RealGM 2017 Top 100 #82 (James Worthy)

[pandrade83]

...


Interested to see a direct comparison with Archibald as well as some of the others Owly mentioned for those who are supporting either one. (Porter, Cheeks, Gus, Mark Price, Blaylock, and Penny . . . can't see any of the others getting in here though I am willing to listen if there is a case). The problem with Brand is that throughout his career, he was just never relevant . . . possibly because he was always on bad teams but while he matches up statistically, he just wasn't a guy you worried about that much. Sort of like Terry Cummings who was always one of my favorites but also suffered the curse of Clipperdom.

Of remaining PGs, the ones I see myself supporting aside from Hardaway are Porter & Blaylock are potentially Tiny.

As they come up, I'll try & address.

[pandrade83]

So on Hardaway vs. Tiny -

Here's some of the reasons I take Hardaway over Tiny:

A little bit better Box Metrics in a materially better era

Hardaway generates 85 Career WS to Tiny's 83.4 and about 2/3 of Tiny's WS comes pre-merger; I think that's note-worthy. Tiny posts a positive Box Score +/- just once post merger as well; showing a clear drop-off (though partially due to age). Hardaway also has marginally better PER (18.6 vs. 18.0). I'm willing to concede that Tiny's best BPM Years probably aren't captured ('72 & '73) but it's likely that Hardaway has a superior Career VORP Score as well.

Solid defender vs. Weak Defender

I think the game clips + the RAPM Data + the steal frequency + some of the h2h matchups I posted shows a fair picture of a capable defender. I wouldn't call Hardaway elite or anything - but he's solid. Archibald on the other hand was pretty bad on metrics & I'll add to it with some of the data from Owly:

After rookie season
The Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball 1971-72 – A Jim O’Brien Book [different to later Hollander edited books]
Has trouble on defense … Has tremendous body control, however, and could come a long way in that area this season.

After ’74 (4th year) but mainly in reference to earlier seasons as playing only
1975 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald will have to make an effort on defense or will have his problems with [incoming head coach Phil] Johnson. In the past he gave back many of the points he scored.
[player section:]

1977 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be pesky in a pressing situation, perhaps, but overall he’s a liability.
[player section:]

1978 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be a pest, but he can’t contain anyone over 40 minutes.
[player section:]

DNP in the prior, 77-78, season.
1979 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] In Archibald, Knight and Barnes, they have acquired offensive talents who can make it an exciting team, but a porous one as well.
[player section:]

1980 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald has lost a step and can’t guard his house.
[player section:]

1981 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald is adequate against players his size (both of them).
[player section:]

No mentions of his D in either section of the ’82 Handbook

1983 Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball
[team section:] Archibald can be beaten because of his size …
[player section:]

Playoffs

I was pretty candid about Hardaway's playoff performance - warts & all. But Tiny's worse. He has a negative BPM every year, never even gets to 14 on PER, and the one time he made it in his prime, he went for 20-5 on 44% TS.

The case for Archibald is

Thinking about this from a pro-Tiny perspective, I think the biggest case is being really in love with that '73 season and valuing the peak he brings over the career value edge that Hardaway seems to have. He's part of a 3 man 30 pt 10 assist club with the Big O & Westbrook. He did so while shooting 56% TS which is pretty strong for the era and anchors the #1 offense while doing so without having a 3 point line and with Sam Lacey being the next best player on the team.

It's a great season (although they miss the playoffs, which should be a red flag). I get the appeal of that season. But that would be the only time before playing with Larry Bird where he was on a positive offense and for a point guard who was clearly a defensive liability, that seems problematic.

Anyway - my two cents - sorry for posting some really long posts on this thread.

[trex_8063]

Of remaining PGs, the ones I see myself supporting aside from Hardaway are Porter & Blaylock are potentially Tiny.

As they come up, I'll try & address.

Curious: why Mookie but no Maurice Cheeks? They seem somewhat similar [that is: thieves and stalwart defensive PG's], except Cheeks arguably better offensively and with clearly superior longevity (also more in the way of "career accomplishments" [even if some of them are of the team variety]).

[trex_8063]

Of remaining PGs, the ones I see myself supporting aside from Hardaway are Porter & Blaylock are potentially Tiny.

As they come up, I'll try & address.

