Who's a top 10 NBA Player?

[Christopherson]

A quick comment on versatility. An agrgument can also be made that a player's versatility over-inflates their statistcal ouputs compared to those who aren't. A player like Garnet gets to use his versatility to put up numbers against competition that has no business gaurding him, say a weak small forward or a slow center/power forward. This is going to let Garnet rack up statistics he wouldn't get if he wasn't so versitile. This in turn inflates his statistics. That being said, versatility is good way to take advantage of mismatches and is very valuable to a team. So I guess it comes down to how you want to define who the best player is. Is it the one who is the most valuable? The one who produces the most? Or the one with the best skills/talent? Garnett's versatility could be interpreted to mask skill deficiencies by playing against inferior oponents, while Yao has to match up against someone who is more suited for gaurding him on every possession, meaning he has to have a better skill set to produce his numbers.

[benji]

Well if I held 3 players on basically the same level, versatility both offensively and defensively becomes a big factor as a possible edge over the competition.

However, LeBron and Garnett's "level of goodness" comes from their versatility. They are not at that level and then add the versatility on top of that.

If we are gonna rank Yao amongst centers, then we gotta rank Kobe amongst shooting gaurds rather than just gaurds. That's twice the competition.

You said guards. B-R only allows guard seperation, so I went with that. I personally would seperate, and very easily in rebounding, between C/PF, SF/SG and PG.

*I personally don't think the stats are a real representation of these player rebounding ability.

If you take a look at where LeBron's ranked (157 I think), almost every single one of the players is a power forward. There's a huge difference in rebounding role and oppurtunity between a small forward on the perimter and a power forward down low. Of the small forwards ahead of him, alot of them were garbage time players, eg. Andre Brown, Ronald Dupree, etc. I wouldn't mind betting he'd rank top 10 amongst SF's, without those very rarely used guys sprinkled throughout the list.

I cut the minutes to 500 to get rid of "garbage time players". I was not ranking LeBron with power forwards, (as I clearly stated) I went through the top 100 players and counted small forwards until LeBron, when he did not appear and I had something like twelve guys, I stopped looking.

You use rebounds per game to judge rebounding ability, but dismiss something very accurate in rebound percentage because you think the results are wrong?

Let us say I have you and KevC go rebound some shots for me. I give him 40 minutes to do it, and you get 25 minutes. Three shots a minute. He faces 120 shots, and you get to see 75. Half of them are misses, you even get a round up to 38 missed shots. You get 20 rebounds, he gets 26 rebounds. Who had the better rebounding performance?

he still came out at/near the bottom statistically

Only when using the statistics you used.

I don't think anyone except a Yao fanboy would argue that he is currently better than any of these players. It's common basketball knowledge and I didn't really need to back it up, I just did because you insisted on evidence.

You're doing it again.

[Its_asdf]

^But isn't that same versatility the same reason why he should be considered so good? I don't really understand. Time and time again we've seen players that DO have the versatility, but can never put it all together in the NBA, so I don't know why you're trying to discredit Garnett's versatility as something that "masks his deficiencies". Those "masked deficiencies" are what make him a great/unique player.

[TheMC5]

...Irregardless...

Benji, this is not a word. And if it were, it would completely flip the meaning of the remainder of the sentence. It's just "regardless".

Don't mean to be a dick or anything, just thought I'd let you know, as you seem to use it rather frequently.

[---]

Nah, that doesn't make much sense at all to me. You can't Kevin Garnett's numbers are "inflated" because he can use his versatility. That's saying he's really not as good as his numbers look, which is far from the case. It's not like he's just extremely tall and that's why he scores. He can score on almost anyone because of his versatility. Don't forget, versatility is a skill. It's like saying Reggie Miller had great three point percentages because he had a better jumpshot than most. It's true, but it shouldn't detract from anything - only add. After all, it is a skill, and basketball is a game of skill - and this comparison is a comparison of skill.

Secondly, Yao doesn't have the skill to be versatile. You shouldn't say - "hey this guy isn't versatile, it's unfair to judge him against a guy who is". As I said, versatility is a skill. Just like ballhandling, shooting or defensive ability, it is a skill. Yao may be going up against guy's who are more suited to gaurd him, but that's because he doesn't have the skills to be versatile. That should only work against him, not for him.

[---]

However, LeBron and Garnett's "level of goodness" comes from their versatility. They are not at that level and then add the versatility on top of that.

What I meant to say was that you have 3 guys at basically the same level. You then analyze each player - passing ability, shooting ability, rebounding, defence, ballhandling, etc. Versatility is one of those things you gotta take into account.

I cut the minutes to 500 to get rid of "garbage time players". I was not ranking LeBron with power forwards, (as I clearly stated) I went through the top 100 players and counted small forwards until LeBron, when he did not appear and I had something like twelve guys, I stopped looking.

