"I'm Kawhitstorm, notable Kawhi penis handler. Let's see what I can do to make my hero, who I have intense sexual fantasies about, look better in a player debate.
First, I'll use WS/48 just because. Let's see how Kawhi ranks straight up. Hmmm. I don't like the fact that he ranks 43rd all-time. I know! I need to remove noise! Just look at all that "noise" on the list. 1982 Kevin McHale, 2005 Manu Ginobili, 1993 Michael Jordan, 1996 Michael Jordan, 1997 Michael Jordan, 1998 Michael Jordan. Something has to be done about this "noise." Hmm?
Yes! I'll filter the list to only include players who shot over 48 percent and scored over 24.6 points per game! Let's see how the list looks now. Kawhi ranks 8th now! Much better. Phew. It's much better to imagine myself sucking the of a player who ranks 8th than 43rd."
Last edited by midnightpulp; 06-17-2019 at 08:24 AM.
Advanced metrics aka the shyt you have been selling indicated he was Kirby status when it came to defense/efficiency during the second 3peat runYeah, your "filtering out noise" filtered out Jordan's second 3 peat runs. Are you this re ed? Serious question?
How DARE Kiwi average 30 on 62% TS while playing elite defense?!?!
Agree he was no better. Using random YouTube clips and
Keep digging. When we use >40 percent shooting instead of a cherry picked 48 percent shooting, 3 peat Jordan leads Kirby and your hero in WS/48, the stat YOU soldAdvanced metrics aka the shyt you have been selling indicated he was Kirby status when it came to defense/efficiency during the second 3peat run
You tried to sneak in order to make Kawhi look better. And you have to set all these arbitrary parameters because the fact remains that without doing that, Kiwi doesn't place in the top 10 in any of these stats. He simply didn't have an all time great run. Move on now.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 06-17-2019 at 07:29 PM.
40%
Converting advanced metric evangelist into Kirby believers
No need to "sneak ", Kiwi is the ONLY player to EVER average 30 on 62% TS during a championship run. *Cry me a river that DK had the same range as DeFrozen*You tried to sneak in order to make Kawhi look better. And you have to set all these arbitrary parameters because the fact remains that without doing that, Kiwi doesn't place in the top 10 in any of these stats. He simply didn't have an all time great run. Move on now.
It would be *arbitrary* if I used something like steals/assists which have nothing to do with each other but scoring/efficiency go hand-in-hand.
I know it's hard to believe & rough to digest for you but he DID average 30 on 62%, DEAL WITH IT!
In any case, Kawhi will keep living rent free in your head for the near future.
My God, you're a mega dumb
I know it's hard to believe & rough to digest for you but he DID average 30 on 62%, DEAL WITH IT!
In any case, Kawhi will keep living rent free in your head for the near future.
No, what's living rent free is you trying to prove this is some all time great run. The Helmet Crew was chomping at the bit to bump this thread into oblivion. Why didn't they? Because anyone with a brain, even the small ones of the Helmet Crew, knew this wasn't an all-time great run. Just suck it up till next year. Maybe you'll be able to prove your case without having to be sneaky and cherry pick.
One more update to on Kawhitstorm and then I'm done. My last stats breakdown still had his re ed "noise filter" on.
WS/48:
18th since the merger.
WS (I don't feel like manually dividing all the runs again, so this one is with the re ed "noise filter" on):
Duncan '03: 0.245 per game
Duncan '99: 0.217 per game
Lebron '12: 0.252 per game
Lebron '13: 0.226 per game
Lebron '16: 0.223 per game
Jordan '91: 0.282 per game
Wade '06: 0.208 per game
Bird '86: 0.233 per game
Shaq '01: 0.231 per game
Kobe '01: 0.223 per game
Kareem '80: 0.22 per game
Magic '87: 0.205 per game
Bird '84: 0.2043 per game
Kiwi '19 0.2041 per game
14th since the merger, and would likely drop a few more spots if calculated without the filter.
PER:
12th since the merger.
BPM:
21st since the merger
On/Off:
On/off:
Shaq, '02: +22.9
Duncan, '03: +23.1
Wade, '06: +22.2
Lebron, '12: +24.3
Lebron, '16: +21.1
Curry, 17: +20.6
Garnett, '08: +19.8
Dirk, '11: +16.8
Kawhi, '19: 15.9
9th since '01. So it stands to reason if on/off was recorded pre-01, he'd fall 5 to 10 places (also note, Draymond Green has higher on/offs than Kiwi, as well).
