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

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

iggymcfrack
RealGM
Posts: 12,008
And1: 9,461
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#161 » by iggymcfrack » Fri Jul 21, 2023 5:22 pm

ijspeelman wrote:Vote: Kevin Garnett

Image

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.

f4p wrote:

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


Nomination: Larry Bird

Image

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.


OK, but Magic is literally the best passer in the history of the NBA. He made difficult passes at rate that still hasn’t been matched more than 30 years since his first retirement. Bird was just a good passer who played on really good teams and usually didn’t shoot very well in the playoffs. I don’t see what’s so special about him that makes him any better than say Oscar other than fortunate team circumstances.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,934
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#162 » by OhayoKD » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:03 pm

One_and_Done wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:Wowy doesn't matter to me. As for SRS never getting higher that's called the law of diminishing returns.

So then what was this referencing?
One_and_Done wrote:Bird was regarded as the best player in the world in a league that included prime Jordan, Magic and Hakeem. Kobe was never the best player in the league. He is a long way from nomination for me. His extra longevity is irrelevant when you factor in the much higher peak of Bird. The lift Bird gives you, as demonstrated in 1980, is something well beyond what Kobe's impact can bring.

Kobe is an ancillary weapon you add to help get a great team over the top. Bird makes a team great, and lets you build a whole system around him.

"Diminishing returns".... so Bird can't scale well?

The law of diminishing returns applies to everyone. Let's say Shaq, Lebron, Curry and KG are all worth 25 wins each. They should therefore win 82 games together, but obviously they won't. That's due to a number of factors. Sometimes you're all just not feeling it on the same night, sometimes the other team gets hot, some games fatigue from back to backs affects you, or maybe the players weren't an optimal fit like Lebron & Wade.

Once you get to a certain level the return you get is reduced, especially in the regular season where teams only push so hard and are figuring stuff out. There were also other really great teams in the league in Bird's prime, and obviously that will affect your SRS too.

So if Shaq Lebron and KG join a team with Steph we should expect them to be worse than they were before they joined for the next several years?
User avatar
ijspeelman
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 2,726
And1: 1,231
Joined: Feb 17, 2022
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#163 » by ijspeelman » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:14 pm

iggymcfrack wrote:
ijspeelman wrote: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.


OK, but Magic is literally the best passer in the history of the NBA. He made difficult passes at rate that still hasn’t been matched more than 30 years since his first retirement. Bird was just a good passer who played on really good teams and usually didn’t shoot very well in the playoffs. I don’t see what’s so special about him that makes him any better than say Oscar other than fortunate team circumstances.


I think you are reeeeally undercrediting Larry Bird's passing ability.

I will just start by saying that if we are going to compare Magic's and Bird's offensive teammates, they are at the very least equal, if not favoring Magic. Both Magic and Bird led top 3 to top 5 offenses for a majority of their careers.

Image

Stealing this image directly from Ben Taylor, but it shows Magic's and Bird's combination of scoring efficiency and creation with that scoring. Keep in mind that Bird was not the lead ball handler, but compared to Magic did only average a little more than half his assists. A lot of Bird's assists were in the flow of the half-court offense.

Clips also stolen from Ben (because I haven't done my deep dive yet):


And it is true that Bird shot less efficiently than Magic, but Magic didn't shoot nearly as much (Bird shot 5.25 more shots per 75 possessions) and Bird still shot efficiently so he still added a lot of value to his offense just with scoring. But, Bird added a lot of value off the ball due to his movement and shooting.
User avatar
cupcakesnake
Senior Mod- WNBA
Senior Mod- WNBA
Posts: 15,739
And1: 32,361
Joined: Jul 21, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#164 » by cupcakesnake » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:14 pm

ijspeelman wrote: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.


I have a pretty significant gap between Bird and Magic, defensively.

Bird was a pretty bad man-to-man defender in a lot of situations and in some ways an archetypal tweener that was too slow on the perimeter and not big/long/athletic enough to guard in the post. I always assumed Bird was a decent positional post defender at least, but he gets pushed around pretty easily by guys like Laimbeer. But Bird was so great as a disruptor and help defender that I ultimately grade him out as being pretty good on that end. So many heads up plays, so much sneakiness, fantastic anticipation, and really great defensive hands. I think nowadays that we better know the value of off-ball vs. on-ball defense, Bird would be more celebrated defensively in some circles. He even managed to provide some rim protection by being a proactive backline rotator with some height.

Magic feels closer to a zero to me on defense. His size is his only plus. There's lots of good footage of him disrupting entry passes (while guarding the passer), and making himself an obstacle against ball movement. His best defensive attribute was playing the passing lanes, but watching his steals you see it's more his ability to surprise with his size rather than great anticipation. But he's at least as bad as Bird in man-to-man, and has almost none of the defensive awareness and motor that Bird had in spades. I think Magic's size keeps him away from being a liability or a big negative, but I'm always astounded how helpless, low effort, and low awareness he looks on defense considering he's one of the smartest offensive players ever.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."

Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,681
And1: 5,731
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#165 » by One_and_Done » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:15 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
One_and_Done wrote: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.

1) I am using per 100 already
2) As I have explained I don't think a flat adjustment for TS% is appropriate, so I don't use relative TS. It's punishing guys for playing in a more skilled league. Obvioisly some guys would shoot differently in some eras, and we should discuss that, but I'm not going to act like a meh shooter would be a sharpshooter today because he was the least bad in his day or vice versa. If you teleported certain role players back to 1957 they'd be TS% gods, but it wouldn't make them the GOAT efficiency king because those around them were bad.
3) Everyone seems 'so sure' Kobe has some kind of notable edge. I just glanced at TOs per 100, KD from 10-23 and Kobe from 00-10, and Kobe has a trivial 0.2 advantage. The stats, which I have another thread on now, do not bear out the myth Kobe was better.
4) If you handle the ball more, you should in theory generate more assists just as a function of passing it sometimes. In contrast a guy who rarely handles it would have fewer chances to get assists.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
User avatar
ijspeelman
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 2,726
And1: 1,231
Joined: Feb 17, 2022
Contact:
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#166 » by ijspeelman » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:17 pm

cupcakesnake wrote:
ijspeelman wrote: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.


I have a pretty significant gap between Bird and Magic, defensively.

Bird was a pretty bad man-to-man defender in a lot of situations and in some ways an archetypal tweener that was too slow on the perimeter and not big/long/athletic enough to guard in the post. I always assumed Bird was a decent positional post defender at least, but he gets pushed around pretty easily by guys like Laimbeer. But Bird was so great as a disruptor and help defender that I ultimately grade him out as being pretty good on that end. So many heads up plays, so much sneakiness, fantastic anticipation, and really great defensive hands. I think nowadays that we better know the value of off-ball vs. on-ball defense, Bird would be more celebrated defensively in some circles. He even managed to provide some rim protection by being a proactive backline rotator with some height.

Magic feels closer to a zero to me on defense. His size is his only plus. There's lots of good footage of him disrupting entry passes (while guarding the passer), and making himself an obstacle against ball movement. His best defensive attribute was playing the passing lanes, but watching his steals you see it's more his ability to surprise with his size rather than great anticipation. But he's at least as bad as Bird in man-to-man, and has almost none of the defensive awareness and motor that Bird had in spades. I think Magic's size keeps him away from being a liability or a big negative, but I'm always astounded how helpless, low effort, and low awareness he looks on defense considering he's one of the smartest offensive players ever.


Based on this I assume you have Bird's disruption having the edge on Magic? If so, you are where I am with both of these guys.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,745
And1: 22,675
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#167 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:19 pm

MyUniBroDavis wrote:I know Doc MJ is crying looking at what this project has become


Speak of the devil and he shall appear. :lol:

I'm going to take the opportunity to speak to the thesis and speak to everyone about things are going. May also repeat this post in the next thread.

#1 thing I want to be clear: I'm not disappointed in what I see in this project. The participation has been very high, and it's that energy that we need above all else to make this a worthy RealGM PC Board project - which imho is an order of magnitude more active in intellectual depth and debate compared to any other sports message board around.

This is not to say I don't have worries though. I've been in contact with a number of posters on PMs, sometimes several times. More than one I've told they are on thin ice now and that another strike could get them booted. And I worry that because no one's been booted so far they think these are toothless threats and I'll end up being forced to give people the boot who have brought a fantastic intensity to the project.

What I want to be clear to everyone is that I don't want to give ANYONE the boot and I actually have a particular aversion to giving the boot to folks bringing in so much energy...but I've done it in the past, and so I expect I'll have to do it in the future. What I most dread is a situation where a whole group of posters get so at each other's throats that I have to give them all the boot because I can't fairly just kick one person out.

It's worth noting in terms of mod'ing philosophy, the way to avoid this is a more clear cut strike policy where you make an example of someone early on. I've done this before - most dramatically during a stint where I was asked to take over the Laker board to clean it up, gosh, 15+ years ago, and I had many people banned from the site until that board calmed down - so I know how to do it, but what I see here are newer posters who haven't been in these projects before and have talent & passion, and what I want is for them to learn to play nice during heated debates so that they can be awesome posters in the years to come as the old guard gradually fades out.

However, I don't get to do this indefinitely. This isn't a personal blog project. This is the RealGM, and this is the PC Board, and it's never been a place where posters get infinite "warnings". Beyond a certain point if I don't take a more authoritative action, I'm making life hard for the other mods and admins, to say nothing of risking teaching the wrong lesson to those who feel like they keep getting hit by others' sharp elbows.

All this just to try to communicate where I'm at with my participants right now, and a reminder that if someone escalates with you, you need to alert the mods rather than respond tit-for-tat if you want to make sure you don't get the boot too.

