RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #48 (Gary Payton)

[Cavsfansince84]

Was starting to wonder where some current guys (Giannis and AD?) would start popping up.

I feel like AD could be ranked anywhere from 50-56 in terms of how I view him and the guys who aren't in yet. Giannis I would see more in the 57-70 range though I am somewhat more longevity minded than a lot of people who are voting. Honestly I don't think that Giannis should be that far behind Kawhi but that's the way it is shaping up to look though I wouldn't have Kawhi in yet either.

[DQuinn1575]

[quote="trex_8063"]


Okay, let's try this - guys in top 2 of win shares of championship teams- these are the guys who did it 4 or more times - People are quick to say Russell one because he had better teammates - Jones had by far the second most win shares for the Celtics in their dynasty.


Bill Russell* 9
Michael Jordan* 6
Kobe Bryant* 5
Magic Johnson* 5
Sam Jones* 5
Tim Duncan* 5
LeBron James 4
Scottie Pippen* 4
George Mikan* 3
James Worthy* 3
John Havlicek* 3
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 3
Larry Bird* 3
Shaquille O'Neal* 3

That's it thru 3 - and Jones has 5, and yes 4 are second, but I dont think I have to tell anyone that all of Pippen's are second.
And yes, Barkley and Gervin didnt have playoff success - if they did they each would have wound up higher. And we are not looking at just playoff success, if we did then I would take Jones over Gervin - note I didnt have Gervin too far ahead, but Jones had by far the most impact on championships then anyone else left, and there isnt anyone left who was dominant long enough (for me like Gervin) that would put him over.

[trex_8063]

Okay, let's try this - guys in top 2 of win shares of championship teams- these are the guys who did it 4 or more times - People are quick to say Russell one because he had better teammates - Jones had by far the second most win shares for the Celtics in their dynasty.


Bill Russell* 9
Michael Jordan* 6
Kobe Bryant* 5
Magic Johnson* 5
Sam Jones* 5
Tim Duncan* 5
LeBron James 4
Scottie Pippen* 4
George Mikan* 3
James Worthy* 3
John Havlicek* 3
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 3
Larry Bird* 3
Shaquille O'Neal* 3

That's it thru 3 - and Jones has 5, and yes 4 are second, but I dont think I have to tell anyone that all of Pippen's are second.
And yes, Barkley and Gervin didnt have playoff success - if they did they each would have wound up higher. And we are not looking at just playoff success, if we did then I would take Jones over Gervin - note I didnt have Gervin too far ahead, but Jones had by far the most impact on championships then anyone else left, and there isnt anyone left who was dominant long enough (for me like Gervin) that would put him over.

As usual, the devil's in the details. And similar to just looking at high WS totals, obviously a guy who is lucky enough to win TEN titles is going to have more shots to finish top 2 on his team (some of the guys listed didn't win five, period, in ANY capacity).

I also find these sort of arbitrary cutoffs ["how many times to he get over?"] of such dubious value; they assume/insinuate for example:
a) just BARELY getting over [whatever threshold] ONCE (and otherwise never coming close) is better than coming close several times but never quite making it over.
b) getting just barely over 5 times is better than getting WAY over the threshold 4 times.

And as such, the "results" can change DRAMATICALLY by nudging that threshold just one increment in either direction. For example, in looking at top 2 finishes, Jones leads Lebron 5-4; if we change it to top 1, he suddenly trails 1-4.
Or vs Hondo: in top-2's he leads 5-3; but again if we make #1's, he trails 1-3.


And just as a thought-experiment, let's look at the above top-2 finishes terms of what proportion of their ring-winning years they were top 2 on their team in playoff WS.....

For Jones that's 50%.
KAJ is also at 33.3% (I note he's actually only got TWO top-2 finishes in title years [Nixon is negligibly ahead in '82]), and Havlicek is at just 37.5%.
Everyone else has a higher proportion of being "top 2" for their title-winning teams.


Of course if we look at proportion of top-3 in title years: Jones is still 50%, Havlicek is now 50% also, and KAJ is now 83.3% [a HUGE jump by moving the threshold just one increment].
If we make it top 4, Jones STILL sits at 50%, while Hondo rises to 62.5%.....

In fact, if we look at ALL of the names you've listed and the proportion of their titles came while not even being in the top 4 on their team in playoff WS, Sam Jones has the highest (50%).
If we look at the proportion where he's not even in the top FIVE on his own team, Sam Jones has the highest proportion (30%).