Let's see how a real all-time great run places among these stats. We'll use the Duncan '03 run we all know and love.
WS/48: 5th
WS per game: 3rd
BPM: 3rd
PER: 7th
On/off: 2nd
Kiwi doesn't place top 10 in any of these categories, yet this is an all-time great run? Okay
And
Snake was playing 1-on-1 as theMy God, you're a mega dumbmeanwhile the difference in PPG b/w Kiwi/Siakam was greater than Dork/JET
Snake's primary defenders: Somalian Pirate -->
Since Kiwi broke your calculator, I'll LOWER the PPG/TS% threshold since I'm not petty about decimal point margins unlike Spreadsheet McBusters.
For single seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the playoffs; from 1946-47 to 2018-19; requiring Points Per Game >= 29 and True Shooting Pct >= 0.600 and Games >= 15; sorted by descending Win Shares
http://bkref.com/tiny/q7pIv
Kareem is the only member who missed the le clincher game & played with Magic whom you claimed had a top 5 ALL-TIME run in '80.
Half the players on the list didn't shoot 3s so miss me w/ the anit-Kiwi TS narrative......actually why don't we use eFG.
For single seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the playoffs; from 1946-47 to 2018-19; requiring Points Per Game >= 29 and Effective Field Goal Pct >= 0.530 and Games >= 15; sorted by descending Field Goal Attempts Per Game
http://bkref.com/tiny/smmGi
Only '00 +'01 Shaq had a better eFG along w/ '80 Kareem (see above), if Shaq didn't shoot
Still qualifying and selectively contextualizing
Why the are you so concerned about TS? There's more ways you can impact the game aside from efficient shooting.
End of the in' day, Kiwi doesn't place among the top in stats that factor in ALL stats. You can't handle this fact which is why you have to resort culling the list down to players who shot this and this on that and that.
But...but...but.... midnightpulp told me '95 Hakeem & '90 Magic had ALL-TIME top 5 runsOne more update to on Kawhitstorm and then I'm done. My last stats breakdown still had his re ed "noise filter" on.
WS/48:
18th since the merger.
WS (I don't feel like manually dividing all the runs again, so this one is with the re ed "noise filter" on):
Duncan '03: 0.245 per game
Duncan '99: 0.217 per game
Lebron '12: 0.252 per game
Lebron '13: 0.226 per game
Lebron '16: 0.223 per game
Jordan '91: 0.282 per game
Wade '06: 0.208 per game
Bird '86: 0.233 per game
Shaq '01: 0.231 per game
Kobe '01: 0.223 per game
Kareem '80: 0.22 per game
Magic '87: 0.205 per game
Bird '84: 0.2043 per game
Kiwi '19 0.2041 per game
14th since the merger, and would likely drop a few more spots if calculated without the filter.
PER:
12th since the merger.
BPM:
21st since the merger
On/Off:
On/off:
Shaq, '02: +22.9
Duncan, '03: +23.1
Wade, '06: +22.2
Lebron, '12: +24.3
Lebron, '16: +21.1
Curry, 17: +20.6
Garnett, '08: +19.8
Dirk, '11: +16.8
Kawhi, '19: 15.9
9th since '01. So it stands to reason if on/off was recorded pre-01, he'd fall 5 to 10 places (also note, Draymond Green has higher on/offs than Kiwi, as well).
Let's see how a real all-time great run places among these stats. We'll use the Duncan '03 run we all know and love.
WS/48: 5th
WS per game: 3rd
BPM: 3rd
PER: 7th
On/off: 2nd
Kiwi doesn't place top 10 in any of these categories, yet this is an all-time great run? Okay
And
That was off the top of my head. You can feel free to make a case for other players. I'm very willing to listen since my perception of those runs didn't correlate with the stats. But the player you can't make a case for is Kiwi
Clicked on the eFG query & this happened:Still qualifying and selectively contextualizing
Why the are you so concerned about TS? There's more ways you can impact the game aside from efficient shooting.
End of the in' day, Kiwi doesn't place among the top in stats that factor in ALL stats. You can't handle this fact which is why you have to resort culling the list down to players who shot this and this on that and that.
