Retro Player of the Year Project

[mopper8]

The best way to think about it is this: I'm not arguing that there are necessarily more outliars now than before in the whole population, I'm arguing that those outliars are far more likely to actually become NBA players. I don't see how anyone could actually believe that 50s and 60s ball was achieving maximum recruitment of available talent, and that goes even for outliars.

[Manuel Calavera]

The best way to think about it is this: I'm not arguing that there are necessarily more outliars now than before in the whole population, I'm arguing that those outliars are far more likely to actually become NBA players. I don't see how anyone could actually believe that 50s and 60s ball was achieving maximum recruitment of available talent, and that goes even for outliars.

What you're arguing seems to change with every post. You commit a logical fallacy at practically every step.

[mopper8]

Your inability to respond in a way that is respectful, thoughtful, or substantial is hardly surprising. Feel free to elaborate on that fallacy or point put the inconsistencies any time. Point out where I even once mentioned population growth as a driving factor, rather than money, fame, integration, etc leading to more propel playing ball, not just more people in general.

[semi-sentient]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Russell
3. Michael Jordan
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Magic Johnson
6. Kobe Bryant
7. Larry Bird
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Tim Duncan
11. Julius Erving
12. Bob Pettit
13. Jerry West
14. Karl Malone
15. Oscar Robertson

Surprises:

Kobe Bryant - I knew I overrated him in 05-06 and 06-07, which I regret, but I didn't think it would have THAT big of an impact. If I could change my vote to what I would have done later in the project he'd be below Duncan, most likely.

Tim Duncan - Kind of surprised that he wasn't higher. I thought I gave him a lot more love in this project.

Bob Pettit - Somehow I expected him to be much higher given that the competition was whack in the mid 50's.

Whatever the case, this list definitely doesn't reflect my all-time rankings. Russell, Wilt (especially), Kobe (especially), and Hakeem would all be lower, while Duncan would be considerably higher.

[DatWasNashty]

I'm rather disgusted than amazed at the sight of Malone being above the Dream. But, whatever.

[bastillon]

I'm rather disgusted than amazed at the sight of Malone being above the Dream. But, whatever.

one clear mistake vast majority of the voters did: postseason was only a tie breaker. that's why Malone ranks so high.

[ElGee]

RPOY Reflections

Before this project, I didn't have a good grasp on an all-time ranking. Frankly, the criteria seems fuzzy and a bit arbitrary to me. But extending this project's criteria has me thinking about many player's places in an all-time hierarchy of worth...which player gives his team the greatest chance to win over his career?

(Note: I'm not even sure this is the best criteria for the nebulous "all-time rankings" -- what if Michael Jordan were hurt every spring? Would it completely eradicate his greatness as a basketball player? I tend to think there is something intuitive when we ask the all-time question in sports. Gale Sayers played 5 years of football, but he was absolutely magical. He was just selected No. 22 in the NFL Network's top 100 list. I believe Dr. MJ calls this the "who impressed me" intuition.)

POY Shares provide a good ballpark for estimating a player's relative contribution toward a title every year. Nerd Alert For me, the more interesting way to view these results macroscopically would be to assign a weight to each season's difficulty and then within each season estimate the probability each player increases every team's championship's odds by if he were added to every roster.

For instance, 1987 was a pretty darn difficult year to win a title. 1973...well, there was massive expansion and two leagues.

For each player's "Championship Probability," there would no longer be a fixed relationship between first and second place votes and between first place votes across years. That means in, say, 1975 the No. 1 player (Bob McAdoo for me) might not be as good as the No. 6 player in 2006. In the RPOY project, McAdoo earned 10 points and Kobe Bryant 0 in that situation. Using this method, McAdoo and Bryant might have the same Championship Probability score despite relative standing among peers.

I'm in the process of using the above criteria to iron out a career weighted POY share value/all-time ranking...

OK, so I've assigned some values to these seasons as outlined above. In words, value for a given year could be parsed into the following categories:

Dominant (eg peak Jordan, Shaq, Walton)
High-Impact (eg peak Oscar, West, Malone, Barkley)
Impact (eg peak Ewing, young Shaq, non-peak Dirk)
Low-Impact (all-star to all-nba players, eg Pierce or Manu)

The idea is that instead of allocating a fixed point system for the year-by-year analysis, player's performances were weighted based on how much they impacted a team's chances of winning a title. Given the nature of the sport, in which one player can have such a huge impact, dominant-seasons were valued ~3x more than impact-seasons and 6-8x more than Low-impact seasons. In other words, I'm counting Shaq's 2000 season as roughly the same as the last 6 or 7 Paul Pierce seasons (excluding, maybe, 2006).