Sincerely,
Doc
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
cupcakesnake
Senior Mod- WNBA
Senior Mod- WNBA
Posts: 15,739
And1: 32,361
Joined: Jul 21, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#168 » by cupcakesnake » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:20 pm

ijspeelman wrote:Based on this I assume you have Bird's disruption having the edge on Magic? If so, you are where I am with both of these guys.


I have Magic as "a little disruptive" and Bird as "a lot of disruptive". :lol:
I get pretty excited by a lot Bird's defensive footage, but then the defensive weaknesses are really pronounced sometimes. Magic has the same weaknesses as Bird without the same amount of strengths.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."

Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,500
And1: 10,001
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#169 » by penbeast0 » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:29 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:[b]...This is not to say I don't have worries though. I've been in contact with a number of posters on PMs, sometimes several times. More than one I've told they are on thin ice now and that another strike could get them booted. And I worry that because no one's been booted so far they think these are toothless threats and I'll end up being forced to give people the boot who have brought a fantastic intensity to the project....


Actually, and unfortunately, one participant has managed to get a 6 month suspension for his actions here combined with similar ones outside the project. My call in that case, not Doc's. And yes, it's a shame.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,500
And1: 10,001
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#170 » by penbeast0 » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:35 pm

cupcakesnake wrote:
ijspeelman wrote: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.


I have a pretty significant gap between Bird and Magic, defensively.

Bird was a pretty bad man-to-man defender in a lot of situations and in some ways an archetypal tweener that was too slow on the perimeter and not big/long/athletic enough to guard in the post. I always assumed Bird was a decent positional post defender at least, but he gets pushed around pretty easily by guys like Laimbeer. But Bird was so great as a disruptor and help defender that I ultimately grade him out as being pretty good on that end. So many heads up plays, so much sneakiness, fantastic anticipation, and really great defensive hands. I think nowadays that we better know the value of off-ball vs. on-ball defense, Bird would be more celebrated defensively in some circles. He even managed to provide some rim protection by being a proactive backline rotator with some height.....


Pre-injury, I'd agree. With the back injury, Bird's ability to cover anyone dropped badly. Barkley wasn't far off when he said that Bird's retiring removed the NBA's worst defender and left Barkley as the worst remaining. On either count.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,745
And1: 22,675
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#171 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:44 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:[b]...This is not to say I don't have worries though. I've been in contact with a number of posters on PMs, sometimes several times. More than one I've told they are on thin ice now and that another strike could get them booted. And I worry that because no one's been booted so far they think these are toothless threats and I'll end up being forced to give people the boot who have brought a fantastic intensity to the project....


Actually, and unfortunately, one participant has managed to get a 6 month suspension for his actions here combined with similar ones outside the project. My call in that case, not Doc's. And yes, it's a shame.


Ah yes, and yes, it's a shame, but I thank you beast. I'm so glad to have your expertise engaged here.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,485
And1: 3,115
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#172 » by lessthanjake » Fri Jul 21, 2023 6:53 pm

I’ve always thought that Bird’s playmaking was super valuable. It’s not Magic’s playmaking, of course, but he created a huge amount within the flow of the offense. I regard it as a really significant positive, perhaps even more valuable than the passing of some players who have gotten more assists, because of how it came about (very often an out-of-nowhere moment of genius after having barely had the ball). It’s actually the area of Bird’s game that I personally value the most, I think.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
User avatar
cupcakesnake
Senior Mod- WNBA
Senior Mod- WNBA
Posts: 15,739
And1: 32,361
Joined: Jul 21, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#173 » by cupcakesnake » Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:13 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
cupcakesnake wrote:
ijspeelman wrote: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.


I have a pretty significant gap between Bird and Magic, defensively.

Bird was a pretty bad man-to-man defender in a lot of situations and in some ways an archetypal tweener that was too slow on the perimeter and not big/long/athletic enough to guard in the post. I always assumed Bird was a decent positional post defender at least, but he gets pushed around pretty easily by guys like Laimbeer. But Bird was so great as a disruptor and help defender that I ultimately grade him out as being pretty good on that end. So many heads up plays, so much sneakiness, fantastic anticipation, and really great defensive hands. I think nowadays that we better know the value of off-ball vs. on-ball defense, Bird would be more celebrated defensively in some circles. He even managed to provide some rim protection by being a proactive backline rotator with some height.....


Pre-injury, I'd agree. With the back injury, Bird's ability to cover anyone dropped badly. Barkley wasn't far off when he said that Bird's retiring removed the NBA's worst defender and left Barkley as the worst remaining. On either count.


