RealGM 2017 Top 100 #86 (Horace Grant)

Post #1 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:17 pm

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Oscar Robertson
14. Karl Malone
15. Jerry West
16. Julius Erving
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. David Robinson
19. Charles Barkley
20. Moses Malone
21. John Stockton
22. Dwyane Wade
23. Chris Paul
24. Bob Pettit
25. George Mikan
26. Steve Nash
27. Patrick Ewing
28. Kevin Durant
29. Stephen Curry
30. Scottie Pippen
31. John Havlicek
32. Elgin Baylor
33. Clyde Drexler
34. Rick Barry
35. Gary Payton
36. Artis Gilmore
37. Jason Kidd
38. Walt Frazier
39. Isiah Thomas
40. Kevin McHale
41. George Gervin
42. Reggie Miller
43. Paul Pierce
44. Dwight Howard
45. Dolph Schayes
46. Bob Cousy
47. Ray Allen
48. Pau Gasol
49. Wes Unseld
50. Robert Parish
51. Russell Westbrook
52. Alonzo Mourning
53. Dikembe Mutombo
54. Manu Ginobili
55. Chauncey Billups
56. Willis Reed
57. Bob Lanier
58. Allen Iverson
59. Adrian Dantley
60. Dave Cowens
61. Elvin Hayes
62. Dominique Wilkins
63. Vince Carter
64. Alex English
65. Tracy McGrady
66. James Harden
67. Nate Thurmond
68. Sam Jones
69. Kevin Johnson
70. Bob McAdoo
71. Sidney Moncrief
72. Paul Arizin
73. Grant Hill
74. Bobby Jones
75. Chris Bosh
76. Tony Parker
77. Shawn Marion
78. Hal Greer
79. Ben Wallace
80. Dan Issel
81. Larry Nance
82. James Worthy
83. Chris Webber
84. Rasheed Wallace
85. Dennis Rodman
86. ????

Go.

Spoiler:

Post #2 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:27 pm

Vote 1 - Carmelo Anthony

Vote 2 - Tiny Archibald

- 14 seasons
- 6x all NBA (two 2nd, four 3rd)
- 1 top 3 and 1 top 10 MVP finish
- 1x scoring champ

Players already voted in in Melo’s VORP and Win Shares range:

VORP

George Gervin 32.2 *-1 season
Bobby Jones 32
Dan Issel 31.2 *-3 seasons
Steve Nash 31.2
Carmelo Anthony 29.4
James Worthy 28.5
Kevin Johnson 28
Chris Bosh 27.5
Tony Parker 27
Bob McAdoo 26.5 *-1 season
Dave Cowens 26.2 *-3 seasons
Alonzo Mourning 24

*Number of seasons played prior to 73-74 where stat could not be calculated

Win Shares

In this case the total # of win shares speaks to Carmelo’s solid longevity. As a reference point, his prime WS/48 from 06-14 is .149 and he peaked at .184.

Hal Greer 102.7
Alex English 100.7
Grant Hilll 99.9
Allen Iverson 99
McGrady 97.3
Carmelo Anthony 97
Bobby Jones 94.1
Ben Wallace 93.5
Kevin Johnson 92.8
Sam Jones 92.3
Bob Cousy 91.1
James Harden 91.3
Sidney Moncrief 90.3
Dennis Rodman 89.8
Alonzo Mourning 89.7
Bob McAdoo 89.1
Dave Cowens 86.3
Chris Webber 84.7
James Worthy 81.2

In the seasons post 2014 top 100 project, the PG situation in new york did not improve at all:

14-15: Shane Larkin, Langston Galloway, 37 yr old prigioni, 33 yr old calderon

15-16: Langston Galloway, rookie Jerian Grant, 34 yr old Caldeorn — this PG rotation was so poor that carmelo ended up leading the team in APG and just about equaled calderon in AST%

16-17: Rose, Jennings, rookie Ron Baker

Jennings was really the one penetrate and dish PG the knicks had in those 3 seasons. He even seemed to buy in to the fact that he can’t shoot and really got everyone involved. Of course, he had rose starting in front of him, so his time on the floor with melo was limited. He was used more in bench lineups that actually thrived, relatively speaking.

In an era where dynamic PG play is paramount, knicks management abhorrently ignored the position. I don’t think you can find such ineptitude in a front office with playoff aspirations outside of the cousins-era kings.

Peak carmelo developed into one of the best offensive players in the league. The “iso melo” stigma really became an outdated narrative as you saw all he really needed was a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off the ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficiently and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a great 3 pt shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his great post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He had a deceptively quick second jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possessed a unique rolling spin move to the hoop i’m not sure anyone else in the league has. The one thing he was really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He isn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he doesn’t have those long strides like durant / harden where they know the angles and draw fouls as easily as they do.

Carmelo had the full repertoire going with his career high 62 pts against charlotte last season (they ranked 5th in DRTG):

Watch on YouTube

I then look at someone like dominique, who was voted in at #62, and I think a 24 spot gap between the two is pushing it. Take a look at how they compare over their first 11 seasons (dominique actually comes off as worse if you look at his whole career):

http://bkref.com/tiny/KSWoH

They’re very comparable in most areas, and carmelo actually comes out as the better postseason performer, something wilkins was well criticized for, but still managed to get voted in much earlier. I noted trex's argument in past threads about nique consistently carrying offenses with not much support. It's a valid point, although again it's 18 spots later.

There always seemed to be this all or nothing evaluation of carmelo where he’d be expected to be as good as lebron / durant (which he obviously isn’t), or he’s barely a top 20 player in the league. You may want to fault him for forcing his way to NY, but let’s not pretend like many players voted in already haven’t done the same.

ronnymac brings up a good point about low turnovers being a plus for high usage players. Below are are 20+ PPG scorers in the playoffs (excluding centers) sorted by TO% (best to worst):

http://bkref.com/tiny/HO11E

Of course there are guys at the “bottom” who were very successful, but the lower TO% can help offset some of the decrease in efficiency we see with carmelo in the playoffs.

Then we get to the clutch play. 82games.com looked at shot data from 04-09 in the reg season + 04-08 in the post season. Carmelo was 6th in the league in game winners, but #1 in the league by far in FG% on game winners at 48.1%:

http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

By 2011, he already had enough game winners to choose from to create a top 10 for his career:

Watch on YouTube

For clutch data from 2000-2012, carmelo was 7th in the league in FG%, and 50% of his FGs were assisted, which is interesting to note for being criticized for holding the ball too long.

http://bit.ly/1wnySdJ

[I’d obviously prefer eFG% or TS% for these figures, but they weren’t available here]

I’m aware that he hasn’t been quite as clutch over the last few seasons, but i attribute some of that to fatigue (he led the league in MPG last season) and the makeup of his teams. He’s still had his fair share of clutch moments since coming to NY, and hit multiple game winners during his first season here. He did give us this gem in 2012 as well:

Watch on YouTube

Carmelo gets a decent amount of flack for his playoff resume, and I think it’s a little overstated, so I’d like to provide some context for each season. It also seems to get pushed aside that making the playoffs 10 seasons in a row is no big deal or something, especially when the majority of them came out west. Below is carmelo’s team SRS rank and the opponent’s SRS rank that he lost to in the playoffs.

CARMELO SRS RANK / OPPONENT SRS RANK

04 - 11th / 2nd
05 - 10th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
06 - 15th / 9th
07 - 9th / 1st (eventual NBA champion spurs)
08 - 11th / 2nd
09 - 8th / 3rd (eventual NBA champion lakers)
10 - 8th / 3rd
11 - 15th / 6th
12 - 11th / 4th (eventual NBA champion heat)
13 - 7th / 9th

Aside from 2013, the team he lost to has always been favored in SRS, with 4 of the 10 series losses coming to the eventual NBA champs. To me, this doesn’t reflect a player who’s come up short when he’s been expected to go farther in the playoffs. You can make the argument that if he was a better player, he may have been favored in more series, but that only goes so far.

It’s clear that he hasn’t been as fortunate as some other players as far as who he’s played with. Some more details on his recent playoff loses:

09 - This run to the WCF almost gets glossed over at times. Nuggets were 2 wins away from the finals, losing to the eventual NBA champion lakers, who were just flat out the better team.

He had some great performances during that run.

11 - Billups gets hurt in game 1 against boston (out for rest of series), then amare gets hurt in game 2 only playing 17 min. First 2 games are decided by 2 and 3 points respectively.

Tony douglas forced to play PG for the rest of the series, basically putting it out of reach.

12 - Disastrous # of injuries. Tyson chandler finishes off a DPOY season, and of course gets the flu as soon as the playoffs start. Lin doesn’t come back for the playoffs, shumpert and douglas only play 1 game a piece, baron davis eventually goes down, and the knicks are only left with 33 yr old mike bibby to run the point, who already had 1 foot in retirement.

