Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
LA Bird wrote:1. Dikembe Mutombo
Adding something new since I have been posting the same Deke votes for a while now. FWIW, 2001 76ers on/offs after trade....
Iverson
ON (3328 poss): 101. 1 ORtg, 101.5 DRtg, -0.4 Net
OFF (1228 poss): 97.5 ORtg, 97.5 DRtg, -0.0 Net
DIFF: +3.7 ORtg, +4.0 DRtg, -0.3 Net
Mutombo
ON (3483 poss): 100.6 ORtg, 99.0 DRtg, +1.6 Net
OFF (1073 poss): 98.5 DRtg, 105.1 DRtg, -6.6 Net
DIFF: +2.1 ORtg, -6.1 DRtg, +8.2 Net
On the Knicks' first play from scrimmage Reed jumps from the top of the key and the shot goes in. "He ain't hurt," Walt Frazier says to himself, behind his muttonchop grin. Soon, though, Reed is hobbling like Chester chasing vainly after Marshall Dillon. Willis is to hit his second (and last) shot in another minute, but before that what he does at the other end of the court is even more significant. Wilt takes the ball at his spot to the left of the lane. He moves left. If he keeps going that way, can Reed stay with him? Can he shuffle fast enough or can he possibly cross over with that dragging, painful right leg? Willis stays with Wilt for a step. It is enough. Wilt goes no farther. He stops, fakes and throws the ball out. Thereafter, he goes almost exclusively sideways to the right, not driving in, just flipping his finger-rolls. Before Reed goes out with 3:05 left in the half, Wilt gets the ball 17 times in the pivot. He makes only two baskets in nine tries against the disabled Reed.
Owly wrote:Team level D might be held against him but his Drtg (hardly perfect, but I think sufficient for the point/claim being made) in '74 when he played 81 games led the league.
A concern might be that he missed quite a few games, including playing (just) less than 65 games and 2500 minutes for three of his five short prime/extended peak years ('76, '77 and '78 of '74-'78). Still for that 5 year span he looks like the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (even after minutes are factored in) and he lasted much better than McAdoo.
cf:
The five year span in question http://bkref.com/tiny/64BQL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The 70s: http://bkref.com/tiny/0DbJe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reviews on DThe 1975 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1974 wrote:Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.
[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvementThe 1977 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1976 wrote:Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.The 1978 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1977 wrote:Somewhat confusing. Lanier is a mammoth figure to try and get around [and some other decent players but the Porters are bad and the bench "woefully weak" ... comunication and fouling called a problem, perhaps coaching semi-implied as a problem based on that?]
[individual bio]
Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor ...... [unrelated but I've touched on this] Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurtThe 1979 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1978 wrote:[Vitale will be looking to emphasize D] Lanier gives him a head start. That is the advantage of having a big center. Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.The 1980 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1979 wrote:[individual bio]Devensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore
Depending on how much you allow hypotheticals, you might also consider that Detroit rushed him back in his rookie year which may have been detrimental to his long term health.
dhsilv2 wrote:penbeast0 wrote:dhsilv2 wrote: ... he hit about the most crazy clutch shot I can remember (Rex Chapman's 3 in phoenix is about the only shot I can think of I'd take over it)....
[img][/img]
lol, i see that as dumb luck. maybe i am wrong though.
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.
On their way to the championship in 1970, willis helped the knicks knock off 2 of the most dominant centers of all time in wilt and kareem. Undersized for a center at 6’9”, his brute strength and good defensive instincts were still able to deter them. He also had a great outside shot for a big man, which was very effective against wilt in his later years. He would again get the best of wilt in 73 when the knicks took down the lakers in the finals.
I don’t have a problem with questioning his 2 finals MVPs relative to Clyde’s level of play in those series. However, I don’t doubt that reed was a player whose impact went beyond the box score, and I’d say that’s what voters were recognizing when selecting him as finals MVP in both seasons. This was best exemplified in the famous moment when reed came through the tunnel in game 7 of the 70 finals:
As the lakers were warming up, they froze as they saw willis coming onto the court (he had previously missed game 6 with a torn muscle in his thigh, and no one expected him to play). He hit his first 2 jumpers, and the rest was history. Dramatic narrative? Of course, but Clyde himself said they wouldn’t have had the confidence to go out there and perform like they did without their captain leading the way. When you have the talent to back it up as willis did, that makes a difference.
He was certainly deserving of winning reg season MVP in 1970, leading the knicks to a 60-22 record and the #1 ranked SRS in the league. He put together season averages of 21.7 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 2 APG, 50.7 FG, 75.6% FT, 55.2% TS (+4.1% above league avg) and .227 WS/48.