Curious: why Mookie but no Maurice Cheeks? They seem somewhat similar [that is: thieves and stalwart defensive PG's], except Cheeks arguably better offensively and with clearly superior longevity (also more in the way of "career accomplishments" [even if some of them are of the team variety]).

As it relates to my above question, check out post #155 in this thread; shows some on/off data for various Sixer players (and actually makes specific mention of Blaylock's on/off relative to Cheeks'); discussion about Cheeks follows in subsequent posts. Check out the whole thread, for that matter.

[dhsilv2]

Thinking about this from a pro-Tiny perspective, I think the biggest case is being really in love with that '73 season and valuing the peak he brings over the career value edge that Hardaway seems to have. He's part of a 3 man 30 pt 10 assist club with the Big O & Westbrook. He did so while shooting 56% TS which is pretty strong for the era and anchors the #1 offense while doing so without having a 3 point line and with Sam Lacey being the next best player on the team.

It's a great season (although they miss the playoffs, which should be a red flag). I get the appeal of that season. But that would be the only time before playing with Larry Bird where he was on a positive offense and for a point guard who was clearly a defensive liability, that seems problematic.

Anyway - my two cents - sorry for posting some really long posts on this thread.

Part of what I tend to look at are league relative things. For example Tiny lead the league in free throw attempts as a point guard twice and was 1st in made free throws 3 times. 4 top 5 seasons in free throw attempts and makes for a point guard is exceptional. He had some rather amazing seasons and he did it on a team consistently near the bottom of the league in pace. And then he had a nice back half of his career with the celtics where he was a HIGH minute guy for them on a title team.

That said Tim's a good pick here. I tend to look for people that had "WOW" seasons and I also admit to having a title's bias. Tim doesn't have a title and only had a few "wow" seasons, no caps.

[pandrade83]

Of remaining PGs, the ones I see myself supporting aside from Hardaway are Porter & Blaylock are potentially Tiny.

As they come up, I'll try & address.

Curious: why Mookie but no Maurice Cheeks? They seem somewhat similar [that is: thieves and stalwart defensive PG's], except Cheeks arguably better offensively and with clearly superior longevity (also more in the way of "career accomplishments" [even if some of them are of the team variety]).

Good point - I hadn't thought of Cheeks as being better offensively but taking a deeper look, he warrants being part of the conversation as well.

[Owly]

Tim Hardaway – I won’t necessarily go for the Brand refrain here (I think I’d prefer Brand but I can see the possibility of dynamic playmaker like Hardaway having a case, though he does again have more of a “star” perception advantage). I would argue with the characterisation of the playoffs as mixed. Now, as ever, playoffs are, relative to just about everyone else, way lower weighted by me – injuries, small sample size, player matchups, team matchups, uneven levels of competition, uneven weighting of different years etc etc. That said … there’s only three players in numerically dropping off as Hardaway from RS to playoffs Karl Malone (with incredible longevity and starting from a substantially greater height); Moncrief (with non-boxscore as potential mitigation) and Dominique Wilkins (starting from a greater height and with better longevity). I’ll throw in similar droppers (though perhaps somewhat to do with the shape of their playoff career) who could potentially at least have a case made for them for the top 100: Sabonis and Johnston (could have put Schrempf in here his drop offs are very slightly less bad than this group – and I’m assuming no one will be making a case for Drazen Petrovic, Clifford Robinson or Stephon Marbury). http://bkref.com/tiny/mr1Z5

May I ask which specific year you disagree with how I wrote about him - or are you referencing the aggregated data you pulled? I think it's relevant to look at the specific year by year performance if weak playoff performance is a critique.

I tried to use pretty candid language "blah, Sub-Par, gets his ass kicked, miserable, bad" as I didn't want to come off as sugar-coating the issue. You see that I addressed it and I was obviously aware that it could be a potential issue for a voter - I'm just trying to get at the heart of what you're saying. I thought he had enough high impact performances - including two key series in his career - that "mixed" was fair.

First, to repeat the qualifier with playoffs - small samples, uneven career balance, matchups (team and player), uneven competition, injuries ... not something that I weigh heavily (not something I can figure how to work with in a fair and consistent manner, really). With that caveat acknowledged ...