You use rebounds per game to judge rebounding ability, but dismiss something very accurate in rebound percentage because you think the results are wrong?

Let us say I have you and KevC go rebound some shots for me. I give him 40 minutes to do it, and you get 25 minutes. Three shots a minute. He faces 120 shots, and you get to see 75. Half of them are misses, you even get a round up to 38 missed shots. You get 20 rebounds, he gets 26 rebounds. Who had the better rebounding performance?

Huh?

Everything I said in my last post was using the statistics you linked to. I thought those were done on a per-minute basis (RbR)?

Only when using the statistics you used.

You're doing it again.

Jesus christ. I feel like an Emo. No one understands me.

If I see someone saying that Yao Ming is currently a better player than Garnett, Kobe and LeBron, I'll discount it. I believe it's obvious that Yao is a cut below and many people think the same. I guess I can't use common knowledge, but it's a common opinion. Most of the time, that common opinion the most logical and sensible answer.

[benji]

What I meant to say was that you have 3 guys at basically the same level. You then analyze each player - passing ability, shooting ability, rebounding, defence, ballhandling, etc. Versatility is one of those things you gotta take into account.

Yes, but I am saying that the overall result comes from all of those factors. Therefore because they are at the same level, you cannot "add" versatility to improve them, because that is already one of the factors accounted for in the aggregate of their production.

Huh?

Everything I said in my last post was using the statistics you linked to. I thought those were done on a per-minute basis (RbR)?

No, they are not per minute. Read the last paragraph (involving you and KevC putting on sexy short shorts and grabbing me some balls) as that is the description of "RbR" statistic.

Jesus christ. I feel like an Emo. No one understands me.

I understand you just fine. You have an opinion, but you consider that opinion to be a fact, and anyone who disagrees they must be a "fanboy" and resisting "common knowledge". And that there is no reason to explain yourself, because they are just plain wrong.

I guess I can't use common knowledge, but it's a common opinion.

It is not really knowledge though. It is just "common opinion" which is not fact.

Most of the time, that common opinion the most logical and sensible answer.

Usually, it is not. The CW is usually wrong, illogical or the simplist or merely most top-down popular answer. If a ton of people keep saying Kobe > Yao, people believe it and repeat it without ever investigating objectively as they can. Instead, they watch the games and see their previously held beliefs confirmed.

Benji, this is not a word. And if it were, it would completely flip the meaning of the remainder of the sentence. It's just "regardless".

Don't mean to be a dick or anything, just thought I'd let you know, as you seem to use it rather frequently.

I am aware that fascists outside the Midwest believe it to not be a word. But I was born in Michigan, therefore it is a word. And we are winning the war:

Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization. It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs in edited professional prose.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

[TheMC5]

Benji, this is not a word. And if it were, it would completely flip the meaning of the remainder of the sentence. It's just "regardless".

Don't mean to be a dick or anything, just thought I'd let you know, as you seem to use it rather frequently.

I am aware that fascists outside the Midwest believe it to not be a word. But I was born in Michigan, therefore it is a word. And we are winning the war:

Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization. It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs in edited professional prose.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Still, it totally flips the meaning of the sentence in which you used it.

Also, I will resist until the bitter end. Once irregardless and misunderestimate become standardized, all hope is lost, and the Rapture will be upon us.

Note: I use Firefox, and have the Canadian dictionary add-on installed, and irregardless does not show up as incorrect. So, at the very least, the makers of Firefox's Canadian dictionary add-on agree with you.

[BigKaboom2]

Double negatives => tear in space-time continuum.

BE VERY AFRAID

[benji]

Note: I use Firefox, and have the Canadian dictionary add-on installed, and irregardless does not show up as incorrect. So, at the very least, the makers of Firefox's Canadian dictionary add-on agree with you.

Then if Canadians say it is a word, I change my position on it. Canada is evil and the scum of the Earth, therefore it is always wrong.

[---]

Yes, but I am saying that the overall result comes from all of those factors. Therefore because they are at the same level, you cannot "add" versatility to improve them, because that is already one of the factors accounted for in the aggregate of their production.

I'm not sure how this got mixed up, but that's exactly what I meant as well. When I said edg, it's just like saying one guy has an edge offensively. It's one of the facets of his game you gotta take into account, and if there's two players with equal offensive ability, versatility is a good thing to bring up next to determine who is the more valuable offensive option.

No, they are not per minute. Read the last paragraph (involving you and KevC putting on sexy short shorts and grabbing me some balls) as that is the description of "RbR" statistic.

Ok, well kindly direct me towards the more "fair" rebounding statistics while I put your balls back and get changed outta these skimpy shorts.

I understand you just fine. You have an opinion, but you consider that opinion to be a fact, and anyone who disagrees they must be a "fanboy" and resisting "common knowledge". And that there is no reason to explain yourself, because they are just plain wrong.