Players in the same tier were close enough to be interchangeable, although I've left the numerical ordering here that the spreadsheet spat out. The results:

Performance-Based Career Rankings from RPOY Project
Tier 1
1. Jordan
2. Russell

Tier 2
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Bird

Tier 3
6. K. Malone (!)
7. Shaq
8. Olajuwon
9. Duncan
10. Wilt

Tier 4a (alone)
11. Erving

Tier 4b
12. Kobe
12. KG
14. Oscar
15. Barkley
16. West

Tier 5
17. James
18. Dirk
19. Robinson
20. Moses
21. Pettit

Tier 6
22. Baylor
22. Pippen
24. Nash
25. Ewing
26. Payton
27. Wade
28. Barry

Overall comments
Jordan came out comfortably ahead of Russell (surprisingly), but they are in a league of their own. Unless one really values the 70s, or thinks higher of Kareem than I do in general for that 12-year period (definitely possible), I don't see how it's not a two-man race for best career between MJ and Russ.

After that, we enter the world of normal people, in which players were injured, had slow starts, slow finishes, etc. I have Magic's career arc going something like low-impact (R), impact (82-83), high-impact (84-85), then a bunch of dominant seasons (86, 87, 89, 90). Those 11 years were enough to just eclipse Bird -- who I view as high-impact (80-83) then dominant (84-87) -- and Kareem, who had a few down seasons during a down period.

Tier 3 makes me think if there is an "Immortal Anything," it would be an Immortal 9. From 95-07, the only players not named Jordan who basically seized control of the league were Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan. Wilt did it in 67 (and in 68 IMO). Russell did it for years. Kareem did it for nearly a decade. Bird and Magic sliced up the 80s. I don't see another NBA player in history (outside of George Mikan) who can make that claim. Statistically, there was a huge drop to Erving and then another huge drop to tier 4b. So yeah, for me, if it were anything, it would be an Immortal 9.

But then there is the issue of Karl Malone. He stands out because (1) he had a lesser peak than any of these guys and (2) he never won a title. Anyone who has read anything I've posted knows I don't get bogged down by such extraneous nonsense like No. of championships. It's impossible to deny Malone as a serious impact player from 1988 to 2000...13 consecutive years! He never missed games and his playoff failures are greatly exaggerated to me. Something that stood out over the project was just how good he was relative to his teammates, even John Stockton. And from 96 to 98 - Malone's 3 best years for me - he was 4 points away from 3 WC titles and an MJ comeback away from 3 consecutive MVPs and 2 titles. I'll go as far and say he is criminally underrated because he never won a ring. If I had to choose careers, I'll err on the side of peak play and take the other 9, but I'm really comfortable with saying he had one of the 10 best careers in NBA history.

Dr. J - I salute you. Never had the respect/appreciation before this project, but his 70s years, mostly in the ABA, were really spectacular. I thought he was clearly the 2nd best player of that decade.

The 4b guys are literally almost all even. Kobe's career is impressive, as he basically has 10 seasons of all-nba play or better (I'm partial to 01, 03, 08-10). KG has longevity and peak play. It's such a shame for those ring-obsessed observers that he was saddled in such an inept situation for so long. West and Barkley might be higher, if not for a myriad of injuries. 90 and 93 Barkley were pretty damn good to me.

Tier 5 is a salute to current players, whom we often overlook in sports analysis. It's hard to notice what Dirk and James have done while they're doing it. Amazingly, Dirk's had about 9 impact-seasons (and high-impact in 06-07), and James has been relevant for 6 years, with two absolutely dominant peak seasons the last two years.

Tier 6 is neatly tucked together before a nice little dropoff to a larger pack or mortals so I cut it off there. Barry would be higher if he didn't lose his mind with his ABA decision. Between 05, 06, the beginning of 07 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lits/2007/) 2009 and 2010, Dwyane Wade has quietly had a fantastic career. Payton had 9 good years and ~3 impact years (96, 98, 00). Nash has quickly put together a great career with three really good impact seasons (05-07). Pippen and Ewing were overshadowed in the 90s, but both had a number of really good seasons.

