RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #23

[oldschooled]

As discussed from previous thread.

Vote: Steph Curry

Only remaining guy with multiple MVP (only unanimous in league history) and championship. Stats (advanced or box score), eye test, accolades, impact, peak. Curry checks all those. For those choosing CP3's longevity over Curry's, CP3 has been longer in the league yet Curry has been playing at a higher/elite level in a shorter span of career.

Code: Select all

Rank                   Player MVP Shares
23.             Stephen Curry      2.028
24.               Jerry West*      2.021
25.           Connie Hawkins*      1.819
26.             Dirk Nowitzki      1.810
27.                Chris Paul      1.640

Alt: Bob Pettit

[Dr Spaceman]

So with regards to Durant, it just really bothers me that there is such a disconnect between his +/- and his box score stats, and that people for the most part tend to be infatuated by the latter. I pretty much only care about how much those numbers translate into impact, otherwise Adrian Dantley should go soon as well.

And this has held true despite two different team circumstances and two different sets of teammates. His DRAPM wasn't even very impressive, even on GS, despite that being a consensus improvement for him this year.

Now, I for one am not really surprised that Durant isn't a super high impact player (relative to other superstars...he's obviously a high impact player overall), because when I watch him, he doesn't seem to be imposing his will on the game on either side of the court, because he's not skilled enough offensively or defensively, and I'm pretty confident in believing that a player who scores 30+ PPG on 60%+ TS isn't necessarily having elite offensive impact, but that seems to be where most people are getting tripped up when it comes to Durant. His box score looks amazing, but the evidence shows that GS didn't even really improve all that much with him, and they still depend a lot more on Curry, even if he scored less on lower TS%.

To me, Durant has empty stats to a degree. Not to the point where he's no longer a stud of a player, but to the point that I see him as a borderline top 5 player instead of the "arguably best in the league" player that seems to be the popular narrative now...I would take LeBron, Curry, and CP3 over Durant without much hesitation, and I think I would probably favor Kawhi as well, and I think Westbrook has a really strong case too.

With all that in mind, I really don't think he should go ahead of Ewing, Paul, Nash, or Curry. Durant just isn't an all time great offensive anchor, due to the severe lack of gravity he has compared to Paul/Nash/Curry, and his defense has become pretty wildly overrated...to me, I don't see him as much more than an above average defensive wing. Certainly nowhere close to Ewing's defensive impact, and Ewing himself was a really good offensive big.

Eh, I strongly disagree with this. We had this discussion in the POY thread, come playoff time GSW's team results were pretty much exactly what you'd expect when adding an MVP-level high portability player to a 10 SRS team (improvement of around 4 SRS). I don't think it's really fair to expect more improvement than we saw.

As far as impact stats,your criticism is right on there IMO, especially defensively. GSW in 16 after Curry's injury was crazy susceptible to disruption from a lengthy wing player who could switch the Curry/Green pick and roll effectively. His rep was inflated even more than LeBron was after the defensive series he had. The truth is Curry wasn't running around screens with the same velocity and couldn't handle all the turning/twisting motion that involves so he was placed in positions where he could run downhill towards the basket. I doubt Durant has anywhere near the same defensive series if Curry is able to run him around screens after getting the switch, but it is what it is.

[Xherdan 23]

I'll vote among Durant, Scottie Pippen and Chris Paul. Call me crazy but maybe I'll add Billups to the hunt soon. I really think he's one of the greatest guards of all time.

You're crazy

What about Nash? What do you think Paul's case over him is?

[Joao Saraiva]

I'll vote among Durant, Scottie Pippen and Chris Paul. Call me crazy but maybe I'll add Billups to the hunt soon. I really think he's one of the greatest guards of all time.

You're crazy

What about Nash? What do you think Paul's case over him is?

Nash and Paul have diferent approaches.

Nash likes high risk high reward plays, Paul is more commited to making the best play available at low risk.

I think however both approaches can be good, and each one at their own style makes it work very well.

Paul's case over Nash? Higher peak, starting to have a longevity edge, less turn over prone, much better defender, better advanced metrics... there are lots of ways to make a good case for CP3 over Steve Nash.

[Xherdan 23]

I'll vote among Durant, Scottie Pippen and Chris Paul. Call me crazy but maybe I'll add Billups to the hunt soon. I really think he's one of the greatest guards of all time.

