RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #46 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 11/22/23)

[Owly]

This sounds like a really fantastic case….. against Arizin. You have me utterly convinced that the doesn’t merit consideration. So his impact sucks and his longevity sucks and he might have been worse than his teammate that I’ve never heard of and other than one year way back in 1952 he never had a PER over 23, but he should get voted in because he…… shot a jump shot? It’s like if you listed all of Kyrie’s negatives and then said “well he had a sick handle”.

Like how does Arizin possibly compare to Embiid who had 6 seasons with a better PER than Arizin’s one good year while playing elite D and playing competition approximately a million times better? How does he compare with Gary Payton who played almost twice as many games and combined similar numbers with elite defense and playmaking? How does he compare to George Gervin who has 1.5x as many POY shares in a real league and had similar numbers with actual longevity?

Going to be blunt here ... we all have different levels and areas of expertise. But going into this type of project with no idea who Tom Gola is ... at best is announcing "I have very little idea about the context of some of the basketball I'm here to comment on."

I'm also not convinced it's conducive to honest debate if people acknowledging honest flaws in their candidates is somewhat aggressively jumped on. This doesn't make it "wrong" but ...

Then too "his impact sucks" ... well the short version is we don't really know his impact because the level of impact data we have is very noisy.

I'm not entirely sold on the Kyrie analogy. Maybe it's hyperbole bit I don't think it is alike. Kyrie has had some pretty toxic negatives and you're understating the pros as actually put forth.

I don't know where I'd rank him. I understand across era stuff is tricky ... it's generally good to be honest ... I just think the not knowing of Gola ... I think it probably announces that there isn't a discussion to be had between you and someone that cares about that era.

I just looked up Tom Gola. Apparently he’s a wing with a career PER of 14.2 playing a career total of 698 games before the league was fully integrated. Is he really that relevant to a top 100 project? It’s like saying I’m not very well versed for an NFL top 100 if I don’t know who Paddy O’ Driscoll’s linemen were in the ‘20s. Do I really need to know every average schmoe who managed to make it on to a NBA floor because of the lack of competition?

Also, I think acknowledging the negatives of a player in your case is a good thing, but I just didn’t see any positives on Arizin. It’s literally “he took jumpers and slashed to the basket” and he was maybe the best perimeter player by default for a few years before people figured that out. I’m supposed to be impressed by that? The standards for these older players are so low. It’s like “he almost looked like a real basketball player, let’s vote him ahead of Gary Payton and Joel Embiid”.

Gola is a Hall of Famer. I think that tilts a bit toward college more than pro and is absolutely at the weaker end of pros in but he got a second team all-star and 5x All-Star so he's not Dino Radja. Honestly I'd say anyone that hit HoF (honestly just that on its own if for pro play but ...) and either one of those two others never mind both, should already have been at least heard of. He's a significant contributor to a champ too. He also got a small handful of MVP votes. And NFL, as far as I understand it, has many more players so knowledge of specific individuals for context would probably be at a lower threshold.

Then too you were apparently willing to take at face value that Arizin might have been worse than him (actually to assume this, this wasn't an argument made), but are happy to simultaneously dismiss him based on "looking up" his PER ...

Accolades change in value depending on league context and size and player pool, they are not a direct measure of player goodness.
Not having a great handle on the likes of Martin, McGuire, Philip or Wanzer, yeah I'd get that ... we're working with limited information. But if you haven't ever heard of them, hear someone saying something good and simultaneously assert the possibility of a more aggressive version of it than actually put to bash a peer and then also dismiss them based on a limited boxscore without any sign of going beyond Basketball-Reference (a great tool to be sure) ... it doesn't feel like there's a productive discussion to be had on early players.

[Owly]

I just looked up Tom Gola. Apparently he’s a wing with a career PER of 14.2 playing a career total of 698 games before the league was fully integrated. Is he really that relevant to a top 100 project? It’s like saying I’m not very well versed for an NFL top 100 if I don’t know who Paddy O’ Driscoll’s linemen were in the ‘20s. Do I really need to know every average schmoe who managed to make it on to a NBA floor because of the lack of competition?

Also, I think acknowledging the negatives of a player in your case is a good thing, but I just didn’t see any positives on Arizin. It’s literally “he took jumpers and slashed to the basket” and he was maybe the best perimeter player by default for a few years before people figured that out. I’m supposed to be impressed by that? The standards for these older players are so low. It’s like “he almost looked like a real basketball player, let’s vote him ahead of Gary Payton and Joel Embiid”.

Gola was a very good player. First real big guard who could handle like a point and rebound like a four. Didn't have a great shot but was a very solid defender who could do everything other than be a primary scorer. Good complimentary player, sort of a rich man's Andre Iguodala, probably not top 100.

