RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #33 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 10/12/23)

[Dutchball97]

A couple of points on this: you cannot change a player's BPM by changing their listed position. Their position is estimated based purely on box score inputs; this was part of the development of the BPM calculation itself.

That's pretty interesting. Does it happen often that the position that gets assigned doesn't line-up with the position they're listed at? Are you planning on tweaking unintended adjustments? For example Jrue Holiday gets a defensive penalty for being a point guard but a consistently negative defensive forward like Bojan Bogdanovic gets the same 0.0 adjustment as guys like Embiid, Giannis and AD. With Jokic especially I know he holds up well with +- factored in too but I do wonder if his insanely high BPM is partly because of him getting certain beneficial adjustments that don't reflect the value he actually brings on both sides of the floor.

[DSMok1]

A couple of points on this: you cannot change a player's BPM by changing their listed position. Their position is estimated based purely on box score inputs; this was part of the development of the BPM calculation itself.

That's pretty interesting. Does it happen often that the position that gets assigned doesn't line-up with the position they're listed at? Are you planning on tweaking unintended adjustments? For example Jrue Holiday gets a defensive penalty for being a point guard but a consistently negative defensive forward like Bojan Bogdanovic gets the same 0.0 adjustment as guys like Embiid, Giannis and AD. With Jokic especially I know he holds up well with +- factored in too but I do wonder if his insanely high BPM is partly because of him getting certain beneficial adjustments that don't reflect the value he actually brings on both sides of the floor.

In general the positions were close to what was listed. There were a few outliers. 2016 Giannis was listed at PG... the regression said he's a "3.5".

Your point about positions and position adjustments is valid; it would be ideal to improve the calculations. Right now the situation is that an individual assist is a positive but also pushes you toward the PG/Small side of the spectrum and also toward the Creator end of the spectrum, both of which have negative position adjustments.

[f4p]

However, are ALL of these all-in-ones biased for Stockton's player type? Are ANY of them, truly?

While VORP doesn't cover all of NBA history, I think it would be fair to assume Stockton would STILL rank in the top 10 of all-time even if it did (maybe even top 5-6). He's 8th since 1973 in career BPM, and is the only one in the top 9 not yet voted in (all others were voted inside the top 26).
AND he's 6th all-time in career WS (with a career WS/48 that's 19th all-time [despite a 19-year career]).
And he's top 40 in career PER (a stat that definitely is NOT biased toward his player type), again: despite a 19-year career. If weighted for minutes (sort of like a cumulative GameScore), he's certainly somewhere in the top 25 at least.

Singly, we can point out flaws in each of the various available metrics. But when they ALL seem to be telling us the same/similar thing.....when the summation of all these things appear to be saying this guy should have been off the table a while ago, it begins to feel a bit dubious to argue him out of even top 35 contention.

FWIW, strictly from a box perspective, i have stockton 37th in 10 year (age 22-31) box, which weights PS 75% / RS 25%. by box * longevity, i have him 23rd. so from a strict box score perspective, he probably should have been voted in. by the combination of factors that best explains the project so far (box * longevity + A*FMVP + B*Championships), stockton is 37th (nash 57th and ewing 60th huge outliers). throw out schayes (era), and ramsey and jones (all their points are from championships), and stockton would be more naturally 34th. so he's actually following the project voting method somewhat closely (while falling a lot from the last project). this project really likes rings.

[Doctor MJ]

Going to clear up a few questions about BPM/VORP here:

I must say I am sympathetic to Unibrodavis's concerns when all-in-one's are used like this - doesn't BPM give guards extra points when they collect stats simply for being guards

It's funny, when Jokic was ranking high in BPM, people were saying the stat was biased in favor of centers. Neither one is true. They estimate roles from their statistical profile and then adjust them. Since center's assists are usually higher value assists than guard assists, they get more credit there. Guards get less credit for defensive rebounds since their defensive rebounds are usually uncontested while their offensive rebounds and blocks are worth more since that's usually something their replacement wouldn't do. Also, point guards get an automatic penalty on defense because they're assumed to be worse defenders on average. It's all to best fit the data. FWIW, here's where the top guards rank in VORP:

3. Stockton
6. CP3
13. Kobe
15. Magic
17. Harden
20. Kidd

Doesn't look very biased for guards to me.

I would say BPM is fairly balanced guards vs. big men. There are different weights for many of the box score statistics based on the estimated position of the player and the estimated offensive role of the player.

BPM IS biased towards players that produce good box scores. The argument should be primarily about whether the player's box score statistics accurately reflect the player's actual impact.

As a rule of thumb, I would say the box score captures 80% of a player's offensive impact and 50% of a player's defensive impact. That is based on numerous regressions I have run onto RAPM-style metrics.

I personally would argue that John Stockton had a profile that would be overrated by the box score. His steals and his assists both tended to overstate his impact on the game in those areas, I feel. And his BPM is reflective of that. In other words--some of the credit that his assists and steals are collecting for his BPM/VORP should actually have gone to his teammates.

