NBA Top 75 in 2021?

[Bobbofitos]

[
from 03-04 to 07-08 billups got more votes for the all-D team than any PG but jason kidd. that same time frame tayshaun prince got more votes for the all-D team than all SFs except bruce bowen, andrei kirilenko, and ron artest. so not just i but alot of people thought they were very good defenders...

also, you toss out that phrasing like it means anything. I don't care one bit who the journalists think played good defense. they have a slightly informed opinion, but it's very imperfect. look at kobe bryant's career defensive awards - clearly that guy must be a GOAT defender right!

as far as a team having largely average defenders and then the two wallaces... yeah, makes sense that would put them 3rd overall in defense. ben wallace was a historically elite defender - likely an underappreciated player, simply because casuals siphon off too much of his own greatness onto others. ie., he's so good at defense, he got billups on the all defensive team more times than any PG other than kidd!

[Bobbofitos]

and from your statement - debunking the stat because you thought a player was good at defense sounds like a bad approach to me - i have to assume you are young and never saw both billups and prince play in their prime. because if you had this wouldn't even be a discussion - you would have known from watching them that they were two of the best defenders at their positions over that 6 year stretch...

how long ive watched basketball has no bearing on anything, either. it shouldn't matter, "but", i watched the pistons throughout their mini dynasty run of ECFs. i knew that team very well. however, i've learned not to trust my eyes. eyes lie. if your eye test is so good you can watch the games and do better than databases that have "seen" every game they've ever played, kudos to you. when i think of their defense, only looking at xRAPM is silly. but it probably speaks loudest among the public defensive metrics, in my opinion at least, as far as player value condemnation or praise.

[bchaikin]

so in a few short paragraphs you've gone from...

The problem with how you present things is you form an opinion and apply the data to fit that narrative.

to...

I dunno, I don't really have a horse in this race either way

yes it's amazing when you actually confront the numbers what really falls out. if one is going to present a defensive metric for players it somehow has to add up to a team ranking - otherwise how can one tell if it's true?...

the Bulls with Carlos Boozer have managed to do that pretty effectively too

good example - boozer has not been a good defender since going to chicago 4 years ago...

but deng, noah, gibson, butler, and asik have all been very good to excellent man defenders, with brewer and hinrich being good too. those players combined played 52% of the bulls minutes since 10-11, and that's why they've been the best defensive team in the league these last 4 years, even with boozer playing 1/9 of chicago's total minutes played over that same time...

you toss out that phrasing like it means anything.

i value all-D votes - the people that vote watch alot of basketball. i can see a player who really wasn't a great defender be voted in once (i.e. larry hughes), but billups and prince got alot of votes over a long period of time (5-6 years)...

they have a slightly informed opinion, but it's very imperfect

so who's perfect? the voters watch alot of basketball, and over 5-6 years i think the opinions of those who watch alot of basketball have value. that's why they have alot of voters, and not just a few, to get various opinions...

look at kobe bryant's career defensive awards

kobe was a very good man defender for a very long time - from 99-00 to 09-10 - when he got a ton of all-D votes, over that time the lakers were about the league's 7th or 8th best defensive team, and he played 1/7 to 1/6 of the team's total minutes played. if your opinion is that he was not a good defender, then who else on the lakers was such that they ranked that high on defense? shaq played just 1/2 the minutes kobe did for the lakers over that time span...

as far as a team having largely average defenders and then the two wallaces... yeah, makes sense that would put them 3rd overall in defense

guess again - the numbers do not add up. you don't add great defenders who play just 25% of a team's minutes to a team of all average defensive players and get the league's 3rd best in defense...

ben wallace was a historically elite defender - likely an underappreciated player

you bet - clearly this generation's bill russell. i wholeheartedly agree. his 01-02 season was epic in terms of wins generated for a player who scored so little...

if your eye test is so good you can watch the games and do better than databases that have "seen" every game they've ever played, kudos to you.

you have to do both - watch games and analyze the data...

when i think of their defense, only looking at xRAPM is silly

i agree...

but it probably speaks loudest among the public defensive metrics, in my opinion at least, as far as player value condemnation or praise.

i have yet to see a website that shows any kind of individual player APM (offense or defense) or it's various renditions that adds up to team rankings. when it does that it will get a far larger audience...

[Bobbofitos]

so in a few short paragraphs you've gone from...

The problem with how you present things is you form an opinion and apply the data to fit that narrative.

to...

I dunno, I don't really have a horse in this race either way

yes it's amazing when you actually confront the numbers what really falls out. if one is going to present a defensive metric for players it somehow has to add up to a team ranking - otherwise how can one tell if it's true?...

xRAPM is not a descriptive stat, so it doesn't actually have to sum up to a team ranking. It's somewhat of an odd concept, but it's plausible that a team over or under performs their summed rate,... and that could make sense.

[schtevie]

Shorter Bob Chaikin: we absolutely know that Maurice Cheeks was the superior player to Steve Nash because Chauncey Billups. This is a sad argument, for the lack of coherence, completeness, and accuracy, but sadder still is what some of the supporting commentary reveals about the state of this little world we participate in (what is much more important than rejecting, a priori, all things +/-).

I speak specifically about the apparent lack of knowledge about what the +/- literature has to say about positional averages. This is something that I thought was common knowledge - especially amongst those who have participated here for, er, decades (perhaps even having directly engaged in contemporaneous discussions). Because it's, er, really important for understanding NBA basketball.