A final note: I think the play from some of these individuals in the last 15-25 years has been really fantastic. I generally think sports systems evolve, although the effect is overstated by younger fans. It's a little fuzzy in basketball because the rules of the NBA have changed so much, and with expansion teams have fewer good players which opens up the possibility for more individual dominance. Medicine/science is better today, increasing longetivty as well That small generational bias is reflected in my weightings.

[Doctor MJ]

Too lazy to do this myself, but just curious--who won MVP and RPOY the same year, and who won RPOY without winning the championship?

Let's see, going through the list quickly:

MVP/POY same year:

LeBron twice
Garnett once
Duncan once
Shaq once
Jordan 5 times
Hakeem once
Magic once
Bird thrice
Moses twice
Kareem 5 times
Julius once
Wilt 3 times
Russell 4 times

POY but no ring:

LeBron twice
Garnett once
Jordan thrice
Bird once
Moses once
Kareem 6 times
West once
Wilt thrice
Pettit once

[Doctor MJ]

I'm really enjoying seeing people do their reflections on their own votes. I'm still processing it all, but some thoughts:

For the 00s, the most interesting player was Garnett. He got a lot more support than I expected. It hasn't drastically swayed my opinion of him, but it's definitely made my opinion of him unstable. By that I mean, I'm not entirely satisfied with it. There's a part of me starting to think he was better than Duncan, and I'm not willing to either accept it or dismiss it.

I was surprised at how low Kobe performed. I thought there was a good chance he'd ranked much higher in the voting that my opinion of him because of the posts I've seen on Kobe here over the year, instead he actually finished lower than where I'd rank him. Quite interesting, and I think it really goes to show how this group of voters differs not only from the mainstream but from typical RealGM posters. I think the use of advanced stats was a factor as well.

For the 90s, I don't mind at all that Malone beat Olajuwon. I've said before, that this isn't an exact measurement, and we not all equal ranking performances are equal. However, my voting for Malone came out VERY high. Higher than Bird, Erving, or Shaq. And of course Malone had a champion among the voters in Kaima who argued well on his behalf. The end result is that I don't actually put that much stock in my own voting of Malone.

In the 80s, I ended up voting for Jordan at #1 for 3 years before he won a title, and I'm second guessing that. The more I look at Magic the more impressed I am.

In the 70s, the big question every year was Kareem, and I'm still not completely settled with my votes there. However, from a GOAT ranking perspective it doesn't matter too much. He's not going to surpass Russell on my POY share list, and Jordan's not going to surpass him - so GOAT determination between the 3 is about things beyond the POY.

It was good to really think about Barry, and about shooting efficiency. In the end, I'm left with the feeling that he's overrated as a scorer, but possibly underrated as an overall player. Funny how that works. That championship year, I don't think there'd have been major issues if he'd scored significantly less - but the fact that he won a title essentially with a platoon squad is stunning.

Frazier & Reed. I was really glad to think this through. Before this project, the arguments I've heard hear for Frazier resonated with me, but I never really felt comfortable have a strong opinion about it.

60s - This was great stuff. It's so much more clear to me now how it is Boston had the success they did. My respect for Russell grew. My opinion of Oscar stabilized - I won't say it went up or down, I'm now more confident that he was a smart offensive player, but also more confident in saying that wasn't enough to make him a candidate for best player of the era.

Wilt? Oh Wilt. My opinion of Wilt really dropped. More so than my votes suggest. It's just clear in how many ways he wasn't living up to potential. Not that all those ways were his fault - but it's clear why his actual impact over the years just wasn't what a cursory glance would have you believe.

I've been having the Russell vs Wilt debate in my head for years, and I'd say that's over. Now it's more of a question of Wilt vs Shaq, Wilt vs Hakeem, etc.

As far as my GOAT at this point, before the project it had been Jordan, Kareem, Russell for a few years. Right now, gun to my head, I'd move Russell up to #1. This is not a stable opinion - I'm still going back and forth. The thing that I keep thinking though: We have a tendency to dismiss outlandish achievements of the past as being impossible today, and thus essentially curving things downward. But here's the thing, Russell had essentially the perfect career, and Jordan really didn't. 6 rings today isn't equivalent to 11 rings back then - we may soon see Kobe surpass Jordan's ring total and Kobe's obviously not a GOAT candidate. Bottom line, while 11 titles today may be impossible, earning say 8 titles clearly is not, and Jordan made some choices that prevented him from getting there.

