Fascinating MJ/Kobe/Bron Comparison

[Remote]

Then what is this thread about? What makes the stat OP posted any different? If these advanced stats aren't trying to prop some players above others then what is the point?

If PER or other advanced stats aren't telling us who is better than who, then shut the fukk up and stop talking about them.

The point is to use advanced analytics which are more accurate representations of what happens on the court.

Nowhere has anyone ever argued that one stat is some definitive encapsulation of a player’s value.

However, the more of these metrics TAKEN COLLECTIVELY that that point to a general trend, the better picture we can paint. And we can arrive at a better understanding...which when comparing players gives us all better footing to stand on.

This is understood and practiced by literally every front office in the NBA - WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

It’s not some made up gibberish to praise one player or bash another. It’s objective analysis to cut through biases.

How many times in this thread have I and @Bilz needed to explain this? Because it’s very simple.

 

[ELESDEE616]

Spoken like the crakkka I thought you were.

The list is there for everyone to see and read. I'll let people make up their own minds. Your attempts at spin won't work.

Nikka if anyone is an agent it's you. Ole deep in the red butt of every joke autistic ass nikka.

 

[Greenhornet]

Winning is the only thing that matters

Ask Larry Bird

 

[Bilz]

That's not just me. Or other fans. That's nearly every NBA player who has competed with and against him.



The burden ain't on us to corroborate the perceptions of KOBE'S PEERS when they say he's clutch or a great defender. Its on ya'll that think advanced stats (which you have already admitted have their flaws) tell you what smart basketball minds who have played the game can't tell you.

Look if advanced stats are to be trusted, they have to be FLAWLESS. You can't say they sometimes work and sometimes don't. Especially when they go against what guys who have played the game believe. NBA players have no reason to think Kobe is better than LeBron. They have no reason to deify Kobe like us fans do. If Kobe ain't who his reputations according to his peers says he is, then you need something a lot better than some random made up stats that you admit yourself are not always accurate or don't tell you who is better than who.

Advanced stats are consistent and unbiased. The different calculations are lines drawn in the sand and the actual game events are plotted accordingly. But again and again it has to be explained to you, they are not designed to be used for a ranking of who the best player is.

There are two major issues with your attempt at an appeal to authority argument.

1. You are a flat earth fakkit who willingly ignores expert opinions to the contrary. So clearly you don't think expert experience in a field makes someone a reliable source.

2. Your study of "almost every player says LeBron is better" is inherently flawed. It's not a complete study and not only do a lot of the quotes not stem from a question of who is better between Kobe and LeBron, a lot of the quotes are too old to be used because of how much has changed since the quote, some answer different questions (toughest to guard, etc) and some are just general compliments.

 

[Originalman]

Well people trot that out there like he was taking 7-8 threes a game. He never took more than three 3s a game. It worked for 2 rings and 4 finals appearances. One of which they won with him missing 9 playoff games right? When there are 3 good-great offensive players on a team everybody isn't going to eat like they did previously in order for the team to succeed.
People say Worthy could have been a 25-30ppg scorer had Magic not been there.
Harden left OKC and flourished scoring wise
Love sacrificed with Bron and Kyrie
Ron Harper sacrificed for Chicago (I know he got there while Mike was gone, but he basically just played defense when Mike got back. from 21ppg to 9ppg)
Mark Aguirre was a 25ppg scorer before the 88-89 season, 14.5 after that.

Shhhh we don't use intelligence on the coli.

 

[Originalman]

Not exactly. You're assuming all things are equal across teammates for the opposing teams.
This is why even though Michael was elite in the 1980s, he didn't win. Because the rest of his team couldn't overcome his opponents who, while lacking an individual player as elite as Michael, were superior everywhere else.

This is just common sense as to why you don't always equate team success with individual greatness.

Enough with this common shyt stuff remote. This the coli we like ignorance.

 

[Originalman]

Straight facts, insane how dudes just make up shyt to fit their agenda. Forget Bosh hated the idea of playing at C or playing down low more

Yep even on toronto bosh was never a post player. He was a mid post big man who prefered to catch the ball on the right side about 12 to 15 feet out and face his defender. Either executing a drive or a jumper. Basically on offense he was david robinson without the elite handles and finishing ability.

