If it's a careless and colossal mistake, yes.

Why do you think the fact that Utah never won a championship should be held against Stockton. It wasn't his fault that Malone got stripped of the ball, or that Bivetta fucked up, or that the official let Jordan get away with a brutal offensive foul on Bryon Russell.

Why do you think that Carl Mays is not in the baseball HOF? One big mistake.

What about Bill Buckner's one big mistake in an otherwise excellent career?

I saw both players for their entire careers, and I want Stockton before Thomas easily, plus, there's no possible way to get the numbers to indicate that Thomas had even as close to as much value as Stockton had, either for their careers, or at their respective peaks.

Your whole argument comes down to one thing. The Pistons won a couple of championships and the Jazz didn't. If that's the way that you think we should decide who was better, than go ahead an drop Barkley down below James Worthy and Kevin McHale.

ugh

if that is my entire argument, then why am i not arguing for McHale > Barkley/Malone or Pippen/Worthy > Baylor? you think i have some bias in favor of Isiah Thomas? why would I?

likewise your entire argument comes down to your ridiculous baseball-based assumption that winshares is even remotely useful. again, winshares per 48 suggests:

Neil Johnston > Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Manu Ginobili > Jerry West
Ed Macauley > Bill Russell
Sidney Moncrief > Kobe Bryant
Dan Issel > Hakeem Olajuwon
Brad Miller > Patrick Ewing

so the fact that Stockton > Isiah means, lets see, umm, NOTHING.

It's not like Thomas is even remotely close to Stockton in career win shares.

If there was no such thing as win shares, which I only discovered for basketball recently, I'd still be saying that Stockton was way more valuable for his career. He beats Thomas badly in traditional stats too. Much more efficient offensive player and a better defender. Thomas scored more PPG because he was a chucker. Stockton alny too good shots. Thomas took all kinds of fucked up shots.

What I mean is vis a vis how I counted with the pace factor that you hate. The only way their relative position would be slower is if they were bad on the offensive glass since that is the only difference in calculation. Being bad on the offensive glass absolutely makes you slower in your measure. Hence as a practical matter offensive rebounding is the only difference between how possessions and pace are measured. Btw I know you still don't understand the point of the way pace is measured in these statistics which tells me you don't understand the underlying math behind advanced statistics but it's humorous nonetheless. I mean you do realize that the people who use these analytics as employees of teams use my method of calculating pace in their advanced stats.

Because that was a necessary role on his team (the same way it is for Rose and Westbrook). Stockton's role was the exact opposite style of point guard play. Neither in and of themselves is superior. As I've said Stockton's longevity plus a strong prime rate for me over Isiah but I think you're misusing stats to blow it out of proportion in Stockton's favor.

Pave should tell you how quickly teams shoot the ball with each new 24 second clock. If youi're counting two or three new 24 second clocks as the same possession when a team gets consecutive offensive rebounds, how does that work?

It would seem like they are slowing the ball down if, in your system, they retain one posession for over a minute.

The total possessions for an NBA game, between both teams, in the mid-90s, using my system, was like 210. If you use your system that's gonna go down. The 210 poss in my system would only be like 190 or so if an offensive rebound is not a new poss.

Apparently you see rebounding as part of either offense or defense.

I see rebounding as entirely different entity from offense or defense.

I want to know how many points a team gives up, on average, for each of its opponents possessions, with an offensive rebound counting as a new poss.

Otherwise, if you look at a team's average points allowed per poss, you can't tell if the problem is rebounding or if the problem is your defense.

same with offense. You might have an inefficient offense but not realize it because your offf rebounding is so strong that it brings up your points per poss in your system.

Let's say a team misses 5 straight shots on a trip but gets the offensive rebound each time, then on the 6th try they hit a three, With your system thay are shooting 1 for 6 but their offense seems awesome because they are scoring 3 points per possession. With my sytem their offense stinks because they are only scoring half a point per poss (3 points in 6 poss) but their off rebounding is awesome. So I now can tell just from the numbers that I need to trade some rebounding for some passers and shooters. With your system you would not be able to tell any of that merely by looking at their offensive efficiency.

Coaches always teach rebounding as part of defense. Finish the possession. "My" (as in the entire advanced statistical community without exception including gamblers, people who work for teams, and independents) deliberately includes rebounding as part of either offense or defense because it makes sense to include them as part of offense and defense and not treat it as a separate entity. All that matters in basketball is scoring points and preventing points being scored. Whether you score points through high percentage shooting or generating a lot of second chance points through offensive rebounds really makes no difference. Similarly whether you obtian strong defense by suffocating opponents shooting or doing less well at that but vacuuming every miss it doesn't make a difference.