In my view, he's a fanboy. He's a Yao fan and he's in Houston. I think his view is rather "homer'd" (I like that word).

Then he goes and places Yao Ming ahead of Kevin Garnett, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, and it backs up my opinion on him.

With your view on things, I would never be able to say that Michael Jordan was a better player than Mark Pope. All you have to do is say, "No, you believe he is a better player and since it's a common opinion you don't compare the players objectively". It may be an opinon, but it's about as damn close to fact as you can get.

Usually, it is not. The CW is usually wrong, illogical or the simplist or merely most top-down popular answer. If a ton of people keep saying Kobe > Yao, people believe it and repeat it without ever investigating objectively as they can. Instead, they watch the games and see their previously held beliefs confirmed.

Is still don't think there's any question as to who is the better player, and yes, I have investigated it.

[benji]

"RbR" or rebounding percentage is the best measure of rebounding production.

KevC may be a fanboy, but my argument was not pertaining to just this case, and not just you. But all the people who go around just declaring this or that without ever even trying to back it up (as you did, you made your case) with more than effectively "because I say so".

You can say Michael Jordan was better than Mark Pope, but that does not make it so. Michael Jordan may even be better than Mark Pope, but that is not true because you believe it to be. The fact that you believe Jordan > Pope, and reality may be that Jordan > Pope may mean your beliefs and reality are in agreement, but that is not always the case.

Both in this case, and in the previous thread, my argument, either through your methods or naturally, has been narrowed to debates on specific players instead of the general ideas.

Let me rework the argument to try and focus on my larger point here, using an extreme example.

Shannon rapes puppies, then murders kittens. If you argue this, you and everyone would want support for my declaration, right? You, and everyone else would not accept "a bunch of people agree with me" or simply calling it "obvious" or declaring it to be "common sense or knowledge". You would want to me lay out my case why I stated you rape puppies and murder kittens.

We have a discussion forum here, we are supposed to discuss things, debate and engage topics. When we simply make one sentence declarations, refuse to back them up, or use "because I said it to be so" as the only support, there is nothing to discuss. I want to actually explore topics with people on here, to analyze the arguments and the evidence. I do not want to just post my unsupported opinion in a sea of other unsupported opinions. Yes, I do it sometimes after there are numerous complains I am "picking on people" by holding them to task for their statements, but I would prefer not to.

The instant you declare your opinion "obvious" or "common sense" you are not open to anything that runs counter to your opinion. I am open to the possibly Yao Ming is the best player in the league, worst player in the league and everything inbetween. If I think Yao is the best, and you say he isn't, but just claim it's "obvious" I am never going to agree with you. I'm not going "well, Shannon says it's obvious, it must be". I mean, you might just be a Yao hater. But if you make a good argument, I may temper my argument or even agree with you in the end.

We have enough lame posters to make declarative statements without support, to not read threads and just declare something vaguely related, and be illogical fanbois/h8rs. We don't need the elite posters to be doing the same thing.

[kevC]

I may be a fanboy, but I wouldn't rank Yao as a top five player without any grounds of objective (and relevant) data.

[---]

I know I should be engaging in actual discussion and no pulling one liner "declarations". But, I dod that time to time when I just think some things that are said are over the top. To me, what kevC said was over the top. I wouldn't have gone into detail had you insisted, because I have already researched these players games alot and know what to expect. I didn't want to start a huge discussion over it because:

A) I thought it was a blunt, homer comment with no backup

B) I had already researched the players and had built up a pretty strong opinion on each over time, so I really didn't see much point in going over what I already know about each player (okay... believe) and typing it all out to you guys in the form of a debate

C) I knew you don't think Yao Ming is better than Kobe Bryant (Come on, I know you don't - I understand you were just trying to start discussion and get me to back up my claim)

I know what I did is bad for the forums, but I usually say stuff like that when I think it's overly obvious and doesn't need to be debated to be determined. I think it's pretty clear cut that Yao Ming does not belong above those players mentioned. Some other people may think otherwise, but I really thought that was a big time homer statement.

I may be a fanboy, but I wouldn't rank Yao as a top five player without any grounds of objective (and relevant) data.

Go for it.

[kevC]

Let's see... he was top 3 in PER last year which says a lot of about his offense while his defense in also incredible as he has a high stop %, anchoring a top 3 defensive team. You could point out and say "oh, well this year could've been a fluke in PER" but he's been consistently improving in PER every year he was in the league and the manner he improved his PER is through higher usage rate, not something fluky like TS%.

[---]

So PER = final result of player skill?

I wanna see what you think about his individual skills compared to the rest of the players - afterall, skills are what makes the players who they are.

