Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/2/2023 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/2/2023 2:17:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to argue with you about it, but if you get the chance read the chapter Bill Simmons wrote about their rivalry in his basketball book.

I don't need Bill Simmons romanticizing it, the numbers tell the story just fine.

It’s not always about numbers. Sometimes if you are really good you make those around you better. So yes Russell had good teammates, but also maybe just maybe the guy that led the San Francisco State Dons to 2 college championships before leading the Celtics to 11 championships was a great leader that elevated the play of those around him. It’s why you don’t put Charles Barkley above Tim Duncan in your PF rankings historically even though his advanced stats are better. Sometimes it’s more than just numbers.

It's very convenient how you guys who talk intangibles always automatically claim that they guy who you are for, with the lesser numbers, somehow had the intangibles over the guy with the lesser numbers.

Maybe the so called intangibles, if they even matter, FAVORED Wilt. How would you possibly know? The Celtics may just have won because the rest of the team was much better than the rest of any other team. Maybe Auerbach was that much better than the rest of the coaches.

And Barkley's advanced stats are not better than Duncan's. I have Duncan #7 all time, and Barkley #15 all time. Duncan had 29 more career win shares. Barkley's 7 best win share seasons are 3 win shares higher than Duncan's 7 best win share seasons, so perhaps Barkley as slightly better at his peak. For career playoff PER Duncan is at 24.28, Barkley is at 24.18. Duncan stayed a star longer than Barkley, whose body type was more conducive to breaking down sooner.

So they were very even at peaks, but Duncan stayed better longer. From 35 to 39 Duncan put up 36.4 win shares and even his final seasons his WS/.48 was .163.

Barkley from 35 to 39 Barkley put up 8.7 win shares in just 2 seasons in which he played a total of 62 games. His WS/48 his final season was just .148.

Duncan won his final championship in 2014 when he was 37 years old, Barkley was done at 36.

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 4:47:00 PM (view original):
I have Kevin Durant # 20 of all time for his career before this season started, and #12 all time for peak. Since in this sim we use individual seasons rather than careers, Durant is 9th among players for having the best individual season of all time. Here are the top individual win share seasons of all time.

NBA/ABA Leaders

Rank	Player	WS	Season
1.	Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*	25.37	1971-72
2.	Wilt Chamberlain*	24.98	1963-64
3.	George Mikan*	23.43	1950-51
4.	Wilt Chamberlain*	23.11	1961-62
5.	Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*	22.31	1970-71
6.	Wilt Chamberlain*	21.87	1966-67
7.	Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*	21.86	1972-73
8.	Wilt Chamberlain*	21.42	1965-66
9.	Michael Jordan*	21.23	1987-88
10.	George Mikan*	21.13	1949-50
11.	Wilt Chamberlain*	20.94	1962-63
12.	George Mikan*	20.86	1948-49
13.	Oscar Robertson*	20.65	1963-64
14.	Michael Jordan*	20.43	1995-96
15.	Wilt Chamberlain*	20.38	1967-68
Rank	Player	WS	Season
16.	Michael Jordan*	20.30	1990-91
17.	LeBron James	20.25	2008-09
18.	David Robinson*	19.98	1993-94
19.	Michael Jordan*	19.80	1988-89
20.	Artis Gilmore*	19.79	1971-72
21.	LeBron James	19.30	2012-13
22.	Kevin Durant	19.22	2013-14

Take away the duplicate names, and Durant has the 9th best season ever after Kareem, Wilt, Mikan, Jordan, Oscar. LeBron, The Admiral, and Gilmore.

So yes, in a sim where we use individual seasons, Durant is a top 10 player all time.

Posted by PBandJ on 1/2/2023 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/2/2023 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/2/2023 2:17:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to argue with you about it, but if you get the chance read the chapter Bill Simmons wrote about their rivalry in his basketball book.

I don't need Bill Simmons romanticizing it, the numbers tell the story just fine.

