RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #55 (Joel Embiid)

[trex_8063]

Watched some Tape on Pau Gasol

At first when I was watching his highlight reel(Mostly low-post arsenal) I had came to the conclusion Pau was a difference maker as a player but he wasn't exactly a "Game Changer" and for the most part I hold these players we're voting for now in esteem to how they can change the game and influence the players around them. Pau's nice he's really just fishing to bump you off your spot and then get into a drop/spin or baby hook, and occasionally he'll fade just to keep you honest. But I failed to see a point of emphasis in his offensive scoring arsenal where I felt like if you showed me the offensive arsenal of this guy and said he was the 55th best basketball player ever... I'd be unimpressed.

His Post-Arsenal can be described as( Pace + Touch), in a fashion that's kinda similar to Jokic but less fluid and more brook lopez type of movement then Jokic's footwork.

Although, I then watched some footage of his playmaking abilities and I felt like THAT was a game-changing aspect I could get behind, the real question for me came is how much was he able to utilize this throughout the entirety of a game? Even if it is a game changing ability, how often does he get to use this a game? Maybe, 6-7 times a game and how much offensive pressure does that put on the defensive mentally to account for Pau's playmaking abilities? Pau also seemed to "call his number" at times on the low block and kinda forgo the game-changing ability(in playmaking).

I watched some defense and he's just not super talented... I mean I'd like some perspective on how good he was defensively from you guys but it just seems like he lacked a defensive instinct and largely was a reactionary defender who took advg of his size in close confrontation who was liable to getting worked in the mid-post by anyone with a solid first step.

Overall I just think Pau Gasol is kinda the best player you could be without having a game-defining "instinct or talent" that seperates him, he continually sticks to his game and never shifts outside of the box of what he could accomplish. Now if the criteria you'd like to use is because he was VERY GOOD for such a long period of time he should get the spot(I won't call him GREAT, if we're using the contemporaries on this list as a reference to what being "GREAT" is)... I mean, I don't expect to vote for Pau for a while... I wonder what the list will look like once we get to 63 or so, I feel like I'll consider him then mentally but then again I'm unsure of what it will look like once we get there.

Well, I'm solidly in Pau's camp until he's off the table, so I have to provide at least a few counterpoints......

Regarding not seeing some "point of emphasis" on his scoring arsenal that truly wowed you, or some other game-changing aspect to it......
I mean, the very same thing could not doubt be said about Tim Duncan, and yet he [when he was called upon to do it] he scored A LOT, and on reasonably good efficiency, AND was playoff resilient. While I like evaluating someone's game first-hand, I'm leery of watching for things that wow me, because the "wow" moments don't necessarily produce better [or even as good] basketball impact.
I think this is the kind of thing that tends to overrate someone like Hakeem Olajuwon, too: some people look at his dizzying footwork and repertoire of moves, combined with his athleticism and think he's got to be a GOAT-candidate......yet he never put together a full season of anything of the sort, and his scoring efficiency tops out at good but not great.
Shaq was decidedly uglier to watch, yet undeniably more effective and impactful on offense (though I guess we could say he "wowed" in other [brutish] ways).

For myself, I remember [circa-2010] thinking Pau Gasol was the best offensive big-man in the league outside of Dirk (due to age-related decline, I thought Pau better than what Duncan or Garnett were [offensively] at that point).


Re: comparison to Jokic
Jokic is a trancendent offensive player; I'm seriously arriving at the conclusion that we can validly discuss if he's the greatest offensive player the game has ever seen. So......high bar.

In a general sense, an argument that basically says, "Yeah, Player A looks really good offensively, but he's not as good as Player B....."-----when Player B was voted in 30 places ago and has a career length that's literally less than half what Player A's is [Pau's 41,001 career minutes to Jokic's 18,341 eligible minutes]----is a bit of a non sequitur, imo. It just feels like a reach, as though actively searching for disparaging arguments because you simply don't want to support this player.


Re: defense
Yeah, fair enough assessment. He's tall and long, he rebounded well, he provides some rim protection and post defense. He lacked lateral speed and was middling in terms of defensive IQ [imo]. Not a bad/weak defender, but not notable either.
fwiw, Memphis had some VERY good defenses for a couple years with Pau playing ~39 mpg at C (and being basically the ONLY notable big-man on the roster). NOTE: I am NOT trying to suggest he was the defensive anchor (it was clearly Shane Battier). However, having Pau playing 39 minutes at the most defensively-crucial position apparently did not sabotage their defensive effectiveness, at any rate.


All of that said, you're right that his candidacy is to no small degree based upon effective longevity, and if that's not your bag [baby], so be it. Philosophical differences.
Speaking for myself, I feel a CORP/VORP-type criteria has too much substantive basis to be ignored......such that a decade of top 10-15(ish) seasons is more valuable than one or two top 1-3 seasons. Certainly some manner of "curve" for years played is required (to avoid the whole "mere starter-level player for 50 years" argument), but you hopefully get what I'm saying.
The one other [potential] caveat to this is how much salary is being drawn over time, though this is often mitigated by the fact that those MVP-tier players are typically drawing far more annual salary than someone who is merely All-Star or All-NBA level.
Additionally, vs someone like Bill Walton, this consideration goes right out the window, since he was basically drawing top-dollar salary for a number of years even though he was rarely healthy enough to play.

[Doctor MJ]

I mean honestly I’m a bit sad of George & Paul slipping through the attention span of us for so long… The same can be said for Embiid as well. Some guy said the next time this project is done Embiid will shoot up in the rankings and I think there’s a justification for that opinion.

So, wanted to say:

I think it's inevitable that we end up feeling like particular player deserved to rank higher and that perhaps blaming ourselves for not championing the guy harder or sooner. It is what it is. To me this relates to the whole thing where it feels like there are 17 guys who should be Top 10 in a given situation. Someone gets left without a chair, and we wonder if we've done them a disservice.

Re: next time Embiid shoots up rankings. Oh well I think that's the expectation in general for guys who are still young. Sometimes guys stall, but if Embiid keeps up what he's doing, doesn't have more health issues, and shows some breakthrough in the playoffs, then yeah, he'll fly up the charts. I won't be remotely surprised if he's Top 30 next time, and of course even higher echelons are possible.

[WintaSoldier1]

Watched some Tape on Pau Gasol

At first when I was watching his highlight reel(Mostly low-post arsenal) I had came to the conclusion Pau was a difference maker as a player but he wasn't exactly a "Game Changer" and for the most part I hold these players we're voting for now in esteem to how they can change the game and influence the players around them. Pau's nice he's really just fishing to bump you off your spot and then get into a drop/spin or baby hook, and occasionally he'll fade just to keep you honest. But I failed to see a point of emphasis in his offensive scoring arsenal where I felt like if you showed me the offensive arsenal of this guy and said he was the 55th best basketball player ever... I'd be unimpressed.

His Post-Arsenal can be described as( Pace + Touch), in a fashion that's kinda similar to Jokic but less fluid and more brook lopez type of movement then Jokic's footwork.

Although, I then watched some footage of his playmaking abilities and I felt like THAT was a game-changing aspect I could get behind, the real question for me came is how much was he able to utilize this throughout the entirety of a game? Even if it is a game changing ability, how often does he get to use this a game? Maybe, 6-7 times a game and how much offensive pressure does that put on the defensive mentally to account for Pau's playmaking abilities? Pau also seemed to "call his number" at times on the low block and kinda forgo the game-changing ability(in playmaking).