And, to be clear here, I wasn't advocating for him for top 100. I was commenting on not having heard of him before and how that might hinder informed judgement when someone's talking about such a guy as a teammate of a candidate and their relative impact.

[trex_8063]

Re Payton - I’m not much of a Payton guy. We’re talking about a guy who became the anointed face of the Sonic core of the time not when they became great, but a couple years later when McMillan aged out and Payton actually became the most effective point guard on the team.

Why did it take him so long? I’d say it had a lot to do with Payton being meh at point skills like shooting and passing. These were never things he became great at, and you could see that by the way the Lakers gradually relied on Derek Fisher more than Payton on what was supposed to be a 4-star super team.

His defense peaked high for a guard, but the longevity of that greatness was overrated. He should have stopped being considered an All-D guy some years before he did.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just my opinion, but this seems slightly overcritical of Payton. And fwiw, it feels like there's an air of "I'm low on him because he's not great at the things you think he SHOULD [as a PG] be good at" in the above. He was good at what he was good at; and it made him a very impressive player (for quite a long time). That should stand on its own, without being judged by how well it conforms to the usual.

While he wasn't "great" at shooting or passing, he wasn't bad either (certainly not as a passer). Shooting, he was a bit "meh" from behind the arc and from the FT (for a PG); in mid-range shooting perhaps slightly less than we'd like in general. But he was more than decent as a playmaker.

And he was ELITE among PG's at getting to the rim, where he was quite a GOOD finisher (excellent for a PG, in fact). He was big, and could take smaller PG's into the post from time to time, too.
Despite his relative shooting woes, he was at least a tiny bit above league avg TS% from '95-'02, and then again '04-'05.

By approximately '95 and after, he was both scoring and facilitating at relatively high rates/volumes, and doing so for close to 40 mpg most years. And did all of this with a very respectable turnover economy.

It's worth noting that once he started coming into his own (beginning in say '93), the Sonics had an elite offense most years (always at least good); the BEST years coming after his primacy really takes off ['95 and after]. rORTG below.....

'93: +4.3
'94: +4.8
'95: +6.5
'96: +2.7
'97: +4.5
'98: +6.6
'99: +2.8
'00: +1.5
'01: +2.6
'02: +4.4

Here are Payton's offensive on/off on some of those good/elite offenses ('97-'02):
'97: +5.7 (was +15.5 in playoffs)
'98: +6.3 (was +22.4 in playoffs)
'99: +11.6
'00: +10.1 (-5.3 in playoffs [though 5-game sample])
'01: -0.5
'02: +1.7 (-4.9 in playoffs [though again 5-game sample])


So for someone who's supposedly meh as an offensive player, he was at the helm of a number of very good offenses, showing generally very strong on/offs for said good/great offenses.


I agree his longevity of quality defensively is greatly overstated by his accolades. However, even removing those factors from consideration, he's a guy who very clearly belongs in the conversation somewhere around 50.

So yeah, it’s not just Arizin here, I’m low on Payton compared to contemporaries. To me guys like Pierce, Allen, and Gasol rate higher.

I agree on Pierce and Gasol. Even Ray Allen I have very near to Payton, and could entertain an argument above Payton.

While iggy's tone and hyperbole was off-putting for me, I agree with the general sentiment that better candidates [than Arizin] exist at this point. There are guys still on the table [many not even on the ballot yet] who were of roughly similar stature within their league environments [as Arizin was in his].......except they did it in TOUGHER league environments (and in many cases:
did it for longer).
Between concerns over strength of era and lacking longevity, I can't see myself considering Arizin anywhere in the next 20 spots.

[iggymcfrack]

Going to be blunt here ... we all have different levels and areas of expertise. But going into this type of project with no idea who Tom Gola is ... at best is announcing "I have very little idea about the context of some of the basketball I'm here to comment on."

I'm also not convinced it's conducive to honest debate if people acknowledging honest flaws in their candidates is somewhat aggressively jumped on. This doesn't make it "wrong" but ...

Then too "his impact sucks" ... well the short version is we don't really know his impact because the level of impact data we have is very noisy.

I'm not entirely sold on the Kyrie analogy. Maybe it's hyperbole bit I don't think it is alike. Kyrie has had some pretty toxic negatives and you're understating the pros as actually put forth.

I don't know where I'd rank him. I understand across era stuff is tricky ... it's generally good to be honest ... I just think the not knowing of Gola ... I think it probably announces that there isn't a discussion to be had between you and someone that cares about that era.

