AEnigma wrote:OldSchoolNoBull wrote:AEnigma wrote:VOTE: Al Horford
Alternate: Jack Sikma
NOMINATE: Grant Hill
AltNom: Metta Artest
Okay, been gesturing at this for a while, and with Marion freshly inducted and in the absence of real unity on any player aside from Horace Grant, seems like a good time to push Artest.
Now, not arguing him as more historically memorable or significant than figures like Cunningham or Worthy, nor as culturally engaging as players like Wilkins or Hill. I understand Malice is an immediate non-starter for some. But the way I see it, for a brief period he was a true star, leading his team to a legitimate conference finals run as a contender. He has good longevity plus arguably the best RAPM values remaining, on par with or arguably better than the newly inducted Shawn Marion. On offence his style of play could be ugly, but in Indiana he hovered around league average efficiency, and he typically was an okay secondary/tertiary playmaker on all his teams. Not quite Pippen defensively, but not far off in the discussions for greatest non-big defender. Unlike Marion, he maintained his value in the postseason and translated successfully to every team he joined, culminating in a support title on the 2010 Lakers comparable to Marion’s 2011 (and easy to argue that Artest was respectively more essential).
Consistently strong WOWY results to support his robust plus/minus profile:
2000: 16-56 —> 1-9 / -10.1 —> -13.6
2001: 15-61 —> 0-6 / -10 —> -12.3
2002 Bulls: 8-19 —> 13-43 / -6.6 —> -10.9
2002 Pacers: 16-12 —> 26-28 / +2.7 —> -1
2003: 43-26 —> 5-8 / +4.8 —> -1.4
2004: 54-19 —> 7-2 / +6.7 —> +5.9
2005: 6-1 —> 38-37 / +7.2 —> +0.2
2006 Pacers: 10-6 —> 31-35 / +3.8 —> +1.7
2006 Kings: 26-14 —> 18-24 / +4.7 —> -1.1
2007: 28-42 —> 5-7 / -1.9 —> -1.8
2008: 30-27 —> 8-17 / -0.9 —> -5.7
2009: 47-22 —> 6-7 / +5.3 —> -0.3
PACERS TOTAL: 54.8-win pace —> 40.4-win pace / +5.2 —> +0.5
KINGS TOTAL: 84-83 —> 31-48 / -0.1 —> -2.7
That is a decade of strong impact with only one or two more tepid exceptions, before getting into his four years of less essential but still productive starting contributions to the Lakers. Between the 2004 Pacers conference finals run, the 2009 Rockets surprising run without McGrady and mostly without Yao, the 2010 Lakers title, and some last gasp relevance for the Kings before they faded into their 2009-22 dregs, I have a tough time finding anyone remaining who produced as much success across as many teams over as long a time as Artest did.
Not attached to this nomination by any means, but there should at least be a discussion. Can we argue him over Carmelo? And if we can, is it possible to extend that to some of the other scorers? I am cool with the approach that it may look silly to be placing a guy like Artest (or Iguodala or Grant) ahead of some of those true “superstars”, but I do not see a good way to reconcile that with Marion’s induction… unless we start leaning hard on raw longevity, because Marion played 39,000 minutes as a starter-level player while Artest only managed 30,000. However, that takes us in a different direction — one where we probably need to give a good look at guys like Joe Johnson and Lenny Wilkens. So far, that has not seemed to be the approach of most of us.
Not sold on Artest. I understand the argument - he's got strong career on/off, both RS and PO, and was perhaps the best non-big defender of his generation, but consider this:
In that peak 03-04 season when the Pacers went to the ECF, while he and Jermaine O'Neal had comparable on/off in the RS(Jermaine +6.8, Artest +9.1), in the playoffs Jermaine was all the way up at +10.2, while Artest was down at +1.0 over 15 playoff games. I struggle to call him a 'true star' for that Pacers team. They were an ensemble. Don't forget that that Reggie was still there and put up a +9.8 in the RS, as well as Tinsley with a +10.8 in the RS.
