Dr Spaceman wrote:Okay I have a question for everyone who voted Wilt in the last thread: Considering that Wilt was 9th on his team in FGA/36 in both the regular season and playoffs, what exactly makes you think Robinson (or even Duncan or Garnett) couldn't do exactly the same thing on that team? I mean, if we accept the premise that Robinson is a near GOAT-level defender, and that team would mitigate David's biggest flaw (playoff scoring), what the heck is stopping you from just plugging Robinson into that team and seeing a greater result?
This frankly smacks of "the mystique of Wilt", and I think people are viewing that role reduction through some really rose-tinted lenses. There is in fact a reason that happened, and it leads to an essentially inescapable conclusion about Wilt's offense.
Before I compose the first part of my response, I want it clear that I hold you fairly high regard as a poster here, and that you're in no small part responsible for my casting a ballot for DRob at this stage.
That said, I feel labeling him 9th on his team in FGA/36 is somewhat disingenuous. Not that it isn't, strictly speaking, true; but it certainly gives a somewhat false impression of things. First off: one of the guys he ranked behind in the rs played 29 minutes.....for the entire regular season. I don't feel that's adequate sample size to be considered relevant. Two of the others who rank ahead of him played <800 total minutes on the year. And in the playoffs: one of the players you're referring to played 5 minutes TOTAL; another played only 4! And still two others played </=25 minutes total in the playoffs. Secondly: we should note that Wilt was 2nd on the team (behind only Billy Cunningham) in FTA/36 in the rs. He was also 2nd during the playoffs (or 3rd, if we want to take Bill Melchionni and his 5 total playoff minutes seriously), which at least closes the gap somewhat as far as TSA/36 is concerned.
Anyway, that bit of nit-picking aside......yeah, I think Robinson could easily have filled that type of scoring role; and I think he'd have been a BETTER defensive anchor than Wilt, too.
However..... 1) Playmaking. Could Robinson have been the distributing hub that Wilt was that year? idk. Not saying it's impossible, but I never saw anything from Robinson to make me feel he's well-suited to that. He was always a good passing big, but imo he didn't have the vision, precision, or touch as a passer that Duncan or Walton or Joakim Noah (or Wilt) has/had. So that's one aspect in which he falls a little short of '67 Wilt. 2) Rebounding. We can adjust for pace and minutes, and adjust a little further for reduced shooting %'s, and Wilt still comes out as at least a little better rebounder (and that's even taking into account what Robinson did when he wasn't playing next to Rodman). 3) Minutes. I'm of the belief that Wilt must have held back, pacing himself, for pretty much the entirety of his career. How else can someone play those kinds of minutes night in night out? So my question is: how much better could he have played if he was allowed reasonable rest time (and thus didn't have to hold back while on the court)? Or alternately you could ask: what would Robinson's level of play be if forced to play 46 mpg every night?
These are the factors that still at least keep it close for me, if not pushing the edge back to '67 Wilt (again: it's close). But bear in mind, I'm not in the camp that labels '67 Wilt's best year, either; I voted for '64.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
thizznation wrote:Playoffs are a smaller sample size. But the competition is tougher and the stakes are higher. A player should be rewarded or dinged depending on how they perform when the competition increases and there is more at stake. The best players of all time should be able to play in the playoffs at the same level they did in the regular season. If they don't it makes me think that they could of been feasting upon weaker teams in the regular season and couldn't recreate the same results vs the tougher competition.
Even if your suspicion in the bolded statement were true (which I largely don't think it is), it still doesn't close the case on a Robinson/Olajuwon comparison.
Let's not overlook that their respective peaks are 1 year apart, and they played in the same division.......so they're facing the same weaker teams the same proportion of the time; they're also facing the same strong competition the same proportion of the time. So you're either implying that: a) Robinson played basically the same (as Olajuwon) against the strong teams, but significantly better (than Olajuwon) against the weaker teams, thus producing the noticeable gap in overall rs performance (which is pretty well-established at this point). Or b) that he played a little worse (than Olajuwon) against the strong competition while playing way WAAAAAY better (than Olajuwon) against the weak competition (again: to produce the rs-whole gap between them that we see).
Either way it doesn't explain away the grounds for comparison. You'd first have to declare that how they perform against weaker teams is irrelevant, or near to it (which I would disagree with, fwiw). You'd secondly have to establish that Robinson did indeed only perform great (apparently unbelievable) against those weaker teams, while under-performing (relative to guys like Hakeem) against the stronger teams. I'm going to go part of the way toward suggesting that the latter is not the case, btw.
I'm not going to size Robinson up vs. all of the strong competition, but since this Robinson/Olajuwon debate isn't going to die any time soon, I am at least going to scrutinize how Robinson and Olajuwon each fared against one bit of strong competition: each other.
The big example that continually comes up is the '95 WCF, where Olajuwon [allegedly] "destroyed" Robinson. I went thru previously:
Spoiler:
trex_8063 wrote: Bear in mind as we go thru this, that the Spurs game plan was to let Hakeem get his.
