Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 12:22:00 PM (view original):
We are comparing apples to oranges. Bill Russell’s primary job was not to see how many points he could score.

In 1987 Andre Dawson hit 49 home runs and had 137 RBI. His WAR was 3.1.

In 1987 Ozzie Smith hit 0 home runs and had 75 RBI. His WAR was 5.5. Ozzie also happened to be a Gold Glove winning shortstop.

Ozzie’s Cardinals went 95-67 and won the National League. Damson’s Cubs went 76-85 and finished in last place.

First off, Ozzie was a great fielding SS playing in a pitcher's park, and Sosa was an okay fielding corner OFer playing in a great hitter's park. That why Ozzie was more valuable. It had nothing to do with whose team was better.

But, if you're gonna use WAR, let's use the basketball equivalent, win shares.

CAREER WIN SHARES
Malone - 234.63 - 4th all time
Duncan - 206.38 - 7th all time

BEST 7 SEASONS WIN SHARES
7. Mailman - 110.4
22. Duncan - 99.4

Malone was better at his peak, and for his career. Malone put up 11.1 win shares at the age of 39. Duncan had 5.2 win shares at that same age. Duncan's last season with 10 or more win shares was when he was 33. Malone LED THE NBA in win shares at the ages of 34 and 35.

Duncan closes the gap some by being a bit better in the playoffs, but Malone is clearly top top PF of all time.

The fact that you say he is clearly better than Duncan is baffling to me. But then again I don’t think I’m debating with a rational human being. On another note, will the remaining team evals be done before the season starts? If not, I understand. They take a lot of work

You're debating with the most rational human being around here. You guys are all emotional about how each player's team did. I'm just going with facts about each individual player's value on the court.

28 more career win shares.
11 more win shares when you add up each players 7 best seasons

The Spurs just had more great players around than the Jazz did. The Jazz basically won 55+ games or so every season because they had 2 of the greatest players ever in the league. The only time that they were able to get a third great player (Hornacek) they breezed to the NBA finals twice in a row.

The Jazz went 11-3 in the Western Conf playoffs in 1997. They had the same 11-3 record in the 1998 Western conf. playoffs. In 1998 they wiped out the Spurs in 5 gams in the second round.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1998-nba-western-conference-semifinals-spurs-vs-jazz.html

Malone averaged 24.6, 10 rebs, 3.8 assists
Duncan averaged 21.0 points, 8.4 rebs, 1.2 assists

"You're debating with the most rational human being around here."

Sorry savoy I snickered at that.

A rational person doesn't need to claim they are being rational. I work at a psychiatric hospital and I literally hear patients say almost that exact sentence CONSTANTLY.
Not saying you aren't rational, just pointing out the counter-productive statement.

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 1:02:00 PM (view original):
For those that will watch it (I don’t expect savoy to because it will have too much “emotion” and disagree with him) this is an interesting video. He does cases for multiple players as well.

https://youtu.be/1sRSpQ78Y3c

Bruce doesn’t have the time to watch any videos. He is too busy reading War and Peace.

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 12:22:00 PM (view original):
We are comparing apples to oranges. Bill Russell’s primary job was not to see how many points he could score.

In 1987 Andre Dawson hit 49 home runs and had 137 RBI. His WAR was 3.1.

In 1987 Ozzie Smith hit 0 home runs and had 75 RBI. His WAR was 5.5. Ozzie also happened to be a Gold Glove winning shortstop.

Ozzie’s Cardinals went 95-67 and won the National League. Damson’s Cubs went 76-85 and finished in last place.

First off, Ozzie was a great fielding SS playing in a pitcher's park, and Sosa was an okay fielding corner OFer playing in a great hitter's park. That why Ozzie was more valuable. It had nothing to do with whose team was better.

But, if you're gonna use WAR, let's use the basketball equivalent, win shares.

CAREER WIN SHARES
Malone - 234.63 - 4th all time
Duncan - 206.38 - 7th all time

BEST 7 SEASONS WIN SHARES
7. Mailman - 110.4
22. Duncan - 99.4

Malone was better at his peak, and for his career. Malone put up 11.1 win shares at the age of 39. Duncan had 5.2 win shares at that same age. Duncan's last season with 10 or more win shares was when he was 33. Malone LED THE NBA in win shares at the ages of 34 and 35.

Duncan closes the gap some by being a bit better in the playoffs, but Malone is clearly top top PF of all time.

