RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #43 (Paul Pierce)

[dhsilv2]

I'm more and more interested in better alts, but I'm sticking with my last vote.

Vote Reed- I want to touch a bit more on Reed's longevity as while it is clearly the issue for him, I think he had a few more quality level seasons than people are giving him credit for.

Reed was a strong defender. I would argue he's perhaps a Reggie Miller level defender post peak, which is pretty solid, IMO offense tends to be more valuable than defense. So lets get to it.

The best proxy I can think of to show quality defense is going to be rebounds. Reed has 6 years in the top 10 in the league in rebounds and he had 7 years in the top 10 in per game.

PER - I've often called this the "allstar" stat as it seems one of the better proxies for who end sup being an allstar, though the overall value imo is a bit lower than some of our newest and better metrics. The issue here is that PER seems to undervalue this whole era, so we are either to believe that the top players were far worse than they are now or that the middle of the league is somehow better, or that the PER formula isn't that great without steals and blocks. I think the era was weak, but not THIS weak, so I tend to value where a player ranks vs just the raw number.

65- 12th
67- 6th
68- 6th
69- 4th
70- 8th
71- 17th

WS - I'd guess this is our best metric from this era unless we have more. I think the look at PER and WS give us a pretty good story, and we can add in the missing elements which I think have been covered.

67- 11th
68- 10th
69- 1st
70- 3rd (1st in defensive win share)
71- 10th

Now I will openly admit on this alone I wouldn't be ranking Reed where I am ranking him, but I wanted to illustrate that he had more than the 4 years that people give him credit for. FYI 7 allstar games and 5 all nba's.

From there it's really about if you believe his intangibles were as high as has teammates seem to think. It's about if you think winning an MVP when West, Oscar, and Wilt were all still pretty darn good matters or if that was a down year. It is about where you see his defense. And ultimately if you are willing to give him credit for 6 years and not just the 4, plus his 73 finals. I've been voting Reed here a while and i admit fully that his career length is giving me a lot of pause. It's odd I hear about how the 60's were the peak of centers from some (90's generally get that award), and here is a guy who won an MVP at the end (69-70) of the decade. I also see guys like Miller last round getting credit for playing ahead of his time, I'd think a under sized center with a decent jump shot would fall into at least a lesser version of that.

If you're not sold at Reed here, then that's great. I'm open to moving up a guy like Cowens or Unseld pretty easily. I might even be open to an Iverson or maybe someone from even further back. I haven't seen his name yet, but I'd be interested if people are thinking about Dan Issel, on centers who might have a case. Seems odd Gilmore is in and we haven't even had an Issel mention (Not odd he isn't in). Anyway rant over. But for me I'd like to see an argument for someone over Reed vs why Reed shouldn't be here.

Here's why I'm not sold on Reed here.

Reed had 7 years I'm willing to call quality ('65, '67-'73).

The problem is, Unseld has 12 years of that level of quality (all but '74), and you can definitely call all but Howard's 15 season quality seasons - that gives Howard 12.

So, if you're taking Reed over those guys, you have to like Reed's peak a lot more than those guys.

I'm not sure that's justifable at all. From '09-'12, Howard was a Top 5 guy in the league - potentially longer - and in a stronger league than what Unseld/Reed played in. I don't think you can say that about Reed for as long of a stretch.

Reed's peak is probably a little better than Unseld's but I'm not sure the difference is material; I know both guys' MVPs are a little dubious - but I think Unseld's is slightly more defensible.

In '70, my MVP vote would be:

-Kareem
-West
-Frazier - part of the reason I'm relatively lower than you on Reed is I don't think Reed was the best player on the '70 Team
-Reed
-Unseld

In '69, here's why Unseld won in a nutshell:

Unseld's arrival coincided with a 21 win improvement without a change in the team's core, or a change in the coach. Washington went from 36 to 57 wins and finished with the best record in the league - that's why he won MVP - he had a major impact on winning. A team with Unseld & Monroe as it's two best players beat out Wilt/West, Russell/Hondo, Frazier/Reed.

If you still think it's a dubious MVP, that's fair - but I don't think it's anymore dubious than Reed's.

Howard imo is clearly better as a player. I have him as my alt right now and I would have pushed for him sooner, but his personality issues moved him down on the list for me. You'll also note that I'm open to Unseld passing over Reed with a good argument as I have them both pretty close. So I think we're fairly in line here.

Reed gets credit from me based heavily on the perception that he was not just a star, but also a high value lockerroom/the captain type player.

If we look at who's left and we use the only stat I really can think of in WS to look for peaks (PER has huge flaws imo and vorp doesn't go back). Reed's peak WS trails only McAdoo, Harden, Bellamy, McGrady, Elton Brand, and Billups of those not already in. His second best would fall behind Gasol's peak. (40's and 50's were removed from the list fyi, but we will have to think about Schayes who I did remove).

McAdoo has the MVP but only 2 all NBA's. 5 allstars
Harden 4 all nba and 5 allstar
Bellamy no all nba, 4x allstar
McGrady 7x all nba and 7x allstar
Billups 3xall nba 5xallstar
Brand 1 all nba 2x allstar

Now again WS isn't a perfect peak measuring stick, but it's an ok one. Of those with higher WS peaks, Reed's awards and accolades stand up to them. Only McGrady would have a strong case on awards to move ahead of Reed.

Then I take into account that he won the title in 70 and yes we know that teammates matter and he had a great team, but I can't leave it out of the equation either.

[trex_8063]

Meanwhile today 15 out of the 150 starters (5x30) make an all nba team, 5 out of 40 starters made it in an 8 team league (5x8). That's 10% vs 12.5%.

Actually it's 10 out of 40 starters (25%) making an All-NBA team in an 8-team league (there was an All-NBA 2nd team).

[scrabbarista]

43. Elvin Hayes
44. Dolph Schayes

*For combined (RS) points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals, Elvin Hayes is 9th in the history of the NBA and ABA combined. If you aren't giving him consideration around the 43rd spot, then career totals should probably not enter into your thought at any point on this list.

