RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #15 (Oscar Robertson)

[Doctor MJ]

Vote 1: Oscar Robertson



Repeated post in spoilers where I agonized championing both Oscar & West

Spoiler:

What can I say? I'm absolutely sold that Oscar & West were astonishing outliers at the guard position. I had skepticism at one time. I did not believe that they were that great just because folks back in the day said they were. Oh, I figured they probably were the best guards of the period, but how good were they really?

Whatever stats I've found though, these guys always end up being more impressive than I was expect, not less. While there are plenty of modern legends that only look great from certain measures, these two stack out by any way I can see to evaluate them other thing rangz.

As folks know, I've gone back and forth between the two. The general shape of my evaluation remains roughly the same:

Oscar's more valuable sooner.
Oscar plays more.
Oscar seems to natural take control of whatever situation he's in.
Oscar plays a style that fits in with how many of the big offensive stars play today, so we know it would work today.
West seems to surpass Oscar as their career goes along.
West is the better shooter and scorer, particularly in the playoffs.
West is certainly the more active defender, and likely a much better defender.
West proved an utter natural to a read & react scheme when van Breka Kolff brought the Princeton lineage to LA.

We can debate which of those should matter more, but I must admit that my basketball heart wants to side with West. I'm more impressed by what I see of him. I'd draft him first if I had the option to choose one or the other, and I don't think era would actually be a factor there. So when others start making compelling arguments for West, it's hard for me not to side with him.

Vote 2 : David Robinson

Honestly seriously considered Robinson above Robertson but not ready to pull the trigger.

A stat like TS Add sticks in my mind here.

This is from a leaderboard we compiled about a year ago, but it couldn't have affected the relationship between these two that much.

Average TS Add per 82 Games:
1. Wilt 281.5
2. Oscar 277.5
...
22. Robinson 154.6

Obviously that puts Oscar highest among guards. Steph Curry comes in at 244.1 with West at 236.4.
Among bigs - traditional 4's & 5's - the following guys are ahead of Robinson: Wilt, Johnston, Kareem, Artis, Gilmore, Barkley, Mikan, Shaq, Bellamy, Pettit, McHale, Karl.

Now, I realize that the question is always about whether Robinson's defensive advantage overwhelms Oscar's offensive advantage, so this isn't any kind of proof that Oscar should rank higher. But Oscar is showing a pretty huge season-average relative both to Robinson specifically, and the position he plays in, and he also plays more games than Robinson. All this of course while being known even more for his floor generalship.

Robinson is tempting me...but with the deadline coming up on me, I'm not ready to flip and will keep going with Oscar.

Nomination 1: Kevin Durant



Argument from last time repeated below:

Spoiler:

So I said before that I was debating between KD and Dr. J here. I mentioned a few other guys that I'd welcome arguments for, but honestly, these two were the guys I spent most of my time thinking about.

I've posted above about my analysis of Erving. In the end, that on/off data is really, really not what I was expecting before we got access to it. Doctor J is the primary inspiration for my handle, I think he had the most graceful athleticism I've ever seen in basketball, I think his ABA run is something everyone should be very impressed by...and when I started participating in these projects I advocated for Erving ahead of Oscar & West.

But when new information comes to light, it changes my assessment. I have to say that I think I need to consider Erving even further.

As I say that: It's generally agree that Erving was a class act and an inspirational leader - and even though his 76ers value-add clearly seems to be less than I thought, he still functioned as a successful franchise player around which the 76ers built a long time contender that eventually broke through and won a title.

Take all that positive stuff...KD is the opposite. I'll try to refrain from an extended rant, but suffice to say I absolutely knock KD for being KD, enough that I have to question whether I should really rank him ahead of Dr. J. Would I draft KD ahead of Erving? Don't think so. To me, getting in the KD business means eventually dealing with him blaming you for his intrinsic insecurity and unhappiness and then blowing the whole thing up. That surely seems unfair to many, but hey, just my opinion.

On the other hand, KD's not just a superstar on the court, he's the other classical superstar on the greatest team in the history of basketball, with the first one already voted in. I think we did a major disservice to the Warrior super-team when we analyzed them as if none of the players were achieving that much simply because they had a lot of help.

From Wilt joining the Lakers onward to whatever team LeBron joins after he uses up his latest team, we've seen many, many attempts to create the best team ever. The guys who actually succeeded at this shouldn't be getting knocked for it relative to those who try and fail.