I think "mixed" hides more than it reveals. There's certainly virtue in looking at each individual season (perhaps somehow comparing it with that years RS if you use RS as the main baseline for your rankings, in a manner that fairly accounts the many variables discussed) and if you can then somehow fairly synthesize that into an overall playoff "rating" or some such thing then that's great. But as is "mixed" as the general descriptor could describe anyone apart from those with a very limited number of playoff runs. All the more so if you're mainly looking at single series. Mixed is what you get with small samples. Very inconsistent (fairly poor predictive power). You'll see a career like Warren Jabali's where, okay it's a 4 year playoff career, so only three inter-playoff gaps, it's not quite all consecutive years, but still ... it never changes by less than 10 PER (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jabalwa01.html). Mike Bibby (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bibbymi01.html), Ricky Pierce (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercri01.html), Cassell (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cassesa01.html), Scott Williams maybe (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willisc01.html) these are guys I've noticed are more extreme but they illustrate how playoff performance pinballs about. Unless you've got a robust, fair methodology for aggregating single years it will be tricky but "mixed" ... sure like everyone else but how does that help us.

The nearest thing I have to a methodology (never properly followed through, and to the extent it was, done ad-hoc) is RS as a baseline, and adjust using playoffs. And in this one instance comparing versus RS makes sense. And career numbers RS versus playoffs (ideally with some mental accounting for context - e.g. '08 Cassell was bad in the playoffs but this doesn't matter it's not the part of his career he's adding value) is probably the least worst, time-feasible thing I've got. And it says Tim dropped off a lot. And you can probably to ignore '03 but the minutes are so tiny it makes almost no difference to the career numbers. You seem to cite a through 2001 version of RAPM (albeit limited options there), and his RS numbers make him notionally capable, above average in '01, '00 and near-prime/late prime in '99. And throughout all these he's really bad. Negative value added bad. And as before, small samples, but then they won't be weighted hugely in the average. That's the least-worst I can do with it.

So yeah, you think mixed is fair ... I don't think it's inaccurate, but I don't think it's that helpful and to the best I can tell, he's a relatively big playoff faller. Doesn't matter so much to me for the reasons cited above and every time this is discussed. But I'm not really a voter (and fwiw, there's people still active who voted Isiah in at 39 - one first balloter and one second at a glance - and to my mind they'd have to weight playoff performance substantially to justify that and if so, they'd have to have a bunch of guys ... say Gus Williams way up on the PG priorities list above Hardaway ... Baron Davis too if inclined towards player performance rather than team success/historical significance/narrative - but here I'm going too deep into guessing motivations without looking back properly and this shouldn't be an anchoring thing - so the point is (1) people care more about the playoffs than me and (2) "mixed" perhaps, but I and probably others will need more than you put to say that the more pertinent judgement isn't "below par" for the playoffs).


Oh and fwiw, I forgot, on your original criteria, a multiple minimum threshold test is a pretty dubious argument. I'm pretty sure I've noted I could use to show Sam Lacey was one of two guys with a couple of seasons matching KG as a complete player (now Draymond too - this statistical profile seems to be getting more common, though one should probably take out the presently ongoing season - viewtopic.php?t=1355066&start=20 see post 28 and http://bkref.com/tiny/u9HGb). At best this is maybe a decorative flourish, putting it first (and without acknowledging the possibilty for such stats to be misleading - people used them to put Marbury alone in a class with Oscar Robertson) makes it seem like a big part of your reasoning (and I hope it isn't).

[trex_8063]

Thru post #27:

James Worthy - 2 (Outside, trex_8063)
Chris Webber - 1 (dhsilv2)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Tim Hardaway - 1 (pandrade83)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)

Runoff time. Will have to go to the secondary votes to narrow this down a little. Melo and Webber both also have 1 secondary vote each (Daniels and Tim have none). So we'll go a three-way runoff between Worthy/Melo/Webber; transferring secondary votes below:

James Worthy - 3 (Outside, trex_8063, penbeast0)
Chris Webber - 2 (pandrade83, dhsilv2)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)


If you're handle isn't shown here, please state your ONE pick among these three with reasons why. Will conclude or narrow down within 24 hours.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[pandrade83]

May I ask which specific year you disagree with how I wrote about him - or are you referencing the aggregated data you pulled? I think it's relevant to look at the specific year by year performance if weak playoff performance is a critique.