13 - First time since carmelo came to the knicks that they really looked like a team who could make a run to the finals. PG play was always an issue prior to this season, and felton came up big in the 1st round against boston. Ball movement flowing with kidd and prigioni as well. Then in the 2nd round against indiana, chandler again doesn’t look himself, which would later be revealed that he had an “undisclosed illness” during the series. I think there’s a good chance they beat the pacers with a healthy chandler, and who knows what happens from there.

As for defense, the last few seasons specifically he hasn’t been the same player physically. I’ve never claimed him to be a plus defender, even in his prime. I’m now reminded of some data i gathered in the 2014 project that i haven’t added here:

While not perfect, take a look at how the below SFs have performed against carmelo vs. their career averages. Sure, camrelo may not have been guarding them the whole time, but it's a large enough sample size to at least uncover any red flags.

(TS% or eFG% not available for head to head data)

Durant - 27.9 PPG on 43/41/87 (career 27.3 PPG on 48/38/88)

LeBron - 25.9 PPG on 49/27/70 (career 27.4 PPG on 50/34/75)

Gay - 18.6 PPG on 44/22/72 (career 18.4 PPG on 45/34/79)

George - 15.1 PPG on 45/34/77 (career 15.3 PPG on 43/36/83)

Pierce - 23.1 PPG on 50/41/80 (career 20.9 PPG on 45/37/81)

Granger - 16.6 PPG on 45/39/88 (career 16.8 PPG on 43/38/85)

Caron Butler - 12.4 PPG on 43/38/84 (career 14.5 PPG on 43/34/85)

McGrady - 19.6 PPG on 45/44/82 (career 19.6 PPG on 44/34/75)

Deng - 17.1 PPG on 45/36/83 (career 16.9 PPG on 46/33/77)

Josh Howard - 12.7 PPG on 44/31/79 (career 14.3 PPG on 45/33/77)

Richard Jefferson - 14.2 PPG on 51/43/66 (career 14 PPG on 47/38/77)

Stephen Jackson - 17.4 PPG on 35/33/86 (career 15.1 PPG on 41/33/80)

Of the 12 players, 6 scored the same or less than their career averages against carmelo. Those that scored more were only by marginal amounts. Efficiency ranges from lower to somewhat higher. No red flags here.

That’s 11 seasons of data. It doesn’t paint the picture of an egregious defender.

Here are the best players carmelo’s played with over the course of his career: andre miller (first few seasons of carmelo's career), kenyon martin (often injured), post 30s iverson, camby (often injured), JR smith, nene (often injured), billups, afflalo, amare (often injured), tyson chandler (often injured), kidd in his last season, in shape felton and porzingis' rookie/soph year.

Outside of iverson, that’s a collection of good players, but nothing that screams "consistent second option", or even "consistent first option" if you want to push carmelo down a notch. Porzingis and carmelo actually had great chemistry until rose came along, but their timelines unfortunately didn't match up. Fit is clearly important, too, and while iverson and carmelo never had "problems" with each other, it wasn't working. It’s not an accident that carmelo’s best seasons came with billups running the show in 2009 and a knicks team in 2013 which focused heavily on keeping the ball moving and quick decision making.

With regard to how carmelo’s career is perceived, I always go back to pierce before garnett and allen came along. Even if we agree that pierce is the better player, he had only been to the conf finals once before that trade, and i’m not sure how his career progresses without those trades being made. Does he stick with it in boston and not make anymore playoff runs? Does he eventually go to another team? I just wonder how carmelo would be looked at had he been fortunate enough to play with teammates of that caliber in his prime.

Post #3 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:29 pm

Vote: Mel Daniels
Alternate: Elton Brand

Why Mel Daniels? It may be winner's bias, but when I see a team win multiple championships, I tend to look more closely at the makeup of the teams to see WHY they are winning. I don't automatically value big minute contributors to championships, I have been down on Bob Cousy's role on those Celtic titles for example. However, I do value the championships a lot and how a team got there. Indiana was the Boston Celtics of the ABA. They didn't have nearly the big name stars of Kentucky (Gilmore, Issel, Dampier), New York (Erving, Kenon), or even San Antonio (Gervin, Silas, Paultz) but they won the most and the most consistently. Breaking those teams down, Slick Leonard was a competent coach but had little success elsewhere and wasn't that highly regarded for either his game management or his player development. Their guards were pretty weak. Freddie Lewis a below average PG, not much of a distributor and only an average shooter and defender, while their 2 guards changed regularly and were unimpressive. Roger Brown at SF was a nice scorer with good range, great handles, and enough variety that his nickname was "the man of a thousand moves." He was definitely a key factor but he didn't play much defense or add much rebounding or playmaking. The PF were Bob Netolicky (the self proclaimed Joe Namath of the ABA) who was another excellent scorer and decent rebounder with no interest in defense then they replaced him with George McGinnis, another volume scorer (less efficient) and a great rebounder who generated a lot of assists, and turnovers. But for me, looking at this franchise's success, it was all built around Mel Daniels in the middle. A good scorer (consistently close to 20 a game on above average efficiency), great rebounder (usually among top in league), and powerful defender (better positionally than in help defense) who set the tone of the team and acted as their enforcer. His career was short and corresponds almost exactly with the rise and fall of the Pacers as a force in the ABA (his rookie year, he apparently shot a lot of long jump shots and had poor efficiency for Minnesota, which Leonard immediately banned when he came to Indiana).

Mel Daniels is certainly the only multiple MVP winner left. Nobody else changed or dominanted on both ends to the same degree for more than 1-1.5 years (Walton, Hawkins). Daniels was the best player on two championship teams plus a willing support role on a third championship though in a weak league (probably better than the pre-Russell 50s though). I tend to value defense, particularly for big men, and Mel was basically the original Alonzo Mourning with more rebounding but less shotblocking or, to use dhsilv2's comp, Moses Malone (without the longevity of course). He was a 1st round NBA pick (the first to sign with the ABA) and in the NBA would probably have been one of the best centers as well, not in the Jabbar league, but contending with Unseld/Cowens for the rebounding leaderboard and 2nd team All-Defense with good scoring (but poor playmaking). The two MVPs show he was valued above his box scores.

It is reasonable to compare Daniels to Kawhi Leonard as they have similar length of career by now. Kawhi brings excellent wing defense early on, but Daniels was probably more impactful defensively as intimidating defensive centers tend to be (especially in the 20th century). Kawhi's defense is still good and his scoring has blown up, a clearly better option than Daniels; also clearly a better passer. Daniels brings rebounding and toughness at a level equal to guys like Wes Unseld or Dave Cowens who are already in from his era (other league). I think the impact Daniels brought was appreciably higher in his league than that Kawhi has in the current league, enough to overcome the much weaker league he played in. Connie Hawkins would be another early ABA guy, higher peak than Daniels, shorter career though he did have a 1st team All-NBA between his first and second major knee injury. More of a career than Walton, less than Daniels. With careers this short, the difference is magnified. Of the bunch, I rate Daniels the highest.

Bill Sharman is probably the best 50s guy left, Chet Walker for the 60s/70s. Most of the 80s/90s guys with someone like Dennis Johnson or Horace Grant being the main contenders left. In the 00s, Elton Brand, by the numbers, looks very impressive while Amare Stoudamire has the most accolades and really impressive prime numbers . . . but didn't play any defense. Mark Gasol or Kawhi Leonard for active players, I might vote Kawhi here except for the fact that SA doesn't seem to falter at all when he is missing.

Post #4 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:43 am

1st vote: Horace Grant
Grant's a guy who looks excellent on every single "career value" formulation I've come up with (including a brand new one I'm playing with); good enough to go substantially higher than this, actually. I've never moved him up quite as high as so many things indicate is appropriate for him, on the basis of never feeling like he was more than a 2nd/3rd tier star, and probably simple "peer pressure" from status quo thinking.
But he had a handful of things going for him: was an excellent defensive forward (physical post defender with enough length to guard the C if needed, good pnr defender, fairly good on a switch, fair/decent rim-protector (career avg of 1.7 blk/100 possessions, peaking at 2.2 iirc), boxed out well, etc).
On offense, he had a VERY limited post game and wasn't a noteworthy scorer in general (though mind you not "bad" either). However, he was a decent passing big who did occasional playmaking from the high-post or baseline, could be a very effective offensive rebounder if deployed in that fashion, had nice hands and could finish fairly well at the rim, outstanding turnover economy, provided a small amount of floor-spreading effect by being accurate out to around 15 ft (more like 19 ft by later in his career), and was not a liability at the line........and he provided all that for quite awhile (really very nice longevity).
So I'm perfectly happy to jump on a Grant bandwagon if he's got support at this stage. I could even see swapping my two picks around.

2nd vote: Carmelo Anthony
An impact study of Melo is a little bit of a mixed bag (skewing toward negative: just so we don't embark on another semantic debate with my labeling :wink:

). His RAPM's (the impact metric I tend to put the most faith in, fwiw) look a bit questionable [that is: below expectation] in many years. otoh, WOWY studies, and team performance relative to cast, don't look too bad at all for a player gaining traction in the mid 80's section of the list (better in these regards than Elton Brand, as noted in previous thread).