*Hayes was the most productive player on the '78 Bullets title team, although Unseld was generally more heralded. By my count, there is only a handful of players remaining who were the best player on a title team, so Hayes at least needs to start receiving consideration.

*Hayes' MVP finishes, in spite of the fact that apparently not a single person with a vote actually liked him:

1971-72 NBA 0.006 (17)
1972-73 NBA 0.021 (10)
1973-74 NBA 0.082 (5)
1974-75 NBA 0.299 (3)
1975-76 NBA 0.018 (8)
1976-77 NBA 0.020 (7)
1978-79 NBA 0.126 (3)

*Hayes also led the league in scoring in '69, and was a 12x All-Star.

For me, his combination of longevity and production for a championship team make him too hard to ignore.

[Pablo Novi]

I appreciate your votes Pablo, if you are willing to keep voting despite the frustration of your player not getting in.

Thanx doc.
In terms of frustration - it's not a big problem for me (I've got lots of decades of experience! lol)

[Pablo Novi]

Request for guidance about my continued participation in these GOAT threads

...

One thing you might do as an adjustment for your All-Pro voting is multiply each all-pro selection by the number of teams in the league at the time. This reflects the increased competition for limited slots from greater numbers of teams. It might still overvalue the 50s (and undervalue the 60s) but not by nearly as much and it allows you to keep your mathematical rigor while coming much closer to the general consensus.

penbeast0 (and everybody else who's responded):
Thanx for taking the time to respond and for your considered response.

If you look in the left-hand (and BOLDED) column in the following chart ("Pablo’s Pro-Rating Per Decade:"), please notice that I DO indeed pro-rate downwards (progressively more) each decade prior to the 1960s - for the combination of reasons including: pre-integration, less teams, decidedly less general quality of play.

So,
As compared to the 1930s ("all" two years of the NBL back then), I rank the 1940's level of play as 3 tiimes better.
As compared to those 1940s, I rate the 1950s as 1.25 times better.
As compared to those 1950s, I rate the 1960s as 66.7% better (a BIG improvement).

From the 1960s onwards, I rate each following decade at a much smaller (and decreasing) improvement in general level of play.
So,
As compared to those 1960s, I rate the 1970s as 10% better.
As compared to those 1970s, I rate the 1980s as 9.1% better.
As compared to those 1980s, I rate the 1990s as 3.3% better.
As compared to those 1990s, I rate the 2000s as 2.7% better.
As compared to those 2000s, I rate the 2010s as 2.6% better.


Then continuing with the same general trend (of each decade's general level of play being better than the previous one (but by slightly less amounts); I "anticipate":
As compared to those 2010s, I rate the 2020s as 2.6% better.
As compared to those 2020s, I rate the 2030s as 2.5% better.
As compared to those 2030s, I rate the 2040s as 2.4% better.
As compared to those 2040s, I rate the 2050s as 2.4% better.

Pablo’s Pro-Rating Per Decade:

……................. ”Points” Per
Increase ……….… A L L – L e a g u e: ......................... "Pts" Per:
v% DECADE …… 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; .... 3d-Tm; …………......... All Tms .. Year . Decade
xxx . 1930 ...... 0.33 ….. 0.17 .….... x.xx .................. 0.50 ...... 2.5 ..... 5
300 . 1940 ...…. 1.33 ….. 0.67 .….... x.xx .................. 2.00 .....10.0 ... 100
125 . 1950 ...…. 3 ........ 1.5 ....... x.xx .................. 4.50 ..... 22.5 ... 225
66.7 1960 ....... 5 ........ 2.5 ....... x.xx .................. 7.50 ..... 37.5 ... 375
10.0 1970 ....... 5 ........ 2.5 ....... 0.75 .................. 8.25 ..... 41.3 ... 412.5
9.1 . 1980 ...... 5 ........ 3 .......... 1.0 ................... 9.00 ..... 45.0 ... 450
3.3 . 1990 ...... 5 ........ 3 .......... 1.3 ................... 9.30 ..... 46.5 ... 465
2.7 . 2000 ...... 5 ........ 3 .......... 1.55 .................. 9.55 ..... 47.8 ... 477.5
2.6 . 2010 ...... 5 ........ 3 .......... 1.8 ................... 9.80 ..... 49.0 ... 490
………………………………………………..………….… so far 1938-2017 = 2,902 Total "Points";
……………………………………………………………… soon . 1938-2019 = 3,000 Total "Points"
FUTURE?
……................. ”Points” Per
Increase ……….… A L L – L e a g u e: ........................ "Pts" Per:
v% DECADE …… 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; .... 3d-Tm; ... 4TH-TM .. All Tms .. Year . Decade
2.6 . 2020 ...... 5 ........ 3 .......... 1.8 ....... 0.25 …... 10.10 .... 50.3 ... 502.5
2.5 . 2030 ...... 5 ........ 3 …........ 1.8 ....... 0.50 …... 10.30 .... 51.5 ... 515
2.4 . 2040 ...... 5......... 3 .......... 1.8 ....... 0.75 …... 10.60 .... 52.8 ... 527.5
2.4 . 2050 ...... 5 ........ 3 .......... 1.8 ....... 1.00 …... 10.80 .... 54.0 ... 540
------
How these "improvements in general level of play each subsequent decade" concretely affects my GOAT "Points" system is seen in the following columns (in the above chart).

Again please notice that for 1st-Team selections, prior to the 1960s (when from then on, 5 "Points" are awarded); each preceding decade's 1st-Teamers get decidedly less "Points". (As an example, Cousy's 1st-Team selections instead of 5 "Points", get 3 "Points" (a decided DOWNWARDS pro-rating).

I then proceed under the assumption that the All-Time Great players from any subsequent decade (1960s onwards) are about equal to the All-Time Great players from any other subsequent decade. In other words, ALL-League 1st-Team selections, from the 1960s onwards, get 5 "Points" regardless of decade. How then can my "Points" system reflect my assumed ever-increasing general level of play? I do that by GRADUALLY increasing the amount of "Points" awarded to lower-level "Teams".

So, in the 1960s and 1970s, an ALL-League 2nd-Teamer gets 2.5 "Points" (whereas from the 1980s onwards, such ALL-NBA 2nd-Teamers always get 3 "Points".