I watched some defense and he's just not super talented... I mean I'd like some perspective on how good he was defensively from you guys but it just seems like he lacked a defensive instinct and largely was a reactionary defender who took advg of his size in close confrontation who was liable to getting worked in the mid-post by anyone with a solid first step.

Overall I just think Pau Gasol is kinda the best player you could be without having a game-defining "instinct or talent" that seperates him, he continually sticks to his game and never shifts outside of the box of what he could accomplish. Now if the criteria you'd like to use is because he was VERY GOOD for such a long period of time he should get the spot(I won't call him GREAT, if we're using the contemporaries on this list as a reference to what being "GREAT" is)... I mean, I don't expect to vote for Pau for a while... I wonder what the list will look like once we get to 63 or so, I feel like I'll consider him then mentally but then again I'm unsure of what it will look like once we get there.

Well, I'm solidly in Pau's camp until he's off the table, so I have to provide at least a few counterpoints......

Regarding not seeing some "point of emphasis" on his scoring arsenal that truly wowed you, or some other game-changing aspect to it......
I mean, the very same thing could not doubt be said about Tim Duncan, and yet he [when he was called upon to do it] he scored A LOT, and on reasonably good efficiency, AND was playoff resilient. While I like evaluating someone's game first-hand, I'm leery of watching for things that wow me, because the "wow" moments don't necessarily produce better [or even as good] basketball impact.
I think this is the kind of thing that tends to overrate someone like Hakeem Olajuwon, too: some people look at his dizzying footwork and repertoire of moves, combined with his athleticism and think he's got to be a GOAT-candidate......yet he never put together a full season of anything of the sort, and his scoring efficiency tops out at good but not great.
Shaq was decidedly uglier to watch, yet undeniably more effective and impactful on offense (though I guess we could say he "wowed" in other [brutish] ways).

For myself, I remember [circa-2010] thinking Pau Gasol was the best offensive big-man in the league outside of Dirk (due to age-related decline, I thought Pau better than what Duncan or Garnett were [offensively] at that point).


Re: comparison to Jokic
Jokic is a trancendent offensive player; I'm seriously arriving at the conclusion that we can validly discuss if he's the greatest offensive player the game has ever seen. So......high bar.

In a general sense, an argument that basically says, "Yeah, Player A looks really good offensively, but he's not as good as Player B....."-----when Player B was voted in 30 places ago and has a career length that's literally less than half what Player A's is [Pau's 41,001 career minutes to Jokic's 18,341 eligible minutes]----is a bit of a non sequitur, imo. It just feels like a reach, as though actively searching for disparaging arguments because you simply don't want to support this player.


Re: defense
Yeah, fair enough assessment. He's tall and long, he rebounded well, he provides some rim protection and post defense. He lacked lateral speed and was middling in terms of defensive IQ [imo]. Not a bad/weak defender, but not notable either.
fwiw, Memphis had some VERY good defenses for a couple years with Pau playing ~39 mpg at C (and being basically the ONLY notable big-man on the roster). NOTE: I am NOT trying to suggest he was the defensive anchor (it was clearly Shane Battier). However, having Pau playing 39 minutes at the most defensively-crucial position apparently did not sabotage their defensive effectiveness, at any rate.


All of that said, you're right that his candidacy is to no small degree based upon effective longevity, and if that's not your bag [baby], so be it. Philosophical differences.
Speaking for myself, I feel a CORP/VORP-type criteria has too much substantive basis to be ignored......such that a decade of top 10-15(ish) seasons is more valuable than one or two top 1-3 seasons. Certainly some manner of "curve" for years played is required (to avoid the whole "mere starter-level player for 50 years" argument), but you hopefully get what I'm saying.
The one other [potential] caveat to this is how much salary is being drawn over time, though this is often mitigated by the fact that those MVP-tier players are typically drawing far more annual salary than someone who is merely All-Star or All-NBA level.
Additionally, vs someone like Bill Walton, this consideration goes right out the window, since he was basically drawing top-dollar salary for a number of years even though he was rarely healthy enough to play.

Glad you decided to campaign for Pau!

IN reference to the comparison of Tim Duncan, I just don't think we're talking about the same difference. Tim Duncan does have game-changing talents offensively(in general and in this case in comparison to Pau Gasol). He's mobile, agile, too long, and too fast along with being a titan down low. The narrative around him may be convoluting the actual reality of what his game was he was a undeniable monster down low if we were to ask "Can he get a bucket at anytime?" the answer is an obvious yes with Tim Duncan. When I watch Pau Gasol the answer question was more like "Can he contribute to scoring and effectively manage a offensive load". Tim comparatively to Pau in reference to their scoring ability has much more game defining "Will/Talent/Drive", it just seems more natural and easier for Tim to go get one in comparison to Pau. Don't get me wrong Pau has GREAT Touch, Understands what spots are effective, and utilizes them in a way where he knows where he has to get to, but the game changing talent I'm referring to is not having to get to a spot to be effective... Tim Duncan doesn't have to get to a spot to be effective, you can just generally clear it out and good things will occur.

In retrospective of my writing this is in some ways a reference back to the "How valuable is a good 2nd Option, Meh first option" thing. My reference to Pau's lack of "Game-Changing Talent"[as a scorer] in some ways can be interpreted as he cannot handle the burden of a first option[on contender teams/highly competitive squads]... He is a guy who is a "difference-maker"[Which is in reference to more of a secondary/robin esque role on offenses].

Also, I think you have a point when referencing talent to execution, at the end of the day we as humans are too impatient and cognitive to appreciate talent outside of the execution.[ This is a reference to how Hakeem's talent compared to the execution that came out of it... Insight to the limitations of humans]

Jokic: I don't mean to takeaway from Pau in comparison to Jokic, I wanted to find a way to compare Pau to another player on this list and the way Pau hunts for angles and spots on the floor is comparative to Jokic for me. Just felt like Pau's form of hunting was worse in execution and less refined due to agility/mobility issues. In some ways this is beginning to boil down to Pau's lack of mobility and lack of pure overwhelming talent as a scorer hampers his ability to be higher on this list for me. Unlike the guys it just doesn't feel like he can call upon himself at anytime as a scorer and make something happen, is the general rhetoric I'm trying to get at.

[LA Bird]

fwiw, Memphis had some VERY good defenses for a couple years with Pau playing ~39 mpg at C (and being basically the ONLY notable big-man on the roster). NOTE: I am NOT trying to suggest he was the defensive anchor (it was clearly Shane Battier). However, having Pau playing 39 minutes at the most defensively-crucial position apparently did not sabotage their defensive effectiveness, at any rate.

I have seen this position-based argument that 'Gasol must be a good defender because he was the C on good defenses' many times but it never holds up to scrutiny. Here is the WOWY split for the years when Memphis had above average defenses:

2004-06 Grizzlies DRtg
With Battier, No Gasol: 97.7
With Battier, With Gasol: 101.6
No Battier, No Gasol: 101.7
No Battier, With Gasol: 106.8

That's a +3.9 and +5.1 DRtg on/off from Gasol with and without Battier respectively over a multi year sample. The Grizzlies defense were great in spite of Gasol, not because of him. The only reason him hurting their defense wasn't obvious was because the Grizzlies defense with Battier and without Gasol was incredibly good (better DRtg than the Pistons with DPOY Ben Wallace actually). That's why they could withstand a +4 defensive on/off and still be great overall. Put Gasol on a team without Battier and his defensive weakness would be more evident... which is exactly what happened when Battier got traded the year after and Gasol posted a team worst DRtg on/off on the single worst defense in the entire league.