I'm never quite sure how to weigh post-injury Bird. He's out there doing an impression of his formal self. He's still providing offensive value with his shooting and playmaking, but he doesn't put the same pressure on the defense and his feet start getting heavier at some point. Having not experienced it in real time (I didn't start following the NBA until 1997 and didn't become a die-hard fan until 2000), I'm unclear about Bird's injury timeline. I know he hurt it in 1985, but managed the injury well enough until the 1988 playoffs. I'm only saying this because I can't point out exactly when Bird stopped being able to make certain plays on the defensive end.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."

Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,946
And1: 16,433
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#174 » by Dr Positivity » Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:17 pm

Vote

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Kevin Garnett

I value Shaq's peak a bit higher than KG to outright dominate like in those 3peat finals. Longevity is a bit better than Curry and Magic, and era also advantage over 80s guys like Magic. Compared to Wilt his game was more simple but in a way that made him more effective on the whole.

Nominate Bird
Liberate The Zoomers
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,745
And1: 22,675
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#175 » by Doctor MJ » Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:26 pm

Vote 1: Magic Johnson

Image

Magic re-vote details in spoilers:

Spoiler:
Original Nomination Post:

Speaking of Magic, he'll be my first Nominee. To tell a bit of my journey here:

When I started on RealGM, I had Magic higher than the Olajuwons/Shaqs/Duncan/KGs. Then I started focusing on two things:

1. Longevity - where Magic's HIV diagnosis forever damaged what he could achieve.

2. Impact - Shaq, Duncan & KG had such high impact, and impact on both sides of the ball, that it was hard to imagine that Magic was enough better to make up for longevity issues.

Also, related to impact, was me consider how lucky Magic was to arrive on the Lakers. Incredible team success to be sure, but to be expect to a degree with that talent around you, right?

On the longevity front, I've walked it back a bit. While I'm still fine using extended longevity as a tiebreaker, I'm generally more focused in what a player can do in 5-10 years, because for the most part that's when a franchise can expect to build a contender with you. And of course, Magic had that. In Magic's 12 years before the HIV retirement, the Lakers had an amount of success that's just plain staggering for any career.

12 years. 12 years 50+ wins. 32 playoff series wins.

For the record, if my count is correct, LeBron himself only has 12 50+ win years (though he does have 41 playoff series victories).

So yeah, Magic packed in so much success into his career, that it's hard to take seriously longevity as that big of concern to me. Tiebreaker at most really.

Of course he had help and I don't want to just elevate the guy because he had more help...but being the star and leader of the team having the most dominant decade run since Russell is not something to be brushed aside lightly. I think we need to be very careful about assuming other guys have a comparable realistic ceiling.

Going back to LeBron, I'll say that watching him through his career has also helped me gain more confidence in Magic's ability to find ways to control the game around him no matter the context or how his body changed. I think Magic had an extremely strong intuition about how to win the arm-wrestling contest of basketball, finding little affordances to gain leverage over time, and I think it's offensive geniuses who in general have this capacity in the modern (and even somewhat-near-modern game).

Actual voting post
Alright so I want to first vote the context within this project. This is the first time my prior vote for Nominee will immediately translate into my vote for Inductee, and it feels awkward, but I know it won't be the last time this happens.

Without further ado...

Bird and Magic, the Beautiful Rivalry

I can't help but think about Magic with the rivalry and comparison to Larry Bird in mind. Obviously we all know them to be an amazing rivalry that dominated a decade, and probably all of us are aware that it's with the two of them that the NBA regains its momentum, and this is a big deal for a lot of reasons but its bigness isn't that relevant to this particular project.

What's just amazing about this rivalry to me is that both players weren't just very, very good at basketball, but that both players feel so qualitatively distinct from the players that came before. Magic's the most obvious one here because while you can point to transition-offense legends and tall guards of the past, I'm sure no one looked at Magic and though "Hey, he should try to play a bit like Bob Cousy!".

I find Bird's uniqueness - at least such that I perceive it - to be the more profound. In Bird you have a player with off-the-charts level awareness and (while young) an incredibly high motor, and he begins positioned - literally and figuratively - where you'd expect for a guy with his size and touch given contemporary thought, and from there he just vibrates all around based on what his utterly-unique instincts told him to do.

Bird to me feels like something of a self-taught genius in the sense that he's so incredibly good at the things he applies his mind to do, and this is a weird thing to me because he's from Indiana, the land of high school basketball for more than half a century before then. You would hope that a player who came of age there with prodigious talent would come out of their pyramid highly optimized.

It's as if Bird's in-the-moment BBIQ was so overpowering that coaches really had no idea what they could do with it other than just let him keep doing his thing.

But while that led to a career that will places him very high on my list, there was a time where I actually had him higher than Magic, and times after that where I agonized between the two of them. At this point, I have to give Magic the nod by a good distance.

It wouldn't be so strange perhaps if I said this was because of Magic's longevity - though that in itself is debatable - but there's another thing on the forefront of my mind.

I think that fundamentally on offense, there's just a real cost to have an insane in-the-moment basketball intelligence not having the ball for any extended period of time. However valuable you are off-ball, you have less decision making power because the ball is the thing.