No. I'm not the one overvaluing eFG, TS, FG, etc as a singular stat. What happens when we sort by all inclusive, pace and era adjusted stats?
you're stupid. Stats are used to dispel narrative, you dip . Yeah, maybe I overvalued Hakeem's run since I remember him going through all the other best bigs in the league like a hot knife. Maybe he wasn't as impactful as perceived. Same with Magic. Like I said, make your case for other players. You can't do that since you don't follow basketball other than Kawhi Leonard. He's all you've posted about for like 4 years
FIFY, I'm stupid. Your stats don't fit my narrative, I'm such a dip . I overvalued Hakeem's run, he wasn't as impact as *I* perceived. Same with Magic. Like I said, I'm stupid
You mean the ones that claim '01 Shaq should have been benched for Mark Madsen, the one you don't put much weight on or the one that suggests '10 Jason Richardson was more impactful than '95 Hakeem?
Find me a case where there was such a ludicrous extrapolation occurred for an UNDISPUTED lead-dog w/ an elite PPG, eFG, TS, FG....& actually locked up an MVP instead of calliing backup ('91 Finals DK)
Based on DWS, '06 Dirk was an ELITE defender)
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 06-18-2019 at 12:49 AM.
That well is dry, got. I used ALL the stats. PER, WS, WS/48, BPM, On/off. And your boy came up lacking.You mean the ones that claim '01 Shaq should have been benched for Mark Madsen, the one you don't put much weight on or the one that suggests '10 Jason Richardson was more impactful than '95 Hakeem?
Find me a case where there was such a ludicrous extrapolation occurred for an UNDISPUTED lead-dog w/ an elite PPG, eFG, TS, FG....& actually locked up an MVP instead of calliing backup (Pippen)
Yes, yes, keep going to your re ed "filtering" of scoring and efficiency, since that's the ONLY area where Kiwi actually breaks into the top ten, and in order for him to climb up the ranks, you have to resort to sneaky cherry picking, like filtering for >29ppg and 53 percent eFG, two numbers picked out of a in' hat.
Time to be totally arbitrary, as well. How about players who average >22ppg, >10rpg, >50% shooting, >2 blocks.
http://bkref.com/tiny/uC9EU
No Kiwi.
How about >20ppg, >6rpg, >5apg, >45 percent shooting?
http://bkref.com/tiny/gY2DV
No Kiwi.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 06-18-2019 at 01:13 AM.
Yeah, 10 wrongs make a right just like in' your 10 cousins
Yes, yes, keep going to your re ed "filtering" of scoring and efficiency, since that's the ONLY area where Kiwi actually breaks into the top ten, and in order for him to climb up the ranks, you have to resort to sneaky cherry picking, like filtering for >29ppg and 53 percent eFG, two numbers picked out of a in' hat.
Tell us how you REALLY feeeeeeeellllllllll.Time to be totally arbitrary, as well.
Spreadsheet McBusters has imploded
Elton Brand Like NumbersHow about players who average >22ppg, >10rpg, >50% shooting, >2 blocks.
Enirique Like NumbersHow about >20ppg, >6rpg, >5apg, >45 percent shooting?
Yeah, those numbers are so Elton Brand like that only 4 players have averaged them over a le run in the history of the NBA: Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem and Duncan. Are you really this re ed?
Kiwi can't even average Enrique like numbers over a run
Missed out on being mention in the same breath as Andre Miller & Chuck PersonKiwi can't even average Enrique like numbers over a run
Be sure to tell your inbred offsprings the good news!
Missed out on being mention in the same breath as Andre Miller & Chuck Person
Be sure to tell your inbred offsprings the good news!