Rockets win by 1 pt on a game winner by "wide open" (as described in the article) Horry (guess who was guarding him and left him completely alone). Overall: clear sizable edge to Hakeem in this game
Rockets win by 10 pts. I'd like to point out that Clyde went for 23/5/6/2/2 with 2 tov @ 63.2% TS; Horry had 21 pts on 70.0% TS with 6 rebs and 0 turnovers. There weren't any bright spots in the performances from DRob's supporting cast. Lack of steals/blocks likely gives a bit of a false impression wrt to Robinson’s defense (as far as individual DRtg is concerned). Overall: small (or perhaps small-to-moderate) edge to Hakeem
Spurs win by 5 pts. Robinson gets good games from Johnson, Elliot, and Del Negro. Hakeem got a fairly good game from Clyde, "decent" games from Horry and Smith. Overall: despite the huge discrepancy in ORtg/DRtg, I’d give just the tiniest edge to Robinson
Spurs win by 22 pts. Overall: somewhat large edge to Robinson ****At this stage one should be able to see Dr Spaceman’s point about how almost no one other than Robinson has had such a relatively large portion of his career narrative defined by a mere two games. Because at the 4-game mark, the series is tied and they’ve played each other pretty even: Hakeem getting the better of Robinson in two, Robinson getting the better of Olajuwon in two; I would say the margin by which Olajuwon outplayed him in his two games exceeded the margin by which Robinson outplayed Hakeem in the other two…….nonetheless, it’s pretty clear no one is “destroying” the other at this point in the series.****
They'd played each other fairly evenly overall (tiny edge to Hakeem) thru the first four games, and the series was tied. It was only in the final two games where Robinson sort of fell apart. Those two games (well, maybe three games if we also count game 2: where Robinson was awarded his MVP and then was outplayed by Hakeem--->the media really went nuts with that narrative) really......oh, how did drza put it....:
drza wrote:*I remember 1995, when David Robinson seemed to put everything together with a magical regular season. Like with Barkley, I was a Robinson fan. Maybe even more-so...it was hard not to pull for the Admiral. The Rockets were surprisingly down all season after their title, and even after they traded for Drexler they weren't as good as I might have thought. But for most of the year my attention was on the Magic, as Shaq and Penny looked like the new big thing in the NBA. Penny was actually on the verge of edging out Ron Harper to become my new favorite player, and I was pretty excited to see them make their run. In the meantime, the playoffs started out West, and suddenly Olajuwon was back to his old tricks again. I was watching the game when Robinson got that MVP trophy, and it seemed like Olajuwon got mad and decided to destroy him. For good or ill, that game long-formed my opinion of the relative hierarchy between the two (and of course, I'm not alone in that).
....and the nearly 100 other games played in their respective peak years are disregarded, because that is what happened in those 2-3 games head-to-head.
I further went on to note they also met six times in the rs in '95, where the following happened:
So in 6 meetings, Robinson had the better game in 3-4 of them (vs. only 2 for Olajuwon). Overall statlines in these six games: Hakeem - 29.5 pts, 9.7 reb, 2.8 ast, 1.3 stl, 3.5 blk, 4.5 tov, 49.8% TS 93.0 ORtg/108.2 DRtg (-15.2) David - 22.2 pts, 10.3 reb, 3.3 ast, 2.2 stl, 2.8 blk, 3.7 tov, 52.7% TS 109 ORtg/99.8 DRtg (+9.2) Spurs win rs series 5-1.
If you didn't bother to read that spoiler, I'll summarize: Robinson outplayed Hakeem in 3-4 out of six games (one might have been a wash), Hakeem outplayed him in only 2. Robinson had the better overall metrics over these six games collectively, and the Spurs won 5 of 6.
They faced off five times in '94 (which appears to be Hakeem's consensus peak year, fwiw). Here's how those meetings went:
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
1st ballot: 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon 2nd ballot: 1977 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 3rd ballot: 2003 Tim Duncan Already explained Hakeem and Kareem in previous threads. 03’ Duncan had an amazing season where he put offense and defense together to become dominant on both ends. Had an amazing playoff run where he had a really good series in the Finals that was capped off by 2 signature games (G1 and G6). Was brilliant at every almost facet of the game in this season (passing, rebounding, shot blocking, etc.)
I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that. Well, first of all, let me explain something - I have peak Bird and Magic as borderline top 10 peaks, so putting them in my ballot at #5 is clearly too high for my liking. However, if Bird/Magic are already mentioned, then I see no reason why Curry shouldn't be. I'm dead serious about it. He's a GOAT level offensive talent (GOAT shooter, great playmaker, has almost an unprecedented gravity as a guard - oftentimes, you really have to double him 30 feet away from the basket when he gets hot with his shooting, and he can really pass the ball to an open man if he gets doubled), very comparable defender (better than Magic, slightly worse than Bird, in my opinion), led his team to 67 wins, which is the same as Bird's best team (I would say Curry had a worse supporting cast that Bird, and rather clearly so), and two more than Magic's best team, with higher SRS than Bird's and Magic's teams ever had (and that's while Steph's team had a rookie coach!). Curry has a bit better advanced metrics in the regular season, Magic/Bird have a bit better metrics in the playoffs, but even if we put 50% emphasis on the RS and 50% on the playoffs (when you really think about it, it would mean that one playoff game is worth four regular season games - I think it should satisfy those who value the playoffs heavily over RS - I think it's pretty fair, though).
