Transplanting here, since he's still on the table......
LA Bird wrote:trex_8063 wrote:You're not the only one to use a CORP-type argument to make a case for a poor longevity guy; but in doing so, you [and others] tend to fixate on the one or two really good years, saying "my gosh! Look how much more valuable these MVP or 'All-Time' tier seasons are than a mere 'All-Star' season"........while [seemingly] failing to actually complete the math for their whole career (and more importantly: comparing it to the CORP value of the other players).
Walton is already playing from behind before we include consideration of the rest of their respective careers (which arguably/probably leans toward the other guys [not Walton]). I mean, outside of his '77 campaign [which we'll say is worth 10 of those "top 150" seasons], how many more "top 150" seasons is the whole rest of his career worth?
12? 15? 17?
I think 17 would be an over-generous estimation [perhaps grossly so]; probably even 15 is over-generous, given his one and ONLY other fully healthy season saw him playing just 19.3 mpg in the rs and even fewer [18.2] in the playoffs; and while in '78 he was still MVP level, he missed 24 rs games [wouldn't even be eligible this year], and more or less missed the entire playoffs.
Yes, he had some other decent years, though never again approaching [even remotely?] the level of '77 or '78 rs, and ALWAYS with one or both of limited minutes or massive missed games.
Everything here was already preemptively covered in my original post. The focus on minutes instead of the actual contribution in those minutes.
The complete dismissal of ~60 game seasons which is never done for other players.
I absolutely did NOT do that.
In fact, I literally just got through valuing his NON-'77 seasons as being [collectively] worth MORE THAN '77. For the sake of argument, I even went with what is [imo] a bullish estimate, saying that they are [collectively] worth
70% more than '77 is (i.e. nearer to double than to same-ish).
How on Earth is that possible if I am "completely dismissing" ~60-game seasons?
LA Bird wrote:The emphasis on the drop off from peak form while ignoring how good a declined Walton still was. I don't think there is much to discuss if you are just going to re-use the same arguments I already addressed...
I feel you're pulling away on the defensive, when truly I'm not trying to be dickish here.
Perhaps I've not been clear enough on what I'm asking of you:
You have said those other seasons have value (I agree), and you provided evidence of that very thing.
What you did NOT do was state EXACTLY what tier [within a CORP framework] you would put EACH SPECIFIC season into.......and thus tell us what you have as his full career CORP added......
and then compare it to the CORP value added of others being discussed.
We might find more meaningful discussion if you would be specific as to those things.
That might help explain how you feel '75-'76 + '78-'87 are worth more than [
substantially more than, as is necessary for CORP argument to hold] than Al Horford '08 + '15-'23 (because as I already posited that the six years of '09-'14 are worth at least as much as '77 Walton in a CORP-sense [which you did not argue with]).
Or how those other Walton years are worth more than Jack Sikma '78 + '84-'91 ('79-'83 Sikma being worth the same or more than '77 Walton [again, no argument]).
Just so I am being clear to you on how I'm valuating Walton's years, I'll outline my CORP valuations, and go through Walton's seasons one at a time (providing my thoughts/reasoning)......
Fwiw, I use slightly different tiers than Taylor (and I allow "half-measures" when I can't decide which tier a season belongs in [i.e. I'll have a season straddling two tiers (0.5 in each)].
I rate them largely relative to the league environment they played in (for instance, I credit Paul Arizin with one MVP-tier season, even though I don't think he translates to near that level of play/impact in some other eras).
And yes, I DO take missed time into consideration. If two guys are playing at a similar "All-Star"/"top 25" level for example, but one guy plays 80 games while the other plays 44......I do NOT feel it's fair/justified to credit them with having had the same quality of season: one of them very obviously provided considerably more value to his team (and I don't think this is an inappropriate way to think about it). In a situation like that, the guy missing nearly half the year likely gets bumped downward one tier [and I'd sometimes bump him even more if it was a non-fluky injury which causes him to miss any potential playoffs, too. Missed time [especially in the playoffs] hurts your team's championship odds A LOT).
Here are the tiers I use; championship odds above replacement shown in (parentheses) below:
GOAT-tier (35%): Rather self-explanatory what this tier means--->seasons one could literally make a case as the best season anyone has ever played. fwiw, I've only credited 9 such seasons [from 5 players, 1-3 seasons for each] in NBA history.
"All-Time" tier (29%): Not quite GOAT-tier, but better than a run-of-the-mill solid MVP candidate. I've credited 41.5 [again: half-measures] such seasons in NBA history (from 20 different players). The "+7" season you suggested for Walton would fall into this category.
MVP tier (21%): Basically meaning a solid MVP candidate (roughly top 2-3 in the league). 114 such seasons [from 43 different players] so far pegged (I haven't yet done CORP valuations for ALL players who might be mentioned in a top 100 project [I've done 81 players so far, including Walton]).