But as I've said elsewhere, I'm not comfortable putting all my eggs into one basket (and certainly not all into one that isn't a direct measure of "player goodness"). If one were to base ranking/assessment on all other factors and metrics (outside of the impact umbrella), he would conclude we're already 10+ places late on Carmelo Anthony.
With that in mind, I've a hard time putting him off any further.

Offensively he's clearly a pretty talented player. Ranged from a very good to near-elite scorer during his prime (despite spending much of that without terribly relevant play-makers around him). I've never been overly fond of his shot-selection (over-reliance on the mid-range), though that's what kept him in the "very good to near-elite" range (but never "elite", imo).

Not a particularly relevant playmaker, though certainly no worse than James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins, or Kawhi Leonard. And has been a very good rebounding SF (occ. SF/PF) in his career, and does provide some spacing.
A mostly weak defender with sporadic seasons of "OK" defense. I'm not considering this current season, though fwiw, it indicates to me what I've suspected: that Melo could play halfway respectable defense if deployed in a more offensively limited role-player capacity (as reported he was willing to do in the Olympics, fwiw); and defense being the primary thing that has held his impact down.
Longevity is actually pretty good by this point (considerably better than Webber, Kawhi, or Tiny; considering minutes, arguably better than Rodman, too).

Criticized as being difficult to integrate into a contender (somewhat speculative, imo), but at any rate a pretty decent floor-raiser (which carries more value [to me] than most seem to give it credit for).

Post #5 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:41 am

I had a more inflammatory post saying this but decided it wasn't going to contribute much to the discussion. But, I'd take Chet Walker over Carmelo. He scored less, but part of that was more of a commitment to team first play both in Philly and later in Chicago. Walker was a bit less efficient in the regular season (in a less efficient league), a bit more efficient in the playoffs. He played excellent defense, I was actually surprised that Bob Love got an All-D award instead of Walker in Chicago. Rebounded a bit less, better passer with better handles (relative to the rules of his day). Slightly less longevity, but in a period where you had to attend 4 years of college and the medical support was appreciably worse.

I'd rather have the guy that does what you suggest you think Carmelo might have been able to do in the right situation; play good defense and score efficiently while contributing both to lead a consistent playoff offense (in Chicago) and contribute selflessly to an all-time great ensemble title team (67 Sixers).

pandrade83 · Post #6 » by **pandrade83** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:03 am

Primary: Tim Hardaway
Alternate: Mookie Blaylock

Not sure how many people saw/didn't see my post on Hardaway vs. Tiny. Since Tiny is getting some traction, I figured I'd lead with this rather than make the same post on Hardaway over & over.

Here's some of the reasons I take Hardaway over Tiny:

A little bit better Box Metrics in a materially better era

Hardaway generates 85 Career WS to Tiny's 83.4 and about 2/3 of Tiny's WS comes pre-merger; I think that's note-worthy. Tiny posts a positive Box Score +/- just once post merger as well; showing a clear drop-off (though partially due to age). Hardaway also has marginally better PER (18.6 vs. 18.0). I'm willing to concede that Tiny's best BPM Years probably aren't captured ('72 & '73) but it's likely that Hardaway has a superior Career VORP Score as well since '74-'84 leave him with 9.5 vs. Hardaway's 34.6.

Solid defender vs. Weak Defender

I think the game clips + the RAPM Data + the steal frequency + some of the h2h matchups I've previously posted shows a fair picture of a capable defender. I wouldn't call Hardaway elite or anything - but he's solid. Archibald on the other hand was pretty bad on metrics & I'll add to it with some of the data from Owly:

After rookie season
The Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball 1971-72 – A Jim O’Brien Book [different to later Hollander edited books]
Has trouble on defense … Has tremendous body control, however, and could come a long way in that area this season.

After ’74 (4th year) but mainly in reference to earlier seasons as playing only
1975 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald will have to make an effort on defense or will have his problems with [incoming head coach Phil] Johnson. In the past he gave back many of the points he scored.
[player section:]

1977 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be pesky in a pressing situation, perhaps, but overall he’s a liability.
[player section:]

1978 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be a pest, but he can’t contain anyone over 40 minutes.
[player section:]

DNP in the prior, 77-78, season.
1979 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] In Archibald, Knight and Barnes, they have acquired offensive talents who can make it an exciting team, but a porous one as well.
[player section:]

1980 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald has lost a step and can’t guard his house.
[player section:]

1981 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald is adequate against players his size (both of them).
[player section:]

No mentions of his D in either section of the ’82 Handbook

1983 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be beaten because of his size …
[player section:]

Playoffs

I was pretty candid about Hardaway's playoff performance - warts & all. But Tiny's indisputably and materially worse. He has a negative BPM every year, never even gets to 14 on PER, and the one time he made it in his prime, he went for 20-5 on 44% TS.

The case for Archibald is

Thinking about this from a pro-Tiny perspective, I think the biggest case is being really in love with that '73 season and valuing the peak he brings over the career value edge that Hardaway seems to have. He's part of a 3 man 30 pt 10 assist club with the Big O & Westbrook. He did so while shooting 56% TS which is pretty strong for the era and anchors the #1 offense while doing so without having a 3 point line and with Sam Lacey being the next best player on the team.

It's a great season. I get the appeal of that season - but if you're backing Tiny over Hardaway, you need to remember that Tiny didn't get in the playoffs that year. But that would be the only time before playing with Larry Bird where he was on a positive offense and for a point guard who was clearly a defensive liability, that seems problematic.

If I'm picking a guy for pure peak, I'd rather go with Kawhi or Walton.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a regular season standpoint, Blaylock should have gone in some time ago - everything we know about impact loves him - both from a box score & RAPM standpoint.

In the Box Score

-Blaylock leads a pair of 55 W+ Atlanta teams in WS, VORP & PER - PLUS he leads two more playoff teams in all of those metrics in both '95 & '96
-He finishes Top 10 in VORP an impressive 5 times and is Top 10 in DWS (very hard for a guard to do) 4 times.
-He has a pair of double digit WS years to his name including a relatively high peak of 12.5 in '97; this peak is higher than anything Carmelo Anthony achieved, for example.

Impact
-NPI RAPM grades him as a Top 10 player the first two years we have data - it's likely that it would have seen him as having a comparable impact in '94-'96 as well based on how his metrics in the other years stack up.
-Even in '99 - when Blaylock is exiting his prime, RAPM still views him as a decisively high impact player in a wonky season (lock-out - only 50 games - some sample size issues)
-In '98 when he misses 12 games, the Hawks go 44-26 with (52 win pace) & 6-6 without (41 win pace)

The two knocks on him are longevity - he has 72 career WS which isn't great at this juncture - & a lack of memorable playoff moments.

WRT longevity, he does have 5 outstanding seasons of play ('94-'98) where it's more likely than not his overall impact is that of an all-star with a 2nd team All-NBA caliber play. His post/pre-prime seasons are a little short on impact & the prime duration is relatively short.

On playoffs - he is poor in '93, '99 & '95 - suffering steep drop-offs all 3 years. Career playoff #"s of 47% TS on 14 PPG is not great - I don't want to come off as letting him off the hook here. He does have some strong defensive performances - one I'll highlight specifically is his performance on Jordan in the '97 2nd round. Jordan was held to 3 PPG less than his rs average on a fairly soft 51% TS. The video clip below shows aggressive & strong defense - both man to man & help throughout the series.

He generally maintains his stealing prowess, rebounding & passing in the playoffs - the biggest hit is to his scoring & offensive efficiency. Although the video I post below does highlight robust defensive impact, you will see a horrible shot attempt at the 14 second mark - and that's one of the things I remember about him - poor judgment on shooting . . . which may be exhibited in his personal life as he is serving a 5 year prison sentence.

At any rate - most players being elected at this stage have fairly steep playoff drop-offs, so I don't view it as comparatively damning, but it needs mentioned. I think if he played for a different franchise, he'd be in by now.

Watch on YouTube

Wrapping up - below is my original reasoning for Hardaway. I figure those still voting have read it by now which is why I focused on why I consider Hardaway superior to the other PG getting traction as my lead.

Spoiler:

Post #7 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:55 pm

Potentially outlier/unpopular opinion to follow......this is one I allude to in my criteria post in the official criteria thread, but I'm just going to elaborate a bit here. It relates to the definition of "greatness"----as we're making a list of the 100 "greatest" players of all-time----a term which is wide open to interpretation. Anyway, the potentially unpopular opinion is:

Notoriety (or popularity and/or marketability, if you will) matters in determining, or is a component of, greatness.