So, other than the conventional wisdom, what argument there is for Magic/Bird being a tier or two ahead of Curry, which seems to be the general consensus on this board? Is that "conventional wisdom" really wisdom, at all? I mean - Curry accomplished as much as you can hope for, really. He has the stats AND the team success to hold his own against some of the elite players of all-time. He's also unique, just like Magic (6'9'' PG) or Bird (6'9'' forward who could rebound like a bigman, shoot like a shooting guard, and pass like a point guard), what makes Curry unique, is his absolutely unprecedented long range shooting accuracy at the kind of volume he has - I mean, Curry averaged 11 three point attempts per game in the playoffs, and shot 42.2%. We never saw anything even remotely close to that. Curry holds the record for three-pointers made (98, second highest is 2000 Reggie Miller at 58) and 3-pt attempts (232, second highest is 1995 Dennis Scott, at 151), by an absolutely incredible margin. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, it's very possible that he's facing more defensive pressure than Magic and Bird did (that's something we really have to judge based on eye-test, but that's what I saw when I watched them play - Curry is getting a really special treatment among perimeter players). The amount of attention opposing defenses have to pay to him, is staggering.
Oh, and please don't try to use the fact that Curry didn't win the Finals MVP award, as an argument against him. Bird and Magic also once had their teammates getting the FMVP instead of them - well, not in '86 (Bird) and '87 (Magic), but Cedric Maxwell won the FMVP in '81, when the Celtics won their first title in the Bird era, and James Worthy won it over Magic in '88. Iguodala won it over Curry in '15. So what? Everybody knew that Bird, Magic and Curry were the unquestioned best players on their teams.
Well, the voter turn-out appears to be slipping already, which is disappointing. I hope Dr Spaceman doesn't wear himself out championing Robinson and disappear once the Admiral is voted in. I also wish Owly and drza---as they've both been consistent contributors (especially drza)---would begin casting some ballots (hint hint nudge nudge).
Will be looking at calling a winner and moving on by around 11:00 EST tomorrow morning.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Quotatious wrote:I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that. Well, first of all, let me explain something - I have peak Bird and Magic as borderline top 10 peaks, so putting them in my ballot at #5 is clearly too high for my liking. However, if Bird/Magic are already mentioned, then I see no reason why Curry shouldn't be. I'm dead serious about it. He's a GOAT level offensive talent (GOAT shooter, great playmaker, has almost an unprecedented gravity as a guard - oftentimes, you really have to double him 30 feet away from the basket when he gets hot with his shooting, and he can really pass the ball to an open man if he gets doubled), very comparable defender (better than Magic, slightly worse than Bird, in my opinion), led his team to 67 wins, which is the same as Bird's best team (I would say Curry had a worse supporting cast that Bird, and rather clearly so), and two more than Magic's best team, with higher SRS than Bird's and Magic's teams ever had (and that's while Steph's team had a rookie coach!). Curry has a bit better advanced metrics in the regular season, Magic/Bird have a bit better metrics in the playoffs, but even if we put 50% emphasis on the RS and 50% on the playoffs (when you really think about it, it would mean that one playoff game is worth four regular season games - I think it should satisfy those who value the playoffs heavily over RS - I think it's pretty fair, though).
So, other than the conventional wisdom, what argument there is for Magic/Bird being a tier or two ahead of Curry, which seems to be the general consensus on this board? Is that "conventional wisdom" really wisdom, at all? I mean - Curry accomplished as much as you can hope for, really. He has the stats AND the team success to hold his own against some of the elite players of all-time. He's also unique, just like Magic (6'9'' PG) or Bird (6'9'' forward who could rebound like a bigman, shoot like a shooting guard, and pass like a point guard), what makes Curry unique, is his absolutely unprecented long range shooting accuracy at the kind of volume he has - I mean, Curry averaged 11 three point attempts per game in the playoffs, and shot 42.2%. We never saw anything even remotely close to that. Curry holds the record for three-pointers made (98, second highest is 2000 Reggie Miller at 58) and 3-pt attempts (232, second highest is 1995 Dennis Scott, at 151), by an absolutely incredible margin. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, it's very possible that he's facing more defensive pressure than Magic and Bird did (that's something we really have to judge based on eye-test, but that's what I saw when I watched them play - Curry is getting a really special treatment among perimeter players). The amount of attention opposing defenses have to play to him, is staggering.
Oh, and please don't try to use the fact that Curry didn't win the Finals MVP award - Bird and Magic also once had their teammates getting the FMVP instead of them - well, not in '86 (Bird) and '87 (Magic), but Cedric Maxwell won the FMVP in '81, when the Celtics won their first title in the Bird era, and James Worthy won it over Magic in '88. Iguodala won it over Curry in '15. So what? Everybody knew that Bird, Magic and Curry were the unquestioned best players on their teams.
Thoughts?
I have Curry upcoming in the 12-18 range. I think his offense is stellar but just a tad bit short of peak Bird/Magic (and Nash/Jordan/Lebron), and on the defensive end, at best I see him as break-even. If he shows any above-minor improvement in the next season, IMO he's going to be in the arguments that we're having now (late top 10, early teens).
Right now, I think after the major bigs and Dr. J are through we've got a group with Wade, Kobe, Paul, the Malones, Dirk, McGrady, Barkley, West, Robertson, Ewing, and Nash. Steph will fall near the top of this group, along with 14 Durant, and 15 Westbrook and Harden. The question is how high can he go?
But in his home dwelling...the hi-top faded warrior is revered. *Smack!* The sound of his palm blocking the basketball... the sound of thousands rising, roaring... the sound of "get that sugar honey iced tea outta here!"