Magic's instinct to keep control of the ball and the offense in a way allowed him considerably more impact than Bird on offense, even though I think Bird's in-the-moment BBIQ was even higher than Magic's. It's possible Bird could have been even better than Magic at being Magic if that's what he were groomed to do. It's also possible that in an age with mature 3-point shooting Bird's gravitational value would significantly change the equation. But as things played out in our universe, to some degree it's like Bird brought a knife to a gun fight with Magic.

Now let me say: This isn't factoring in defense, where I'm considerably more impressed early on by Bird, nor is it me trying to say Magic reached the tippy top tear as quickly as Bird did, but just looking at ability for offensive impact, Magic's approach was the killer app.

Top 5 ALL 11 healthy years? Really?

This is a place where I completely understand if you think I'm too eager to give Magic such credit early on. He only makes Top 5 in the NBA MVP voting 9 times. Now, I'd note that it's still AMAZINGLY impressive that he proceeded to be in the Top 3 of the MVP race each of the 9 next seasons before his diagnosis - I don't believe any other player in NBA history can claim they have 9 in a row with the debatable caveat of Jordan depending whether you consider '93-94 & '94-95 as dealbreakers.

But yeah, I think he deserves an All-Season POY Top 5 nod in both '79-80 & '81-82 as well, and that's also what the consensus was during the RetroPOY project too. So while we can disagree, I feel pretty settled on him making my Top 5 for those seasons too.

And so yeah, that's all 11 of his healthy years, which puts him in very rare air.

You can bring up that he was in a fortuitous context, cool, and yeah it helped him win more, but lots of guys go into fortuitous contexts, and they don't bat a thousand at it like Magic did. Further, we should keep in mind that we wouldn't give Magic those nods simply for being on Kareem's team. Magic got the accolades he got because he was so good, he made Kareem into a sidekick.

Now, Kareem's already voted in and I wouldn't have it any other way. Obviously it's an older Kareem that we're talking about here...but while that's not fair apples-to-apples, it's worth pondering what it would have taken to do that to Jordan or LeBron at the same age. Even if you want to say Kareem was X% lower a summit to summit, it still speaks to how incredible Magic was.

Anyway, this gets back to the thing where I think Magic had more (or the same in Wilt's case) Top 5 level seasons than any of the other guy's remaining, and this makes it hard for me to knock him too hard for longevity.

What about Defense?

The question of whether guys like, say Hakeem/Duncan/KG, are overall better or more valuable than Magic is something I've chewed on a lot over the years. While Magic moved down my list below those guys in the past partially due to ideas of longevity, there was also that 2-way advantage in my head, as well as how great KG & Duncan's on/off looked.

I've come to the conclusion that in practice, the Lakers' ability to have a good-enough defense to win playoff series was quite robust. And while I've had questions about how well this could be achieved today in this era of spacing, not only is that technically irrelevant to the criteria I'm personally using at this time, I just witnessed arguably the closest thing to Magic play out in the 2023 playoffs with Jokic and the Nuggets, and it really seemed okay.

Magic looks great in the +/- stats we have, but the sample is very small. It's possible I'll see bad enough stuff in the future to lower my assessment of Magic, but I have to say that that unless it was something really dramatic, I don't know if I'd be swayed even if he looked a bit weaker than these other guys. As I've alluded to, Magic has such profound ability to apply control and add impact on offense, that I think it would make his teams a very hard out as a matter of course...kinda like LeBron.

A moment to mourn for what might have been

Not factoring into his placement here, but I think it's critical to just appreciate how this project would look if not for the HIV diagnosis, or a better understanding of HIV at the time. Magic at age 31 was showing no signs of slowing down. We know that incredible floor generals can thrive into a late age - demonstrated most crazily by what we might call the age-inverse of Magic in Steve Nash who only began his MVP-candidacy at age 30 - and we know that Magic 2.0, aka LeBron, has stayed amazing for an incredibly long time (not identical players, but more in common than most superstars to be sure).

It's quite plausible that Magic could have kept up his game without much fall off for another half decade, and that if he did, I wouldn't be talking about how no one's ever had more Top 5 seasons than Russell, because Magic could've been rocking 15 by then.

It's quite possible, in other words, that in another basketball universe, I'd have Magic as my GOAT.


Vote 2: Steph Curry

Yeah, Curry jumps in and immediately moves past the other non-Magical contenders for me.

My previous Nomination post is in spoiler below.

Spoiler:
Image

So, along with Magic, Curry is benefitting from my perspective shaped by how many Top 5 years he has achieved. For different reasons, Curry also is seeing as having weak longevity. Unlike Magic there's an aspect of this that's just utterly mundane:

In my experience with Career GOAT lists, our sense of a player's longevity tends to lag behind what it actually is while he is in prime. It's as if we don't actually look to quantify a player's longevity until it's basically over and done with.

