Teammate career rankings between Jordan and Lebron -- The Reality

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14112501]yea i like rapm the most but it's not really available anymore. gotta settle for pipm and rpm and for just box score stuff per 100 or per 75[/QUOTE]

What do you mean not available anymore?

The tough thing about RAPM is that starts in 97'. So that is the tail end of the prime of these 90's players that get discussed (and misses the peak for all of the 90's guys drafted originally in the 80's). AUPM is available since 94' and that gives us more. In that Pippen is ahead of Ewing every year we have data for both as elite players. Same with RAPM in 97'. Same with net on/off in 97'.

There really isn't much for Ewing over Pippen statistically. Hence the hypocrisy and spinning we are seeing.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112498]The guy literally used BPM in his OP. :lol

The best stats are advanced plus-minus, and Pippen peaked at #2 behind David Robinson in 95'. (We have data starting in 94' and even more after 97'.)[/QUOTE]

RAPM ranks Draymond highly but he isn't as good as Ewing either... bruh, the stats are just stats - WE still must interpret them and tell the story

MJ, Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Shaq, Drexler <---- they were all 1st option Finals guys and therefore considered the best of the 90"s.. 2nd options like Stockton or Pippen were considered a level below due to inferior scoring

Ultimately, elite 1st options are great shooters and/or iso players capable of nearly 30 ppg

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112509]What do you mean not available anymore?

The tough thing about RAPM is that starts in 97'. So that is the tail end of the prime of these 90's players that get discussed (and misses the peak for all of the 90's guys drafted originally in the 80's). AUPM is available since 94' and that gives us more. In that Pippen is ahead of Ewing every year we have data for both as elite players. Same with RAPM in 97'. Same with net on/off in 97'.

There really isn't much for Ewing over Pippen statistically. Hence the hypocrisy and spinning we are seeing.[/QUOTE]

i mean for recent years and there's multiple sources with different results.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14112531]i mean for recent years and there's multiple sources with different results.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...That is interesting. I use [URL="https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/"]https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/[/URL]. I suppose there will always be tweaks, Backpick's has his own BPM formula. The thing is, all these stats tell us the same thing regardless of minor tweaks. RAPM and AUPM have the same guys at the top, for instance.

[QUOTE=3ball;14112523]RAPM ranks Draymond highly but he isn't as good as Ewing either... bruh, the stats are just stats - WE still must interpret them and tell the story

MJ, Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Shaq, Drexler <---- they were all 1st option Finals guys and therefore considered the best of the 90"s.. 2nd options like Stockton or Pippen were considered a level below due to inferior scoring

Ultimately, elite 1st options are great shooters and/or iso players capable of nearly 30 ppg[/QUOTE]

you can say this and I dont disagree but I ask how did the warriors win 67 and 73 b2b years if draymond didnt have an enormous possibly superstar level impact. Klay is an elite shooter and valuable 2 way guy but for most not a great championship no2, none of the box score stuff is that high on him either. I know you wont say it's because curry had a goat peak. I also know you wont give credit to the depth because you think 4-8 on depth chart doesnt really matter.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112537]Hmmm...That is interesting. I use [URL="https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/"]https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/[/URL]. I suppose there will always be tweaks, Backpick's has his own BPM formula. The thing is, all these stats tell us the same thing regardless of minor tweaks. RAPM and AUPM have the same guys at the top, for instance.[/QUOTE]

there's also this which has different results. [url]https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2013-rapm-non-prior-informed-updated-march-30[/url]. Could be different methodology or a different dataset

[QUOTE=3ball;14112523]RAPM ranks Draymond highly but he isn't as good as Ewing either... bruh, the stats are just stats - WE still must interpret them and tell the story

MJ, Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Shaq, Drexler <---- they were all 1st option Finals guys and therefore considered the best of the 90"s.. 2nd options like Stockton or Pippen were considered a level below due to inferior scoring

Ultimately, elite 1st options are great shooters and/or iso players capable of nearly 30 ppg[/QUOTE]

That isn't true. We don't have real RAPM before 1997. Not only that, but Prime Ewing bests Draymond in BPM-ORTG-WS-WS48. The same stats used in the OP, which you cosigned btw.

[quote=3ball][B]What more needs to be said

I might retire because of this post[/B]

[B]Look how much more offensive talent lebron played with[/B], yet he never had #1 offenses.. leDumb ball [/quote]

The same measures paint Pippen>Ewing, but now all of the sudden they're "just stats" now. Why cant you guys keep a straight criteria?

