Dunking Data For 1988-1993: MJ is the Goat In-Game Dunker for Wing Players

[fpliii]

So the 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 guides just arrived. 94-95 is great, and contains not only dunks data, but complete +/- for every player in the league (for the 93-94 season)! Unfortunately, 95-96 and 96-97 are completely useless, and contain neither.

Evidently, the guide was getting too big, so at some point they just split it up into two books...the Sixers Media Guide, and the Harvey Pollack Statistical Yearbook:

http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2050

Anyhow though, I'm still waiting on the 92-93 guide since we need those dunks. I'll try and track down the two Pollack guides.

Here are the links:

Dunks: http://www17.zippyshare.com/v/95748527/file.html
+/-: http://www17.zippyshare.com/v/35053325/file.html
+/- (continued): http://www17.zippyshare.com/v/42451533/file.html

[Dro]

Every one of these where he starts from a standstill is a travel....dude moves both feet before dropping the ball for the dribble.

Always an excuse. Its just so hard for folks to accept the fact that MJ is GOAT. Even when facts are presented to you in detailed fashion.

[3ball]

[3ball]

Entirely possible, and maybe even likely. I just need to watch more tape from 87-88 through 91-92 since I wasn't watching live then, and look closely at the defense played.

Regarding 99, 00, 01, it could just be noise in the data. Or it could be something more meaningful.

Just note that I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think that this is amazing new information we have, and we need to be very thorough in doing our due-diligence here.

Something that might be interesting is maybe comparing players' dunks by positions, and seeing if over time, there were big changes in wings vs bigs, etc.

A couple things... So the first reason you offer for the significant decline in dunks between 1999 and 2001 is that it's "noise in the numbers"??... If you really want to do a thorough analysis, this should probably not be the knee-jerk reaction.. The data from 1999 to 2001 is not a small sample, so for it to be noise in the numbers is literally impossible.. It's like flipping a coin 10,000 times, having it come up heads 65% of the time, and chalking it up to "noise in the data".

What about the decline of dunks in 2010 (4th largest shift in the FGA/Dunk stat)?.. Is that noise in the numbers too?

Also, you say you want to analyze the defense to see if it was weaker... I think that is a waste of time and demonstrates a lack of awareness tbh... The ease of scoring, or how hard it is to score on a defense, remains relatively constant over time, and the stats back this up.

It's intuitive why the stats support a relatively constant level of defense over the years - the onset of floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds put today's defense at a significant disadvantage to the defenses of previous eras, so today's defenses had to develop extra scheming just to maintain.

Defenses with extra scheming to guard 3-pointers and defensive 3 seconds = Defenses with no extra scheming but don't have to guard 3-pointers and get to camp in the paint... The stats support this intuitive notion.

The above statement is true and if it isn't understood, then all predictions, analysis and anything else relying on or related to it's understanding will fall short.

[fpliii]

A couple things... So the first reason you offer for the significant decline in dunks between 1999 and 2001 is that it's "noise in the numbers"??... If you really want to do a thorough analysis, this should probably not be the knee-jerk reaction.. The data from 1999 to 2001 is not a small sample, so for it to be noise in the numbers is literally impossible.. It's like flipping a coin 10,000 times, having it come up heads 65% of the time, and chalking it up to "noise in the data".

What about the decline of dunks in 2010 (4th largest shift in the FGA/Dunk stat)?.. Is that noise in the numbers too?

Also, you say you want to analyze the defense to see if it was weaker... I think that is a waste of time and demonstrates a lack of awareness tbh... The ease of scoring, or how hard it is to score on a defense, remains relatively constant over time, and the stats back this up.

It's intuitive why the stats support a relatively constant level of defense over the years - the onset of floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds put today's defense at a significant disadvantage to the defenses of previous eras, so today's defenses had to develop extra scheming just to maintain.

Defenses with extra scheming to guard 3-pointers and defensive 3 seconds = Defenses with no extra scheming but don't have to guard 3-pointers and get to camp in the paint... The stats support this intuitive notion.

The above statement is true and if it isn't understood, then all predictions, analysis and anything else relying on or related to it's understanding will fall short.

1) It's not "literally impossible". Unless a sample is infinitely large, noise in the data is always a plausible explanation. Until we can extrapolate trends using analysis, we can not rule it out.

2) Why is trying to be absolutely certain a "waste of time" and how does it demonstrate a "lack of awareness"? Again, until we do exhaustive analysis, we cannot say anything definitively.

3) Intuition is fine, but again...we're not dealing in maybes, probablys, or anything else here. If we want to prove something, we have to be rigorous and exhaustive in our investigation and analysis.

We have this data, which is a great start for analysis. Now, we have to begin trying to explain why what happened, did indeed happen. There is absolutely no hurry whatsoever, it's more important to be definitely correct after doing more legwork than possibly correct without doing so. We have a ton of new information, so now we can use it carefully in our research.

[fpliii]

This is really awesome... Thanks a lot... will be looking at this stuff.

No problem. I'll scan from the 92-93 guide when it arrives.

Pretty disappointed about the 95-96 and 96-97 books, but they were only a few bucks. Hopefully I can find the Pollack yearbooks for those seasons.