I am aware of that, I just combine it with my opinion that bigger player were significantly more impactful on average than smaller guys. If guards have similar distribution to other positions in the top 20, then I think it shows the stat overrates guards.

BPM takes position into account (at least they try to) and there are some pretty wild swings you can get by changing nothing except for a players' listed position.

Legitimate concerns about a lack of defensive inputs and them changing the formula because Westbrook broke it aside, wouldn't it make more sense to look at BPM as a positional grade instead of a measure of how much impact a player has hollistically?

It's always something I think about with WOWY-type stats as well. Players where the whole offense or defense is built around (so namely primary playmakers who are serious scoring threats as well or defensive anchors) do really well in these stats but how much of that is their ability as a basketball player and how much is it their role allowing them to have that kind of impact? I think it potentially underrates "plug and play" players who can thrive in any system but have a role that is more easily replaced or isn't as vital to the functioning of a team.

A couple of points on this: you cannot change a player's BPM by changing their listed position. Their position is estimated based purely on box score inputs; this was part of the development of the BPM calculation itself. Their offensive role is separately estimated based on box score inputs as well.

There were significant issues with the first version of BPM; there was some overfitting going on that made the regression not robust. That is significantly better now, but it is not perfect. There are a couple of additional tweaks that need to be made, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

____
Just think of BPM as a reasonable approximation of what the box score + the overall team quality says about a player. Remember that is blind to around 20% of offense and 50% of defense.

Remember also that VORP is using a replacement level of -2, which is probably not appropriate for a top 100 project. When looking at championship impact, a replacement level of 0 or even +1 would be better. This is also a big swing in Stockton's favor, as he had a lower peak but great longevity.

That said, I think I would still take Stockton over the others nominated....

This is all super-helpful. We're lucky to get it right from the source!

Your point specifically about replacement level is an important one, and one I'd expect many haven't really pondered.

Basically: The lower you set the replacement level, the more longevity-oriented the results will tend to come out.

I've always found the frustrating thing with replacement level - which is a really, really good idea - is the inability to have an objective answer to where it should be. Is -2 too low? Maybe...maybe not.

I'm curious what analysis you've done to try to figure out out what's most appropriate, and how it change depending on what you're looking for.

You mention about appropriateness for Top 100, and I'm curious about what precisely you mean. I'll say up front that you could say I effectively do rough things like this as I scale my analysis because I have a tendency to compare superstars to each other primarily based on their prime, which means diminishing the effective weighting of longevity - but this is not the same thing as a formal statistical process.

When thinking about "replacement level" formally, in the regular season, I'd tend to think of it as basically the level of the entirety of player population playing below a certain MPG threshold, which is something you could regress for. You could in principle do the same thing for the playoffs, or even specific rounds of the playoffs, but the sample would naturally become more and more problematic. Does my thinking sound like you think about it? Do you see any issues with it that cause you to differ?

[Rishkar]

Induction Vote 1:John Stockton
As someone who has Stockton 22nd all time, it's been hard to see him fall. His (incredibly high) plus minus data has collinearity issues with Malone (and the rest of the starters), he's too durable for a WOWY approach to mean much (however he scores really highly in what we do have), and his box numbers far exceed his actual impact on winning basketball. This leaves us sort of guessing as to how valuable he truly was, and I'm obviously in the camp that thinks his prime was underrated because of his low scoring numbers and never winning a chip (despite co-captaining the second-best team of the 90s). This graphic from Daniel Bratulic shows how his nigh unassailable record in career assists isn't just due to his longevity. Pay attention to how his chart basically matches Magic in their primes, and it's a laughable exercise to try and compare Stockton to anyone else. . If Michael Jordan and john Stockton retired after the playing the same number of games, Stockton would have more steals. I get that career totals don't mean much to many of the posters on this board, but I don't think many of our advanced statistics work for Stockton, and these raw stats are really impressive. I just struggle to see how Chris Paul, a very comparable player in my evaluation, gets in at #20 and Stockton drops at least 13 spots. Stockton has played more games (and started more games for those worried about his backup years), played more minutes (though he plays about three minutes less per game), and missed less time in the playoffs. He's a more efficient scorer both at the three-point line and within it (free throw percentage being an advantage to Paul that Stockton makes up for by taking more trips to the line) and has actually scored more 2 point field goals in his career than Paul. The difference in points seems to come from Paul having shot twice as many threes as Stockton, and I feel that is more of an era difference than a meaningful gap in talent. He might decline slightly in the playoffs, but at least he's available for them. Stockton is a better help defender. Paul has advantages in being much less turnover-prone, likely a better man defender, a better rebounder, and being more capable of leveraging his scoring threat to create easy opportunities for teammates. Because of these edges, I'm not at all mad about someone taking Paul over Stockton in a ranking like this, but I feel like you can make a very good case for Stockton being better than Paul and he's somehow 13 spots behind him.
(copying other votes from last thread)
Induction Vote 2: Walt Frazier. Shorter prime and career than most of the other candidates, but one of the greatest defenders ever at his position while having a solid offensive game. I prefer him over Kawhi due to durability concerns, and think he was just a better player than Miller (despite the large disparity in longevity). I don't like Pippen's intangibles, and I'm much more impressed by Frazier's title runs than what Pippen did when he was missing Jordan. I also prefer Hondo and Kidd over Pippen, which leads to
Nomination Vote 1: Jason Kidd. Incredible passer, Incredible defender, poor scorer. Fantastic longevity and finished second in MVP voting in 02, so had at least a decent peak.
Nomination Vote 2: Hondo. One of the coolest nicknames in NBA history. Goat motor. Great defender, a good passer, great longevity (especially for era: he retired tied with Dolph Shayes for the longest career to that point), decent shooter. Hondo helped extend Russell's dynasty and then took over as a copartner with Dave Cowens in the 70's. Prefer him over Pippen because he was equally successful in his role (6 championships as a number two) but then led the Celtics to two more (and I think he had better intangibles).