While I do think that the Warrior stint has allowed an overly enthusiastic vein of thought that KD was "plug and play" leading any team to greatness if they simply had decent stuff around - that's really not what we saw, the Warriors were the Warriors, and KD was merely one part of them - the fact remains that when you're that tall, that mobile, and that good of a shooter, you're an incredible force.

Tying a bow on all of this: The fact that what I see from Erving in Philly leaves me thinking that KD was the more consistently valuable player by a significant margin makes me give KD the nod here...but for subsequent threads, I think I also need to think more about KD relative to other players who didn't have either a) Erving's outright negative on/off tendencies, nor b) KD's self-righteous team-destructiveness tendencies. Paul is the clearest contrast here - consistent impact in basically any situation, but not someone who I have as much faith in competing against the cream of the crop in competition.

Nomination 2: Julius Erving

I said last time that I was focused on Durant & Erving after Malone. I spent some time looking at his on/off with the question of whether it was so severe I needed to drop Erving much further...and I don't really think so. It hurts him sure, but I think it's important not to blow it too far out of proportion.

Key thing to understand is that we have the +/- for 8 of Erving's 13 prime years (considering his prime ending in '83-84), in only 2 of those years is Erving's on/off negative, and in one of those years the on/off is -0.1. So it's really only the one year - '80-81 where Erving has a big negative on/off.

Now, it's super problematic for Erving's MVP candidacy in that year where he won the NBA MVP imho that he has a by far his worst on/off in that year, but the thing I think we need to consider here the Bobby Jones 6th Man factor as something really unusual. We're talking about a guy playing a super-intense game but in limited minutes...and quite possibly with a disproportional amount of those minutes happening with Erving not out there, and vice versa.

I don't think Erving comes off here looking great based on those year's numbers relative to his competition here, but that's not the same as him seeming to have meh impact as a matter of course in the NBA.

And I do believe that his impact on those Nets was something in the GOAT range.

Going to continue to side with him over other contenders, but will also listen to further arguments when considering him before giving him the nod in later votes.

[OhayoKD]

Okay just going to copy and paste

Vote

1. George Mikan
-> best winner left
-> most dominant player left
-> probably most career value left

2. Oscar Robertson
-> 2nd most impactful player left
-> 2nd most career value left
-> Case as the greatest era-relative offensive player

As for nomination...

Yeah, I think this might be a good time to refresh everyone's memories of what each of these players "failures" looked like.

Keeping in mind Giannis has made 8 post-seasons to Jokic's 5

Giannis and the Bucks in the playoffs
2015: lose to the bulls as a role-player

2017: Giannis becomes a fringe superstar, team sees +3 srs improvement and plays a razor-close series(<1 ppg, 6 games) vs the +3.65 srs opponent(Giannis puts up strong offensive production)

2018: Giannis is a fringe MVP candidate, team mantains in the rs, and then playes an even closer series vs +3.2 srs Boston who nearly make the finals after beating the near +4.5 srs Sixers

2019: Giannis gets a not bad coach for the first time in his career and breaks out as a historically strong MVP winner as the Bucks jump by 8 points to post a historically remarkable +8 srs team(almost never happens in non-expansion periods) despite a cast that plays at .500 without him form 19-20(and marginally above from 21-23. That team improves to +13.75 in the playoffs on the back of a big defensive improvement. They are merely +7 in that oh so bad 6-game(1 ppg) loss to a coasting Toronto side which saw a cast capable of 60-win basketball add Kawhi Leonard, aka, clutch Durant, aka "resiliency king". In the conference finals Giannis's offensive production falters against one of the best defenses ever but he also puts up one of the best defensive performances ever to push a toronto side about as good as anyone Jokic has ever faced and far better than any team Jokic has ever beat to the brink(double-overtime and giannis fouling out prevented a 3-0 defecit).

2020: Giannis has one of the very best regular seasons ever(arguably better than any regular season from certain players who have already been voted in) and the Bucks post a +9.41 SRS(basically unheard of in non-expansion periods) with a team that plays average basketball without Antetokounmpo. Team collapses defensively in the bubble and are upset by the eventual finalists despite Giannis's offensive production improving from last year as their defense is torched by Miami. There is injury context with Giannis eventually missing a game and 3 quarters.