 

[Swagnificent]

Advanced stats are consistent and unbiased. The different calculations are lines drawn in the sand and the actual game events are plotted accordingly. But again and again it has to be explained to you, they are not designed to be used for a ranking of who the best player is.

There are two major issues with your attempt at an appeal to authority argument.

1. You are a flat earth fakkit who willingly ignores expert opinions to the contrary. So clearly you don't think expert experience in a field makes someone a reliable source.

2. Your study of "almost every player says LeBron is better" is inherently flawed. It's not a complete study and not only do a lot of the quotes not stem from a question of who is better between Kobe and LeBron, a lot of the quotes are too old to be used because of how much has changed since the quote, some answer different questions (toughest to guard, etc) and some are just general compliments.

I've never said I believe the earth is flat. I simply question the current paradigm. And the reason experts in that field shouldn't be trusted is because they are liars who have lied before.

NASA are confirmed liars who faked 6 moon missions and who are currently faking being on the International Space Station. Known liars should not be trusted.

I have no reason to doubt guys like Tracy McGrady, D-Wade, Dirk, and others. They have no reason to lie and say Kobe is better than LeBron. They also don't have a track record of lying like NASA.

 

[Swagnificent]

The point is to use advanced analytics which are more accurate representations of what happens on the court.

Nowhere has anyone ever argued that one stat is some definitive encapsulation of a player’s value.

However, the more of these metrics TAKEN COLLECTIVELY that that point to a general trend, the better picture we can paint. And we can arrive at a better understanding...which when comparing players gives us all better footing to stand on.

This is understood and practiced by literally every front office in the NBA - WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

It’s not some made up gibberish to praise one player or bash another. It’s objective analysis to cut through biases.

How many times in this thread have I and @Bilz needed to explain this? Because it’s very simple.

How is it objective? Just because you create a stat that groups numbers in a unique way doesn't make it objective. It could just be bullshyt.

If this analytics based model is more objective or reliable than the "eye test" of trusted sources with experience (like NBA players) then it should be able to make some sort of predictions that make it more reliable than any other form of analysis.

Do you understand basic scientific theory? For something to go from a hypothesis to a theory, it has to make some predictions. And those predictions need to be corroborated by observations. That is how mathematical equations go from fancy little things people make up to being accepted models that explain our reality. Newton's equations of gravity weren't simply accepted after he put out the math. They were only accepted after observed data corroborated the predictions made by the math.

Until analytics is capable to predicting events in the future better than people who just watch games, it is not a superior form of analysis that "cut through biases". Its could be just as biased based on the presumptions and parameters it started with.

 

[Remote]

How is it objective? Just because you create a stat that groups numbers in a unique way doesn't make it objective. It could just be bullshyt.

If this analytics based model is more objective or reliable than the "eye test" of trusted sources with experience (like NBA players) then it should be able to make some sort of predictions that make it more reliable than any other form of analysis.

Do you understand basic scientific theory? For something to go from a hypothesis to a theory, it has to make some predictions. And those predictions need to be corroborated by observations. That is how mathematical equations go from fancy little things people make up to being accepted models that explain our reality. Newton's equations of gravity weren't simply accepted after he put out the math. They were only accepted after observed data corroborated the predictions made by the math.

Until analytics is capable to predicting events in the future better than people who just watch games, it is not a superior form of analysis that "cut through biases". Its could be just as biased based on the presumptions and parameters it started with.

So you’re saying that all the metrics that all point in the same direction are all created with the same predictions in mind?



And did I not literally call out how you moronic clowns ALWAYS think that analytics is supposed to confirm visual biases?

Do you not understand that science (and these metrics) by nature serve to disprove themselves? That the less they can be disproved the more useful and accurate they are?

You pseudo intellectual.

 

[Hater]

Cac shyt.

 

[Swagnificent]

So you’re saying that all the metrics that all point in the same direction are all created with the same predictions in mind?



And did I not literally call out how you moronic clowns ALWAYS think that analytics is supposed to confirm visual biases?

Do you not understand that science (and these metrics) by nature serve to disprove themselves? That the less they can be disproved the more useful and accurate they are?

You pseudo intellectual.