I firmly believe this is something that has been hurting Curry in people's eyes at least in prior projects, and I'd advise folks to ruminate on whether it might be hurting him here.

As I've pointed out, in my estimation he's actually had a pretty long career as star player. Not enough that he should kill other candidates in play right now based on longevity, but enough that I don't think anyone should get an automatic longevity-win over Curry until they've really thought about it remembering it's 2023 now.

I chose an image for Curry emphasizing his shot, which is obviously his big weapon. He's the greatest shooter in basketball history, bar none, easy to see how that's helped him have a legendary career.

The most interesting thing to me about Curry's shot sequence is the fact that it's so clearly NOT about about having a form that helps him be the most accurate 3-point shooter in a vacuum. It's a form crafted to allow him to get his shot off so quickly that it's hard to block, even though Curry is a small guard by modern NBA standards. This isn't the first time a new standard has emerged that's about preventing blocked shots even if it means sacrificing accuracy - that's what the jump shot is after all, and that's what all manners of floaters are.

But the fact that I don't believe ever had a shooter be this impactful before in all the decades of basketball, and he's doing it with such a non-vacuum-optimal approach that adds to the degree of difficulty is breathtaking, as is the fact we are now more than a decade point the point where Curry became the clear-cut best shooter in history...and we haven't seen anyone from new draft classes to this point who seems like he's going to be even close. That could change in a hurry, but is hasn't yet, and to be honest, I'm surprised.

Just a bit of context here: I tend to mark the evolution of the game from a horrifically small sample size playing once or twice a year against teams at my high school. Feel free to chuckle at my expense here, but what I can't help but notice as a 6'9" man:

I used to block their shots like crazy and the games were close.
Now I basically don't block shots and the teams kill us, and it's not because I'm older and even more out-of-shape (ahem, though both things are true).
It's because they aren't even trying to attack the interior except in transition or rebounding situations where the defense (eh, me) isn't set.
And they haven't changed this out of strategy to beat me...that's just how they play now.
If you give them room to shoot a 3, they'll take it, and they all seem to have proficient form modeled after Curry.
They just plain torch us every time, boys or girls. They all shoot from range with a proficiency that us old guys just don't have.

I'll note that I don't teach at a school where students come for hopes of athletic scholarship. Rationally I know these kids aren't great within their own generations standards...yet they are considerably more effective than they were 5-10 years ago because of the way they shoot 3's. And this is why I think Curry is going to go down as one of the most influential players in NBA history.

But again, his influence is irrelevant here and it's not why I'm nominating him. I'm nominating him because that shooting - along with his roving off-ball play and the rest of his game to whatever amount its added to his success - has led him to achieve so, so much as the fulcrum of everything the great dynastic run of this era has implemented.

Okay, only other thing I really feel a need to touch upon here is my man KG:

Breaks my heart having him sink on my list if I'm honest. I desperately want others to be as in awe of what he was capable of as I am, and in another universe, he'd be higher on my list. To some degree I suppose, it's the fact that I'm irritated with what happened in my own universe that I feel such a need to champion a guy like KG.

I realized though as I was going through that last pass year-by-year and considering something like where he belonged in my DPOY ballot that I'd been tying myself in some logical knots putting him above a guy like Duncan. While I can intellectually justify why KG's team defenses weren't stronger based on things that were unfair to him about his context (teammates, scheme, etc), the reality is that in doing so I was effectively projecting what I "knew" about KG back into those earlier years when I did that rather than judging his achievement based on what actually happened - and that gets me back to the question I kept circling back to:

Do I want to do this project by imagining how things would go if...?, or, Do I want to talk about what guys actually did?

Based on the latter, KG just spent a good chunk of his career in a place where he didn't have the opportunity to define an epoch the way that Curry has. Not his fault - you might call that a minor basketball tragedy, but that's life. I can't normalize for opportunity and still talk about what actually happened, so I chose the latter.


Nominate: Larry Bird

Image

I'm nominating Larry Legend. You could argue that YouTube highlights are always more powerful for understanding than text can be, but I think Bird might be the strongest example of this. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about his unique genius, but we've all heard about BBIQ a million times, and Bird is just DIFFERENT. So two of my faves linked to below, and if you're on the fence about watching them or just reading me, just watch:





Bird might be the most distinct player in the NBA since Connie Hawkins. Had he grown up in an earlier era he'd have been groomed to be a passing pivot along the lines of how we see Bill Walton & Nikola Jokic. Had he grown up after Magic Johnson, it's entirely possible he'd be groomed to be something like a modern helio.