2021: Giannis coasts as merely a top 3 regular season player in the regular season and the Bucks post a +5.6 SRS(4th in the league) with a team that is a bit above .500 without him. The Bucks again get significantly better in the playoffs on the back of their defense and Giannis is good to great on both ends throughout as Giannis becomes one of the few players to win a championship...
-> without a 2nd superstar
-> without perennial all-star
-> without "help" that is significantly > .500 without him
-> without a strong playoff coach

The competition is fairly weak, but so was the support, and ultimately it's topped off with Giannis posting one of the greatest performances ever against a very good team on both ends of the floor

2022: Giannis is again, merely a top 3 regular season player, and the Bucks regress to +3(7th best) with the big-three missing a significant number of games. Bucks are(opponent-adjusted) more than +12 against the Bulls with Middleton and take a near-champion to 7 without a middleton in a not that close series(+8 point differential). Overall Bucks improve dramatically. again, on the back of their defense.

2023: Every contender is coasting and Giannis is again merely a top 3 regular season player as the Bucks post a 3rd best +3.61 SRS despite Middleton missing a bunch of games. Against Miami, Giannis misses almost half the series and is injured throughout. Consequently, the Bucks defense collapses as they lose to the eventual finalists(again)

8 postseasons total, 7 as a superstar, and the Bucks underperform twice and overperform 5 times despite a deeply flawed postseason coach, a cast who generally falls off in the playoffs(shooting especially). Both underperformances have injury context and when they lose, they are mostly losing to champions or finalists,

Now let's do Jokic:

Jokic and the Nuggets in the playoffs

2019 Jokic is a fringe MVP candidate and Nuggets see a 2.5 SRS improvement to post a strong +4.13(7th best). They win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Spurs(7 games, 1 ppg) and then lose a razor-close series(7 games, actually outscore by 1 ppg) against the +4.4 SRS Nuggets who proceed to get destroyed in a sweep against a losing-finalist. You may recall the champion that year was that Raptors side that just about survived Giannis.

2020 Jokic is again a fringe MVP candidate and the Nuggets regress to +2.5 thanks to injuries to Jokic's best teammates. In the playoffs they get lucky against the +2.5 Jazz winning in 7 despite getting outscored by 3-points a game. They then upset the +6.6 Clippers in a close series(7 games, <1ppg) before getting thumped by the eventual champs(5 games, 4 ppg). You may recall the Heat, without their leading scorer and with their defensive anchor hobbled, were the only team all playoffs to take the Lakers to a 6th game.

2021 MVP Jokic leads a +4.8 Nuggets side(6th best) despite a team that is outright bad without him. They proceed to win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Trailblazers(6 games, actually outscored) and are then obliterated in a sweep against the +5.5 eventual finalist Suns(15! ppg). Those suns would lose to...checks notes...Giannis's Bucks. Nuggets are bad without Jokic

2022 B2B MVP Jokic leads a +2.15 Nuggets team(injuries play a big-factor) and then is thumped in 5 by the +5.15 eventual champs(8 ppg).

2023 Should have been B2B2B MVP Jokic, with a team that is still bad without him in 13 games, leads the Nuggets to a +3 srs(6th best in the league). Against a relatively weak field(though everyone coasting undersells the competition) they are dominant in the postseason going 16-6 with a m.o.v of +8. This is an all-time dominant run, but it also coincides with dramatic cast elevation and unusually favorable injury context(like Milwaukee's 2021 Run). Nonetheless as a singular note it has a decent case against anything Giannis has done considering
-> team is bad without him(in the regular-season anyway)
-> unusually dominant
-> One-superstar(Murray is close)

5 postseasons total, I think it's fair to say the Nuggets overperformed in 2 and underperformed in 2. A weaker trackrecord than Giannis's Bucks despite
-> a better playoff coach
-> teammates generally elevating(Murray arguably outplayed Jokic in 2020)

The Nuggets are also flatly a far worse regular-season and postseason team getting destroyed when they face eventual finalists and champions which Milwaukee only really do if Giannis gets hurt. When the Nuggets faced a 2019 Raptors-calibre opponent, they were crushed despite Murray playing like a superstar. The Bucks have never suffered a defeat like the Nuggets did against the suns despite running into an eventual or defending finalist each of the last 5 playoffs.

Giannis's Bucks have also posted 2 regular-seasons where their srs nearly doubled any of the suns and one of those regular-seasons was followed by post-season improvement and a tough fight against the type of team the nuggets tend to get dominated by.