I won't say it's a BIG factor for me, but I do think it matters, and I'll explain why I think so.
I think most of us would agree that the competitiveness of the league or the quality of the "average" NBA player has generally increased throughout the NBA's history. Not saying each year is better than the year before it, nor even suggesting a given 5+-year span is necessarily better than the 5-year span that preceded it. However, it's generally been a [mostly] upward trend thru time (with plenty of "coastering" up and down year to year, and arguably a plateau or even slight valley thru much of the 70's).
Some might argue it more or less plateaued since the 1990's (a scant few would even argue a slight peak then), but otherwise what I'm generally getting at is that nearly all of us agree that the "modern(ish)" NBA is more competitive than the "early" (pre-merger) NBA, and that the changes that occurred happened gradually.

If we can agree on that, I'd next want to delve into why......why is the inherent average quality of the NBA player improved?

Many people would launch into an explanation revolving around improved coaching/mentoring and techniques, improved physical training, better and more available equipment/facilities, better footwear, better diet, (PED's??), etc. But as I've argued elsewhere, none of that is inherent to the player. They're all extrinsic or environmental influences......influences that Wilt or Russell or West or whomever you choose would have reaped the rewards of, had they simply been born later. So in essence, they're all illusion.
They don't actually have [much of] anything to do with the inherent player:
*the natural ("God-given") athleticism that he possesses (which is only augmented by training, facilities, diet, etc)
**his natural hand/eye coordination
***his natural basketball aptitude (trending toward "natural shooter" [e.g. Curry, West, Barry, Reggie], or great vision/awareness [e.g. Magic, Cousy, Nash], or defensive awareness/IQ [e.g. Russell], or whatever)
****or perhaps even natural tenacity [e.g. Moses, Rodman]

......because those things are inherent to the man.

So what really drives the improvement in the league over time?
Certainly desegregation helped a lot, but even that falls under the umbrella of a larger general principle: expanding player pool. In a nut-shell it boils down to size of player pool, or more specifically: the ratio of player pool size to size of the league. The larger the populace that is playing the game of basketball, the more uniquely gifted talents will emerge from that populace of basketball players; and the league can tap into that.

That is: the larger that ratio, the more selective the league can be about who it folds into itself====>it means more "marginal talents" (who may have had a place in the league at one time) will be left out of the league because better players are available; it means talents that might have been noteworthy in an earlier era are maybe skewed more toward average; and maybe a few more of those "near-generational" level talents emerge per given span of time.

And what drives the increasing size of the player pool? ---> The [global] popularity of the game.

And what drives the popularity of the game?
Well, there are no doubt several factors here, including the intrinsic qualities of the game itself (it's a beautiful sport, imo), and improved financial prospects.
But also included are the popular and highly marketable stars of the professional game: the stars that sell a lot of jerseys, and put butts in the stadium seats, and casual fans tune in to watch on TV, and kids ape on the playgrounds, etc.

THAT is why I think popularity/marketability/notoriety matters within a discussion about "greatness": because those "popular"/well-known stars have played no small part in the expanding global popularity of basketball and thus the general improvement of the league's players.

And fwiw, the most popular or marketable stars are not always the best players the league has to offer. A semi-consistent trend, though, is that they tend to be high-scoring offensive stars. Ppg is a simple premise casual fans can easily wrap their heads around; points scored determines the outcome of the game, and so they often err toward thinking the team's leading scorer is the best player (and the 2nd-leading scorer is the 2nd-best player, and so on). "The little things" that help win games frequently go unnoticed by casual fans (and sometimes even by media personalities), especially if they're things that don't show up in a box score.
So it tends to be the guys who really fill up the stat-sheet (especially the scoring column) that get the lion's share of the credit from the masses. I'm not saying this is just, but it's nonetheless true. And as result, it's the scorers/offensive stars that are more necessary to the popularity of the game.
The 10-year-old kid practising in his driveway isn't practising his defensive footwork and positioning while fantasising about contesting shots like Draymond Green. He's bombing away and trying to do the fancy dribbles while fantasising about scoring bunches as the next Curry or Kobe (or Melo???), because that's where the glamour is and where the lion's share of the credit/recognition usually goes. We'll see Victor Oladipo or Isaiah Thomas get a shoe deal long before Rudy Gobert ever gets one. That's just the way it is.

Post #8 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:02 pm

Thru post #7:

Carmelo Anthony - 2 (trex_8063, Clyde Frazier)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Tim Hardaway - 1 (pandrade83)

About 22-23 hours left till runoff.

Spoiler:

Post #9 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:11 pm

pandrade83 wrote:Primary: Tim Hardaway
Alternate: Mookie Blaylock

Not going to argue against Timmy (seems like he should be gaining traction soon); he suffers a little bit for my personal criteria due to his somewhat marginal longevity/durability profile.

wrt Mookie, though, I'll ask again: why Mookie over someone like Mo Cheeks? It seems like Mookie's candidacy here MUST be largely based on the impression of elite impact (as indicated by the few years of RAPM data available for his prime), yes?
But a few threads back I'd provided a link to a thread with contained some on/off (and I think APM regressions, iirc) for several Sixer players including Cheeks.......and he was frequently in line with guys like Charles Barkley and Bobby Jones for impact (more than adequate to compete against Mookie's impact numbers).

And given Cheeks was similarly a perennial All-Defensive candidate who also seems a more efficient/capable offensive player with better box-based metrics, and clearly better longevity, and a better array of team accomplishments (fwiw), well........why not him instead?

Owly · Post #10 » by **Owly** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:33 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Potentially outlier/unpopular opinion to follow......this is one I allude to in my criteria post in the official criteria thread, but I'm just going to elaborate a bit here. It relates to the definition of "greatness"----as we're making a list of the 100 "greatest" players of all-time----a term which is wide open to interpretation. Anyway, the potentially unpopular opinion is:

Notoriety (or popularity and/or marketability, if you will) matters in determining, or is a component of, greatness.

I won't say it's a BIG factor for me, but I do think it matters, and I'll explain why I think so.
I think most of us would agree that the competitiveness of the league or the quality of the "average" NBA player has generally increased throughout the NBA's history. Not saying each year is better than the year before it, nor even suggesting a given 5+-year span is necessarily better than the 5-year span that preceded it. However, it's generally been a [mostly] upward trend thru time (with plenty of "coastering" up and down year to year, and arguably a plateau or even slight valley thru much of the 70's).
Some might argue it more or less plateaued since the 1990's (a scant few would even argue a slight peak then), but otherwise what I'm generally getting at is that nearly all of us agree that the "modern(ish)" NBA is more competitive than the "early" (pre-merger) NBA, and that the changes that occurred happened gradually.

If we can agree on that, I'd next want to delve into why......why is the inherent average quality of the NBA player improved?

Many people would launch into an explanation revolving around improved coaching/mentoring and techniques, improved physical training, better and more available equipment/facilities, better footwear, better diet, (PED's??), etc. But as I've argued elsewhere, none of that is inherent to the player. They're all extrinsic or environmental influences......influences that Wilt or Russell or West or whomever you choose would have reaped the rewards of, had they simply been born later. So in essence, they're all illusion.
They don't actually have [much of] anything to do with the inherent player:
*the natural ("God-given") athleticism that he possesses (which is only augmented by training, facilities, diet, etc)
**his natural hand/eye coordination
***his natural basketball aptitude (trending toward "natural shooter" [e.g. Curry, West, Barry, Reggie], or great vision/awareness [e.g. Magic, Cousy, Nash], or defensive awareness/IQ [e.g. Russell], or whatever)
****or perhaps even natural tenacity [e.g. Moses, Rodman]

......because those things are inherent to the man.

So what really drives the improvement in the league over time?
Certainly desegregation helped a lot, but even that falls under the umbrella of a larger general principle: expanding player pool. In a nut-shell it boils down to size of player pool, or more specifically: the ratio of player pool size to size of the league. The larger the populace that is playing the game of basketball, the more uniquely gifted talents will emerge from that populace of basketball players; and the league can tap into that.

That is: the larger that ratio, the more selective the league can be about who it folds into itself====>it means more "marginal talents" (who may have had a place in the league at one time) will be left out of the league because better players are available; it means talents that might have been noteworthy in an earlier era are maybe skewed more toward average; and maybe a few more of those "near-generational" level talents emerge per given span of time.

And what drives the increasing size of the player pool? ---> The [global] popularity of the game.

And what drives the popularity of the game?
Well, there are no doubt several factors here, including the intrinsic qualities of the game itself (it's a beautiful sport, imo), and improved financial prospects.
But also included are the popular and highly marketable stars of the professional game: the stars that sell a lot of jerseys, and put butts in the stadium seats, and casual fans tune in to watch on TV, and kids ape on the playgrounds, etc.

THAT is why I think popularity/marketability/notoriety matters within a discussion about "greatness": because those "popular"/well-known stars have played no small part in the expanding global popularity of basketball and thus the general improvement of the league's players.