I just looked up Tom Gola. Apparently he’s a wing with a career PER of 14.2 playing a career total of 698 games before the league was fully integrated. Is he really that relevant to a top 100 project? It’s like saying I’m not very well versed for an NFL top 100 if I don’t know who Paddy O’ Driscoll’s linemen were in the ‘20s. Do I really need to know every average schmoe who managed to make it on to a NBA floor because of the lack of competition?

Also, I think acknowledging the negatives of a player in your case is a good thing, but I just didn’t see any positives on Arizin. It’s literally “he took jumpers and slashed to the basket” and he was maybe the best perimeter player by default for a few years before people figured that out. I’m supposed to be impressed by that? The standards for these older players are so low. It’s like “he almost looked like a real basketball player, let’s vote him ahead of Gary Payton and Joel Embiid”.

Gola is a Hall of Famer. I think that tilts a bit toward college more than pro and is absolutely at the weaker end of pros in but he got a second team all-star and 5x All-Star so he's not Dino Radja. Honestly I'd say anyone that hit HoF (honestly just that on its own if for pro play but ...) and either one of those two others never mind both, should already have been at least heard of. He's a significant contributor to a champ too. He also got a small handful of MVP votes. And NFL, as far as I understand it, has many more players so knowledge of specific individuals for context would probably be at a lower threshold.

Then too you were apparently willing to take at face value that Arizin might have been worse than him (actually to assume this, this wasn't an argument made), but are happy to simultaneously dismiss him based on "looking up" his PER ...

Accolades change in value depending on league context and size and player pool, they are not a direct measure of player goodness.
Not having a great handle on the likes of Martin, McGuire, Philip or Wanzer, yeah I'd get that ... we're working with limited information. But if you haven't ever heard of them, hear someone saying something good and simultaneously assert the possibility of a more aggressive version of it than actually put to bash a peer and then also dismiss them based on a limited boxscore without any sign of going beyond Basketball-Reference (a great tool to be sure) ... it doesn't feel like there's a productive discussion to be had on early players.

I was summarizing the case as made and said he “might have been worse”. I wasn’t taking it at face value. And let’s be real, someone who was BELOW AVERAGE for his career in the prehistoric era of the league wouldn’t have a prayer of making the league today. He’s a garbage player. Once 1960 hit and there were a few African Americans in the league, he was putting up Killian Hayes caliber numbers.

If you’re interested in who happened to be the 3rd best player on every 1950s team that won a high school caliber league and that’s fun trivia for you, then great, but it’s not a crucial piece of information in ascertaining the top 100 players of all time.

[AEnigma]

Re: Payton, for whom I will not be voting quite yet…

WOWY regressions are variable because of his minimal missed time — excellent by Elgee’s, more tepid by Moonbeam’s — but generally suggest a fairly high impact player. Strong on/off and AuPM indicators 1996-2000. Decent to strong RAPM values 1997-2000. Prime postseason box production compares reasonably well to Isiah Thomas. Most box score composites tend to give him a career ranking in this general range.

2004 was a failure, and stylistically he brings to mind a lot of those Westbrook issues (albeit on lower volume), but he had a nice prime as a team leader and did manage some fairly decent years outside of his prime, including as a (minor) contributor to a title team. To me that fits well with this range of players.

[HeartBreakKid]

This sounds like a really fantastic case….. against Arizin. You have me utterly convinced that the doesn’t merit consideration. So his impact sucks and his longevity sucks and he might have been worse than his teammate that I’ve never heard of and other than one year way back in 1952 he never had a PER over 23, but he should get voted in because he…… shot a jump shot? It’s like if you listed all of Kyrie’s negatives and then said “well he had a sick handle”.

Like how does Arizin possibly compare to Embiid who had 6 seasons with a better PER than Arizin’s one good year while playing elite D and playing competition approximately a million times better? How does he compare with Gary Payton who played almost twice as many games and combined similar numbers with elite defense and playmaking? How does he compare to George Gervin who has 1.5x as many POY shares in a real league and had similar numbers with actual longevity?

Going to be blunt here ... we all have different levels and areas of expertise. But going into this type of project with no idea who Tom Gola is ... at best is announcing "I have very little idea about the context of some of the basketball I'm here to comment on."

I'm also not convinced it's conducive to honest debate if people acknowledging honest flaws in their candidates is somewhat aggressively jumped on. This doesn't make it "wrong" but ...

Then too "his impact sucks" ... well the short version is we don't really know his impact because the level of impact data we have is very noisy.

I'm not entirely sold on the Kyrie analogy. Maybe it's hyperbole bit I don't think it is alike. Kyrie has had some pretty toxic negatives and you're understating the pros as actually put forth.