I know you do not actually assess players off single season on/off, so why are we doing this. It would be one thing if you were arguing Jermaine elevated his play in the postseason, but he did not. We have a substantial sample of the two in Indiana where lineups with Artest were consistently better than lineups with Jermaine —
but 138 minutes where Artest played without Jermaine in the postseason is swinging your opinion of their worth? I can filter in Reggie too and the same broad trends hold of Pacers lineups faring substantially better with Metta than with Jermaine.
I'm not judging anyone's career worth just from looking at one playoffs; you specifically referred to Artest as being a "true star" in that season, so I was looking at numbers from that season in an attempt to see if I could agree with labeling him as such for that season. I was only using numbers from that season to make a point about that season and nothing else. Artest has a strong RS on/off that season, but it doesn't stand out from the crowd as Reggie and Tinsley are right there with him, and then his on/off falls dramatically in the playoffs.
Your counterpoint about the samples where the Artest lineups did better than the Jermaine lineups is fair, though I haven't seen those samples. And looking further I can also see that Artest had the highest RS+PO RAPM on the team via JE.
Also, I am not sure what the underlined is referring to. Jermaine didn't miss that much time in the 2004 playoffs.
This also rankles me a bit when Issel, Chet, and Mullin were all very much part of ensemble rosters — just generally without that darn playoff on/off which must lead us to conclude Artest was not actually doing as much at his peak.
My use of the word "ensemble" was not meant as a criticism, it was just, again, a response to your use of the phrase "true star". I'm probably getting too hung up on that phrase, but I just felt like those words were a bit hyperbolic for Artest. Nothing wrong with being a high-value piece of an ensemble who isn't quite a star.
Look, I think it's appropriate to discuss Artest at this stage, and I certainly respect what he did, but as I said, I also think that with only eight(or nine if Hagan doesn't make it) more spots to fill, there are enough other players with stronger cases.
Still, assuming everyone on the current ballot gets in(and it still seems like Hagan might slip through the cracks), there's only eight spots left, and I think there are quite clearly more than eight players left who have stronger arguments.
Clearly is an interesting word, and I do not think your base for assuming it is remotely strong. Why do you think scorers like Mullin and Chet and Issel are more valuable than a top tier wing defender?
Why do you think the opposite(that a top tier wing defender is more valuable)?
I'm going to make a subsequent post about the players I think have the strongest cases going forward.
A word about Grant Hill since you nominated him - he has obvious longevity-of-quality issues,
Five seasons as an all-NBA player and at least five more as a productive starter. Again, seems like an odd angle from someone who has said raw longevity is not a major consideration.
You know what? After thinking about that for a minute, you're right. He only has six years of being a star, but I'd probably not given his Phoenix years enough credit, so it does look like he has 10-11 meaningfully productive years. So I'll back off on that argument.
and I'm not as high on his peak as some are...
Same, but at this point there are few remaining (with anything approaching ten seasons of meaningful play) who can lay claim to a higher one. I am low on him and think he was still a fringe top five player at his best; when could that be said of Chet or Issel or Mullin (in the case of the former two, keeping in mind the
total talent in professional American basketball).
I'd take McAdoo, Mullin, maybe Hawkins over him as far as peaks go.
I see a total lack of playoff success,
True. I also see a mostly inept team around him in his prime. Brings us back to, would Garnett not have any argument as a top twenty player without the Boston trade?
But wait. While Garnett's tenure in Minnesota did not, on the whole, see much playoff success, Garnett does have 2004, where he not only won the MVP but got the Wolves to the WCF, taking two games off the 2004 Lakers(and some argue that if Cassell hadn't gotten hurt, they just may have won the series), while posting a +26.7 on/off throughout 18 playoff games. Hill doesn't have anything remotely close to that in his prime Detroit years. And while Garnett's supporting cast that year was probably the best he had in Minnesota, it wasn't really THAT much better than what Hill had. Boston might be the reason Garnett made the Top 10 here, but 2004 is also massively important in his story, seeing as it is considered by many to be his peak year.
as well as negative/red playoff on/off numbers for him, in his Detroit/pre-injury years. I don't really see supporting him, but I'd be interested to hear your argument.
Already touched on some of the playoff on/off approach, although here it is partially deserved because the reason I have always been low on Hill was that I felt his game translated poorly to the postseason.