You're crazy

What about Nash? What do you think Paul's case over him is?

Nash and Paul have diferent approaches.

Nash likes high risk high reward plays, Paul is more commited to making the best play available at low risk.

I think however both approaches can be good, and each one at their own style makes it work very well.

Paul's case over Nash? Higher peak, starting to have a longevity edge, less turn over prone, much better defender, better advanced metrics... there are lots of ways to make a good case for CP3 over Steve Nash.

Fair enough. I was only asking because they are both pass first PGs from roughly the same era and similar team success, but you didn't mention Nash in your post as a possible candidate but you did mention Chauncey who I think is not on CP3/Nash level at all.

As for longevity, they're about the same right now (if anything Nash has a small edge) and I'm not sure CP3's peak was that much higher than the two time MVP if at all (I'm higher than most on '06-'07 Nash).

Nash is a bad defender while Paul is between very good and elite, I'll give you that. But is PG defense really that valuable? I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference for point guards.

[therealbig3]

So with regards to Durant, it just really bothers me that there is such a disconnect between his +/- and his box score stats, and that people for the most part tend to be infatuated by the latter. I pretty much only care about how much those numbers translate into impact, otherwise Adrian Dantley should go soon as well.

And this has held true despite two different team circumstances and two different sets of teammates. His DRAPM wasn't even very impressive, even on GS, despite that being a consensus improvement for him this year.

Now, I for one am not really surprised that Durant isn't a super high impact player (relative to other superstars...he's obviously a high impact player overall), because when I watch him, he doesn't seem to be imposing his will on the game on either side of the court, because he's not skilled enough offensively or defensively, and I'm pretty confident in believing that a player who scores 30+ PPG on 60%+ TS isn't necessarily having elite offensive impact, but that seems to be where most people are getting tripped up when it comes to Durant. His box score looks amazing, but the evidence shows that GS didn't even really improve all that much with him, and they still depend a lot more on Curry, even if he scored less on lower TS%.

To me, Durant has empty stats to a degree. Not to the point where he's no longer a stud of a player, but to the point that I see him as a borderline top 5 player instead of the "arguably best in the league" player that seems to be the popular narrative now...I would take LeBron, Curry, and CP3 over Durant without much hesitation, and I think I would probably favor Kawhi as well, and I think Westbrook has a really strong case too.

With all that in mind, I really don't think he should go ahead of Ewing, Paul, Nash, or Curry. Durant just isn't an all time great offensive anchor, due to the severe lack of gravity he has compared to Paul/Nash/Curry, and his defense has become pretty wildly overrated...to me, I don't see him as much more than an above average defensive wing. Certainly nowhere close to Ewing's defensive impact, and Ewing himself was a really good offensive big.

Eh, I strongly disagree with this. We had this discussion in the POY thread, come playoff time GSW's team results were pretty much exactly what you'd expect when adding an MVP-level high portability player to a 10 SRS team (improvement of around 4 SRS). I don't think it's really fair to expect more improvement than we saw.

As far as impact stats,your criticism is right on there IMO, especially defensively. GSW in 16 after Curry's injury was crazy susceptible to disruption from a lengthy wing player who could switch the Curry/Green pick and roll effectively. His rep was inflated even more than LeBron was after the defensive series he had. The truth is Curry wasn't running around screens with the same velocity and couldn't handle all the turning/twisting motion that involves so he was placed in positions where he could run downhill towards the basket. I doubt Durant has anywhere near the same defensive series if Curry is able to run him around screens after getting the switch, but it is what it is.

Looking at the lineup data in the PS, and Durant doesn't seem to really be the guy that's causing their improvement. I think it probably has more to do with Curry clearly being superior physically than he was in 2016, and playing way better.

Just looking at the on/off as well, even though it's a small sample size, it's hard for me to point to a +6.0 for Durant and say "yup, that's the reason why that 10 SRS team jumped to a 14 SRS team".

[Joao Saraiva]

You're crazy

What about Nash? What do you think Paul's case over him is?

Nash and Paul have diferent approaches.

Nash likes high risk high reward plays, Paul is more commited to making the best play available at low risk.

I think however both approaches can be good, and each one at their own style makes it work very well.