I don't know where I'd rank him. I understand across era stuff is tricky ... it's generally good to be honest ... I just think the not knowing of Gola ... I think it probably announces that there isn't a discussion to be had between you and someone that cares about that era.

I just looked up Tom Gola. Apparently he’s a wing with a career PER of 14.2 playing a career total of 698 games before the league was fully integrated. Is he really that relevant to a top 100 project? It’s like saying I’m not very well versed for an NFL top 100 if I don’t know who Paddy O’ Driscoll’s linemen were in the ‘20s. Do I really need to know every average schmoe who managed to make it on to a NBA floor because of the lack of competition?

Also, I think acknowledging the negatives of a player in your case is a good thing, but I just didn’t see any positives on Arizin. It’s literally “he took jumpers and slashed to the basket” and he was maybe the best perimeter player by default for a few years before people figured that out. I’m supposed to be impressed by that? The standards for these older players are so low. It’s like “he almost looked like a real basketball player, let’s vote him ahead of Gary Payton and Joel Embiid”.

I know who Gola is and I'm far from an expert from that era. Why are you talking like he was Mario Chalmers or something?

[iggymcfrack]

Going to be blunt here ... we all have different levels and areas of expertise. But going into this type of project with no idea who Tom Gola is ... at best is announcing "I have very little idea about the context of some of the basketball I'm here to comment on."

I'm also not convinced it's conducive to honest debate if people acknowledging honest flaws in their candidates is somewhat aggressively jumped on. This doesn't make it "wrong" but ...

Then too "his impact sucks" ... well the short version is we don't really know his impact because the level of impact data we have is very noisy.

I'm not entirely sold on the Kyrie analogy. Maybe it's hyperbole bit I don't think it is alike. Kyrie has had some pretty toxic negatives and you're understating the pros as actually put forth.

I don't know where I'd rank him. I understand across era stuff is tricky ... it's generally good to be honest ... I just think the not knowing of Gola ... I think it probably announces that there isn't a discussion to be had between you and someone that cares about that era.

I just looked up Tom Gola. Apparently he’s a wing with a career PER of 14.2 playing a career total of 698 games before the league was fully integrated. Is he really that relevant to a top 100 project? It’s like saying I’m not very well versed for an NFL top 100 if I don’t know who Paddy O’ Driscoll’s linemen were in the ‘20s. Do I really need to know every average schmoe who managed to make it on to a NBA floor because of the lack of competition?

Also, I think acknowledging the negatives of a player in your case is a good thing, but I just didn’t see any positives on Arizin. It’s literally “he took jumpers and slashed to the basket” and he was maybe the best perimeter player by default for a few years before people figured that out. I’m supposed to be impressed by that? The standards for these older players are so low. It’s like “he almost looked like a real basketball player, let’s vote him ahead of Gary Payton and Joel Embiid”.

I know who Gola is and I'm far from an expert from that era. Why are you talking like he was Mario Chalmers or something?

Honestly, Mario Chalmers is a great comparison. Both had incredibly memorable college careers capped by a big performance in a title game. Both had below average stats in the pros and were disappointing compared to their expectations, but were major contributors to championship teams. Both played 600-something games. Both had surprisingly good impact stats for their level. I mean obviously, Gola was a little better relative to competition and Chalmers was a way more spectacular athlete relative to the total number of people playing the sport at the time, but it would be hard to find a better comparison. Thanks for coming up with it.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Russell Westbrook
From 2013-2018, here's what he averaged:
(Reg season) 26.9 PER, .207 WS/48, 7.3 BPM, +8.8 on/off
(Postseason) 25.3 PER, .160 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, +17.0 on/off

How many of the nominees even have a single year that compares to that?


Alternate: Joel Embiid
Has 3 of the top 18 seasons all-time by PER. Would be #1 all-time in PER ahead of Joker and Jordan if he had enough minutes to qualify. Has an incredible playoff on/off of +12.1 which rates up there with anyone in history.


Nominate: Gary Payton
Not super married to this one yet, but he has a higher VORP than anyone who hasn't been nominated yet other than Pierce and his on/off numbers look terrific for the few prime years we have available. Has a reputation as both an all-time playmaker and an all-time defender.

[DSMok1]

I have access to a very interesting BPM-informed RAPM data set that runs in six 4-year stints starting in the 1997 season and ending with the 2020 season. The results of the data are very, very solid with that quantity of RAPM.

Paul Pierce looks very good. He runs in the range of +5 for the first three of those 4-year stints, then plus 3.25 in the 4th.

Russell Westbrook never gets above Paul Pierce's peak. One stint at plus five and one stint at +4 is all he has. I believe the data and would not vote for Westbrook for quite a while longer. (It pains me to say this as an OKC/Westbrook fan.).