Reason: I have this and Robinson to be incredibly close, ultimately I believe Robinson's advantage on defense are sufficient enough to overcome whatever advantage Hakeem's more resilient offensive game has in the playoffs, as I am not really huge on Hakeem's offense in the first place..
theonlyclutch's AT FGA-limited team - The Malevolent Eight
PG: 2008 Chauncey Billups/ 2013 Kyle Lowry SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili/2012 James Harden SF: 1982 Julius Erving PF: 2013 Matt Bonner/ 2010 Amir Johnson C: 1977 Kareem Abdul Jabaar
Quotatious wrote:I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that. Well, first of all, let me explain something - I have peak Bird and Magic as borderline top 10 peaks, so putting them in my ballot at #5 is clearly too high for my liking. However, if Bird/Magic are already mentioned, then I see no reason why Curry shouldn't be. I'm dead serious about it. He's a GOAT level offensive talent (GOAT shooter, great playmaker, has almost an unprecedented gravity as a guard - oftentimes, you really have to double him 30 feet away from the basket when he gets hot with his shooting, and he can really pass the ball to an open man if he gets doubled), very comparable defender (better than Magic, slightly worse than Bird, in my opinion), led his team to 67 wins, which is the same as Bird's best team (I would say Curry had a worse supporting cast that Bird, and rather clearly so), and two more than Magic's best team, with higher SRS than Bird's and Magic's teams ever had (and that's while Steph's team had a rookie coach!). Curry has a bit better advanced metrics in the regular season, Magic/Bird have a bit better metrics in the playoffs, but even if we put 50% emphasis on the RS and 50% on the playoffs (when you really think about it, it would mean that one playoff game is worth four regular season games - I think it should satisfy those who value the playoffs heavily over RS - I think it's pretty fair, though).
So, other than the conventional wisdom, what argument there is for Magic/Bird being a tier or two ahead of Curry, which seems to be the general consensus on this board? Is that "conventional wisdom" really wisdom, at all? I mean - Curry accomplished as much as you can hope for, really. He has the stats AND the team success to hold his own against some of the elite players of all-time. He's also unique, just like Magic (6'9'' PG) or Bird (6'9'' forward who could rebound like a bigman, shoot like a shooting guard, and pass like a point guard), what makes Curry unique, is his absolutely unprecented long range shooting accuracy at the kind of volume he has - I mean, Curry averaged 11 three point attempts per game in the playoffs, and shot 42.2%. We never saw anything even remotely close to that. Curry holds the record for three-pointers made (98, second highest is 2000 Reggie Miller at 58) and 3-pt attempts (232, second highest is 1995 Dennis Scott, at 151), by an absolutely incredible margin. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, it's very possible that he's facing more defensive pressure than Magic and Bird did (that's something we really have to judge based on eye-test, but that's what I saw when I watched them play - Curry is getting a really special treatment among perimeter players). The amount of attention opposing defenses have to play to him, is staggering.
Oh, and please don't try to use the fact that Curry didn't win the Finals MVP award - Bird and Magic also once had their teammates getting the FMVP instead of them - well, not in '86 (Bird) and '87 (Magic), but Cedric Maxwell won the FMVP in '81, when the Celtics won their first title in the Bird era, and James Worthy won it over Magic in '88. Iguodala won it over Curry in '15. So what? Everybody knew that Bird, Magic and Curry were the unquestioned best players on their teams.
Thoughts?
I don't see what should make Curry go in before Wade. Then there's guys like Dirk, KD, Barkley, Moses Malone and Kobe, that id put above him as well. Jerry West, CP3, Karl Malone and others have a case too. So i don't see why curry would get to leap ahead of every one of those guys. He doesn't really set himself apart offensively from a lot of those guys and defensively is worse than most of them.
Quotatious wrote:I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that. Well, first of all, let me explain something - I have peak Bird and Magic as borderline top 10 peaks, so putting them in my ballot at #5 is clearly too high for my liking. However, if Bird/Magic are already mentioned, then I see no reason why Curry shouldn't be. I'm dead serious about it. He's a GOAT level offensive talent (GOAT shooter, great playmaker, has almost an unprecedented gravity as a guard - oftentimes, you really have to double him 30 feet away from the basket when he gets hot with his shooting, and he can really pass the ball to an open man if he gets doubled), very comparable defender (better than Magic, slightly worse than Bird, in my opinion), led his team to 67 wins, which is the same as Bird's best team (I would say Curry had a worse supporting cast that Bird, and rather clearly so), and two more than Magic's best team, with higher SRS than Bird's and Magic's teams ever had (and that's while Steph's team had a rookie coach!). Curry has a bit better advanced metrics in the regular season, Magic/Bird have a bit better metrics in the playoffs, but even if we put 50% emphasis on the RS and 50% on the playoffs (when you really think about it, it would mean that one playoff game is worth four regular season games - I think it should satisfy those who value the playoffs heavily over RS - I think it's pretty fair, though).