[kevC]

Statistics are the results of the players' skills. To me, there is no sense in comparing the players' skills to measure their ability without looking at what the skills brought. Skills are what gets the player the statistics that indicate how much they helped win basketball games, in this case, PER, which has been proven to have a very high winning correlation. Yao manages to get that high PER by shooting a high TS% and a high usage rate. Now, this could be because he has an impeccable shooting form, has very good footwork in the post leading to a higher percentage shot, or any other part of his skillset but that doesn't mean shit if he doesn't get the results.

[JT_55]

Then if Canadians say it is a word, I change my position on it. Canada is evil and the scum of the Earth, therefore it is always wrong.

All right. You're going to offend at least three members here? Go for it. I don't care if you were joking or whatnot. Yeah, yeah, yeah, bring on the "you can't take a joke" crap. Anyway, my Merriam-Webster says it's not a word. It's from the US, if anyone is curious. I guess we won't see benji use the word "irregardless" anytime soon, unless he think the US are scums, too.

[grusom]

One of the things that may lead people to conclude that it is "obvious" that Garnett, Kobe and Lebron are better players than Yao is that Yao's efficiency to a large degree is a result of his height. So even with a lover skill level than the pre-mentioned players (the only exeption being shooting), Yao can be just as efficient stat wise, and has just as big an impact on the game as those.

So... Even though Yao might not LOOK like as good as Garnett because of his inferior footwork, passing game, rebounding, etc, he could be just as efficient (he isn't, but this is just an example).

I think there is a lot of confusion the whole "who is the best player"-debate whether people are actually discussing who is the best result- or skill wise.

[Its_asdf]

Then if Canadians say it is a word, I change my position on it. Canada is evil and the scum of the Earth, therefore it is always wrong.

Those damn Canadians. To hell with them I say!

[Sauru]

my 2 cents, i find the entire exchange between benji and shannon to be a riot. benji asks for a discussion and shannon discusses why not to have a discussion.

[cyanide]

Then if Canadians say it is a word, I change my position on it. Canada is evil and the scum of the Earth, therefore it is always wrong.

Damn, I was hoping nobody would side with Iran!

[Gundy]

my 2 cents, i find the entire exchange between benji and shannon to be a riot. benji asks for a discussion and shannon discusses why not to have a discussion.

On top of that, there is really no way to say or explain how one player is better than another player when you get to a certain point. Basketball is not just about stats. The topic is far too subjective for someone to actually be right.

[Sauru]

my 2 cents, i find the entire exchange between benji and shannon to be a riot. benji asks for a discussion and shannon discusses why not to have a discussion.

On top of that, there is really no way to say or explain how one player is better than another player when you get to a certain point. Basketball is not just about stats. The topic is far too subjective for someone to actually be right.

agreed, which is why i found it odd that benji was in this talk since he is a huge stat guy, probably the biggest i know. then again i assume he was just trying to get a conversation going

[benji]

Indeed, my main focus was to get beyond simple list posting. Sauru was the only one to complain about it. Had Converse made this thread, the forum would have been up in arms. It had taken until TheMC5's post before anyone even questioned one of the lists, even though a lot of them were pretty goofy.

On top of that, there is really no way to say or explain how one player is better than another player when you get to a certain point. Basketball is not just about stats. The topic is far too subjective for someone to actually be right.

I do not agree about this however. Basketball, like all sports, has rules and set events. Emperical methods are used to measure real life all the time and it does not have such a rigid frame.

Take something simple.

All near 25,000 times Michael Jordan shot in his career, was a test. We can sit down and say, that in any of those 25,000 shots, the likelihood of Jordan making the shot was about 50%. Allen Iverson on the other hand, has a likelihood over his 17,000 to make 42%. Therefore, we can say, that Jordan is more likely to make any one shot than Iverson.

The question is not whether or not we can measure basketball in an objective matter, we can very clearly do that. The question is what is the value of what we are measuring. nba.com for their EFF stat, for example, considers all stats to be equal in value, so it just adds up the good and subtracts the bad. Hollinger's PER on the other hand wants to know the points per possession value of everything before adding up the good and subtracting the bad. nba.com considers an offensive rebound the same value as a defensive rebound. Hollinger considers an offensive rebound more valuable because the offensive team grabs the rebound around only 30% of the time.

Even those who dismiss stats use them all the time. Lots of people will say stats are meaningless, then argue a guy who gets 25ppg is a better scorer than one who gets 10ppg by using the stats. It should not be a question of using stats or not, but which ones we use.

For example, Shannon used rebounds per game to determine the best rebounders. But as I noted, there are factors more important than rebounds in the RPG stat. Such as minutes played, the number of shots seen, etc. In my example of Shannon and KevC, if we repeated that over 82 "games" KevC would have the far better rebounds per game. But once we strip away the minute differences, and adjust for the number of rebound opportunities, we can see that Shannon was the one who was actually getting more rebounds per opportunity.