Alt: Nate Thurmond
voting for Deke for the same reasons I have for a whole - will try to post my old reasoning in the thread at some point. I'm still unconvinced of my second choice though - but I feel pretty okay with Thurmond there.
micahclay wrote:Okay, now for me to go back to the nitty gritty - at the beginning, I defined certain axioms that are central to my analysis of basketball greatness. I want to post these again for the sake of reference, and they will help explain my thinking.
Defense - The value of a defensive big man (4/5) is higher than the value of a defensive perimeter player (1/2/3).
Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways.
Offense vs defense – Offensive players have a higher capacity to affect the game (or at least do so more frequently), but the scarcity of defenders who can produce at that level makes those defenders at least equally valuable (aka scarcity theory).
Playstyle – Except for situations where a team is so weak it needs a player to “carry them,” a team-friendly playstyle is most preferred.
Longevity/peak – Unless there is a clear advantage in peak, assuming levels similar to one another, the player with more effective longevity is more highly valued.
Intangibles – Intangibles clearly affect a player/team, so they must be considered when analyzing the greatness of a player, for better or worse.
Era – The player must be considered in the context of the era in which they played, and any “era translation” must be done consistently in all directions in context as well.
Some thoughts on some of these to add on, before I continue:
1. Axioms 1/2/3 are why I value ATG defensive anchors so much, and axiom 4 is why I view inefficiency as less valuable by default. In my first post on the project, I made the following distinctions (assuming equal levels of talent - obviously the hierarchy is not used in the instance of a GOAT level player) -
off-ball > ball-dominant playmakers > ball-dominant scorers
2. The scarcity of an ELITE defensive 4 / 5, combined with the intrinsically additive nature of defense to a team, means that for me to overlook a high impact, GOAT tier defender, that other player better have some rock solid reasoning.
Alright, next, I also mentioned the concepts of gravity/creation, and anti-gravity/disruption. Gravity meaning the amount of distortion put on the defense by a player, and anti-gravity meaning the amount of distortion put on the offense. Creation meaning a combination of scoring/playmaking, and disruption being actually disrupting a play - jumping passing lanes, steals, blocks, rim protection, etc. Those are fundamental concepts to our understanding of basketball, and they’re important for our discussions here.
I wrote in a separate thread a few weeks ago (that I can’t search for right now for some reason), that on a PPP basis, unless a player is at Steph level 3 pt. % and beyond, shots in the lane are more valuable. Midrange shots would require a LOT of increase to be as valuable - they’re just bad shots to take by willing choice, which is why the league has evolved as it has.
So, shots in the lane are the most effective. Studies have also shown that 3 point defense and midrange defense (ITO percentage at least) tend to be close to random. Meanwhile, rim protectors tend to be consistent from year to year.
sources: https://fansided.com/2017/01/12/nylon-calculus-shot-defense-metrics-actions/
https://fansided.com/2015/02/09/defending-the-three-pointer-mean-avoiding-three-pointer/
Therefore IF shots in the lane are most effective, and IF they are the shots that demonstrably CAN be altered, it follows that players who can alter shots the most effectively are HIGHLY valuable.
The best rim protectors of the past 4 years or so have altered the oppFG% <5 ft. by between 10-15% (sometimes more). The average fg% for teams in that range was roughly 60%. 60% gives a rate of 1.2ppp, which is the same efficacy as a 40% 3 pt. shooter. This means that the best rim protectors of the last few years have shifted the ppp of shots at the rim from 1.2ppp to anywhere from 0.9-1.0ppp.
This means the most elite rim protectors make shots at the rim nearly as inefficient as midrange shots.
Now, imagine the players who were even better rim protectors than Gobert - Russell, Robinson, Hakeem, Mutombo - and then all of a sudden, the massive RAPM scores of Deke start to make a lot of sense. Could Deke have altered oppFG% by near 20%, and thus made shots at the rim LESS efficient than midrange shots? Quite possibly, as there have been some players over the last few years who have been in the high teens. Deke exhibited massive anti-gravity, and accompanied it with arguably GOAT level rim protection.
