This is the problem with these "metrics" or made up statistics though, they rarely match up with reality. Let's examine: According to PER: Hakeem Olajuwon is a worse player than: Chris Paul, James Harden, Karl Anthony Towns, Neil Johnston, David Robinson (more blasphemy) and Charles Barkley. According to WS/48 Hakeem Olajuwon is a worse player than: Kevin McHale, Kevin Garnett, Karl Anthony Towns, Dolph Schayes, Ed Mcauley, Yao Ming, Sam Jones, John Stockton, Jimmy Butler, and most of the people that PER thinks are better than him. According to VORP Hakeem Olajuwon is a worse player than: James Harden, John Stockton, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Chris Paul, Kevin Garnett... I can't find the lists for WAR and PIE, but if like the rest of them they call John Stockton a top 5-10 player, I'm going to have to discount them just as heavily. This is the problem with using estimates and made up "metrics" over actual statistics, they skew to the biases of the people who created them and don't actually have the concrete statistical worth that people like to pretend they do. But sure, Jokic is better than Michael Jordan and is the GOAT, and John Stockton makes Olajuwon a scrub? Not buying it.
Dream was the supreme ISO post up player. You give him the ball and get out of the way. His TS/Efg numbers arent "great" when stacked up against contemporaries. We have to remember that SKILL IS NOT THE SAME AS EFFICIENCY and it would depend on what argument any of us is trying to prove. That is the slippery slope with using box scores as an end all be all. None of us would argue the IMPACT Dream had on a court, but when you run the numbers they dont scream efficient (in comparison to other GOATs) and that is an obstacle when using only stats to paint a picture. Dream using footwork, balance and touch to hit a baseline shake for two is equal to Shaq going through the chest of 3 defenders on his way to a dunk. Which is better? The percentages would tell you that Shaq was superior (and maybe he was in certain traits) thats why watching the game will always be a better indicator than watching the box scores. Needless to say that 90s era star guards that could make a 3pt shot and dish the ball will always have an edge vs Dream and in these rankings because numbers are numbers. You run the formula and it spits out the end result. Do you have a preferred stat to more accurately rank players? If stats were the only measuring stick Dream wouldnt be in the top 20 of 'best of' player rankings, but everytime the leaderboard needs to be shuffled you will ALWAYS hear Olajuwon in the conversation. It wasnt because of his stats - it was because of his impact. For the purposes of Mitchell v Booker there really isnt much of an argument for Booker - eye test, stat test whatever its pretty clear.
I couldn't say I have a "preferred" stat. But I'll always rate real statistics over made up "metrics" that consider John Stockton a top 5-10 all time player, which frankly, is ridiculous. "Win shares" is crazy too, for every win there are 3 win shares. So only 3 people on a team count if they win? It's not real statistics, it's like none of y'all ever studied mathematics. Most of these "moneyball" ideas are supposed to inform you on what might be the best decision to make during a game based on suggestive estimates to produce results, not to compare how good players are with each other. Did none of y'all even read the ****in book whilst being so obsessed with this nonsense?
One that's based on actual recorded numbers and not estimates and nonsense skewed towards a particular bias. VORP is an estimate based on an estimated fictional player which is even more insane. But sure, go right ahead and believe in "metrics" that make John Stockton better than the majority of the players in NBA history.
For the record I really wasn’t prepared to defend any advanced stat as a self admitted non stat guy. I offered my layman’s interpretation and agree with you in premise. The debate was between Booker and Mitchell and I just noted that Mitchell seems to be ranked higher on some of those “lists”.