And fwiw, the most popular or marketable stars are not always the best players the league has to offer. A semi-consistent trend, though, is that they tend to be high-scoring offensive stars. Ppg is a simple premise casual fans can easily wrap their heads around; points scored determines the outcome of the game, and so they often err toward thinking the team's leading scorer is the best player (and the 2nd-leading scorer is the 2nd-best player, and so on). "The little things" that help win games frequently go unnoticed by casual fans (and sometimes even by media personalities), especially if they're things that don't show up in a box score.
So it tends to be the guys who really fill up the stat-sheet (especially the scoring column) that get the lion's share of the credit from the masses. I'm not saying this is just, but it's nonetheless true. And as result, it's the scorers/offensive stars that are more necessary to the popularity of the game.
The 10-year-old kid practising in his driveway isn't practising his defensive footwork and positioning while fantasising about contesting shots like Draymond Green. He's bombing away and trying to do the fancy dribbles while fantasising about scoring bunches as the next Curry or Kobe (or Melo???), because that's where the glamour is and where the lion's share of the credit/recognition usually goes. We'll see Victor Oladipo or Isaiah Thomas get a shoe deal long before Rudy Gobert ever gets one. That's just the way it is.

Leaving aside absolute stances about "right" and "wrong" in criteria (what I effectively care about is goodness, as in career value/moving title probability - but so long as people are clear in what they're arguing it doesn't so much matter).

I think there's a circularity in your argument. Offensive "stars" are promoted, greater visibility/promotion leads to increased popularity of the game/individual and then you can say the (offensive) stars are making the game more popular (and very, very, very indirectly improving it). But so long as they're what's promoted the argument is circular. And that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong - I'd just want a seperate foundation (if you're trying to promote or defend it as a criterion). Or none, I guess? You don't, per the above, have to have reasoning for your criteria, except if you are promoting/defending it as right or good.

For me, I don't know how I'd plug in, say, "Linsanity" into any formula or mental model and say that elevates Lin x many "points" (above an equivalent value/impact player without, well, Linsanity). Even that's an oversimplifciation, you could perhaps say doing so would be tricky (quantifying) for non-boxscore D (especially pre-impact stats - or if you are skeptical thereof) or intangiables. But you might perhaps at least be able to give a range for what you're crediting mentally (or explicitly, depending on how ad-hoc the methodology is). I think I'd struggle with that for any "star" status.

Post #11 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:36 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Potentially outlier/unpopular opinion to follow......
Spoiler:
this is one I allude to in my criteria post in the official criteria thread, but I'm just going to elaborate a bit here. It relates to the definition of "greatness"----as we're making a list of the 100 "greatest" players of all-time----a term which is wide open to interpretation. Anyway, the potentially unpopular opinion is:

Notoriety (or popularity and/or marketability, if you will) matters in determining, or is a component of, greatness.

I won't say it's a BIG factor for me, but I do think it matters, and I'll explain why I think so.
I think most of us would agree that the competitiveness of the league or the quality of the "average" NBA player has generally increased throughout the NBA's history. Not saying each year is better than the year before it, nor even suggesting a given 5+-year span is necessarily better than the 5-year span that preceded it. However, it's generally been a [mostly] upward trend thru time (with plenty of "coastering" up and down year to year, and arguably a plateau or even slight valley thru much of the 70's).
Some might argue it more or less plateaued since the 1990's (a scant few would even argue a slight peak then), but otherwise what I'm generally getting at is that nearly all of us agree that the "modern(ish)" NBA is more competitive than the "early" (pre-merger) NBA, and that the changes that occurred happened gradually.

If we can agree on that, I'd next want to delve into why......why is the inherent average quality of the NBA player improved?

Many people would launch into an explanation revolving around improved coaching/mentoring and techniques, improved physical training, better and more available equipment/facilities, better footwear, better diet, (PED's??), etc. But as I've argued elsewhere, none of that is inherent to the player. They're all extrinsic or environmental influences......influences that Wilt or Russell or West or whomever you choose would have reaped the rewards of, had they simply been born later. So in essence, they're all illusion.
They don't actually have [much of] anything to do with the inherent player:
*the natural ("God-given") athleticism that he possesses (which is only augmented by training, facilities, diet, etc)
**his natural hand/eye coordination
***his natural basketball aptitude (trending toward "natural shooter" [e.g. Curry, West, Barry, Reggie], or great vision/awareness [e.g. Magic, Cousy, Nash], or defensive awareness/IQ [e.g. Russell], or whatever)
****or perhaps even natural tenacity [e.g. Moses, Rodman]

......because those things are inherent to the man.

So what really drives the improvement in the league over time?
Certainly desegregation helped a lot, but even that falls under the umbrella of a larger general principle: expanding player pool. In a nut-shell it boils down to size of player pool, or more specifically: the ratio of player pool size to size of the league. The larger the populace that is playing the game of basketball, the more uniquely gifted talents will emerge from that populace of basketball players; and the league can tap into that.

That is: the larger that ratio, the more selective the league can be about who it folds into itself====>it means more "marginal talents" (who may have had a place in the league at one time) will be left out of the league because better players are available; it means talents that might have been noteworthy in an earlier era are maybe skewed more toward average; and maybe a few more of those "near-generational" level talents emerge per given span of time.

And what drives the increasing size of the player pool? ---> The [global] popularity of the game.

And what drives the popularity of the game?
Well, there are no doubt several factors here, including the intrinsic qualities of the game itself (it's a beautiful sport, imo), and improved financial prospects.
But also included are the popular and highly marketable stars of the professional game: the stars that sell a lot of jerseys, and put butts in the stadium seats, and casual fans tune in to watch on TV, and kids ape on the playgrounds, etc.

THAT is why I think popularity/marketability/notoriety matters within a discussion about "greatness": because those "popular"/well-known stars have played no small part in the expanding global popularity of basketball and thus the general improvement of the league's players.

And fwiw, the most popular or marketable stars are not always the best players the league has to offer. A semi-consistent trend, though, is that they tend to be high-scoring offensive stars. Ppg is a simple premise casual fans can easily wrap their heads around; points scored determines the outcome of the game, and so they often err toward thinking the team's leading scorer is the best player (and the 2nd-leading scorer is the 2nd-best player, and so on). "The little things" that help win games frequently go unnoticed by casual fans (and sometimes even by media personalities), especially if they're things that don't show up in a box score.
So it tends to be the guys who really fill up the stat-sheet (especially the scoring column) that get the lion's share of the credit from the masses. I'm not saying this is just, but it's nonetheless true. And as result, it's the scorers/offensive stars that are more necessary to the popularity of the game.
The 10-year-old kid practising in his driveway isn't practising his defensive footwork and positioning while fantasising about contesting shots like Draymond Green. He's bombing away and trying to do the fancy dribbles while fantasising about scoring bunches as the next Curry or Kobe (or Melo???), because that's where the glamour is and where the lion's share of the credit/recognition usually goes. We'll see Victor Oladipo or Isaiah Thomas get a shoe deal long before Rudy Gobert ever gets one. That's just the way it is
.

Now my criteria are simpler and unconnected to marketing concerns. I look for how much a player contributes to his team winning (modified by strength of league) and I think that expansion was a greater factor than expanding player pool from the 60s into the late 80s so I think of 1965 as a stronger year than 1985 (my outlier opinion). For example, while I do think Carmelo plays in a stronger league than Chet Walker, I don't think he had as strong an effect on his teams' winning by more than the difference in league strength. Therefore I rate Walker over Anthony.

Post #12 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:31 pm

Owly wrote:Leaving aside absolute stances about "right" and "wrong" in criteria (what I effectively care about is goodness, as in career value/moving title probability - but so long as people are clear in what they're arguing it doesn't so much matter).

I think there's a circularity in your argument. Offensive "stars" are promoted, greater visibility/promotion leads to increased popularity of the game/individual and then you can say the (offensive) stars are making the game more popular (and very, very, very indirectly improving it). But so long as they're what's promoted the argument is circular.

Hmm.....I feel as though this line of logic makes some assumptions (which may or may not actually be true). I mean, if you're saying my logic is only held up by circular reasoning, that would seem to say that offensive stars are only the drivers of popularity provided the powers that be continue to promote them.......which [presumably] is implying that a) it was a purely arbitrary (or random, rather) decision to initially promote offensive stars over defensive studs, b) that precedent was subsequently followed only to maintain the status quo because it seemed to be working, and that c) defensive stars would be just as marketable and "good" as drivers of popularity if given the chance.

Personally, I'm skeptical of all of "a" thru "c" above.
I don't think it was a random decision initially; I think scorers provide a more "tangible" or easily apparent value to the casual fan (and to the mainstream media), and were quickly recognized as "the best draw" [as far as attracting fans].

I mean, it's specifically noted in The Rivalry by John Taylor that Elgin Baylor was a massive draw on ticket sales: in '62, fans would call the box-office ahead of time to see if Baylor would be playing that night. iirc, they were averaging something like 2,000 (or maybe it was 3,000??) more fans for the games Baylor was active for (vs the ones he was absent).
Similar "box-office draw" effect was seen with Wilt.
The Celtics possessed perhaps the best player in the world [albeit not an offensive star], and were clearly the most successful/winningest franchise of the era, and yet they did NOT consistently have the best attendance.