Because the 2nd-Teamers get the same number of "Points" (2.5) during both the 1960s & 1970s, I add a 3rd-Team for the 1970s. Because the 2nd-Teamers get the same number of "Points" (3) from the 1980s onwards; I gradually increase the 3rd-Teamers' "Points".

To continue reflecting the ever-increasing general level of play in future decades; I add an ALL-NBA 4th-Team for the 2020s; with the "Points" awarded for such 4th-Teamers increasing gradually decade by decade.

This system seems quite fair to me in that it both:
Treats ALL 1st-Teamers (from the 1960s onwards) as essentially equally as Great; while it
Treats ALL 2nd-Teamers (from the 1980s onwards) as essentially equally as Great; while it
Treats ALL 3rd-Teamers (from the 2010s onwards) as essentially equally as Great; while (anticipating continuing trends) it
Treats ALL 4th-Teamers (from the 2050s onwards = not shown in above chart) as essentially equally as Great; WHILE OVERALL it
Treats each subsequent decade as being better.

The whole reason I added this PART to my GOAT "system" was to try to combat "my decade was better than the others" kinds of thinking - we see in the great majority of both the players and in their fans.

N.B. In this "system" each progressively lower "Team" rises up in its "Points" until it reaches the level of 60% the value of the next higher "Team". So, over the decades ...
1st-Teamers build up until they get 5 "Points";
2nd-Teamers build up until they get 3 "Points" (60% of 1st-Teamers);
3nd-Teamers build up until they get 1.8 "Points" (60% of 2nd-Teamers);
4th-Teamers build up until they get 1 "Point" (60% of 3rd-Teamers).

[Pablo Novi]

I appreciate your votes Pablo, if you are willing to keep voting despite the frustration of your player not getting in.

The funny thing about this is that I've been voting for Celtics' players (Cousy, thread after thread; and Pierce in our last run-off); the ONE team I have a definite prejudice AGAINST! lol

btw, that prejudice is purely based on my having been a Celtics fan from 1963-67, during my high school days, when I attended a number of their games at the Gaaaaden. The nasty racism of THEIR own fans in THEIR own building against THEIR own black players (including the great Bill Russell) just drove me to rooting consistently against the C's from then on. (You could say I have that in common with Russell himself; it took him a number of decades before he could get himself to "forgive" the C's fans for that nastiness during his career).

[dhsilv2]

Pablo what is driving your scaling and why do it by decade? It seems arbitary. Have you thought say scaling based on US population growth?

I just can't get past it was easier to make the first team all nba in an 8 team league than 3rd team today, yet you value those first teams higher than 3rd teams today. I'd easier to make a first or second team in an 8 team league than to be an allstar today. Again assuming you buy that there is enough talent for the team growth, which I do.

[pandrade83]

You're also assuming talent is constantly proportional across positions . . .which it's clearly not and I'm not sure how to work around that in your system. That's another one I really wrestle with.

[THKNKG]

You're also assuming talent is constantly proportional across positions . . .which it's clearly not and I'm not sure how to work around that in your system. That's another one I really wrestle with.

For example, centers in the 60/70s - bill/wilt/Thurmond/Bellamy/reed/unseld/etc. Take for example Bob Cousy and his accolades - who did he have to compete against? It penalizes those who were in a heavily competitive era, and rewards those who were "on an island" so to speak.

[Pablo Novi]

You're also assuming talent is constantly proportional across positions . . .which it's clearly not and I'm not sure how to work around that in your system. That's another one I really wrestle with.

Pablo what is driving your scaling and why do it by decade? It seems arbitary. Have you thought say scaling based on US population growth?
I just can't get past it was easier to make the first team all nba in an 8 team league than 3rd team today, yet you value those first teams higher than 3rd teams today. I'd easier to make a first or second team in an 8 team league than to be an allstar today. Again assuming you buy that there is enough talent for the team growth, which I do.

For example, centers in the 60/70s - bill/wilt/Thurmond/Bellamy/reed/unseld/etc. Take for example Bob Cousy and his accolades - who did he have to compete against? It penalizes those who were in a heavily competitive era, and rewards those who were "on an island" so to speak.

Permit me to address the more general questions first; then return to POSITIONAL "EQUALITY".

The basis for that thinking started for me by trying to build a system that as much as possible eliminated all the main known biases / favoritism (my team, my League, my top stat(s), my decade, my position ...).

The "my team" bias is easy (for others) to recognize and guard against. Leaving "personal opinion" to later stages of the process while having more-objective criteria used early in the process would be the way to go. For me, ALL-League selections is (while APPEARING to be wholly-subjecte, being based on the OPINIONS of the selectors) ACTUALLY THE most objective - comes closest to reflecting what actually went on each season. (More than most, I place far more emphasis on the Reg. Season than the Post-Season - given the sample size being WAY bigger AND: almost half the players not even making the Play-Offs PLUS TEAM-play, match-ups and injuries playing much bigger roles in the Play-offs).

In terms of the two Dual-League periods (NBL-BAA, ABA-NBA), I put more time, thought and effort in trying to fairly split up the "Points" on this challenge than any other. For the NBL-BAA 3 years, for the first two years, the 1st-Team NBL-ers are treated as Dual-League 1st-Teamers and the 1st-Team BAA-ers are treated as Dual League 2nd-Teamers. The last, third, year, I treat them the opposite. (This is based on the clear superiority of the NBL the first two years, and the clear superiority of the BAA the third year - the change mostly having to do with ex-NBL teams switching to the BAA.) The 9 Dual-League ABA-NBA years I treated on a 3-year by 3-year bases - with the ABA's share of "Poiints" rising from low for the first three years to almost-equal the last 3 AND I allotted 1st-Team and 2nd-Team spots on a case-by-case basis (based on what I remember from the eye-test and from stats, etc.

In terms of the "my favorite stat(s)" problem: Imo, there is clearly no universal (or close to it) agreement on which stat(s) is/are the most useful for building a b-ball GOAT list - both generally, and in terms of the fluctuations (due to rules changes, etc, etc) of importance of different stats in different periods / decades. My system faces the same challenges; BUT imo does a (much) better job in objectivity because of the very nature of the ALL-League selection process (those most-qualified to vote have the votes AND the large number of selectors mostly eliminating individual-selector biases).

