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

[One_and_Done]

Watch some Bird passing highlights. Dude ia always in control and making passes in impossible timeframes. Ben Taylor's peak video has a few, but there are better videos out there.

[iggymcfrack]

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.

Watch on YouTube

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.

Ok, well that's a 10x better highlight reel of Bird passes than whatever I watched before. I didn't know he had that full-court home run ball in his game. That's badass. Maybe I just saw **** highlight reels before, LOL.

[tsherkin]

Ok, well that's a 10x better highlight reel of Bird passes than whatever I watched before. I didn't know he had that full-court home run ball in his game. That's badass. Maybe I just saw **** highlight reels before, LOL.

That's why I was boggling; it was just so hard to imagine seeing Larry highlights and not recognizing his passing greatness. Sorry if it came off as rude.

But yeah, this is more like the Larry highlights people are thinking of when they are discussing his passing.

[Dooley]

VOTE:
1) Shaquille O'Neal
2) Steph Curry

Two incredibly potent offensive centerpieces, albeit ones who did it in very different ways. For both of them, it's the combination of scoring and game-bending offensive gravity that leads me to vote for them, the extent to which they forced defenses to completely alter their whole gameplan while also being capable of putting points on the board to a large extent single-handedly. I think that offensive impact ultimately outweighs the two-way game of other players on the board.

For Shaq, it's first of all his physical explosiveness and dominance and the amount of defensive attention he took up that stand out. Any time down the court for a Shaq team, the number one focus and consideration had to be asking what Shaq was doing. And even with all that attention, Shaq was incredibly hard to stop. I think Shaq's ability to draw fouls was also incredibly valuable, although obviously that was somewhat diminished by his free-throw shooting. And his track record as a playoff contributor, including obviously a really dominant run in LA and some great play in Orlando and Miami, is there to be seen. I did ultimately decide that the Miami years, on the whole, are valuable enough to give him the edge compared to Steph, although I think it's very close.

For Steph, it's obviously the combination of shooting and scoring. Steph has some of the absolute best regular-season performances ever *and* he's the best shooter of all time *and* he's led playoff dynasties *and* he's led great playoff teams that didn't have dynasty-level talent around him. The gravity of his shooting and the cumulative impact of his off-ball movement and offensive attack completely bends the defense over the course of a game. I think when you look at what the Warriors have done, year in and year out, with a healthy Steph, it's incredibly impressive. And I also count his 2022 title run really highly, because I do not think that was an especially strong Warriors team and it really was Steph who drove them to victory that year.

[penbeast0]

Bird is the best I've ever seen at the short interior pass; he and Walton were sick with it. Sticking with Mikan for the discussion value, but Bird's passing was at times just amazing.

[iggymcfrack]

Ok, well that's a 10x better highlight reel of Bird passes than whatever I watched before. I didn't know he had that full-court home run ball in his game. That's badass. Maybe I just saw **** highlight reels before, LOL.

That's why I was boggling; it was just so hard to imagine seeing Larry highlights and not recognizing his passing greatness. Sorry if it came off as rude.

But yeah, this is more like the Larry highlights people are thinking of when they are discussing his passing.

No you didn’t come off rude at all. Thanks for finding such a good showcase for me.

[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.

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.

1) Good.

2) Hmm, agree to disagree. Most of the difference in league avg TS% between today and the early 00's is not talent: it's changes in officiating [e.g. defensive 3-second being implemented in I believe 2002, iirc, changes to hand-check rule in 2004, iirc, etc], improvements in offensive scheming/coaching (and general trends away from hero-ball, which was predominant in the early 00s), and improved shot selection (which, to a degree, came as a direct result of the databall era). That and Steph Curry "breaking the game", bringing the world to realize that 3pters were STILL being underutilized even as recently as 2015(ish).

As consequence, I think rTS% gives far better representation when comparing this era to, well.......just about any other.


3) Kobe takes a few more shots to get the same number of points, due to the lesser shooting efficiency that you've emphasized. But those ARE possessions he's getting a shot off (which always have the potential of going in [even if that potential is less than Durant's], OR of being rebounded by his own team)........thus just getting the shot away is a far better result than a turnover.

This principle is illustrated as a more evidentiary difference if looking at percentages. For example (while I dislike TOV%), one could note that Durant's career TOV% is 12.6% (his single-best year was 10.4%). Kobe's career avg was 11.6% (career-best 9.0%).

fwiw, using my own [imo, superior] Modified TOV%, Durant's is a 8.90% for his career so far; Kobe's is 8.09%.
These aren't massive differences, but they're slightly bigger than the 0.2/100 indicates.


4) I'm still not following. If you're referring to the "usage" that is listed on bbref (which, if you're NOT, you should probably make that explicitly clear with each and every use of the term), that figure has NO direct relationship whatsoever with how much time a player spends handling the ball (i.e. his "ball-dominance").

[OhayoKD]

This will be my voting post(will edit votes in later)

(subject to change)
1. Wilt
2. Magic

Alright. I think I'm going to be zeroing in on two of Magic, Wilt, or Garnett as my votes.

While I'm not yet decided on how to proceed(I'll probably just give the alternate to whoever has a better chance of winning), I feel I should make the case for Magic and Wilt. I've sort of made a case for KG(and will summarize right before my nomination explanation, but this post will center on Magic and Wilt.

From what I can tell the other major candidates are Steph and Shaq. I think Magic's argument is kind of a better version of Steph's and Wilt is a better version of shaq's so I'll compare the candidates accordingly. Note, while I am sympathetic and am considering an "impact averaged over time" approach, everything below will be simply era-relative and will specifically focus on value to championship-winning(CORP kinda). With that in mind let's start with

Magic vs Steph

I'll start this off with some excerpts from the skillset analysis me and blackmill did(and I presented chunks of for the Kareem thread). Some of you may have see this before, but for posterity...

"Making teammates better" Tiers

Spoiler:

This is an interesting way to break things down though I think we can add some levels here(this is somewhat tangential to this discussion but may as well)


Also think we can add "play-calling"/"running the offense" to shift "Playmaking" to "making teammates better".

I think the bottom-level is when your play-making/ball-handling is an active detriment to your ability to generate scoring oppurtunities for yourself(at the high-end of this is Durant, low-end of this might be Davis).

I think a tier up we get players who aren't really able to create a bunch but have suffecient skill here that they are not that dependent on teammates to generate scoring oppurtunities for themselves(Kawhi)

Tier two we get players who, with the right pieces, can leverage their scoring gravity towards creating for others(Kareem as you allude to may be the best of this archtype since he really just needs "functional" help here)

Tier three guys are players who can function as primary ball-handlers and therefore automatically will generate for their teammates offensively(At the high end you have Jordan/Curry, lower end you get someone like Giannis)

And then I think Tier four are guys who not only generate oppurtunities with their gravity but effectively leaverage their teammates and their own abilities to not only generate potential oppurtunities, but then select/generate the best possible ones(low-end might be CP3, mid might be lebron/jokic, highest end might be magic/nash).

In this framework, Magic grades a tier higher than Steph based on two alleged advantages;
-> The ability to leverage/organize his teammates as a floor-general
-> The efficiency of his creation

I don't think most readers here will contest the first one as being true. But the second might sound a bit wonky. So let's elaborate a little:

Spoiler:

There is a bit of a fallacy I think where people look at raw assist totals, raw creation counts, or box-oc and pretend volume is everything. But it's not just about what you create. It's also about the quality of what you're creating AND how much you're leaving on the table with suboptimal decisions. Players on this tier have better discernable offensive "lift" than players the tier below, and often this is blamed entirely or pre-dominantly on "this is just because of who their teammates are", but I actually think the real source of this offensive advantage is the "quality" of what they're creating(and some of the backseat coaching stuff has an off-court effect that can't be tracked via impact stuff)

We'll get to "discernible left" after but let's start with some granular analysis. First up, Jordan:

Much like we look at scoring volume(creation) and efficiency(passer-rating), I would like you to look at both when interpreting these screencaps. His passer-rating peaks at 8.0 in 88 and 95 but his creation is substantially lower. His volume peaks at 16 in 1989 but his passer-rating falls. And then in the subsequent years(largely considered his "best"), his volume and efficiency falls.