It’s not always about numbers. Sometimes if you are really good you make those around you better. So yes Russell had good teammates, but also maybe just maybe the guy that led the San Francisco State Dons to 2 college championships before leading the Celtics to 11 championships was a great leader that elevated the play of those around him. It’s why you don’t put Charles Barkley above Tim Duncan in your PF rankings historically even though his advanced stats are better. Sometimes it’s more than just numbers.

It's very convenient how you guys who talk intangibles always automatically claim that they guy who you are for, with the lesser numbers, somehow had the intangibles over the guy with the lesser numbers.

Maybe the so called intangibles, if they even matter, FAVORED Wilt. How would you possibly know? The Celtics may just have won because the rest of the team was much better than the rest of any other team. Maybe Auerbach was that much better than the rest of the coaches.

And Barkley's advanced stats are not better than Duncan's. I have Duncan #7 all time, and Barkley #15 all time. Duncan had 29 more career win shares. Barkley's 7 best win share seasons are 3 win shares higher than Duncan's 7 best win share seasons, so perhaps Barkley as slightly better at his peak. For career playoff PER Duncan is at 24.28, Barkley is at 24.18. Duncan stayed a star longer than Barkley, whose body type was more conducive to breaking down sooner.

So they were very even at peaks, but Duncan stayed better longer. From 35 to 39 Duncan put up 36.4 win shares and even his final seasons his WS/.48 was .163.

Barkley from 35 to 39 Barkley put up 8.7 win shares in just 2 seasons in which he played a total of 62 games. His WS/48 his final season was just .148.

Duncan won his final championship in 2014 when he was 37 years old, Barkley was done at 36.

That is what intangibles are, sir. They can't be accounted for in a metric. Things like teamwork, fear, and clutch can't be accounted for entirely in a statistic. It's the tar in Richard Pryor's Kryptonite (too obscure a reference...perhaps).

ALSO, win shares is a flawed stat for determining individual greatness. I mean who thinks Mikan really had the third best statistical season ever and also thinks that Karl Malone is the fourth best player in history.

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 1/2/2023 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/2/2023 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/2/2023 2:17:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to argue with you about it, but if you get the chance read the chapter Bill Simmons wrote about their rivalry in his basketball book.

I don't need Bill Simmons romanticizing it, the numbers tell the story just fine.

It’s not always about numbers. Sometimes if you are really good you make those around you better. So yes Russell had good teammates, but also maybe just maybe the guy that led the San Francisco State Dons to 2 college championships before leading the Celtics to 11 championships was a great leader that elevated the play of those around him. It’s why you don’t put Charles Barkley above Tim Duncan in your PF rankings historically even though his advanced stats are better. Sometimes it’s more than just numbers.

It's very convenient how you guys who talk intangibles always automatically claim that they guy who you are for, with the lesser numbers, somehow had the intangibles over the guy with the lesser numbers.

Maybe the so called intangibles, if they even matter, FAVORED Wilt. How would you possibly know? The Celtics may just have won because the rest of the team was much better than the rest of any other team. Maybe Auerbach was that much better than the rest of the coaches.

And Barkley's advanced stats are not better than Duncan's. I have Duncan #7 all time, and Barkley #15 all time. Duncan had 29 more career win shares. Barkley's 7 best win share seasons are 3 win shares higher than Duncan's 7 best win share seasons, so perhaps Barkley as slightly better at his peak. For career playoff PER Duncan is at 24.28, Barkley is at 24.18. Duncan stayed a star longer than Barkley, whose body type was more conducive to breaking down sooner.

So they were very even at peaks, but Duncan stayed better longer. From 35 to 39 Duncan put up 36.4 win shares and even his final seasons his WS/.48 was .163.

Barkley from 35 to 39 Barkley put up 8.7 win shares in just 2 seasons in which he played a total of 62 games. His WS/48 his final season was just .148.

Duncan won his final championship in 2014 when he was 37 years old, Barkley was done at 36.

That is what intangibles are, sir. They can't be accounted for in a metric. Things like teamwork, fear, and clutch can't be accounted for entirely in a statistic. It's the tar in Richard Pryor's Kryptonite (too obscure a reference...perhaps).