"Weak MVP" tier (16%): Something like roughly top 4-6 in the league; they likely do get MVP buzz in actuality (even winning sometimes), but are retrospectively obviously NOT the
best candidate.
All-NBA tier (10%): Guys who can credibly earn an All-NBA honour; roughly top 14-15 in the modern(ish) league (since there have been 25+ teams, and a "3rd Team"), hedging more toward top 10(ish) in smaller leagues (or even less when it was just 8-9 teams).
All-Star tier (6.5%): Broad enough to include those who might be fringe All-Stars [though not good enough to reach the All-NBA tier]; roughly top 25 in the league players (more like top 15-16(ish) in smaller league years). Note I haven't valued such seasons any higher than Taylor has.
"Sub-All-Star" tier (4%): Very similar to the "top 40" tier shown on Taylor's graph. This tier is for guys who are fringe or borderline All-Stars
at best, though often a bit below that. Roughly top 40 players in the modern league size; maybe more like top 25-30(ish) in smaller league eras. The
true "average starter" is not much behind this, fwiw.
Average Player tier (1.5%): The literal average player. He might be a low-tier/borderline starter in many circumstances, though he's certainly worse than a true "average starter",
but better than a replacement level player (which is why he gets a little consideration here, as the metric is literally above replacement players [that's the "RP" in "CORP"]). This kind of player is very very very close to the fringe/lower-end/borderline "starter" (the "top 150" category on Ben Taylor's graph [note Taylor has that one listed as merely +/- 0]). These are players who are often hovering near PER of 15.0, WS/48 of .100, BPM of +/- 0, RAPM of +/- 0, etc ["average"], while playing perhaps 20-25 mpg ["average"] (all of these depending upon team circumstance, obviously; but you get the idea). They are roughly top 150-170 players in the big modern league.
READ: Please note the worth I have placed on each of my tiers is very very
very close to where the line intersects on Ben Taylor's graph for all tiers listed; with the exceptions that I valued my GOAT-tier marginally less (35%, whereas he has it worth ~37%), and that I also valued that "average player" LESS than he did (1.5%, whereas the same looks to be worth ~2.5-2.75% on his graph).
So it cannot be said that I am, in some effort to OVER-credit longevity, placing
excessive value on these good-but-not-great seasons (I'm giving them almost exactly the same values as the source you're citing, except for the average player category [which I'm actually giving LESS value to]).
Walton'75: His production looks good when he played, though below what it would be near his peak. His impact looks more dodgy (almost kind of outlier so within his career). Even you noted above, I believe, that he the WOWY MOV shift was negative for this year; I note the more coarse observation that they were 12-23 [.343] when he played, 26-21 [.553] when he was out. I suspect there are other injuries or roster shake-ups at play in that startling observation, and so I don't take it at face value; though it's nonetheless clear that his impact is not yet what it would become. And he missed more than half of the season (and seems likely, given he missed the last ~8 weeks of rs, that he would have missed any potential playoffs).
I'll
still not "dismiss" this season, for the sake of argument, at least; though I cannot see crediting it with more than the "Average Player" tier. (EDIT: Upon reflection, even this is over-generous, given the impact signal is lacking in his rookie year, he missed a full
60% of the regular season, AND would have [seemingly] missed the playoffs (if they'd made it). Hard to view this year as worth anything in terms of championship odds added.)
'76: Box-based figures don't look as good as his rookie year (shooting efficiency sort of bottoms out this year, as he takes on only slightly more volume), though still decent overall. Impact profile looking better, however (e.g. 26-25 [.510] when he played, 11-20 [.355] in games he missed.......good, but not monstrous); and he played 16 games more than the year before (and looks like he would have been healthy for the playoffs if they'd made it---->NOTE: this is perhaps the perfect illustration of WHY missed games matter to me. If he had been healthy, it seems they very very likely would have made the playoffs; his missing time
cost them a playoff berth.)
I've just upgraded the valuation on this season [perhaps in part for the sake of argument, to show I'm not being harsh to Walton] to a half-measure: half "All-Star" and half "Sub-All-Star". Given his lacking box metrics, impact signal which is perhaps only
barely looking All-Starish, and missing 31 games besides.......I feel this is [if anything] being generous to the year.
'77: I went with "All-Time" tier for this season (again, the roughly "+7" you yourself suggested).
'78: I think he was playing at the same level as in '77 (there are some suggestions to say perhaps even marginally BETTER). He did, however, miss nearly
a third of the rs [24 games], and then was basically absent for the playoffs (two games of reduced effectiveness). This dings the value of the year a lot for me.