[tsherkin]

I just struggle to see how Chris Paul, a very comparable player in my evaluation, gets in at #20 and Stockton drops at least 13 spots.

That is interesting. The demonstrably superior playoff scoring is probably a factor in selecting Paul, as well as his considerably lower-turnover style of play, and being a little bit better a 3pt shooter in volume. Some impact stats like him to a similar degree and he tended to look better come the playoffs. Also, he got considerably more love in MVP votes across his career, even finishing as high as 2nd. But he does have durability issues. As a pace-controlling guy who often shot more than Stockton (15 seasons with a RS FGA/g average above Stockton's career-high), he didn't produce assists at the same volume as Stockton, unsurprisingly, but the end result was often better.

Does that mean Paul should be 20th? I don't know about that, he went higher than I would have voted him in, but I'd have voted him in ahead of Stockton as well.

[penbeast0]

FWIW, strictly from a box perspective, i have stockton 37th in 10 year (age 22-31) box, which weights PS 75% / RS 25%. by box * longevity, i have him 23rd. so from a strict box score perspective, he probably should have been voted in. by the combination of factors that best explains the project so far (box * longevity + A*FMVP + B*Championships), stockton is 37th (nash 57th and ewing 60th huge outliers). throw out schayes (era), and ramsey and jones (all their points are from championships), and stockton would be more naturally 34th. so he's actually following the project voting method somewhat closely (while falling a lot from the last project). this project really likes rings.

According to your records, if Nash and Ewing were the outliers, who else was ahead of Stockton even in the strong rings evaluation?

[f4p]

FWIW, strictly from a box perspective, i have stockton 37th in 10 year (age 22-31) box, which weights PS 75% / RS 25%. by box * longevity, i have him 23rd. so from a strict box score perspective, he probably should have been voted in. by the combination of factors that best explains the project so far (box * longevity + A*FMVP + B*Championships), stockton is 37th (nash 57th and ewing 60th huge outliers). throw out schayes (era), and ramsey and jones (all their points are from championships), and stockton would be more naturally 34th. so he's actually following the project voting method somewhat closely (while falling a lot from the last project). this project really likes rings.

According to your records, if Nash and Ewing were the outliers, who else was ahead of Stockton even in the strong rings evaluation?

so, based on the best fit to the project (technically the equation was only last updated after #29), i have the list like below. i would think as the project goes on, that FMVP might get more weighting and Ringz might get less as people like Sam Jones will start being huge outliers in the other direction based on championships. or i might leave the weightings the same from the top 30 just to see who is an outlier at the end of the project based on how we started:

Code: Select all

Trend Rank   Player                   Top 100 Rank   Delta
1            LeBron James             1              +0   
2            Kareem Abdul-Jabbar      2              +0   
3            Michael Jordan           3              +0   
4            Bill Russell             4              +0   
5            Tim Duncan               5              +0   
6            George Mikan             16             -10 
7            Wilt Chamberlain         7              +0   
8            Shaquille O'Neal         8              +0   
9            Magic Johnson            10             -1   
10           Sam Jones                NR             NR   
11           Kobe Bryant              12             -1   
12           Hakeem Olajuwon          6              +6   
13           Dirk Nowitzki            18             -5   
14           Kevin Durant             22             -8   
15           Stephen Curry            11             +4   
16           Kevin Garnett            9              +7   
17           Jerry West               14             +3   
18           Larry Bird               13             +5   
19           Julius Erving            21             -2   
20           Karl Malone              19             +1   
21           Dolph Schayes            NR             NR   
22           Scottie Pippen           32             -10 
23           Oscar Robertson          15             +8   
24           Frank Ramsey             NR             NR   
25           Manu Ginóbili            NR             NR   
26           David Robinson           17             +9   
27           Dwyane Wade              27             +0   
28           Nikola Jokić             26             +2   
29           Charles Barkley          28             +1   
30           Chris Paul               20             +10 
31           Kawhi Leonard            NR             NR   
32           Bob Pettit               31             +1   
33           Pau Gasol                NR             NR   
34           Giannis Antetokounmpo    25             +9   
35           James Harden             29             +6   
36           Moses Malone             23             +13 
37           John Stockton            NR             NR   
38           Ray Allen                NR             NR   
39           Reggie Miller            NR             NR   
40           Anthony Davis            NR             NR   
41           Clyde Drexler            NR             NR   
42           Dwight Howard            NR             NR   
43           Rick Barry               NR             NR   
44           Walt Frazier             NR             NR   
45           Paul Pierce              NR             NR   
46           Elgin Baylor             NR             NR   
47           Clyde Lovellette         NR             NR   
48           Kevin McHale             NR             NR   
49           Isiah Thomas             NR             NR   
50           Chauncey Billups         NR             NR   
51           Kyrie Irving             NR             NR   
52           Cliff Hagan              NR             NR   
53           Adrian Dantley           NR             NR   
54           George Gervin            NR             NR   
55           Bobby Jones              NR             NR   
56           Vince Carter             NR             NR   
57           Steve Nash               24             +33 
58           Carmelo Anthony          NR             NR   
59           Russell Westbrook        NR             NR   
60           Patrick Ewing            30             +30 