[Smoke117]

No problem. I'll scan from the 92-93 guide when it arrives.

Pretty disappointed about the 95-96 and 96-97 books, but they were only a few bucks. Hopefully I can find the Pollack yearbooks for those seasons.

Do the 95-96 and 96-97 ones have the dunk totals? Can you post those if they do.

[fpliii]

Do the 95-96 and 96-97 ones have the dunk totals? Can you post those if they do.

Unfortunately they don't. The books are much smaller, and are just directory information, box score stats against certain opponents, biographies, etc. (sections for ads in the back too). They're pretty much useless.

I think the dunk totals are only in the Pollack's Yearbook. I'm going to try and get a hold of them.

[3ball]

1) It's not "literally impossible". Unless a sample is infinitely large, noise in the data is always a plausible explanation. Until we can extrapolate trends using analysis, we can not rule it out.

2) Why is trying to be absolutely certain a "waste of time" and how does it demonstrate a "lack of awareness"? Again, until we do exhaustive analysis, we cannot say anything definitively.

3) Intuition is fine, but again...we're not dealing in maybes, probablys, or anything else here. If we want to prove something, we have to be rigorous and exhaustive in our investigation and analysis.

We have this data, which is a great start for analysis. Now, we have to begin trying to explain why what happened, did indeed happen. There is absolutely no hurry whatsoever, it's more important to be definitely correct after doing more legwork than possibly correct without doing so. We have a ton of new information, so now we can use it carefully in our research.

So it is a viable notion to you that noise in the data explains the 30% decline in dunk frequency from 1998 to 2001... and despite this massive decline and other declines in dunk frequency (8% decline in 2010, 5th largest shift in the known period), athleticism could explain changes in dunk frequency, even though the shifts in dunking frequency are extremely sharp and often head in the wrong direction as if athleticism has gotten worse (not just shorter term periods like 1999-2001 and 2010... if we looked at the data from 1998 when dunking frequency was at it's highest, we'd obviously see that dunking frequency has gone down since then).

Good luck finding anything meaningful in the numbers... My guess is you'll figure find mostly noise in the data.

-

[3ball]

Surprised I haven't seen these two yet..

On Orlando Woolridge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlljgbC7Tc


There was a dunk in the 91 finals where he went chest to chest and dunked on Sam perkins. Someone post it if you have it.

Lebron is a 1 foot leaper. MJ could posterize you off one and two feet. Both are explosive, but MJ has dunked on far more players.

[Dro]

As soon as Jordan hit the corner, it was over for Perk.......

[fpliii]

So it is a viable notion to you that noise in the data explains the 30% decline in dunk frequency from 1998 to 2001... and despite this massive decline and other declines in dunk frequency (8% decline in 2010, 5th largest shift in the known period), athleticism could explain changes in dunk frequency, even though the shifts in dunking frequency are extremely sharp and often head in the wrong direction as if athleticism has gotten worse (not just shorter term periods like 1999-2001 and 2010... if we looked at the data from 1998 when dunking frequency was at it's highest, we'd obviously see that dunking frequency has gone down since then).

Good luck finding anything meaningful in the numbers... My guess is you'll figure find mostly noise in the data.

-

Obviously the frequency has gone down. As I said, we already know the "what", it's just explaining the "why" at this point. I don't even necessarily disagree with you (and would probably agree for the most part), I just like to be 100% sure before stating something. Maybe it seems a bit pedantic, but I like to deal in certainties.

Anyhow though, as I said, when I have some new data I'll post it. Trying to get those Pollack's Yearbooks, and the 92-93 guide is in the mail.

[3ball]

Obviously the frequency has gone down. As I said, we already know the "what", it's just explaining the "why" at this point. I don't even necessarily disagree with you (and would probably agree for the most part), I just like to be 100% sure before stating something. Maybe it seems a bit pedantic, but I like to deal in certainties.

Dunking frequency has gone down since 1998 by about 10%... But it's shifted around a lot...

It increased by 12% in 1992, and stayed at that higher level until the big decline between 1998 and 2001... Then of course as you'd expect, in 2005 there was an 8% increase in dunk frequency... and in 2010 it declined by that same amount.

The decline in frequency from 1998 to 2001 is not a small sample.. It's so unlikely to be noise in the data that it seems nonsensical to even suggest that over much more likely scenarios.

Regarding Jordan, the reason he had more dunks than any other wing player then or now regardless of the dunk frequency rate prevalent at the time, is because he's the only one that could do any of those dunks i posted earlier - where most of them were him doing a post-spin move, and then tight-roping the baseline amongst defenders for a poster.
.

[3ball]

Sliding amongst defenders and dunking in traffic again..

Who else has the footwork skill and physique to do these dunks, where MJ is spinning on the post and tight-roping the sideline for a poster over a big?

That's why he had more dunks than any wing player ever even during times when league-wide dunking frequency was at it's lower points.
.

[3ball]

From the looks of it, Jordan's dunk totals are as follows:

1988: 153
1989: 117
1990: 153
1991: 126
1992: 95
1993: 94