I tried to use pretty candid language "blah, Sub-Par, gets his ass kicked, miserable, bad" as I didn't want to come off as sugar-coating the issue. You see that I addressed it and I was obviously aware that it could be a potential issue for a voter - I'm just trying to get at the heart of what you're saying. I thought he had enough high impact performances - including two key series in his career - that "mixed" was fair.

First, to repeat the qualifier with playoffs - small samples, uneven career balance, matchups (team and player), uneven competition, injuries ... not something that I weigh heavily (not something I can figure how to work with in a fair and consistent manner, really). With that caveat acknowledged ...

I think "mixed" hides more than it reveals. There's certainly virtue in looking at each individual season (perhaps somehow comparing it with that years RS if you use RS as the main baseline for your rankings, in a manner that fairly accounts the many variables discussed) and if you can then somehow fairly synthesize that into an overall playoff "rating" or some such thing then that's great. But as is "mixed" as the general descriptor could describe anyone apart from those with a very limited number of playoff runs. All the more so if you're mainly looking at single series. Mixed is what you get with small samples. Very inconsistent (fairly poor predictive power). You'll see a career like Warren Jabali's where, okay it's a 4 year playoff career, so only three inter-playoff gaps, it's not quite all consecutive years, but still ... it never changes by less than 10 PER (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jabalwa01.html). Mike Bibby (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bibbymi01.html), Ricky Pierce (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercri01.html), Cassell (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cassesa01.html), Scott Williams maybe (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willisc01.html) these are guys I've noticed are more extreme but they illustrate how playoff performance pinballs about. Unless you've got a robust, fair methodology for aggregating single years it will be tricky but "mixed" ... sure like everyone else but how does that help us.

The nearest thing I have to a methodology (never properly followed through, and to the extent it was, done ad-hoc) is RS as a baseline, and adjust using playoffs. And in this one instance comparing versus RS makes sense. And career numbers RS versus playoffs (ideally with some mental accounting for context - e.g. '08 Cassell was bad in the playoffs but this doesn't matter it's not the part of his career he's adding value) is probably the least worst, time-feasible thing I've got. And it says Tim dropped off a lot. And you can probably to ignore '03 but the minutes are so tiny it makes almost no difference to the career numbers. You seem to cite a through 2001 version of RAPM (albeit limited options there), and his RS numbers make him notionally capable, above average in '01, '00 and near-prime/late prime in '99. And throughout all these he's really bad. Negative value added bad. And as before, small samples, but then they won't be weighted hugely in the average. That's the least-worst I can do with it.

So yeah, you think mixed is fair ... I don't think it's inaccurate, but I don't think it's that helpful and to the best I can tell, he's a relatively big playoff faller. Doesn't matter so much to me for the reasons cited above and every time this is discussed. But I'm not really a voter (and fwiw, there's people still active who voted Isiah in at 39 - one first balloter and one second at a glance - and to my mind they'd have to weight playoff performance substantially to justify that and if so, they'd have to have a bunch of guys ... say Gus Williams way up on the PG priorities list above Hardaway ... Baron Davis too if inclined towards player performance rather than team success/historical significance/narrative - but here I'm going too deep into guessing motivations without looking back properly and this shouldn't be an anchoring thing - so the point is (1) people care more about the playoffs than me and (2) "mixed" perhaps, but I and probably others will need more than you put to say that the more pertinent judgement isn't "below par" for the playoffs).


Oh and fwiw, I forgot, on your original criteria, a multiple minimum threshold test is a pretty dubious argument. I'm pretty sure I've noted I could use to show Sam Lacey was one of two guys with a couple of seasons matching KG as a complete player (now Draymond too - this statistical profile seems to be getting more common, though one should probably take out the presently ongoing season - viewtopic.php?t=1355066&start=20 see post 28 and http://bkref.com/tiny/u9HGb). At best this is maybe a decorative flourish, putting it first (and without acknowledging the possibilty for such stats to be misleading - people used them to put Marbury alone in a class with Oscar Robertson) makes it seem like a big part of your reasoning (and I hope it isn't).

1. On the mixed part - I took a look at every year in what could reasonably be considered part of his prime. When he was bad, I it out. I don't really think there's a great standardized method of looking at playoff performance.