[Doctor MJ]

The difference in points seems to come from Paul having shot twice as many threes as Stockton, and I feel that is more of an era difference than a meaningful gap in talent. He might decline slightly in the playoffs

Lots of good stuff in your post Rishkar, but I'd chafe at this assessment a bit.

Here are the two player's PPG & TS% (career average) in the playoffs:

Paul 20.0, 58.3
Stockton 13.4, 56.8

Keep in mind that Paul's regular season efficiency is roughly the same, while Stockton's is north of 60%.

I don't see anyway to look at these numbers and not see Paul as demonstrating considerably more as a scorer than Stockton...and then we need to remember that the story of the Jazz deep playoff runs involves Malone's efficiency falling off but the team continuing to go to him without anyone else stepping up. The Jazz really needed their point guard to do more as a scorer, and Stockton just didn't deliver it - whether this was because he was how he was told to play, or not.

I'm not the highest on Paul and can see an argument for Stockton over him, but if we're comparing the two based on what they achieved as scorers, to don't see the two as really anywhere close.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote is for Kawhi Leonard - At two different points he was an awesome defender and an awesome scorer. His health and priorities never made them line up at least not for a long time, but I think his dominance as a scorer and defender depending on the year is truly special.

Alternate vote is for Walt Fraizer - Another injury prone, short prime but high peak guy. His offense is underappreciate due to his low boxscore stats. From watching him it seems like he was a legitimate pass first guy with great shooting. He has a very prototypical tool kit for an MVP caliber point guard. If I was more of a longevity guy I would put Stockton over him though as I think Stockton is not too far from him ability wise.

My nomination is for Anthony Davis - I don't feel good about it. He's close with Reed. Seems like when he was healthy he's been a pretty consistent top 5 guy who is usually quite good in the playoffs. Is very good at playing off ball and he grew into one of the best defenders of his generation. I suppose his efficiency and defensive reputation make me feel that he should go over Reed.

My alternate nomination is for Willis Reed - Arguably just as good as Frazier albeit his career feels even shorter. I might put him over Davis, but I think alot of the guys I am voting for at this point in the project are going to be injury prone fellas.

[Rishkar]

I just struggle to see how Chris Paul, a very comparable player in my evaluation, gets in at #20 and Stockton drops at least 13 spots.

That is interesting. The demonstrably superior playoff scoring is probably a factor in selecting Paul, as well as his considerably lower-turnover style of play, and being a little bit better a 3pt shooter in volume. Some impact stats like him to a similar degree and he tended to look better come the playoffs. Also, he got considerably more love in MVP votes across his career, even finishing as high as 2nd. But he does have durability issues. As a pace-controlling guy who often shot more than Stockton (15 seasons with a RS FGA/g average above Stockton's career-high), he didn't produce assists at the same volume as Stockton, unsurprisingly, but the end result was often better.

Does that mean Paul should be 20th? I don't know about that, he went higher than I would have voted him in, but I'd have voted him in ahead of Stockton as well.

Nash, Stockton, and Paul are in my 21-23 range and I think they are all very comparable. I don't really have a strong preference on who other people prefer, and I get that a group voting process will lead to different results than my personal list. I'm not really here to bash the Paul selection(although he went in slightly higher than I have him), I'm just curious what difference in Stockton and Paul's play constitutes an (at least) a 13 spot gap in the project. Paul absolutely has a strong argument over Stockton, I just take issue with the fact that this board doesn't seem to view them as comparable players despite similar numbers.

[Rishkar]

The difference in points seems to come from Paul having shot twice as many threes as Stockton, and I feel that is more of an era difference than a meaningful gap in talent. He might decline slightly in the playoffs

Lots of good stuff in your post Rishkar, but I'd chafe at this assessment a bit.

Here are the two player's PPG & TS% (career average) in the playoffs:

Paul 20.0, 58.3
Stockton 13.4, 56.8

Keep in mind that Paul's regular season efficiency is roughly the same, while Stockton's is north of 60%.