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14112489]bpm is trying to approximate something like rapm using only the box score so yea it favors perimeter guys because those guys impact the game more offensively. playmaking is as valuable as scoring for offense and centers dont usually do that very well (especially moses). according to rapm a lot of centers provide most of their value on defense. embiid is an example this year and and we know moses isnt the defensive center like most of the all time great centers in the top 10. even when shaq had a goat lvl season in 00, the big change from other years during the rs was not his stats but that he had a dpoy lvl year. Yea bpm isnt always too good with its evaluation but so are ws which over rewards efficiency so big man biased especially for guys who are exclusively finishers and per which over rewards volume scoring.[/QUOTE]

Well, playmaking is not a valuable as scoring on offense, so there's that.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112544]Well, playmaking is not a valuable as scoring on offense, so there's that.[/QUOTE]

Which of LeBron's teammates were better than prime Ewing?

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112547]Which of LeBron's teammates were better than prime Ewing?[/QUOTE]

Jordan never played with an Ewing-level player, bro. Not sure what the point is of the question.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112542]That isn't true. We don't have real RAPM before 1997. Not only that, but Prime Ewing bests Draymond in BPM-ORTG-WS-WS48. The same stats used in the OP, which you cosigned btw.



The same measures paint Pippen>Ewing, but now all of the sudden they're "just stats" now. Why cant you guys keep a straight criteria?[/QUOTE]

OP's stats show that Ewing beats Pippen in PER, WS/48, TS, DRTG - that's about half the metrics - so the advanced stats are close, while Ewing destroys Pippen in raw stats and scoring

Ewing was a 1st option Finals guy while Pippen was a 2nd option - 1st option Finals guys are the gold standard of the 90's (MJ, Hakeem, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Drexler, Shaq, Robinson)

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112544]Well, playmaking is not a valuable as scoring on offense, so there's that.[/QUOTE]

it's a lot closer than the general public opinion thinks and i'm not talking for just this era. bird's big advantage on offense over all those other 80's sfs is his playmaking even if some them are more efficient scorers and also why your bird parish being debatable take from earlier is laughable. Let me also throw in this argument. not every team needs more scoring. every team in history could use more passing however. It's a skill that doesnt have diminishing returns.

Yeah, because the Bulls' offense was so great without Pippen's playmaking. :lol

The Knicks offense sucked with or without Ewing. The only time they had a good offense was when they had Mark Jackson there to playmake.

What these fools don't grasp is playmakers like Pippen raise teammate efficiency and PPG and therefore overall team PPG. This is why they love Irving. He scores for himself but wrecks his teammates and therefore the team.

[QUOTE=3ball;14112557]OP's stats show that Ewing beats Pippen in PER, WS/48, TS, DRTG - that's about half the metrics - so the advanced stats are close, while Ewing destroys Pippen in raw stats and scoring

Ewing was a 1st option Finals guy while Pippen was a 2nd option - 1st option Finals guys are the gold standard of the 90's (MJ, Hakeem, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Drexler, Shaq, Robinson)[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. Here is real count, and Pippen wins handily.

WS/48: [B]Pippen .185[/B], Ewing .172
BPM: [B]Pippen 6.0[/B], Ewing 4.0
OBPM: [B]Pippen 3.9[/B], Ewing 2.0
DBPM: [B]Pippen 2.1[/B], Ewing 2.0
PER: Ewing 22.5, Pippen 21.2
VORP: [B]Pippen 45.9[/B] (599 games), Ewing 44.7
VORP per 82: [B]Pippen 6.3,[/B] Ewing 4.6
ORTG: [B]Pippen 112[/B], Ewing 108
TS %: Ewing 56%, Pippen 55%

7-2 in Pippen's favor. And if we include APM-RAPM, Pippen leads there too. Since you already agreed with OP's post, and consider it superior offense, then we must conclude Pippen was a true #1. What that also tells us is Chicago's #2 was actually a #1, and outplayed the #1 on the Bulls' best rival. Pippen year after year ranked top 10 in most impact stats, so him being a superstar isn't anything new.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112569]Incorrect. Here is real count, and Pippen wins handily.

WS/48: [B]Pippen .185[/B], Ewing .172
BPM: [B]Pippen 6.0[/B], Ewing 4.0
OBPM: [B]Pippen 3.9[/B], Ewing 2.0
DBPM: [B]Pippen 2.1[/B], Ewing 2.0
PER: Ewing 22.5, Pippen 21.2
VORP: P[B]ippen 45.9[/B] (599 games), Ewing 44.7
VORP per 82: Pippen 6.3, Ewing 4.6
ORTG: [B]Pippen 112[/B], Ewing 108
TS %: Ewing 56%, Pippen 55%

7-2 in Pippen's favor. And if we include APM-RAPM, Pippen leads there too. Since you already with OP's post, and consider it superior offense, then we must conclude Pippen was a true #1. What that also tells us is Chicago's #2 was actually a #1, and outplayed the #1 on the Bulls' best rival. Pippen year after year ranked top 10 in most impact stats, so him being a superstar isn't anything new.[/QUOTE]

Facts are stubborn things.

:hammertime: