RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Wilt Chamberlain)

[ShaqAttac]

Modernist meaning look at the stats and realise he's a clearly more impactful player?

imapct doesnt like kd. playmaking also a thing

[One_and_Done]

Modernist meaning look at the stats and realise he's a clearly more impactful player?

imapct doesnt like kd. playmaking also a thing

Kobe was famous for his desire to get his team mates involved.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah I think we've lost track of the cieling bit of cieling raising

Having a teammate improve the team by +9 net rating without you and improve the team’s net rating by essentially zero with you is not “very impressive ceiling raising from LeBron.”

Let's say this is true. It's not relevant. "Vultered" has nothing to do with cieling raising. The distinction between floor and cieling is not about how you get there. It is about where you get. Portability is about your ability to retain value. And in this context, it is about how much value you retain on really good teams. Or, in the context this was originally coined, teams that win championships. Teams like the 2016 Cavs. Lebron can cannabalize the whole league, if he provides a shitton of value to teams that, with him, play title-level basketball in the rs(all-time alongside co-stars in 2015) and then turn all-time-great in the postseason....Lebron is an all-time ceiling raiser.

For you to successfully push "lebron doesn't cieling raise" comparatively you need to do two things that no one in this round of the top 100 has done or really even attempted

1. Justify and establish a threshold of team-performance that counts as where providing value is "ceiling raising". Ideally that threshold will be justified in a manner that ties it to winning championships

2. Establish that Lebron will typically be less valuable on that calibre of team

Taking a terrible team to bad is floor-raising. Taking a bad team to championship-lvl and then all-time-great is ceiling raising. What you have actually established is that Lebron is great at both. If we take this data at face value, kyrie is the guy who isn't portable. Because Kyrie Irving was unable to retain high-value when the team was really **** good and only was valuable when the team was bad. When Lebron-Wade lineups match Jordan/Pippen lineups from their 69-win 97 side, that is ceiling raising regardless of who is "vultured". Unless that impact is just a byproduct of Wade(what Lebron's team looks like in games and lineups without Wade and then without Kyrie would strongly suggest otherwise)

In this context, I’d say ceiling raising is about having all-time great teams and/or winning a few titles with a team in a short time period. For purposes of a ranking like this, it matters exactly how good different titles teams were, both because a particularly great team is more historically notable and reflects better on its players, and because in an academic sense such a team was probably more likely to win (which matters for a kind of CORP analysis or a sort of luck/randomness-adjusted analysis of a player’s winning). I don’t really think this should be a controversial concept.

Some of Steph Curry’s teams were *incredibly good.* That is notable when evaluating his greatness. And it is also notable in evaluating how much he increased his team’s chances of winning a title. And, in a CORP-style analysis, I have more confidence in a guy’s value when he has shown he can fit well with lots of players and raise a team to historic heights where their chances of winning a title would be really high.

WOWY takes rotations out of the equation and lets us see how the Spurs do with Manu out(they do fine).

The Spurs also did fine with Tim Duncan out. They were a really good team. Ginobili was objectively very high impact on the Spurs.

I also do not know why you're bringing up Durant. I was and have been(and as fp4 has been) referring to 2016 where the Warriors obliterated a .500 team(+0.35 by rs) in the first round and then were potentially going to beat a 2nd one(+0.9 srs in the regular season). You might note those are full-games without Steph, not simply a smattering of minutes.

Huh? You suggested Draymond had “literally won playoffs series without” Curry. That’s when I brought up Kevin Durant. The Warriors did not literally win any playoff series without Curry in 2016. Steph Curry played in every series in 2016, and indeed they won 2 games with him in each of the series’s he missed time in, and only held serve at home and lost away in the games he didn’t play. It is only in 2018 that Steph actually missed an entire series, hence why I brought up Durant—because that was the only series I thought you could’ve possibly been referring to when you suggested Draymond had “literally won playoff series without” Curry.

And, as for full games without Curry, we know that what happens in full games without Curry is miles behind what happens in games with Curry. Curry’s WOWY stuff is through the roof, and even the Durant Warriors were only basically a .500, 0 SRS team overall in games Steph didn’t play. So I’m not understanding the point.

Not going to go to deeply into the rest but

-> I said "he has won a title with a team that would not go .500 without him", no idea why you're brining up career-wide wowy.

And I still have zero idea what you’re talking about. Are you referring to actual WOWY information, or are you speculating that the 2002-2003 team would not go .500 without Duncan? The latter speculation is probably right, but of course Steph won a title with a team that would not go .500 without him either (and indeed, they played 18 games without him that season and did not go .500 in those games—and it was only even remotely close to .500 because they won a few non-Steph games at the very end of the season against teams that were not at all trying to win).

-> The basic tenet of team-sports is helping your team win. Trying to give Steph undue credits for what his teammates do because he isn't as good at helping his teams win is very much against the spirit of "team".

I just don’t think you understand the importance of playing in a way that allows others to optimize their value. Among other things, being the game’s greatest ever off-ball force massively enables teammates to use their great skills to their fullest. It’s much easier for someone to get their fullest value with a player like that, because people who need the ball to get their fullest value (of which Draymond is definitely one, as are most great players) can get plenty of the ball without limiting Steph’s impact. This sort of thing is how you have Steph and Draymond not cannibalizing each others’ impact at all in terms of their effects on the Warriors’ net rating. A superstar that can get superstar-level impact without the ball is always going to be more conducive to other great players on their team being super impactful. Steph is a textbook example of this. And it’s just a fairly basic thing that this is really important: In all team sports, teams and coaches try to figure out how to optimize to allow everyone to get their fullest value. Some situations and players are easier to optimize with than others.

_________

EDIT:

And no, Lebron did not cannibalize Kyrie's RAPM...

I notice that the screenshots provided conspicuously do not look at Kyrie’s three-year RAPM, despite Kyrie having been with LeBron for three years and the RAPM source in question having three-year RAPM data. Is this perhaps because the three-year data shows that in his three seasons with LeBron, Kyrie had a lower RAPM value (usually by a lot) and lower league ranking than he had in any three-year span since?

Nor did he cannibalize Wade's...

And, there, I notice oddly a move away from using NBAshotcharts data to make this point. Perhaps this is because Wade had a 5.5 RAPM that was #3 in the league in 2009-2010, followed by it going down to 3.8, 2.82, and 3.52 the next three years, with rankings of 12th, 35th, and 10th?

[OhayoKD]

Modernist meaning look at the stats and realise he's a clearly more impactful player?

What "stats"?

Even by box, playmaking sinks him in a comparison to the likes of James Harden in the playoffs

[One_and_Done]

Modernist meaning look at the stats and realise he's a clearly more impactful player?

What "stats"?

Even by box, playmaking sinks him in a comparison to the likes of James Harden in the playoffs

Well, I literally just noted 3 of the many series where Kobe was subpar. In response I'm presented with 3 bad KD series, and he's averaging more assists than Kobe in these bad series while scoring more on higher efficiency. But on page 3 I looked at their stats more generally, and Kobe has a mild assist advantage and is basically getting killed everywhere else. The mild assist advantage also comes from a guy with a higher usage rate, so we should frankly expect more assists to some degree.

[SpreeS]

Kyrie’s poor defense prevents a higher ceiling being reached along with mediocre playmaking. Adding to +10 is incredibly difficult, specially if it’s not going to be on defence that is much more portable Kyrie also has opportunities when he is not playing with James to show his impact, something players like Draymond do without Curry, but Kyrie hasn’t been able to do it at the same level.

Green is way more unique in the NBA than Irving. I could easy give 15-20 player list with similar abilities to Irving. Its way easier to give Green scoring option than to Irving a elite defensive player. Irving capabilities replicate way more players, than Green's. So Green is way more valuble for any team.

Green's career netrtg (PS+PO) w/o Curry in 8135min is +0.68 nrtg
Green's career netrtg (PS+PO) w/o Curry/KD in 6995min is -0.09 nrtg
Green's career netrtg (PS+PO) w/o Curry/KD/KT in 3517min is -2,86 nrtg

Irving (PS+PO)

w/o Lebron (Cavs 12-17) 8336min -4.28nrtg
w/o Tatum/Brown (Celtics 18-19) 460min -0.79nrtg
w/o Durant/Harden (BKN 20-23) 2384min +1.69nrtg
w/o Doncic (DAL 23) 319min +7.64nrtg

W/o Green's crazy peak 15/16, I dont see here nothing special for Green to be over Irving in raw +/- numbers. Green played with all time perimeter scorers, on other hand Irving's the best big on defence was......Al Horford(for 2y).

Irving w/o Doncic 126.5 ortg (league avg 114.8)
Irving w/o KD/JH 117.6 ortg (league avg 112.4)
Irving w/o JT/JB 110.3 ortg (league avg 109.5)
Irving w/o Lebron 108.8 ortg (league avg 106.9)

[One_and_Done]

You don't get bonus points for uniquness. Ralph Sampson was a unique player too, but his impact is his impact. We can't juice his rank because they're unusual skills.

[ty 4191]

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain
Second: Kevin Garnett
Alternate: Larry Bird

Wilt:
I ran weighted averages for every teammate Russell and Wilt played throughout their careers for WS/48. I used min 3000 career MP with Russell and 2000 MP with Wilt (because he switched teams twice) as the lower bound threshold. Went through each teammates' (approximated) MP for every year they played with each.

For example, West played 356 games alongside Wilt in his career, he played 356 games alongside Wilt in his career and played 39.7 MPG those years. Ergo, approximately 14,133 MP alongside Wilt.

In summary, Wilt's teammates' weighted average for WS/48 was .097, overall (.100 is average, so 3% worse than league average). Russell's weighted average of teammates was .143, or 43% above league average.

I know you'll all probably object, since WS/48 has its obvious flaws, and without on/off it's an approximation...

But I think it gives a very solid ballpark as to whom had better teammates, overall.

Here is the data, here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hthTt1jZsSriTCBYCenyhS2jXmC7RrXZbeuQZ8unp_M/edit#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q7_2uizUlTf5hJr4rzmpnHL7zV7is0qKl5g8poOrmCY/edit#gid=367829626

See "Career Rankings" tab.

Also, this massive project and discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1836300

Hi, I've been collecting stats for a while and I decided to make this post here. I separated some superstars offensive production in playoffs based on defense (RS ORtg) faced. Here are my criteria:

Over +2.0 rDRtg - Bad Defense
From +2.0 to -2.0 rDRtg - Average Defense
From -2.0 to -4.0 rDRtg - Good Defense
From -4.0 to -7.0 rDRtg - Elite Defense
Below -7.0 rDRtg - All-Time Great Defense

Using 70s Fan's Exact Criteria, here we go:

Wilt, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (15 games, 9.4% of total games):
47.6 mpg 26.5 ppg 22.2 rbg 7.5 ast/g 54.6 TS% 5.9 rTS%

Vs. Average Defenses (47 games, 29.4% of total games):
47.4 mpg 22.8 ppg 23.5 rbg 3.8 ast/g 54.5% TS% 5.2 rTS%

Vs. Good Defenses (26 games, 16.3% of total games):
47.1 mpg 18.6 ppg 24.7 rbg 4 ast/g 53.1 TS%. 4.9 rTS%

Vs. Elite Defenses (53 games, 33.1% of total games):
46.9 mpg 18.9 ppg 24.6 rbg 4.1 ast/g 50.7 TS% 2.1 tTS%

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (19 games, 11.9% of total games):
47.5 mpg 31 ppg 28.6 rbg 2.9 ast/g 53.3 TS 5.5 rTS%

45% of his career games were against Elite or All Time Great defenses. That's staggering; I'd be good money he's at the top, percentage wise, career, among all 25 players 70's Fan sampled.

Kareem, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (24 games, 9.7% of total games):
32 mpg. 20.8 ppg. 6.5 rbg 2.7 ast. 63 TS% 8.7 rTS%

Vs. Average Defenses (114 games, 48.1% of total games):
35.8 mpg. 23.9 ppg 10.4 rbg 3.1 ast. 59.6 TS% 6.9 rTS%

Vs. Good Defenses (67 games, 28.3% of total games):
38.4 mpg 22 ppg 10.2 rbg 3.6 ast 52.6 TS% 0.7 rTS%

Vs. Elite Defenses (33 games, 13.9% of total games):
42.1 mpg. 29.4 ppg 14.2 rbg 3.8 ast 56 TS% 4.8 tTS%

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (0 games, 0% of total games):
------

Lebron, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (8.96% of total games):
40.4 mpg, 28.8/9.4/7.4 (rTS%: 5.9%)

Vs. Average Defenses (45.81% of total games):
40.4 mpg, 28.8/9.3/7.4 (rTS%: 5.1%)

Vs. Good Defenses (23.22% of total games):
43.6 mpg, 26.7/8.9/7.5 (rTS% 1.5%)

Vs. Elite Defenses (16.44% of total games):
42.6 mpg, 26.8/8.4/6.9 (rTS% -3.15%)

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (5.58% of total games):
42.0 mpg, 25.8/7.1/6.0 (rTS% 0.64)

Michael Jordan, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (1.7% of total games):
39.7 mpg, 45.0/6.7/9.7 (rTS%: 12.93%)

Vs. Average Defenses (38.0% of total games):
40.9 mpg, 34.1/5.4/6.4 (rTS%: 4.0%)

Vs. Good Defenses (27.4% of total games):
41.0 mpg, 33.0/5.5/6.3 (rTS% 4.5%)

Vs. Elite Defenses (29.6% of total games):
42.6 mpg, 33.2/6.4/5.6 (rTS% 1.1%)

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (3.4% of total games):
41.5 mpg, 32.2/6.2/7.0 (rTS% -0.8%)

Larry Bird, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (5.42% of total games):
37.9 mpg, 20.6/7.3/8.2 (rTS%: +0.5%)

Vs. Average Defenses (53.01% of total games):
42 mpg, 24.4/6.9/9.7 (tTS%: +2.1%)

Vs. Good Defenses (24.7% of total games):
42.3 mpg, 22.1/6.4/10.6 (rTS%: -3.2%)

Vs. Elite Defenses (16.87% of total games):
41.7 mpg, 24.4/5.3/11.5 (rTS%: 4.5%)

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (0% of total games):
--


Wilt vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
45% of total playoff games played
47.2 MPG
25.0 PPG
26.6 RBG
3.5 AST/G
rTS%: +3.8%

Lebron vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
22.1% of total playoff games played
42.3 MPG
26.3 PGG
7.8 RBG
rTS%: -1.3%

Kareem vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
13.9% of total playoff games played
42.1 MPG
29.4 PPG
14.2 RBG
3.8 AST/G
rTS%: +4.8%

Larry Bird Vs. Elite + ATG Defenses
16.9% of total games)
41.7 MPG
24.4 PPG
11.5 RGB
5.3 AST/G
rTS%: 4.5%

Jordan vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses
33.0% of total playoff games played
42.1 MPG
32.7 PPG
6.3 RBG
6.3 AST/G
rTS%: 0.15%

Wilt faced HOF Centers in 135 of 160 playoff games (84.4%). Kareem, 125 of 237 (52.7%).

My Conclusions:
1. I can say with almost 100% certainty that Wilt Chamberlain faced the toughest defensive competition in the playoffs in NBA History.

2. Ipso facto, he's significantly underrated, even on this forum.

SNIP

Is this an iteration of the (dreaded) "rings" argument again?

Michael Jordan through age 27, Playoffs, before they built a tremendous team around him:

-Playoffs (53 games)
-Team Record: 24-29
-Team Series Record: 5-6
-3 first round exits, including 2 first round sweeps
-Two ECF

Jordan's line: 36.2/6.9/6.7 on +4.7% rTS. Led all players those years in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs.

Nikola Jokic through age 26, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (48 games)
-Team Record: 21-27
-Team Series Record: 4-4
-1 first round exit
-1 WCF

Jokic's line: 26.4/11.5/6.4 on +4.1 rTS%. Top 3 player in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs those 4 years.

Kevin Garnett through age 27, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 17-30
-Team Series Record: 2-8
-7 first round exits
-1 WCF

Garnett's line: 23.3/13.4/5.0. 2nd in Defensive Rating in the playoffs, those years, among players with 2000 MP. RAPM ranks him as the second most impactful player of 2002-2007 period, overall, in the NBA.

Wilt Chamberlain through age 28, Playoffs:

-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 21-26
-Team Series Record: 4-5
-Much shorter playoffs structure, so they're incompatible. Still:

Wilt's line: 33.4/26.0/3.2 on +4.7 tTS%. Clearly the MVP in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics.

Oscar Robertson through age 31, Playoffs:

-Playoffs: (39 games)
-Team Record: 15-24
-Team Series Record: 2-6
-4 first round exits
-2 EDF

Oscar's playoff line: 29.7/9.3/9.4 on an astounding +8.2 rTS%. Clearly, a top 2-3 player overall in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics. He had 8 triple doubles in those 39 games, and that's when the assist rule precluded assists if the player receiving the ball dribbled before he took the shot. Much harder to get assists back then vs. today.

What did Michael Jordan win before they built a tremendous team around him, while also bringing in the greatest coach of all time?

What did Wilt win, while he had coaches (that got fired or resigned every year or so) 1960-1966?

What did he win before he got great coaches, teammates, ownership, management around him?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

[One_and_Done]

Spoiler:

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain
Second: Tim Duncan
Alternate: Larry Bird

Wilt:
I ran weighted averages for every teammate Russell and Wilt played throughout their careers for WS/48. I used min 3000 career MP with Russell and 2000 MP with Wilt (because he switched teams twice) as the lower bound threshold. Went through each teammates' (approximated) MP for every year they played with each.

For example, West played 356 games alongside Wilt in his career, he played 356 games alongside Wilt in his career and played 39.7 MPG those years. Ergo, approximately 14,133 MP alongside Wilt.

In summary, Wilt's teammates' weighted average for WS/48 was .097, overall (.100 is average, so 3% worse than league average). Russell's weighted average of teammates was .143, or 43% above league average.

I know you'll all probably object, since WS/48 has its obvious flaws, and without on/off it's an approximation...

But I think it gives a very solid ballpark as to whom had better teammates, overall.

Here is the data, here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hthTt1jZsSriTCBYCenyhS2jXmC7RrXZbeuQZ8unp_M/edit#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q7_2uizUlTf5hJr4rzmpnHL7zV7is0qKl5g8poOrmCY/edit#gid=367829626

See "Career Rankings" tab.

Also, this massive project and discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1836300

Hi, I've been collecting stats for a while and I decided to make this post here. I separated some superstars offensive production in playoffs based on defense (RS ORtg) faced. Here are my criteria:

Over +2.0 rDRtg - Bad Defense
From +2.0 to -2.0 rDRtg - Average Defense
From -2.0 to -4.0 rDRtg - Good Defense
From -4.0 to -7.0 rDRtg - Elite Defense
Below -7.0 rDRtg - All-Time Great Defense

Using 70s Fan's Exact Criteria, here we go:

Wilt, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (15 games, 9.4% of total games):
47.6 mpg 26.5 ppg 22.2 rbg 7.5 ast/g 54.6 TS% 5.9 rTS%

Vs. Average Defenses (47 games, 29.4% of total games):
47.4 mpg 22.8 ppg 23.5 rbg 3.8 ast/g 54.5% TS% 5.2 rTS%

Vs. Good Defenses (26 games, 16.3% of total games):
47.1 mpg 18.6 ppg 24.7 rbg 4 ast/g 53.1 TS%. 4.9 rTS%

Vs. Elite Defenses (53 games, 33.1% of total games):
46.9 mpg 18.9 ppg 24.6 rbg 4.1 ast/g 50.7 TS% 2.1 tTS%

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (19 games, 11.9% of total games):
47.5 mpg 31 ppg 28.6 rbg 2.9 ast/g 53.3 TS 5.5 rTS%

45% of his career games were against Elite or All Time Great defenses. That's staggering; I'd be good money he's at the top, percentage wise, career, among all 25 players 70's Fan sampled.

Kareem, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (24 games, 9.7% of total games):
32 mpg. 20.8 ppg. 6.5 rbg 2.7 ast. 63 TS% 8.7 rTS%

Vs. Average Defenses (114 games, 48.1% of total games):
35.8 mpg. 23.9 ppg 10.4 rbg 3.1 ast. 59.6 TS% 6.9 rTS%

Vs. Good Defenses (67 games, 28.3% of total games):
38.4 mpg 22 ppg 10.2 rbg 3.6 ast 52.6 TS% 0.7 rTS%

Vs. Elite Defenses (33 games, 13.9% of total games):
42.1 mpg. 29.4 ppg 14.2 rbg 3.8 ast 56 TS% 4.8 tTS%

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (0 games, 0% of total games):
------

Lebron, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (8.96% of total games):
40.4 mpg, 28.8/9.4/7.4 (rTS%: 5.9%)

Vs. Average Defenses (45.81% of total games):
40.4 mpg, 28.8/9.3/7.4 (rTS%: 5.1%)

Vs. Good Defenses (23.22% of total games):
43.6 mpg, 26.7/8.9/7.5 (rTS% 1.5%)

Vs. Elite Defenses (16.44% of total games):
42.6 mpg, 26.8/8.4/6.9 (rTS% -3.15%)

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (5.58% of total games):
42.0 mpg, 25.8/7.1/6.0 (rTS% 0.64)

Michael Jordan, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (1.7% of total games):
39.7 mpg, 45.0/6.7/9.7 (rTS%: 12.93%)

Vs. Average Defenses (38.0% of total games):
40.9 mpg, 34.1/5.4/6.4 (rTS%: 4.0%)

Vs. Good Defenses (27.4% of total games):
41.0 mpg, 33.0/5.5/6.3 (rTS% 4.5%)

Vs. Elite Defenses (29.6% of total games):
42.6 mpg, 33.2/6.4/5.6 (rTS% 1.1%)

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (3.4% of total games):
41.5 mpg, 32.2/6.2/7.0 (rTS% -0.8%)

Larry Bird, Entire Career, Playoffs:

Vs. Bad Defenses (5.42% of total games):
37.9 mpg, 20.6/7.3/8.2 (rTS%: +0.5%)

Vs. Average Defenses (53.01% of total games):
42 mpg, 24.4/6.9/9.7 (tTS%: +2.1%)

Vs. Good Defenses (24.7% of total games):
42.3 mpg, 22.1/6.4/10.6 (rTS%: -3.2%)

Vs. Elite Defenses (16.87% of total games):
41.7 mpg, 24.4/5.3/11.5 (rTS%: 4.5%)

Vs. All Time Great Defenses (0% of total games):
--


Wilt vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
45% of total playoff games played
47.2 MPG
25.0 PPG
26.6 RBG
3.5 AST/G
rTS%: +3.8%

Lebron vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
22.1% of total playoff games played
42.3 MPG
26.3 PGG
7.8 RBG
rTS%: -1.3%

Kareem vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses:
13.9% of total playoff games played
42.1 MPG
29.4 PPG
14.2 RBG
3.8 AST/G
rTS%: +4.8%

Larry Bird Vs. Elite + ATG Defenses
16.9% of total games)
41.7 MPG
24.4 PPG
11.5 RGB
5.3 AST/G
rTS%: 4.5%

Jordan vs. Elite + All Time Great Defenses
33.0% of total playoff games played
42.1 MPG
32.7 PPG
6.3 RBG
6.3 AST/G
rTS%: 0.15%

Wilt faced HOF Centers in 135 of 160 playoff games (84.4%). Kareem, 125 of 237 (52.7%).

My Conclusions:
1. I can say with almost 100% certainty that Wilt Chamberlain faced the toughest defensive competition in the playoffs in NBA History.

2. Ipso facto, he's significantly underrated, even on this forum.

SNIP

Is this an iteration of the (dreaded) "rings" argument again?

Michael Jordan through age 27, Playoffs, before they built a tremendous team around him:

-Playoffs (53 games)
-Team Record: 24-29
-Team Series Record: 5-6
-3 first round exits, including 2 first round sweeps
-Two ECF

Jordan's line: 36.2/6.9/6.7 on +4.7% rTS. Led all players those years in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs.

Nikola Jokic through age 26, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (48 games)
-Team Record: 21-27
-Team Series Record: 4-4
-1 first round exit
-1 WCF

Jokic's line: 26.4/11.5/6.4 on +4.1 rTS%. Top 3 player in all advanced and traditional metrics in the playoffs those 4 years.

Kevin Garnett through age 27, Playoffs:
-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 17-30
-Team Series Record: 2-8
-7 first round exits
-1 WCF

Garnett's line: 23.3/13.4/5.0. 2nd in Defensive Rating in the playoffs, those years, among players with 2000 MP. RAPM ranks him as the second most impactful player of 2002-2007 period, overall, in the NBA.

Wilt Chamberlain through age 28, Playoffs:

-Playoffs: (47 games)
-Team Record: 21-26
-Team Series Record: 4-5
-Much shorter playoffs structure, so they're incompatible. Still:

Wilt's line: 33.4/26.0/3.2 on +4.7 tTS%. Clearly the MVP in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics.

Oscar Robertson through age 31, Playoffs:

-Playoffs: (39 games)
-Team Record: 15-24
-Team Series Record: 2-6
-4 first round exits
-2 EDF

Oscar's playoff line: 29.7/9.3/9.4 on an astounding +8.2 rTS%. Clearly, a top 2-3 player overall in the playoffs in all advanced and traditional box score metrics. He had 8 triple doubles in those 39 games, and that's when the assist rule precluded assists if the player receiving the ball dribbled before he took the shot. Much harder to get assists back then vs. today.

What did Michael Jordan win before they built a tremendous team around him, while also bringing in the greatest coach of all time?

What did Wilt win, while he had coaches (that got fired or resigned every year or so) 1960-1966?

What did he win before he got great coaches, teammates, ownership, management around him?

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

Duncan is in. Did you mean someone else?

[ty 4191]

Duncan is in. Did you mean someone else?

Yes. Thank you; nice catch. Please delete your previous post. Thanks!

[penbeast0]

...
Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

I think everyone knows it's both, the question is to what degree.

[eminence]

Voting Post

Vote #1: Kevin Garnett
Vote #2: Shaquille O'Neal

Nomination: George Mikan

Curry - worthy peak/prime/team success, but I don't really see him having the requisite longevity to challenge the career value of the other candidates.

KG - Has the peak, has the prime, has the longevity, doesn't have the team success. Looking at Minnesota I find it tough to hold it against him, I have his support there a clear level below that of any other superstars prime except for Oscar (who I think I'll be nominating after Mikan? though I'm considering Bird/Kobe/Dirk). None of his Minnesota teammates will be sniffing this list for what they did there, Chauncey the only one who could've. The Boston trio did well for an older group, and I like Pierce but see KG clearly as the core of those teams (I like Ray too, but more for his Bucks/Sonics days).

Shaq/Wilt - There are strong parallels with Shaq/Wilt, Shaq had a more charmed NBA life and took advantage of it. Similar to reasoning for Duncan over KG, do I think either 'winner' was necessarily a notably better player than the other, no not really. But it is close, and one got to do more based on circumstances, life ain't fair. At least in the Duncan/KG case one can strongly argue those circumstances were mostly luck (from the players perspective, obviously there's a skill gap between the Spurs FO and the Wolves), but Wilt/Shaq showed a similar level of control over their career circumstances (both using FA once and a forced trade once to get to 'better' circumstances - though I don't think either was right with their second move). Yes yes, Wilts move to LA wasn't technically free agency, close enough.

Magic - A tricky one, as I said earlier, I'll be giving him the tiebreaker in most scenarios, but I don't think he's quite up to tied here, the longevity is (unfortunately) lacking. If he'd played out a somewhat normal career arc he could've been notably higher (into the Russell/KAJ/Duncan tier). I understand folks voting for him here and now though.

[ijspeelman]

Vote: Kevin Garnett



I am using my argument from last time. I am busy today and tomorrow so I will try to add on below later.

Spoiler:

I feel like I have to explain a lot to have KG this high. I'll just start by saying I am not super confident about this pick. Wilt and Hakeem are right there. There's something in KG that is harder for me to see in those two and I think pushes him over.

I think Hakeem and Garnett are insanely good two way guys who combined generational defense with near-generational offense. Hakeem worked best as the “number one guy” and Garnett probably always needed to be a “number two guy”, but never got that opportunity with TWolves. Both of them are impeccable defenders. I think I like Garnett’s help defense a lot more.

Earlier, I said that I though Hakeem was a great "number one guy" and KG was a great "number two guy". I think this was disingenuous to say about KG, but I also think it is a positive that is hard to also give to Hakeem. Being a "number two" on offense is a frowned upon statement, but in reality its an incredibly hard thing to be on a championship roster. KG, I believe, had the opportunity to be a "number one" guy and win a title with the skills he had when he was on the Timberwolves, but the Timberwolves roster made it nearly impossible.

Code: Select all

Rk        Player Name             Exp Titles   Actual   Delta   Delta %
6     Wilt Chamberlain        3.04         2        -1.04   -34.3%
9     Hakeem Olajuwon         0.1          2        1.9     1868% 
11    Kevin Garnett           0.76         1        0.24    30.8%

I think there is a lot of nice data in f4p's post: Top 100 - Expected Titles (by SRS) vs Actual Titles (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2305821). I think a lot of it is very contextual so I want to do my best not to take everything at face value. I just stole the data for the three guys I feel like I have to compare KG with (sorry Shaq).

Between the three, KG lands in the middle in winning more than he should have with the teams he had. While, I still rate Celtics KG fairly highly (especially in the first two years), I do think this data makes his tenure on the Timberwolves not look as bad as it was.

In KG's 12 year tenure with Minnesota, his team only managed an SRS over 3 twice. Once he moved to Boston, his team did it four years straight and much above 3 twice. The question here is do you blame KG for these poor team results. In my mind, no.

Code: Select all

3 Year Period    Garnett RAPM        Duncan RAPM        Shaq RAPM
1996-99        3.219614579        3.504251073*        2.58431274
1999-02        2.93686363        3.450089552        2.774477798
2002-05        5.073348473        4.046588984        1.444972421


* Duncan was not in the league in 1996-97

If we are looking by RAPM in three year increments, Garnett is closer to Duncan than Shaq. He looks incredibly elite especially in the 2002-05 stretch. I don't think blaming Garnett for team failures is especially fair.

I spoke of Garnett's ability to be a "number two" guy and I believe he got to show it on the Celtics. While being the best player on the Celtics due to his dominant defense, he was able to play off Pierce due to his connective tissue passing and ability to space the floor with his jumper.

I like that as Garnett's offensive ability and explosiveness waivered with injury and age that his defense mostly stuck and became a high level all-star to sub all-star defensive big man later in his career.

RAPM Source:https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

I admittedly know very little about RAPM, but what I have learned about in these forum posts. I somewhat hate one number metrics in general, especially when compared directly to others because they do not paint the picture, but instead inform it.

Clips

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Nomination: Larry Bird



Its hard for me to see Magic in the nominations with no Bird. To me, their rankings go hand-in-hand. They are surprisingly similar players if we zoom out. Tall guys who are elite passers. Magic has a better finishing game/post-up game. Bird is the better shooter. Both are not great defensively, but I'd classify Bird as a "smart" defender, but he lacked the athletic juice to live up to that.

[OhayoKD]

Alright I guess we have something to work with here:

In this context, I’d say ceiling raising is about having all-time great teams and/or winning a few titles with a team in a short time period.

Cool. Lebron won 3-titles in a 5-year span. If we're honest and sticking to what is relevant to what you're pushing, Lebron's co-stars were available for 4 of those 5-years. Additionally, the health of the second best player was an obstacle that had to be dealt in all 5 of those years(though to a lesser extend in 2012). Lebron also won 4-titles in a 9-year span. Lebron had available co-stars for 6 of those 9-years. And those teams were generally worse without him(I assume we're done with "ball-dominance -> worse bench")

For purposes of a ranking like this, it matters exactly how good different titles teams were, both because a particularly great team is more historically notable and reflects better on its players, and because in an academic sense such a team was probably more likely to win (which matters for a kind of CORP analysis or a sort of luck/randomness-adjusted analysis of a player’s winning).

Well, for CORP purposes, It matters a lot more
A, How good they are with Lebron on the floor(ideally with his co-stars)
B. How good they are in the playoffs
so uh...

He has led six top 50 relative playoff teams (four titles plus 2009 and 2017), which is the same number as Jordan — and he had a better on-court and on/off rating than Jordan did across those respective six teams, despite false claims about his inability to lead teams to similar ceilings. He is tied for the third most conference finals (behind Kareem and Russell), and he is tied with Kareem for second most finals (with three of Kareem’s coming as a tertiary figure).

...yeah I think your hang-ups here are more aesthetic. Lebron has had less help(health and defense are big factors here) and has won a bunch. His teams are strong with him on the floor in the regular-season and then all-time in the playoffs. This distinction here isn't really warranted and we really need to stop trying to brand everyone into one or the other.
To quote a friend:

there are very few players who are pure ceiling or floor raisers. Most people here are too serious about it, but yeah, it specifically depends on the team setup. Curry is a much worse ceiling raiser on the Nash Suns than he is on the Durant Warriors. he's a good floor raiser too. it's not a separate skillset.

Lebron has posted great impact well into his 30's on a team that comfortably won a championship after a 60ish win regular-season. He has posted top-tier impact on a strong rs team that turned all-time in b2b playoffs. In what was supposed to be an off-year, he posted all-time rs impact on an all-time rs team at full-strength and had them at +10 when two of 3 co-stars went out. Lebron is a great floor-raiser and ceiling raiser. Disputing that because his team(largely as a product of what they did without him and his co-stars) does not win x amount of rs games is missing the point.

And, in a CORP-style analysis, I have more confidence in a guy’s value when he has shown he can fit well with lots of players and raise a team to historic heights where their chances of winning a title would be really high.

And that description does not fit Steph. Lebron has won and retained outstanding impact in a variety of settings. It's Lebron who destroys the curve on rosters without 3-point specialists or decent spacing(2006, 2020, 2023, ect)

WOWY takes rotations out of the equation and lets us see how the Spurs do with Manu out(they do fine).

The Spurs also did fine with Tim Duncan out. They were a really good team. Ginobili was objectively very high impact on the Spurs.

They lost their only game in the season in the question and Ginobli was objectively not high impact that season over a large-ass sample. I do not know why you keep shifting around. I made a specific claim.

I also do not know why you're bringing up Durant. I was and have been(and as fp4 has been) referring to 2016 where the Warriors obliterated a .500 team(+0.35 by rs) in the first round and then were potentially going to beat a 2nd one(+0.9 srs in the regular season). You might note those are full-games without Steph, not simply a smattering of minutes.

Huh? You suggested Draymond had “literally won playoffs series without” Curry. That’s when I brought up Kevin Durant. The Warriors did not literally win any playoff series without Curry in 2016.

My bad. They won a series where Steph played 38 minutes and they were +66 without him and then won 2 games of the next. Very clearly .500.

And yeah they were really really good with KD in the playoffs which makes throwing out without rs numbers where Durant was rather clearly sandbagging a bit misleading. If you want to point to those regular seasons, then we get to "wait, they regressed with durant?" and now we've arrived at the door of "curry can't fit with other offensive superstars!" or "Curry cannabalizes impact!".


As usual we apply different standards.

-> The basic tenet of team-sports is helping your team win. Trying to give Steph undue credits for what his teammates do because he isn't as good at helping his teams win is very much against the spirit of "team".

I just don’t think you understand the importance of playing in a way that allows others to optimize their value.

And I don't think you actually understand what "allows others to optimize their value" or even what the players here are doing:

2015-2017 Bron and Kyrie

Kyrie on, no Bron: -2.35 (108.8 ORtg, 111.2)
Bron on, no Kyrie: +10.01 (113.3 ORtg, 103.3 DRtg)
Bron+Kyrie: +10.39 (118.8 ORtg, 108.5) [better offense but worse defense— is that LeBron’s fault?]

Is LeBron playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from playing defense that hurts the Kyrie defensive lineups? How exactly is LeBron playing in a way that’s preventing Kyrie from adding impact? They are creating better offense (all time type) but worse defense. As far as the narrative of LeBron, controlling the ball or holding onto the ball, well, Kyrie dribbled the ball more and held the ball longer than LeBron did.

Regular Season seconds per touch, dribbles per touch

2015:
LeBron, 4.75, 3.62
Kyrie, 4.90, 4.68

2016:
LeBron, 4.11, 3.06
Kyrie, 4.99, 4.84

2017:
LeBron, 4.36, 3.26
Kyrie: 5.07, 4.87

By the way, the discrepancy was even more pronounced in the playoffs, the playoffs that produced two of the greatest postseason offenses in NBA history. Additionally, Kyrie spent more time with the ball in his hands per touch and also more dribbles per touch in Cleveland than he did in Boston and in Brooklyn. So, for all the talk of LeBron holding onto the ball or dribbling too much and not allowing Kyrie, or others to play, well that it doesn’t prove that.

Instead of constantly retreating to vague abstractions that [b]may apply to a player, why don't we actually analyze the basketball. Lebron is not especially ball-dominant among helios(the most successful offensive archetype in the history of the league). His value is not as tied to offense. Additionally, you cannot just put Steph alongside anyone. His "value" would likely plummet in a more isolation-heavy system. Even with Kevin Durant there were signs of diminishing returns. Steph being maximized requires a system, one that generally falters offensively in the playoffs(as similar offenses have). This whole "cieling-raiser" push is probably more accurate with Dray. Steph is not theoretically impervious here, nor does he have much proof of concept. "Port" is not simply a matter of shooting off curls.

Among other things, being the game’s greatest ever off-ball force massively enables teammates to use their great skills to their fullest.

Not necessarily, no. In fact, this actually came to a head with Durant in 2018 and 2019. That "greatest off-ball player ever" requires the right teammates to utilize. Guys with high IQ who are unselfish and willing to give up shots. Durant should have been a perfect fit given that his efficiency benefits greatly from having a limited role and his volume does not increase when he ramps up. Durant is a player that doesn't actually give up anything when playing next to scoring/creation hybrids because Durant is better when he is asked to do less with minimal trade-off the other way.

EDIT:

And no, Lebron did not cannibalize Kyrie's RAPM...

I notice that the screenshots provided conspicuously do not look at Kyrie’s three-year RAPM, despite Kyrie having been with LeBron for three years and the RAPM source in question having three-year RAPM data. Is this perhaps because the three-year data shows that in his three seasons with LeBron, Kyrie had a lower RAPM value (usually by a lot) and lower league ranking than he had in any three-year span since?

No, because that was what was on-hand. Though the same thing seems to hold true when we use JE's scaled set:

The above graph also jibes with the scouting report; as LeBron’s passing steadily improved and his shot selection grew more judicious, he synthesized with better talent, correlating with larger and larger scoreboard shifts after a nadir in 2012. This was a two-way street: As LeBron’s more efficient passing helped the talent around him — Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love posted career-best marks in scaled APM in 2017 — his improved 3-point shooting allowed him to finish more plays setup by his teammates. (Notice in the previous charts how LeBron’s efficiency improved alongside Irving.)

Luck-adjustment and Cheema seem to point to Kyrie's rapm peaking with Lebron

[/b]
Luck adjusted

+1.75, 2017, +2.29 ORAPM, -.54 DRAPM
+1.73, 2015, +2.07 ORAPM, -.34 DRAPM
+1.69, 2019, +1.35 ORAPM, +.34 DRAPM
+1.49, 2021, +1.79 ORAPM, -.3 DRAPM
+1.43



Cheema’s set has it at:

2017-2021: +2.52
2015-2019: +2.41
2014-2018: +2.07
2016-2020: +1.97
2013-2017: +1.23

[/quote]
Consider Kyrie had a down-rs in 2016 where he missed a massive chunk of the season and that he improved as a passer and a defender in Boston and I don't think this tells the story you want it to tell.

[eminence]

I do view Bird as a pretty dang good defender, obviously not a true big, and not in that very top class of forwards, but good enough I'd put him toe to toe with any guard.

[ty 4191]

...
Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

I think everyone knows it's both, the question is to what degree.

That's the question. How much of Rings and Finals appearances is attributable to teammates? It's not a rhetorical question, either, since people insist on using team success as their primary (or, sole) criteria for assessing and ranking players.

Also, I find it quite ironic that people laud someone like Kevin Garnett (endlessly) at Real GM for transcending generally awful teams early in his career, but Wilt gets zero credit for doing the same (and doing it even better, perhaps) 1960-1966.

It's also ironic that Jordan never gets labeled as a "black hole scorer" in the mid 1980's, when his teammates sucked, and he was- as a result- scoring 34-37 a game, per year (including the playoffs).

[lessthanjake]

Okay, I’m going to ignore most of this LeBron stuff, because this really isn’t about LeBron, and his obvious cannibalization of teammates’ impact was merely used as an example where impact of stars was not as additive as it was with Steph and Draymond. Given that’s it’s just an example of that and there are plenty of other examples*, the specifics of LeBron’s impact cannibalization don’t really matter, and I think it’s a real waste of time to keep arguing around and around about LeBron James in a thread he’s not directly relevant to. So I’ll respond below to stuff that actually directly relates to this thread:

And, in a CORP-style analysis, I have more confidence in a guy’s value when he has shown he can fit well with lots of players and raise a team to historic heights where their chances of winning a title would be really high.

And that description does not fit Steph. Lebron has won and retained outstanding impact in a variety of settings. It's Lebron who destroys the curve on rosters without 3-point specialists or decent spacing(2006, 2020, 2023, ect)

That description “does not fit Steph”? Huh? Steph absolutely fit great with other great players and absolutely raised a team to historic heights. We’re talking about a team that won at a 68-win, 10+ SRS pace in games Steph played over a 5-year span, and a team that at their very best is generally considered the best team ever. Being able to lift a team to that kind of level matters *a lot* in a CORP-style analysis.

WOWY takes rotations out of the equation and lets us see how the Spurs do with Manu out(they do fine).

The Spurs also did fine with Tim Duncan out. They were a really good team. Ginobili was objectively very high impact on the Spurs.

They lost their only game in the season in the question and Ginobli was objectively not high impact that season over a large-ass sample. I do not know why you keep shifting around. I made a specific claim.

Manu Ginobili was ranked 20th in the league that season in JE’s RAPM. Not to mention that David Robinson was ranked 8th. So maybe you should rethink the notion that “Ginobili was objectively not high impact that season.” And, of course, David Robinson was a high-impact guy still. It was the Spurs’ weakest supporting cast in the years they won a title because neither Manu nor Robinson were at their best, but Duncan did always have at least one really high-impact guy. For reference, again, in 2021-2022, Draymond was ranked 99th in the NBA in NBAshotcharts RAPM, so Steph obviously also could win a title when his highest-impact guy was not having a very impactful season. Indeed, given the above, there’s good reason to believe Draymond was less impactful that season than Ginobili and/or Robinson were in 2002-2003!

I also do not know why you're bringing up Durant. I was and have been(and as fp4 has been) referring to 2016 where the Warriors obliterated a .500 team(+0.35 by rs) in the first round and then were potentially going to beat a 2nd one(+0.9 srs in the regular season). You might note those are full-games without Steph, not simply a smattering of minutes.

Huh? You suggested Draymond had “literally won playoffs series without” Curry. That’s when I brought up Kevin Durant. The Warriors did not literally win any playoff series without Curry in 2016.

My bad. They won a series where Steph played 38 minutes and they were +66 without him and then won 2 games of the next. Very clearly .500.

And yeah they were really really good with KD in the playoffs which makes throwing out without rs numbers where Durant was rather clearly sandbagging a bit misleading. If you want to point to those regular seasons, then we get to "wait, they regressed with durant?" and now we've arrived at the door of "curry can't fit with other offensive superstars!" or "Curry cannabalizes impact!".

In 2016, all the Warriors did without Steph in the playoffs was win their home games and lose away games against mediocre teams. It doesn’t really show very much, especially as compared to the larger sample of Steph off games we have overall.

They were great in general with Durant. In 2016-2017 RS+Playoffs, the Warriors were +21.74 with Steph, Durant, Draymond, and Klay on the floor—an absolutely enormous number that is notably higher than what the team had done in 2015-2016 with Steph, Draymond, and Klay on the floor (+16.90). So they plainly showed that they could reach heights that no other team had reached—including even the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Warriors, who had reached very rarified air themselves. Steph leading a team to those sorts of heights is a huge positive on his NBA resume! It’s not something other teams have been able to do, even many extremely talented teams across the history of the NBA. And that’s reflective of those players not cannibalizing each other’s impact, and even somehow being able to add further impact even at a level of net rating when you’d think there’d have to be massive diminishing marginal returns. Mostly avoiding those diminishing marginal returns is what made them the best team ever, and that’s something that Steph (and the others too, to a lesser but still significant degree) should be celebrated for!

Additionally, you cannot just put Steph alongside anyone. His "value" would likely plummet in a more isolation-heavy system. Even with Kevin Durant there were signs of diminishing returns. Steph being maximized requires a system, one that generally falters offensively in the playoffs(as similar offenses have). This whole "cieling-raiser" push is probably more accurate with Dray. Steph is not theoretically impervious here, nor does he have much proof of concept. "Port" is not simply a matter of shooting off curls.

Yes, Steph being maximized does require a certain system, but it’s a pretty general system that is not difficult at all for players to fit into unless their basketball IQ is just very low (which would generally preclude them from being a great player). Indeed, the Warriors had the type of player one would otherwise think least suitable to that type of system—Durant, who is iso-heavy and not a great passer—and he still fit quite well. The fact is that if you don’t need the ball to maximize your impact, then the number of great players that will be able to maximize their impact alongside you will be dramatically increased. This should not be a controversial statement, as it’s just logically obvious.

Not necessarily, no. In fact, this actually came to a head with Durant in 2018 and 2019. That "greatest off-ball player ever" requires the right teammates to utilize. Guys with high IQ who are unselfish and willing to give up shots. Durant should have been a perfect fit given that his efficiency benefits greatly from having a limited role and his volume does not increase when he ramps up. Durant is a player that doesn't actually give up anything when playing next to scoring/creation hybrids because Durant is better when he is asked to do less with minimal trade-off the other way.

How did it “come to a head with Durant in 2018 and 2019”? Durant may have eventually been a bit unhappy personally and wanting a bit more iso-play, but the results on the court were incredible regardless, so I don’t see the point. The team still doing really well when it is having interpersonal strife actually makes Steph’s case stronger! As for needing guys with high basketball IQ, being able to play in a motion offense is not a very high basketball IQ bar. If someone doesn’t meet that bar, then they really just almost certainly are not a great player, in which case we don’t really need to care all that much about whether they’re being maximized. The Warriors have genuinely never had a solid basketball player on their team that didn’t work in that system, unless you’re going to want to argue that it’s super meaningful that Kelly Oubre was not able to be maximized around Steph

___________________

* For instance, to take other examples, in his last two years in Dallas, Jalen Brunson had a +7.1 effect on Dallas’s net rating in minutes Luka was off the court, but only a +0.74 effect on Dallas’s net rating in minutes Luka was on the court. Even filtering out “low leverage” minutes, it is still +5.53 with Luka off and +1.66 with Luka on. In Chris Paul’s two years in Houston, Chris Paul had a +17.99 effect on Houston’s net rating in minutes Harden was off the court, but only a +2.66 effect on Houston’s net rating in minutes Harden was on the court. If you filter out low leverage minutes, it is +11.27 with Harden off and +0.90 with Harden on. So there’s ample evidence for this impact cannibalization effect with heliocentric scorers, even beyond LeBron.

[trex_8063]

Well, I literally just noted 3 of the many series where Kobe was subpar. In response I'm presented with 3 bad KD series, and he's averaging more assists than Kobe in these bad series while scoring more on higher efficiency. But on page 3 I looked at their stats more generally, and Kobe has a mild assist advantage and is basically getting killed everywhere else. The mild assist advantage also comes from a guy with a higher usage rate, so we should frankly expect more assists to some degree.

Out of curiosity, are you just comparing per game numbers (and perhaps using TS%)? If so, using per 100 and/or rTS% is likely to give a more accurate comparison. Apologies if you're already doing that.

Are you considering turnovers in your assessment? It's often overlooked, and though I haven't looked, I'd wager Kobe will have a notable edge in that.

And finally, can you explain the bolded part above? I'm not following.

[eminence]

...
Or maybe, just maybe, it's not how great YOU are, but how great your teammates, coaches, management, ownership are?

I think everyone knows it's both, the question is to what degree.

That's the question. How much of Rings and Finals appearances is attributable to teammates? It's not a rhetorical question, either, since people insist on using team success as their primary or sole, criteria for assessing and ranking players.

Also, I find it quite ironic that people laud someone like Kevin Garnett (endlessly) at Real GM for transcending generally awful teams early in his career, but Wilt gets zero credit for doing the same (and doing it even better, perhaps) 1960-1966.

It's also ironic that Jordan never gets labeled as a "black hole scorer" in the mid 1980's, when his teammates sucked, and he was- as a result- scoring 34-37 a game, per year (including the playoffs).

I don't think most are all that harsh on Wilt's time with the Warriors. They disappointed a bit in '63 and '65 was off to a bad bad start, but I and I imagine others aren't overall down on that period of his career. Nobody expects him to have won a bunch from '60-'65 (I wouldn't really group '66 with the other years).

I am let down by the portion of his career where he is crucial in breaking up a great team in the Sixers and then forms a super team that doesn't perform all that super.

[iggymcfrack]

If Durant's toe isn't on a line in 2021, he would be getting discussed here. If he wins the title next year (very possible) he would be getting discussed here. Instead we are pretending KD belongs 10 spots lower, yet people are also busy nominating Kobe. I feel like I'm on crazy pills here.

On page 3 I went through the stat comparison between Kobe and KD. I have never seen a player who the stats are so overwhelmingly telling me should be ahead not get traction. Not only do the stats tell us KD is better, the eye test does too. KD is a 7 foot super freak who can physically do things Kobe never could. He showed he is a higher impact player too, he just didn't have the same favourable contexts as Kobe for most of his career. It's truly baffling to me that nobody else is discussing him.

If a GM told me in earnest that he would draft Kobe over KD I would fire him, because he's clearly not objective.

Neither one should be close to getting nominated yet honestly. 2014 is the only top 2 season between the two of them. Chris Paul was a contemporary of both and was better almost every year until recently. Jokic and Giannis each have 3 seasons better than any KD or Kobe year. David Robinson is elite and impactful on both ends whereas Kobe and KD really don’t impact the game much outside of their scoring. Malone and Stockton were impact gods and played for 20 years each.