I don't see anyway to look at these numbers and not see Paul as demonstrating considerably more as a scorer than Stockton...and then we need to remember that the story of the Jazz deep playoff runs involves Malone's efficiency falling off but the team continuing to go to him without anyone else stepping up. The Jazz really needed their point guard to do more as a scorer, and Stockton just didn't deliver it - whether this was because he was how he was told to play, or not.

I'm not the highest on Paul and can see an argument for Stockton over him, but if we're comparing the two based on what they achieved as scorers, to don't see the two as really anywhere close.

I'd agree, Paul is a significantly better scorer than Stockton (especially in the postseason). I was just trying to show that Stockton isn't incredibly far behind and helps makes up some of that scoring gap with his availability in the postseason. I was just shocked that Stockton had scored more two pointers than Paul on higher efficiency, given Paul's proficiency in the midrange and more aggressive mindset. I tend to be in the camp that thinks Stockton's low volume, high efficiency shooting was more a product of Sloan's coaching than a flaw in Stockton as a player (but I haven't extensively researched this).

[Doctor MJ]

The difference in points seems to come from Paul having shot twice as many threes as Stockton, and I feel that is more of an era difference than a meaningful gap in talent. He might decline slightly in the playoffs

Lots of good stuff in your post Rishkar, but I'd chafe at this assessment a bit.

Here are the two player's PPG & TS% (career average) in the playoffs:

Paul 20.0, 58.3
Stockton 13.4, 56.8

Keep in mind that Paul's regular season efficiency is roughly the same, while Stockton's is north of 60%.

I don't see anyway to look at these numbers and not see Paul as demonstrating considerably more as a scorer than Stockton...and then we need to remember that the story of the Jazz deep playoff runs involves Malone's efficiency falling off but the team continuing to go to him without anyone else stepping up. The Jazz really needed their point guard to do more as a scorer, and Stockton just didn't deliver it - whether this was because he was how he was told to play, or not.

I'm not the highest on Paul and can see an argument for Stockton over him, but if we're comparing the two based on what they achieved as scorers, to don't see the two as really anywhere close.

I'd agree, Paul is a significantly better scorer than Stockton (especially in the postseason). I was just trying to show that Stockton isn't incredibly far behind and helps makes up some of that scoring gap with his availability in the postseason. I was just shocked that Stockton had scored more two pointers than Paul on higher efficiency, given Paul's proficiency in the midrange and more aggressive mindset. I tend to be in the camp that thinks Stockton's low volume, high efficiency shooting was more a product of Sloan's coaching than a flaw in Stockton as a player (but I haven't extensively researched this).

I feel like I'm mostly with you, but I look at those numbers and see Stockton being quite far behind Paul on this front. In the playoffs, Paul is scoring 50% more than Stockton and doing so with better efficiency. That's a big gap.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Walt Frazier



I think my previous posts where I showed how massive the gap is between Frazier and his teammates really hammers in how I'm seeing things. I completely respect others who value longevity more, but I do see Frazier as a clear cut alpha superstar leading the top team of his era, and that's not something I can say about the other guys on the board.

Induction Vote 2: Reggie Miller

Arguing for Reggie a good bit over in the Reggie-Top-10-season thread.

Nomination Vote 1: Manu Ginobili



Bumping him up. I think what I said is still basically relevant, so I'll just un-spoiler for the event.

Yup, there I go. Manu's my next man.

Now as I've said, I'm less fixed on where exactly Ginobili is than I am feeling compelled to spread the gospel on the guy. I'm not purposefully doing that early - but it's possible I'll end up raising someone else above him before all is said and done here.

I quote my posts from the '04-05 thread before, and it's not just a coincidence they come from there. As I was going back through the years evaluating POY, I ended up siding with Ginobili at #1. This actually shocked me, and it's incredibly funny talking about it here, given that I was first compelled to post at RealGM during that same season to argue for Steve Nash's MVP worthiness and that Nash has since become my all-time favorite player. I like Ginobili, but Nash is the one who I truly fear having bias for. Perhaps I overcompensate, but in the past my '04-05 POY considerations were really about Nash vs Duncan.

To understand how I got there logically:

1. I think that Ginobili impacts with the best of 'em per minute and is typically held back in total impact by his limited minutes.

2. When a player's lack of minutes seems clearly to have held the team back meaningfully - like keeping team from chip - it's easy to justify knocking him harshly for the lack.

3. But when the team wins the title, and does so on the back of how he plays when he does play, I need to seriously ask myself where the minute threshold is that would have been "enough" to be the most valuable player.

4. And so, in my analysis, I would say that Ginobili would be my pick for both the WC MVP & Finals MVP.

5. This is happening in a season where there Ginobili leads the league in +/- by a significant margin:

Ginobili +844
Duncan +765
Nash +728

6. Speaking today, I now believe with confidence pace & space is a just plain superior way to play to win, and Ginobili was the guy driving the pace (+5.5 Pace On/Off in the playoffs) and the space (made more 3's than any other Spur), which I think was likely critical to their success against the Suns in particular.

