Open Court: 50 Greatest & Next 10

GSP · Post #101 » by **GSP** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:08 pm

I was completely shocked at the disrespect of Wade.............and Cwebb is so overrated as a player. Not surprising to see the "RAAAAAAANGGGGGGZZZZZZ" argument even when they were debating it and the flaws were right there.......Also not surprised to see how they see Steve Nash. Thats pretty much how alot of the fans see him judging from the ppl i talk to irl about basketball

Ryoga Hibiki · Post #102 » by **Ryoga Hibiki** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:39 pm

These guys have all been great players (Kenny not so much, actually), so we can not just dismiss them as total idiots. It's true they know more about the game then 99% of the people on this board.
On the other hand, it's also true some of their arguments were just flat out wrong, but how can we explain this without sounding too full of ourselves? Where all their knowledge actually ended up?
To me the point is that these guys often have an incredible knowledge on the specifics they mastered. Listening to Webber, Shaq or Barkley about how to play in the low post is very interesting. They can break up their own games and the ones of the likes of Dwight or Hakeem in a way I could only dream. And I'm sure Reggie could explain me so much about moving off the ball and the mechanics of shooting.
But being a complete analyst (in every topic, not just bball) is a completely different animal. There you need to take all the informations you have, understand what you're missing, weight them properly, decide what are the key parameters to track, get to your own coherent synthesis and find a way to test it. On these things I'm sure a lot of guys in this board dedicated in their own life (maybe in their profession, myself for sure)much more time than Shaq or Webber ever did, they probably have an higher level of education and are used to apply the scientific method in a much more rigorous way collecing as many info as possible.
For instance, when Shaq says the Iverson is top5 player ever, he's talking about his unique skills, his quickness, his hearth, etc.
But other people might build on Shaq's expert opinion, listen to all details from other valuable sources (all the details, not just the one liners), test each statement, collect numbers to support, and then come out with an analysis much more complete and accurate than what Shaq originally did.
That's in my view how in RealGM some "nerds" can agree on a ranking that is much superior to what those all time greats could do on TV.

Masigond · Post #103 » by **Masigond** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:49 pm

I'm quite sure that they rank Iverson that high as he was one of rather few players who could and would win games seemingly by himself. There haven't been many players who had that stamina, who would stand up and try again even if beaten down on several plays in a row and - maybe most important of all - who were that reckless and self-confident that they thought that they were the best option for their team first, second and third.

IMO a guy like Nash had better impact in making a team win, but as he rarely scored in volumes and as he relied on other players finishing what he prepared for them, he didn't look that impressive individually, and he didn't have Iverson's swagger, but despite being a tough dude himself (playing through his back pains and we've seen him playing with a swollen black eye and a broken nose) he came across as the nice fella you'd have a beer with after the game. I think all that plays into the contemporaries' opinion of him and why they aren't that impressed of him.
But wait for another talk when they discuss Marion and Stoudemire as players. I'd bet that some of them will talk about how Nash made them stars.

Post #104 » by **Quotatious** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:11 pm

Random thought - why should Webber even be ranked over Pau Gasol? I'd definitely take Pau over Chris. He's not really a spectacular, flashy player, doesn't have an "attitude" or "swag" - actually the total opposite - low-key, very skilled and fundamentally sound, excellent efficiency, all-around skillset and even for the guys on Open Court, he should be a good candidate because he has two championships (as an absolutely key player, second option and a fringe top 10 player in his best seasons).

Honestly, I think that C-Webb wouldn't even be mentioned as such a serious candidate, if he wasn't sitting with those guys in the same room.

RayBan-Sematra · Post #105 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:42 pm

Gasol was a much better player then Webber and had a much better career.
Better scorer, defender and at worst an equal passer.

The only thing Webber had over Gasol was ball handling ability I guess.
Maybe a slightly better deep perimeter jumper but it wasn't a reliable shot so I don't see that as much of an advantage.

D Nice · Post #106 » by **D Nice** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:09 pm

Webber was a top 10 player 4 consecutive seasons, Pau was maybe a top 10 player once (2010). He was in the 11-13 range a few other times (2006, 2008, 2009, perhaps even 2003), but was a more consistent/durable (slightly) player overall. I have Webber at 59 and Pau at 61 but it could just as easily go the other way. I do think the basic reasoning is that Webber led much stronger teams as the main guy and was inarguably a top 10 player from 2000-2003 and played at a peak Gasol level as a 23-year old in Washington is at least solid.

But you hit the nail on the head, which most people are irrationally casting aside, which is that HE WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE. If he wasn't, he probably gets grouped in the Pierce/Vince/Penny discussion.

And also, which again makes me think most people here didn't even watch the segment, Wade was included and Webber was not. So outside of Nash I'm not sure what all the pissing and moaning in this thread has actually been about.