We see a bit of an upgrade with Steph:

From 14-16 he puts up volume on par with Jordan's best marks alongside efficiency on par with Jordan's best marks peaking a teensy bit higher in both and putting the two together at the same time. Curiously those numbers decline when KD comes(that may be regular-season specific though).

And then we get to Lebron, one of the best creators ever:

Notably his raw voume is not stand-out. Peaking at 16.2 it's barely ahead of Jordan's 89 and a bit behind two Steph marks. But efficiency is a different matter. Jordan is simply not competitive here. Steph competes from 14 to 16 but he's at a significant disadvantage generally and has no answer for Lebron's 2010.

Enter Johnson:

Jordan may not be competitive with Lebron, but Lebron is even less competitive with Magic. Magic completely breaks the chart in terms of volume and efficiency, again and again. He has three seasons where he creates more than any of the years we've looked at and all three are more efficient than any of the seasons we've looked at.

But does any of this matter? Well...

Proof of Concept:

Spoiler:

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Incidentally they don't seem to have the same level of offensive lift in the absence of a specific structure where those decisions are delegated to someone else:

In Year Two of the prime Nash-Nowitzki show, Dallas ascended to a dynastic level on offense. The Mavs finished with the sixth-best rORtg in league history (+7.7), followed by the 16th-best in ’03 (+7.1) and then in ’04 became the only offense in NBA history 9 points better than league average for a full season (+9.2).

Regardless, using your "full-strength" derivation, I'm not sure, it, as you say, "has a meaning", considering that still puts 21/22 and 23/24 year-old MJ led-offense significantly behind what Lebron led at 20/21(2006, 35 game sample, Bron has a birthday, Ben decides to say Lebron is 19 in 05, BBR says he's 20 ). And here, I'll admit, I did lie. Checking Ben's write-up, that full-strength offense wasn't +5, it was +6.6, coming off a +2.3 offense(2005, 70 game sample) with 19/20 year old Lebron, and a +4.9 jump(+6 overall!) with Lebron at 18/19. Was that all Lebron? No. But even with a generous adjustment(take Boozer's 31-game without sample from the season after and pretend he wasn't on the 03 Cavs), we're around +2(+4 overall) with teenage Bron.Worth considering this all happened in the absence of 3-point specialists

By comparison, the best pre-triangle Jordan stretch(with Jordan arguably at his peak) sees a 52(Ben) or 53-win(E-balla) team over a 30-game sample going at +4.4 offensively(you can reach a +4.6 if you swap minuite distributions for the 5th and 7th mpg guys for 20 games and ignore the team didn't actually improve), Curry wasn't close to leading all-time offenses(and had worse metrics than both westbrook and durant) with Draymond on the bench.

The only example of a non-controlling delegator making all the decisions I can think of rn is Bird(Jokic may be the highest form of this but I'm going to wait till he has a strong playoff sample) but his offenses didn't even outpace Reggie's pacers in the postseason, never mind Magic's lakers:

So in his whole prime his team underperformed offensively just twice despite 14 of his 22 series being against top 5 defenses. On average in the regular season his teams' offenses played at a +2.5 level. In the playoffs they played at a +6.4 level. Remove series against teams that weren't top 5 defenses and they performed at a +6.3 level (he averaged 23.0/3.1/2.6 on 60.2 TS% with a 120 ORTG). Reggie Miller's offensive postseason results are insane and paint him as being extremely impactful.

FWIW, against the Pistons, the best defense of the 80's, Magic's Lakers dropped off the least, the Bulls in the triangle held up the second best, and it was bird's celtics, by far, that struggled the most.

Magic leads better offenses than Steph. Players similar to Magic tend to lead better offenses than players similar steph. Magic has proven himself without his best co-star, and players like Magic have shown proof of concept outside of optimal-situations while Steph and players like Steph seem to struggle generating great results until they find the right situation.

Finally, I'd like to bring up a point about Steph...and the potential ceiling of his brand of offense:

Spoiler:

The Warriors had a problem.

No, not the ones in Mongolia.

The ones in Golden State.

They were really, really good. Like, really good. In 2015 they brought in new coach Steve Kerr, ripped through the league and won a championship. In 2016 they broke the regular season wins record (set by the ‘96 Bulls) and made it through a Western Conference gauntlet unlike anything seen since 1972. But in the Finals they fell in seven games to LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.

The problem was that the Warriors weren’t likely to get better. They had fielded two of the best regular seasons ever (and 2016 has an argument for being #1, though not a strong one). But the team’s offense, a high-octane engine of ball-movement and swished threes, slowed in the playoffs both years. In 2015 it had been enough (when Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving had been injured). In 2016 it had not been. It wasn’t clear if the Warriors’ title window was closing or not. How could such great regular season offenses struggle in the playoffs?

Let’s talk about passing. Or more specifically, about assist-dependency. By which I mean, teams where a disproportionate amount of their made shots were assisted.

You may be picturing the Steve Nash Suns or the Showtime Lakers here. But neither franchise shows up particularly high in this metric. The teams that show up super-high (+7.0% above league average is what I checked) tend to be dependent on an extremely specific kind of ball-movement. And, since ‘1991, teams that show up high in this metric and show strong offenses in the regular season (+3 or better) see their offenses regress pretty hard in the playoffs. I found fifteen teams between ‘91 and ‘16 that met those criteria (AST/FGM at 7% above league average or higher, Offense at +3 or higher, and at least two playoff series):

The 1993 Cavs. They showed a +4.7 offense in the regular season, but dropped by 5 points in the playoffs (adjusted for opposition)

The Utah Jazz (‘96 - ‘00): They led the league in Assist Dependency each year until 2000. They averaged a +5.42 regular season offense but saw their offense drop by an average of 2.94 points in the playoffs (in ‘96 and ‘97 their offense held up fine, the decline was ‘98-00).

The 2004 Sacramento Kings led the league and had an insane +7.4 Offensive Rating in the regular season, but it plummeted in the playoffs, dropping by 9.5 points.

The 2006 Detroit Pistons were 2nd, had a +4.6 Offensive Rating in the regular season but saw it drop by 2.4 points in the playoffs.

The Utah Jazz (‘07, ‘08 and ‘10) were second two years and first in the other, averaged about a +4.3 in the regular season. Unlike others in this group the Jazz got *better* in the playoffs each year, on average by about 2 points.

The 2015 Atlanta Hawks led the league in Assist/FGM and posted a strong regular season offensive rating of +3.3. But in the playoffs they struggled, dropping by 5.4 points per 100.

The 2015 and 2016 Golden State Warriors were 2nd and 1st in AST/FGM and posted outstanding regular season offenses (+6.0 and +8.1) but saw them drop off both years, but 1.9 and 3.9 points respectively.

So.

I’ll be the first to admit that a fifteen-team sample size (ultimately dependent on a two-series playoff sample) is *not* a reasonable basis for a conclusion. The Deron Williams Jazz were very assist-dependent and their offenses held up reasonably well in the playoffs. And if I were actually trying to make a substantive argument about this I’d be charting all kinds of offenses and how they fared. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting pattern.