No. I'm saying the idea that just counting up random things that occur during a basketball game don't all of sudden mean that those metrics are somehow describing what happened in that basketball game accurately. You seem to not realize the ultimate fallacy of your entire argument. The ultimate fallacy is you believe the metrics that are the source material for these advanced stats are actually accurate in and of themselves and actually describe what happens in a basketball game accurately. There are many things in a basketball game that the stats (no matter how advanced) miss. That's why coaches, players, scouts and GMs watch TAPE rather than just looking at the box score when it comes to scouting other players and teams.

You obviously never studied science in school so let me break this down for you. The way physics works, is it tries to describe the natural world with mathematical equations. Now anyone can come up with a mathematical equation or proof. Its not that hard. The more difficult aspect is coming up with a mathematical equation that ACCURATELY describes the world as it is. And the only way to be sure a mathematical equation describes the world as it is, is for that equation to make predictions and those predictions to be corroborated by observations. That's how physics works.

All these advanced stats and analytics could supersede the eye test and be actual objective proofs if they made PREDICTIONS that could then be corroborated by OBSERVATION. Until you can do that, then these advanced stats and analytics are no more worthy than anyone else's opinion. PERIOD.

 

[Remote]

No. I'm saying the idea that just counting up random things that occur during a basketball game don't all of sudden mean that those metrics are somehow describing what happened in that basketball game accurately. You seem to not realize the ultimate fallacy of your entire argument. The ultimate fallacy is you believe the metrics that are the source material for these advanced stats are actually accurate in and of themselves and actually describe what happens in a basketball game accurately. There are many things in a basketball game that the stats (no matter how advanced) miss. That's why coaches, players, scouts and GMs watch TAPE rather than just looking at the box score when it comes to scouting other players and teams.

You obviously never studied science in school so let me break this down for you. The way physics works, is it tries to describe the natural world with mathematical equations. Now anyone can come up with a mathematical equation or proof. Its not that hard. The more difficult aspect is coming up with a mathematical equation that ACCURATELY describes the world as it is. And the only way to be sure a mathematical equation describes the world as it is, is for that equation to make predictions and those predictions to be corroborated by observations. That's how physics works.

All these advanced stats and analytics could supersede the eye test and be actual objective proofs if they made PREDICTIONS that could then be corroborated by OBSERVATION. Until you can do that, then these advanced stats and analytics are no more worthy than anyone else's opinion. PERIOD.

Wtf are you talking about?

The goal of these metrics is to evaluate what has happened. It is NOT to predict.

That said...the metrics ARE better at predicting future performance than any “eye test”. Ever.



If these metrics were as inconsistent as you pretend they are, where are the high rates of outliers? Where’s the metric that has Emmanuel Mudiay as a top 5 player?




Can’t find it huh.

 

[Swagnificent]

Wtf are you talking about?

The goal of these metrics is to evaluate what has happened. It is NOT to predict.

That said...the metrics ARE better at predicting future performance than any “eye test”. Ever.



If these metrics were as inconsistent as you pretend they are, where are the high rates of outliers? Where’s the metric that has Emmanuel Mudiay as a top 5 player?




Can’t find it huh.

Then prove it. Talk is cheap as they say.

And if all analytics do is look backwards then stop wasting my time talking about them.

We can all watch the games and determine for ourselves what happened. I've never seen a coach or player who has just played a game say they need to see the box score before they can tell you what happened. Typically they say they have to watch the film.

This is why I find people who think analytics or stats tell them more than actually watching the games stupid.

Just watch the game and you won't need some math nerd to tell you what happened.

 

[ELESDEE616]

Then prove it. Talk is cheap as they say.

And if all analytics do is look backwards then stop wasting my time talking about them.

We can all watch the games and determine for ourselves what happened. I've never seen a coach or player who has just played a game say they need to see the box score before they can tell you what happened. Typically they say they have to watch the film.

This is why I find people who think analytics or stats tell them more than actually watching the games stupid.

Just watch the game and you won't need some math nerd to tell you what happened.

You're retarded possibly autistic. Why would anyone take your opinion on basketball seriously because "you watch the games".

Show us receipts of your hoop career.


Also, analytics created the Warriors and Spurs. Big reason why the game has shifted out to the three point and why teams value 3D players. Disparaging analytics or creating a science around the game is dumb and puts you with Charles Barkley category of dumbness