I think it's very fair to criticize Hardaway's playoff performance and while the headline I wrote said "mixed", I did do more than just call him mixed and gloss over it. I could have quantified exactly how bad he was in the years I called bad or where Penny destroyed him in '97 - but it's not like I let him off the hook. I said he got his ass kicked, I said his performance was miserable, etc. Reading your paragraph on playoff performance I get the sense that your frustration with how people characterize playoff performance is not just with me - but it comes off as accusing me of just calling Hardaway's playoff performance "mixed" and moving on. I didn't do that & I take issue with that.

2. Multiple Minimums

-One of the queries I called out players who had done it more than once - the list itself is pretty long of players who had done it once but I wanted to establish some consistency.
-If you read further on - you'll note I took a little bit of a jab at myself for using multiple minimums - i.e. - checking myself for using that sort of an argument in the first place. The whole point is that he has a fairly unique combination of playmaking abilities, scoring abilities while remaining efficient on a shooting & turnover economy level.

3A. If you're going to note the rare company Hardaway is in other places, he's one of the rare players to lose in the 1st round while leading an SRS 5+ Team in WS.

[SactoKingsFan]

My runoff vote goes to Chris Webber. He's been my top candidate for the last few spots.

viewtopic.php?p=62283095#p62283095

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: James Worthy

If I'm trying to build a championship team I have way more faith in Worthy than the other candidates. He's shown he be vital to an all-time great level team without getting in the way, and honestly I think he'd at least be able to be on the same tier as Webber and Melo as a team's alpha. I wouldn't expect to win championships with Worthy as my best player, but the same goes for the other two.

[Owly]

First, to repeat the qualifier with playoffs - small samples, uneven career balance, matchups (team and player), uneven competition, injuries ... not something that I weigh heavily (not something I can figure how to work with in a fair and consistent manner, really). With that caveat acknowledged ...

I think "mixed" hides more than it reveals. There's certainly virtue in looking at each individual season (perhaps somehow comparing it with that years RS if you use RS as the main baseline for your rankings, in a manner that fairly accounts the many variables discussed) and if you can then somehow fairly synthesize that into an overall playoff "rating" or some such thing then that's great. But as is "mixed" as the general descriptor could describe anyone apart from those with a very limited number of playoff runs. All the more so if you're mainly looking at single series. Mixed is what you get with small samples. Very inconsistent (fairly poor predictive power). You'll see a career like Warren Jabali's where, okay it's a 4 year playoff career, so only three inter-playoff gaps, it's not quite all consecutive years, but still ... it never changes by less than 10 PER (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jabalwa01.html). Mike Bibby (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bibbymi01.html), Ricky Pierce (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercri01.html), Cassell (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cassesa01.html), Scott Williams maybe (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willisc01.html) these are guys I've noticed are more extreme but they illustrate how playoff performance pinballs about. Unless you've got a robust, fair methodology for aggregating single years it will be tricky but "mixed" ... sure like everyone else but how does that help us.

The nearest thing I have to a methodology (never properly followed through, and to the extent it was, done ad-hoc) is RS as a baseline, and adjust using playoffs. And in this one instance comparing versus RS makes sense. And career numbers RS versus playoffs (ideally with some mental accounting for context - e.g. '08 Cassell was bad in the playoffs but this doesn't matter it's not the part of his career he's adding value) is probably the least worst, time-feasible thing I've got. And it says Tim dropped off a lot. And you can probably to ignore '03 but the minutes are so tiny it makes almost no difference to the career numbers. You seem to cite a through 2001 version of RAPM (albeit limited options there), and his RS numbers make him notionally capable, above average in '01, '00 and near-prime/late prime in '99. And throughout all these he's really bad. Negative value added bad. And as before, small samples, but then they won't be weighted hugely in the average. That's the least-worst I can do with it.

So yeah, you think mixed is fair ... I don't think it's inaccurate, but I don't think it's that helpful and to the best I can tell, he's a relatively big playoff faller. Doesn't matter so much to me for the reasons cited above and every time this is discussed. But I'm not really a voter (and fwiw, there's people still active who voted Isiah in at 39 - one first balloter and one second at a glance - and to my mind they'd have to weight playoff performance substantially to justify that and if so, they'd have to have a bunch of guys ... say Gus Williams way up on the PG priorities list above Hardaway ... Baron Davis too if inclined towards player performance rather than team success/historical significance/narrative - but here I'm going too deep into guessing motivations without looking back properly and this shouldn't be an anchoring thing - so the point is (1) people care more about the playoffs than me and (2) "mixed" perhaps, but I and probably others will need more than you put to say that the more pertinent judgement isn't "below par" for the playoffs).