For reference, there are a lot of modern era players with better numbers then Westbrook. Even Ben Wallace and Blake Griffin do. Westbrook peaked at the same height as Jason Kidd by these numbers but had a much shorter career.

Dwight Howard had a significantly hire peak, at almost Plus 8 for his best stent. Then he had two other stints at plus 3.5 or so. Nothing else positive.

Through 2020, Draymond Green had a stint at plus 7.5 and a stint at plus 4.5. Which was actually the second stint in the sample.

Joel Embiid only had one stint in the sample and it was at + 7.5 through 2020. I would expect his most recent two seasons to be at least that high and probably higher.

Of these modern players I would say it is between Paul Pierce and Dwight Howard for who should go in next, with Joel Embiid knocking at the door.

As much as I like Draymond Green (defensively), his impact numbers don't look that great in this metric. And the box score prior isn't what's driving that.

[DSMok1]

By the way, there is one player from the modern era that both the 4-year stint RAPM and 4-year stint BPM-informed RAPM absolutely loves:

Vince Carter.

By both versions, Vince is equal with Paul Pierce and Jason Kidd, and not far behind Dirk. (And ahead of Manu and Kawhi--although Kawhi had a higher peak and is still going.)

BTW, both Kobe and Wade are also well behind PP/Kidd/Carter in impact numbers, either flavor, though with a slightly higher peak.

[DSMok1]

If I look at peak value (i.e. only count 4-year-stints where the player is above +3), then here's the ranking I get from 1997-2020:
1. LeBron
--very big gap--
2. KG & Duncan, tie
4. CP3
--gap--
5. Shaq (missing beginning of career)
6. Curry (active, so missing most recent 2 years)
7. Dirk
8. Kawhi and KD, tie (active, missing most recent 2 years)
10. basically a tie between:
- Paul George (active...)
- James Harden (active...)
- Paul Pierce
- Draymond (active...)
- Dwight Howard
- Michael Jordan--yes, the very end of his career
- Vince Carter
- Rasheed Wallace
- Giannis (active...)
- Jason Kidd
20 and on get hard to distinguish as tiers. This area includes Lowry, Jimmy Butler, D-Wade, Manu, Steve Nash, John Stockton (last few years only), McGrady, Rudy Gobert, Nikola Jokic, Iguodala, Kirilenko, Embiid, Kobe Bryant, Gary Payton, Jrue Holiday, Ray Allen, Eddie Jones, Ben Wallace, Damian Lillard... etc. Notables below this include Russell Westbrook and Anthony Davis.

Again, this is only from 1997 to 2020, missing the most recent 2 seasons. Each stint is average performance over 4 years, so it can miss shorter spikes in value. This does not account for availability--if a player missed 2 of those seasons, I'm not accounting for it.

[Mogspan]

Vote: Russell Westbrook
From 2013-2018, here's what he averaged:
(Reg season) 26.9 PER, .207 WS/48, 7.3 BPM, +8.8 on/off
(Postseason) 25.3 PER, .160 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, +17.0 on/off

How many of the nominees even have a single year that compares to that?


Alternate: Joel Embiid
Has 3 of the top 18 seasons all-time by PER. Would be #1 all-time in PER ahead of Joker and Jordan if he had enough minutes to qualify. Has an incredible playoff on/off of +12.1 which rates up there with anyone in history.


Nominate: Gary Payton
Not super married to this one yet, but he has a higher VORP than anyone who hasn't been nominated yet other than Pierce and his on/off numbers look terrific for the few prime years we have available. Has a reputation as both an all-time playmaker and an all-time defender.

At a certain point, do we have to discredit Embiid for the "off" in on/off. He's played 80+% of a season twice in 9 years and has missed 13% of his teams' playoff games. I'm as high on Kawhi's playoff peak as anyone, but you have to appreciate that he routinely gets 30% more rest than most other stars in the league and that that inflates his per-minute production.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Russell Westbrook
From 2013-2018, here's what he averaged:
(Reg season) 26.9 PER, .207 WS/48, 7.3 BPM, +8.8 on/off
(Postseason) 25.3 PER, .160 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, +17.0 on/off

How many of the nominees even have a single year that compares to that?


Alternate: Joel Embiid
Has 3 of the top 18 seasons all-time by PER. Would be #1 all-time in PER ahead of Joker and Jordan if he had enough minutes to qualify. Has an incredible playoff on/off of +12.1 which rates up there with anyone in history.


Nominate: Gary Payton
Not super married to this one yet, but he has a higher VORP than anyone who hasn't been nominated yet other than Pierce and his on/off numbers look terrific for the few prime years we have available. Has a reputation as both an all-time playmaker and an all-time defender.