All considered, saying Giannis has "Playoff issues" and Jokic doesn't seems like you're applying a gigantic double-standard because Jokic id a one-way player while Giannis is a two-way one. Just like when we act like Jordan was "perfect" any-run he posts sub-2009 Lebron box-aggregates or when we act like Shaq is more "unstoppable" than two-way bigs because defense doesn't matter.

Excepting their championship years, Giannis has led far better regular season and playoff teams, and has also has a significant longetivity advantage, while elevating more often. And while Jokic's regular-season impact looks great(like Giannis)...

So, I'm very convinced by the Jokic > Giannis arguments. Time to change my nomination as well as my all-time list.

[/quote][/quote]
Since you've used playoff on/off as justification before...



And yet Giannis is the one with "issues" apparently

Nominate: Chris Paul

Alternate: Giannis
Do not plan on voting him soon as my criteria is era-relative and values longetvity but at this point I am nominating based on who I think has the most viable arguments and for Giannis

-> arguably top 15 resume with 2 mvps and a lone-superstar championship with an FMVP to boot to go with multiple all-time regular season teams
-> better longetivity than another top 15 resumes
-> arguably best player in the most talented version of the nba
-> all-time peak/prime, era-relative or absolute
-> one of the most versatile players ever and one of a handful who has carried a contender as his team's best defender, best playmaker, and best scorer.



It may feel weird I'm not nominating a 4x MVP in Julius but
-> played in the weaker of the two leagues in the 70's and did not look all that when he went to the stronger one
-> was probably not the best player on his own team when he finally conquered the mountain top

[OhayoKD]

I think that maybe I shouldn't participate in the project, even as a non-voter. I don't provide much value and some posters show it clearly that my posts are not welcome. I think I should take a break from the forum, I just don't think I provide anything valuable anymore.

If you feel you need a break from this project or this forum, I'd absolutely encourage you to take one -- take care of yourself first! But I *absolutely* disagree with the suggestion that you don't provide much value here (you do!), or that your posts aren't welcome here (they are!).

I love your input in this project and past projects, and was bummed that you didn't have time to vote (though very understandable, it is a big undertaking). Me personally, I'd think any input you have (even the occasional post or vote) would improve the quality of this project. You have a greater historical knowledge than the vast majority of the posters on this forum, you have access to such a vast repository of historical film which is crucial to truly understand the quality of a player, and of course you also provide some of the best film analysis around here too.

I think sometimes it's easy to get caught up debating the people you disagree with most vehemently. The people who agree with you don't reply to your posts as much (they agree with you, and life is busy, so why spend time repeating what you already said?) and the people who strongly disagree do (they disagree, so of course they're going to try to prove you wrong). This can give a biased measure of what the general opinion is, and make it feel that everyone else disagrees with you. In fact, I think it's just that the majority of people who *respond to your posts* disagree with you. This sample bias gets even worse, if you tend to only reply to the posts that you disagree with most strongly.

I'm glad you pushed back against the idea that "Genetics." are the sole reason for why there aren't as many white American stars in the NBA today. I'm glad you pushed back against PER. In the last thread, I'm glad you pushed back against the anti-era-relative/modernist opinion. Regardless of what I think of the older players we've been discussing recently (I'm quite high on West, slightly less high on Oscar, slightly less high on Mikan), I think you gave voice to an important perspective. This project has a variety of criteria, a variety of perspectives, and for it to be successful, it's important that it doesn't get dominated exclusively by any one perspective, like modernists.

So just to reiterate, absolutely take the time you need. But if you ever feel up to it, I'd bet a majority of us on this project and on this forum would welcome you back. And if you're looking for a compromise, one strategy would be to focus less on replying to the people who's minds are set (and opposite to yours) on issues like race or era, and focus more on replying to people in the middle and on the other end of the spectrum. That group (including myself!) might be more open to your perspective, and are still open to hearing other opinions on how we should evaluate this group of fantastic players!

Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate that!

It's not that I think people never valued my input, I think there were times where I could help the community to gain the knowledge. My recent discussions with some posters made me realize that I don't provide that anymore, outside of some occasional observations. At this point, I see that people start to laugh at what I've been saying and I realized that they have all the reasons to do that. Sometimes I forget how limited my basketball knowledge is and that I'm just a young guy who likes watching oldschool basketball, nobody else. If some people gets offended by my tone, then it's a sign that I am starting to be not only ignorant, but arrogant as well.