Oh and fwiw, I forgot, on your original criteria, a multiple minimum threshold test is a pretty dubious argument. I'm pretty sure I've noted I could use to show Sam Lacey was one of two guys with a couple of seasons matching KG as a complete player (now Draymond too - this statistical profile seems to be getting more common, though one should probably take out the presently ongoing season - viewtopic.php?t=1355066&start=20 see post 28 and http://bkref.com/tiny/u9HGb). At best this is maybe a decorative flourish, putting it first (and without acknowledging the possibilty for such stats to be misleading - people used them to put Marbury alone in a class with Oscar Robertson) makes it seem like a big part of your reasoning (and I hope it isn't).

1. On the mixed part - I took a look at every year in what could reasonably be considered part of his prime. When he was bad, I it out. I don't really think there's a great standardized method of looking at playoff performance.

I think it's very fair to criticize Hardaway's playoff performance and while the headline I wrote said "mixed", I did do more than just call him mixed and gloss over it. I could have quantified exactly how bad he was in the years I called bad or where Penny destroyed him in '97 - but it's not like I let him off the hook. I said he got his ass kicked, I said his performance was miserable, etc. Reading your paragraph on playoff performance I get the sense that your frustration with how people characterize playoff performance is not just with me - but it comes off as accusing me of just calling Hardaway's playoff performance "mixed" and moving on. I didn't do that & I take issue with that.

2. Multiple Minimums

-One of the queries I called out players who had done it more than once - the list itself is pretty long of players who had done it once but I wanted to establish some consistency.
-If you read further on - you'll note I took a little bit of a jab at myself for using multiple minimums - i.e. - checking myself for using that sort of an argument in the first place. The whole point is that he has a fairly unique combination of playmaking abilities, scoring abilities while remaining efficient on a shooting & turnover economy level.

3A. If you're going to note the rare company Hardaway is in other places, he's one of the rare players to lose in the 1st round while leading an SRS 5+ Team in WS.

[/quote]
You asked me to clarify which years I disagreed with or whether it was more general, per the data already cited and, highlighting my suggestion that mixed was something I would argue with, said mixed was "fair", specifically defending its usage. I clarified how playoffs is a massively problematic area for creating a fair and consistent criteria and reiterated where the data takes us (i.e. Hardaway amongst the larger metric droppers in the playoffs) and said that "mixed" (which, I now note, you chose to lead with, and is, so far as I can tell, the only adjective given summarising the totality of his playoff career) is "not inaccurate" but isn't really helpful citing the specific reason that that description can be applied to most playoff careers. This was followed by re-assertation that I personally don't care that much about playoffs and advising that some of the voters you may have to persuade will be less sympathetic to Hardaway in this area. I cannot help help how this "comes off" to you, but if there was any "accusation" there it would still be there, in the text.

If you wish to debate something I actually said feel free to. If you prefer that I don't engage directly with you in future, I can do that.

[pandrade83]

You asked me to clarify which years I disagreed with or whether it was more general, per the data already cited and, highlighting my suggestion that mixed was something I would argue with, said mixed was "fair", specifically defending its usage. I clarified how playoffs is a massively problematic area for creating a fair and consistent criteria and reiterated where the data takes us (i.e. Hardaway amongst the larger metric droppers in the playoffs) and said that "mixed" (which, I now note, you chose to lead with, and is, so far as I can tell, the only adjective given summarising the totality of his playoff career) is "not inaccurate" but isn't really helpful citing the specific reason that that description can be applied to most playoff careers. This was followed by re-assertation that I personally don't care that much about playoffs and advising that some of the voters you may have to persuade will be less sympathetic to Hardaway in this area. I cannot help help how this "comes off" to you, but if there was any "accusation" there it would still be there, in the text.

If you wish to debate something I actually said feel free to. If you prefer that I don't engage directly with you in future, I can do that.

The only thing I really took issue with is that your text read as if you're trying to frame my argument as something that it's not. That's it. The majority of what you have to say seems well-informed, intelligent & thoughtful. I think your contributions are meaningful - but it is reasonable to take issue with someone when they appear to be mis-representing your argument - intentional or not.