And do you think coaches and GMs really can't look at shooting percentage and rebounding numbers and make the connection as to where their deficiencies are in their overall efficiency? And btw you can't just look straight at efficiency numbers based on your possession calculation either and tell what is responsible for the lousy offensive performance. You still have to look at a second number.

That has nothing to do with how it should be treated in a statistical analysis.



Not to me it doesn't, and I was a gambler in those days. At one time the statistical community in baseball looked mainly at batting average and paid no attention to OBP and SLG%. Even if you are right about how this supposed community looks at it, it doesn't mean that they won't wisen up and change their approach at some point in the future.




Agreed.



Agreed, if you all you care about is evaluating the team without evaluating individual players. With your method, a Dennis Rodman getting 6 offensive rebounds a game grades out as one of the most valuable "offensive" players in the league.



It does if you want to know which part of your team needs tweaking.



So your okay with the example I gave?

Where a team that shoots 1 for 6 grades out as being a great offensive team because they got offensive rebounds on every miss?

I want to know how efficently my team is valuing the ball and getting and making good shots and/or getting fouled and making the free throws. If my team goes 1 for 6 they should not grade out as a GREAT offensive team. They are a shit offfensive team with GREAT REBOUNDING.

It does in many situations. If the game is tied or you're down one point with the ball and with 9 seconds left in the quarter or the game would you rather have the poor shooting, great offensive rebounding team, or the great shooting weak offensive rebounding team?

I think it's easier to get your team to work harder to box out better and keep the other team off the boards than it is to get your team to defend great offensive players better.

Not that this matters, but many times during a game when a player gets an offensive rebound the announcer will say "Rodman gets (or has gotten) the Bulls a new possession."

My system works much better for simulations or fantasy leagues too, where the players may not be on the same teams that they are in real life. If all you know is that the team allows .97 points a possession with offensive rebounds merely extending the same position, how do you use those stats to give defensive ratings to individual players? They may all be great defenders who are forcing the other team to shoot 31%, but shit rebounders who are letting the offense get 3-4 consecutive offensive rebounds.

OR, they could be mediocre defenders who have a couple of great rebounders who almost never give the other team.an offensive rebound.

I agree that in the end, team wise, all that matters is points scored and points allowed, but in baseball all that matters is runs scored and runs allowed, but they still treat batting, pitching, fielding and baserunning as separate entities.

I see rebounding as entirely different entity from offense and defense. It's the only part of the game that you have to do on both ends of the court.

No because we're only talking about how pace and scoring efficiency is set. Remember Rodman only gets credit for points per possession if he actually scores. So if all six rebounds are put backs he's a fantastically efficient player in either your system or my system (he's scoring 2 points per possession). If Rodman scores zero points on those six offensive rebounds and takes no shots he's a bad offensive player (but useful in extending his teams possessions). If Rodman gets six offensive rebounds and misses every single shot he's a shit offensive player in both your system and my system. Of course he's always a spectacular rebounder. Now if you want to assign team credit for Rodman for leading to the one basket in the possession after the six rebounds then he's an important part of the offense in my system but not yours.

Now there are some statistical metrics (points per play/possession) that give granular data about how players perform in specific situations that do use your system because it makes a great deal of sense. If I want to know how good Lebron is in the pick and roll then I want the play to end as soon as a shot counts so I can see how many points he scores per play that ends on a pick and roll. But when I'm evaluating pace and team performance particularly I want to equalize possessions so I can see who is stopping and who is scoring additional points.

First bold point of course it does but you'll already know that information regardless of how you count possessions. It isn't like the other statistics disappear into the ether.

That depends on the team as to the second bold. I believe the Celtics this past year were lock down defenders but not particularly good at cleaning up missed shots. So a team may be better at one than the other defending on personnel.

And many times they'll say he extends the play or gets a new shot clock (neutral). You're correct it's irrelevant.

Your next bold point I won't really argue. I can see why if you're assigning a defensive rating to an individual player for fantasy purpose you'd want it your way. Of course I think defensive rating statistics are relatively terrible at actually picking out quality defenders.

Next bold point and of course we still have the other statistics. They don't disappear from the face of the earth because of how pace factor gets measured. You can still easily figure out why you're being successful just by glancing at the other stats.

Nash or Kidd?

Probably Nash. But I might move Kidd up a bit.

Any reason to not have Nash?