The fact that you say he is clearly better than Duncan is baffling to me. But then again I don’t think I’m debating with a rational human being. On another note, will the remaining team evals be done before the season starts? If not, I understand. They take a lot of work

You're debating with the most rational human being around here. You guys are all emotional about how each player's team did. I'm just going with facts about each individual player's value on the court.

28 more career win shares.
11 more win shares when you add up each players 7 best seasons

The Spurs just had more great players around than the Jazz did. The Jazz basically won 55+ games or so every season because they had 2 of the greatest players ever in the league. The only time that they were able to get a third great player (Hornacek) they breezed to the NBA finals twice in a row.

The Jazz went 11-3 in the Western Conf playoffs in 1997. They had the same 11-3 record in the 1998 Western conf. playoffs. In 1998 they wiped out the Spurs in 5 gams in the second round.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1998-nba-western-conference-semifinals-spurs-vs-jazz.html

Malone averaged 24.6, 10 rebs, 3.8 assists
Duncan averaged 21.0 points, 8.4 rebs, 1.2 assists

Damn, rookie Duncan was f***ing good. Especially against prime Malone.

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 1:02:00 PM (view original):
For those that will watch it (I don’t expect savoy to because it will have too much “emotion” and disagree with him) this is an interesting video. He does cases for multiple players as well.

https://youtu.be/1sRSpQ78Y3c

Bruce doesn’t have the time to watch any videos. He is too busy reading War and Peace.

I laughed too hard at this LOL

My whole point with Ozzie Smith and Andre Dawson was that Ozzie was like Bill Russell and Dawson was like Wilt Chamberlain.

Dawson had the gaudy HR and RBI stats, but Ozzie’s team won.

Not many people know this, but when I was younger I actually won the Dawson Trophy, which is annually awarded to the best Red Rover player each season. The award is named for Red “Rover” Dawson, who invented the game Red Rover. In 1965 I won the Dawson Trophy because I had a perfect record both as a runner breaking through the opposing line, and also as part of the defending chain, where I didn’t allow a single opponent to break through.

Another interesting tidbit is that “Rover” Dawson was first cousins with Digby “Flopper” Newbury, who invented falling down. At first “Flopper” was just considered clumsy, but he eventually put this skill to good use playing Association Football for his high school team.

Bruce, I know you’re in the Hall of Fame for being a baseball umpire, but I won the Dawson Trophy.

Congratulations Midge!
They can never take that away from you
I do question your claim since the statisticians
in those days kept score with their heads
up their a$$.
Besides Peppermint Patty had much better
win shares when you include the years 1964 -1971
She hoisted the Dawson four times!!

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 1:51:00 PM (view original):
My whole point with Ozzie Smith and Andre Dawson was that Ozzie was like Bill Russell and Dawson was like Wilt Chamberlain.

Dawson had the gaudy HR and RBI stats, but Ozzie’s team won.

It's a terrible analogy. Ozzie was a more valuable player in that season. WAR acturately shows that Ozzie was more valuable than Dawson that season. Russell was NOT a more valuable player than Wilt. Russell never beat Wilt in win shares in a season when they both played a full season. In order for your analogy to work you'd have to show that the advanced metrics accurately showed Russell as more valuable than Wilt.

Try this one.

1926 Hornsby had 4.5 WAR. 1926 Babe Ruth had 11.6 WAR. But Hornsby's team beat Ruth's team in the world series, so according to your "rational logic," Hornsby was better than Ruth in 1926. So what if Ruth slashed .300/.548/900 and Hornsby slashed .250/.300/.286 in the series. Hornsby had better leadership and yteamwork, right?

By the way, Hornsby's reputation was that he was an awful teammate and really bad for a team, which is why despite being the best player in his league he was on 4 different teams in 4 seasons from 1926-1929.

Chamberlain led the NBA in win shares every season from 60-64, and then again from 65-68. The one year Russell had more win shares than Wilt when neither was injured was 1965 when Wilt was traded mid-season and had 15.1 in 73 games and Russell had 16.9 in 78 games. That's when Wilt's 40-40 team took Russell's 62-18 team to a 7th game and lost by one point.

So according to your logic, all that matters is which team won, right?

A 404-0 team takes the defending champions who won 62 games to a 7th game where they lose by one point, but in the "rational" minds of you guys, that's more proof that Russell is better than Chamberlain. A one point win is still a win, right?

Never mind that a mediocre team took them to a 7th game that they won by just one point.

So when am I going to get my draft torn apart on here on an eval?

Midge - Great video on Duncan. That level of analysis that is truly insightful. Much of the counting stats can confuse a player's value.

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 1:51:00 PM (view original):
My whole point with Ozzie Smith and Andre Dawson was that Ozzie was like Bill Russell and Dawson was like Wilt Chamberlain.