At a certain point, do we have to discredit Embiid for the "off" in on/off. He's played 80+% of a season twice in 9 years and has missed 13% of his teams' playoff games. I'm as high on Kawhi's playoff peak as anyone, but you have to appreciate that he routinely gets 30% more rest than most other stars in the league and that that inflates his per-minute production.

Obviously, Embiid has had issues with durability and that's why he wasn't voted in the low 30s somewhere, but it's not like getting more rest is what makes him efficient. His last 2 seasons were his best on a per minute basis by far and he ranked 46th and 54th in the league in minutes played in those 2 seasons.

[WintaSoldier1]

Vote: Russell Westbrook
From 2013-2018, here's what he averaged:
(Reg season) 26.9 PER, .207 WS/48, 7.3 BPM, +8.8 on/off
(Postseason) 25.3 PER, .160 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, +17.0 on/off

How many of the nominees even have a single year that compares to that?


Alternate: Joel Embiid
Has 3 of the top 18 seasons all-time by PER. Would be #1 all-time in PER ahead of Joker and Jordan if he had enough minutes to qualify. Has an incredible playoff on/off of +12.1 which rates up there with anyone in history.


Nominate: Gary Payton
Not super married to this one yet, but he has a higher VORP than anyone who hasn't been nominated yet other than Pierce and his on/off numbers look terrific for the few prime years we have available. Has a reputation as both an all-time playmaker and an all-time defender.

At a certain point, do we have to discredit Embiid for the "off" in on/off. He's played 80+% of a season twice in 9 years and has missed 13% of his teams' playoff games. I'm as high on Kawhi's playoff peak as anyone, but you have to appreciate that he routinely gets 30% more rest than most other stars in the league and that that inflates his per-minute production.

Generally interested, do you feel there’s a difference between when a player can only play under X amount of minutes because of some underlying characteristics( Motor, Defensive ability , Etc) vs when a star player who plays bulk mpg a game but misses a decent amount of games a season.

Statistically the MPG could be close on a stat sheet:
Example:
36 MPG x 65( 2,340)
28 MPG x 82( 2,296)

Although one player missed a larger portion of games, and by extension hurt his teams abilities to compete at potentially their most “optimal” level, statistically he played more minutes then a 28 MPG who was at every game.

Wondering where division between statistical significance of a number and real-time consequences lines up in your thinking.

Synopsis: How much do you value availability & What’s the statistical significance of the availability in a MPG vs Game Count Play

[WintaSoldier1]

Vote: Russell Westbrook
From 2013-2018, here's what he averaged:
(Reg season) 26.9 PER, .207 WS/48, 7.3 BPM, +8.8 on/off
(Postseason) 25.3 PER, .160 WS/48, 7.8 BPM, +17.0 on/off

How many of the nominees even have a single year that compares to that?


Alternate: Joel Embiid
Has 3 of the top 18 seasons all-time by PER. Would be #1 all-time in PER ahead of Joker and Jordan if he had enough minutes to qualify. Has an incredible playoff on/off of +12.1 which rates up there with anyone in history.


Nominate: Gary Payton
Not super married to this one yet, but he has a higher VORP than anyone who hasn't been nominated yet other than Pierce and his on/off numbers look terrific for the few prime years we have available. Has a reputation as both an all-time playmaker and an all-time defender.

At a certain point, do we have to discredit Embiid for the "off" in on/off. He's played 80+% of a season twice in 9 years and has missed 13% of his teams' playoff games. I'm as high on Kawhi's playoff peak as anyone, but you have to appreciate that he routinely gets 30% more rest than most other stars in the league and that that inflates his per-minute production.

Obviously, Embiid has had issues with durability and that's why he wasn't voted in the low 30s somewhere, but it's not like getting more rest is what makes him efficient. His last 2 seasons were his best on a per minute basis by far and he ranked 46th and 54th in the league in minutes played in those 2 seasons.

Exactly, Feel like the love for Embidd is being overshadowed by the narrative of his durability; Which has a level of truth to it, but at the same time It can feel a bit strange to have his current peers( Giannis & Jokic) ranked so highly[ As they were voted in 20~ spots ago] and just now we’re EVEN beginning to consider Joel Embidd.

There’s a large amount of players on this list who are currently ranked who I find a hard time fathoming they’re better basketball players then Joel Embidd( Although it is a “career” list)

[OhayoKD]

I have access to a very interesting BPM-informed RAPM data set that runs in six 4-year stints starting in the 1997 season and ending with the 2020 season. The results of the data are very, very solid with that quantity of RAPM.

Paul Pierce looks very good. He runs in the range of +5 for the first three of those 4-year stints, then plus 3.25 in the 4th.