Further, if we look at some of these top 2 finishes, there's a semi-consistent finding about them: he's a distant 2nd, with multiple teammates close to him.
'62 is the most glaring example: he's 2nd, but K.C. Jones is just -0.3 behind him, Sanders just -0.4 behind, and Heinsohn just -0.5......meanwhile Bill Russell is +2.1 to Sam. His individual total equals that of Sam Jones, Satch Sanders, and Tom Heinsohn combined. The difference between Russell in 1st and Jones in 2nd is larger than the difference between Sam Jones in 2nd and Gary Phillips in 11th.
The regular season had a somewhat similar distribution where Sam Jones is a far-distant 2nd, with the gap between he and Russell in rs WS being larger than the gap between Jones and the guy in 7th-place.

'65 is somewhat similar, if a little less dramatic: Sam Jones is in 2nd, but there are TWO teammates within 1.0 WS of him, while Russell is +1.3 ahead of him [and equally 2nd and 3rd on the team COMBINED].

Looking at the number of years he not top 4 [or even top 5], and the enormous gap to him at 2nd other years seem to be some hallmark signs that much of his title success comes as being a good piece on either deep teams and/or groups that are riding the coat-tails of a giant.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #23:

Pau Gasol - 2 (trex_8063, penbeast0)
Gary Payton - 2 (Clyde Frazier, sansterre)
Manu Ginobili - 1 (Dutchball97)
Ray Allen - 1 (Odinn21)
Kevin McHale - 1 (Hal14)
Dave Cowens - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Magic Is Magic)


10 votes is going to require 6 for a majority. It's so spread out, we're going to eliminate SIX players at once. That transfers 2 to Payton, 1 to Pau, and ghosts 3......

Payton - 4
Gasol - 3
(ghosted) - 3

Which would make Payton a default winner, which we'll have to validate via Condorcet (he doesn't have to beat Gasol here, he just cannot lose).

With Payton leading 4-3, the three posters I need to hear from to settle this are: Magic Is Magic, Odinn21, and DQuinn1575.
Quick as you can, please.....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Odinn21]

I'd have Payton over Gasol.
BTW, the votes are getting too scattered maybe?

[trex_8063]

I'd have Payton over Gasol.
BTW, the votes are getting too scattered maybe?

They're scattered; it's expected at this stage. That's why we have the multi-vote method AND validating finalists/default winners among the voters who beat the deadline. It's working. We're not going to exclude candidates (and certainly not wanting to begin doing so right in the middle).

With that vote Payton wins the spot; I'll get the next up....

[Odinn21]

I'd have Payton over Gasol.
BTW, the votes are getting too scattered maybe?

They're scattered; it's expected at this stage. That's why we have the multi-vote method AND validating finalists/default winners among the voters who beat the deadline. It's working. We're not going to exclude candidates (and certainly not wanting to begin doing so right in the middle).

With that vote Payton wins the spot; I'll get the next up....

No, no. I wasn't suggesting that we should limit the player pool in any form.
For a moment, I thought that even the Condorcet method can face some problems. But you run the process and you're saying it's working as intended and it's just fine, then that's it. Cheers.

[DQuinn1575]

O

And just as a thought-experiment, let's look at the above top-2 finishes terms of what proportion of their ring-winning years they were top 2 on their team in playoff WS.....

For Jones that's 50%.
KAJ is also at 33.3% (I note he's actually only got TWO top-2 finishes in title years [Nixon is negligibly ahead in '82]), and Havlicek is at just 37.5%.
Everyone else has a higher proportion of being "top 2" for their title-winning teams.


Of course if we look at proportion of top-3 in title years: Jones is still 50%, Havlicek is now 50% also, and KAJ is now 83.3% [a HUGE jump by moving the threshold just one increment].
If we make it top 4, Jones STILL sits at 50%, while Hondo rises to 62.5%.....

In fact, if we look at ALL of the names you've listed and the proportion of their titles came while not even being in the top 4 on their team in playoff WS, Sam Jones has the highest (50%).
If we look at the proportion where he's not even in the top FIVE on his own team, Sam Jones has the highest proportion (30%).

Looking at the % of times someone is in the top rung is really really bad. You are then penalizing Shaq for being on the Heat, you would penalize Jabbar for being on title winning teams. etc. The logic here is so bad I can't argue the point.

[Magic Is Magic]

Thru post #23:

Pau Gasol - 2 (trex_8063, penbeast0)
Gary Payton - 2 (Clyde Frazier, sansterre)
Manu Ginobili - 1 (Dutchball97)
Ray Allen - 1 (Odinn21)
Kevin McHale - 1 (Hal14)
Dave Cowens - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Sam Jones - 1 (DQuinn1575)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Magic Is Magic)


10 votes is going to require 6 for a majority. It's so spread out, we're going to eliminate SIX players at once. That transfers 2 to Payton, 1 to Pau, and ghosts 3......

Payton - 4
Gasol - 3
(ghosted) - 3

Which would make Payton a default winner, which we'll have to validate via Condorcet (he doesn't have to beat Gasol here, he just cannot lose).