In other words, the objections raised here (and elsewhere) to my system - while to some extent valid; are even more so when it comes to any and all alternative systems (including ones based on stat(s)).

The my decade bias MIGHT be counter-acted (as I believe I've done) by making two basic assumptions:
1) From the 1960s onwards (due to: integration, Wilt and Red and other factors) the All-Time Greats are essentially "transferrable" - meaning that they'd be All-Time Greats if they were swapped with other All-Time Greats from any other post-50s decade. (Perhaps the most problematic player for me would be Bill Russell - he'd always be GOAT defender; but that shooting percentage!)

It seems to me that MOST (but not all certainly) serious analyzers of pro-b-ball GOAT rankings roughly assume this "transferability".

2) But with the increases in: American talent pool, International talent pool, training, coaching (ever more complicated offensive and defensive schemes, etc.), injury-prevention & recovery, diet, etc ... there, inevitably, would be an ever-increasing GENERAL level of play League-wide (with the jumps biggest early on).

To "fairly" reflect these two aspects: I keep the "Points" value for 1st-Team ALL-Leaguers at 5 "Points"; while gradually increasing the "Points" value of 2nd-Teamers (etc) up to 60% the value of the next-higher ALL-League team.

Perhaps the most basic argumentation in favor of my whole system (relying primarily on ALL-League selections) is that you should MOSTLY be judged by how you competed against your own competition (at your own position, during your own period of play). That seems reasonable.

The fact that there were many fewer teams and players in the 60's than now contains its own counter-argument if you will. On the one hand, with more players, the competition, as you point out, is tougher for getting an ALL-League selection. But on the other hand, CLEARLY, each time there's a major expansion, the general level of play PER TEAM goes down. (This is shown clearly by the fact that consistently, All-Time Great seasons by teams happen right / soon after expansion - which should be expected given the dilution of talent PER team).

My "Position" bias:
We are all quite familiar with the argument in favor of Centers historically being considered the most important position - and that is reflected in virtually EVERY GOAT list I've ever seen (and DECIDEDLY true in our RealGM GOAT list this year).

Permit me to suggest a counter argument. If one organized a theoretical Play-Offs between 5 teams, each one composed of the GOAT Top 5 of players from ONE position (i.e., a "Top 5 PGs" team; a "Top 5 SGs" team; a "Top 5 SFs" team; a "Top 5 PFs: team; and a "Top 5 Centers" team) what would the results be? I'd suggest that the "Top 5 Centers" team wouldn't win any games against a "Top 5 PGs" team. How is the "Centers'" team gonna bring the ball up in 8 seconds or less, run the fast-breaks AND run the half-court offense without skilled dribblers and ball handlers and, usually, quicker players?

It's a FIVE-MAN / FIVE-POSITION GAME. Imo, the advantages of the Bigs (highest shooting percentage given closer-to-the-basket shooting; more influence on defense) is APPROXIMATELY counter-balanced by the additional EFFORT of the smaller-position players (more: dribbling (bringing the ball up, etc), cutting, stop-and-starting, adjusting later into the shot-clock; etc). Imo, that EFFORT counts for a lot.

So, in my GOAT system, I try to address both:
a) the Centers' historically bigger role (at least until about the 2000s); AND
b) the other positions' importance on the court
by:
i) Including in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, one player from each position; WHILE
ii) Putting the Center (in each set of 5 GOAT spots) at the highest spot (at least in my GOAT Top 50).

The argument against this is simply based on the ASSUMPTION (long-held and widely-held) that the Centers were more important. IF this is true BUT not it is also true that the gaps between positional-importance is not super-big; then my system addresses this FAIRLY.
------------
Specific Points Made by: pandrade83, dhsilv2 and micahclay:

pandrade83: I don't assume talent is constantly proportional across positions; only that it is RELATIVELY proportional - meaning it's more closely approximate than decidedly distinct.

dhsilv2: regarding: scaling and doing so by decades: Given that MOST serious GOAT-list builders treat All-Time Greats from any post 1950s decade as about equal to any other All-Time Greats from other post-1950s decades - this, imo, addresses your scaling concern. For the ALL-TIME GREATS: they have gotten the lion's-share of the ALL-League 1st-Team selections; leaving 2nd-Team and 3rd-Team selections to be addressed. I DO give more "Points" for 2nd-Team and 3rd-Team selections in later years (when there was a larger player pool competing for those spots AND the general level of play had risen.

As to my use of decades: This is based on three main things.
a) MANY GOAT-list builders use decades (and there are GOAT lists done by decades);
b) Wilt came into the League in 1960 and, imo, that plus integration plus Red Auerbach's coaching genius - drove the NBA into the "Modern Ear". Kareem came in in 1970. Magic and Bird in 1980. These players played significant roles in significant changes in the way the game was played and viewed;
c) People often break up large blocks of time (WITHIN centuries) by decades: "The Roaring 20s", "The Great Depression & The 1930s"; "The 50's", "The 60s", "The 2000s"; etc. Besides being objectively about as good as any other means of dividing up the NBA's 80 year history; the use of actual decades coresponds to the way many / most people GENERALLY divide INTRA-century history up.

micahclay: Our collective "sense" of periods / decades of Center-dominance has always depended on the IDEA that Centers were far more important. What if the main IDEA had always been more like: "It's a FIVE-MAN game with each position being relatively equal in value."? Then, Cousy's positional-competition, for example, would have been more highly valued and the Centers positional-competition less highly valued. Why didn't the ALL-NBA (ALL-NBL, ALL-ABA) selection process reflect "Center-dominance"? Such a system COULD have been devised, rather easily in fact. So, PERHAPS, we are and have been ASSUMING more than we should have about relative positional-dominance. (Again, as examples, Wilt & Russell SEEMED way more important than West and "O" for example. But neither Wilt nor Russell could have consistently: a) brought the ball up; b) run the fast breaks; and c) run the half-court offense. I SUGGEST that all of us fans (and analysts) have historically been overly biased (without questioning it) in favor of the Centers.