[Owly]

The only thing I really took issue with is that your text read as if you're trying to frame my argument as something that it's not. That's it. The majority of what you have to say seems well-informed, intelligent & thoughtful. I think your contributions are meaningful - but it is reasonable to take issue with someone when they appear to be mis-representing your argument - intentional or not.

I'll try this one last time.

What do you actually disagree with? You imply I misrepresented your argument (caveated with "read as if" and "appear to be") but without any statement as to where. My post focused on "mixed" because that's what you highlighted in my post and defended (and as I noted in the last response, it's your first description of his playoff performance and your only summary of it). The fact the individual years weren't addressed doesn't imply agreement or disagreement(though it would suggest it isn't a major issue, or a point would be argued there) and your post is there for all to see what's in it, which makes it hard to mislead anyone. Yet you keep implying that that your post has been misrepresented [by me]. It is explicitly stated that there is difficulty in synthesizing playoffs (different lengths, non-annual if missing a playoff, small sample, differing levels of competition), but the point of contention has consistently been that "mixed", whilst technically true is unsatisfactory because it is near universally true and reveals little.

So, whilst we're at it what do you think is the standard of Hardaway's playoff performances taken as a whole?

Spoiler:

The impression I have, as repeatedly conveyed, is clearly below that of his RS performance (though this matters only inasmuch as RS performance provides the baseline for anyone's list). More worryingly, despite over the totality of his career the numbers suggest an average, perhaps slighly below - playoff performer. This appears to be driven by being less efficient TS%-wise - and this still holds up to a lesser degree (versus RS-self) when ignoring his dreadful late playoff career and focusing only on '91-'99 though here we note that assist percentage also accounts for some of the drop. Focusing only on that span, which I think would perhaps be generous, probably shifts him to slightly above an average performer in a given year, but still at a level that would, I imagine be troubling for anyone who rates playoffs highly in their criteria.

Fwiw, for me, I think an in depth look at mitigating circumstances could be persuasive (in this area). I suspect others won't be persuaded to drop high playoff weighting where they hold one though. In any case more generally, the competition at PG is tough and I'm not sure where the balance is that sees Hardaway as best: Cassell has five seasons with a better PER than Hardaway's peak, and generally has an advantage in that area for career, whilst also having the better WS/48 peak and career average and narrowly having more career Win Shares. Porter holds up better in the playoffs, is a better defender, has better longevity, is a better floor spacer, is an easier fit with other (good) players, has a better PER peak (and is quite close in career PER - despite a longer career and it overvaluing usage) and comes out better for WS/48 and career Win Shares, albeit he's less dynamic. Other weightings might like Archibald, Brandon, Penny (peaks) or Williams and Davis (playoffs); where I would think Cassell and Porter would be my next two points - but I' can't presently see a balance that sees Hardaway comes out first.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #34:

James Worthy - 4 (Doctor MJ, penbeast0, Outside, trex_8063)
Chris Webber - 3 (SactoKingsFan, dhsilv2, pandrade83)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)


This runoff's been open for about 12 hours, the count has not budged for about 11 of those; so I'm eliminating Melo, as he's got a ways to go to even get back into the running.
So it's down to these two:

James Worthy - 4 (Doctor MJ, penbeast0, Outside, trex_8063)
Chris Webber - 3 (SactoKingsFan, dhsilv2, pandrade83)


If your name isn't shown, please state your pick between Worthy or Webber with brief reasons. Would like to conclude by tomorrow morning.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[JoeMalburg]

If this project has proven one thing, it's that this is not the way to make a top 100 list.

Over the years, the absurdity of the results gets worse as the personal agendas get more involved due to frustration.

When this many smart, passionate fans make a list this bad, it tells me just how hard the task is.

[dhsilv2]

If this project has proven one thing, it's that this is not the way to make a top 100 list.

Over the years, the absurdity of the results gets worse as the personal agendas get more involved due to frustration.

When this many smart, passionate fans make a list this bad, it tells me just how hard the task is.

I'd be rather ok with someone who disagrees and explains an issue, but this is a pretty crappy response to the work of this project.