Russell Westbrook never gets above Paul Pierce's peak. One stint at plus five and one stint at +4 is all he has. I believe the data and would not vote for Westbrook for quite a while longer. (It pains me to say this as an OKC/Westbrook fan.).

Very much doubt that holds when one accounts for playoff elevation

[Doctor MJ]

Re Payton - I’m not much of a Payton guy. We’re talking about a guy who became the anointed face of the Sonic core of the time not when they became great, but a couple years later when McMillan aged out and Payton actually became the most effective point guard on the team.

Why did it take him so long? I’d say it had a lot to do with Payton being meh at point skills like shooting and passing. These were never things he became great at, and you could see that by the way the Lakers gradually relied on Derek Fisher more than Payton on what was supposed to be a 4-star super team.

His defense peaked high for a guard, but the longevity of that greatness was overrated. He should have stopped being considered an All-D guy some years before he did.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just my opinion, but this seems slightly overcritical of Payton. And fwiw, it feels like there's an air of "I'm low on him because he's not great at the things you think he SHOULD [as a PG] be good at" in the above. He was good at what he was good at; and it made him a very impressive player (for quite a long time). That should stand on its own, without being judged by how well it conforms to the usual.

While he wasn't "great" at shooting or passing, he wasn't bad either (certainly not as a passer). He was a bit "meh" from behind the arc and from the FT (for a PG); in mid-range shooting in general, perhaps slightly less than we'd like. But he was more than passable/decent as a playmaker.

And he was ELITE among PG's at getting to the rim, where he was quite a GOOD finisher (excellent for a PG, in fact). He was big, and could take smaller PG's into the post from time to time, too.
Despite his relative shooting woes, he was at least a tiny bit above league avg TS% from '95-'02, and then again '04-'05.

By approximately '95 and after, he was both scoring and facilitating at relatively high rates/volumes, and doing so for close to 40 mpg most years. And did all of this with a very respectable turnover economy.

It's worth noting that once he started coming into his own (beginning in say '93), the Sonics had an elite offense pretty most years (and always good); the BEST years coming after his primacy really takes off ['95 and after]. rORTG below.....

'93: +4.3
'94: +4.8
'95: +6.5
'96: +2.7
'97: +4.5
'98: +6.6
'99: +2.8
'00: +1.5
'01: +2.6
'02: +4.4

Here are Payton's offensive on/off on some of those good/elite offenses ('97-'02):
'97: +5.7 (was +15.5 in playoffs)
'98: +6.3 (was +22.4 in playoffs)
'99: +11.6
'00: +10.1 (-5.3 in playoffs [though 5-game sample])
'01: -0.5
'02: +1.7 (-4.9 in playoffs [though again 5-game sample])


So for someone who's supposedly meh as an offensive player, he was at the helm of a number of very good offenses, showing generally very strong on/offs for said good/great offenses.


I agree his longevity of quality defensively is greatly overstated by his accolades. However, even removing those factors from consideration, he's a guy who very clearly belongs in the conversation somewhere around 50.

I think you make fair points in general. I think you can say I'm scarred by my Payton experience and it's something to be kept in mind with what I present. I'll say another thing that influences me that may not influence others:

I struggle to consider someone a great passer if they cannot hang in a read & react offense. I think if all you can do is hit a few specific types of reads that you're called upon in running an offense, that can sometimes be enough, but it doesn't make you great at passing, because a true adept passer is really all about being to think on one's feet.

I'll also hit one other thing here, in terms of Payton being on good offenses:

The Sonics were secretly pace & spacy.

Consider that the Sonics' absolute peak as an offense came with them being 3rd in pace, and their primary 3-point makers were 6'9" and 6'10" respectively.

Now, I still think Payton was the MVP of those Sonics over a period of half-decade or so so I'm not trying to say that any one other player was more valuable to the Sonics than Payton, but I think it's worth understanding that Payton had some advantages in the team setting that were not really recognized at the time, and I think ended up causing his overall capacity to be a bit overrated.

And case in point I suppose, I just assumed he was heady enough to play triangle because his teams had chosen to live and die with his headiness before. And so I learned a thing.

So yeah, it’s not just Arizin here, I’m low on Payton compared to contemporaries. To me guys like Pierce, Allen, and Gasol rate higher.

I agree on Pierce and Gasol. Even Ray Allen I have very near to Payton, and could entertain an argument above Payton.

While iggy's tone and hyperbole was off-putting for me, I agree with the general sentiment that better candidates [than Arizin] exist at this point. There are guys still on the table [many not even on the ballot yet] who were of roughly similar stature within their league environments [as Arizin was in his].......except they did it in TOUGHER league environments (and in many cases:
did it for longer).
Between concerns over strength of era and lacking longevity, I can't see myself considering Arizin anywhere in the next 20 spots.