All the evidence points to Memphis Gasol being not only not the defensive anchor, but not even a positive defender. Maybe if he had played before the databall era, we could be having this conversation about estimating defensive value by position in which case a starting C on a top defensive team is, indeed, most likely a good defender. But we don't need to make such assumptions for Gasol because the data is available and says otherwise.

[trex_8063]

fwiw, Memphis had some VERY good defenses for a couple years with Pau playing ~39 mpg at C (and being basically the ONLY notable big-man on the roster). NOTE: I am NOT trying to suggest he was the defensive anchor (it was clearly Shane Battier). However, having Pau playing 39 minutes at the most defensively-crucial position apparently did not sabotage their defensive effectiveness, at any rate.

I have seen this position-based argument that 'Gasol must be a good defender because he was the C on good defenses' many times but it never holds up to scrutiny. Here is the WOWY split for the years when Memphis had above average defenses:

2004-06 Grizzlies DRtg
With Battier, No Gasol: 97.7
With Battier, With Gasol: 101.6
No Battier, No Gasol: 101.7
No Battier, With Gasol: 106.8

That's a +3.9 and +5.1 DRtg on/off from Gasol with and without Battier respectively over a multi year sample. The Grizzlies defense were great in spite of Gasol, not because of him. The only reason him hurting their defense wasn't obvious was because the Grizzlies defense with Battier and without Gasol was incredibly good (better DRtg than the Pistons with DPOY Ben Wallace actually). That's why they could withstand a +4 defensive on/off and still be great overall. Put Gasol on a team without Battier and his defensive weakness would be more evident... which is exactly what happened when Battier got traded the year after and Gasol posted a team worst DRtg on/off on the single worst defense in the entire league.

All the evidence points to Memphis Gasol being not only not the defensive anchor, but not even a positive defender. Maybe if he had played before the databall era, we could be having this conversation about estimating defensive value by position in which case a starting C on a top defensive team is, indeed, most likely a good defender. But we don't need to make such assumptions for Gasol because the data is available and says otherwise.

I want to make clear that you're quoting my post while offering a retort to an argument I never made.


Did I say or suggest anywhere that Pau Gasol was the defensive anchor there? NO.
On the contrary, I explicitly stated [and I quote (as shown above)]: "I am NOT trying to suggest he was the defensive anchor (it was clearly Shane Battier)."


Did I say "Gasol must be a good defender because he was the C on good defenses", or that "the Grizzlies defense were great because of Gasol"? NO.
I said "...having Pau playing 39 minutes at the most defensively-crucial position apparently did not sabotage their defensive effectiveness, at any rate." Which is hardly a rousing endorsement, considering I also said he's "not notable" defensively, as well.

And while your point is surely sustained (it indeed does NOT reflect well at all upon Gasol defensively), I do feel it's worthwhile to point out that in '04, Gasol's bench time was largely [almost exclusively??] replaced by Bo Outlaw........one of the best defensive PF's of his generation (had a +3.5 DRAPM in '04, btw [or +4.0 according to the now vanished shutupandjam site]).

Completely non-coincidentally, Pau's defensive on/off that year is +9.8, which is dramatically skewing this sample of yours (because he was otherwise a +1.8 in '05, +1.3 in '06).
Which is still not good [in '05 and '06], just not to the degree you've suggested. The above [imo] suggests he was a slightly below average defensive big overall.
Though, if you replace a slightly weak defender's minutes with someone who [on a per-minute basis] is an all-time tier defensive PF, naturally his defensive on/off is going to look awful.

[Owly]

fwiw, Memphis had some VERY good defenses for a couple years with Pau playing ~39 mpg at C (and being basically the ONLY notable big-man on the roster). NOTE: I am NOT trying to suggest he was the defensive anchor (it was clearly Shane Battier). However, having Pau playing 39 minutes at the most defensively-crucial position apparently did not sabotage their defensive effectiveness, at any rate.

I have seen this position-based argument that 'Gasol must be a good defender because he was the C on good defenses' many times but it never holds up to scrutiny. Here is the WOWY split for the years when Memphis had above average defenses:

2004-06 Grizzlies DRtg
With Battier, No Gasol: 97.7
With Battier, With Gasol: 101.6
No Battier, No Gasol: 101.7
No Battier, With Gasol: 106.8

That's a +3.9 and +5.1 DRtg on/off from Gasol with and without Battier respectively over a multi year sample. The Grizzlies defense were great in spite of Gasol, not because of him. The only reason him hurting their defense wasn't obvious was because the Grizzlies defense with Battier and without Gasol was incredibly good (better DRtg than the Pistons with DPOY Ben Wallace actually). That's why they could withstand a +4 defensive on/off and still be great overall. Put Gasol on a team without Battier and his defensive weakness would be more evident... which is exactly what happened when Battier got traded the year after and Gasol posted a team worst DRtg on/off on the single worst defense in the entire league.

All the evidence points to Memphis Gasol being not only not the defensive anchor, but not even a positive defender. Maybe if he had played before the databall era, we could be having this conversation about estimating defensive value by position in which case a starting C on a top defensive team is, indeed, most likely a good defender. But we don't need to make such assumptions for Gasol because the data is available and says otherwise.

Those numbers certainly don't look good, particularly for asserting anything strongly positive about Gasol's defensive impact in that era.

That said sample sizes will be relevant and aren't given. And 2 players isn't the full picture.
For 2004:
Gasol's heaviest minutes partners are Williams, Posey and Miller. I only like one of those as a defender and I think Williams might be close to a liability otoh.
Battier's top three partners are Swift, Watson and Outlaw. And in general I'd really like the latter two as defenders. Swift less so because his fundamentals in general weren't great (probably being charitable there) but he can block some shots and his primary with Battier unit is a bench one with the other two strong defenders and as part of that type of unit I'd guess he's not so bad.

I don't know if it's always like that over the three years (I'd guess not), coming off the bench doesn't necessarily mean playing weaker units, as stated initially those numbers aren't helping a strong pro-Gasol's D case ... I'd say a fuller impact picture would still support Battier and be less bullish on Gasol for that era but perhaps there are other factors at play in the data presented too.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

[iggymcfrack]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

This is the key to me. If one guy has a huge longevity advantage, it has to be absolutely lockdown that the guy who played less was much better in his prime. The fact that Pau has better CAREER playoff WS/48 and BPM than Embiid making the playoffs all the way to age 37 is nuts and completely vaporizes the Embiid case IMO.

I feel like you can use the same argument for Pau > Arizin somewhat. Arizin played 60% as many minutes as Pau in a MUCH, MUCH easier era and their PER and WS/48 numbers actually look pretty similar. Pau has a higher career PER than Arizin in the regular season even with a bunch of decline years and has a better PER in the postseason if you eliminate the last 2 runs in San Antonio. I really don’t see the case for either player over Pau.

[Doctor MJ]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

This is the key to me. If one guy has a huge longevity advantage, it has to be absolutely lockdown that the guy who played less was much better in his prime. The fact that Pau has better CAREER playoff WS/48 and BPM than Embiid making the playoffs all the way to age 37 is nuts and completely vaporizes the Embiid case IMO.

I feel like you can use the same argument for Pau > Arizin somewhat. Arizin played 60% as many minutes as Pau in a MUCH, MUCH easier era and their PER and WS/48 numbers actually look pretty similar. Pau has a higher career PER than Arizin in the regular season even with a bunch of decline years and has a better PER in the postseason if you eliminate the last 2 runs in San Antonio. I really don’t see the case for either player over Pau.