So, other than the conventional wisdom, what argument there is for Magic/Bird being a tier or two ahead of Curry, which seems to be the general consensus on this board? Is that "conventional wisdom" really wisdom, at all? I mean - Curry accomplished as much as you can hope for, really. He has the stats AND the team success to hold his own against some of the elite players of all-time. He's also unique, just like Magic (6'9'' PG) or Bird (6'9'' forward who could rebound like a bigman, shoot like a shooting guard, and pass like a point guard), what makes Curry unique, is his absolutely unprecented long range shooting accuracy at the kind of volume he has - I mean, Curry averaged 11 three point attempts per game in the playoffs, and shot 42.2%. We never saw anything even remotely close to that. Curry holds the record for three-pointers made (98, second highest is 2000 Reggie Miller at 58) and 3-pt attempts (232, second highest is 1995 Dennis Scott, at 151), by an absolutely incredible margin. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, it's very possible that he's facing more defensive pressure than Magic and Bird did (that's something we really have to judge based on eye-test, but that's what I saw when I watched them play - Curry is getting a really special treatment among perimeter players). The amount of attention opposing defenses have to play to him, is staggering.
Oh, and please don't try to use the fact that Curry didn't win the Finals MVP award - Bird and Magic also once had their teammates getting the FMVP instead of them - well, not in '86 (Bird) and '87 (Magic), but Cedric Maxwell won the FMVP in '81, when the Celtics won their first title in the Bird era, and James Worthy won it over Magic in '88. Iguodala won it over Curry in '15. So what? Everybody knew that Bird, Magic and Curry were the unquestioned best players on their teams.
Thoughts?
How much impact would you measure Curry had on that Warriors team compared to Bird and Magic for their respective teams? His regular season was no doubt one of the greatest offensive seasons (and not just for his position) but you really think Curry dominated the playoffs (or the Finals where the stat below is from) to the same extent? I hold Curry in high regard but I don't see him on that tier
Warriors with Curry: 189-433 (43.6 FG%), 47.1 TRB%, 24.5 AST% Warriors without Curry: 28-65 (43.1 FG%), 55.6 TRB%, 24.0 AST%
And despite being one of the most dominant 4th quarter scorers in the Finals in the last 25 years his production fluctuated and it's what seemed to put a distaste to an otherwise great season. Also I like to mention that Bird in that '86 season was nursing a sore back where the Celtics started off 25-8, but once he got back into shape he spearheaded the Celtics during that 44 game stretch going 39-5 and recorded a 32.5 PER
Quotatious wrote:I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that. Well, first of all, let me explain something - I have peak Bird and Magic as borderline top 10 peaks, so putting them in my ballot at #5 is clearly too high for my liking. However, if Bird/Magic are already mentioned, then I see no reason why Curry shouldn't be. I'm dead serious about it.
You should be dead serious about it. If Magic's name is being brought up, Curry absolutely should be on the ballot. Any argument for Magic is a built-in argument for Steph essentially.
Bird might be a different story, as I know certain posters here are very high on his defense. But Curry is absolutely in the same class.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
trex_8063 wrote:I hope Dr Spaceman doesn't wear himself out championing Robinson and disappear once the Admiral is voted in.
Oh not a chance. I spent a lot of time prepping that Robinson post so I can't guarantee everything will be up to that standard, but I will absolutely follow through after he's in.
I will say though that this week in my real life is going to take a lot out of me so my contributions might be a little thin for a bit.
Anyway, my ballot:
1. David Robinson 1995 2. Kevin Garnett 2004 3. Tim Duncan 2003
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
Quotatious wrote:I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that. Well, first of all, let me explain something - I have peak Bird and Magic as borderline top 10 peaks, so putting them in my ballot at #5 is clearly too high for my liking. However, if Bird/Magic are already mentioned, then I see no reason why Curry shouldn't be. I'm dead serious about it. He's a GOAT level offensive talent (GOAT shooter, great playmaker, has almost an unprecedented gravity as a guard - oftentimes, you really have to double him 30 feet away from the basket when he gets hot with his shooting, and he can really pass the ball to an open man if he gets doubled), very comparable defender (better than Magic, slightly worse than Bird, in my opinion), led his team to 67 wins, which is the same as Bird's best team (I would say Curry had a worse supporting cast that Bird, and rather clearly so), and two more than Magic's best team, with higher SRS than Bird's and Magic's teams ever had (and that's while Steph's team had a rookie coach!). Curry has a bit better advanced metrics in the regular season, Magic/Bird have a bit better metrics in the playoffs, but even if we put 50% emphasis on the RS and 50% on the playoffs (when you really think about it, it would mean that one playoff game is worth four regular season games - I think it should satisfy those who value the playoffs heavily over RS - I think it's pretty fair, though).
So, other than the conventional wisdom, what argument there is for Magic/Bird being a tier or two ahead of Curry, which seems to be the general consensus on this board? Is that "conventional wisdom" really wisdom, at all? I mean - Curry accomplished as much as you can hope for, really. He has the stats AND the team success to hold his own against some of the elite players of all-time. He's also unique, just like Magic (6'9'' PG) or Bird (6'9'' forward who could rebound like a bigman, shoot like a shooting guard, and pass like a point guard), what makes Curry unique, is his absolutely unprecented long range shooting accuracy at the kind of volume he has - I mean, Curry averaged 11 three point attempts per game in the playoffs, and shot 42.2%. We never saw anything even remotely close to that. Curry holds the record for three-pointers made (98, second highest is 2000 Reggie Miller at 58) and 3-pt attempts (232, second highest is 1995 Dennis Scott, at 151), by an absolutely incredible margin. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, it's very possible that he's facing more defensive pressure than Magic and Bird did (that's something we really have to judge based on eye-test, but that's what I saw when I watched them play - Curry is getting a really special treatment among perimeter players). The amount of attention opposing defenses have to play to him, is staggering.