It's had to get past. Most of the other guys I'd be supporting at this stage had
some degree of notable playoff performance.
Even Chris Mullin, who had very little playoff success in his prime years, twice knocked off higher seeds(DRob Spurs and Malone/Stockton Jazz), and put up genuine superstar box statlines while doing so.
My primary justification for supporting him here is that even with his postseason slides, I think he offers a lot more than alternatives do. He was not an all-time talent, but he was a wholly exceptional one in a way not true of others this late in the project. Put him in place of Artest and the Pacers might have a title — either in 2004 or because Malice is probably avoided. I have been passively backing Billy Cunningham here, but Billy Cunningham did not exactly do anything that you do not see from Hill. Alex English is a much better scorer than Hill, but Hill is better at almost everything else, and those Nuggets teams could have been a semi-serious contender for… well, a few years. Tatum’s first six years were better than Hill’s first six years, but were they better by enough to just ignore Hill’s 2005-12? James Worthy was a superb secondary / tertiary star, but he actually had an overall shorter career than Hill, and I do not see him leading the Pistons to anything higher than a 7-seed in Hill’s place.
I'd argue that Cunningham was probably a better defender and certainly a better rebounder than Hill(I'm not super high on Cunningham either, but I am supporting him).
English scores on significantly more volume than Hill, but when efficiency is considered, I don't think the scoring gap is as big as you'd think.
Worthy should absolutely be inducted IMO.
This late in the project, what had been more minor differences in approach can create significant branches. What I want is for people to confront what is leading them to make their choices now, because these differences are not getting smoothed over anymore. Are they going by who was the “best”? Are they going by who was the most “impactful”? Are they going by who added the most “career value”? Are they going by who “accomplished” the most? And with all those approaches, what is the interpretation at play?
I can argue Worthy is the most accomplished because he has three rings and a Finals MVP, but I can also (correctly) argue he was literally never perceived as top ten player and that someone like Bob McAdoo is the only real choice. I can argue Artest was the most impactful based on career RAPM with a certain minimum amount of play, or maybe I can argue for Tatum by removing that minimum. I can say Cheeks has the most career value (just look at PIPM), or Issel (look at win shares!), or Wilkins (look at VORP!), or Carmelo (look at minutes + points!).
My main approach here was to push two names who achieve some general balance across the board. Both Hill and Artest were high impact players (Hill maybe not as much most thought, Artest more than most thought). Both have fine but not great total longevity, and Hill has a solid peak to make up for the shortness of his prime. Hill never won anything but was a third place MVP finisher and a visibly excellent player at his best, while Artest has a DPoY, a ring, and a history of relative success. Neither would likely be #1 on the board by any single approach, so I doubt I will get (m)any takers (although Artest has least has a claim to the RAPM devotees), but they are a decent midpoint for most approaches. I guess you can think of it as a test: if everyone has a different answer who should be taken over them, then maybe they should be the choice after all.
Idk, maybe we should all just do some form of condorcet ranking, but there is a reason that can feel unclear and arbitrary.
Hill ? Cunningham ? Tatum ? McAdoo
How much am I weighing the lower starter years? How I am weighing league environment? How am I weighing accomplishments? How am I weighing perceived quality of play?
Artest ? Worthy ? Walker ? Dandridge
How am I weighing the balance of scoring, playmaking, and defence at the forward position? How I am weighing the success each had? How much do I trust each to lead a team?
English ? Wilkins ? Iguodala ? Carmelo?
What does longevity mean to me? How do I value playstyle against raw production? How do I weigh minutes against adaptability of role?
Fun stuff.
I just think the logical consistency you're looking for is very difficult to maintain at this stage of the project.
Players are much closer together in quality than they were in early stages of the project, and virtually all of them have significant flaws. It almost comes down to which flaws you're most comfortable overlooking.
I'll be very honest, from probably #70 or #75 on, I've kind of shifted to a broader way of thinking where my main question is, of those players who aren't inducted yet, who stands out to me, for any reason, the most? And yes, those scorers you mentioned are some of the ones that stand out to me the most.
These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.
We could be pushing Cunningham with Samurai right now, and I think I at least will edit to jump in with Samurai on that, but instead you are busy tying yourself to Chris Mullin.