RayBan-Sematra · Post #107 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:50 pm

Prime Playoff Webber on SAC (48 games)
24 / 10 / 4apg on 49%TS (20 PER)

Prime Playoff Gasol on LAL (46 games)
19 / 11 / 3apg on 61%TS (23 PER)

Gasol clearly had the better career imo.
Even just comparing their Peak stretches Gasol is clearly the better player.
Far better defender and while he was slightly worse in terms of raw offensive volume he makes up for it by being light years better in terms of efficiency.

Switch early 00's Webber with late 00's Gasol and those Sacramento teams improve noticeably imo.

Winsome Gerbil · Post #108 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:05 am

I do love how we, being arrogant as all get out, blithely dismiss the opinion not of experts in the field, but of players who actually PLAYED against almost all of the guys in discussion. Its one thing to say, oh Mark Stein, you may be a professional sportswriter, but I watch the games too and you don't get it. Another to say, oh Jeff Van Gundy (or whoever) sure you coached in the NBA for a decade for and against these guys and have been coaching basketball for 30 years, but I know better. But we're a level above even that here: now we're telling Shaq or Webber or Reggie and the rest, hey look, you only PLAYED against these guys. That's nothing. I watched them and have an analytic formula that tells me you had no idea who you your toughest opponents were.

I mean, it would be one thing if it was a panel discussing Bill Russel and Wilt. In that case, hey, all of us including the players are operating off of old tape, boxscores, hype etc. But in this case its Shaq talking about Chris Webber who he only had epic battles with in the playoffs, its Reggie Miller talking about A.I. I mean there's obviously all kinds of biases and outside factors and whatnot going into any analysis, but never in my wildest dreams would I ever walk up to Reggie Miller and tell him face to face hey you know that guy who just kicked your butt? Well I know you think he's great and everything, but he's really not.

Laimbeer · Post #109 » by **Laimbeer** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:12 am

I regret I can only give this a single AND1. I don't think chutzpah is too strong a word for stat monkeys thinking their formula of the month somehow trumps the opinion of those who actually went nose to nose with the players under discussion.

Albanian Damien · Post #110 » by **Albanian Damien** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:23 am

Well I think the main difference that the players panel seems to have as criteria is that they look at Peak/Longevity whilst on this board I feel that Longevity/Peak is valued in that order. So speaking of peaks I want to see the arguements T-Mac and Penny might have over Wade. Now I'm going to Look at each of the players advanced stats but only of their peak seasons, so that means:

Penny's 95-96:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... aan01.html

T-Macs 02-03:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... atr01.html

and Wades 08-09:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... edw01.html

Now let's break down the stats:

Wade's strongest stats that stands out is his AST % (40.3!) very impressive when compared to McGrady's (30.0) and Pennys (32.2). So when we talk assist we should also take into account TO% and USG%. Penny is the leader in TO% at 13.5, Wade 2nd at 11.6 and T-Mac at a shocking low 8.4(!) %. Now when you also take into account Wade leads the board in USG at 36.2, T-Mac not far off at 35.2 (Penny at a conservative 25.5) You see that T-Mac was very impressive at taking care of the rock as well at dishing it out WITHOUT turning it over.. Now let's look at offensive stats:

ORT:

115 (DW) 116 (TM ) and 122 (PH)

Penny clearly has the highest ORT due to the lowest USG however. So I have to point out that The most interesting part is that both Penny and T-Mac posted better OWS than Wade.
11.0 (Penny) 13.2 (TMac) and 10.3 (Wade)

However Wade had the highest DWS at 4.4 and Penny (3.4) and T-Mac (2.9). At this point in the discussion I think it's fair to look at WS/48:

.232 (Wade) .229 (Penny) and T-Mac (.262) so while It is definitely a stretch to say Penny was better than Wade at any point, I definitely could see the argument for T-Mac speaking in terms of peak.

AQuintus · Post #111 » by **AQuintus** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:36 am

Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Post #112 » by **Quotatious** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:42 am

I disagree. The fact that those guys were great at PLAYING basketball, doesn't mean they know how to ANALYZE it. Sure, they may have great knowledge of the fundamentals on the court (like Ryoga Hibiki said), but they are rarely interested in an in-depth, detailed analysis of a player/team, like for example we are here.

For example, I'm pretty sure that Kobe would still be selected as the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (would even get a few first place votes) by players between 2011 and 2013, when he clearly wasn't that good anymore.

Post #113 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:48 am

Van Gundy specifically seems to have well thought out arguments or "talking points" whenever he's interviewed. He comes off a little more "i'm going to say whatever I want" when he's calling games, but I'd say that's more for entertainment. Whenever I hear him on more long form talk radio, he's pretty consistent in his beliefs.

I love hearing what the pros have to say about their competition, but in the format we saw on the show, it was hard to take it that seriously. If they had gone about it in a different way where everyone prepared a list of their "next 10" and discussed it, that would've been more substantial. Again, it was for entertainment, so that likely would've been "less entertaining". As a die hard fan, I certainly would've liked a more in depth 2 hour show where they prepared more before hand.