Paul's case over Nash? Higher peak, starting to have a longevity edge, less turn over prone, much better defender, better advanced metrics... there are lots of ways to make a good case for CP3 over Steve Nash.

Fair enough. I was only asking because they are both pass first PGs from roughly the same era and similar team success, but you didn't mention Nash in your post as a possible candidate but you did mention Chauncey who I think is not on CP3/Nash level at all.

As for longevity, they're about the same right now (if anything Nash has a small edge) and I'm not sure CP3's peak was that much higher than the two time MVP if at all (I'm higher than most on '06-'07 Nash).

Nash is a bad defender while Paul is between very good and elite, I'll give you that. But is PG defense really that valuable? I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference for point guards.

I get that Nash can be ranked above Paul. It's not that important... well, Cleveland last year attacked Thomas time and time again in the ECF. They wouldn't get away with that against Paul. So yeah, it's important. Not as important as for a big.

About Billups... I'm higher on him than most people. I feel like his decision making, pace control, knowing when to distribute and when to score are all things that were very valuable to the Pistons. On top of that he was very strong for a PG, so he could exploit easy matchups in the post or even switch more in PnR situations than a normal PG.

I just mentioned him and not Nash because I'm pretty sure about Paul > Nash (with my criteria, I can see Nash ranked ahead just not for me). Gotta look a bit into Pippen and Billups too. Feel like I might vote for them soon enough.

[therealbig3]

Except the eye test doesn't support Durant. When you say EVERYTHING points the other way...you mean PPG and TS%?

Because my eye test tells me that Durant still has issues in terms of his defensive awareness and his perimeter defense (he gets broken down off the dribble a lot). It also tells me that offensively, he's not breaking down the defense to anywhere near the degree of other offensive superstars, because of his relatively weak handle and mediocre passing ability. He's a fantastic scorer, and can put up a lot of points on high efficiency, but he tends to pick his spots, and doesn't really scare the defense into compromising, which means he's not making others around him that much better.

And it's not like it's one form of +/-, like JUST RAPM that says he's not having a huge impact...it's all forms of it. Consistently, over the years. In fact, I'd say the ONLY piece of data that supports Durant being as highly regarded as he is, are box score stats, while everything else says he's a borderline top 5 player, solidly within the top 10, but solidly behind guys like LeBron and Curry.

Durant did really well with Westbrook missing large chunks of the season in 2014, though. OKC was #6 Offense, #3 SRS type team. I don't think we'll ever get to see him solo-ing again, but he's proven otherwise. You can build around him with an Ok cast and do just fine. I don't feel this is just a shot % type bias, in any sense. I'd post further but Durant is an established figure and I feel you would need more than RAPM and eye test (btw, what you posted is super subjective) to really make a case against him.

Edit:

Since you follow elgee, etc.

His combined WOWY runs in the last 2 years against 3 different controlled lineups: 102 games in the lineup at 9.4 SRS. 18 games out of the lineup, OKC was -0.39.

From 2016 Offseason. Significantly more to KD.

And I feel like this is the issue with people that ask for more than just +/- for proof of why a guy with big box scores isn't as good as people think...I give my opinion of Durant's game in a qualitative way that's not even that controversial, since it's been the main criticisms of him for most of his career really, and he's not really any better today, and I get a "well that's just super subjective" back...yeah, it's subjective, but what else do you want? I gave my subjective analysis for why Durant isn't having elite impact out there, despite what the box score says. It's backed up majorly by +/- data (again, not just RAPM, but lineup-specific numbers as well).

And yeah, his run with OKC was very impressive, I never said otherwise. Whatever he and Westbrook were doing in OKC worked, because they were doing some incredible things. But that was a two-headed monster, and it's hard to say who was having more impact for them. But we do know that if you take one away, the team suffers a lot. So I'm not surprised that OKC depended a lot on KD...I think that has more to do with roster construction though rather than KD's inherent "goodness". I still think he had legit flaws as a player that always tended to rear its head come playoff time, and imo, really limited his impact on a team level.

The WOWY data says one thing, and the RAPM says something else (and to be clear, the RAPM says Durant was really, really good...just not as good as one would think with his combination of volume and efficiency). I think they're both valuable, and probably both tell parts of a larger story...like that the Thunder couldn't survive without Durant completely, but when he was available, he was more easily replaced with certain lineups...not an unheard of phenomenon, but still not something that I'd give him a complete pass for. Other guys like LeBron and CP3 and Curry...when they're not out there, their team struggles. End of story. It doesn't matter if they're missing games or sitting on the bench. Their impact is just...obvious.