Your reasoning resonates with me generally, and I think the arguments for Gasol here over either do make sense, but just so we're clear on the Gasol vs Arizin thing.

Total post-seasons > .200 WS/48: Arizin 2, Gasol 2,
Total post-seasons > .100 WS/48: Arizin 6, Gasol 6
Total post-seasons < .100 WS/48: Gasol 6, Arizin 1

Keep in mind that Arizin's first post-season isn't included here because no WS were given for it, and that Arizin's doing this despite missing 3 post-seasons during his prime due to military service.

So yeah, Gasol's got the longevity edge, but post-season-wise this isn't really a strong factor.

You mentioned that it was an easier era, and of course this is a thing where everyone's just trying to gauge that as well as possible.

[iggymcfrack]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

This is the key to me. If one guy has a huge longevity advantage, it has to be absolutely lockdown that the guy who played less was much better in his prime. The fact that Pau has better CAREER playoff WS/48 and BPM than Embiid making the playoffs all the way to age 37 is nuts and completely vaporizes the Embiid case IMO.

I feel like you can use the same argument for Pau > Arizin somewhat. Arizin played 60% as many minutes as Pau in a MUCH, MUCH easier era and their PER and WS/48 numbers actually look pretty similar. Pau has a higher career PER than Arizin in the regular season even with a bunch of decline years and has a better PER in the postseason if you eliminate the last 2 runs in San Antonio. I really don’t see the case for either player over Pau.

Your reasoning resonates with me generally, and I think the arguments for Gasol here over either do make sense, but just so we're clear on the Gasol vs Arizin thing.

Total post-seasons > .200 WS/48: Arizin 2, Gasol 2,
Total post-seasons > .100 WS/48: Arizin 6, Gasol 6
Total post-seasons < .100 WS/48: Gasol 6, Arizin 1

Keep in mind that Arizin's first post-season isn't included here because no WS were given for it, and that Arizin's doing this despite missing 3 post-seasons during his prime due to military service.

So yeah, Gasol's got the longevity edge, but post-season-wise this isn't really a strong factor.

You mentioned that it was an easier era, and of course this is a thing where everyone's just trying to gauge that as well as possible.

Yeah, I'm just saying in addition to the era, it's really a huge longevity edge for Pau. 25K minutes in the '50s vs. 41K minutes in the 2000s is a huge difference. The fact that you're showing similar prime values on a per minute basis really makes the case. Shouldn't Arizin need a huge peak/prime advantage to make up for the other factors? Isn't it kinda like comparing Pettit and Dirk in terms of the relative longevity and close peak/prime? Dirk went 13 spots ahead in this project.

[Owly]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

This is the key to me. If one guy has a huge longevity advantage, it has to be absolutely lockdown that the guy who played less was much better in his prime. The fact that Pau has better CAREER playoff WS/48 and BPM than Embiid making the playoffs all the way to age 37 is nuts and completely vaporizes the Embiid case IMO.

I feel like you can use the same argument for Pau > Arizin somewhat. Arizin played 60% as many minutes as Pau in a MUCH, MUCH easier era and their PER and WS/48 numbers actually look pretty similar. Pau has a higher career PER than Arizin in the regular season even with a bunch of decline years and has a better PER in the postseason if you eliminate the last 2 runs in San Antonio. I really don’t see the case for either player over Pau.

Your reasoning resonates with me generally, and I think the arguments for Gasol here over either do make sense, but just so we're clear on the Gasol vs Arizin thing.

Total post-seasons > .200 WS/48: Arizin 2, Gasol 2,
Total post-seasons > .100 WS/48: Arizin 6, Gasol 6
Total post-seasons < .100 WS/48: Gasol 6, Arizin 1

Keep in mind that Arizin's first post-season isn't included here because no WS were given for it, and that Arizin's doing this despite missing 3 post-seasons during his prime due to military service.

So yeah, Gasol's got the longevity edge, but post-season-wise this isn't really a strong factor.

You mentioned that it was an easier era, and of course this is a thing where everyone's just trying to gauge that as well as possible.

Some thoughts looking at the WS stuff.

1) Gasol's over .200 count should be 3, not 2.
2) Gasol's two longest runs are two of his strongest. Arizin's longest (largest sample, most minutes, most games) is a more middling one in the final year of his major league pro career. What one does with this sort of unevenness ... IDK. Though in this case Arizin's 2nd and third minutes runs are at the strong end.
3) Threshold stuff will always have some caveats. I don't think these lines are drawn to manipulate, just saying in general.
4) Linking somewhat back to 2, it comes to what measures we trust and how the sample of the playoffs affects our trust in/perception of those measures. Memphis playoff runs 2 and 3 show WS.48 numbers that if seen for a full (RS?) career would suggest a genuinely awful player, whilst BPM (especially OBPM side) and PER are at least more in line with a solidly good player if perhaps not a special one. Fwiw (given the samples) Memphis do seem to be bleeding a lot when he's off court. How much we trust aggregates to not get too far off in estimating performance on defense off these smaller samples is probably a factor here.
Oh and
5) WS are given for '51. WS/48 aren't because there aren't minute totals. Fwiw, I'd suggest we could safely give Arizin a 3rd season above the threshold given he amasses 0.5 WS [to one DP] over two games (even if he plays the full 48 - if we say it's exactly 0.5 WS that's .250 per 48). Though this goes back to the mess of what to do with such samples. Here it's 2 games.

[Doctor MJ]

This is the key to me. If one guy has a huge longevity advantage, it has to be absolutely lockdown that the guy who played less was much better in his prime. The fact that Pau has better CAREER playoff WS/48 and BPM than Embiid making the playoffs all the way to age 37 is nuts and completely vaporizes the Embiid case IMO.

I feel like you can use the same argument for Pau > Arizin somewhat. Arizin played 60% as many minutes as Pau in a MUCH, MUCH easier era and their PER and WS/48 numbers actually look pretty similar. Pau has a higher career PER than Arizin in the regular season even with a bunch of decline years and has a better PER in the postseason if you eliminate the last 2 runs in San Antonio. I really don’t see the case for either player over Pau.

Your reasoning resonates with me generally, and I think the arguments for Gasol here over either do make sense, but just so we're clear on the Gasol vs Arizin thing.

Total post-seasons > .200 WS/48: Arizin 2, Gasol 2,
Total post-seasons > .100 WS/48: Arizin 6, Gasol 6
Total post-seasons < .100 WS/48: Gasol 6, Arizin 1

Keep in mind that Arizin's first post-season isn't included here because no WS were given for it, and that Arizin's doing this despite missing 3 post-seasons during his prime due to military service.

So yeah, Gasol's got the longevity edge, but post-season-wise this isn't really a strong factor.

You mentioned that it was an easier era, and of course this is a thing where everyone's just trying to gauge that as well as possible.

Yeah, I'm just saying in addition to the era, it's really a huge longevity edge for Pau. 25K minutes in the '50s vs. 41K minutes in the 2000s is a huge difference. The fact that you're showing similar prime values on a per minute basis really makes the case. Shouldn't Arizin need a huge peak/prime advantage to make up for the other factors? Isn't it kinda like comparing Pettit and Dirk in terms of the relative longevity and close peak/prime? Dirk went 13 spots ahead in this project.

Hmm. Okay some thoughts:

1. In breaking things down year-by-year what I've shown is that what Gasol really has the lead in mostly are years where WS says he was a below average player. Now it's a simplistic metric so I'm not looking to actually argue that Gasol actually was a below average player, but the idea that we'd be deciding a all-timer comparison based on one guy having more below average post-seasons like this was a very good thing is something I'd object to.