I don't think all of this was coincidence. And the continuation of this precedent is not something I believe to be random or otherwise left to chance. In recent decades especially, I believe very little of marketing (or at least long-term marketing strategies) happen at random. So much money goes into marketing research, I think trends develop and/or continue because all the data suggests that's what will yield the highest returns.

And let's think about how the NBA promotes itself.....
The highlight reels we're shown at breaks and time-outs: they don't show us a guy hedging and recovering really well on a pnr, or a solid (non-block) contest at the rim, or an image that demonstrates offensive gravity. More often than not the highlight is a dunk; and if not that, it's maybe a splashed jump-shot or acrobatic lay-up, etc.
And what are the tried and true "accessory" competitions at the All-Star break? A slam-dunk contest and the 3pt contest are the ones with the longest tenure (newer ones [e.g. Skillz Challenge] are also offense-oriented), and the Slam-Dunk Contest has [by far, I think] the highest viewership of all the accessory events.

This all follows a consistent trend: that scoring (and the flashier the better) sells the game/league better than anything else.

Owly wrote: And that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong - I'd just want a seperate foundation (if you're trying to promote or defend it as a criterion). Or none, I guess? You don't, per the above, have to have reasoning for your criteria, except if you are promoting/defending it as right or good.

Sure, I don't expect everyone [or even anyone] to adopt this as a consideration. But it's hard to deny the truth of what I've laid out above. And if one does choose to include some consideration of "promotion of the popularity of the game" into their definition of greatness, that is skewed toward offensive stars (right or wrong).

Owly wrote:For me, I don't know how I'd plug in, say, "Linsanity" into any formula or mental model and say that elevates Lin x many "points" (above an equivalent value/impact player without, well, Linsanity). Even that's an oversimplifciation, you could perhaps say doing so would be tricky (quantifying) for non-boxscore D (especially pre-impact stats - or if you are skeptical thereof) or intangiables. But you might perhaps at least be able to give a range for what you're crediting mentally (or explicitly, depending on how ad-hoc the methodology is). I think I'd struggle with that for any "star" status.

I don't know how to plug such a consideration into a formula either, so it's definitely somewhat arbitrary (or "ad hoc", as you'd stated). This is true of many things though, no?.......
How do we assign value to Tim Duncan's leadership and "culture creating" intangibles?
How do we assign value to defense for players of era prior to complete box stats (much less impact data)? (even in the databall era it's hard to reach consensus)
How do we assign relative value/weighting to various eras?

Or I'll throw one other consideration that matters to me wrt assessing "greatness": influence on the course of the game.
I'm referring to players who either forced rule changes (Mikan, Wilt, Shaq), or players who so pioneered a skill/strategy or excelled at an existing skillset (Russell, Curry) to such an exaggerated degree that he "revolutionized" the game itself.
That is definitely worth something, imo. How much [in terms of an ATL]? I honestly don't have a good answer for you. It's somewhat a gut-feel thing for me. I'm sorry if that does not satisfy you as being objective enough, but I just wouldn't know how to objectively assess the value of such things.

Going back to how much does being a "highly marketed" star mean to me? Well, not a lot in all honesty. Suppose there were roughly 10 guys in the 85-95 range of my ATL for whom I didn't have particularly strong feelings about one over the other (i.e. most of more objective methodology left them more or less equal to each other). Further suppose that one of those 10 guys clearly had the most notoriety, and was the most "marketed" and popular star......that may be the reasoning I'd use to put him in the #1 or #2 spot among those ten places.
That's roughly how I might look at a factor like this.

Owly · Post #13 » by **Owly** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:49 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
Owly wrote:Leaving aside absolute stances about "right" and "wrong" in criteria (what I effectively care about is goodness, as in career value/moving title probability - but so long as people are clear in what they're arguing it doesn't so much matter).

I think there's a circularity in your argument. Offensive "stars" are promoted, greater visibility/promotion leads to increased popularity of the game/individual and then you can say the (offensive) stars are making the game more popular (and very, very, very indirectly improving it). But so long as they're what's promoted the argument is circular.

Hmm.....I feel as though this line of logic makes some assumptions (which may or may not actually be true). I mean, if you're saying my logic is only held up by circular reasoning, that would seem to say that offensive stars are only the drivers of popularity provided the powers that be continue to promote them.......which [presumably] is implying that a) it was a purely arbitrary (or random, rather) decision to initially promote offensive stars over defensive studs, b) that precedent was subsequently followed only to maintain the status quo because it seemed to be working, and that c) defensive stars would be just as marketable and "good" as drivers of popularity if given the chance.

Personally, I'm skeptical of all of "a" thru "c" above.
I don't think it was a random decision initially; I think scorers provide a more "tangible" or easily apparent value to the casual fan (and to the mainstream media), and were quickly recognized as "the best draw" [as far as attracting fans].

I mean, it's specifically noted in The Rivalry by John Taylor that Elgin Baylor was a massive draw on ticket sales: in '62, fans would call the box-office ahead of time to see if Baylor would be playing that night. iirc, they were averaging something like 2,000 (or maybe it was 3,000??) more fans for the games Baylor was active for (vs the ones he was absent).
Similar "box-office draw" effect was seen with Wilt.
The Celtics possessed perhaps the best player in the world [albeit not an offensive star], and were clearly the most successful/winningest franchise of the era, and yet they did NOT consistently have the best attendance.

I don't think all of this was coincidence. And the continuation of this precedent is not something I believe to be random or otherwise left to chance. In recent decades especially, I believe very little of marketing (or at least long-term marketing strategies) happen at random. So much money goes into marketing research, I think trends develop and/or continue because all the data suggests will yield the highest returns.

And let's think about how the NBA promotes itself.....
The highlight reels we're shown at breaks and time-outs: they don't show us a guy hedging and recovering really well on a pnr, or a solid (non-block) contest at the rim, or an image that demonstrates offensive gravity. More often than not the highlight is a dunk; and if not that, it's maybe a splashed jump-shot or acrobatic lay-up, etc.
And what are the tried and true "accessory" competitions at the All-Star break? A slam-dunk contest and the 3pt contest are the ones with the longest tenure (newer ones [e.g. Skillz Challenge] are also offense-oriented), and the Slam-Dunk Contest has [by far, I think] the highest viewership of all the accessory events.

This all follows a consistent trend: that scoring (and the flashier the better) sells the game/league better than anything else.

Owly wrote: And that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong - I'd just want a seperate foundation (if you're trying to promote or defend it as a criterion). Or none, I guess? You don't, per the above, have to have reasoning for your criteria, except if you are promoting/defending it as right or good.

Sure, I don't expect everyone [or even anyone] to adopt this as a consideration. But it's hard to deny the truth of what I've laid out above. And if one does choose to include some consideration of "promotion of the popularity of the game" into their definition of greatness, that is skewed toward offensive stars (right or wrong).

Owly wrote:For me, I don't know how I'd plug in, say, "Linsanity" into any formula or mental model and say that elevates Lin x many "points" (above an equivalent value/impact player without, well, Linsanity). Even that's an oversimplifciation, you could perhaps say doing so would be tricky (quantifying) for non-boxscore D (especially pre-impact stats - or if you are skeptical thereof) or intangiables. But you might perhaps at least be able to give a range for what you're crediting mentally (or explicitly, depending on how ad-hoc the methodology is). I think I'd struggle with that for any "star" status.

I don't know how to plug such a consideration into a formula either, so it's definitely somewhat arbitrary (or "ad hoc", as you'd stated). This is true of many things though, no?.......
How do we assign value to Tim Duncan's leadership and "culture creating" intangibles?
How do we assign value to defense for players of era prior to complete box stats (much less impact data)? (even in the databall era it's hard to reach consensus)
How do we assign relative value/weighting to various eras?

Or I'll throw one other consideration that matters to me wrt assessing "greatness": influence on the course of the game.
I'm referring to players who either forced rule changes (Mikan, Wilt, Shaq), or players who so pioneered a skill/strategy or excelled at an existing skillset (Russell, Curry) to such an exaggerated degree that he "revolutionized" the game itself.
That is definitely worth something, imo. How much [in terms of an ATL]? I honestly don't have a good answer for you. It's somewhat a gut-feel thing for me. I'm sorry if that does not satisfy you as being objective enough, but I just wouldn't know how to objectively assess the value of such things.

Going back to how much does being a "highly marketed" star mean to me? Well, not a lot in all honesty. Suppose there were roughly 10 guys in the 85-95 range of my ATL for whom I didn't have particularly strong feelings about one over the other (i.e. most of more objectively methodology left them more or less equal to each other). Further suppose that one of those 10 guys clearly had the most notoriety, and was the most "marketed" and popular star......that may be the reasoning I'd use to put him in the #1 or #2 spot among those ten places.
That's roughly how I might look at a factor like this.