You point to the 2014 RS as proof that KD could do great things without Westbrook...but then I'd point to the playoffs the year before without Westbrook, and how much KD and the Thunder struggled. In the 2014 playoffs, KD once again struggled, and it was Westbrook that was their best player in every series they played. Similar story in the 2016 playoffs as well. To me, Durant has not proven himself as a reliable playoff performer, specifically because of the flaws in his game that I talked about, in addition to some of the disappointing showings in terms of +/-...which means I can't consider him over someone like CP3. I just don't think he's as good of a player, despite the popular narrative.

[pandrade83]

Except the eye test doesn't support Durant. When you say EVERYTHING points the other way...you mean PPG and TS%?

Because my eye test tells me that Durant still has issues in terms of his defensive awareness and his perimeter defense (he gets broken down off the dribble a lot). It also tells me that offensively, he's not breaking down the defense to anywhere near the degree of other offensive superstars, because of his relatively weak handle and mediocre passing ability. He's a fantastic scorer, and can put up a lot of points on high efficiency, but he tends to pick his spots, and doesn't really scare the defense into compromising, which means he's not making others around him that much better.

And it's not like it's one form of +/-, like JUST RAPM that says he's not having a huge impact...it's all forms of it. Consistently, over the years. In fact, I'd say the ONLY piece of data that supports Durant being as highly regarded as he is, are box score stats, while everything else says he's a borderline top 5 player, solidly within the top 10, but solidly behind guys like LeBron and Curry.

Durant did really well with Westbrook missing large chunks of the season in 2014, though. OKC was #6 Offense, #3 SRS type team. I don't think we'll ever get to see him solo-ing again, but he's proven otherwise. You can build around him with an Ok cast and do just fine. I don't feel this is just a shot % type bias, in any sense. I'd post further but Durant is an established figure and I feel you would need more than RAPM and eye test (btw, what you posted is super subjective) to really make a case against him.

Edit:

Since you follow elgee, etc.

His combined WOWY runs in the last 2 years against 3 different controlled lineups: 102 games in the lineup at 9.4 SRS. 18 games out of the lineup, OKC was -0.39.

From 2016 Offseason. Significantly more to KD.

And I feel like this is the issue with people that ask for more than just +/- for proof of why a guy with big box scores isn't as good as people think...I give my opinion of Durant's game in a qualitative way that's not even that controversial, since it's been the main criticisms of him for most of his career really, and he's not really any better today, and I get a "well that's just super subjective" back...yeah, it's subjective, but what else do you want? I gave my subjective analysis for why Durant isn't having elite impact out there, despite what the box score says. It's backed up majorly by +/- data (again, not just RAPM, but lineup-specific numbers as well).

And yeah, his run with OKC was very impressive, I never said otherwise. Whatever he and Westbrook were doing in OKC worked, because they were doing some incredible things. But that was a two-headed monster, and it's hard to say who was having more impact for them. But we do know that if you take one away, the team suffers a lot. So I'm not surprised that OKC depended a lot on KD...I think that has more to do with roster construction though rather than KD's inherent "goodness". I still think he had legit flaws as a player that always tended to rear its head come playoff time, and imo, really limited his impact on a team level.

The WOWY data says one thing, and the RAPM says something else (and to be clear, the RAPM says Durant was really, really good...just not as good as one would think with his combination of volume and efficiency). I think they're both valuable, and probably both tell parts of a larger story...like that the Thunder couldn't survive without Durant completely, but when he was available, he was more easily replaced with certain lineups...not an unheard of phenomenon, but still not something that I'd give him a complete pass for. Other guys like LeBron and CP3 and Curry...when they're not out there, their team struggles. End of story. It doesn't matter if they're missing games or sitting on the bench. Their impact is just...obvious.

You point to the 2014 RS as proof that KD could do great things without Westbrook...but then I'd point to the playoffs the year before without Westbrook, and how much KD and the Thunder struggled. In the 2014 playoffs, KD once again struggled, and it was Westbrook that was their best player in every series they played. Similar story in the 2016 playoffs as well. To me, Durant has not proven himself as a reliable playoff performer, specifically because of the flaws in his game that I talked about, in addition to some of the disappointing showings in terms of +/-...which means I can't consider him over someone like CP3. I just don't think he's as good of a player, despite the popular narrative.