2. Showing a peak/prime advantage is something I'd expect to be mostly about quality rather than quantity, and I believe Arizin does have such an advantage. I broke it down the way I did to illustrate what Gasol's extra post-seasons were like.

3. While I don't want to talk as if Arizin's missed years don't matter, I do want to make sure we're clear that this isn't a situation where Arizin's career longevity issues were primarily about the tail end of his career. I have Arizin as the best offensive player in the NBA in '51-52, '55-56 & '56-57. I think it very likely he'd rank as that in '52-53, '53-54 & '54-55 too had he simply gotten play out his career like virtually all other players of his era and all players of Gasol's era. We'd then be talking about a guy potentially winning my OPOY 6 years in a row, which would be unique in history.

This then to say we shouldn't be thinking of Arizin's numbers here as being inflated due to short longevity. His longevity issues are literally hurting his prime numbers. And that should hurt our assessment of him here, but it's not a reason to doubt how good he was when he played.

4. Kinda like comparing Pettit & Dirk. I mean, I consider Pettit, Dirk & Arizin to be guys who were literally the best in the world at a time in their career, and Gasol to be someone who was never close. Doesn't necessarily mean Gasol should rank behind Pettit & Arizin given they played so long ago - possible to see Gasol as better than anyone playing in the '50s, but I just feel compelled to note that Gasol really wasn't "that guy" the way the others in this quartet were.

5. This takes us back to the WS/48 numbers - which I used and so have no case to say they're to be simply dismissed - but idea that we can equate players based on WS/48 when one guy was leading his team and the other was a secondary guy is concerning. I'm generally someone who has no issue taking the elite beta over the meh alpha, but I don't remotely consider Arizin a meh alpha. I literally see him as the best offensive player the NBA had ever seen until Oscar & West came along, and consider him considerably more impressive offensively than I do Gasol. I've also said good things about Gasol's defense, but he wasn't a dominant defensive player and frankly it's hard to be certain about Arizin's defense. So maybe defense should give Gasol the edge, but it's not so clear.

[Doctor MJ]

This is the key to me. If one guy has a huge longevity advantage, it has to be absolutely lockdown that the guy who played less was much better in his prime. The fact that Pau has better CAREER playoff WS/48 and BPM than Embiid making the playoffs all the way to age 37 is nuts and completely vaporizes the Embiid case IMO.

I feel like you can use the same argument for Pau > Arizin somewhat. Arizin played 60% as many minutes as Pau in a MUCH, MUCH easier era and their PER and WS/48 numbers actually look pretty similar. Pau has a higher career PER than Arizin in the regular season even with a bunch of decline years and has a better PER in the postseason if you eliminate the last 2 runs in San Antonio. I really don’t see the case for either player over Pau.

Your reasoning resonates with me generally, and I think the arguments for Gasol here over either do make sense, but just so we're clear on the Gasol vs Arizin thing.

Total post-seasons > .200 WS/48: Arizin 2, Gasol 2,
Total post-seasons > .100 WS/48: Arizin 6, Gasol 6
Total post-seasons < .100 WS/48: Gasol 6, Arizin 1

Keep in mind that Arizin's first post-season isn't included here because no WS were given for it, and that Arizin's doing this despite missing 3 post-seasons during his prime due to military service.

So yeah, Gasol's got the longevity edge, but post-season-wise this isn't really a strong factor.

You mentioned that it was an easier era, and of course this is a thing where everyone's just trying to gauge that as well as possible.

Some thoughts looking at the WS stuff.

1) Gasol's over .200 count should be 3, not 2.
2) Gasol's two longest runs are two of his strongest. Arizin's longest (largest sample, most minutes, most games) is a more middling one in the final year of his major league pro career. What one does with this sort of unevenness ... IDK. Though in this case Arizin's 2nd and third minutes runs are at the strong end.
3) Threshold stuff will always have some caveats. I don't think these lines are drawn to manipulate, just saying in general.
4) Linking somewhat back to 2, it comes to what measures we trust and how the sample of the playoffs affects our trust in/perception of those measures. Memphis playoff runs 2 and 3 show WS.48 numbers that if seen for a full (RS?) career would suggest a genuinely awful player, whilst BPM (especially OBPM side) and PER are at least more in line with a solidly good player if perhaps not a special one. Fwiw (given the samples) Memphis do seem to be bleeding a lot when he's off court. How much we trust aggregates to not get too far off in estimating performance on defense off these smaller samples is probably a factor here.
Oh and
5) WS are given for '51. WS/48 aren't because there aren't minute totals. Fwiw, I'd suggest we could safely give Arizin a 3rd season above the threshold given he amasses 0.5 WS [to one DP] over two games (even if he plays the full 48 - if we say it's exactly 0.5 WS that's .250 per 48). Though this goes back to the mess of what to do with such samples. Here it's 2 games.

1) Shoot! My apologies for missing that first year. Thank you for pointing out my error.
2) Gasol's longest runs being his strongest says good things, but also some expected things I think. The further you go in the playoffs, the more success the team must be having, and so if you're a core part of it, we'd expect you to look pretty good by those methods.

Arizin's biggest minutes post-season is his final season, which means a) we really shouldn't take that year as the "true Arizin", and also b) given that Arizin literally led a team to the title in another year, it shows the issues with comparing raw minutes across different post-seasons as if nothing is changing about the league.

3) Threshold have caveats. Absolutely. They are a first-pass tool only.
4) True.
5) True.

[iggymcfrack]

Your reasoning resonates with me generally, and I think the arguments for Gasol here over either do make sense, but just so we're clear on the Gasol vs Arizin thing.

Total post-seasons > .200 WS/48: Arizin 2, Gasol 2,
Total post-seasons > .100 WS/48: Arizin 6, Gasol 6
Total post-seasons < .100 WS/48: Gasol 6, Arizin 1

Keep in mind that Arizin's first post-season isn't included here because no WS were given for it, and that Arizin's doing this despite missing 3 post-seasons during his prime due to military service.

So yeah, Gasol's got the longevity edge, but post-season-wise this isn't really a strong factor.

You mentioned that it was an easier era, and of course this is a thing where everyone's just trying to gauge that as well as possible.

Yeah, I'm just saying in addition to the era, it's really a huge longevity edge for Pau. 25K minutes in the '50s vs. 41K minutes in the 2000s is a huge difference. The fact that you're showing similar prime values on a per minute basis really makes the case. Shouldn't Arizin need a huge peak/prime advantage to make up for the other factors? Isn't it kinda like comparing Pettit and Dirk in terms of the relative longevity and close peak/prime? Dirk went 13 spots ahead in this project.

Hmm. Okay some thoughts:

1. In breaking things down year-by-year what I've shown is that what Gasol really has the lead in mostly are years where WS says he was a below average player. Now it's a simplistic metric so I'm not looking to actually argue that Gasol actually was a below average player, but the idea that we'd be deciding a all-timer comparison based on one guy having more below average post-seasons like this was a very good thing is something I'd object to.

2. Showing a peak/prime advantage is something I'd expect to be mostly about quality rather than quantity, and I believe Arizin does have such an advantage. I broke it down the way I did to illustrate what Gasol's extra post-seasons were like.

3. While I don't want to talk as if Arizin's missed years don't matter, I do want to make sure we're clear that this isn't a situation where Arizin's career longevity issues were primarily about the tail end of his career. I have Arizin as the best offensive player in the NBA in '51-52, '55-56 & '56-57. I think it very likely he'd rank as that in '52-53, '53-54 & '54-55 too had he simply gotten play out his career like virtually all other players of his era and all players of Gasol's era. We'd then be talking about a guy potentially winning my OPOY 6 years in a row, which would be unique in history.