From 69-73, reed would anchor a knicks defense that ranked in the top 3rd of the league for 4 seasons:
69 - 4th
70 - 1st
71 - 2nd
73 - 4th
The season after reed retired, the knicks dropped to 11th (of 18) in DRTG. His impact on that end of the floor was clear, as was the ability to lead a group of players to what’s often considered one of the best stretches of “team play” in NBA history.
dhsilv2 wrote:pandrade83 wrote:trex_8063 wrote:
Gotcha. Well, as stated above, I still strongly disagree with this idea that he "carried" them; no "second star", but that's a quality supporting cast.
Patrick Beverly isn't a scorer and not a great playmaker......but he can at least reliably hit a spot-up trey and takes good care of the ball on offense; he's meanwhile one of the BEST defensive and rebounding PG's in the league.
Trevor Ariza is a journeyman stud role player, who has been that sort of "utility guy" at SF for multiple good teams (as he did for the Rockets last year).
Ryan Anderson is a pretty nice stretch-4 who would average 13-18 ppg on GOOD efficiency for most teams in the league.
Clint Capela's an EXCELLENT finisher around the rim who plays some defense and rebounds very well (including on the offensive glass) in a limited minutes capacity.
Limited minutes is fine where Capela is concerned, as for reserve bigs they have post-prime (but still very savvy/useful) Nene Hilario, as well as the promising Montrezl Harrell. Sam Dekker's not exactly something to write home about, but also not bad at all at reserve SF. i.e. they have depth in their frontcourt.
And it's important to note I'm talking about their depth before I even get to the 6th-Man of the Year winner, Eric Gordon, who has proven he's capable of 20 ppg seasons on good shooting efficiency (and with a reasonably small turnover rate).
AND beyond that they also had for much of the season defensive specialist Corey Brewer, whom they traded away for additional offensive punch off the bench in Lou Williams.
Unless you firmly ascribe to the theory that a supporting cast is crap if it doesn't contain a second All-Star, there's otherwise no firm footing by which to claim this cast needs carrying.
Sure, you exchange Harden for a league-avg SG, and they wouldn't have a true star; but they'd still have several entirely decent (even very good in a couple instances) players and one of the deepest rosters in the league. And again, noting they were still outscoring the competition even when Harden was out of the game, and I'd wager this team still would have gone .500+ without Harden.
All fair points.
I view harden as the catalyst that enabled all those guys to essentially become the most efficient version of themselves that they could. He allows the 3 point shooters to get those looks, he helps capela get the looks he gets, he allows Beverly to well, be Beverly.
It's not to say those guys are bad players; I just feel that hardens role maximizes the talents they have and I know so much of this is eye test driven.
I don't see that as a .500 team without harden though; I'm feeling more like 37-45 or so. If he were to come off the roster it would put guys in roles they aren't qualified for and I think you'd see substantial ripple effects on the rest of the roster that just don't show up when you have their depth going against other teams' backups.
Hopefully that helps explain my position some.
Not to pile on, but I've been asked this on harden, and I don't have a good answer. How do you explain his RAPM numbers? He doesn't measure out nearly as well as one would expect given the numbers at least the last 2 seasons.
pandrade83 wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:pandrade83 wrote:
All fair points.
I view harden as the catalyst that enabled all those guys to essentially become the most efficient version of themselves that they could. He allows the 3 point shooters to get those looks, he helps capela get the looks he gets, he allows Beverly to well, be Beverly.
It's not to say those guys are bad players; I just feel that hardens role maximizes the talents they have and I know so much of this is eye test driven.
I don't see that as a .500 team without harden though; I'm feeling more like 37-45 or so. If he were to come off the roster it would put guys in roles they aren't qualified for and I think you'd see substantial ripple effects on the rest of the roster that just don't show up when you have their depth going against other teams' backups.
Hopefully that helps explain my position some.
Not to pile on, but I've been asked this on harden, and I don't have a good answer. How do you explain his RAPM numbers? He doesn't measure out nearly as well as one would expect given the numbers at least the last 2 seasons.
Heh, if you're not getting piled on at some point in this, you're doing it wrong
As advanced as the regression techniques get, regression techniques can & will produce weird results sometimes. You have to really think those results through - it's a lesson I've learned the hard way in my professional life, & it's one I've observed others having to learn. I.E. - there is no way Kevin Love should be treated as superior to Harden these last couple years. I've seen what happens when Love has his own team.
I treat the RAPM Data as kind of directional & chain it whenever possible - it's nice to make a point with it as the Manu supporters are doing with his '05 data - hell, I would be too if he were my candidate. And it's not like the RAPM Data is bad regarding Harden - it's just lower than every other data point would imply - and because it is that way, maybe it's the outlier.