But either way, it’s notable that the Warriors super-charged their offense in 2015 by adding tons of ball-movement in the regular season, but in both postseasons they saw their offense take a step back. Everyone had an intuitive sense that the ‘15 Hawks (for example) wouldn’t be able to succeed in the playoffs with no star and lots of passing, but surely nobody had such a sense about the Warriors. And why should they have? Stephen Curry in those two years was about as good as any regular season player has ever been on offense.

But they did. Here are their average Regular Season -> Postseason differences in Usage and shooting (adjusted for opposition):

Stephen Curry: +0.8% / -4.5%
Klay Thompson: -1.3% / -2.0%
Harrison Barnes: -0.4% / -6.6%
Draymond Green: +1.1% / -2.7%
Andrew Bogut: +2.9% / -2.4%

Curry added volume but saw his efficiency drop hard, Klay dropped in both (which is no bueno), Barnes’ efficiency imploded, Draymond increased efficiency slightly but saw his efficiency take a hit . . . Bogut is the only player whose scoring contribution seemed to even out in the postseason.

I’ll happily admit that playing Cleveland hurts these ratings slightly (because these are based on Cleveland’s regular season defense) and that Curry’s injury in 2016 doesn’t help his numbers.

Still.

While the Cavs’ offense was a very good regular season offense that got historically great in the playoffs, the Warriors’ offense was an outstanding regular season offense that dropped to only very good in the playoffs.

This wasn’t a deal-breaker.

Both versions of the Warriors’ defense got better in the postseason (by 3.3 in 2015 and 1.9 in 2016) which basically meant that the Warriors in the playoffs were loosely as good as they’d been in the regular season, but trading some offense for defense. And that team, even with a fairly non-resilient playoff offense, played the LeBron Cavs to a draw (given that 2016 was crazy even and 2015 had the Cavs wrecked by injuries).

So the Warriors of 2015 and 2016 were great. But they weren’t as great as they needed to be to reliably win titles in the 2010s. The Warriors of both years were historically great regular season teams, and that they didn’t get a ton better in the postseason wasn’t an obvious problem (the ‘92, ‘93 and ‘97 Bulls all saw postseasons close to their regular season level of performance). But what for the Bulls was enough for three title wins (one pretty easy, two tight) was for the Warriors one six-game win over a crippled team and one heartbreaking loss. In the regular season? The Warriors were clearly better than LeBron and the Cavs. In the playoffs? It wasn’t clear at all.

The Warriors, however great, clearly had a ceiling of what they were capable of. And they wanted greater. Fortune, and enterprise would make this possible.

Somehow, someway, even with Kevin Durant, the Warriors still were not the best offense ever, even in the playoffs.

Does all that prove Magic is better? No. But I do think it makes Magic's superiority more likely than Steph's barring a strong counter-case. And with that in mind...

Vote for #7: Stephen Curry
Alternate Vote: Shaquille O’Neal
Nomination: Larry Bird

On Steph, I’ve made a very long post in the last thread while nominating him, which I think encompasses my views on him: viewtopic.php?p=107697936#p107697936. Basically, I’m incredibly impressed by Steph’s combination of (1) raising a team to best-team-ever status, and more generally winning at a 68-win pace and 10+ SRS over 5 years, (2) winning a title with a fairly subpar supporting cast (by title-winning standards), all while (3) having incredible impact numbers along the way, and (4) being the undisputed greatest ever at the game’s most fundamental skill.

In terms of nomination, I’m tentatively saying Larry Bird. However, I am genuinely torn between Bird and Kobe, and am hoping to see arguments on both sides on that. Am definitely open to changing my vote.

So let's break this down a bit:

(1) lift a team to best ever status? No Magic did not do that. And neither did Steph. That was Durant. And of course they didn't really play "best ever" basketball the next two years despite having not one, not two, but three superstars complimented by strong role players like Klay and Iggy. Fit was excellent, talent was wild, yet somehow, derived of just iggy, that Warriors team was played to a dead-heat by the Rockets when we account for garbage time(thanks fp4!) per m.o.v and was losing 3-2 before Houston lost their 2nd best player.

In 2019 they had iggy and found themselves in a dead-heat with a significantly weaker version of that same team from Houston through 4-games and most of game 5. They go off without Durant to win game 5 and 6 but even with KD they looked very mortal. And it does raise some questions about this great "ceiling-raising" as it was Steph's poor play as KD went off that was sinking them through the first 4 games. Just like it was Steph's poor play that helped put them down to a less talented side in 2018.

(2) If the 2022 Warriors were subpar, the 1988 Lakers were arguably more so. Both had injury-ridden off samples(this was a bigger factor with the Warriors), but the 88 Lakers in 10 games without Magic were roughly -4 while the Warriors over 18 games were roughly -2. Moreover in the playoffs while Draymond elevated and as defense led the Warriors to another championship. Perhaps more notably, when Kareem departed, Magic would reach 2 of the next 3 finals with injury nixing both his campaigns at the final hurdle. Meanwhile Steph, a year removed and a few depth pieces short, barely made the postseason and then lost decisively to a Lakers side whose 2nd best player(probably best in the regular season), now on as much milage as cp3 and steph combined, was playing on a torn tendon. And it's not really clear Steph was better.

(3) Incredible Impact? Sure. But many of his contemporaries have strong cases in the period that was supposed to be his. Harden, Giannis, and Jokic have cases depending on your lense(Jokic in paticular). And of course there is the matter of 30+ Lebron, where there is plenty to suggest he was more valuable over than Steph during that 68-win, +10 srs 5-year period where he was paired with one or two complimentary(at least in theory) superstars. He has no real claim to the crown for data-ball, and even his alleged prime was arguably outshined by multiple contemporaries.

Magic on the other hand, by impact, was the king of his era:

Spoiler:

Magic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991
Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 with

Micheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998
Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 with

Hakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999
Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 with

Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins
Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins
Magic takes 44-win teams to 59 wins

Keeping in mind that it's harder to lift better teams, Hakeem comes marginally behind Jordan, and slightly more behind Magic, but he's right up there with both.

Ben has his own(presumably more sophisticated) approach which likes Hakeem even better; "Prime WOWY" ranks Olajuwon 10th. Magic and Jordan rank 12th and 20th, respectively.

For how most of us approach this exercise, minutes and longevity hold Magic back. Even then, I find myself considering Oscar — the greatest guard before these two arrived. Around ten thousand more minutes played. Second highest minute load throughout his career (by far), behind only notorious exception Wilt. In presence, he offered more to his teams than Magic ever did, or possibly even would have without the stigma of the time. And yet I prefer Magic without a second thought, because that is how much better he played the position. The Lakers for his entire career were a ~7.5 net rating team. 900 games at that level, and then regularly mediocre without him (despite decent enough replacements). Very similar circumstances to Tim Duncan, except with a potentially (likely) even better aging curve.

Collectively, the film and data scream that Johnson was one of the very best offensive players in history. His WOWYR numbers are fantastic, finishing first in the 2016 results, and near the top in all regressed game-level studies. His team’s offenses were even better in the postseason, improving by a weighted average of 2.5 efficiency points. However, Magic’s defensive work dings him somewhat among the other greats, as he was likely a neutral-impact defender in the early part of his career before his defense waned in later seasons. But it’s his longevity that costs him most on this list, as HIV stole valuable prime years for him to climb up the top-10.
In ’87, Magic authored his magnus opum, leading the same rotation from ’86 to a 66-win pace (9.5 SRS) and a mind-boggling 119.9 offensive rating in the postseason, a record that would stand until Cleveland posted a 120.3 mark in the 2017 playoffs.7 The ’88 and ’89 Lakers regressed slightly and then Kareem retired. With the firepower dwindling, the results still remained — LA maintained a win pace around 60 thanks to its elite offense in ’90 and ’91 — a testament to Magic’s floor-raising skills.