We're at the point where there's several reasonable options available - and one of those is Paul - I'm not saying it's unreasonable.

I thought the flaws you pointed out of Durant are certainly fair. But to say he's not a proven reliable playoff performer . . . I really struggle with that - especially compared with Paul. I'm not in the camp of Paul can't hack it in the playoffs because he can't get out of the 2nd round; I'm not going to bash on Paul in this space. But Durant is the leading scorer in the playoffs most years and is also the best player on teams that are advancing deep in the playoffs. Yes - he's always had a Westbrook or a Curry alongside him - but Durant's the one who won Finals MVP - and in the OKC years, Durant - not Westbrook got the most win shares.

He's not perfect for sure - but in my mind he's established himself as someone I want on my team in the playoffs - and moreso than Paul.

[Doctor MJ]

As others have noted, Baylor's getting some traction so I'll speak a little more, though noting ahead of time I don't have access to everything I normally would.

Clearly the impression I've given is that I'm basing much of my opinion about Baylor based on his shooting efficiency, and I get why, but this isn't the case. Shooting efficiency, when bad, is a red flag, but it in and of itself is not that big of a deal. It's an indication of a player being not very smart on the floor, but there are players who otherwise are quite intelligent. The real thing to figure out is if there's fire where there's smoke.

And the thing is, from my memory of the analyses we've seen from ElGee and others, the Lakers fell off like crazy whenever West was not playing and the same was not true of Baylor. And to the extent this is true, this is a BIG deal.

Additionally people tend to say that Baylor didn't shoot that much more than West and didn't shoot all that efficiently compared to the rest of the league, but the thing is, Baylor shot a TON. Basically his entire career until Wilt got there, Baylor was either 2nd or 3rd in FGA. West by contrast only shot that much once in his entire career, and it was a year when Baylor was hurt.

I think people need to understand that any player who is top 2 or 3 in the league in FGA needs to be able to justify why he's shooting more than the #1 options on other teams, and this goes tenfold if he's not even the best scorer on his roster.

Something I've said about big men over time is that at first glance people think big men are getting worse offensively because they shoot less, but really mostly it's just that coaches are realizing it was a stupid strategy to let big men jack shots. There are guys who scored 20-25 PPG who would probably have been more valuable at 10-15 PPG.

At Baylor to me is one of these cases, except of course he wasn't a good defender either.

Looking at West's skills to me it's pretty safe to say that the way you build around him is about the same as any other perimeter alpha. Guys like Pippen who just know they aren't the alpha and shoot considerably less. Instead West was saddled with Baylor.

And I mean that. He was saddled. The idea that Baylor should get an edge over Pettit because he played more playoff games is crazy to me, because he had a far superior teammate and Pettit obvsiouly did not. West could have taken the Lakers to the finals with lots of betas and would have been better served with a beta who understood he was a beta and worked to make himself valuable next to a superior talent. Instead if was West who spent most of his prime having to work around the edges of Baylor and still managed to be one of the most impactful players in history despite not being optimally built around.

[Doctor MJ]

I'll vote among Durant, Scottie Pippen and Chris Paul. Call me crazy but maybe I'll add Billups to the hunt soon. I really think he's one of the greatest guards of all time.

You're crazy

What about Nash? What do you think Paul's case over him is?

Nash and Paul have diferent approaches.

Nash likes high risk high reward plays, Paul is more commited to making the best play available at low risk.

I think however both approaches can be good, and each one at their own style makes it work very well.

Paul's case over Nash? Higher peak, starting to have a longevity edge, less turn over prone, much better defender, better advanced metrics... there are lots of ways to make a good case for CP3 over Steve Nash.

As I've said, Paul's my top guard to be considered right now but I have to say this:

Everything we've seen in the game in the past decade has told us that point guards have been too conservative in the past. That they need to be able to take more risks to truly raise the ceiling of what's possible on offense.

That's why you now see a guy like Lonzo who basically is playing like Dan Fouts out there - if you'll excuse the American football reference - throwing long bombs at every opportunity. We'll see what happens with this, but no one should be in denial that Paul's conservative approach limits opportunities.