I'm just saying, those "metrics" are not any real good way of comparing players. Most of them aren't even statistics, they're estimates. They have more value in finding cheap but effective players for teams who struggle to afford real stars or to make in-game decisions for specific situations than they do in comparing stars or "which player is better" in all honesty. You can have all the advanced metrics in the world in your favour but averaging 13ppg (John Stockton, 3rd all time in VORP - no rings) will never be as valuable as averaging 25ppg (Kobe Bryant, 13th all time in VORP - 5 rings) for your career. That's the problem with looking at the estimates and ignoring the actual results and numbers that people put up. The most efficient 5 points is still worth a lot less than an inefficient 50. And being a metric darling like James Harden means nothing compared to somebody like Hakeem who ACTUALLY WINS and is legitimately one of the greatest all times but never ranked anywhere near as high as Harden in those same metrics. Now, on the Booker/Mitchell comparison, I think Booker's a more dynamic scorer, Mitchell's a better defender. It depends on the roster need though, Booker's also a 6'6 shooting guard who is a scoring specialist and we're a top 10 defense with Jalen Green playing in that position. Mitchell's a 6'3 shooting guard who's more likely to slide down than up in terms of positional flexibility, I'd personally take Booker over Mitchell for the specific needs of the team - he's essentially what we need Jalen to be already, and Mitchell's skillset overlaps more with Sheppard/FVV than Jalen. We have 2 guys who could fill a Mitchell role, we have 1 guy who fills a Booker role and is significantly worse at it than Booker is. Sometimes the metrics distract from the picture we need to look at in my opinion.
Would it offend you if somebody did value PPG? I do find it interesting how averse most people here are to that statistic whilst pushing ones that again don't seem to correlate as much with reality. As a very basic example/comparison for 2 players who played against each other in similar eras. Everybody here loves to use TS% as another "be all and end all" statistic. Reggie Miller is 16th all time in TS% Michael Jordan is 131st all time in TS% Reggie Miller is 124th all time in PPG Michael Jordan is 1st all time in PPG Which of these 2 statistics better reflects reality? Is Michael Jordan the 131st best scorer of all time, or the 1st? Now, I'm not saying PPG is the be all and end all, but to act like it's an irrelevant stat compared to TS%, which people have claimed MANY times to me, is r****ded. Let's examine those 2 just a little bit further: Top 5 all time TS% Rudy Gobert DeAndre Jordan Artis Gilmore Nikola Jokic Cedric Maxwell Top 5 all time PPG Michael Jordan Wilt Chamberlain Luka Doncic Joel Embiid Elgin Baylor Which of these 2 statistics most resembles the reality of these players in their hierarchy in all-time scorers? I'll let you decide.
You can do that for anything. Hakeem is 45th in ppg. Is he worse than brad beal? Or KAT? Or trae? Or iverson? This isn’t baseball, there isn’t any one statistic like war that’s the end all be all. You have to look at all of them for it to be valuable. Also reggie miller is like a top 30 all time player, it’s not the diss you think it is. Also jokic blows away all the ppg guys besides Jordan but he also breaks basketball
I wonder if you watched Stockton ..... Not only is he the alltime assists leader but 3,715 assists more than anyone else. That's 30.7% more. #1 in steals 581 steals ahead of #2 on the list, that's 22.3% more and he is also currently #19 on the career scoring list (13th when he retired). To complain about a stat that paints Stockton as a top X player is just Jazz hater bias (I know rockets fans hate them with a passion), It's like you didn't watch him play. he really was that impactful.
After this season, yes... Sarver is going to implode that team once he comes to terms with the fact that they can't realistically compete for a ring...
Those are individual metrics and eschew the human component like sharing the ball and playing well with others. We arent getting Mitchell on a blank team he will presumably play with Sengun and Amen at the very least. If Mitchell so much better why is Booker in the US team? At least Kawhi made it to practice before he got cut Mitchell didnt even get to camp. And even then US chose Derrick White.
So literally no good argument at all that explains why if Reggie's a top 30 guy TS% shows him as a top 20 and Michael Jordan as 131st despite being the absolute #1 best scorer of all time? Got it, you just don't understand statistics. Thanks for showing that for everybody to see though, really made it easier lmao.