Injuries and aging complicate any analysis of Magic’s first retirement. Vlade Divac missed half of the 1992 season, and when he returned, Worthy — rapidly declining with age — missed the remainder of the year. The Lakers finished around .500, and in their only full-strength stretch (all of 11 games) they played at a 50-win pace (2.9 SRS). The offense finished right around average. Even five years after HIV abruptly ended his career, Johnson’s presence helped the ’96 team on offense (while hurting the defense): LA posted a +2.3 rORtg (51-win pace) in 38 games with Eddie Jones, and then a +7.4 rORtg (59-win pace) in 32 games when Magic suited up next to Jones.

Magic's case is not utterly unassailable. Per Ben's "prime WOWY" Hakeem edges ahead finishing 10th to Magic's 12th. In a partial APM sample from squared for 88, Magic, in what is considered a down year, falls a bit short of Jordan at his empirical apex(the gap between Magic and the highest scoring Jordan year in the set being half as large as the gap between Magic and #3 Kevin Mchale). If we wish to extend "era" past the 80's, David Robinson splits in WOWYR and perhaps has the best looking large-sampled stretch of the time period.

But generally? It is Magic who looks best, scoring at or very close to the top regardless of the frame. Career-wide, his raw splits aren't really matched until Duncan comes along, nearly a decade after Ervin's first retirement. And while Duncan sustains it longer, there's good reason to think that if he hadn't been pressured to leave, Magic could have kept it up too:

Spoiler:

On Magic - he got virtually eliminated prior to my vote last round so I didn't take much time on him, but I feel folks should examine how they feel about his longevity. Nobody has to, but he's a guy I'm going to give the edge to if it winds up feeling close due to the circumstances around how his career effectively ended after '91. Magic was a proven NBA great who wanted to play and was kept from the league due to a very unfortunate intersection of disease awareness/medical advancement/bigotry.

On Magic: gestured at this previously, but his GOAT path was comfortably ahead of Jordan’s pace when he was forced into retirement. Magic was securely better at basically every age until their respective age 23 (per basketball-reference here because both have birthdays after the data cutoff) seasons. And while I am sure many would prefer 1987-90 Jordan to 1983-87 Magic (I am more mixed on the question), by that point Magic had four rings and three Finals MVPs to Jordan’s zero. Jordan makes up ground from 1991-93… but then he retires while Magic has a phenomenal age 31 season. So at the time of Jordan’s first retirement, even if the public prefers his high octane scoring and had already crowned him the greatest guard in league history, he has no real accomplishment advantage over Magic (nor would I say he was as tied to his team’s success). For me, it was not until 1997 where the totality of Jordan’s career probably had surpassed Magic’s career, and then 1998 (plus signs of a higher level aging curve in 2002/03) was what created a full tier of separation between the two.

For how most of us approach this exercise, minutes and longevity hold Magic back. Even then, I find myself considering Oscar — the greatest guard before these two arrived. Around ten thousand more minutes played. Second highest minute load throughout his career (by far), behind only notorious exception Wilt. In presence, he offered more to his teams than Magic ever did, or possibly even would have without the stigma of the time. And yet I prefer Magic without a second thought, because that is how much better he played the position. The Lakers for his entire career were a ~7.5 net rating team. 900 games at that level, and then regularly mediocre without him (despite decent enough replacements). Very similar circumstances to Tim Duncan, except with a potentially (likely) even better aging curve.

I do not know whom I want to pick first between Wilt and Magic, but it does leave a sour taste knowing that if I pick Wilt it will ultimately be because Magic’s league could not tolerate him on the court being all HIV infected and whatnot.

Hakeem jumps ahead on the basis of circumstance and nigh-unmatched playoff elevation(a factor that also helps Micheal to a degree). But can Steph say the same? Given what transpired during that 5-year "68-win +10srs stretch", I would have to say no.

And then there is the ceiling.

Magic is #1 in regular season win%
He is also #1 in playoff win%

He has won 5 championships along with 10 2nd-place finishes and his teams managed Duncan-esque consistency:

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.

I am not going to argue that his marks him as some sort of equal to Bill(though that seems to have become a popular tactic), but those Celtics aside, his Lakers have a case against anyone. Outside of a single year, Steph's Warriors really do not. And I do not think that is because Curry was at some contextual disadvantage.


Moving on to Wilt and Shaq...

Furthermore, if you compare Wilt to Shaq who also moved teams twice in his prime, here's what you get:

1992-93 Magic: 1.35 SRS with, -6.52 SRS without. Total change: +7.87 [Rookie year]
1995-95 Magic: 5.40 SRS with, -0.07 SRS without. Total change: +5.47 [trade, leaving Magic]
1996-97 Lakers: 4.21 SRS with, +.66 without. Total change: -0.55 [trade, joining Lakers]
2003-04 Lakers : 4.35 SRS with, -2.32 SRS without. Total change: +6.67 [trade, leaving Lakers]
2004-05 Heat: 5.77 SRS with, -0.13 SRS without. Total change: +5.90 [trade, joining Heat]

So, looking at the rookie year and prime moves, you get a net average change of +5.07 for Shaq whereas for Wilt's moves during his prime you get an average of +2.03.

Yep, no qualms here. There's an argument for Shaq over Wilt in raw WOWY, absolutely! I just wanted to mention that a counter argument *was possible*, even if you still end up going for Shaq.

Let's be clear, there is an argument for Shaq based on WOWY...if and only if you are looking at raw srs splits rather than value relative to what is needed to win titles:

Going to go a bit out of order because I don't want to bury the lede

I mean, if we say it was "worth a lot more" in '69/'70, are we saying wasn't possible (or at least was FAR more difficult) for teams to so differentiate themselves from the mean?

No. It's not about difficulty, it's about championships. Remember, the goal is to be the best team(ideally by a large margin), not to blow-out team #23. Let's say 1962 Russell was only worth 4-points of srs on a random team. Let's say 1991 Jordan was worth 8-points on a random team. Here's the thing



In 1991, being +8 on an average team only makes your team a solid contender. In 1962, being +4 on an average team makes you the clear championship favorite. Even though Jordan is worth twice as many-points of srs(in this hypothetical), Bill Russell gives you a better shot at a title. Not so relevant if you're breaking era-relativity, but if you are assessing something like CORP(which seems to play a factor in your rankings), it's not really the raw srs you should be looking at.

As it so happens, we can use the infamous "ohayo-method" to establish a lower-bound(his impact is more likely to be higher than this mark than lower) for 67 Chaimberlain with an 82-game sample of "off" from 69. That is if you are willing to accept the following assumption:

The 69 Sixers were better or similar to the Wilt-less 67 Sixers(added imhoff and archie clark)

If you accept that we can take the Sixers 67 SRS and their 69 SRS and set a lower-bound of +4. Or, more specifically +4 on one of the greatest teams ever(potentially worth significantly more on an average one). This is in a league where it's often just Bill Russell and a bunch of +2's and sometimes even Bill Russell is at +4 himself.

Naturally this doesn't really help him much against Bill Russell as Bill Russell was the more impactful force in-era, but for those who lean towards Ben's methodology, the likes of Shaq are very probably not true peers.

Will also add that for the hubabaloo about Shaq's "dominance", by box(which doesn't track when his defense is exploited as it has been at multipe points including everyone's favorite pick for "peak") or by team-performance he's more of a mantainer than a riser which puts him at a disadvantage against several candidates on the board. And even his rises can be explained with context. Because 2002 is not really a rise if you remember that the Lakers with Shaq were the better than the Spurs with Duncan. And 2001 sees Kobe turning Micheal. And 2006 sees Wade turning Micheal. In the year people hold up as pinnacle the Lakers get worse, largely because of Shaq's being torched by unfavorable matchups.