I will say that if anyone needs any oldschool footage for this (or any future project), just let me know (quote me or send me PM), I will provide anything I can.

I feel if you were to count the # of times you were given a +1 or your post was praised, it would probably greatly outnumber the amount of times people say negative things about you. Not sure how much of a difference it makes, but i think at least by consensus you're one of the most valuable contributors to this board

[One_and_Done]

Looks like Oscar is a lock this round, and D.Rob is a lock next round.

Oscar 11 (at least 14 on prefs), Mikan 4, D.Rob 3 (but with at least 10 votes on prefences to Mikan's 0), Dirk 3 and K.Malone 1.

KD and Dr J leading the nominations. I'm rather hoping for a tie, which I think would be a fitting end. Both are worthy additions here.

[Owly]

Vote 1: Oscar Robertson



Repeated post in spoilers where I agonized championing both Oscar & West

Spoiler:

What can I say? I'm absolutely sold that Oscar & West were astonishing outliers at the guard position. I had skepticism at one time. I did not believe that they were that great just because folks back in the day said they were. Oh, I figured they probably were the best guards of the period, but how good were they really?

Whatever stats I've found though, these guys always end up being more impressive than I was expect, not less. While there are plenty of modern legends that only look great from certain measures, these two stack out by any way I can see to evaluate them other thing rangz.

As folks know, I've gone back and forth between the two. The general shape of my evaluation remains roughly the same:

Oscar's more valuable sooner.
Oscar plays more.
Oscar seems to natural take control of whatever situation he's in.
Oscar plays a style that fits in with how many of the big offensive stars play today, so we know it would work today.
West seems to surpass Oscar as their career goes along.
West is the better shooter and scorer, particularly in the playoffs.
West is certainly the more active defender, and likely a much better defender.
West proved an utter natural to a read & react scheme when van Breka Kolff brought the Princeton lineage to LA.

We can debate which of those should matter more, but I must admit that my basketball heart wants to side with West. I'm more impressed by what I see of him. I'd draft him first if I had the option to choose one or the other, and I don't think era would actually be a factor there. So when others start making compelling arguments for West, it's hard for me not to side with him.

Vote 2 : David Robinson

Honestly seriously considered Robinson above Robertson but not ready to pull the trigger.

A stat like TS Add sticks in my mind here.

This is from a leaderboard we compiled about a year ago, but it couldn't have affected the relationship between these two that much.

Average TS Add per 82 Games:
1. Wilt 281.5
2. Oscar 277.5
...
22. Robinson 154.6

Obviously that puts Oscar highest among guards. Steph Curry comes in at 244.1 with West at 236.4.
Among bigs - traditional 4's & 5's - the following guys are ahead of Robinson: Wilt, Johnston, Kareem, Artis, Gilmore, Barkley, Mikan, Shaq, Bellamy, Pettit, McHale, Karl.

Now, I realize that the question is always about whether Robinson's defensive advantage overwhelms Oscar's offensive advantage, so this isn't any kind of proof that Oscar should rank higher. But Oscar is showing a pretty huge season-average relative both to Robinson specifically, and the position he plays in, and he also plays more games than Robinson. All this of course while being known even more for his floor generalship.

Robinson is tempting me...but with the deadline coming up on me, I'm not ready to flip and will keep going with Oscar.

Nomination 1: Kevin Durant



Argument from last time repeated below:

Spoiler:

So I said before that I was debating between KD and Dr. J here. I mentioned a few other guys that I'd welcome arguments for, but honestly, these two were the guys I spent most of my time thinking about.

I've posted above about my analysis of Erving. In the end, that on/off data is really, really not what I was expecting before we got access to it. Doctor J is the primary inspiration for my handle, I think he had the most graceful athleticism I've ever seen in basketball, I think his ABA run is something everyone should be very impressed by...and when I started participating in these projects I advocated for Erving ahead of Oscar & West.

But when new information comes to light, it changes my assessment. I have to say that I think I need to consider Erving even further.

As I say that: It's generally agree that Erving was a class act and an inspirational leader - and even though his 76ers value-add clearly seems to be less than I thought, he still functioned as a successful franchise player around which the 76ers built a long time contender that eventually broke through and won a title.

Take all that positive stuff...KD is the opposite. I'll try to refrain from an extended rant, but suffice to say I absolutely knock KD for being KD, enough that I have to question whether I should really rank him ahead of Dr. J. Would I draft KD ahead of Erving? Don't think so. To me, getting in the KD business means eventually dealing with him blaming you for his intrinsic insecurity and unhappiness and then blowing the whole thing up. That surely seems unfair to many, but hey, just my opinion.