Oh, and please don't try to use the fact that Curry didn't win the Finals MVP award - Bird and Magic also once had their teammates getting the FMVP instead of them - well, not in '86 (Bird) and '87 (Magic), but Cedric Maxwell won the FMVP in '81, when the Celtics won their first title in the Bird era, and James Worthy won it over Magic in '88. Iguodala won it over Curry in '15. So what? Everybody knew that Bird, Magic and Curry were the unquestioned best players on their teams.
Thoughts?
I don't see what should make Curry go in before Wade. Then there's guys like Dirk, KD, Barkley, Moses Malone and Kobe, that id put above him as well. Jerry West, CP3, Karl Malone and others have a case too. So i don't see why curry would get to leap ahead of every one of those guys. He doesn't really set himself apart offensively from a lot of those guys and defensively is worse than most of them.
Curry arguably does sets himself apart from many of these guys on offense, not in individual boxscore production, but in the coverages it forces the opposing team into, Curry's shooting is so feared by the opposing teams that plenty of times, they double him off-ball from the half-court line, that opens up all sorts of defensive breakdowns which Curry's team can benefit from.
JohnstahBoy wrote:
Quotatious wrote:I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that. Well, first of all, let me explain something - I have peak Bird and Magic as borderline top 10 peaks, so putting them in my ballot at #5 is clearly too high for my liking. However, if Bird/Magic are already mentioned, then I see no reason why Curry shouldn't be. I'm dead serious about it. He's a GOAT level offensive talent (GOAT shooter, great playmaker, has almost an unprecedented gravity as a guard - oftentimes, you really have to double him 30 feet away from the basket when he gets hot with his shooting, and he can really pass the ball to an open man if he gets doubled), very comparable defender (better than Magic, slightly worse than Bird, in my opinion), led his team to 67 wins, which is the same as Bird's best team (I would say Curry had a worse supporting cast that Bird, and rather clearly so), and two more than Magic's best team, with higher SRS than Bird's and Magic's teams ever had (and that's while Steph's team had a rookie coach!). Curry has a bit better advanced metrics in the regular season, Magic/Bird have a bit better metrics in the playoffs, but even if we put 50% emphasis on the RS and 50% on the playoffs (when you really think about it, it would mean that one playoff game is worth four regular season games - I think it should satisfy those who value the playoffs heavily over RS - I think it's pretty fair, though).
So, other than the conventional wisdom, what argument there is for Magic/Bird being a tier or two ahead of Curry, which seems to be the general consensus on this board? Is that "conventional wisdom" really wisdom, at all? I mean - Curry accomplished as much as you can hope for, really. He has the stats AND the team success to hold his own against some of the elite players of all-time. He's also unique, just like Magic (6'9'' PG) or Bird (6'9'' forward who could rebound like a bigman, shoot like a shooting guard, and pass like a point guard), what makes Curry unique, is his absolutely unprecented long range shooting accuracy at the kind of volume he has - I mean, Curry averaged 11 three point attempts per game in the playoffs, and shot 42.2%. We never saw anything even remotely close to that. Curry holds the record for three-pointers made (98, second highest is 2000 Reggie Miller at 58) and 3-pt attempts (232, second highest is 1995 Dennis Scott, at 151), by an absolutely incredible margin. Also, as I've mentioned earlier, it's very possible that he's facing more defensive pressure than Magic and Bird did (that's something we really have to judge based on eye-test, but that's what I saw when I watched them play - Curry is getting a really special treatment among perimeter players). The amount of attention opposing defenses have to play to him, is staggering.
Oh, and please don't try to use the fact that Curry didn't win the Finals MVP award - Bird and Magic also once had their teammates getting the FMVP instead of them - well, not in '86 (Bird) and '87 (Magic), but Cedric Maxwell won the FMVP in '81, when the Celtics won their first title in the Bird era, and James Worthy won it over Magic in '88. Iguodala won it over Curry in '15. So what? Everybody knew that Bird, Magic and Curry were the unquestioned best players on their teams.
Thoughts?
How much impact would you measure Curry had on that Warriors team compared to Bird and Magic for their respective teams? His regular season was no doubt one of the greatest offensive seasons (and not just for his position) but you really think Curry dominated the playoffs (or the Finals where the stat below is from) to the same extent? I hold Curry in high regard but I don't see him on that tier
Warriors with Curry: 189-433 (43.6 FG%), 47.1 TRB%, 24.5 AST% Warriors without Curry: 28-65 (43.1 FG%), 55.6 TRB%, 24.0 AST%
And despite being one of the most dominant 4th quarter scorers in the Finals in the last 25 years his production fluctuated and it's what seemed to put a distaste to an otherwise great season. Also I like to mention that Bird in that '86 season was nursing a sore back where the Celtics started off 25-8, but once he got back into shape he spearheaded the Celtics during that 44 game stretch going 39-5 and recorded a 32.5 PER
On-off for a single playoff series is a terrible and frankly misleading way of going about measuring impact, given the v. small sample sizes involved. What we do know is that the Ws are able to play a lot of primary defensive talent concurrently with each other (Iggy, Dray, Bogut), and still have the #2 offense in the league because of the huge pressure Curry puts on the opposing defenses.
theonlyclutch's AT FGA-limited team - The Malevolent Eight
PG: 2008 Chauncey Billups/ 2013 Kyle Lowry SG: 2005 Manu Ginobili/2012 James Harden SF: 1982 Julius Erving PF: 2013 Matt Bonner/ 2010 Amir Johnson C: 1977 Kareem Abdul Jabaar
Have to agree with the general consensus that Curry will deserve to be in the conversation sooner rather than later. Personally I have all the two way big men a tier higher, but it'll be very interesting debating him vs Magic/Bird/Durant/DrJ and the like.