The direct reference point I had in mind was this wonderful and indispensable contribution from one of now Morey's Minions: http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008 ... lus-minus/. And as written therein, this confirms results generated by this guy named Rosenbaum, http://www.82games.com/rosenbaum3.htm, who posted the corresponding article on a site owned by this guy named Beech.

On the chance that these articles have not just been forgotten but, in fact, never read, I won't detract from anyone's fun by giving away what the PG average for APM was in 2008, what was consistent with results for 2003-04 through 2004-05, and what, I would argue is likely to apply to longer time periods, given "structural" similarities of the NBA game.

But, finally, I do need to say something about Chauncey Billups, the 2004-05 Detroit Pistons, and the implied (offensive and) defensive performance of the team, based upon Jeremias' estimates - what apparently is the "smoking gun" that allows disregarding all things xRAPM.

Bob, are you really sure that your math is correct? Perhaps double-check, as when I conduct this exercise, I get the "expected" result. Namely, on net, the team's defensive performance is more than all explained by Wallace's (Ben) time on the court, with then the remaining positive contributions (in descending order) coming from the other Wallace, Prince, McDyess, and Campbell. But these being more than offset by the negative contributions of the remaining cast members. Though, of course, Chauncey Billups' contributions weren't negative in a comparative positional sense, but actually above-average for a point guard. Oops... I kind of gave it away.

[bchaikin]

so let me get this straight...

in a thread about top 50-100 players, you ask this:

would I be correct in supposing that you simply reject the xRAPM estimates of player contributions?

i ask this:

is -1.2 an excellent defensive xRAPM number over a 6 year period for a PG that averaged playing 2655 minutes a season? if not then what is this number telling us for billups?

so one person responds with this:

If xRAPM claims one thing, then it claims one thing. It claims Billups was in fact a below-average defender.

yet another with this:

Though, of course, Chauncey Billups' contributions weren't negative in a comparative positional sense, but actually above-average for a point guard.

one says - in fact - the other says - of course - same number, yet two people claiming emphatically they mean different things...

are you really sure that your math is correct? Perhaps double-check, as when I conduct this exercise, I get the "expected" result

great - show us your work, show us the math, the calculation - right here is this discussion...

[Mike G]

A point guard is never primarily a defender. He runs the offense. Every other position may be held by a guy whose talent is more at one end or the other.
Ben Roethlisberger, a football quarterback, made a great tackle once. But he isn't on the field because of that; it's because he runs the offense.

Because Ben and Rasheed Wallace could not only generally defend their man, they could also help out on others' men -- it was a great advantage when other guys could almost defend their counterparts, 1-on-1. This allows for a nearly seamless defense.

Billups was a great defender for a point guard. Boris Diaw is a great passer for a big man. When you have guys doing things that are great for their position, as well as doing their expected jobs, you may have a great team.

... what the +/- literature has to say about positional averages. This is something that I thought was common knowledge ...

It never hurts to refresh the common knowledge. I think it runs down from 5 (C) to 1 (PG); but the numbers, for reference, would be splendid. A player who is 2 pts/100 better than his avg counterpart is a great teammate.

[schtevie]

so let me get this straight...

in a thread about top 50-100 players, you ask this:

would I be correct in supposing that you simply reject the xRAPM estimates of player contributions?

i ask this:

is -1.2 an excellent defensive xRAPM number over a 6 year period for a PG that averaged playing 2655 minutes a season? if not then what is this number telling us for billups?

so one person responds with this:

If xRAPM claims one thing, then it claims one thing. It claims Billups was in fact a below-average defender.

yet another with this:

Though, of course, Chauncey Billups' contributions weren't negative in a comparative positional sense, but actually above-average for a point guard.

one says - in fact - the other says - of course - same number, yet two people claiming emphatically they mean different things...

You really cannot be serious here, can you be?

I don't want to speak for Bobbofitos, but I understood his remark as quite clearly referring to the global average for +/-, what is zero, and -1.2 is, of course, less than this.

My remark, very specifically, in the exact words quoted above, refer to Chauncey Billup's estimate relative to the PG average of -2.0 as related in Eli's excellent blog post. (Though it should be noted, that he specifically notes that the membership of the PG list, taken from Doug Stats, is one he has disagreements with.)

How could this possibly be a point of confusion? Have you still not taken the occasion to review this information?

are you really sure that your math is correct? Perhaps double-check, as when I conduct this exercise, I get the "expected" result

great - show us your work, show us the math, the calculation - right here is this discussion...

I do believe the responsibility is yours to first check your work. You introduced to the conversation, without appropriate documentation, a rather strong and surprising claim, what was then leaned upon to seemingly dismiss all that is +/-.

But here's some further, hopefully useful guidance. I am supposing an error is that it is primarily conceptual, not computational. To assess the total contributions of players, all need to be added up (preferably on a possession rather than minute proration) taking into account the fact that there are always five players on the court. My sense is that you're off by a factor of five.

[bchaikin]

Billups was a great defender for a point guard.

agreed...

[Bobbofitos]

I don't want to speak for Bobbofitos, but I understood his remark as quite clearly referring to the global average for +/-, what is zero, and -1.2 is, of course, less than this.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I don't think anything I typed was cryptic or misleading.