Without elaborating on Ginobili vs Duncan & Ginobili vs Nash specifically at this time, I'll just say:

I see compelling arguments for Ginobili against each of them, and I struggle to use minutes to negate them.

Okay then zooming out, I see Ginobili as a guy who at his best was really capable of being the top basketball player in the league. He's held back some due to his limited minutes...but he also shows a remarkable tendency to level up his impact in the playoffs, and in particular deep in the playoffs.

And when the Spurs won titles in the 2000s, it always coincided with Ginobili seeming to go particularly nuts with his impact. All 4 of those chips, Ginobili had the best team +/- - and for perspective with the data we have, we don't have any other player more than twice. (Though we do have Michael Jordan twice, during his final two chips, which bodes exceptionally well for what we may find when we get access to earlier data.)

I'm honestly not sure if there's any other player remotely like Ginobili on this front - demonstrating this level of deep playoff impact dominance, while not being something like a GOAT candidate.

Okay, imma stop there. I hope my plea doesn't end up making folks recoil. I'm less concerned with convincing people right now that they should Nominate Ginobili, and more hopeful they'll just chew on their assessment of the guy. I think we have some significant things to learn about basketball, and basketball analysis, by understanding the the time of the Argentine.

Nomination Vote 2: Rick Barry

Next guy on my list. Definite legend. Have some criticisms of him that keep him from going higher, but I remain highly impressed by him.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Vote: Kawhi Leonard

The highest peak on the ballot imo by enough of a gap that I can overlook the longevity/durability issues.

Secondary Vote: Walt Frazier

As a fan of Stockton's game and someone who was championing him earlier in the project, I am surprising myself as I continue to find reasons to vote for others. I just am not sure I believe he could've done what Frazier did for the Knicks in the early 70s. Not totally comfortable here, but it looks like Stockton's going to get in anyway.

Nomination: Rick Barry

Choosing between Kidd and Barry here...I honestly like Kidd better and was going to vote for him before a last minute flip. Rick Barry was the #1 on two championship teams and four Finals teams(including his ABA years here) and it's difficult for me to look past that. Even if I don't look at his ABA years, he won the ring as the #1 in 1975, something Kidd never did. He was not a terribly efficient scorer, particularly for his volume, but he was still more efficient than Kidd while still being a solid playmaker and rebounder. Kidd was the superior playmaker and defender, and has significantly more longevity, but...I might be too swayed by 1975.

Not 100% comfortable with this and part of me still hopes Kidd prevails.

Secondary Nomination: Jason Kidd

Playmaking+Defense+Rebounding+consistent impact throughout his career+three Finals+important role in 2011 Mavs championship(was the second highest BPM on the team in the playoffs behind Dirk, closely followed by Terry).

[OhayoKD]

Vote: Stockton, Stockton, Stockton!!!!!!!!!!
Clearly the most underrated player in the project IMO. I’d have him ahead of the player who went in #7 (Wilt) and I’m not even big on longevity!!! All-time assists leader (by a mile). All-time steals leader (by a mile). #5 player in 26 year RAPM looking only at his age 34-40 seasons!!! Don’t just throw that out! He showed greater impact than Shaq or Duncan or a ton of other stars did for their entire careers at an age when Jordan had already retired… twice!!! He’s #3 all-time in VORP. Honestly, I think there’s a very good chance I’m underrating him at #15 on my all-time list.

Alternate: Kawhi
All-time 2 way peak. Will get into it more after Stockton goes which better be this thread!!!

Nominate: Anthony Davis
Top 6 in 3 box score composites between regular season and playoffs with enough defensive impact that he should get the same benefit of the doubt on exceeding his box score numbers as say Patrick Ewing. For all the talk about his injuries, he’s only ever missed one playoff game.

Alternate: Jason Kidd
Only player in the top 20 in VORP other than Stockton who hasn’t been inducted yet. Led 2 teams to the Finals as the CLEAR best player. Finished #2 for MVP. Had a major contribution to a championship team at age 37. Basically did it all between peak and longevity.

I must say I am sympathetic to Unibrodavis's concerns when all-in-one's are used like this - doesn't BPM give guards extra points when they collect stats simply for being guards

It's funny, when Jokic was ranking high in BPM, people were saying the stat was biased in favor of centers. Neither one is true. They estimate roles from their statistical profile and then adjust them. Since center's assists are usually higher value assists than guard assists, they get more credit there. Guards get less credit for defensive rebounds since their defensive rebounds are usually uncontested while their offensive rebounds and blocks are worth more since that's usually something their replacement wouldn't do. Also, point guards get an automatic penalty on defense because they're assumed to be worse defenders on average. It's all to best fit the data. FWIW, here's where the top guards rank in VORP:

3. Stockton
6. CP3
13. Kobe
15. Magic
17. Harden
20. Kidd

Doesn't look very biased for guards to me.

Center's assists are not usually "higher value" than a guard. That the stat quite literally penalizes guards for "handling the ball more" when handling the ball produces better offenses...

