
He is definitely easy to underrate. I have seen that happen many times on this board, even before he became a Celtic. If this guy had ranked KG at about 15th using this specific methodology, I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Kevin Garnett at #8
This is a hard sell, and the author knows it. He explains the history of the TWolves during the Garnett era. I had forgotten just how bad some of those teams were. Still, I have a hard time buying the idea that Garnett was more impactful than Wilt, Magic, Bird, and Kobe. |
I get the argument though. In his prime, Garnett was one of the most amazing defenders I've ever seen, along with a rare combination of scoring, rebounding and playmaking skills. We'll never know how he would have been with better teammates, but he's hard to judge and easy to underrate because he spent most of his best years in the wastelands. |
He is definitely easy to underrate. I have seen that happen many times on this board, even before he became a Celtic. If this guy had ranked KG at about 15th using this specific methodology, I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. |
A big part of the reason Garnett is underrated is that few fans really care about defense. They tend to give it lip service only when they think it helps a player they want to help or hurts a player they want to hurt. But I can't say I've ever genuinely see anyone who builds defense into their own evaluations other than how affects their pet players |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is not a great analysis because the dude is mostly using his own made up statistics for evaluation and he has no advanced degrees in such a field to be taken seriously with those made up stats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Juggernaut wrote: | | This is not a great analysis because the dude is mostly using his own made up statistics for evaluation and he has no advanced degrees in such a field to be taken seriously with those made up stats |
His academic background is solid: He holds a B.S. in Cognitive Science from UCLA and an M.S. in Human Factors from Bentley University. His work is serious. That said, I find his formula less interesting than his analysis, which I think is very good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | The Juggernaut wrote: | | This is not a great analysis because the dude is mostly using his own made up statistics for evaluation and he has no advanced degrees in such a field to be taken seriously with those made up stats |
His academic background is solid: He holds a B.S. in Cognitive Science from UCLA and an M.S. in Human Factors from Bentley University. His work is serious. That said, I find his formula less interesting than his analysis, which I think is very good. |
Problem is he’s using his formulas to form his analysis. You are supposed to use stats to prove your hypothesis not the other way around |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Juggernaut wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | The Juggernaut wrote: | | This is not a great analysis because the dude is mostly using his own made up statistics for evaluation and he has no advanced degrees in such a field to be taken seriously with those made up stats |
His academic background is solid: He holds a B.S. in Cognitive Science from UCLA and an M.S. in Human Factors from Bentley University. His work is serious. That said, I find his formula less interesting than his analysis, which I think is very good. |
Problem is he’s using his formulas to form his analysis. You are supposed to use stats to prove your hypothesis not the other way around |
He doesn't really have a hypothesis he's trying to prove. He simply has a perspective on what matters in evaluating players, which you may or may not agree with. The formula is a reflection of that perspective. Again, if you don't share his perspective, you will probably question the output of the formula, which is perfectly fine.
However, all that is really a part from the profiles he's writing. While his formula does inform some of that, much of it is based on his analysis of available video, and it's all quite interesting to me. I don't particularly agree with the numbering on his list, but his insights about particular players are quite interesting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tim Duncan at #7
There are some interesting bits. He worries with how to factor Popovich into his analysis, but frankly you could say that about many of the top players. How does Phil Jackson factor into the analysis of MJ and Kobe, and how does Pat Riley factor into the analysis of Magic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Tim Duncan at #7
There are some interesting bits. He worries with how to factor Popovich into his analysis, but frankly you could say that about many of the top players. How does Phil Jackson factor into the analysis of MJ and Kobe, and how does Pat Riley factor into the analysis of Magic? |
It's not surprising that the goat player shortlist correlates with the goat coach short list. Don't know that anyone will ever be able to figure out whether the player contributed more to the coaches success or vice versa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timmy and KG are #7 and #8, but man do they seem miles apart in terms of careers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | Timmy and KG are #7 and #8, but man do they seem miles apart in terms of careers. |
Sure, but that's a function of all the rings Tim has won. Take that out of the equation, which this guy does, and there really isn't much of a gap between them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | Timmy and KG are #7 and #8, but man do they seem miles apart in terms of careers. |