As it was though, he's just his own thing where his position/role is less important to understand about him than the fact that he was a master improviser to the degree to that "improviser" seems to light of a term because of the amount of motion in his improv. Where both passing pivots & helios are doing most of their improvisation when they have the ball and some outside player action makes them pounce, Bird with his off-ball play was often responding to where the ball was going to end up going. Sometimes this referred to a Rodman-like ability to predict where the rebound would be after the missed shot, but sometimes it felt more like he responding to where the ball WANTED to go, in the sense of a particle diffusing from a place of more pressure to less pressure.

That might just sound like another form of "spacing", but one of the things about it was that Bird wasn't just responding to the spacing in the moment, but what the spacing would eventually become as the offense (whether his team or the others) quested for the basket. If you're looking to see the ultimate in instinctive understanding of how basketball play unfolds, look to the Bird.

And of course, I've said absolutely nothing about his shooting ability, which was unparalleled in the game at the time. I for one find it crazy the way he won the original 3-point shootouts with performances that would have put him in serious contention all the way into the early 2010s. Given how much more practice competitors had at 3-point shooting in the 2000s compared to Bird in the '80s, this is really indicating that Bird had a profound aptitude for long-range shooting to go along with his anywhere-inside-the-arc capacity.

Of course, as I've said in my Magic voting logic, in the end, when focusing on what players achieved in their own era, I've ended up siding with Bird's rival over Bird pretty decisively. I absolutely get the concerns pertaining to his efficiency particularly early in his career. Didn't stop him from being incredibly valuable, but I do think it's a step down offensively compared to those who played in a role that I see as considerably more optimized. Bird would have been less unique if he played like Magic or Jokic - themselves to of the most unique players in history - but I think his ceiling for offensive impact would have been greater, and in the scope of this project for me, that is what it is.

But that doesn't mean Bird is tiers and tiers down from Magic. You're still talking about a guy who had arguably the most valuable rookie season in NBA history with a game that essentially patched the holes of his teammates and thus could be said to be about as portable as portable can be. Portability ain't everything, but it ain't nothing either.

Now, a significant part of how he achieved this early in his career before hitting his true offensive prime as the defense, and there I think it's hard to overstate how underrated Bird tends to get. He wasn't a man defender and he wasn't a defensive anchor, but the combination of extremely high motor with unmatched on-court intelligence going along with his power forward size was incredibly valuable. That would degrade considerably as he aged and injury took its toll, but just from a perspective of the whole package of what Bird was capable of, I remain awestruck by the man as one of the outlier-of-outlier talents of all time.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,614
And1: 32,127
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#176 » by tsherkin » Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:27 pm

iggymcfrack wrote:Bird was just a good passer who played on really good teams and usually didn’t shoot very well in the playoffs.


I can't express enough how inaccurate this assessment of Bird's passing is, and how it doesn't really pass any kind of proper examination. And while he definitely had some rough series across his postseason career, at his scoring peak (84-88), he shot 48.6% FG in the postseason after 51.2% in the regular season, scoring 26.3 ppg in the playoffs versus 27.3 ppg in the postseason. 58.8% TS in the RS, 57.5% TS in the playoffs. A pretty standard postseason drop for a main star, save for the very best. 1985, 1988? Rough, rough years for him, and corresponding to Laker titles, of course.

But yes, the passing. Goodness, no, that was horrifically inaccurate.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,934
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#177 » by OhayoKD » Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:49 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:Vote

1. Shaquille O'Neal
2. Kevin Garnett

I value Shaq's peak a bit higher than KG to outright dominate like in those 3peat finals. Longevity is a bit better than Curry and Magic, and era also advantage over 80s guys like Magic. Compared to Wilt his game was more simple but in a way that made him more effective on the whole.

Nominate Bird

Those finals weren't really the most important series of each playoffs though. If we are weighing performances where adversity was highest, Shaq should be judged for how he did against the Kings in 2002 and the Spurs in 2001
iggymcfrack
RealGM
Posts: 12,008
And1: 9,461
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#178 » by iggymcfrack » Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:17 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Also, related to impact, was me consider how lucky Magic was to arrive on the Lakers. Incredible team success to be sure, but to be expect to a degree with that talent around you, right?

On the longevity front, I've walked it back a bit. While I'm still fine using extended longevity as a tiebreaker, I'm generally more focused in what a player can do in 5-10 years, because for the most part that's when a franchise can expect to build a contender with you. And of course, Magic had that. In Magic's 12 years before the HIV retirement, the Lakers had an amount of success that's just plain staggering for any career.

12 years. 12 years 50+ wins. 32 playoff series wins.

For the record, if my count is correct, LeBron himself only has 12 50+ win years (though he does have 41 playoff series victories).

So yeah, Magic packed in so much success into his career, that it's hard to take seriously longevity as that big of concern to me. Tiebreaker at most really.

Of course he had help and I don't want to just elevate the guy because he had more help...but being the star and leader of the team having the most dominant decade run since Russell is not something to be brushed aside lightly. I think we need to be very careful about assuming other guys have a comparable realistic ceiling.