I'll add this: Paul has had some great on-court ORtgs and I think we've at times misunderstood them. Not that Paul wasn't great, but Doc Rivers really, really just likes to play the same lineups over and over again and it makes for some very impressive numbers along these lines. Now, it doesn't necessarily inflate Paul's +/- numbers to be clear, and those numbers are more important, but I remember on-court ORtg being a big selling point for Paul in prior debates along these lines in the past, and the Doc Rivers factor typically wasn't really part of that conversation at the time.

[scrabbarista]

21. Bob Pettit

22. John Havlicek

I. In my "Stats" category, which adds up the number of times a player was Top 5 in 18 or 19 differently weighted categories, Pettit is 2nd among remaining players. The player ahead of him - Gilmore - clearly doesn't have his pedigree as a dominant player. See:

II. Pettit is 1st among remaining players in my MVP Voting metric, whereas Gilmore is a blip with 1/8 the score of Pettit.

III. Havlicek has 1.5 "Best on Champs," putting him in elite company among remaining players, as only four other remaining players can match this total. Amongst those players (Mikan, Isiah Thomas, Dave Cowens, Steph Curry), Havlicek's career totals in both the regular season and the playoffs are first by a huge margin.

[trex_8063]

How is Mikan even being considered at this point when none of his contemporaries are even close to being selected. Doesn't that speak volumes of the terrible competition he had? Yes he beat what was in front of him but that should not allow him to be this high on this list. At least not in front of others guys currently being discussed.

Did ANY of his contemporaries dominate to the degree he did?

I don't have the statistical data for the NBL, but he apparently was the clear [not close] stand-out MVP of that league, and won two consecutive NBL titles, iirc. Then he joined the BAA/NBA.

In '49 he led the BAA in ppg and was 3rd in TS%, while the Lakers were 1st/12 in ppg allowed.
In '50 he led the league in ppg, was 4th in TS%, and the Lakers were 2nd/17 in ppg allowed.
**We don't have rebounds recorded, but he was likely 1st or 2nd in that as well. And they won the title both years.
In '51 he led the league in ppg, was 5th in TS%, 2nd in rpg, while the Lakers were 1st/11 in ppg allowed.
In '52: 2nd in ppg (+2.08% rTS), 1st in rpg, while anchoring the #1 defense (#1 by a pretty good margin that year, one of the greatest defenses in NBA history). Championship.
'53: 2nd in ppg (+3.51% rTS), 1st in rpg, again anchoring #1 defense. Championship.
'54: 4th in ppg (+2.39% rTS), 2nd in rpg, anchored #2 defense. Championship.


Which of his contemporaries came even close to this level of impact and dominance? That should speak volumes as to why he should be considered long before any of his contemporaries are.

[Scizzup]

Except the eye test doesn't support Durant. When you say EVERYTHING points the other way...you mean PPG and TS%?

Because my eye test tells me that Durant still has issues in terms of his defensive awareness and his perimeter defense (he gets broken down off the dribble a lot). It also tells me that offensively, he's not breaking down the defense to anywhere near the degree of other offensive superstars, because of his relatively weak handle and mediocre passing ability. He's a fantastic scorer, and can put up a lot of points on high efficiency, but he tends to pick his spots, and doesn't really scare the defense into compromising, which means he's not making others around him that much better.

And it's not like it's one form of +/-, like JUST RAPM that says he's not having a huge impact...it's all forms of it. Consistently, over the years. In fact, I'd say the ONLY piece of data that supports Durant being as highly regarded as he is, are box score stats, while everything else says he's a borderline top 5 player, solidly within the top 10, but solidly behind guys like LeBron and Curry.

Durant did really well with Westbrook missing large chunks of the season in 2014, though. OKC was #6 Offense, #3 SRS type team. I don't think we'll ever get to see him solo-ing again, but he's proven otherwise. You can build around him with an Ok cast and do just fine. I don't feel this is just a shot % type bias, in any sense. I'd post further but Durant is an established figure and I feel you would need more than RAPM and eye test (btw, what you posted is super subjective) to really make a case against him.

Edit:

Since you follow elgee, etc.

His combined WOWY runs in the last 2 years against 3 different controlled lineups: 102 games in the lineup at 9.4 SRS. 18 games out of the lineup, OKC was -0.39.