Wilt on the other hand is probably a riser. While his offenses drop by a point, his defenses improve by 2. He deserves plenty of criticism for 1969, but for all the losing, several of his teams came closer than they ought to.

For the strict era-relativists, I think Wilt should be picked here. For srs-relativists or those with a time-machiney approach, I don't have much to offer though Shaq is probably still not the guy I'd go with. Steph, KG, and Kobe all seem like better picks to me with a modernist lens. Potentially even Magic.


As for KG the case is pretty simple.

-> He's more valuable than Shaq by basically any lineup-approach, rs, full-season, or full-season with double weighted playoffs
-> at least comparable with the real-world stuff at their respective apexes, higher highs in on/off for the rs and the playoffs
-> looks as good with playoff-box/on-off hybrids...

-> did all this in sub-optimal context
-> did not do stupid off-court **** to sink a dynasty
-> phenomenal longetvity
-> theoretically more portable with a degree of proof-of-concept in 2008
-> one of the most versatile players(this typically leads to better results)
-> russell-lite defensive profile(also typically leads to great results)
-> 2004 is probably as good as a year of anyone left and 2003 was potentially better(wilt excepted)

Finally that gets us to

Nominate:
Kobe Bryant

If I'm reading tea leaves this is going to come down to Kobe and Larry. With that in mind I'd like to make a few points:

Passing vs Creation:

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.

Bird is one of the best passers ever. But he had limitations(ball-handling being the biggest) that could have conceivably short-changed him as a creator:

While the metric is called passer-rating, it is not really about raw passing. It is about the quality of chances you create and the quality of what you miss. When I brought this up before we had pretty clear separation between Magic and Lebron, Lebron and Steph, and Steph and Jordan. Bird looks worse than all four. Both in terms of volume and efficiency. Now could just be the metric missing something? Maybe. But it reflects in the results. Of the 7 players whose offenses were listed above(Nash, Magic, Lebron, Curry, Bird, Shaq, Jordan), Bird has

-> the worst regular season offenses
-> the worst postseason offenses
-> the worst overall offenses

In the playoffs, Reggie Miller's offenses are just as good:

So in his whole prime his team underperformed offensively just twice despite 14 of his 22 series being against top 5 defenses. On average in the regular season his teams' offenses played at a +2.5 level. In the playoffs they played at a +6.4 level. Remove series against teams that weren't top 5 defenses and they performed at a +6.3 level (he averaged 23.0/3.1/2.6 on 60.2 TS% with a 120 ORTG). Reggie Miller's offensive postseason results are insane and paint him as being extremely impactful.

While I can certainly see Bird's case for peak(era-relative), the idea he is much better seems hard to defend
-> Outside of 1980 Bird(after which the Celtics mysteriously posted worse signals) I do not think Bird has a more impressive impact portfolio
-> Kobe is similarly productive offensively by box and it is not clear to me he is worse defensively(2001 clears imo)
-> Kobe has the best playoff peak of either in my estimation with 2001(could justify that on a non-box impact basis too pretty easily)
-> Kobe was probably situationally shortchanged by being forced to iso in the triangle with illegal d now legal. Whatever it produced for his team, it limited Kobe's ability to use his full arsenal: (He scores 90th percentile in synergy with basically every sort of offensive play)
-> Kobe was incredibly resilient in the playoffs improving defensively while maintaining his production despite outlier-high minutes and milage
-> Kobe has won 5 titles in 10 years, 3 in a row, and 2 as the best player. Bird has won 3 and he pretty much always had good teams
-> Kobe has won championships with different co-stars and different cores, Bird has not
-> Kobe has also made 7 finals notably getting within 2 games of a chip in 2008 despite basically having three teams to adapt to over the course of the season(and mantaining arguably league-best impact throughout)
-> While Bird's scoring and shooting drops in the playoffs(especially vs good defenses), Kobe is elastic. Probably a result of being the best tough-shot maker in history
-> While Kobe has hurt his team off-court to much criticism, Bird has done the same costing his team a potential championship thanks to a bar fight
-> While it's very easy to see Kobe doing well across era with his efficiency in basically every type of offensive play. I think you basically have to imagine Bird as a different player to see him do more translating forward(maybe even translating back) given his physical shortcomings(struggled to get seperation, slow-footed, ect), and a pretty major defecit in terms of skill(a helio with limited handles is not a very good helio...just ask Durant)

But cast that all aside. Let's say Bird really was much better than Kobe. Kobe's longetvity, at least in terms of career value, almost certainly puts him ahead:

Spoiler:

quote="eminence"]
Career list - you'll see ElGee's rankings don't exactly follow his CORP numbers

2. MJ 2.81
3. LeBron 2.79
4. Russell 2.63
5. Shaq 2.59
6. Hakeem 2.56
7. Duncan 2.47
8. KG 2.43
9. Wilt 2.33
10. Magic 2.00
11. Bird 1.90
12. Oscar 1.91
13. Karl 1.98
14. Kobe 2.06
15. Robinson 1.94
16. Dr.J 1.84
17. West 1.75
18. Dirk 1.93
19. Nash 1.57
20. Barkley 1.38
21. CP3 1.36
22. Wade 1.25
23. Pippen 1.26
24. Moses 1.20
25. Stockton 1.33
26. Durant 1.23
27. Ewing 1.20
28. Barry 1.16
29. Miller 1.24
30. Pettit 1.03
31. Hondo 1.11
32. Curry 1.05
33. Frazier 1.01
34. Kidd 1.09
35. Pierce 1.10
36. Gilmore 1.04
37. Baylor 0.96
38. McHale 0.93
39. Drexler 0.97
40. Allen 1.11

Don't have all the offensive peak numbers, but ElGee has MJ essentially even with Curry/Magic, well clear of the next group led by Nash/LeBron.[/quote]

What I want you to look at is the number that goes after the names. That is an output. Based on a formula based on srs-championship studies, longetvity, peak/prime and all are weighed and then output an estimation of championshp likelihood. For this list Ben put his own inputs(including considerations like PORT) for each and every season of Kobe and Bird's career. Not only did Kobe come out ahead(10th, 2.06), he came out well ahead, with Larry scoring at 1.9(14th). The gap here is bigger than the gap between Bird and 17th placed West. Bird is closer to being on the fringes of the top 20 than he is to being as valuable(over his career) than Kobe Bryant. And that is with ben's inputs

Ben has Bird as the 5th best peak ever. He has Kobe at the fringes of the top 20. By ben's estimation Bird is miles ahead of Kobe, and yet, with all his inputs, the one objective component of his top 40 still churns out Kobe's career as comfortably more valuable.

If you don't care about longevity, I feel you. But for those who do(and as far as I understand various voters do follow this sort of methodology), Kobe should probably be your nomineee.

On a closing note, peep Garnett's score. The gap between him and 10th Kobe(8th, +2.40) is bigger than the gap between Bryant and 17th placed Jerry West. Kobe is closer to the fringes of the top 20 than he is to KG.

The gap between KG and Bird? Bigger than the gap between Bird and 19th place nash. Personally I think KG is a much better player than either, but uh even if he wasn't...for those operating on a similar methodology, KG should probably rank ahead of both.

Honestly would go Mikan or Oscar but this seems like a 2-way race so

[Narigo]

Vote:Wilt
Second vote:Shaq
Nom: Robertson

Wilt is more versatile than Shaq. He played different roles throughout his career first as scorer, passing hub, and then defense and excel at that them. Much better defender than Shaq. Much more durable and longevity overall.