Quotatious wrote:I saw people are already putting Magic and Bird in their ballots - but how about '15 Steph Curry? I'm totally serious about that.
There is nothing wrong with your stance. Some people might not be ready to put him that high yet, but I definitely believe this is going to change if Curry can keep up producing at last year's level. Ironically, people who hold recent seasons in historically high regard are often accused of having a recency bias. But in many cases it's them who have a recency bias when it comes to recent players or seasons because they can't imagine a player right in front their eyes, who hasn't done it before, is comparable to legends strictly speaking of one-year seasons. I mean, just look where LeBron '09 was ranked the last project (10th) compared to this one. Granted, eventually it will be '13 LeBron or a tie but I believe his ranking (3rd) wouldn't change if only '09 was available - maybe it would drop one spot at most. Sure, other users have other opinions and the project took place in 2012, i.e. 3 years away from 2009, but to me it's a good example of how perceptions change or let's say evolve.
I'm glad you brought this up this early, I intended to write an essay about it later in the project. There are some guys ahead of Curry, of course. Those who were already voted in and I have like 4 or 5 other guys who I comfortably rank higher (Robinson, Garnett, Duncan, Hakeem and arguably Kareem) - although depending on your criteria Curry might even has a chance to surpass some of these guys. Russell (I have hard time ranking him but in case of doubts it's unfair, in my book, to disregard what he was able to accomplish as the best player on his team) and maybe Wade, although I'm not sure if he can separate himself enough to be above the following guys, are two players I'm inclined to have ahead - although the argument becomes weaker - and then there are lots of guys in the same ballpark where everyone has a case over the other. Curry, Bird, Magic, Paul, Robertson, Nowitzki, Durant, Walton, Erving, Nash and I probably missed one or two. Kobe, Barkley, Malone, West, Harden and a couple of other players would be next for me, but I can see arguments for either one against some of the aforementioned players. Anyway, there are going to be tough decisions to make.
Re: Curry. In terms of RS performance he's up there with the anyone of his group. Be it Magic, Bird or whoever is generally ranked higher in terms of peak. Impact data as well as boxscore stats like him, and people who like to look at accolades, team success or uniqueness and overall skill-level shouldn't be disappointed with his season either. The playoffs were already mentioned, I expect some great discussions about them. Purely looking at the box score or the extremely small and therefore unreliable on/off data there is a drop-off in production. This doesn't have to mean, however, that he failed to maintain his previous level. Team's tried to bother him in ways we've rarely if ever seen for a perimeter player. They couldn't take away his scoring (slightly more points on slightly worse TS%), they couldn't take away his 3pt-shot (quite the opposite, he proved to get his shots off with ease when he wants to) but they could take away some of his playmaking and harrassed him enough to increase his turnovers. The question is: was Curry exposed? Didn't he play up to his RS level? I would say no, because doing this to Curry means more opportunities for his team to rise to the occasion. It didn't happen. Green, Klay and Barnes were less efficient and their 3pt-FG% dropped quite significantly. One could try to attribute this to Curry, but I see no evidence for it and neither does the eye-test approves this stance. Looking at some tracking data, we can see an odd thing: the team, overall, had more open or wide open shot attempts than during the RS. Barnes had more open looks, Green had more wide open looks from >10ft, Klay got the same looks he usually does. Curry faced slightly tougher coverage. Now, this doesn't include different shot-charts etc. but overall there is no evidence that Curry produced less good looks for his teammates. Or you can say that Curry's impact via playmaking or gravitiy was overrated in the first place, but this stance seems odd for me and isn't in line with the evidence we have. So, all in all, the Warriors' offense came across as less impressive for reasons Curry could only partially influence and a first glance suggests that Curry's impact was still there during the playoffs.
For me, I'll bring Curry into the conversation from about the #10 spot on and will rank him anywhere between 10 and 20 most likely. Among the players who I consider to be on the same tier as Curry I'm only willing, as of now, to give '87 Magic the slight edge. Everyone else has to be, in my opinion, mentioned in the same breath as him although I see arguments for everyone of the list I provided to be ranked higher eventually, just as I see an argument for Curry over every one of them.
And for what it's worth, Harden - although I rank him one small tier lower - had a season which makes him a clear choice for the top 50 as well. I assume that people who don't have him in their top 50 list will have to come up with some seriously abstruse arguments to defend their position.
trex_8063 wrote:Well, the voter turn-out appears to be slipping already, which is disappointing. I hope Dr Spaceman doesn't wear himself out championing Robinson and disappear once the Admiral is voted in. I also wish Owly and drza---as they've both been consistent contributors (especially drza)---would begin casting some ballots (hint hint nudge nudge).
Will be looking at calling a winner and moving on by around 11:00 EST tomorrow morning.