I've gone with the "Weak MVP" tier (I previously had it a half-measure between "Weak MVP" and "All-NBA", but bumped it up for this discussion). His durability concerns not only forced him to miss 24 rs games (which in some circumstances MIGHT have prevented them from making the playoffs at all), but lampooned any hope for playoff success. So I cannot go higher than that, personally, specifically within a criteria/construct that is LITERALLY titled "Championship Odds". tbh, this is probably TOO generous a ranking for this year (I should likely bump it back to where I had it); but for the sake of argument, I'll leave it as is (giving him 16% addition to his career championship odds, even though his durability for the ps more accurately made the odds 0%).
Side-note: this is the first year we get to see it, but Walton was actually quite turnover-prone. I haven't seen the context in which a lot of these occur; I've just not seen a ton of Walton's play (mostly just the '77 Finals and '86 Finals is what I've seen).
'80: His numbers look decent, but he played just 14 games; they were 6-8 [.429] with him, 29-39 [.426] without (although you note a +4.9 shift on MOV). I didn't give this season credit for anything in a CORP-construct because: 14 games; I don't think you can fault me on that decision.
'83: Other than the usual high turnover rate and the tremendous dip in FT%, his box-figures are pretty decent. There is some impact signal, as they're 12-21 [.364] with him, 13-36 [.265] without (not all that much lift for such a poor team, fwiw, though you note a +5.9 MOV shift). As noted here, he plays just 33 games (missing 49).
I personally didn't give him credit for anything for this year, since he missed 60% of the season, and was good, but not exactly lighting the world on fire when he did play. Were I to credit anything for this year, I don't see how I can go above "Average Player/Season", given all the missed time.
'84: Rate metrics are decent except for [again] the turnovers and the FT% still a bit problematic, though in <27 mpg. They were 23-32 [.418] with him, 7-20 [.259] without him (the MOV shift you noted is +4.7 for this year).
I credited him with a "Sub-All-Star" season for this. I see a player who
might be having "All-NBA" tier impact
when he's on the court.........but he's only on the court <27 mpg (whereas other true "All-NBA" players are playing 35+ mpg); that alone would likely drop this year down to "All-Star", then there's a third of the season missed on top of that. I cannot see going higher than a half-measure (between All-Star and "Sub-AS") at the max.
'85: Again his rate metrics [other than turnovers] look pretty good, though in <25 mpg this year. They were 27-40 [.403] with him, 4-11 [.267] without (you noted a more modest [than prior years] +2.7 MOV change). I gave credit for a "Sub-AS" season here. Looking at a guy was probably still a defensive stud, though in low minutes, averaging basically 10 and 9 with more turnovers than assists (fairly high foul rate, too, fwiw). idk, I just can't quite get to an "All-Star" tier with this season, or even really to a half-measure.
'86: His numbers are good, his impact signal (as you noted) is tremendous. He is like a 19 mpg player, though. Even if I buy into him having All-NBA or even Weak MVP impact [a stretch for me] while in the game......he's still only playing about half the minutes that a true All-NBA/Weak MVP player would be playing.
I gave him a half-measure between "All-Star" and "Sub-AS"......which is truly a credit to him that I'm giving that much despite the extremely limited minutes (and fwiw, this is probably on par with your typical 6MOY season).
'87: He's 11 mpg for 10 games in the rs (minimally effective, too). In the playoffs he plays [also at much declined effectiveness] for 8.5 mpg in 12 [of 23] ps games; I didn't credit this year as above replacement.
So ^^^that is how I've tentatively credited him. You might argue I'm marginally underrating '84 and '85, and that maybe I should at least give that "average" year credit to '83. However, I've very likely
overrated '75 by giving it any rank at all (see edit above), and [imo] was arguably marginally generous in the credit given to '76; and from a strictly "championship odds" construct, I've GROSSLY
overrated '78: I gave him credit for "weak MVP", as acknowledgement for how good he was for 70% of the rs; but realistically, his value adding toward an actual title that year is pretty minimal--->because he missed the playoffs.
He's nonetheless STILL not a world-beater, even against the crowd faced here. With the above ratings (again: probably generous for CORP valuation, based on how I credited '78), I have him exactly tied with Horford in raw CORP value (edit: IF I leave the credit to '75 intact). With a slight longevity calibration, he moves marginally ahead (again: with credit on '75).
However, I'm not an era-relativist. I view the NBA of the mid-late 70s as a lesser league than it would become a decade later (and less than it is today). When I apply my era calibration to it, he slips slightly behind Horford (even with '75).
fwiw, my ranking is not based upon my CORP valuation to any sizable degree. Though this manner of evaluation probably IS the one methodology that will paint Walton in the most flattering light........yet still [as I said above] he's not a world-beater, even at this stage.
And that's all I'm saying when I suggest that the CORP framework doesn't necessarily make his case to the degree you're implying.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.