This then to say we shouldn't be thinking of Arizin's numbers here as being inflated due to short longevity. His longevity issues are literally hurting his prime numbers. And that should hurt our assessment of him here, but it's not a reason to doubt how good he was when he played.

4. Kinda like comparing Pettit & Dirk. I mean, I consider Pettit, Dirk & Arizin to be guys who were literally the best in the world at a time in their career, and Gasol to be someone who was never close. Doesn't necessarily mean Gasol should rank behind Pettit & Arizin given they played so long ago - possible to see Gasol as better than anyone playing in the '50s, but I just feel compelled to note that Gasol really wasn't "that guy" the way the others in this quartet were.

5. This takes us back to the WS/48 numbers - which I used and so have no case to say they're to be simply dismissed - but idea that we can equate players based on WS/48 when one guy was leading his team and the other was a secondary guy is concerning. I'm generally someone who has no issue taking the elite beta over the meh alpha, but I don't remotely consider Arizin a meh alpha. I literally see him as the best offensive player the NBA had ever seen until Oscar & West came along, and consider him considerably more impressive offensively than I do Gasol. I've also said good things about Gasol's defense, but he wasn't a dominant defensive player and frankly it's hard to be certain about Arizin's defense. So maybe defense should give Gasol the edge, but it's not so clear.

So I feel like you have an excellent point in Arizin kinda getting screwed due to missing prime years due to the war. I didn’t really account for that in his longevity and I agree that it’s not the same as years after your decline.

I’m not sure how I feel about your point about Arizin being the best in the world though. Here were the top 5 players in the league the year he was voted POY in the retro POY project:

Paul Arizin: white, born in Philadelphia
Bob Pettit: white, born in Baton Rouge
Bob Cousy: white, born in New York City
Neil Johnston: white, born in Chillicothe, Ohio
Dolph Schayes: white, born in New York City

Not the most diverse group, is it? If the player pool was “white Americans from the Eastern half of the country plus Pau Gasol”, I bet he could have been best player in the league a bunch of years. I certainly don’t see beating those guys out as being more impressive than being such a strong 1b with Kobe that some people thought he was their MVP during a title run.

And even though Arizin is facing this extremely limited talent pool, he averaged:

19.8 PER, .183 WS/48 over 25K minutes (reg season)
20.3 PER, .183 WS/48 over 700 minutes (postseason)

Meanwhile, Pau played in one of the toughest eras in the history of the NBA and averaged:

21.4 PER, .169 WS/48 over 41K minutes (reg season)
20.2 PER, .153 WS/48 over 4800 minutes (postseason)

I just don’t see any way that the first resume in the ‘50s can be better than the second resume in the ‘00s unless the ‘50s guy provides a lot of non-box value. It feels like by counting their competition the same and then giving Arizin a bunch of extra credit for being the best of top person among extremely limited competition, you’re basically double rewarding him for playing in a weak era.

[WintaSoldier1]

Vote: Embiid, Frankly I think this is wrong to vote him but I think he’s at some level derailing competitive conversation just due to his functional dominance… Basically the only thing we can boil a reason not to vote for him is because of longevity; kills dialogue.
Alt: Paul Arizin
The rightful owner of the spot.

I watched some Dave cowens… Will save my opinion for when he’s nominated( probably now)

I’ll nominate IT
Nom: Isiah Thomas
Alt: Dave Cowen

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Vote: Embiid, Frankly I think this is wrong to vote him but I think he’s at some level derailing competitive conversation just due to his functional dominance… Basically the only thing we can boil a reason not to vote for him is because of longevity; kills dialogue.
Alt: Paul Arizin
The rightful owner of the spot.

I watched some Dave cowens… Will save my opinion for when he’s nominated( probably now)

I’ll nominate IT
Nom: Isiah Thomas
Alt: Dave Cowen

I don't understand your reasoning here...you think Arizin is the one who should be voted in, you think Embiid shouldn't be, but you're voting for Embiid?

Seems illogical.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Embiid, Frankly I think this is wrong to vote him but I think he’s at some level derailing competitive conversation just due to his functional dominance… Basically the only thing we can boil a reason not to vote for him is because of longevity; kills dialogue.
Alt: Paul Arizin
The rightful owner of the spot.

I watched some Dave cowens… Will save my opinion for when he’s nominated( probably now)

I’ll nominate IT
Nom: Isiah Thomas
Alt: Dave Cowen

Nope sorry, I'm not going to allow this. Change your post or it won't count.

To be explicit of expectations here:

Being a part of the voting panel means you're giving your viewpoint for why the person you're voting for deserves your vote so that other people can possibly learn from you. What you're doing instead right here is publicly undermining the integrity of the process so that you personally don't have to be bothered with more conversation about last year's MVP. That needs to change.

To be clear: Y'all are perfectly capable of faking it if you really want to. I mean, a bit late to convince people you actually believe in Embiid here, but I'm sure you could have presented it in a way where I would have counted it without a second thought. I'm under no illusions I can force you to vote sincerely.

But I can tell you that we'd all rather read other people's sincere impressions of the great basketball players of history than discussions of voting tactics.

If you'd like to talk to me further about this I'd encourage you to PM me.

If you or anyone else just wants to ask me for further clarification on a particular aspect, I'm going to ask if you could quote this but post in the Project Thread.

Thanks,
~Doc

[HeartBreakKid]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

I don't see how his teams were "fringe contenders" or why going out in the 2nd round means it's his fault (you didn't really explain that).


For instance, you placed a value on the 2nd round, which is entirely arbitrary. 2019, they went 7 games and were eliminated in a buzzer beater against the Toronto Raptors. The Toronto Raptors won the championship that year. Explain why it matters that it happened in the 2nd round and not the ECF?


Since then the Sixers lost Jimmy Butler who is a major player. They tied their cap space to Tobias Harris who is not a major player. They tied their cap space to Ben Simmons, who barely played. I don't see how they are a "contender" at all. They lost 2 of all-stars, one of them even a top 50-60 guy all time.



The Sixers are not as good as the Celtics or the Heat. The last two years the conference champs have been the Celtics and the Heat. I don't think it matters much they were eliminated in the 2nd round, at the very least they were able to take those teams to 6 games.

This is not the 2000s, the East is much stronger. There are three strong teams in the East during this decade excluding the Sixers. That doesn't leave a lot of room to sneak into the WCF in the 2010s. See Chris Paul, who also never made it past the 2nd round until he was in his 30s with a "fringe" contender (not really a contender at all most years).

Not every good team is a contender. His personal level of play might be worse and that is a fair criticism, but I am highly skeptical that if he was playing of the level of Pau Gasol the Sixers would be contenders. Conversely, I am fairly certain the Lakers would still have won a title with Joel Embiid on it, even if he had been injured. This idea that Pau Gasol is the perfect 2nd option, like most narratives around champions, are entirely created with hindsight.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, I'm just saying in addition to the era, it's really a huge longevity edge for Pau. 25K minutes in the '50s vs. 41K minutes in the 2000s is a huge difference. The fact that you're showing similar prime values on a per minute basis really makes the case. Shouldn't Arizin need a huge peak/prime advantage to make up for the other factors? Isn't it kinda like comparing Pettit and Dirk in terms of the relative longevity and close peak/prime? Dirk went 13 spots ahead in this project.