GENERALLY, even if we assume that my system is far from perfect (something I assume myself); I BELIEVE that my system is better / more-objective than any other. And, I'd submit for comparison: Our current RealGM GOAT list VS "Pablo's GOAT List" for comparison. Imo, my list is decidedly superior. (RealGM's has 5.5 Centers (KAJ, Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem and TD (1/2 Center 1/2 PF) in its All-Time GOAT Top 10 - the most Center-centric list I've EVER seen!)

Also, in my system, using the ALL-League selections is ONLY my FIRST step. In my SECOND step is included adjusting that INITIAL list due to factoring in ALL the other stuff: stats, Post-Season, unique / important strengths/weaknesses, MVPs and other awards.

One advantage of a system like mine: most of us would at least start off from the same general INITIAL list - and our GOAT debates would then TEND to be far less ferocious / flame-war-like.

Naturally, all the above is just my OPINION.

[penbeast0]

...
As compared to those 1950s, I rate the 1960s as 66.7% better (a BIG improvement).

From the 1960s onwards, I rate each following decade at a much smaller (and decreasing) improvement in general level of play.
So,
As compared to those 1960s, I rate the 1970s as 10% better.
As compared to those 1970s, I rate the 1980s as 9.1% better.
As compared to those 1980s, I rate the 1990s as 3.3% better.
As compared to those 1990s, I rate the 2000s as 2.7% better.
As compared to those 2000s, I rate the 2010s as 2.6% better.

...

I would say that the 60s are massively better than the 50s (integration and jump shooting plus the arrival of Russell, Chamberlain and to a lesser extent West and Robertson, all talents significantly superior to anyone who came before (with the possible exception of Mikan). I would also say that the 60s were clearly superior to the 70s (20%?) due to expansion, a great increase in selfish play due to the potential for jumping leagues, and the great increase in drug use among players. For that matter, I rate the 60s as marginally superior to the 80s as well (again, expansion though the 60s and 80s were both eras of "superteams" similar to today). The 90s were at best a marginal improvement (possibly a regression due to increase iso play but defense was more emphasized so I rate it slightly higher) then it wasn't until the Euros really started to come into the league combined with a stop to the rapid expansion of the previous 30 years in this century that the league made some serious incremental talent jumps. So, I disagree strongly with your characterization of the league improvement being less drastic into the 60s (the period from 56-61 is probably the 5 years where the league changed the most with the possible exception of the introduction of the 24 second clock) and with a characterization of the league as improving from the 60s into the 70s . . . disagree more slightly with 60s v. 80s/90s and with only small improvements from 90s to today.

[Pablo Novi]

...
As compared to those 1950s, I rate the 1960s as 66.7% better (a BIG improvement).

From the 1960s onwards, I rate each following decade at a much smaller (and decreasing) improvement in general level of play.
So,
As compared to those 1960s, I rate the 1970s as 10% better.
As compared to those 1970s, I rate the 1980s as 9.1% better.
As compared to those 1980s, I rate the 1990s as 3.3% better.
As compared to those 1990s, I rate the 2000s as 2.7% better.
As compared to those 2000s, I rate the 2010s as 2.6% better.

...

I would say that the 60s are massively better than the 50s (integration and jump shooting plus the arrival of Russell, Chamberlain and to a lesser extent West and Robertson, all talents significantly superior to anyone who came before (with the possible exception of Mikan). I would also say that the 60s were clearly superior to the 70s (20%?) due to expansion, a great increase in selfish play due to the potential for jumping leagues, and the great increase in drug use among players. For that matter, I rate the 60s as marginally superior to the 80s as well (again, expansion though the 60s and 80s were both eras of "superteams" similar to today). The 90s were at best a marginal improvement (possibly a regression due to increase iso play but defense was more emphasized so I rate it slightly higher) then it wasn't until the Euros really started to come into the league combined with a stop to the rapid expansion of the previous 30 years in this century that the league made some serious incremental talent jumps. So, I disagree strongly with your characterization of the league improvement being less drastic into the 60s (the period from 56-61 is probably the 5 years where the league changed the most with the possible exception of the introduction of the 24 second clock) and with a characterization of the league as improving from the 60s into the 70s . . . disagree more slightly with 60s v. 80s/90s and with only small improvements from 90s to today.

I can't really argue with you about who between the two of us is more correct. (I initially started off CLOSER to your version of comparing decades; but then felt that the over-all TREND was for ever-increasing level of play.) I wonder how much agreement there is generally among serious NBA fans about how each decade compares to the other?

I'd GUESS that my system FUDGES things enough to represent a system more reflective of the CONSENSUS than your's does. (But I'm FAR from sure of that).

More specifically, as to our "... with only small improvements from 90s to today."
Well, I've got SMALL improvements (circa 2.5% PER DECADE).

I've also said that "my" version of the improvement FROM the 50s TO the 60s was 67% - that's pretty drastic, no?

As to the possible improvement from the 1960s to the 1970s: There was continuing improvement in such as: coaching, training, larger talent pool to draw from PLUS the entrance of formerly-NBA-ineligible would-be college-freshmen. I'd venture this:
The TOP 5 of the 1960s = approximately the TOP 5 of the 1970s; BUT, the next 5 from the 1960s was weaker than the next 5 from the 1970s.

Similarly, I formerly had the 90s (due to adding 6 teams in 8 years at its beginning) at a lower level than the 80s. Then I changed my mind based on thinking that the OVERALL level of play IMPROVED. (Most analyses I've seen tends to claim that the 90s were better than the 80s; with which I generally agree; but NOT NEARLY to the extent that THEY say it did - again, due to that big expansion).

[Pablo Novi]

You're also assuming talent is constantly proportional across positions . . .which it's clearly not and I'm not sure how to work around that in your system. That's another one I really wrestle with.

For example, centers in the 60/70s - bill/wilt/Thurmond/Bellamy/reed/unseld/etc. Take for example Bob Cousy and his accolades - who did he have to compete against? It penalizes those who were in a heavily competitive era, and rewards those who were "on an island" so to speak.