On the other hand, KD's not just a superstar on the court, he's the other classical superstar on the greatest team in the history of basketball, with the first one already voted in. I think we did a major disservice to the Warrior super-team when we analyzed them as if none of the players were achieving that much simply because they had a lot of help.

From Wilt joining the Lakers onward to whatever team LeBron joins after he uses up his latest team, we've seen many, many attempts to create the best team ever. The guys who actually succeeded at this shouldn't be getting knocked for it relative to those who try and fail.

While I do think that the Warrior stint has allowed an overly enthusiastic vein of thought that KD was "plug and play" leading any team to greatness if they simply had decent stuff around - that's really not what we saw, the Warriors were the Warriors, and KD was merely one part of them - the fact remains that when you're that tall, that mobile, and that good of a shooter, you're an incredible force.

Tying a bow on all of this: The fact that what I see from Erving in Philly leaves me thinking that KD was the more consistently valuable player by a significant margin makes me give KD the nod here...but for subsequent threads, I think I also need to think more about KD relative to other players who didn't have either a) Erving's outright negative on/off tendencies, nor b) KD's self-righteous team-destructiveness tendencies. Paul is the clearest contrast here - consistent impact in basically any situation, but not someone who I have as much faith in competing against the cream of the crop in competition.

Nomination 2: Julius Erving

I said last time that I was focused on Durant & Erving after Malone. I spent some time looking at his on/off with the question of whether it was so severe I needed to drop Erving much further...and I don't really think so. It hurts him sure, but I think it's important not to blow it too far out of proportion.

Key thing to understand is that we have the +/- for 8 of Erving's 13 prime years (considering his prime ending in '83-84), in only 2 of those years is Erving's on/off negative, and in one of those years the on/off is -0.1. So it's really only the one year - '80-81 where Erving has a big negative on/off.

Now, it's super problematic for Erving's MVP candidacy in that year where he won the NBA MVP imho that he has a by far his worst on/off in that year, but the thing I think we need to consider here the Bobby Jones 6th Man factor as something really unusual. We're talking about a guy playing a super-intense game but in limited minutes...and quite possibly with a disproportional amount of those minutes happening with Erving not out there, and vice versa.

I don't think Erving comes off here looking great based on those year's numbers relative to his competition here, but that's not the same as him seeming to have meh impact as a matter of course in the NBA.

And I do believe that his impact on those Nets was something in the GOAT range.

Going to continue to side with him over other contenders, but will also listen to further arguments when considering him before giving him the nod in later votes.

I think not matching peers and not "meh", leaves a lot of middle ground. Granting the limitations of it in use as a proxy "all-in-one" metric, the caveats you've given, the limited timescale (no ABA), it being done on a good team ... the headline career figure +2.5, tending not to lead the team [only '77, '82], significantly trailing Cheeks [+5.2] and B Jones [+8.2]
Are Jones and Mix good alternate forwards? Yes. But then is he usually getting to play with one of them, yes (at least for '81).

From arrival even giving him the benefit of the minutes ... 79-84 and 79-86 the cumulative "On", the +/- is a little better for Jones and Cheeks and that opens up in the second case (especially for the younger Cheeks). note: Barkley is added for this window.

Spoiler:

Jones: 2176, 2673
Cheeks: 2161, 3052
Erving: 2050, 2414

fwiw the offs
J: 245, 277
C: 260, -102
E: 371, 536

He's got the production, the accolades, played on great teams (and contributed to them). It depends what one weights. For the impact inclined ... to my tastes ... I think the anchors may often still be a bit high on Erving (and low on the noted "cast members").

[ijspeelman]

Late voting because I forgot to get in last night.

Vote: David Robinson

Spoiler:

I was basically between Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, and David Robinson and its all super close for me. I am sticking with my trend of picking these two-way bigs as I find they have the most impact which I think is backed with one-number metrics and film.

Robinson shapes out as one of the very best of his generation in the impact metrics we have (rs AuPM ['94-'96], RAPM ['97 onward]), despite very little of that falling in his prime:

'94: 1st in league [by silly margin: +1.5 over 2nd place (K.Malone)]
'95: 1st in league [by even sillier margin: +2.8 over 2nd place (S.Pippen)]
'96: 1st in league [+0.2 over returned Michael Jordan]
**Honestly, I think you could make an argument that David Robinson, peri-peak, was the regular season GOAT.