On the meta-level, running this project:

I'd say it's my favorite project I ever ran, topping even the first All-Time League. It's something that just has more inherent meaning, and forced people to go back into history not simply to get ammunition for their players, but to think objectively. Also, while I worked hard on this, it was sane. The first ATL was ridiculous because of some choices I made that didn't make the project better or worse, but just put more pressure on me and TrueLAFan.

I stand by the strategy to have a semi-open committee. Whenever we have a successful project and keep the voting open, we always find some tremendous posters, and this was no exception.

One thing I didn't like was that there were people who clearly lost interest when their favorite player stopped being in the running. If I were planning to be constantly running projects, this would be something that would make me consider not letting such people in the project. However, I won't run another project for a while, and I'm not going to hold a message board grudge list. I also realize that it's just not that easy to stay committed to a project for half a year.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm rather disgusted than amazed at the sight of Malone being above the Dream. But, whatever.

one clear mistake vast majority of the voters did: postseason was only a tie breaker. that's why Malone ranks so high.

Eh, I don't think the major factor. Bottom line is that Hakeem had the clear lead in POY shares until the last 90s when Hakeem wasn't Hakeem any more, but Malone was still going. I don't see any need to look for mistakes here: We have an imperfect metric where I guy with fantastic longevity came out slightly ahead of a guy with a better peak - it's bound to happen.

[Doctor MJ]

IMO, when evaluating GOAT lists, these MVP evaluations hold more importance than the "real" ones.

That's exactly the goal I was hoping we'd achieve so thank you.

I feel the same way.

[ElGee]

For the 00s, the most interesting player was Garnett. He got a lot more support than I expected. It hasn't drastically swayed my opinion of him, but it's definitely made my opinion of him unstable. By that I mean, I'm not entirely satisfied with it. There's a part of me starting to think he was better than Duncan, and I'm not willing to either accept it or dismiss it.

Duncan-KG is one of the great historical debates to me, and one that isn't often entertained because of the championship disparity. As I said in the project, I argued KG was better than Duncan until about June of 2003. I think Duncan had a slightly better career (as posted on page 2) and, this is the big one, I think he had a slightly better peak. As you would say, gun to my head, I think I'd rather have Timmy in a critical 4th quarter. But yes, to this day I consider them extremely close. They are both extremely high on my ATL board for building a team.

I was surprised at how low Kobe performed. I thought there was a good chance he'd ranked much higher in the voting that my opinion of him because of the posts I've seen on Kobe here over the year, instead he actually finished lower than where I'd rank him. Quite interesting, and I think it really goes to show how this group of voters differs not only from the mainstream but from typical RealGM posters. I think the use of advanced stats was a factor as well.

Kobe discussion generally drives me nuts, but he's had a better career than I realized relative to his competition. Really just a heck of a decade from him. I'm generally considered a Kobe-hater -- namely because I have issues with his 05 to 07 play and I don't hold his peak to be on par with say, Shaq's, Duncan's and KG's -- but he came out slightly higher than in my results than in the project (although I think my POY points for him were below average).

I almost think there's something inherent about him and KG that differentiates how someone views a basketball player. Rings? Stats? Advanced metrics? Team-balance vs. individual glory? Now that I think about it, are there any "pro-Kobe" and "pro-KG" people? I'm having a hard time thinking of such a person, on realgm or in the outside world.

[JordansBulls]

I'm really enjoying seeing people do their reflections on their own votes. I'm still processing it all, but some thoughts:

For the 00s, the most interesting player was Garnett. He got a lot more support than I expected. It hasn't drastically swayed my opinion of him, but it's definitely made my opinion of him unstable. By that I mean, I'm not entirely satisfied with it. There's a part of me starting to think he was better than Duncan, and I'm not willing to either accept it or dismiss it.

I was surprised at how low Kobe performed. I thought there was a good chance he'd ranked much higher in the voting that my opinion of him because of the posts I've seen on Kobe here over the year, instead he actually finished lower than where I'd rank him. Quite interesting, and I think it really goes to show how this group of voters differs not only from the mainstream but from typical RealGM posters. I think the use of advanced stats was a factor as well.

For the 90s, I don't mind at all that Malone beat Olajuwon. I've said before, that this isn't an exact measurement, and we not all equal ranking performances are equal. However, my voting for Malone came out VERY high. Higher than Bird, Erving, or Shaq. And of course Malone had a champion among the voters in Kaima who argued well on his behalf. The end result is that I don't actually put that much stock in my own voting of Malone.