Sure, but that's a function of all the rings Tim has won. Take that out of the equation, which this guy does, and there really isn't much of a gap between them. |
Yeah, that's the part I differ with. You don't have to watch very much to know that Duncan was profoundly more impactful on the game for most of their careers. And I like KG. I don't think there's a GM alive, including the bad ones, who trade Duncan for KG.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Yeah, that's the part I differ with. You don't have to watch very much to know that Duncan was profoundly more impactful on the game for most of their careers. And I like KG. I don't think there's a GM alive, including the bad ones, who trade Duncan for KG. |
Actually, I thought the exact opposite in the early 2000s. Duncan had a far superior supporting cast, including The Admiral. Duncan won titles right from the beginning. But I thought KG was the more impactful player in those days. I thought this was a classic case of the halo effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Liger24Zero
Sixth Man
Joined: 28 Sep 2017
Posts: 61
Location: The Desert
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still in shock of the fact that KG is somehow ranked higher than Kobe, Bird, Magic and Wilt. Like what?   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Yeah, that's the part I differ with. You don't have to watch very much to know that Duncan was profoundly more impactful on the game for most of their careers. And I like KG. I don't think there's a GM alive, including the bad ones, who trade Duncan for KG. |
Actually, I thought the exact opposite in the early 2000s. Duncan had a far superior supporting cast, including The Admiral. Duncan won titles right from the beginning. But I thought KG was the more impactful player in those days. I thought this was a classic case of the halo effect. |
I wasn't referring to impact in terms of just their teams' wins, I get that Duncan had the better cast. I just think KG had the more splashy athleticism so he looks more impactful, but Duncan was death and taxes. Halo effect seems to be a term people throw around a lot sort of like its opposite, "stats on a bad team", that don't really have any empirical merit by themselves.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Liger24Zero wrote: | | I'm still in shock of the fact that KG is somehow ranked higher than Kobe, Bird, Magic and Wilt. Like what? |
Yeah, it's a contrarian's delight, which I don't doubt was part of the strategy.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Yeah, that's the part I differ with. You don't have to watch very much to know that Duncan was profoundly more impactful on the game for most of their careers. And I like KG. I don't think there's a GM alive, including the bad ones, who trade Duncan for KG. |
Actually, I thought the exact opposite in the early 2000s. Duncan had a far superior supporting cast, including The Admiral. Duncan won titles right from the beginning. But I thought KG was the more impactful player in those days. I thought this was a classic case of the halo effect. |
I wasn't referring to impact in terms of just their teams' wins, I get that Duncan had the better cast. I just think KG had the more splashy athleticism so he looks more impactful, but Duncan was death and taxes. Halo effect seems to be a term people throw around a lot sort of like its opposite, "stats on a bad team", that don't really have any empirical merit by themselves. |
It's interesting to think how people would view Duncan's cast if they played for other teams. Brent Barry, old Michael Finley, Bowan, Bonner, Mario Ellie, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliot...these guys aren't perennial All-NBA players here.
Manu and Tony Parker were good, opportunistic players, but they aren't moving the needle on many other teams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Yeah, that's the part I differ with. You don't have to watch very much to know that Duncan was profoundly more impactful on the game for most of their careers. And I like KG. I don't think there's a GM alive, including the bad ones, who trade Duncan for KG. |
Actually, I thought the exact opposite in the early 2000s. Duncan had a far superior supporting cast, including The Admiral. Duncan won titles right from the beginning. But I thought KG was the more impactful player in those days. I thought this was a classic case of the halo effect. |
I wasn't referring to impact in terms of just their teams' wins, I get that Duncan had the better cast. I just think KG had the more splashy athleticism so he looks more impactful, but Duncan was death and taxes. Halo effect seems to be a term people throw around a lot sort of like its opposite, "stats on a bad team", that don't really have any empirical merit by themselves. |
It's interesting to think how people would view Duncan's cast if they played for other teams. Brent Barry, old Michael Finley, Bowan, Bonner, Mario Ellie, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliot...these guys aren't perennial All-NBA players here.
Manu and Tony Parker were good, opportunistic players, but they aren't moving the needle on many other teams. |
I think you're dramatically underestimating the quality of his teammates.
Tony Parker is a 6-time all-star, and both he and Manu will end up in the Hall of Fame.
He had David Robinson for his early rings.
Bowen made 9 all-defensive teams. Brent Barry led the league in 3-point shooting one year. Sean Elliott was a two-time all-star.
Duncan is up there with anyone in terms of the amount of talent he's been surrounded with throughout his career. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