PI RAPM [playoffs included] after returning from injury (and well into his 30s, fwiw):
'98: 23rd
'99: 3rd (1st in NPI, fwiw)
'00: 4th
Remained top 10 in '01 [NPI], still top 20 in '02, bounces back to fringe top-10 in '03 [more limited minutes].

For my money, David Robinson arguably has the best three year scoring peak of the guys I have near this spot all while playing near-GOAT level defense. His playmaking doesn't compare, however I think he is a much better passer over the replacement player at the center position.

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Spoiler:

I really like the spacing element he provides at his position. The tracked data from after his peak does not paint him in the greatest light here (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html#shooting), but his self-generation and touch in his peak seem to go against this data.

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Spoiler:

I also give him credit for turning into an all-star to sub all-star just on defense once Timmy arrived which extends his longevity.

Alternative: Oscar Robertson



I was convinced by other's arguments to keep Big O here over Karl Malone based on Karl's consistent play-off shortcomings.

Spoiler:

I've been mainly swayed by others arguments on Big O. As an alternate, I believe I could still be swayed back to West here.

West is admittedly the better defender and volume scorer (while holding efficiency), but I like the idea that Oscar Robertson was more efficient (albeit less volume) with incredible all-time playmaking.

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Spoiler:

I think Oscar has a very interesting case for the most robust skillset in the league history and I don't think anything we've seen from him in the playoffs changes that. Oscar was a massive 6'5 220 lbs man (basically a forward body) who could handle the ball against KC Jones pressure with restricted ball-handling rules, while being the best playmaker in the league history up to that point. A lot of people rave about West shooting ability (rightfully so, he was a pull-up monster) but Oscar was arguably a better shooter and the very limited shooting data from trex suggests he's actually more accurate (though it could be useless given the sample). He was less known for that because he could force the issue inside more and he was a masterful post player as well. He was also the first player ever who mastered P&R play. I mean, you can't find any weakness in his offensive repertoire.

For people unfamiliar with prime Oscar game, here are a few montages I could find at the NBA.com... which means they have full games hidden in their archives:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Nomination: Kevin Durant

Spoiler:

I think I am ready for the Durant conversation around the #20 spot.



He played seven seasons where he played at least 50 games (2011-19 excluding 2014-15) where he shot an rTS% seven points above average on large volumes. These are insane stretches offensively and it doesn't account for his gravity off the ball (shooting 38.5% for his career) and his fairly good passing.

I actually rate his defense higher than voters do. I like him as near 2nd team all-defense team in his 2013-2019 years.

His biggest problem is longevity. Yes, he has seven season with MVP level play, but before his break-out he had about two all-star seasons and then some not too impactful ones and then after the achilles injury he just hasn't played a ton to move the needle. He's played 137 games from 2019-23 with his highest count being 55 last year with Brooklyn. That season didn't have him playing as his near-MVP self. This last season may have had him in the conversation for me if he played more games.

Alt Nom: Moses Malone



I've never really heard a lot of dialogue surrounding Moses Malone (for or against) so I am excited to talk about him. I'll admit I am also not the most knowledgeable, but I believe we are getting to the point where we should get him in the list of contenders soon.

Odd longevity since he played many years, but not all at full high all-star to MVP range, but his peak was incredibly high.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Oscar - 11 (HBK, rk, ltj, Samurai, AEnigma, Gibson, Narigo, LA Bird, Clyde, Joao, Doc)
Mikan - 4 (beast, f4p, OSNB, Ohayo)
Robinson - 4 (trelos, OaD, iggy, speel)
Karl - 1 (trex)
Dirk - 2 (Colbinii, Dr P)

So, something new here that I'm going to call a majority victory. Oscar got 11 votes and everyone else got 11 votes. Even if all the 2nd votes went someone else's way, it would still only be a tie, and so it feels right to just move on.

Oscar Robertson is Inducted at spot #15.



Nomination Vote 1:

Jokic - 3(HBK, f4p, iggy)
Durant - 7 (rk, beast, trelos, OaD, Dr P, Doc, speel)
Moses - 1 (ltj)
Erving - 6 (Samurai, Gibson, OSNB, Narigo, Clyde, Joao)
none - 1 (AEnigma)
Paul - 4 (trex, LA Bird, Colbinii, Ohayo)

No majority, going to Vote 2 for Durant vs Erving

Durant - 1 (trex)
Erving - 1 (HBK)
neither - 7 (AEnigma, ltj, f4p, iggy, LA Bird, Colbinii, Ohayo)

Durant takes it 8 to 7 over Erving.