I've been called upon, so I'll answer. I must admit, I tend to be more interested in the discussion than the actual votes. I have trouble really making a cross-time rankings, as I more tend to rank within era and put cross-era players of similar caliber on a similar tier. It's even harder on a single-season basis. Side note, but that's part of the reason that I've never chimed in on Gregoire's peaks projects...I don't have a ranking that I truly believe in.
That said, I signed up and I do notice the dearth of votes, so let me get on the board:
1) 2004 Garnett
2) 2003 Duncan
3) 1965 Bill Russell
I wrote a book about Garnett already in this thread, so I'll keep this brief. I think that Garnett peaked with the best argument of any player of all-time to be both the best offensive and best defensive player in the league at the same time. He contributed in SO many ways that his impact was uniformly massive, in both the regular season and the playoffs, on a year-to-year basis. He was an excellent iso-scorer and 1-on-1 defensive player...but much more importantly, he was one of the best "help offense" and "help defense" big men of all time.
Hakeem and Kareem are better iso scorers, but Garnett's contributions made an across-the-board impact that was at least as large as theirs but with a style that was much more portable and scaleable.
Robinson and Duncan are probably the two players most similar to Garnett, most closely able to replicate the impact. Based on the regular season on/off +/- numbers we have, Robinson in the regular season is the closest thing we have on record to peak KG and peak Cavs Lebron. While I don't kill him for his postseason scoring difficulties (if anyone has championed the over-use we tend to put on scoring efficiency when making evaluations, it's me), I do note that if '95 Robinson isn't scoring up to par he has less that he can contribute in other aspects of offense to maintain his impact. With Garnett, even if his scoring efficiency goes down, he's still able to provide the same defense warping/spacing and offense initiation to keep his impact up. This gives him an edge on Robinson in my book.
Duncan has no postseason issues at all and is able to do almost everything that Garnett can do, just slightly attenuated. His impact was one of the greatest of this era, just slightly behind Garnett. That's why I'm voting them 1-2 here.
For my third vote I'm kind of going off-the-board a bit, but I'm still not convinced that peak Russell shouldn't already have been voted in. His impact was defense-centric, but it was MASSIVE. And portable. And scaleable. And I think he had both the physical and (more importantly) the mental tools to modify his game to fit the circumstances, so I believe his impact in 2015 would be very similar to what it was in 1965...still at the top of the league.
HM: Hakeem, Robinson, Kareem, Walton (where to put him?), Magic and Bird
And it looks like we will need some opinions in the secondary thread as to which year was Kareem's peak, as we do not have the 75% consensus here (there were 7 picks for '77, 2 for '71, and 2 undecided). Anyone who cast a ballot for Kareem here does NOT need to state their position on Kareem's peak season (unless you're the one who is undecided.....I am the other person who was undecided ; or unless you wish to change your mind on which year was his peak).
drza wrote: I've been called upon, so I'll answer. I must admit, I tend to be more interested in the discussion than the actual votes.
I realize that, and I greatly appreciate your contributions. I also want as reliable of a consensus as is possible, though. I just figure since the conversation is happening anyway, if you could throw in some ballots, too......makes me feel a little better about the "consensus" result.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
On top of being incredible #s on their own, we see kareem performed about as well in 77 as he did in 71. This also included an excellent playoff performance with the following (keeping with per 100 here to be consistent):
His postseason would end in a sweep to the eventual champion blazers, who ranked 1st in SRS that season and 5th in defense. To say their front line of walton and lucas was solid would be a real understatement. They rounded out the roster with key guys like lionel hollins, bob gross and johnny davis. Outside of cazzie russell and lucius allen, the lakers roster was pretty bare. I’d say they performed to about as well as expected that season.
77 was his 5th MVP season, so it’s reasonable to say that kareem had reached his peak in terms of developing his game on both ends of the floor.
Magic was a unique and special player. Took his game to another level that season, especially when relied on more as a primary offensive option. He led the lakers to league best 67-15 record and ultimately the championship against the celtics.
There are very few players I'd rather have for a single title run.
Ballot #3 - 03 Duncan
Going to be looking closely at bird in the next thread, but want to get my vote in, and I'd say duncan is definitely deserving. For a guy who's known as mr. consistency, his dominance in that title run was on another level. Very impressive.
Result still the same, and we still need a run-off for Kareem's best year. #6 thread should be close between Duncan and Olajuwon (and maybe Robinson will even pull in close).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
With Curry getting a mention that might also lead to whether Paul belongs in the conversation (not necessarily yet, but as members of that group of Curry, Magic and Bird gain traction). Versus Curry, Paul enjoys a boxscore advantage (PER 30 to 28; WS/48 .292 to .288; BPM 11.2 to 9.9; WARP I don't know - Paul's is 25.6 at a .825 win%, but I don't know if Curry's is available and if so where -- WARP does like threes though which would be in his favour) and perhaps not insubstantial edge on D (depending somewhat on how much you think Curry improved his this year, whether merely to average or significantly beyond - and I guess to what degree you consider the improvement "real" rather than a function of clever schemes hiding his limititions in a manner that isn't portable). For me that would leave a bit of a gap (that perhaps some percieve or might be there in impact type data) for Curry to close in less easily measured aspects of the game.
After Robinson goes in, Paul probably offers the best RS boxscore.
; or unless you wish to change your mind on which year was his peak). 