Anyway - that's not to trash RAPM - it's a great tool that sheds a great deal of insights - we shouldn't just dis-regard every other metric because of it - & when RAPM is the outlier, just accept that it's possible it is going to have some misses.
trex_8063 wrote:
Neither was much of a ball-stopper who compelled his teammates to become spectators (this compared to Dantley, for example)....
trex_8063 wrote:LA Bird wrote:1. Dikembe Mutombo
Adding something new since I have been posting the same Deke votes for a while now. FWIW, 2001 76ers on/offs after trade....
Iverson
ON (3328 poss): 101. 1 ORtg, 101.5 DRtg, -0.4 Net
OFF (1228 poss): 97.5 ORtg, 97.5 DRtg, -0.0 Net
DIFF: +3.7 ORtg, +4.0 DRtg, -0.3 Net
Mutombo
ON (3483 poss): 100.6 ORtg, 99.0 DRtg, +1.6 Net
OFF (1073 poss): 98.5 DRtg, 105.1 DRtg, -6.6 Net
DIFF: +2.1 ORtg, -6.1 DRtg, +8.2 Net
Where did you find these numbers?
LA Bird wrote:trex_8063 wrote:LA Bird wrote:1. Dikembe Mutombo
Adding something new since I have been posting the same Deke votes for a while now. FWIW, 2001 76ers on/offs after trade....
Iverson
ON (3328 poss): 101. 1 ORtg, 101.5 DRtg, -0.4 Net
OFF (1228 poss): 97.5 ORtg, 97.5 DRtg, -0.0 Net
DIFF: +3.7 ORtg, +4.0 DRtg, -0.3 Net
Mutombo
ON (3483 poss): 100.6 ORtg, 99.0 DRtg, +1.6 Net
OFF (1073 poss): 98.5 DRtg, 105.1 DRtg, -6.6 Net
DIFF: +2.1 ORtg, -6.1 DRtg, +8.2 Net
Where did you find these numbers?
Calculated it myself by aggregating regular season data from Feb 22 onward and playoffs data.
LA Bird wrote:1. Dikembe Mutombo
One of the greatest defensive players ever and should have won more than 4 DPOYs IMO. Mutombo is the only player beside Russell who is on both of my defensive Mt Rushmore for peak and overall career. He dominated Robinson/Hakeem/Mourning in late 90s DRAPM data which suggests his relative lacking defensive versatility and agility out in the perimeter did not stop from him being a major defensive force. I rate Mutombo as a slight negative offensively due to him not being a good passer but he at least scores at a solid efficiency on low volume and can make FTs. Remained a top tier defensive player into his 40s and the extra longevity puts him ahead of other centers (namely Reed, Walton) who peaked higher but had their careers significantly cut short by injuries.
Adding something new since I have been posting the same Deke votes for a while now. FWIW, 2001 76ers on/offs after trade....
Iverson
ON (3328 poss): 101. 1 ORtg, 101.5 DRtg, -0.4 Net
OFF (1228 poss): 97.5 ORtg, 97.5 DRtg, -0.0 Net
DIFF: +3.7 ORtg, +4.0 DRtg, -0.3 Net
Mutombo
ON (3483 poss): 100.6 ORtg, 99.0 DRtg, +1.6 Net
OFF (1073 poss): 98.5 DRtg, 105.1 DRtg, -6.6 Net
DIFF: +2.1 ORtg, -6.1 DRtg, +8.2 Net
2. Chauncey Billups
penbeast0 wrote:trex_8063 wrote:
Neither was much of a ball-stopper who compelled his teammates to become spectators (this compared to Dantley, for example)....
I've forgotten if you posted statistical evidence to back up the ball stopper comment. I never really saw it for him. Wilt, yes . . . he frequently walked slowly up court after change of possession to conserve energy. Anthony Mason or Rod Strickland both used to annoy me by just standing in one place pounding the ball into the group waiting for someone to do something rather than creating themselves. But never really saw that with Dantley. He did have a large array of fakes and moves to work his defender so often didn't shoot immediately but that's true of almost any post scorer; how many times have we seen Dwyane Wade ball fake once, twice, even three times trying to get his defender to bite and gain the extra trip to the line. But AD is the only one I hear this about.
penbeast0 wrote:OK, not seeing the pause when I watch videos but I was wondering if I had forgotten some of the anti-Dantley arguments. I agree about the surprising lack of lift for the offenses, it's why I switched off him for the alternate pick.
Between Reed and Mutombo, I want to go with Reed but just don't really see his statistical advantage as that strong and Mutombo's shotblocking and longevity are.
VOTE: Dikembe Mutombo