Nominating Oscar over Bird. As bird has some problems as a scorer as he didn't draw alo of fouls which hurt his overall efficiency when it came to postseason play

[OhayoKD]

May as well throw this bit in too.

Kobe creation


Bird creation

[iggymcfrack]

Moving on to Wilt and Shaq...

Furthermore, if you compare Wilt to Shaq who also moved teams twice in his prime, here's what you get:

1992-93 Magic: 1.35 SRS with, -6.52 SRS without. Total change: +7.87 [Rookie year]
1995-95 Magic: 5.40 SRS with, -0.07 SRS without. Total change: +5.47 [trade, leaving Magic]
1996-97 Lakers: 4.21 SRS with, +.66 without. Total change: -0.55 [trade, joining Lakers]
2003-04 Lakers : 4.35 SRS with, -2.32 SRS without. Total change: +6.67 [trade, leaving Lakers]
2004-05 Heat: 5.77 SRS with, -0.13 SRS without. Total change: +5.90 [trade, joining Heat]

So, looking at the rookie year and prime moves, you get a net average change of +5.07 for Shaq whereas for Wilt's moves during his prime you get an average of +2.03.

Yep, no qualms here. There's an argument for Shaq over Wilt in raw WOWY, absolutely! I just wanted to mention that a counter argument *was possible*, even if you still end up going for Shaq.

Let's be clear, there is an argument for Shaq based on WOWY...if and only if you are looking at raw srs splits rather than value relative to what is needed to win titles:

Going to go a bit out of order because I don't want to bury the lede

No. It's not about difficulty, it's about championships. Remember, the goal is to be the best team(ideally by a large margin), not to blow-out team #23. Let's say 1962 Russell was only worth 4-points of srs on a random team. Let's say 1991 Jordan was worth 8-points on a random team. Here's the thing



In 1991, being +8 on an average team only makes your team a solid contender. In 1962, being +4 on an average team makes you the clear championship favorite. Even though Jordan is worth twice as many-points of srs(in this hypothetical), Bill Russell gives you a better shot at a title. Not so relevant if you're breaking era-relativity, but if you are assessing something like CORP(which seems to play a factor in your rankings), it's not really the raw srs you should be looking at.

As it so happens, we can use the infamous "ohayo-method" to establish a lower-bound(his impact is more likely to be higher than this mark than lower) for 67 Chaimberlain with an 82-game sample of "off" from 69. That is if you are willing to accept the following assumption:

The 69 Sixers were better or similar to the Wilt-less 67 Sixers(added imhoff and archie clark)

If you accept that we can take the Sixers 67 SRS and their 69 SRS and set a lower-bound of +4. Or, more specifically +4 on one of the greatest teams ever(potentially worth significantly more on an average one). This is in a league where it's often just Bill Russell and a bunch of +2's and sometimes even Bill Russell is at +4 himself.

Naturally this doesn't really help him much against Bill Russell as Bill Russell was the more impactful force in-era, but for those who lean towards Ben's methodology, the likes of Shaq are very probably not true peers.

Will also add that for the hubabaloo about Shaq's "dominance", by box(which doesn't track when his defense is exploited as it has been at multipe points including everyone's favorite pick for "peak") or by team-performance he's more of a mantainer than a riser which puts him at a disadvantage against several candidates on the board. And even his rises can be explained with context. Because 2002 is not really a rise if you remember that the Lakers with Shaq were the better than the Spurs with Duncan. And 2001 sees Kobe turning Micheal. And 2006 sees Wade turning Micheal. In the year people hold up as pinnacle the Lakers get worse, largely because of Shaq's being torched by unfavorable matchups.

Wilt on the other hand is probably a riser. While his offenses drop by a point, his defenses improve by 2. He deserves plenty of criticism for 1969, but for all the losing, several of his teams came closer than they ought to.

For the strict era-relativists, I think Wilt should be picked here. For srs-relativists or those with a time-machiney approach, I don't have much to offer though Shaq is probably still not the guy I'd go with. Steph, KG, and Kobe all seem like better picks to me with a modernist lens. Potentially even Magic.

So, wait a minute, your argument for Wilt over Shaq is that while Shaq lifted his team more, it was easier to win a ring in Wilt's day than Shaq's so being half as good was still more valuable back then? And you think that on average, Wilt would probably win more rings than Shaq in that easier environment even though in the real world, Shaq won twice as many rings in tougher conditions? Yeah, I don't get that one at all.

Also, you say Shaq doesn't rise in the playoffs like Wilt and look down on the box numbers, but the impact numbers would disagree as well as Shaq had an on/off of +8.5 in the regular season and +11.7 in the playoffs. You also say Wilt's teams did better in the playoffs relative to their regular season as a foundational part of your argument, but if you were to compare overall record over a pretty large sample:

Wilt was 672-373 in the regular season (.643) and 88-72 in the playoffs (.550)
Shaq was 819-388 in the regular season (.679) and 129-87 in the playoffs (.597)

So Shaq's teams actually maintained better in the postseason too.

You made some interesting points on Magic vs. Curry, but the Wilt > Shaq stuff looks incredibly specious to me. I don't see one solid point for Wilt being better anywhere.

[One_and_Done]

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.

Watch on YouTube

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.

Ok, well that's a 10x better highlight reel of Bird passes than whatever I watched before. I didn't know he had that full-court home run ball in his game. That's badass. Maybe I just saw **** highlight reels before, LOL.

Bird's nickname was Kodak; because it was like he could take an instant snapshot of the court and process it immediately. When you look at his passing highlights replay by replay, you realise exactly what they meant. Magic was the flashier passer, and on the whole you could even say the better passer, but Bird was better at certain types of passes like outlets and instant flick passes. The passes Bird excelled at were the sort where the degree of difficulty is actually greater than anything Magic could pull off. It's only when you break down the footage on some of these passes that you realise how utterly preposterous they are. Magic's superior passing is partly a function of his greater athletic tools, and also because yes he is the GOAT passer on the whole. But even Magic didn't have the ability to pull off some of these Bird like passes. Bent Taylor breaks down a few on his peak Bird video, noting one outlet in particular that is so utterly preposterous on replay you can scarcely believe Bird could do it. He has an instant to process everything after the other team scores, and he turns around and throws a full court lob because he somehow knows his team mate is going to be there (said team mate is nowhere near there when he turns his back to pick the ball up and lobs it the next instant). You just watch them and think "how is it even possible to pull this off?", and yet Bird pulled such plays off regularly.

[Owly]

-> Kobe has won 5 titles in 10 years

...

[One_and_Done]

-> Kobe has won 5 titles in 10 years

...

And Horry won 7. Kobe was Shaq's sidekick for 3 of those titles. If KD had stuck with the Warriors he'd have 5 titles now too, especially if not for an unlucky injury in the finals. Context matters.

If anyone is curious I have the vote at Wilt 10, Shaq 5, Magic 2, KG 2 and Curry 1. For Nominee Bird is way out in front leading Kobe 9 to 5.

[OhayoKD]

Moving on to Wilt and Shaq...

Let's be clear, there is an argument for Shaq based on WOWY...if and only if you are looking at raw srs splits rather than value relative to what is needed to win titles:

As it so happens, we can use the infamous "ohayo-method" to establish a lower-bound(his impact is more likely to be higher than this mark than lower) for 67 Chaimberlain with an 82-game sample of "off" from 69. That is if you are willing to accept the following assumption:

The 69 Sixers were better or similar to the Wilt-less 67 Sixers(added imhoff and archie clark)

If you accept that we can take the Sixers 67 SRS and their 69 SRS and set a lower-bound of +4. Or, more specifically +4 on one of the greatest teams ever(potentially worth significantly more on an average one). This is in a league where it's often just Bill Russell and a bunch of +2's and sometimes even Bill Russell is at +4 himself.