I think there's an element of truth to offense being more visible, more pro-active, and I'm glad I teased that out - that does mitigate circularity somewhat ... That said I depends massively on the players and plays in question. You keep stating the "contest" for defense - but not every shot is a spectacular flush or smooth finger-roll. Most are jump shots. Shot blocking is pretty spectacular and a pesky defender fun of in and of themselves and enables the open court plays. Then too there's the argument that it's two sides the same coin, that offense doesn't mean anything without defense, or else we'd be talking on the "Slam Ball" forums.

I guess also there's some personal discomfort with the aesthetic driven nature of it. Shawn Bradley's gawky looking and not marketed and so because he doesn't (massively indirectly) drive future fans ... maybe (unless gawky players are inspired by him - do we know this). Another issue otoh is the idea there isn't a next man up. For any one guy to drive popularity ... meaningfully so, we have to imagine his 3 minute video on the NBA Superstars VHS couldn't just have been given to the next guy in the line and got pretty well exactly the same effect. And I'd come back to blurring offense and superstar with spectacular. Carmelo's an offensive superstar - a bigger "star name" than Shawn Kemp (or heck Stromile Swift or Tyrus Thomas or Kenny Williams or Kenny Walker) but for switch your brain off, generate hype, broaden the appeal of the game to the young, "fun" videos I think pogo-legged power dunkers generate more excitement (and whilst less replicable to the many - aren't so for an elite athlete i.e. the future talent pool - and maybe if the new guys just play like that that's not a good thing - but then just as a first point of contact and excitement ... - I don't know, I guess here I don't like how far we're getting from how good a player is), are we seeking to credit them?

And some of this maybe undermines your "offense is the natural promotion material, so it's not circular" angle. Because sure some offense is. But the personalities pushed to the forefront aren't decided by an objective basketball-aesthetic standard. They're decided by which market they're in, whether they had a high profile game in college, their physical aesthetics/marketability. So it does come down, to a fair degree, to "who gets chosen to promote the game, promotes the game". As I type I wonder if I've really got your point. Offensive stars promote the game and popularize and in the very long term indirectly make it better and so deserve more credit (removing some of the credit from those who actually do follow? Thompson and Davis take a chunk of credit for Jordan?)? That they just get more credit as it is, and we should acknowledge this? That they generate more money? My gut reaction is you can defend it on money for their franchise grounds (though this arguably then must be weighed against superstar salary costs - and, especially as the cap has got harder, opportunity costs) or you can just say ... "this is my criteria" ... I'm not sure you can argue "for" it in criteria terms other than money (a vague, longterm indirect influence via player pool [maybe this isn't a fair summary]... isn't swaying me that this "should" be in criteria).

And I'm ... cautious on "influence". Because I'm sure many (and I think in the past yourself) would have pushed Cousy there. And I'd say whither Davies or Haynes. Who influenced the "influencer"? Have you got the originator or just the most visible guy (is pushing the more visible guy - e.g. Cousy - fine)? And how do you avoid then tracing everything ultimately to Naismith (without whom none of it happens). Where it's direct i.e. rules changes ... okay, I'm happier. I prefer career value though, that's me.

I'd acknowledged trickiness specifically with D and "intangiables" ...

Owly wrote:For me, I don't know how I'd plug in, say, "Linsanity" into any formula or mental model and say that elevates Lin x many "points" (above an equivalent value/impact player without, well, Linsanity). Even that's an oversimplifciation, you could perhaps say doing so would be tricky (quantifying) for non-boxscore D (especially pre-impact stats - or if you are skeptical thereof) or intangiables. But you might perhaps at least be able to give a range for what you're crediting mentally (or explicitly, depending on how ad-hoc the methodology is). I think I'd struggle with that for any "star" status.

Again, though this is more where I am than an absolute stance, one might guesstimate defensive impact (even pre-impact most impact numbers or if skeptical), by looking at source material from the time and the numbers we do have such as at team level and the boxscore metrics (as a scale of "win production" and as reference point in terms looking at where production didn't match team goodness) and try to parse out credit.

FWIW, I'd push intangiables at the very margin, but am skeptical of them as a big "pro". But as a con ... I think you can often get some sense of impact ("Oh look Robert Horry's getting a bunch of open 3s, because Dennis quit guarding him."; those techs cost gave the other a free throw - and given a tech shooters quality estimate say 0.84 of point maybe; this player's inability to get on with their fellow star/coach led to the dismantling of a contender/dynasty) you can try to point out and guess a cost on a scale of wins added or championship probability - the same thing I'm trying to gauge in general. These things - for me - feel part of one thing and superstardom something seperate (something which adding would make my hypothetical list less clean, less clear-cut). But different people will want to measure different things. And we'll all draw different arbitrary lines on what's too arbitrary to include.

I hope this made sense.

Post #14 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:18 pm

fwiw, I'm flip-flopping my two picks. I've been tinkering with yet another career valuating formula, by which Horace Grant once again comes out looking really good. I can't seem to create a broad formulation by which he doesn't look really good in career value. His high OReb rate, incredibly low turnover rate, decent shooting efficiency, decent assist-rate for a big man all combined with his excellent longevity and solid team success (for which all available impact data from '94 on suggesting he's a big part of) just makes it hard to construct any formulation by which he looks "weak" relative to anyone near this section of an all-time list (unless it's solely going off of scoring numbers, PER).

That, and everyone is kinda whittling me down on Carmelo......I've reached the point where I'm no longer comfortable saying Melo's 14 seasons > Grant's 17 seasons.

Post #15 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:22 pm

Thru post #14:

Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Horace Grant - 1 (trex_8063)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Tim Hardaway - 1 (pandrade83)

New totals, with ~17-18 hours left till runoff.

Spoiler:

pandrade83 · Post #16 » by **pandrade83** » Thu Feb 1, 2018 4:25 am

trex_8063 wrote:
pandrade83 wrote:Primary: Tim Hardaway
Alternate: Mookie Blaylock

Not going to argue against Timmy (seems like he should be gaining traction soon); he suffers a little bit for my personal criteria due to his somewhat marginal longevity/durability profile.

wrt Mookie, though, I'll ask again: why Mookie over someone like Mo Cheeks? It seems like Mookie's candidacy here MUST be largely based on the impression of elite impact (as indicated by the few years of RAPM data available for his prime), yes?
But a few threads back I'd provided a link to a thread with contained some on/off (and I think APM regressions, iirc) for several Sixer players including Cheeks.......and he was frequently in line with guys like Charles Barkley and Bobby Jones for impact (more than adequate to compete against Mookie's impact numbers).

And given Cheeks was similarly a perennial All-Defensive candidate who also seems a more efficient/capable offensive player with better box-based metrics, and clearly better longevity, and a better array of team accomplishments (fwiw), well........why not him instead?

I do remember you posting the old Sixers data (if only every team had such dedicated statisticians back then) and I do recall going through it and being impressed by Cheeks. I did take a look when you posted it - & should've bookmarked it for when it came time to support Blaylock.

IIRC (if I'm mistaken, let me know), the data painted Cheeks in a very favorable light, though it's hard/near impossible to see something that would conclusively say he is better than Blaylock.

Anyway - I have a very high respect for the quality of your posts that has been very well earned.

However, I do disagree with a couple items you posted.

1) Box metrics: Unless your arguing on career metrics, Blaylock actually has decisively better box metrics at their respective peaks. Blaylock posts a higher WS peak than Cheeks despite Cheeks having gotten the benefit of playing on a 65 win team. Blaylock also has 4 years equal or better than Cheeks' 3 best. Blaylock has 5 years with better BPM than Cheeks' peak & 4 years with better PER than Cheeks' peak. Blaylock's outstanding RAPM & defensive impact qualify this as a not Enes Kanter type situation.

2) From a team achievement perspective - Blaylock was the best player on a pair of teams that won > 55 games. At Cheeks' (arguable) peak in '86, I would not say that he was the best player on a team that won 54 games. You could also make the argument that Cheeks' peak was '83 - where he was the 3rd best player on a GOAT Caliber 65 win team - there's value in that to be sure - but I tend to view his peak as '86 - where he was lower on the pecking order on a team that had comparable success to Blaylock's two best years - where he was clearly the best player.

In short - for me - Blaylock's higher peak and stronger team success with him as the best player are what gives Blaylock a slight edge.

In addition to Blaylock & Hardaway, Cheeks & Porter are the two other point guards who I'd like to see get included on this project. I think all four are very close to one another and I put all four above Tiny - even though a credible case can be made that Tiny has the highest peak.

dhsilv2 · Post #17 » by **dhsilv2** » Thu Feb 1, 2018 2:54 pm

It's odd that anytime I see a ranking done I see "types" of players grouped together, but as we do these lists it is just natural to do it this way. There are so many great players who are so similar that it just is natural to do them head to head. Right now the top candidates are Melo, Brand, Grant, and Rodman. I'm still looking at Tiny, but I'm more and more unsure on him. And sorry but I'm not feeling the ABA peak guys, not sure I'm voting for any of them, sure I'm not going for Daniels.