2 additional points:
1) I pro-rate downwards Cousy's 50s significantly. (Cousy in my system gets 40.5 "Points"; instead of 56 "Points" were there no reduction for that weaker period.)
2) I DOUBT there's much of a consensus about which positions were "heavily competitive" relative to others AND how much more important that "competitive-challenge" was from period to period or decade to decade. As an example, MJ is supposedly the GOAT, yet against what ALL-Time Great SGs did he compete? (How high do most people put Drexler in their GOAT lists?)

[penbeast0]

Top 5 in the 60s were Russell, Wilt, West, Robertson, Pettit/Baylor . . . top 5 in the 70s were Kareem (very comparable to Wilt, not quite up there with Russell), Erving (a bit below West and Robertson as well as the big men), Frazier, Cowens, Gilmore (not up to West and Robertson but around the Pettit/Baylor level). So, I'd say the top 5 in the 60s is clearly superior to the 70s. Next 5 might be superior to the 60s but with 3 times the teams, it's questionable since they are running up bigger stats against weaker opposition and I wouldn't say the median starter or median player if you prefer is that close. There wasn't anywhere near a tripling of the talent pool of great athletes playing basketball, particularly those taller than 6-5.

[dhsilv2]

1. All NBA teams are NOT position based. There are only 3 positions on the all nba team. This is at least after the early to mid 50's where by my count often the first team was 3-4 centers and normally threw in a power forward. But since then there has as far as I know been no distinction between Power Forwards and small forwards or shooting guards and point guards. This makes all nba teams inherently biased again the center, even if you feel all 5 positions should be treated equally, that is not the case with the all nba teams. And in last years case we saw AD who was mostly a 4, voted in as a 5 because of a weak era for centers. If the goal is to weight positions equally, this doesn't do it.
2. Due to gambling, 3 allstars, 2 of which were all nba first team guys were given life time bans in the 50's. If that doesn't drag down the decade massively, I don't know what else does.
3. I agree with the ability to transfer players. Where I take issue is that you think a 3rd team star isn't on par with a first team star from a prior era. Yes the league gets weaker when it first expands, but it always seems to adjust to fill the void. If first team is 5 then third team should be 4.75 at least today vs in 1960. And this goes back to the biggest issue with the all nba work which is that the best player or top 2 or 3 are often much better than the next few players. Well we have the same thing here. Over the last 10 years I'm not sure the 5th best player or the 11th best player were that far apart. Some years there's a gap or multiple gaps. Not to pick on Cousy, but I just pulled up his last first team all nba year and compared him to the other 4 guys.

Oscar nearly a triple double and over 30 a game (and to my earlier point, he's a point guard, there was no shoot guard selected that year).
Pettit 28-20
Baylor 35-20-5
Wilt 38-27
Cousy 18 - 8 -4

One of these guys is not like the others.

And not to harp on this, but 2 of the first team all nba guys in 52 were given a life time ban, they were both second year players. Then an allstar was banned in 54 for life. If that doesn't massively drag down the quality of being all nba I'm not sure what else could do it. Imagine if Harden and Westbrook were banned from the league what it would do to the rest of the decade, and then we banned a guy like Lowery. And again the 50's had a much smaller player pool and fewer teams. So to scale it, imagine if 9 allstars were banned including westbrook, harden, Gobert, Giannis, Butler, and Wall. That's effectively what happened in the early 50's to the league.

[THKNKG]

You're also assuming talent is constantly proportional across positions . . .which it's clearly not and I'm not sure how to work around that in your system. That's another one I really wrestle with.

For example, centers in the 60/70s - bill/wilt/Thurmond/Bellamy/reed/unseld/etc. Take for example Bob Cousy and his accolades - who did he have to compete against? It penalizes those who were in a heavily competitive era, and rewards those who were "on an island" so to speak.

2 additional points:
1) I pro-rate downwards Cousy's 50s significantly. (Cousy in my system gets 40.5 "Points"; instead of 56 "Points" were there no reduction for that weaker period.)
2) I DOUBT there's much of a consensus about which positions were "heavily competitive" relative to others AND how much more important that "competitive-challenge" was from period to period or decade to decade. As an example, MJ is supposedly the GOAT, yet against what ALL-Time Great SGs did he compete? (How high do most people put Drexler in their GOAT lists?)

My point wasn't about c's being more valuable than the rest. It was pertaining to the fact that you very very heavily use a statistic/measure that causes players who play in an era with a plethora of talent at their respective position to suffer.

Let's use a hypothetical. Jim Bob is a mediocre PG, but the guard talent in the league is even worse, so he plays for 15 years, and gets 15 all NBA first team selections. Meanwhile, Bob Jim and Robert Jim both play PF, and they are both equally consider S the greatest 2 players ever. Because of that, Bob Jim only gets 8 all NBA first choices, while Robert Jim gets 7. According to what I've seen from you thus far, Jim Bob the mediocre PG would rank higher than those two guys. Additionally from what I've seen (correct if wrong), your system wouldn't allow for an adjustment this extreme, as the difference in 15 vs 8 all NBA first selections is too vast.

It's a hypothetical, but things like that happen. Cousy (as a real example) had little positional competition relative to, say, Dirk (Duncan/Gasol/KG/Webber/Brand/Griffin/etc.). My argument is that your system is too narrow to allow for this sort of instance. Again, totally open to correction, but this is how it appears to me.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #36:

Paul Pierce - 1 (trex_8063)
Willis Reed - 1 (dhsilv2)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Pablo Novi)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)

About 12-14 hours more for this thread before runoff. Sure hope we get more votes before then.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Dr Positivity]

Thoughts on Cousy, Billups, Tmac, Mourning, Dwight, Schayes, Iverson, Unseld, Pierce, Westbrook, Hayes, Reed, Thurmond from last thread:

Spoiler:

Bob Cousy - Case for: Superb longevity. He is still a 2nd team All-NBA level, all-star in his 13th season. Highly regarded by his peers with all his All-NBA, wins MVP, and in 1980 which is about the halfway point for this project is one of 11 players selected for the 35th anniversary team ahead of some contenders here like Barry and Frazier. Being one of the best slashers of his era and the best passer are both high value offensive roles. Helped Boston to 1st ORTGs when he was the best player. Case against: Played against mostly segregated players in his prime. Being the best guard passer in a poor passing league doesn't necessarily mean he was better at it than future players. Weak TS leads to disappointing OWS and WS production, never finishes higher than 8th/9th in WS. The Celtics dynasty was predicted to collapse without him but they did just fine. Likely overcredited in his time for Boston's offensive success, noting that this was a time where they didn't know any better than to think whoever scored the most points had the best offense, eg. in Cousy's MVP year they had the 5th highest ORTG but scored the most points easily so they may have credited the offensive player as the driving force.