Overall, though, I love Open Court. Ernie Johnson is probably a top 3 studio host in all of sports. He's great, and the stories are great, too. This just wasn't one of the best ones.

Ryoga Hibiki · Post #114 » by **Ryoga Hibiki** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:35 pm

I understand your frustration but, as I explained in another post, being an analyst requires several additional skills vs being a player. The most important to me is putting all your things together and come out with a coherent position and somehow defend it, that's not something these guys necessarily can do. The reasoning we heard were usually not coherent, often just illogical.
To rank you must first decide what you want to look at, and this is not trivial. Here we often use the idea "who increases the most your possibility to win a ring", what you think they were analyzing?
It was a mix of pure talent, team results, stats (in the most basic way possible), narrative randomly mixed together.
What here would happen is that we would take their opinion but ALSO the one of a lot of other competent people, add our own data (opinion, numbers, etc) and then have a synthesis based on what we try to measure.

Joseph17 · Post #115 » by **Joseph17** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:58 pm

T-Mac Deserves to be on the list. There's no way he's not one of the 60 greatest of all-time.

Jaivl · Post #116 » by **Jaivl** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:32 pm

Pierce is too, and Allen, and Miller (despite what he said), and Nash. But there isn't room for all of them. I'd say that, except for Wilkins, all were fair selections.

Mutnt · Post #117 » by **Mutnt** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:45 pm

OFF TOPIC:

Yo peeps, I apologize for hijacking this thread for personal reasons, but I've been restricted from doing/writing stuff in the General Board for some time now. Anyway I'm not even sure I want to start a new thread for something as minor as this so I figured I just write it in some topic here. but just the other day I was thinking about some old NBA commercials we had here in Europe (like pretty much exclusively from the 90's era) a long while back. Actually they weren't even commercials, it was more of a promotional montage of bloopers/highlights from the 90's with some groovy/dance songs in the background. NOW, I do remember for sure one of the songs in that montage/commercial was 2 Unlimited - Twilight Zone but there was this other jazzy instrumental that was bumping that I just can't get out of my head now but sadly I don't know the title and have failed to locate it on the net. I'm going of memory from what I've heard 10 years ago but if I remember correctly it was mainly an instrumental jazz tune (with a saxophone leading the charge) with a sort of a 'hook' thrown in there where it would go, ''pump it, pump it''... So, if anyone here is familiar with what I'm referring to, I'd be very thankful if someone knows where to find these commercials/montages or at least if they know the name of the song I was referencing. Thanks:D

picc · Post #118 » by **picc** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:53 pm

Shaq seemed somewhat antagonistic towards both Steve Nash and Dwyane Wade on the panel. Both teammates of his. That was strange.

Post #119 » by **PaulieWal** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:03 pm

He'll come around IMO. It's only been in the last few years that he has been somewhat complimentary towards Kobe. It is a bit weird since he did not have any drama with either of those two players (not to assign blame to anyone in the Shaq/Kobe feud and eventual divorce) but my guess is that it has something to do with Wade receiving more credit in the media for the 06 title and Nash winning the 2 MVPs.

Post #120 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:52 am

To me it's just a question of what human beings can do, and what they can't.

In terms of any kind of evaluation that can be done by a human playing against another, scouting, etc, I'll defer to all these guys - and that's a lot of stuff.

It's just that when we talk about holistic evaluation of a player's impact, I don't believe there's any substitute for analytics, and it's of such importance that it makes our lists on here oftentimes better than what could be done by typical players and coaches.

This isn't like it's some basketball-only thing either. The triumph of SABRmetric thinking over old school baseball tropes in many areas was resounding. Meanwhile, if we go into games like poker or chess, you wouldn't actually even have the discussion because those who are best at the game take it as a given that if you don't understand the data, you're an amateur.

With all of the "arrogance" that we talk about here, what it really is is saying "Hey, guys who played a lot. Add the stuff we use to your arsenal and you'll be that much more amazing." And of course, the intellectuals in the NBA are far down this path and to the extent they don't do raw player comparisons better than us, it's because what we do isn't actually that practical or necessary.

Who is better Kobe or KG? To a fan this is a big question. To someone in the NBA, it's moot. You're never going to be in a scenario where you're seriously deciding between players on that level, you just thanks the basketball gods if you get one. From there, you build around your supermegastar based on specific needs, which again don't necessarily rely on overall basketball ability. Derrick Fisher, for example, was always lacking as a player in many ways, but he was able to play the never-drafted-role of low-scoring-off-guard, and so he found a niche that let him play in the NBA so long he went straight to basketball heaven.

Of course with all this, there is an arrogance in saying "I'm just saying I understand a tool that could make you a lot better...if you only understood it." But there isn't any great mystery here. We're in an era with access to data like never before. It's proving quite useful. Is it arrogant to say, "Yeah, I've probably spent more time in science and analysis than any of those guys on the TV, and that time let's me see a few things they miss?" Only in the same sense there's an "arrogance" to them saying they are better at basketball than me.