Spoiler:

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

...Is rather problematic

Just like favoring defensive stats(blocks and steals) from a small because of replacement level because data which doesn't correlate well happens to correlate better than all the other not very correlative box numbers. And that gets us to Stockton being a steal-leader whose assist-count far outpaces his actual creation:

Spoiler:

You say "even", but I'd imagine it's an easier to be an outlier when Stockton played. My impression is also that Magic was a much better shot creator with the "quality" of his creations being much higher. Ditto with Nash. Stockton didn't really pry or penetrate which is a big limitation for a playmaker. I'd guess stockton's "quality of creation" was actually pretty low:
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]
Looking at Stockton's first 10 assists, only 3 lead to an open shot. And only 2 have stockton taking more than 1 defender out of the play. 3 of these involve the player Stockton passes to dealing with multiple defenders to score, and all of these reads seem pretty simple by the standards of a modern helio. Stockton creates 1 open layup, and his other assist is a simple read to a shooter(and these are generally alot less valuable than say, layup assists which made up roughly half of Nash's dishes).

Would probably put his playmaking on par with someone like Pippen rather than all-time-great creators like Nash, Magic, or Jokic. Even comparing him to what would be a second-tier passer in today's NBA:
https://youtu.be/EmHJI0NRqmk?t=23
All 3 of Luka's assists involve Luka taking out multiple defenders and creating an open shot. All 3 have Luka passing through tighter windows with less time to make a decision.

Luka actively manipulates and anticipates openings. From what I've seen, Stockton generally just reacts to what shows up. Even in a comparison to his peers, someone like Isiah is alot more aggressive(and I think more developed handles contribute to this). Unless we consider rondo/draymond great playmakers, I don't think what stockton brings is a recipe for driving an offense.[/quote]

There are signs of this in terms of impact too. We don't have good wowy for stockton, but I think it's telling that the Jazz's offense/overall performance didn't falter as Stockton's primacy/minutes dropped:

Spoiler:

Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

Stockton's minutes fell off by ~5+ minutes every game from 97 onwards and Utah's record stayed largely intact for the next few seasons before age affected the core as a whole.

With that in mind, I think we can guess where that late-career RAPM is coming from:

1997: 75% of minutes played with Malone
1998: 84% of minutes played with Malone
1999: 89% of minutes played with Malone
2000: 92% of minutes played with Malone
2001: 87% of minutes played with Malone
2002: 85% of minutes played with Malone
2003: 90% of minutes played with Malone

Poor guy!

You are not the only one to bring up his steal-counts...

. If Michael Jordan and john Stockton retired after the playing the same number of games, Stockton would have more steals.

But again, unless we are specifically comparing them to other box-stats(on an individual basis as opposed to a value throughout a game one)....

Spoiler:

When UCLA did a study on how much box-stats correlate with winning. They found that steals barely affect offense and have little to no correlation with defense. In the write-up after 538 did the "box irreplaceability study"(which is oft-cited as evidence of steals great value), they noted that at a team-level steals don't seem to have a big effect

If it's just a matter of raw accumulative value, whatever. But the idea he was a nash-level, wade-level, or even Wilt+ player is putting way too much weight in what is ultimately just a product of what humans have chosen to count(pass-before-a-score vs pass-that by passes multiple defenders, hitting the ball away vs how often you are placed near or at the most valuable defensive real-estate, ect), and then how humans have decided to weigh what they decided to count. Especially when we have a wealth of evidence whether you use non-box priored-rapm or real-world stuff like wowy and the like that show the position Stockton plays tends to score much higher with conventional box-interpretation than they do with direct or scaled impact estimations.

And on that note...

Going to clear up a few questions about BPM/VORP here:

I must say I am sympathetic to Unibrodavis's concerns when all-in-one's are used like this - doesn't BPM give guards extra points when they collect stats simply for being guards

It's funny, when Jokic was ranking high in BPM, people were saying the stat was biased in favor of centers. Neither one is true. They estimate roles from their statistical profile and then adjust them. Since center's assists are usually higher value assists than guard assists, they get more credit there. Guards get less credit for defensive rebounds since their defensive rebounds are usually uncontested while their offensive rebounds and blocks are worth more since that's usually something their replacement wouldn't do. Also, point guards get an automatic penalty on defense because they're assumed to be worse defenders on average. It's all to best fit the data. FWIW, here's where the top guards rank in VORP:

3. Stockton
6. CP3
13. Kobe
15. Magic
17. Harden
20. Kidd

Doesn't look very biased for guards to me.

I would say BPM is fairly balanced guards vs. big men. There are different weights for many of the box score statistics based on the estimated position of the player and the estimated offensive role of the player.

BPM IS biased towards players that produce good box scores. The argument should be primarily about whether the player's box score statistics accurately reflect the player's actual impact.
.

I would say being biased towards players that "produce good box scores" is very naturally going to lead to bias towards smaller ones, especially if we are going to curve up stats like Blocks, which already overrepresent what smalls offer in terms of rim-deterrence.