Why don't you throw turnovers too & make it even more exclusive
"Arbitrary" narrative debunked:
Current search:For single seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the playoffs; from 1946-47 to 2018-19; requiring Points Per Game >= 20 and Effective Field Goal Pct >= 0.500 and Games >= 15;
Filtered for championship run:
Mean PPG: 26.45
Criteria Rk Player Season Age Tm PPG eFG TS% 1 Tim Duncan 2002-03 26 SAS 24.7 0.529 0.577 2 LeBron James 2011-12 27 MIA 30.3 0.522 0.576 4 LeBron James 2012-13 28 MIA 25.9 0.532 0.585 5 Kawhi Leonard 2018-19 27 TOR 30.5 0.545 0.619 6 Michael Jordan 1990-91 27 CHI 31.1 0.537 0.6 7 Dwyane Wade 2005-06 24 MIA 28.4 0.512 0.593 9 Larry Bird 1983-84 27 BOS 27.5 0.532 0.607 10 LeBron James 2015-16 31 CLE 26.3 0.564 0.585 11 Shaquille O'Neal 1999-00 27 LAL 30.7 0.566 0.556 13 Michael Jordan 1992-93 29 CHI 35.1 0.502 0.553 16 Hakeem Olajuwon 1993-94 31 HOU 28.9 0.521 0.568 17 Larry Bird 1985-86 29 BOS 25.9 0.551 0.615 18 Manu Ginobili 2004-05 27 SAS 20.8 0.58 0.652 19 Michael Jordan 1991-92 28 CHI 34.5 0.514 0.571 21 Kevin Durant 2017-18 29 GSW 29 0.541 0.606 24 Stephen Curry 2014-15 26 GSW 28.3 0.567 0.607 26 Wilt Chamberlain 1966-67 30 PHI 21.7 0.579 0.546 28 Shaquille O'Neal 2001-02 29 LAL 28.5 0.529 0.569 29 Tim Duncan 1998-99 22 SAS 23.2 0.511 0.573 30 Magic Johnson 1986-87 27 LAL 21.8 0.542 0.607 31 Shaquille O'Neal 2000-01 28 LAL 30.4 0.555 0.564 32 Hakeem Olajuwon 1985-86 23 HOU 26.9 0.53 0.566 36 Kobe Bryant 2009-10 31 LAL 29.2 0.506 0.567 38 Dirk Nowitzki 2010-11 32 DAL 27.7 0.514 0.609 40 Stephen Curry 2016-17 28 GSW 28.1 0.599 0.659 42 Kyrie Irving 2015-16 23 CLE 25.2 0.535 0.574 44 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1979-80 32 LAL 31.9 0.572 0.611 53 Kevin McHale 1985-86 28 BOS 24.9 0.579 0.636 54 Kevin Durant 2016-17 28 GSW 28.5 0.627 0.683 56 Isiah Thomas 1989-90 28 DET 20.5 0.513 0.56 57 Clyde Drexler 1994-95 32 HOU 20.5 0.528 0.587 59 Walt Frazier 1972-73 27 NYK 21.9 0.514 0.559 63 Scottie Pippen 1990-91 25 CHI 21.6 0.511 0.564 67 Hakeem Olajuwon 1994-95 32 HOU 33 0.533 0.56 68 James Worthy 1987-88 26 LAL 21.1 0.524 0.567 74 James Worthy 1986-87 25 LAL 23.6 0.591 0.624 76 Maurice Lucas 1976-77 24 POR 21.2 0.519 0.559 80 James Worthy 1984-85 23 LAL 21.5 0.624 0.646 81 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1984-85 37 LAL 21.9 0.56 0.602 92 Stephen Curry 2017-18 29 GSW 25.5 0.556 0.59
SD: 4.06
26.45 + 4.06 = 30.5
Mean TS: 0.59
SD: 0.03
0.59 + 0.03 = 0.62
Kiwi: 30.5 / 62%
But....but....but...Snake averaged
f@###k
That's exactly my point, re . We can sort the per game stats any way we like to exclude/include players. Do you know which stats have done away with this arbitrary exercise? The summation stats: PER and WS, which derive their values from a consideration of the TOTAL statistical impact a player had. Just use those. You're myopically focused on points plus TS because that is the only the way your boy comes out looking better.Why don't you throw turnovers too & make it even more exclusive
"Arbitrary" narrative debunked:
What are you on about with your latest statistical argument (that once again only considers points and TS)? Are you trying you to suggest Kiwi was more standard deviations above the mean than KD or something? Do you even know what the a standard deviation is, moron? Or how to calculate it? You're making the argument, so prove your case and show your work. I'm not going to go through 184 values subtracting the mean from each and squaring the results. Oh, found a SD calculator. Unfortunately it maxed out at 21 values, but the mean of 27.7 from these value is close enough to the supposed 26.45 mean you found (I don't trust your intellectual honesty):
Standard deviation of: 3.763
Again, do you know what the a standard deviation is? If a value is within a standard deviation of the mean, it is considered along with the mean. In other words, if the mean is 40 and the standard deviation 5, any value from 35-45 is essentially considered "average." So what accounts for the differences between 35 and 40? Luck/variance. In the context of this debate, that means if the mean for points averaged over a run is 30 with the standard deviation being 3, the player who averaged 30 vs. the player who averaged 27 wasn't offensively better, he was luckier.
If we're to believe the standard deviations you calculated, Kiwi was within both the standard deviation of PPG and TS, meaning he was simply "luckier" offensively than other players who also averaged within standard deviation of the mean. Kevin Durant's PPG was within the SD (not an SD away, dumb ), but his TS was a full TWO standard deviations ABOVE the mean, so we can conclude that his performance was not a luck based result, but a result of skill.
I'm done here, for real. You canyou do).
Last edited by midnightpulp; 06-18-2019 at 03:18 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