In the 80s, I ended up voting for Jordan at #1 for 3 years before he won a title, and I'm second guessing that. The more I look at Magic the more impressed I am.

In the 70s, the big question every year was Kareem, and I'm still not completely settled with my votes there. However, from a GOAT ranking perspective it doesn't matter too much. He's not going to surpass Russell on my POY share list, and Jordan's not going to surpass him - so GOAT determination between the 3 is about things beyond the POY.

It was good to really think about Barry, and about shooting efficiency. In the end, I'm left with the feeling that he's overrated as a scorer, but possibly underrated as an overall player. Funny how that works. That championship year, I don't think there'd have been major issues if he'd scored significantly less - but the fact that he won a title essentially with a platoon squad is stunning.

Frazier & Reed. I was really glad to think this through. Before this project, the arguments I've heard hear for Frazier resonated with me, but I never really felt comfortable have a strong opinion about it.

60s - This was great stuff. It's so much more clear to me now how it is Boston had the success they did. My respect for Russell grew. My opinion of Oscar stabilized - I won't say it went up or down, I'm now more confident that he was a smart offensive player, but also more confident in saying that wasn't enough to make him a candidate for best player of the era.

Wilt? Oh Wilt. My opinion of Wilt really dropped. More so than my votes suggest. It's just clear in how many ways he wasn't living up to potential. Not that all those ways were his fault - but it's clear why his actual impact over the years just wasn't what a cursory glance would have you believe.

I've been having the Russell vs Wilt debate in my head for years, and I'd say that's over. Now it's more of a question of Wilt vs Shaq, Wilt vs Hakeem, etc.

As far as my GOAT at this point, before the project it had been Jordan, Kareem, Russell for a few years. Right now, gun to my head, I'd move Russell up to #1. This is not a stable opinion - I'm still going back and forth. The thing that I keep thinking though: We have a tendency to dismiss outlandish achievements of the past as being impossible today, and thus essentially curving things downward. But here's the thing, Russell had essentially the perfect career, and Jordan really didn't. 6 rings today isn't equivalent to 11 rings back then - we may soon see Kobe surpass Jordan's ring total and Kobe's obviously not a GOAT candidate. Bottom line, while 11 titles today may be impossible, earning say 8 titles clearly is not, and Jordan made some choices that prevented him from getting there.

On the meta-level, running this project:

I'd say it's my favorite project I ever ran, topping even the first All-Time League. It's something that just has more inherent meaning, and forced people to go back into history not simply to get ammunition for their players, but to think objectively. Also, while I worked hard on this, it was sane. The first ATL was ridiculous because of some choices I made that didn't make the project better or worse, but just put more pressure on me and TrueLAFan.

I stand by the strategy to have a semi-open committee. Whenever we have a successful project and keep the voting open, we always find some tremendous posters, and this was no exception.

One thing I didn't like was that there were people who clearly lost interest when their favorite player stopped being in the running. If I were planning to be constantly running projects, this would be something that would make me consider not letting such people in the project. However, I won't run another project for a while, and I'm not going to hold a message board grudge list. I also realize that it's just not that easy to stay committed to a project for half a year.

Yep that is what I noted as well. And after a while it just seemed like posters were just voting to vote.

I think the most interesting thing here is that Russell, Kareem and MJ each had something over the other.

Russell had the most total Shares (beat out MJ and Kareem) and he won 7 POY
Kareem had the 2nd most total shares (beat out MJ) and he won 8 POY (beating out Russell)
MJ had the 3rd most total shares and he won 9 POY (beating out Kareem and Russell)

So if you ranked them on that it would be:

Code: Select all

         Total Shares (ranked)   Player of the Year (won-ranked)
Russell         1                                      3
Kareem          2                                      2
MJ              3                                      1


Another thing that surprised me was that Tim Duncan had more POY and more shares than Bird. Wouldn't have expected that coming in. But I guess the reasoning could be that Bird had to deal with players on his level for most of his time.

A guy who I expected to do a lot better was Ewing.

Also it is interesting to see that Garnett got POY twice while Robinson got none and Garnett beat him out in the POY shares as well.


Overall my Tier System was similar to most.