As an example, here is how the 1991 Bulls look in terms of raw block totals:


Now if we were to check that against how much they were actually defending the rim:
[spoiler]

I did 40 possessions from the 4th game of the 91 ECF today just looking at the distribution of, as 70's calls it, "load as a paint-protector":
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)

Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentator[url][/url]s, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)


Distribution went

Pippen/Grant
14 each

Purdue
6 or 7

Cartwright
4

Armstrong/Jordan
1 each

FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else

All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.

Fwiw, in this game, Pippen and Grant, the two defenders protecting the paint more than anyone, ended with 0 blocks. As did the centers who protected the paint more than anyone else. Jordan and Livingston ended with 2. And now BPM, unless I am misuderstanding the writeup, is giving bonus points to those 2 blocks on the assumption they're especially valuable. Here's what it's saying is an extra valuable play:
https://youtu.be/iZlw-GzD9AA?t=200

As we can see here, Jordan is not the rim defender. He stops the shot largely thanks to a bigger attacker occupying Aguire and thus distracting him from Jordan.

Even if this sort of curve makes the metric more accurate with a league-worth of players(And I'd be interested if you could elaborate on the regressions you ran), for the purposes of this project where a ton of defenders who would be the runaway leaders on their teams in terms of "rim-load" still on the board, and countless more who would significantly outpace any guard, I'm skeptical of this metric's balance.

For a larger sample we can look at player-tracking(which is still limited in terms of only being able to track when a player is the closest to a shot) now available for the likes of embid who has finished in the top 5 once for blocks but is in a tier of his own with gobert in terms of deterring shots:

Remember, this is not tracking when, like in the clip above, embid's presence allows a smaller defender like Thybuille to slap a shot attempt. It is not tracking when players avoid driving at the rim because Embid might swallow their shot. It is literally just tracking who is the closest to a shot-attempt and the gap potrayed here is of an order of magnitude higher than when you just look at what the box-score has access to.


If we were to check that against their actual impact:

Spoiler:

That just doesn't add up.

[penbeast0]

Actually, Stockton penetrated more than Nash, less than Magic. Those PnR plays were based on his attacking the basket and he shot more and a higher percentage at the rim than Nash ever did (Nash would pull up short more for little floaters and the like).

Not sure why it is necessary to denigrate Stockton here. You can make a legit case for someone like Kawhi (scoring, defense, rings, etc.) without running down other players.

[penbeast0]

...

Nomination: Rick Barry

Choosing between Kidd and Barry here...I honestly like Kidd better and was going to vote for him before a last minute flip. Rick Barry was the #1 on two championship teams and four Finals teams(including his ABA years here) and it's difficult for me to look past that. Even if I don't look at his ABA years, he won the ring as the #1 in 1975, something Kidd never did. He was not a terribly efficient scorer, particularly for his volume, but he was still more efficient than Kidd while still being a solid playmaker and rebounder. Kidd was the superior playmaker and defender, and has significantly more longevity, but...I might be too swayed by 1975.

Not 100% comfortable with this and part of me still hopes Kidd prevails.

...

Are you counting 1969 when Barry was injured halfway into the season and his team went on and won the championship without him?

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Stockton - 6 (iggy, Clyde, beast, Samurai, trex, Rishkar)
Miller - 3 (rk, AEnigma, Ambrose)
Kawhi - 5 (ltj, trelos Dutchball, HBK, OSNB)
Frazier - 1 (Doc)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Stockton & Kawhi:

Stockton - 1 (Ambrose)
Kawhi - 1 (rk)
neither - 2 (AEnigma, Doc)

Stockton 7, Kawhi 6

John Stockton is Inducted at #33.



Nomination Vote 1:

Davis - 3 (iggy, Dutchball, HBK)
Barry - 4 (Clyde, AEnigma, ltj, OSNB)
Kidd - 4 (rk, Samurai, Ambrose, Rishkar)
Artis - 1 (beast)
Howard - 1 (trelos)
Baylor - 1 (trex)
Ginobili - 1 (Doc)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Barry & Kidd:

Barry - 1 (Doc)
Kidd - 2 (iggy, trex)
neither - 4 (Dutchball, HBK, beast, trelos)

Kidd 6, Barry 5

Jason Kidd is added to Nominee list.

[tsherkin]

Nash, Stockton, and Paul are in my 21-23 range and I think they are all very comparable. I don't really have a strong preference on who other people prefer, and I get that a group voting process will lead to different results than my personal list. I'm not really here to bash the Paul selection(although he went in slightly higher than I have him), I'm just curious what difference in Stockton and Paul's play constitutes an (at least) a 13 spot gap in the project. Paul absolutely has a strong argument over Stockton, I just take issue with the fact that this board doesn't seem to view them as comparable players despite similar numbers.

Yeah, I get you. I disagree with you, but that's okay too, heh. Beauty of the board and all that. I suspect that for many, Paul's superior ability to elevate his scoring game in the playoffs is a very large point of separation between the two, same as his ability to consistently provide more proactive offense via that scoring while remaining a high-end playmaker. It is a significant difference between the two.