Kevin Durant is the new Nominee.

[tsherkin]

If you feel you need a break from this project or this forum, I'd absolutely encourage you to take one -- take care of yourself first! But I *absolutely* disagree with the suggestion that you don't provide much value here (you do!), or that your posts aren't welcome here (they are!).

I love your input in this project and past projects, and was bummed that you didn't have time to vote (though very understandable, it is a big undertaking). Me personally, I'd think any input you have (even the occasional post or vote) would improve the quality of this project. You have a greater historical knowledge than the vast majority of the posters on this forum, you have access to such a vast repository of historical film which is crucial to truly understand the quality of a player, and of course you also provide some of the best film analysis around here too.

I think sometimes it's easy to get caught up debating the people you disagree with most vehemently. The people who agree with you don't reply to your posts as much (they agree with you, and life is busy, so why spend time repeating what you already said?) and the people who strongly disagree do (they disagree, so of course they're going to try to prove you wrong). This can give a biased measure of what the general opinion is, and make it feel that everyone else disagrees with you. In fact, I think it's just that the majority of people who *respond to your posts* disagree with you. This sample bias gets even worse, if you tend to only reply to the posts that you disagree with most strongly.

I'm glad you pushed back against the idea that "Genetics." are the sole reason for why there aren't as many white American stars in the NBA today. I'm glad you pushed back against PER. In the last thread, I'm glad you pushed back against the anti-era-relative/modernist opinion. Regardless of what I think of the older players we've been discussing recently (I'm quite high on West, slightly less high on Oscar, slightly less high on Mikan), I think you gave voice to an important perspective. This project has a variety of criteria, a variety of perspectives, and for it to be successful, it's important that it doesn't get dominated exclusively by any one perspective, like modernists.

So just to reiterate, absolutely take the time you need. But if you ever feel up to it, I'd bet a majority of us on this project and on this forum would welcome you back. And if you're looking for a compromise, one strategy would be to focus less on replying to the people who's minds are set (and opposite to yours) on issues like race or era, and focus more on replying to people in the middle and on the other end of the spectrum. That group (including myself!) might be more open to your perspective, and are still open to hearing other opinions on how we should evaluate this group of fantastic players!

Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate that!

It's not that I think people never valued my input, I think there were times where I could help the community to gain the knowledge. My recent discussions with some posters made me realize that I don't provide that anymore, outside of some occasional observations. At this point, I see that people start to laugh at what I've been saying and I realized that they have all the reasons to do that. Sometimes I forget how limited my basketball knowledge is and that I'm just a young guy who likes watching oldschool basketball, nobody else. If some people gets offended by my tone, then it's a sign that I am starting to be not only ignorant, but arrogant as well.

I will say that if anyone needs any oldschool footage for this (or any future project), just let me know (quote me or send me PM), I will provide anything I can.

I feel if you were to count the # of times you were given a +1 or your post was praised, it would probably greatly outnumber the amount of times people say negative things about you. Not sure how much of a difference it makes, but i think at least by consensus you're one of the most valuable contributors to this board

Going to second OhayoKD on that one; 70sFan is epic.

[70sFan]

Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate that!

It's not that I think people never valued my input, I think there were times where I could help the community to gain the knowledge. My recent discussions with some posters made me realize that I don't provide that anymore, outside of some occasional observations. At this point, I see that people start to laugh at what I've been saying and I realized that they have all the reasons to do that. Sometimes I forget how limited my basketball knowledge is and that I'm just a young guy who likes watching oldschool basketball, nobody else. If some people gets offended by my tone, then it's a sign that I am starting to be not only ignorant, but arrogant as well.

I will say that if anyone needs any oldschool footage for this (or any future project), just let me know (quote me or send me PM), I will provide anything I can.

I feel if you were to count the # of times you were given a +1 or your post was praised, it would probably greatly outnumber the amount of times people say negative things about you. Not sure how much of a difference it makes, but i think at least by consensus you're one of the most valuable contributors to this board

Going to second OhayoKD on that one; 70sFan is epic.

Thank you all guys, I really don't deserve it!