Chauncey Billups - Case for: Combination of passing, getting to the line and free throw line all of which is highly valuable on offense. Somewhat ahead of his time in appreciation for his skillset and value of 3pt spacing. Very good boxscore player with a few top 5s in WS (3rd/5th) and other top 10s and solid but would do better in VORP if his defense was rated better as it probably should've been. Leads Pistons to some strong seasons even without Ben Wallace. Iverson for Billups trade looks terrific for his case with his impact on the Nuggets both as a player and leader and Pistons decline without him. Case against: Ok longevity with about 8 strong years. Good but not great RAPM career, mainly peaking later in his prime. Felt less talented than other players in contention here. Not rated a superstar in his time, not even a star on the level of players like Pierce, Allen and Kidd. His reasonable MVP/All-NBA career somewhat misrepresents the lack of real star labelling there was for Billups. Seen somewhat like the game manager QB on an elite football defense, great at it, but still a game manager. Doesn't necessarily "put pressure on the defense" athletically.

Tracy McGrady - Case for: Amazing statistical peak in 2003 right up there (9.7 BPM!) that’s up there with any Kobe season. Great playmaking wing increasing his value throughout his career along with high volume scoring. Good playoff performer. Case against: Weak longevity and health. Poor intangibles and often seemed half asleep. TS average outside of 03. Never makes it past 1st round as a real player. Him and Yao never seemed to reach their potential together and the Rockets suspiciously overperformed whenever one got injured.

Alonzo Mourning - Case for: One of the best defensive centers remaining, as elite shotblocker and 2x DPOY. Plays the right position to be defense first. Peaks at 2nd in MVP voting in 00 and 1st in 99 RAPM (ascreamingacrossthecourt). Solid 8 years before kidney problems, decent play in 02 and valuable few years as mega shotblocking backup C in 06 and 07. 20 point scorer with above average TS and has midrange floor spacing. Outstanding intangibles, he is both the anti-Dwight and anti-Gilmore in a way. Case against: Not a great offensive threat. Terrible passing numbers and assist to turnover rate. Visually a Meh scoring skillset. May have got the job done in the regular season but to win a title there needs to be a more dynamic offensive player on the team.

Dwight Howard - Case for: Excellent accolades in his time, finishing 2nd in MVP (and possibly deserving to win) and 2x 4th place and 1x 5th place. 3rd a few times in WS and peaks at 5th/6th in VORP. The consensus best defender in the league in his prime and offensively is a 20 point, highly efficient scorer who creates gravity on the pick and roll. The defense alone is highly valuable at center. Peaks at 5th/8th in RAPM. Case against: Poor intangibles, annoying manchild. Very poor passing center who turns it over, and a complete non floor spacer at C. Played in a perfect offensive fit for his style, with ahead of its time floor spacing giving him room inside to score and he has never been the same without it. His offensive skillset never fully passed the eye test. Defensive impact seemed to evaporate after Orlando. When looking at how much better a player like late career Mourning was on defense than post prime Dwight, is it a clue about their ability on that end in their prime?

Dolph Schayes - Case for: Terrific all around offense for his time. High volume scoring, highly efficient, good passing and one of the original floor spacing bigs. Quality longevity as still a relevant player (2nd team All-NBA) in his 12th season and production as late as 61 shows he wasn't just a product of pre shot clock. Defense is hard to gauge but he did well in DWS and finished 1st in the league once. A clearcut top 5 player for his time which many of the alternatives above were not. Won a title as best player. Case against: Played in mostly segregated era and has an antiquated shooting style. Doesn't appear to have had a good defensive skillset even if he was good for his time - he just played in weaker era.

Allen Iverson - Case for: Rated well in his time, MVP winner with two other top 5 finishes. Tremendous volume scorer, on ball playmaker which is high value offensive role. For an advanced stats lightning rod, is a respectable 42nd in VORP. Solid longevity compared to other options here, a solid decade. Made Finals with role players. Efficiency problems somewhat connected to context. Played on defense first team with terrible spacing, in pre handcheck rules era. TS improved in Denver when this was rectified. Imagine if he played with the spacing Harden has right now. Case against: Not a great advanced stats player. Rated as overrated by RAPM and WS on the whole. TS when it dips low enough in PHI makes it harder to say he's worth it. Weak defense. Poor intangibles. Very weak portability both for his style of game and his attitude.

Wes Unseld - Case for: Impact not captured by his boxscore. His outlet passes don't always end in assists, GOAT level screen setter and defends well without it showing up in blocks. More than his MVP, his Finals MVP averaging 9/12/4 looks even crazier in terms of impact he must have shown without stats. Even with that in mind, his boxscore is still decent, he finished top 10 in WS and VORP 5 times each. Fantastic intangibles. Relevant for over a decade. Leads his team to 4 Finals and a title. Case against: Very mediocre volume scoring threat when you take into account pace as well. Combined with playing center it's hard to believe he has a great offensive impact despite the passing. Never makes an all-defensive team. Never makes All-NBA after his MVP season or finishes higher than 8th in MVP again. As soon as he gets there Hayes is voted on as the best player on the team by MVP votes.