Tier 1
1. MJ
2. Russell
3. Kareem (although I do have Kareem higher than Russell on the all time list)

Tier 2
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Duncan

Tier 3
7. Shaq
8. Bird
9. Kobe
10. Hakeem/Dr J

[drza]

I keep waiting to post in this thread, wanting to complete my numerical analysis of how my vote broke down and writhe this great summary. The only problem is that, just like for the last several months, life and time keep preventing me from getting to it. So while I wait for the time to finish my mythical analysis, I want to weigh in on at least one thing that really jumped out at me from the project: There is much more to the game than can be accurately captured in the box scores. There have been a couple of posts from DocMJ and ElGee kind of touching on how people evaluate, with two big trains of thought being the standard all-time list criteria guys (i.e. rings, MVPs, accolades, basic box score stats) or the advanced stat guys (especially, in recent years, the +/- family of stats that go beyond the advanced box scores).

I would long have been considered more of an advanced stat guy, despite my stated preference against relying ONLY upon stats when making evaluations. My feeling all along has been that player evaluations are complex, subjective things that require multiple levels of analysis and that advanced stats, instead of being a be-all/end-all, instead are another data point to use that may help put everything else we know into perspective.

Bringing it back on-topic, this project has re-emphasized and hammered home what it is that originally made me an advanced stats guy: the box scores are just not equipped to measure full impact on a game. It's like I said in one of the Russell vs Wilt threads...instead of beginning from the box score stats and suggesting that Wilt was the default better player and the only way for Russ to close the gap was due to his titles and his nebulous "intangibles", I began to wonder if the box scores were even relevant when comparing the two. In other words, it was so BLATANTLY obvious that Russel's in-game impact dwarfed his box score stats that they became almost meaningless in trying to evaluate him. I thought ElGee's pace-adjusted team stats were brilliant, and even if they were rougher/noisier than what we could have calculated if we had access to all of the old game films with today's statisticians in attendance, they really helped to emphasize just how MUCH those Celtics were winning with defense while dragging along one of the worst offenses in the league. Those realizations, more than anything else, are what (I believe) carried Russell to the top of the RPoY standings. Not just that he won all of those rings, but that we could quantitatively trace that he really did hold the lion share of the responsibility for how those rings were won. That it wasn't just a subjective thing where pro-Wilt guys argue that Russ was surrounded by Hall of Famers/Wilt wasn't while pro-Russ guys argue the opposite...no, that the reason why the Celts won (defense) could be traced directly to Russell and that the other HoFs on his roster just weren't adding that much to it.

That is something that the box scores wouldn't tell us. It's something that the accolades wouldn't necessarily convince us of. Even the rings would be only secondary evidence, as so many could just point to teammates and ignore the rest. It's only "advanced stats", even rudimentary ones, that could really have gotten that point across.

And this story was repeated through time. Kareem vs Walton was another wonderful what-we-measure vs what-we-don't-measure debate. I came into the project sure Kareem was better. This time, the "advanced stat" that we came up with was the team-results +/- stat that emphasized that Walton was having a RIDICULOUS impact on games. In the end I still ended up voting for Kareem because while those stats showed that Walton's impact was huge it wasn't quite enough (at the time, anyway) to convince me point-blank that Kareem's wasn't as big. Kind of like instant replay in football, it wasn't irrefutable evidence that would make me overturn my decision. But it really, really made me reconsider and if there were just a little bit more info out there, it may have been enough to do it for me. Even though, just like with Russell and Wilt, the traditional box scores would suggest that a direct comparison between the two should be a laugher of a mismatch.

And of course, the original KG vs Kobe debate from 2008 that touched off the project and that is still one of the most controversial votes that we took. Of every year we did, 2008 is the one that I see most often questioned and I've seen the voters express the most curiosity about whether it would have played out the same now as it did then. I can't speak for everyone else, and obviously I was strongly supportive of Garnett anyway, but after the project I feel even more validated in how the vote shook out. The defensive and on-court impact that Garnett brought to the table in '08 was the closest analog we've seen to the effect that we tried so desperately to tease out with Russell and Walton, only in this case we already had other statisticians to have measured those things for us. We didn't need ElGee to do his pace-adjusted team statistics, because we already know that Garnett's defensive stats from '08 were off the charts. We didn't need to do a rough team win/loss effect test, because we already know that Garnett led the NBA in adjusted +/- in '08.