[scrabbarista]

82nd: James Worthy

Postseason points, rebounds, blocks, steals, and assists:

James Worthy: 4,505
Chris Webber: 2,665

Winning:

James Worthy: 2nd best (or tied with 2nd best) on 2 title teams. Contributed to a 3rd title team.
Chris Webber: n/a

changed teams:
James Worthy: zero times
Chris Webber: played for five teams

[pandrade83]

The only thing I really took issue with is that your text read as if you're trying to frame my argument as something that it's not. That's it. The majority of what you have to say seems well-informed, intelligent & thoughtful. I think your contributions are meaningful - but it is reasonable to take issue with someone when they appear to be mis-representing your argument - intentional or not.

I'll try this one last time.

What do you actually disagree with? You imply I misrepresented your argument (caveated with "read as if" and "appear to be") but without any statement as to where. My post focused on "mixed" because that's what you highlighted in my post and defended (and as I noted in the last response, it's your first description of his playoff performance and your only summary of it). The fact the individual years weren't addressed doesn't imply agreement or disagreement(though it would suggest it isn't a major issue, or a point would be argued there) and your post is there for all to see what's in it, which makes it hard to mislead anyone. Yet you keep implying that that your post has been misrepresented [by me]. It is explicitly stated that there is difficulty in synthesizing playoffs (different lengths, non-annual if missing a playoff, small sample, differing levels of competition), but the point of contention has consistently been that "mixed", whilst technically true is unsatisfactory because it is near universally true and reveals little.

So, whilst we're at it what do you think is the standard of Hardaway's playoff performances taken as a whole?

[/spoiler]

I think "mixed" hides more than it reveals.

So yeah, you think mixed is fair ... I don't think it's inaccurate, but I don't think it's that helpful and to the best I can tell, he's a relatively big playoff faller.

You also used the word "mixed" 6 times - as if you're continuing to emphasize that I called it mixed and just left it alone - I just called out the two sentences (that have significant space between them - fwiw). The only thing I took issue with is that as I read your post, it suggested that I just used the word "mixed", glossed over it and called it a day. I didn't. That's it. I'm not accusing you of any malicious intent per se but putting forth the suggestion that I might not want to engage with you in the future was - at best - an overreaction. This is going to be the last section where I touch on the interpretation of your post because it's derailing to the topic at hand.

As to his actual performance - which is very much on topic:

Just referencing the descriptors I used:
'91 - good
'92 - mixed
'96 - subpar
'97 - got his ass kicked in round 1, saved the heat in round 2, miserable against the bulls
'98 - good
'99 - bad
'00 - bad

Looking at these summaries again, that's 2 good years, 2 mixed years & 4 sub-par or worse years.

In terms of the impact of those performances on winning & losing:

'91 - helped swing a fairly significant upset
'92 - The Warriors were upset - and the one piece of Hardaway's performance I criticized was his shooting. In the close-out game, he went 8/29 in a game the Warriors lost by 3 points. Now, he made contributions in other ways (8 steals, 11 assists, just 1 TO) so it's hard to pin it entirely on him - Mullin had a poor outing (11 points, 12 shots), they were outrebounded 60-41, they gave up 117 in regulation - but 8/29 in a high scoring elimination game is damaging to your team. I'll say he's partially responsible for the defeat.
'96 - Although the turnovers are a problem (5+ a game is not acceptable even though the shooting metrics were strong), I don't think the Heat had much of a shot to begin with, so it's unlikely it swung anything.
'97 - Despite Penny owning him in round 1, the Heat advance. Hardaway did save them against the Knicks. Mourning was decisively outplayed by Ewing, Hardaway generated 23 ppg on 54% TS in a series where both teams were mired at 51%. Miami was an underdog against the Bulls again - but Hardaway really struggled against the Bulls.
'98 - Miami is upset, but I don't blame Hardaway. As a Knicks fan, the guy scared the hell out of me. 26-7 on 59% TS - I don't assign blame to him.
'99 - Hardaway was awful & the Heat were upset by an #8 seed.
'00 - Hardaway didn't play against Detroit (injuries) and he probably shouldn't have came back against the Knicks because he was awful.

So - after looking at it again - I'll concede that mixed as a top-line was probably too favorable. I think a more accurate descriptor would be mixed skewing negative.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #39:

James Worthy - 5 (scabbarista, Doctor MJ, penbeast0, Outside, trex_8063)
Chris Webber - 3 (SactoKingsFan, dhsilv2, pandrade83)


Calling it for Worthy. Will have the next thread up in a moment.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.