Paul Pierce - Case for: All time great longevity, he comes in relatively polished and is still a great player by his 15th year in the league, and even BKN/WAS version after that is starting caliber. 25th all in in WS, 23rd in VORP. Perimeter players who handles and passes well tend to rate strongly in ORPM. Good floor spacer. Strong playoff credentials. Good playoff career including in 08 going toe to to with Lebron and winning Finals MVP. Defense in Garnett era was solid. Case against: Arguable low peak for players here. Only finishes in top 10 in MVP voting once (7th in 09), his 2nd that season was also the only time he finished better than 3rd All-NBA. Only finishes top 10 in RAPM once (08). In his 26-27ppg season she played a lot of minutes to inflate his numbers. Difficult to build champion around him as #1.

Russell Westbrook - Case for: High peak dropping a crazy 32/11/10 MVP season. His last 2 seasons would've ranked high for peaks at this range too. Broke BPM/VORP. A monster talent who puts a ton of physical pressure on the opponent. Plays hard every minute. Has excelled as both 2nd option and 1st. Very good in the playoffs and has come out on the better end of several high profile PG battles. Case against: Rates as top 10 not top 5 peak in RPM. Average longevity, has been a star level player for 7 years, one of them he played 46 games in, and it's only the last 3 where he went to MVP level peak. Low portability both emotionally and style of play, is not taking a backseat to anyone and wants to shoot as much as possible. Mediocre 3pt shooting and floor spacing. Average TS throughout his career and turnover prone.

Elvin Hayes - Case for: Strong longevity and perfect durability leading to high total career marks in points and rebounds. Rated as a star in his time with 2 3rd place MVP, a 5th and several other top 10s and makes 3 1st team All-NBA. Good defensive player and makes a few 2nd team all-defense. Successful in Washington and arguably most talented or best player on a champion, and making 2 other Finals. Case against: Underwhelming TS and a poor passer for his volume, which combines for only ok performance in stats like OWS or OBPM. Terrible intangibles, reviled by many teammates and coaches and has been compared to Chinese water torture, and has been called the worst person they've met in sports. Overall playoff stats are decent, but had choker reputation.

Willis Reed - Case for: High level peak. A player who at different points win MVP and leads league in WS. Outside of the boxscore which is great on its own, has non box value as a 1st team all-defense C who is a great floor spacer for his position. Rated the best player on a team with Frazier. Good intangibles. Quality playoff performer with two Finals MVP. Case against: Short longevity with about 5 prime years and some other decent ones. Not a great passer or dominant offensive player overall, plays weakest offensive position in center. Support as best Knicks player over Frazier may be because white people preferred the quieter black man.

Nate Thurmond - Case for: Rated a high level defender in his time at a key defensive position in C, both man to man where he is supposed GOAT level in an era where it matters a lot, and late career block numbers are promising. With high baseline of value on defense does not need much more on offense to be great. Volume scorer, floor spacer and above average playmaker. A quality decade's worth of longevity. Peaks at 2nd in MVP. Case against: Poor TS while taking a lot of shots for his role. Due to inefficiency weak WS numbers for a player this high.

+ Alex English - Case for: High volume scoring threat, once leads league in PPG and finishes top 3 several other times. Above average efficiency. Good passer. Durable and has an over decade long prime. Makes 3 2nd team All-NBAs and finishes top 10 in MVP twice. One of the best mid range shooters in history, in era without 3pt this counts for elite floor spacing for his position. Case against: Not a great defensive player. Plays on the fasted paced team of his era with not much defensive responsibility asked for allowing him to put up inflated stats. Ranks 81st in WS and 72d in VORP, despite being an accumulation friendly player (durable with a long career).

Vote Paul Pierce

Pierce has a high value offensive role as a ball handler, passer, creator and floor spacer with solid defense. His longevity is tremendous still going strong 15 years into his career and has good moments in the playoffs.

2nd: Nate Thurmond

[THKNKG]

I'll be honest, none of the candidates voted so far this thread appeal to me all that much (though Unseld is a bit of a mystery to me - no idea where I stand on him). Currently, I'm sorting through a slew of centers - Thurmond, Mutombo, Reed, Mourning, and Howard.

Willis Reed is removed for multiple reasons - his prime is shorter than all these guys, I am not convinced his prime or peak are better either, and that most of his being ranked this high is narrative IMO - he'd be viewed a lot differently without an MVP and a leg injury. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but I need convincing to see him as more than I do. Mourning, who is not exactly known for his longevity, has played a bunch more games than Reed - almost 200 more.

Mourning played about 100 or so games less than Dwight and Nate. They all had primes of similar length, so it's not enough to knock him down outright, but both Dwight and Nate have contributed much more value post prime than Mourning did, as a whole. Dwight was also a significantly better rebounder than Mourning, but Dwight is also... Dwight.

Dikembe and Zo both show Dwight up with what RAPM data we have on them, for what it's worth. It does seem to confirm what people have gradually come to believe - that Dwight just wasn't as impactful as he seemed in his prime.

WOWYR from greatest to least:

Dikembe - 8.5, Thurmond - 5.0, Mourning - 4.3, Dwight - 4.2, Reed - 1.2

I'm not as high on Thurmond as I thought I was - he was definitely at least a slight negative on offense. He was just as inefficient as Russell while taking worse shots (midrange) and being a much worse playmaker. Therefore, I think I can safely say Dikembe is at the top of the pack for me.

As for Alonzo vs Dwight vs Nate, it's tough. I honestly think it's super super close. If I could pick a player with a blank slate personality, I'd pick Dwight rather quickly, but he's such a negative spot as a teammate. I think I would have to take Nate over him at the present moment.

VOTE: Dikembe Mutombo
2nd: Nate Thurmond

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Paul Pierce
Alt: Dikembe Mutombo

Pierce is next on my list. To be honest I tend to think I underrate him. Because of the role Garnett played in Boston, it makes Pierce an afterthought. Between his beta status at the height of his team success, and the rather traditional volume scoring role he tended to gravitate toward, I just don't get excited talking about him.

But the reality is he's indisputably great and indisputably able to work well with other star talents. This combination sustained for a long time over a single franchise is actually a really big deal.

I decided with my Alt to pick one of the other candidates who already has a vote. I was actually leaning toward Unseld until Mutombo's name appeared. I've got quite a few bigs on my mind right now: Deke, Zo, Thurmond, Cowens, Gasol. I think they deserve more serious consideraiton.