The reason that I think the KG/Kobe '08 decision has sparked so much controversy is that 1) Kobe is such a lightening rod player with such passionate supporters and detractors that it's difficult to have a logical big-scale discussion about him. If he didn't get the props that his supporters had carved out for him, then it must be because the voters were obviously just haters. Hard to invoke multi-layered, in depth debate where he is concerned. And 2) People just don't believe in Garnett the way they do Kareem or peak Bill Walton. Those guys are certified GOAT candidates, and there is a strong push to get Kobe included in that GOAT debate as well, whereas so many were used to thinking of Garnett as the 2nd tier, not-quite-as-good-as-Duncan-guy that his success in '08 struck people as some kind of fluke that must be explained in other ways. There was no way that KG could have been THAT big of a part of a dominant champion past his prime...otherwise, he must have been even that much better IN his prime...I don't think many are willing to make the logical follow-up to that thought. Something like I was with Walton, I needed more proof to get over my preconceived notions. I think many just can't get past their certainty that KG wasn't quite THAT good, because if he was his team results in Minnesota should have been better, and a vote for him #1 in '08 logically leads to difficult questions about why he wasn't finishing higher (both individually and team-wise) in the preceding years.

Anyway, I've rambled on now for more than long enough. This was only supposed to be one small aspect of what I got out of the project, not the great overview/summary post (you see now why that one is taking me so long to get together, lol). But my point was that in hashing every year out in-depth I've gotten a greater appreciation of how complex basketball is, and how much more there is to it than the obvious things that people throw about when making all-time lists. To me Russell/Wilt, Kareem/Walton and Garnett/Kobe were some of the best discussions that we had in the project, and all really brought that fact home.

[drza]

Re: the Malone/Hakeem debate from page 1

I have no issue with Malone finishing higher in this format than Hakeem, just because in this format longevity can be such a decisive issue. Malone was so metronomic for so long that...it's like his placement as 2nd on the all-time scoring list. I don't think that Malone was the 2nd best scorer in NBA history...not by a long-shot. But, he was at a very high level for a very long time, and eventually you build up the totals. I see nothing wrong with that.

In fact, Malone was one of the players that this project helped me see in a more positive light. I've never been a Malone guy...over his whole playing career, I never once felt like he was the best player. He was always "just" great, not transcendent, so in my memory he paled when put next to a guy like Hakeem whose transcendence in the early/mid 90s couldn't be denied. But going back, year after year, and being reminded that Malone's "just" greatness was really, really impressive every year for about 15 years...that had impact. And of course, we had Kaima here to really help put him in more perspective, especially in comparison to David Robinson. Some in this project disliked the "advocates", as we came to call them, for certain players but I think they really added something. I personally know I'd have NEVER looked that in-depth into those Spurs/Jazz postseason match-ups, and I came into this project solidly convinced that Robinson was the better player. After those discussions...at the least, I'm re-evaluating. If anything, what I hate the most is that we didn't also have a pro-Robinson advocate that was just as passionate and informed. The 90s were close enough that we all remember them to a degree, so it's not like if this were a debate from the 60s where a one-sided advocate could completely skew how we saw the players. But by the same token, the 90s also weren't as close as the 00s where the info is so fresh and the opinions so clear in our minds that even an advocate can really only present the info without really changing anyone's mind. It's probably due to Kaima's posts more than anyone else's that I don't mind so much where Malone finished.

I'm also willing to play some "what if" thought exercises. and the no-Jordan exercise Kaima pointed out earlier in this post would, in fact, have completely changed the way Malone is thought of. To me that might be more of an indictment on some of the weaknesses of 90s basketball than an indication of Malone's transcendence, but by the same token that is just my opinion and I don't want to miss the forest for the trees. When one thing could change and completely alter everything, the statistician in me starts to look at it funny. And it's especially relevant in a Malone vs Hakeem debate, because so much of where we currently place the two is tied up into the 94 - 95 and '97 - '98 championships. I'd previously seen someone else wonder, what if Jordan hadn't retired in '93 and instead had stayed through '96 then called it quits. How would that have changed how Malone and Hakeem are thought of? Well, a Jazz back-to-back would have stamped Malone's pass into many people's top-10...and Hakeem would likely have had to still win both years to be in that top-10 with him. I just don't like that so much of Hakeem and Malone's "legacy" in the minds of many is tied into the whims of Michael Jordan.

That said. In an all-time list debate, I'd likely still pick Hakeem (can only take what-ifs so far as reasonable thought exercises). But in this format, I'm fine with Malone grading better.