Naturally this doesn't really help him much against Bill Russell as Bill Russell was the more impactful force in-era, but for those who lean towards Ben's methodology, the likes of Shaq are very probably not true peers.

Will also add that for the hubabaloo about Shaq's "dominance", by box(which doesn't track when his defense is exploited as it has been at multipe points including everyone's favorite pick for "peak") or by team-performance he's more of a mantainer than a riser which puts him at a disadvantage against several candidates on the board. And even his rises can be explained with context. Because 2002 is not really a rise if you remember that the Lakers with Shaq were the better than the Spurs with Duncan. And 2001 sees Kobe turning Micheal. And 2006 sees Wade turning Micheal. In the year people hold up as pinnacle the Lakers get worse, largely because of Shaq's being torched by unfavorable matchups.

Wilt on the other hand is probably a riser. While his offenses drop by a point, his defenses improve by 2. He deserves plenty of criticism for 1969, but for all the losing, several of his teams came closer than they ought to.

For the strict era-relativists, I think Wilt should be picked here. For srs-relativists or those with a time-machiney approach, I don't have much to offer though Shaq is probably still not the guy I'd go with. Steph, KG, and Kobe all seem like better picks to me with a modernist lens. Potentially even Magic.

So, wait a minute, your argument for Wilt over Shaq is that while Shaq lifted his team more, it was easier to win a ring in Wilt's day than Shaq's so being half as good was still more valuable back then? And you think that on average, Wilt would probably win more rings than Shaq in that easier environment even though in the real world, Shaq won twice as many rings in tougher conditions? Yeah, I don't get that one at all.

Well
1. srs is not a measure of absolute quality. Shaq providing "more lift" doesn't actually mean anything beyond the value you ascribe to it. This came up with Russell when you said he only beat weak teams even though the +4.9 srs Lakers were better than any team Shaq has not been swept by. Relative to championships, Wilt provided more lift. Relative to a arbitrary regular-season win-count wilt did. Your choice what's more meaningful. I tend to prefer the former.

If you just want to say wilt's league is weak, fine. But then KG played in the same league and Steph played in a more talented one so...

Also, you say Shaq doesn't rise in the playoffs like Wilt and look down on the box numbers, but the impact numbers would disagree as well as Shaq had an on/off of +8.5 in the regular season and +11.7 in the playoffs. You also say Wilt's teams did better in the playoffs relative to their regular season as a foundational part of your argument, but if you were to compare overall record over a pretty large sample:

Fair but it's a noisy stat. Playoff on/off is something I'll cite here and there where there is scarcity of info as a "corraborative indictor" but I prefer using the rs as off and then adjusting for context. Like...Kobe playing like MJ and outscoring shaq while creating a **** in 2001. I also think it's worthwhile looking at what the players do granularly. Regardless we don't have on/off for almost everyone in this comparison and the sample for prime KG is miniscule(and accordingly volatile). So I don't really know if it helps him here.

FWIW, playoff RAPM(using sourced) sets seems very low on shaq:

(bad both in rs and pos)

JE win probability(rapm derived and boosts playoff weightings) is also very low:


JE weights playoffs extra and Shaq still trails a several contemporaries for 1997 to 2021 and the gap widens if we make it 1997-2014. Breaking it by down by single-year(1998-2018):



We don't have this data pre-97 but when you get lapped by several of your own contemporaries, it seems dubious to me you'd be the 7th best player in history. WOWY likes shaq more but he's not beating magic or steph there. And wilt wins anyway if you aren't conflating ease with srs.

Wilt was 672-373 in the regular season (.643) and 88-72 in the playoffs (.550)
Shaq was 819-388 in the regular season (.679) and 129-87 in the playoffs (.597)

You're doing record, i'm doing differential. Advantages of the latter is that players can get credit when their teams overperform in lossess(wilt vs russell) and mov is more predictive than record fwiw. Personally don't think getting swept by hakeem-drexler is = taking russell to 7 but to each their own.

You made some interesting points on Magic vs. Curry, but the Wilt > Shaq stuff looks incredibly specious to me. I don't see one solid point for Wilt being better anywhere.

[/quote]
Well, fwiw there are multiple stronger candidates regardless of approach imo.

[Moonbeam]

Voting Post

Sorry I've been missing every other voting thread --- work has been intense!

I'll keep this short for now so I don't run out of time. My vote is for Wilt Chamberlain for the reasons I listed in this post. All of the nominees are worth considering at this spot, though. My alternate vote here is going to Magic Johnson. His sustained offensive brilliance and enduring team success makes him a standout in history. Shaq and Curry have that, too, but Magic is more durable than both, has a more consistent motor than Shaq, and a bit more playoff resilience than Steph (so far). KG is someone I really like and he deserves to be considered in the top 10, but I can't convince myself to put him above Magic.

I'll nominate George Mikan again. His sustained in-era dominance is up there with the best in league history.

[OhayoKD]

-> Kobe has won 5 titles in 10 years

...

And Horry won 7. Kobe was Shaq's sidekick for 3 of those titles. If KD had stuck with the Warriors he'd have 5 titles now too, especially if not for an unlucky injury in the finals. Context matters.

If anyone is curious I have the vote at Wilt 10, Shaq 5, Magic 2, KG 2 and Curry 1. For Nominee Bird is way out in front leading Kobe 9 to 5.

I'd say Kobe was far less of a sidekick in 01 than KD was in 2017:

Spoiler:

Steph lol. Was better all-season, all-playoffs outright outscoring and outcreating durant and outimpacting for the rs and the postseason(including against the best defense they faced), not to mention Steph literally outplaying him fresh off an injury in the conference finals(with what was probably a second conseuctive postseason where Westbrook had outplayed his teammate). Anyone placing KD over or equal in any capacity that season is being rather reactionary and given the finals were both a dead-rubber and there's nothing really suggesting the points(as the secondary focus) outweighed curry's creation, giving durant an accolade here is just wrong by principle. That said, Lebron was rather clearly better than both, so maybe he should have got it anyway.

durant. it's basically a meaningless award because there was no pressure to get it, but i don't care how many times you say the word gravity, durant put up 35 ppg on 70 TS% and hit the only semi-meaningful shot of the series.

Not sure this effects finals-voting specifically, but I feel obliged to point out that KD over Steph in 2017 is basically a very weak version of 2001 kobe over shaq.

Not sure this effects finals-voting specifically, but I feel obliged to point out that KD over Steph in 2017 is basically a very weak version of 2001 kobe over shaq.

I'm not seeing the parallels, OKD.

2017 Finals
Durant: 35.2 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 5.4 apg (2.2 TOs), 1.0 spg, 1.6 bpg, .698 TS%, +43
Curry: 26.8 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 9.4 apg (3.8 TOs), 2.2 spg, 0.0 bpg, .619 TS%, +29

2001 Finals
Kobe: 24.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg (3.6 TOs), 1.4 spg, 1.4 bpg, .429 TS%, +31
Shaq: 33.0 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg (4.0 TOs), 0.4 spg, 3.4 bpg, .575 TS%, +40

KD has a strong box stat case over Curry, only highly detailed advanced analysis could make a deeper case for Curry. No case can be made for Kobe, the box stat case against him is so overwhelming that it's obvious who brought more value.

I was talking about the whole season as it is argued by many, including fp4 I think, that Durant was better. And with that in mind...

I'm not seeing the parallels, OKD.