Dawson had the gaudy HR and RBI stats, but Ozzie’s team won.

It's a terrible analogy. Ozzie was a more valuable player in that season. WAR acturately shows that Ozzie was more valuable than Dawson that season. Russell was NOT a more valuable player than Wilt. Russell never beat Wilt in win shares in a season when they both played a full season. In order for your analogy to work you'd have to show that the advanced metrics accurately showed Russell as more valuable than Wilt.

Try this one.

1926 Hornsby had 4.5 WAR. 1926 Babe Ruth had 11.6 WAR. But Hornsby's team beat Ruth's team in the world series, so according to your "rational logic," Hornsby was better than Ruth in 1926. So what if Ruth slashed .300/.548/900 and Hornsby slashed .250/.300/.286 in the series. Hornsby had better leadership and yteamwork, right?

By the way, Hornsby's reputation was that he was an awful teammate and really bad for a team, which is why despite being the best player in his league he was on 4 different teams in 4 seasons from 1926-1929.

Chamberlain led the NBA in win shares every season from 60-64, and then again from 65-68. The one year Russell had more win shares than Wilt when neither was injured was 1965 when Wilt was traded mid-season and had 15.1 in 73 games and Russell had 16.9 in 78 games. That's when Wilt's 40-40 team took Russell's 62-18 team to a 7th game and lost by one point.

So according to your logic, all that matters is which team won, right?

A 404-0 team takes the defending champions who won 62 games to a 7th game where they lose by one point, but in the "rational" minds of you guys, that's more proof that Russell is better than Chamberlain. A one point win is still a win, right?

Never mind that a mediocre team took them to a 7th game that they won by just one point.

I respectfully disagree.
sure Midge had that once in a carwer
season of 1965
100%- defensive stops
100 - offensive breakthroughs
who can top that!!!
But Peppermint Patty had the
intangibles. The eye of the Tiger!
She was the Peanuts Red Rover FC!
She was merciless! I watched her
make grown children cry!!!!
Throw out your deep dive adv%
stats and fancydan metrics
PP = GOAT

Posted by seapilots on 1/4/2023 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 1:51:00 PM (view original):
My whole point with Ozzie Smith and Andre Dawson was that Ozzie was like Bill Russell and Dawson was like Wilt Chamberlain.

Dawson had the gaudy HR and RBI stats, but Ozzie’s team won.

It's a terrible analogy. Ozzie was a more valuable player in that season. WAR acturately shows that Ozzie was more valuable than Dawson that season. Russell was NOT a more valuable player than Wilt. Russell never beat Wilt in win shares in a season when they both played a full season. In order for your analogy to work you'd have to show that the advanced metrics accurately showed Russell as more valuable than Wilt.

Try this one.

1926 Hornsby had 4.5 WAR. 1926 Babe Ruth had 11.6 WAR. But Hornsby's team beat Ruth's team in the world series, so according to your "rational logic," Hornsby was better than Ruth in 1926. So what if Ruth slashed .300/.548/900 and Hornsby slashed .250/.300/.286 in the series. Hornsby had better leadership and yteamwork, right?

By the way, Hornsby's reputation was that he was an awful teammate and really bad for a team, which is why despite being the best player in his league he was on 4 different teams in 4 seasons from 1926-1929.

Chamberlain led the NBA in win shares every season from 60-64, and then again from 65-68. The one year Russell had more win shares than Wilt when neither was injured was 1965 when Wilt was traded mid-season and had 15.1 in 73 games and Russell had 16.9 in 78 games. That's when Wilt's 40-40 team took Russell's 62-18 team to a 7th game and lost by one point.

So according to your logic, all that matters is which team won, right?

A 404-0 team takes the defending champions who won 62 games to a 7th game where they lose by one point, but in the "rational" minds of you guys, that's more proof that Russell is better than Chamberlain. A one point win is still a win, right?

Never mind that a mediocre team took them to a 7th game that they won by just one point.

I respectfully disagree.
sure Midge had that once in a carwer
season of 1965
100%- defensive stops
100 - offensive breakthroughs
who can top that!!!
But Peppermint Patty had the
intangibles. The eye of the Tiger!
She was the Peanuts Red Rover FC!
She was merciless! I watched her
make grown children cry!!!!
Throw out your deep dive adv%
stats and fancydan metrics
PP = GOAT

lol two thumbs up

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 3:20:00 PM (view original):
So when am I going to get my draft torn apart on here on an eval?

probably later this evening.

Peppermint Patty was on steroids.