[bastillon]

what I regret is that I had to leave this project around 97 to ~71. that made me miss many great players and I thought there were a lot of misconceptions.

one thing I noticed and found inexplicable is why people put so much emphasis on boxscore stats in across-era comparisons. they're very much favouring older players because of the pace. Duncan and Garnett are one of the most underappreciated players of all-time because of pace. multiply their numbers by 0.1-0.2 and this is what they look like as players after accounting for pace. did you know that pace-adjusted Duncan actually volume scored more than KAJ ? or that Shaq was far better as a scorer ? when we were going year-by-year people really weren't paying attention to pace and its rise, and just thought, "wow, the competition must've gotten so much better".

another thing is being way too reliant on boxscore stats from 70-90. I've read some of the years and it really strikes me that nobody was "competitive" advocate during those years. even if someone was a big fan of, say, Kareem, nobody would argue against him. I thought those discussions lacked some of the data.

couple of players I would've defended a lot:

Cowens - best transition defense ever, crucial in high pace, great D overall - Celtics success was the defense in the 70s. that aspect of his game was very underrated. what posters did in his case was just looking at the boxscores. nobody really had any idea of his intangibles, except for few, and even they never really emphasized his strengths.

80s Olajuwon - obviously a great player, but what went under the radar is that he always seemed to step up his game in the playoffs and it was such a given that I think it'd be more fair to judge him based on postseason performance, rather than RS production, where he tended to coast. he wasn't really all that different from what is considered a peak Olajuwon... but got no love. one thing that bothers me with Hakeem is that people think of him as some guy with weird inverted prime when in fact it had nothing to do with him - it was all about circumstances. people only look at his scoring/passing, but you know it's centers nature to be dependant on perimeter players ? and it was pretty clear Maxwell and Floyd won't get it done. one of the most underappreciated periods.

player I'd argue against, probably:

Kareem - contrary to Cowens, his defense was ridiculously overrated. it was actually considered a given that he was the best defender in the league. it's been said many times in this project... like "you got THESE stats AND the best defense in the league ? wow." clearly he wasn't anchoring his teams when they were never dominant on defense. his offensive dominance got to little credit, but defensviely he was very much overrated.

what wasn't emphasized enough were his playoff failures, too. I have no problem with 70 (great numbers against a better team), I don't have a problem with him struggling against Wilt/West without injured Oscar in 72, he had a very good series against Walton in '77 at least from a production standpoint. what I have a problem with is 73, 75-76 78-79 period. I really regres not having participated in those discussions as I feel like people gave him too much credit for the most part.

I'll try to come back to specific years and argue for some, but it's too late anyway. Oscar was underrated too. he didn't get any credit for his Milwaukee years where he was great, but without the numbers. his impact was always there - Bucks offenses were epically great in the early 70s and fell off a cliff when he left (and were much worse before he joined, too).

70s is my top2 favourite decade and there's just a strong disagreement between what I know/have seen and RPOY votings. I'm REALLY regretting I wasn't there.

[penbeast0]

Yes, Kareem seemed to get a lot of rep votes in the 70s, more than any other player from the periods I was involved in of 1980 and earlier (I couldn't participate fully earlier so just read along rather than just put out bare bones stuff). Not that there weren't other votes I disagreed with but they always had stats or team impact or something to back them up. Kareem kept getting votes when there were other players with equal or better stats AND equal or better team impact. (1975 was probably the worst example).

I was really impressed with Marques Johnson, Jerry West, and Bill Russell -- all players I had respected and thought underrated (ok, maybe not West but the other two) but the more we had great posts and supporting material for those guys, the better they looked. Would love to get a statistical breakdown from someone with sortable database stats comparing playoff stats to regular season stats for people with more than . . . say . . . 60 games to determine who picks up their games the most in the postseason . . . I would guess West, and Cliff Hagan from the 60s, Hakeem and Horry from the 80s, be an interesting experiment. (My apologies if I've said all this before, it feels like I have.)

[bastillon]

Your inability to respond in a way that is respectful, thoughtful, or substantial is hardly surprising. Feel free to elaborate on that fallacy or point put the inconsistencies any time. Point out where I even once mentioned population growth as a driving factor, rather than money, fame, integration, etc leading to more propel playing ball, not just more people in general.

Wilt's fans hardly ever come up with anything logical, don't bother.

[Sedale Threatt]

That's a pretty lame cheap shot.

[bastillon]

That's a pretty lame cheap shot.

you are an exception. mostly though, Wilt's fans are to radical to discuss anything with them.