ALSO, win shares is a flawed stat for determining individual greatness. I mean who thinks Mikan really had the third best statistical season ever and also thinks that Karl Malone is the fourth best player in history.

I think that on both Mikan and Malone. I have Malone as CLEARLY the top PF ever. Not necessarily the best in a sim that uses individual seasons. Garnett and Duncan each had a better individual season than Malone's bets, but Malone had like 15 awesome season.

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:10:00 PM (view original):
In Mikan's 51 season he shot 43% from the field in a league that shot 36%. He shot 80% from the line in a league that shot 73%.

His total shooting % was .509 in a league that was .428. He had 958 rebs which was second to Schayes. He scored over 500 more points than the second place guy. He led the league in off win shares and in def win shares.

If What If normalized the seasons correctly, he'd be one of the best centers.

Posted by seapilots on 1/2/2023 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Are you saying the experts were correct and brilliant giving Wilt 4 MVPs and
had "their heads up their preverbal anal cavity" for Bill.
Perhaps they tired of voting for Wilt? could be? Then why not Jones or Havlicek?
Oscar only got one. He would have been a better candidate.
Perhaps Bill was helping to extricate them from their excrementally proned predicament and
they were obliged to vote for him.

Posted by ronsouth1 on 1/2/2023 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:10:00 PM (view original):
In Mikan's 51 season he shot 43% from the field in a league that shot 36%. He shot 80% from the line in a league that shot 73%.

His total shooting % was .509 in a league that was .428. He had 958 rebs which was second to Schayes. He scored over 500 more points than the second place guy. He led the league in off win shares and in def win shares.

If What If normalized the seasons correctly, he'd be one of the best centers.

you raise an interesting point ( i don’t necessarily agree with your top players but i don’t do the deep analytical dive you do) but the sim is what it is. these are the player cards we have to play with. sometimes you just have to play the hand you are dealt.

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:27:00 PM (view original):
dakjd901 posted:

"you obviously value stats over winning. I think you play to win the game."

Not at all. Individual players don't "win" games, teams do. When I assess teams I value winning. When I assess individual players, I assess the stats that lead to teams winning and losing.

You guys just ASSUME that the best player on each team is mainly responsible for which team wins. That's NOT how it is.

I played and officiated hundreds of games in my day where the team with the best player did not win. Many times the other team had 4 of the next 5 best players, and the one best player cannot quite overcome that.

Maravich was the best player in almost every college game he played in, but his team never even made the NCAA tournament. It wasn't from intangibles, or fear, or not being clutch, or any of that sportswriter BS that they use to try and humanize the game. There's only so much that one plauyer can do?

Do you think that Kansas lost the triple overtime NCAA final to UNC in 1957 because wilt didn't have the intangibles? Or was it that UNC had 3 guys on him at all times, and they UNC had 4 of the next 5 best players after Wilt?

If you guys want to buy into that BS about "clutch" and "They wanted it more" and "Intestinal fortitude" and "when the chips are down" and all that crap, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ronsouth1 on 1/2/2023 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 1/2/2023 5:10:00 PM (view original):
In Mikan's 51 season he shot 43% from the field in a league that shot 36%. He shot 80% from the line in a league that shot 73%.

His total shooting % was .509 in a league that was .428. He had 958 rebs which was second to Schayes. He scored over 500 more points than the second place guy. He led the league in off win shares and in def win shares.

If What If normalized the seasons correctly, he'd be one of the best centers.

you raise an interesting point ( i don’t necessarily agree with your top players but i don’t do the deep analytical dive you do) but the sim is what it is. these are the player cards we have to play with. sometimes you just have to play the hand you are dealt.

Yes, we can only work with what they have done. The baseball sim is even worse. They do not even rate outfield throwing arms, or pitchers holding runners, and the normalization stinks. Most guys use pitchers from 1910-1919 because they have low ERA's and WHIPS and hardly ever gave up home runs. You never see a team with pitchers from the 20s and 30s.