2017 Finals
Durant: 35.2 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 5.4 apg (2.2 TOs), 1.0 spg, 1.6 bpg, .698 TS%, +43
Curry: 26.8 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 9.4 apg (3.8 TOs), 2.2 spg, 0.0 bpg, .619 TS%, +29

2001 Finals
Kobe: 24.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg (3.6 TOs), 1.4 spg, 1.4 bpg, .429 TS%, +31
Shaq: 33.0 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg (4.0 TOs), 0.4 spg, 3.4 bpg, .575 TS%, +40

KD has a strong box stat case over Curry, only highly detailed advanced analysis could make a deeper case for Curry. No case can be made for Kobe, the box stat case against him is so overwhelming that it's obvious who brought more value.

I believe he’d be referring to Kobe in the 2001 WCSF/WCF

Actually I'd be referring to all three intra-conference series


(1st round)



(2nd round)



(Conference Finals)

Very curious what people who think KD was as good or better than Steph in 2017 have to say about Kobe and Shaq in 2001

Fun fact: The 2017 Warriors were not as dominant as the 2001 Lakers despite KD having way more help. Of course it wasn't Shaq, but Kobe who went off as a team that struggled mightily in 00 and 02 played kd+steph+dray-warriors level basketball in 2001. Kobe was also better defensively all season than Bird or KD had ever been

Respect to bird for his great 1980 regular season, but I find what Kobe did in the playoffs to be far more impressive. Could be argued Bird has never played basketball at the level Kobe did during that run.

Also, no, "being the best player" doesn't really preclude that.

If player a is worth +8 and player b is worth +7 on a +20 team, both can be better than a +6 guy on a +15 team. You've also brought up "how they were viewed" so it should probably be mentioned that Kobe was viewed as better than Duncan, your #3. Kobe was also viewed by most as better than Lebron, your #1 after 09 and 10. Basketball wise, or "hype" wise I'm not seeing what makes bird so much better

[One_and_Done]

Kobe posted big stats in 2001 because alot of series the other teams, including the Spurs, had utter garbage perimeter players who he could torch. He was not close to the best player that year; it was Shaq, who was sucking in so much defensive attention that it was easy for Kobe to get open shots.

I'd agree KD and Curry were close to even in 2017, indeed I'll probably be voting Curry before KD because I'd say Curry was the better player. That said, KD was arguably as good or better than Curry, especially in the finals, so I have a tough time calling him a sidekick. Kobe on the other hand was far, far less impactful than Shaq.

[Doctor MJ]

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?

I think the argument against Magic's defense is really less about comparing him to other point guards and more about comparing him to other players his size, because Magic's teams always had smaller guys out there to handle quick star guards on the other team. Playing Magic meant that you couldn't stack your front court with defensive specialists.

But did this actually end up hurting the Lakers' defense much in practice? I'm not so sure. In general opponents were not targeting him constantly, he competed effectively for rebounds, and he was a great thief who could absolutely kill the opponent on the fast break after he got the ball.

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?

So, this one hits something that's a big thing for me:

Paul and "aggressive advanced passes" are not things I'd associate with each other.

Basketball is not a sport where when you have the ball you either a) shoot, b) pass for a constant X% chance of an assist, or c) turn the ball over. The way the offense plays has significant impact on how likely players are to get assists, and it's nowhere near so simple as "more assists much mean better passing" either for the point guard or the team as a whole.

Consider the fact that there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't make sure that your team earns an assist on every made basket - just don't dribble the ball before you shoot, and realistically there's no defense that's going to have so much success it's going to drop offensive success below, say, 70 points per 100 possessions in an average NBA game. So a team could go 0-82 with the worst rORtg in NBA history by a large margin and lead the league in Assists by a wide margin.

This might seem absurd because no team would be dumb enough to do it, but the fact that they could illustrates the point: There's far more to facilitation than getting credited with the assist.

The specific thing I've long pointed out is that the most effective time to attack the defense is in transition before they are ready, but attacking in transition is dangerous work that increases your turnovers. This means that if you force fast breaks all the time with players who aren't good enough at keeping order through the chaos it's going to do more harm that good. If you can't do it well enough, slow it down, methodically work your half-court offense, and you'll utterly blow less possessions that way.

But you will be missing opportunities.

Magic is arguably the poster boy for being able to navigate transition offense to great success (Nash is the other guy typically brought up).

Paul? He's the posterboy for slowing it down, controlling everything and avoiding silly mistakes that cause turnovers...even when he's playing with you explosive athletes that have the bodies to destroy the opposition in transition if they can just get the right pass.

So Paul goes to the Clippers, where they have young explosive bigs in Blake Griffin & DeAndre Jordan, and the team's pace drops from 12th in the league to 27th. He improves the offense significantly from what came before...but is making the most use of his teammates athleticism? Well, that's something to decide for yourself.

This then to say that I don't consider Paul to even be in the conversation for best offensive point guards. He's in a tier down with the other guys who were great but had something that limited their offensive capacity.

Interestingly, I'd argue that he and Jason Kidd are inverses of each other. Paul's a master of the half court but not the best in transition. Kidd's a master in transition but limited in the half-court due to his weak shooting. Between the two, Paul's issues aren't as big, and so I don't know if I'd say Kidd really deserves on a tier with him, but both are limited compared to the guys who are incredible in both transition and the half court.

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?"

As others have said, watch video to get a sense of Bird's passing. Watch how quickly he goes from getting the ball to making the pass. Watch how he seems to know where everyone on the floor is even when the situation prevents him from facing the right way.

Did he actually have more "passing value" in his career as point guards who control the ball most of the time? Not if those guys were good at their job - as Paul was - but remember that he was playing with point guards (Tiny, DJ) whose job that was. If you were grooming Bird to play today I think you'd encourage him to play either like Magic or Jokic to max out his value, but the way he played back then showed how scary his potential was.

The thing that's crazy about Bird is that everyone at the time recognize he had the highest in-the-moment BBIQ of anyone they'd ever seen, they named him MVP 3 times in a row...and yet still, looking back, he wasn't close to being optimized.

[OhayoKD]

Kobe posted big stats in 2001 because alot of series the other teams, including the Spurs, had utter garbage perimeter players who he could torch.

As opposed to Durant going off on the defensive juggernauts known as the 17 Cavs? Which great perimeter defenders did Bird face in 86 as he dropped a scorching 24 on slightly above league average efficiency. Actually since we shouldn't use relative true-shooting, 24 points on 56% ts is pretty shoddy.

He was not close to the best player that year; it was Shaq, who was sucking in so much defensive attention that it was easy for Kobe to get open shots.

And Shaq wasn't doing that in 2000 or 2002(or the 2001 regular season)? I also hope you realize that is way more applicable with Durant given that Steph has certain attributes like: atg handles, being a very good passer(difference between that and "good for a 2000's big") and creates far more off-ball than Shaq does.

I'd agree KD and Curry were close to even in 2017, indeed I'll probably be voting Curry before KD because I'd say Curry was the better player. That said, KD was arguably as good or better than Curry, especially in the finals, so I have a tough time calling him a sidekick. Kobe on the other hand was far, far less impactful than Shaq.

Nope. He was only that in the finals going by box. By the standard by which kd was "arguably as good or better valuable", Kobe was clearly more valuable than Shaq in 2001. And by that same standard, bird was not the best player for all his 3 titles either.

Also, for someone who is very keen on ignoring era-relativity, putting a playmaker with limited ball-handling and a league-best spacer on minimal 3-point volume(largely being left open on those looks) over a guy whose very good or elite at pretty much everything when it comes to offense on-top of being the best-shot maker ever seems pretty dubious.