Anyway I thought I'd take a look at the top choices. The first thing that strikes me is that combined we're looking at 9 years of 10 or more WS, which isn't a lot here. 4 years belonging to Brand, 3 to Grant, and 1 each for Melo and Rodman.

Player WS Year
Elton Brand 14.8 2006
Horace Grant 14.1 1992
Elton Brand 13.6 2002
Dennis Rodman* 12.6 1992
Elton Brand 11.5 2007
Carmelo Anthony 10.7 2014
Elton Brand 10.6 2005
Horace Grant 10.3 1991
Horace Grant 10 1994
Elton Brand 9.7 2004
Carmelo Anthony 9.5 2013
Horace Grant 9.5 1995
Carmelo Anthony 9.4 2006
Elton Brand 9.4 2011
Dennis Rodman* 9.3 1990
Horace Grant 9.1 1993
Dennis Rodman* 8.7 1994
Dennis Rodman* 8.7 1991
Carmelo Anthony 8.2 2008
Dennis Rodman* 8.1 1989
Horace Grant 8 1990
Horace Grant 8 1996
Carmelo Anthony 7.9 2010
Carmelo Anthony 7.9 2011
Dennis Rodman* 7.8 1998
Horace Grant 7.7 1997
Elton Brand 7.6 2003
Elton Brand 7.5 2000
Carmelo Anthony 7.3 2007
Horace Grant 7.1 1998
Dennis Rodman* 6.8 1988
Horace Grant 6.5 2001
Carmelo Anthony 6.4 2016
Horace Grant 6.4 1989
Dennis Rodman* 6.2 1996
Carmelo Anthony 6.2 2012
Elton Brand 6.1 2001
Elton Brand 6.1 2012
Carmelo Anthony 6.1 2004
Dennis Rodman* 6 1997
Dennis Rodman* 5.8 1995
Horace Grant 5.6 2002
Dennis Rodman* 5.5 1993
Horace Grant 5.2 2000
Carmelo Anthony 5 2009
Carmelo Anthony 4.9 2005
Carmelo Anthony 4.7 2011
Carmelo Anthony 4.7 2017
Horace Grant 4.2 1988
Horace Grant 4.1 1999
Elton Brand 3.6 2014
Elton Brand 3.5 2010
Elton Brand 3.4 2013
Carmelo Anthony 3.2 2011
Carmelo Anthony 2.9 2015
Dennis Rodman* 2.9 1987
Horace Grant 2 2004
Elton Brand 0.9 2009
Dennis Rodman* 0.8 1999
Elton Brand 0.7 2015
Dennis Rodman* 0.6 2000
Elton Brand 0.5 2008
Horace Grant 0.2 2003
Elton Brand 0.2 2016

Career WS
Grant 118.2
Brand 109.6
Melo 100.5
Rodman 89.8

VORP (due to time no listing)

If we use 4 as our threshold for a quality year we get 12 seasons from the group.
6 go to Brand, 3 Grant, 2 Rodman, 1 Melo.

Career VORP
Brand 45.2
Grant 44.4
Rodman 36.5
Melo 29.0

RAPM...well grant poses a problem for me so I'm going to use a 91-14 xRAPM data set. Is it optimal? Likely not, but at least it covers most of these careers. 1990 total players in the data set.

Elton Brand 57th 2.99
Rodman 78th 2.44
Horace Grant 86th 2.26
Melo 187th 0.97

For what it is worth the 97-14 RAPM does make Melo look better, but I don't think it can be used at all for Grant or Rodman.

Who helps me win a title?

We can look at this from two ways, the guy who could anchor a title team. The only one on the list here if Brand and he'd be really questionable in that role. The problem here is he had one really really good playoff run. But even looking that that run he averaged 17.8 in the first round with Maggette at 17 and Mobley at 16 with Cassel at 14.6. He shot 47.4%. He then blew up in the second round but it was against a rather poor defensive team in the Suns. 30.9 on a crazy 59.1%. The Suns likely aren't as bad defensively as people make them out to be, but my biggest concern with Brand (and perhaps unfounded) was that in a 7 game playoff series he was a bit under sized in terms of height for a big man, could teams have game planned him? I say that, but during his peak he was really a mid range jump shooter, shooting lights out in the 10-16 no man's land. He was also assisted something like 60% of the time.

Who is the easiest to just add to a team and I'll get wins?

For me this is Grant. A few reasons. The first is that historically defense is the skill I feel is most important in someone not carrying the offensive load and Grant is really in my mind not that far behind Rodman as a defender. Brand is a good but not great defender (again a bit under sized) and Melo is Melo. That said Grant much like Brand has floor spacing level shooting from 16+ which while not the 3 point shooting we look at today, was great for his era. Grant also was an elite transition player.

Grant was a starter on 4 title teams. Rodman was on 5 title teams though he came off the bench in 89 and played 2 less minutes a game than Grant in his Laker's title. Rodman on those 5 title teams only twice played over 30 minutes per game. Melo has a decent playoff resume and Brand more or less has an NA here.

What about a floor raiser? In terms of floor raising I don't want Rodman on my team...I just can't see putting a guy like that on a bad team. I can't really discuss that in reality as the only "bad' team he was on was the 00 mavs and he was 38. So was it that the team sucked or was he just too old?

Brand and Melo are the two best choices here. Bad teams generally imo need scoring more than defense so I'd be inclined to go with Melo. Grant here I think might be getting under valued as he much like Rodman has a pretty sweet career with great teammates. Grant did have the ability to create a shot. He had a great jumper and he was faster and more athletic than a lot of the 4's of his era. His 94 run with Pippen showed he could pick up some offensive slack, upping his scoring to a respectable 15.1 per game or 21.5 per 100 for a bit more normalized context. Still I think the best case use of Grant would be with a floor raiser like and Iverson.

Wish I had more time for this analysis as I'm not sold, but of this group Brand and Grant stand out. My only personal bias, but playoffs matter and Grant's 9.3 VORP and 20 WS absolutely dwarfs everyone else here including Rodman (the clear second at 5.1 and 11.7).

Vote Horace Grant
Alt Elton Brand

dhsilv2 · Post #18 » by **dhsilv2** » Thu Feb 1, 2018 3:01 pm

pandrade83 wrote:
I do remember you posting the old Sixers data (if only every team had such dedicated statisticians back then) and I do recall going through it and being impressed by Cheeks. I did take a look when you posted it - & should've bookmarked it for when it came time to support Blaylock.

IIRC (if I'm mistaken, let me know), the data painted Cheeks in a very favorable light, though it's hard/near impossible to see something that would conclusively say he is better than Blaylock.

Anyway - I have a very high respect for the quality of your posts that has been very well earned.

However, I do disagree with a couple items you posted.

1) Box metrics: Unless your arguing on career metrics, Blaylock actually has decisively better box metrics at their respective peaks. Blaylock posts a higher WS peak than Cheeks despite Cheeks having gotten the benefit of playing on a 65 win team. Blaylock also has 4 years equal or better than Cheeks' 3 best. Blaylock has 5 years with better BPM than Cheeks' peak & 4 years with better PER than Cheeks' peak. Blaylock's outstanding RAPM & defensive impact qualify this as a not Enes Kanter type situation.

2) From a team achievement perspective - Blaylock was the best player on a pair of teams that won > 55 games. At Cheeks' (arguable) peak in '86, I would not say that he was the best player on a team that won 54 games. You could also make the argument that Cheeks' peak was '83 - where he was the 3rd best player on a GOAT Caliber 65 win team - there's value in that to be sure - but I tend to view his peak as '86 - where he was lower on the pecking order on a team that had comparable success to Blaylock's two best years - where he was clearly the best player.

In short - for me - Blaylock's higher peak and stronger team success with him as the best player are what gives Blaylock a slight edge.

In addition to Blaylock & Hardaway, Cheeks & Porter are the two other point guards who I'd like to see get included on this project. I think all four are very close to one another and I put all four above Tiny - even though a credible case can be made that Tiny has the highest peak.

Great post and fully agree based on what I've seen from Cheeks and Blaylock.

Just to add VORP career favors Blaylock 38.9 to 33.9. Blaylock to me was clearly, all be it not significantly, better peak and prime.

The counter and a VERY good one for Cheeks isn't so much longevity, but longevity combined with playoff games. That's about 200 games which is meaningful here and will make my final call on those two tougher. If we're just talking regular seasons which is mostly what I vote on, Blaylock certainly comes out ahead. But 100 playoff games...and Cheeks was good in the playoffs.

Post #19 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Feb 1, 2018 4:13 pm

Thru post #18:

Horace Grant - 2 (dhsilv2, trex_8063)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Tim Hardaway - 1 (pandrade83)

Melo is the only 1-vote recipient who also has a secondary vote, so we'll enter a runoff between him and Grant.

Horace Grant - 2 (dhsilv2, trex_8063)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)

If your name isn't shown here, please state your pick between Horace and Carmelo with reasons why.

Spoiler:

Post #20 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Feb 1, 2018 4:28 pm

Grant, defense.