Was reading your voting post on Magic and I was struck by how cleanly he compares to another Laker legend that we're currently voting on in Shaquille O'Neal. From 1994-2006, Shaq went 13 years in a row leading his team to 50+ wins and he also won exactly 32 playoff series! Interestingly, 31 of those 32 playoff series wins came within the 12 year span from 1995-2006 which would lead credence to your point that players usually get most of their value within that size of window.

Magic's always a tricky one for me to evaluate. On the one hand, his passing is so incredibly valuable beyond anyone else who's played that it would be believable for his impact to be absolutely off the charts beyond what we'd even imagine, but then on the other hand he's also easily the worst defender in the top 30 which again is very difficult to weigh. Was it just a minor thing where he was maybe half a point worse a game than an average point guard or was he actually dragging them down on that end?

It would be interesting to see some in-depth WOWY analysis of what the Lakers actual DRtg was in games he did and didn't play. He did miss half the season in '81, 15 games in '84, and 10 games in both '86 and '88. Seems like there could be fertile ground there. Just looking at when he joined and left the team, the Lakers defense did get (slightly) better when he joined the team and worse when he left although Perkins and Worthy missed a lot of games in '92 which could also be a factor.

I feel like he's probably a little underrated on my list, but I just come to a quandary with him and Chris Paul. If Chris Paul's a similar scorer, has a higher AST%, and has a much lower turnover percentage, they have to be at least comparable on offense right? Yeah, I get it, Magic found his guys higher percentage looks making more difficult passes, but is that enough for there to be a chasm between them offensively when Paul otherwise has the edge? It has to be close, right? And on defense, they're just not close. Magic's the worst defender in the top 30, CP3's probably the 3rd or 4th best defensive PG of all-time. He was checking KD in 2018 and actually doing a really good job on him. Even with a foot height advantage, KD struggled to get his shot off because CP3 would just strip him on the way up. So if they're similar offensive players, CP3's a much better defender, and CP3 has better longevity, he has to be ahead of him, right?

So either Chris Paul has to be a top 10 player or Magic has to be outside the top 10. I'm still on the second one for now. Yeah, Magic won an incredible amount and he was very valuable, but there's kind of this nagging voice in my head that wonders, is the reason that Magic was so much more impactful and won more just because no one else was doing that in the '80s? Like does Chris Paul provide 99% of the same value offensively in a vacuum and it just doesn't stand out as much now because so many other teams also have great passers that make lots of aggressive advanced passes? I feel this even more with Bird as Magic at least stands out in a highlight reel and makes the whole offense go getting everyone out in transition and stuff whereas watching Bird highlights just makes me think "he's just making a bunch of easy passes that everyone makes now. Why is this special?"
iggymcfrack
RealGM
Posts: 12,008
And1: 9,461
Joined: Sep 26, 2017

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#179 » by iggymcfrack » Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:26 pm

tsherkin wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:Bird was just a good passer who played on really good teams and usually didn’t shoot very well in the playoffs.


I can't express enough how inaccurate this assessment of Bird's passing is, and how it doesn't really pass any kind of proper examination. And while he definitely had some rough series across his postseason career, at his scoring peak (84-88), he shot 48.6% FG in the postseason after 51.2% in the regular season, scoring 26.3 ppg in the playoffs versus 27.3 ppg in the postseason. 58.8% TS in the RS, 57.5% TS in the playoffs. A pretty standard postseason drop for a main star, save for the very best. 1985, 1988? Rough, rough years for him, and corresponding to Laker titles, of course.

But yes, the passing. Goodness, no, that was horrifically inaccurate.


I didn't start watching basketball until 1994 so I didn't see Bird play live, but I really, really don't understand what's special about his passing at all. I don't get it. He averaged just over 6 assists a game in a very high pace league and from watching his highlight reels it seems like he never made a difficult pass in his life. Every single "highlight" is just a basic obvious pass to a guy 3 feet away that it seems like any high schooler would find. What makes him any better of a passer than say Jimmy Butler? I really don't understand.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,614
And1: 32,127
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#180 » by tsherkin » Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:32 pm

iggymcfrack wrote:I didn't start watching basketball until 1994 so I didn't see Bird play live, but I really, really don't understand what's special about his passing at all. I don't get it. He averaged just over 6 assists a game in a very high pace league and from watching his highlight reels it seems like he never made a difficult pass in his life. Every single "highlight" is just a basic obvious pass to a guy 3 feet away that it seems like any high schooler would find. What makes him any better of a passer than say Jimmy Butler? I really don't understand.




Start with that.

Timing, accuracy. His touch passing, when he only has the ball for a fraction of a second and one-hands it to someone. No-lookers, the whole range of things which might impress someone with his positional awareness and technical passing acumen. Watch more Bird and pay specific attention to his passing. I don't want to be rude, your question is fair, especially for someone who never saw him live. But there are plenty of highlights which illustrate why the fanfare exists.

Return to Player Comparisons