With Payton leading 4-3, the three posters I need to hear from to settle this are: Magic Is Magic, Odinn21, and DQuinn1575.
Quick as you can, please.....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Magic Is Magic]

My previous post looks to be all broken up, sorry fellas.

As for your question Trex, I vote Gary Payton over Pau Gasol.

[giordunk]

Was starting to wonder where some current guys (Giannis and AD?) would start popping up.

I value longevity just like most others here, but the MVP is the hardest, most coveted award that anyone can win in the NBA. It is very hard for me to ignore someone with 2 MVPs when someone like Reggie Miller doesn't even have one top 5 finish.

Yep, obviously the guys being nominated had better careers but a two-time MVP and someone that's led a team to top of the conference deserves a nod. If we were just drafting players we'd definitely take Giannis over everyone being nominated by quite a landslide.

[trex_8063]

Looking at the % of times someone is in the top rung is really really bad.

So top-2 is an awesome, extremely accurate and valuable indicator......but top rung is "really really bad" [and presumably top 3 is also "really really bad"]?

Why, exactly? It's ALL completely arbitrary.
And I wasn't necessarily suggesting looking only at top rungs either. I just noted this to make the point about these kinds of cut-off studies: shift the increment the smallest degree that is possible in either direction, and suddenly the "results" are flipped completely on its head.
And again, where that cut-off [which pretty much determines the "results"] is set in the first place is entirely arbitrary: 2 is awesome, while 1 or 3 are garbage precisely because.....you say so.

You say 1 is "really really bad' because it penalizes someone being on a team with a better player, while any of us could counter that:
1) he likely has no title at all without being teamed up with that better player
2) not drawing the distinction between 1 and 2 is giving Jones more credit than even someone like Lebron or Larry Bird [despite Jones never having been remotely in the same galaxy as either]. In essence, it assumes that #2 is just as good as #1 (when clearly in most instances----especially in Jones' case---it is not).
3) without looking at the context (as I noted with '62 and '65, for examples), it basically assumes all #2 finishes are the same, when if fact they frequently are not.

And again, that's even before we get to:
a) the excluding of #3 finishes [or #4-x for that matter], which when looked at in detail in Jones' case is especially dubious because he's frequently only negligibly ahead of #3 [sometimes #4, too], while being miles behind #1; or...
b) better players than Sam Jones don't have titles at all [and thus no opportunity to be "#2"] because they weren't as unbelievably fortunate as Jones to be playing alongside the most dominant player of his generation for likely the best coach/GM of his generation.


But we've been here before, I know you'll not budge.
Don't make this out like I'm off on some illogical crazy train to bring these points up, though.

[DQuinn1575]

Looking at the % of times someone is in the top rung is really really bad.

So top-2 is an awesome, extremely accurate and valuable indicator......but top rung is "really really bad" [and presumably top 3 is also "really really bad"]?

Why, exactly? It's ALL completely arbitrary.
And I wasn't necessarily suggesting looking only at top rungs either. I just noted this to make the point about these kinds of cut-off studies: shift the increment the smallest degree that is possible in either direction, and suddenly the "results" are flipped completely on its head.
And again, where that cut-off [which pretty much determines the "results"] is set in the first place is entirely arbitrary: 2 is awesome, while 1 or 3 are garbage precisely because.....you say so.

You say 1 is "really really bad' because it penalizes someone being on a team with a better player, while any of us could counter that:
1) he likely has no title at all without being teamed up with that better player
2) not drawing the distinction between 1 and 2 is giving Jones more credit than even someone like Lebron or Larry Bird [despite Jones never having been remotely in the same galaxy as either]. In essence, it assumes that #2 is just as good as #1 (when clearly in most instances----especially in Jones' case---it is not).
3) without looking at the context (as I noted with '62 and '65, for examples), it basically assumes all #2 finishes are the same, when if fact they frequently are not.

And again, that's even before we get to:
a) the excluding of #3 finishes [or #4-x for that matter], which when looked at in detail in Jones' case is especially dubious because he's frequently only negligibly ahead of #3 [sometimes #4, too], while being miles behind #1; or...
b) better players than Sam Jones don't have titles at all [and thus no opportunity to be "#2"] because they weren't as unbelievably fortunate as Jones to be playing alongside the most dominant player of his generation for likely the best coach/GM of his generation.


But we've been here before, I know you'll not budge.
Don't make this out like I'm off on some illogical crazy train to bring these points up, though.

I said looking at the percentage is really really bad.
Looking at the % is really really bad, as you are penalizing Shaq in his Miami year, and Jabbar in his later years for not being in top.
That logic makes Shaq look worse for winning a title in Miami, or Jabbar look worse for winning in 1987.
You should read and understand what is written before you reply.

[trex_8063]

Transferring conversation to #49 thread.....