[/quote]

Glad we can largely agree.

I definitely have Allen ahead of Payton. I think it's amazing to think that they were traded for each other with Milwaukee under the impression that this would be an upgrade worth letting go of a younger player known for being the best 3-point shooter in the world for an older player.

Re: Arizin - guys on the table who were roughly similar stature. Ooh, interesting. Here's how my POY share leaderboard among those not voted in goes:

1. Bobby McDermott
2. Bob Davies
3. George Gervin
4. Al Cervi
5. Paul Arizin

So, McDermott, Davies & Cervi are all older than Arizin so I don't think anyone is looking to debate them.

Gervin over Arizin I totally get. I think that's a reasonable debate to make.

I'm curious who else you had in mind though. I think clearly what we're going to find is that I rate Arizin higher within his era than you expect.

[homecourtloss]

If I look at peak value (i.e. only count 4-year-stints where the player is above +3), then here's the ranking I get from 1997-2020:
1. LeBron
--very big gap--
2. KG & Duncan, tie
4. CP3
--gap--
5. Shaq (missing beginning of career)
6. Curry (active, so missing most recent 2 years)
7. Dirk
8. Kawhi and KD, tie (active, missing most recent 2 years)
10. basically a tie between:
- Paul George (active...)
- James Harden (active...)
- Paul Pierce
- Draymond (active...)
- Dwight Howard
- Michael Jordan--yes, the very end of his career
- Vince Carter
- Rasheed Wallace
- Giannis (active...)
- Jason Kidd
20 and on get hard to distinguish as tiers. This area includes Lowry, Jimmy Butler, D-Wade, Manu, Steve Nash, John Stockton (last few years only), McGrady, Rudy Gobert, Nikola Jokic, Iguodala, Kirilenko, Embiid, Kobe Bryant, Gary Payton, Jrue Holiday, Ray Allen, Eddie Jones, Ben Wallace, Damian Lillard... etc. Notables below this include Russell Westbrook and Anthony Davis.

Again, this is only from 1997 to 2020, missing the most recent 2 seasons. Each stint is average performance over 4 years, so it can miss shorter spikes in value. This does not account for availability--if a player missed 2 of those seasons, I'm not accounting for it.

I have access to a very interesting BPM-informed RAPM data set that runs in six 4-year stints starting in the 1997 season and ending with the 2020 season. The results of the data are very, very solid with that quantity of RAPM.

Paul Pierce looks very good. He runs in the range of +5 for the first three of those 4-year stints, then plus 3.25 in the 4th.

Russell Westbrook never gets above Paul Pierce's peak. One stint at plus five and one stint at +4 is all he has. I believe the data and would not vote for Westbrook for quite a while longer. (It pains me to say this as an OKC/Westbrook fan.).

For reference, there are a lot of modern era players with better numbers then Westbrook. Even Ben Wallace and Blake Griffin do. Westbrook peaked at the same height as Jason Kidd by these numbers but had a much shorter career.

Dwight Howard had a significantly hire peak, at almost Plus 8 for his best stent. Then he had two other stints at plus 3.5 or so. Nothing else positive.

Through 2020, Draymond Green had a stint at plus 7.5 and a stint at plus 4.5. Which was actually the second stint in the sample.

Joel Embiid only had one stint in the sample and it was at + 7.5 through 2020. I would expect his most recent two seasons to be at least that high and probably higher.

Of these modern players I would say it is between Paul Pierce and Dwight Howard for who should go in next, with Joel Embiid knocking at the door.

As much as I like Draymond Green (defensively), his impact numbers don't look that great in this metric. And the box score prior isn't what's driving that.

Are you able to post the data sets? This is interesting.

[DSMok1]

I have access to a very interesting BPM-informed RAPM data set that runs in six 4-year stints starting in the 1997 season and ending with the 2020 season. The results of the data are very, very solid with that quantity of RAPM.

Paul Pierce looks very good. He runs in the range of +5 for the first three of those 4-year stints, then plus 3.25 in the 4th.

Russell Westbrook never gets above Paul Pierce's peak. One stint at plus five and one stint at +4 is all he has. I believe the data and would not vote for Westbrook for quite a while longer. (It pains me to say this as an OKC/Westbrook fan.).

Very much doubt that holds when one accounts for playoff elevation

Possibly, but this dataset did include playoffs. The regular season sample does dominate though. And I certainly agree that some players are exposed in the playoffs.

[DSMok1]

Are you able to post the data sets? This is interesting.

No, this was done cooperatively with an NBA team, so I'd rather not share the full dataset.