Hmm. Okay some thoughts:

1. In breaking things down year-by-year what I've shown is that what Gasol really has the lead in mostly are years where WS says he was a below average player. Now it's a simplistic metric so I'm not looking to actually argue that Gasol actually was a below average player, but the idea that we'd be deciding a all-timer comparison based on one guy having more below average post-seasons like this was a very good thing is something I'd object to.

2. Showing a peak/prime advantage is something I'd expect to be mostly about quality rather than quantity, and I believe Arizin does have such an advantage. I broke it down the way I did to illustrate what Gasol's extra post-seasons were like.

3. While I don't want to talk as if Arizin's missed years don't matter, I do want to make sure we're clear that this isn't a situation where Arizin's career longevity issues were primarily about the tail end of his career. I have Arizin as the best offensive player in the NBA in '51-52, '55-56 & '56-57. I think it very likely he'd rank as that in '52-53, '53-54 & '54-55 too had he simply gotten play out his career like virtually all other players of his era and all players of Gasol's era. We'd then be talking about a guy potentially winning my OPOY 6 years in a row, which would be unique in history.

This then to say we shouldn't be thinking of Arizin's numbers here as being inflated due to short longevity. His longevity issues are literally hurting his prime numbers. And that should hurt our assessment of him here, but it's not a reason to doubt how good he was when he played.

4. Kinda like comparing Pettit & Dirk. I mean, I consider Pettit, Dirk & Arizin to be guys who were literally the best in the world at a time in their career, and Gasol to be someone who was never close. Doesn't necessarily mean Gasol should rank behind Pettit & Arizin given they played so long ago - possible to see Gasol as better than anyone playing in the '50s, but I just feel compelled to note that Gasol really wasn't "that guy" the way the others in this quartet were.

5. This takes us back to the WS/48 numbers - which I used and so have no case to say they're to be simply dismissed - but idea that we can equate players based on WS/48 when one guy was leading his team and the other was a secondary guy is concerning. I'm generally someone who has no issue taking the elite beta over the meh alpha, but I don't remotely consider Arizin a meh alpha. I literally see him as the best offensive player the NBA had ever seen until Oscar & West came along, and consider him considerably more impressive offensively than I do Gasol. I've also said good things about Gasol's defense, but he wasn't a dominant defensive player and frankly it's hard to be certain about Arizin's defense. So maybe defense should give Gasol the edge, but it's not so clear.

So I feel like you have an excellent point in Arizin kinda getting screwed due to missing prime years due to the war. I didn’t really account for that in his longevity and I agree that it’s not the same as years after your decline.

I’m not sure how I feel about your point about Arizin being the best in the world though. Here were the top 5 players in the league the year he was voted POY in the retro POY project:

Paul Arizin: white, born in Philadelphia
Bob Pettit: white, born in Baton Rouge
Bob Cousy: white, born in New York City
Neil Johnston: white, born in Chillicothe, Ohio
Dolph Schayes: white, born in New York City

Not the most diverse group, is it? If the player pool was “white Americans from the Eastern half of the country plus Pau Gasol”, I bet he could have been best player in the league a bunch of years. I certainly don’t see beating those guys out as being more impressive than being such a strong 1b with Kobe that some people thought he was their MVP during a title run.

And even though Arizin is facing this extremely limited talent pool, he averaged:

19.8 PER, .183 WS/48 over 25K minutes (reg season)
20.3 PER, .183 WS/48 over 700 minutes (postseason)

Meanwhile, Pau played in one of the toughest eras in the history of the NBA and averaged:

21.4 PER, .169 WS/48 over 41K minutes (reg season)
20.2 PER, .153 WS/48 over 4800 minutes (postseason)

I just don’t see any way that the first resume in the ‘50s can be better than the second resume in the ‘00s unless the ‘50s guy provides a lot of non-box value. It feels like by counting their competition the same and then giving Arizin a bunch of extra credit for being the best of top person among extremely limited competition, you’re basically double rewarding him for playing in a weak era.

So let me first just acknowledge that each person is going to have to decide how to judge eras on their own, and so that may be all there is to it as far as further discussion goes in this case.

Re: "strong 1b with a 1a some thought was MVP". You really there's anyone who a) thought Kobe was the MVP and b) also thought Gasol was a 1B to him?

Re: "feels like double rewarding". I understand what you mean and yes, I think that's a danger.

I also think there's a double penalty thing you're in danger of falling prey to when you're talking about Arizin here when you try to use these advanced stats apples-to-apples. Some eras have more parity than others. Some eras have more heliocentrism than others. These things effect the variance of stats like PER & WS and can lead you to think that since no one put up huge numbers, everyone must have been just awful.

Regardless of that, I'd say the thing for me is that I don't really see Gasol standing out from a +/- perspective the way I'd like. If you take a look atthis Tableau by Cheema that shows career RS & PS RAPM for guys with a significant amount of playoff time, I think that captures the situation pretty well.

I see Gasol as a guy "in the thick of it" with a bunch of other very good players, but this level of player isn't exactly rare and it's also not made up simply by Top 100 candidate types. Gasol shows up here just in between Kyle Korver and Derek Fisher, for example. Very good, but not exactly guys who most would expect to dominate the 1950s NBA.

Now all caveats apply about the limitations of RAPM and such. I'm not saying it means he can't possibly have deserved to be considered the equal of an MVP simply because of this data...but as someone who seriously would have been willing to argue Gasol > Kobe had more data supported it, well, it didn't despite Kobe not exactly being a super-outlier here either.

I'd contrast this with what I see from guys like Ginobili & Draymond. Just plain huge impact numbers in their respective, somewhat limited, roles. Seeing numbers like that, not hard for me to put them ahead of the Arizins of the world. But do I think the 1950s were so weak that someone really shows no signs of being an extreme impact guys in a secondary role is achieving more? Can't say I do.

You mention it was a bunch of white Americans that Arizin was competing against, and of course I'm not looking to suggest that all eras have equal difficulty, but I do think it's really important to understand that there's been a cultural shift and now white Americans for the most part don't really grow up thinking that pro basketball is a realistic opportunity any more, and so they really aren't going after that like some other groups are.

Consider this:

Serbia has about 7 million citizens.
The US has about 230 million white people.

So, there's more than 30 times as many white people in the US as there are people in Serbia.

Logically we would expect that since a) the US has always owned the basketball world, b) virtually every young American grows up knowing the experience of shooting a basketball in the school system, and c) there's a domestic league that pays more money than any other basketball league, that there would be more than 30 times the number of white Americans in the NBA as Serbians.

According to bkref, there are 6 Serbians playing in the league in '23-34.
30 times 6 is 180, so there should be more than 180 white Americans in the league.
But I don't believe there are even 100 white players in the entire league, so clearly the Americans are falling way short of that.

And of course this gets us into another double penalization. Because white Americans have come to believe they can't compete at basketball, we're getting less out of that population than we otherwise would, and this has now spiraled for generations of players leading not simply to the false idea that white guys can't compete today, but that any leagues they successfully competed in in the past must have been horrendous. And I think that's misguided.

Honestly, I hope the success of white Europeans helps white folks in general realize that the difference in racial ability here has actually gotten exaggerated in our minds.

Last thing I'll say: This is part of a broader class of situations where minorities become convinced they can't thrive in. Consider women in computer programming. They initially dominated the field, and now it's one of the most male-dominated professions. Did that happen because women can't code? Of course not - we always knew they could because they once did it as a matter of course. So what's going on? Social spirals once again.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Paul Arizin



Moving Arizin up to my top Induction Vote now that he's in. I'll include my prior post below without spoilers this time, but in a nutshell:

In a nutshell I think Paul Arizin was the best offensive player we saw in the league until Oscar & West showed up, and at his best I definitely have him above rival Schayes. His weird disjointed career hurts him on my list up to a point, but there just aren't many guys who stand out to me like this across the eras, and while he certainly played in a weaker era than what came later, I think in general the top guys from earlier eras have shown an ability to continue to look great against new generations of talent in NBA history. There are exceptions to this of course, and those exceptions tell stories of obsolescent techniques and problematic decision making. Arizin on the other hand is basically just the sort of guy we'd expect to see a gentle decay in dominance with increased competition.

Okay I'm going to just add on to what I was saying before because I want to address some of the things others brought up.

Previous post:
I'm really sold on Arizin as a player. I think at his best he was the best non-big the NBA ever saw until Oscar & West showed up, and I'd say arguably he was the most modern player the NBA saw until them also. This was a guy who was known for his one-handed jump shot at a time when this was not yet the norm, and he was also known for slashing his way to the basket.

For the early to mid stages of his career, he was also someone who seemed to correlate greatly with his team's success. Now, by moonbeam's RWOWY he comes off more mild here in favor of teammate Tom Gola, and I'm willing to have that conversation given that Gola was supposed to be a best-in-world candidate coming out of college, but my guess is that what we're seeing here is that Gola's arrival on the team coincided with Arizin really getting his sea legs back after the military service, and since that took a year, that prior year gets effectively held against him.

I will say there are considerable longevity concerns with Arizin, and frankly that's why I didn't vote for him earlier.
There are also concerns about why the later years with Wilt didn't feel like a team with overwhelming talent, and there while my answer would be the style of play the Warriors chose to play around Wilt, it doesn't change the fact that Arizin's impact didn't age as well as we'd like in practice.

Am I saying Arizin had poor impact?

Definitely not saying that. I'm acknowledging that Moonbeam's RWOWY did not show Arizin as that impressive and bringing up the teammate (Gola) who came off looking better. I'm giving brief explanation for how I take that for data. Happy to talk about it in more detail, just a question of what would be helpful to communicate.

The essence of the situation is that RWOWY is going to hold a Player A's improvement against him if Player B's arrival coincides with that improvement. Arizin improved his second year back in the NBA much like you'd hope give that he had been much better previously, and I don't think it's reasonable to say something like "That was Gola's impact on Arizin!".

Why champion Arizin when he doesn't stand out that much within his own era?

Arizin does stand out to me though. I have him as my OPOY in '51-52, '55-56 & '56-57, and he qualifies as an Offensive Player of the Decade (OPOD) for me taking over from George Mikan, preceding Bob Pettit.

I would also consider Arizin to have the best offensive peak of the '50s, and would name him my POY in his championship season.

I am curious who else people think stands out as much as Arizin from his own era, but I have seen another name mentioned here from the era that intrigues me.

Might it be that Cliff Hagan should rank higher than Arizin?

So, I like that Hagan's emerged as such a strong contender over time. I think it does make sense to ask whether Hagan could have set the world on fire with big numbers all season long if he were simply unleashed, but when it comes to achievement, I think there's a pretty basic bump you have to get over:

Based on regular season accolades, Hagan just isn't a guy getting much love. Only 6 all-star appearances to Arizin's 10 for example.

So, Hagan's almost certainly getting the nod over Arizin and a bunch of others based on his playoff performances. Makes sense, but I think we need to be very careful when looking at stats from the entire post-season to assert things like Hagan was the true MVP of the Hawks' chip. When we look at the finals, it really seems crystal clear that Pettit would have won that Finals MVP by a landslide and deservedly so.

I previously said that George Gervin has more POY Shares by my personal votes than Arizin, so why vote for Arizin over Gervin?

So, one of the things here is that the period where Gervin was racking up his shares was a really weird period. I literally have Gervin as my POY in '77-78, but it wasn't exactly the most satisfying of seasons with both Walton & Kareem's seasons disrupted, and Gervin's Spurs getting upset in their first playoff series. Getting upset in the playoffs was a thing for those Spurs and while that doesn't necessarily say anything concretely about Gervin, it leaves some doubts at the least.

I see Arizin as the guy with championship belt in his era among perimeter players for being best able to take it to opposing defenses all the way through the deep end of the playoffs...and I just can't say I see Gervin the same way.

Now, as we've talked about many times before, I'm not evaluating players for this project by considering them in other eras. I can definitely see the argument that Gervin's era was better than Arizin's so that should make up for the difference, but I'm cautious.

Does a player really "stand out" if he doesn't show up as massively on PER, WS/48/ BPM as another guy from another era?

So, I do see the logic of this thought. If we're talking about stats that are already normalized for era, and a more modern guy looks better by them, what exactly is the reasoning for picking the guy from the past?

Let's first acknowledge that this general argument stands even if we find specific reasons why a particular guy is better or worse than these simple metrics say. All other things equal though, is there a basis for which we could say that the guy with the worse-normalized numbers in the weaker league somehow might be seen as more impressive by those numbers?

Big thing here I think is that in general alphas are claiming more of the box score stats (per minute) of their team more and more as we embrace more star-optimized systems. In some cases this is happening beyond what's actually best for the team, but even if we expect that it's mostly a good thing if the team is choosing to do it, there's a question of whether we want to do cross-era lists that ended up getting dominated by guys from ultra-high-alpha-primacy eras simply because they are ultra-high-alpha-primacy eras.

Incidentally statistically, the thing worth determining are the standard deviations of these stats over the years.[/spoiler]

Induction Vote 2: George Gervin[

Alright, gimme the Iceman!

Nomination Vote 1: Dave Cowens



I'm continuing to vote for Cowens...but honestly I feel a bit aimless here when trying to present an argument. I feel like I need to think him through more.

While I think most of us would agree he got a touch overrated by accolades in his time, I don't feel much cause to doubt that he had a pretty great impact. He played a big role on a champion Celtics team that still had major ingredients from the Russell era, and which looked not that impressive in the year before they got Cowens. Cowens was heady with high-motor, and when you have that combination that's quite a bit of potential to be more valuable than the box score implies.

The shooting efficiency is a thing that I should speak to though, because I feel like I'm being more forgiving toward Cowens than I am contemporaries with the same problem in the TS%, and while there's a reason I can use to justify this, maybe I shouldn't.

In a nutshell: Red Auerbach's team offenses once they adopted a defensive-focus just seem to look really dumb by our efficiency metrics, but offense and defense influence each other in basketball is subtle ways we don't always recognize, and you can't argue with the overall effect, so it's hard to knock Auerbach here.

And if it's hard to knock Auerbach for his offensive approach here, that also makes it problematic to knock the players who did as he wanted them to do. Auerbach seemed to see value in a quick shooting attack even if that resulted in worse shots than they could have otherwise got, and in doing so he almost certainly deflated the TS% of at least some of his players.

I would not advocate for "re-inflating" the stat into some normalized adjustment of itself - negative offense remains negative offense...but if the action itself ends up having some ounce of positive defensive impact, well, the player deserves credit for that positive too.

So this brings us back to a question of Cowens vs a guy like Thurmond - who I recognize seems primed to get in before Cowens, but just take it as a categorical thing: I tend to see Cowens as different from guys like Thurmond in the sense that he was a more capable player on the offensive side of the ball...but maybe I'm being too generous because of the Auerbach anomaly.

Nomination Vote 2: Isiah Thomas

This time around siding with Isiah. As mentioned, Reed & Gasol weighing heavily on my mind as well.