From 2016 Offseason. Significantly more to KD.

You point to the 2014 RS as proof that KD could do great things without Westbrook...but then I'd point to the playoffs the year before without Westbrook, and how much KD and the Thunder struggled.

Wait, you think the 2013 playoffs series vs the DPOY/TA/Tayshawn was an indictment on him w/o Russ? He put up 29/10/7 with Perkins/Thabo starting. If he had Steven Adams instead of Perkins that series goes 6/7. If Clippers had advanced a good chance okc wins that series with Clippers wing defense.

[trex_8063]

Pettit: Very impressive for his era and for his era, I think you can definitely argue he did more than Durant. His era was just a lot weaker than Durant's. His prime held up well - no "hanging on" years - 10 really good seasons. Held his own against Baylor/West just fine, worked with Hagan to knock off Russell's Celtics (albeit Russell only played 4 games) and was the best player in that series - dropped 50 in the final game. He held up very well even after Chamberlain & Russell joined the league & the league became progressively more athletic. He's a little bit lucky to get his chip - but that's part of how things go - ultimately he did get the chip and he DID anchor the league's best offense until the Big O & West came around. He'd be my 2nd choice here except for 1) the whole 50's thing & 2) I don't put as much stock in titles won from that era unless you beat one of Pettit, Russell, Chamberlain, West/Baylor, Robertson to do so. And he didn't actually BEAT Russell - that series was tied - but Boston had a massive point differential edge and nearly won Games 5 & 6 which lead me to believe that the Celtics would've won. Otherwise, see my comments from Mikan - you might as well have won the ACC (even after adjusting for health/nutritional benefits). I'll be voting for him before Mikan because of how he held up in a league that had those elite players in it - whereas I don't even think Mikan does that well if he is transported just 10 years ahead.

Excellent and concise post in general, btw (deserves more And1's than just the one I've given ).

I did want to reply to a couple aspects of this paragraph, though.....

I don't think I'd be so quick to put the same value/label on achievements in '58 (Pettit's title) and those of Mikan's career. Not that I think the difference is HUGE, necessarily; but it's significant, just because the game was evolving rapidly at that time.

Other than the installing of the shotclock, I'll quote a prior post of mine as evidence of the rapidly expanding player pool:

Spoiler:

Finally going to present some tidbits and data pertaining to the growth in national popularity of basketball from the mid-50's thru the 1970's, as well as a little data pertaining to integration (as I believe these things bear direct relevance to size/quality of player pool that the pro league can draw upon).
Will preface with the size of the BAA/NBA in # of teams (just noting the years in which it changed), since talent concentration/dilution is something that people often bring up. You can make judgments for yourself regarding the size of the league vs the likely size of the player pool (as judged by popularity indicators provided below).....


Size of League
'47 - 11 teams
'48 - decreased to 8 teams
'49 - increased to 12 teams
'50 - increased to 17 teams with the merger
'51 - decreased to 11 teams
'52 - decreased to 10 teams
'54 - decreased to 9 teams
'56 - decreased to 8 teams
'62 - increased to 9 teams
'67 - increased to 10 teams
'68 - increased to 12 teams (ABA comes into existence)
'69 - increased to 14 teams
'71 - increased to 17 teams
'75 - increased to 18 teams
'77 - increased to 22 teams with the merger
'81 - increased to 23 teams
'89 - increased to 25 teams
'90 - increased to 27 teams
'96 - increased to 29 teams
'05 - increased to 30 teams


Integration
The first black person played in an NBA game in the '51 season (though obviously league was still almost exclusively white, pretty much throughout the pre-shotclock era).

'55 - 7.7% black
'61 - 28.0% black
'67 - 49.6% black

^^^The above is from my own count, simply tabulating every single player who played even a single game in the given season, and noting whether was white or black. I believe it crossed the 50% mark in either '68 or '69.

According to Wikipedia, the proportion of black players peaked in '95 (at 82% black). It has since declined (with the influx of [mostly white] European and other global talents), generally hovering somewhere in the 74-77% range.


Pertaining to Popularity of the Game (in the US)
Average Attendance for Franchises (50's and 60's)
Hawks - 3,588 in '55; 6,829 in '67 (increase of 90.3% in 12 years)
Celtics - 7,027 in '55; 10,409 in '67 (increase of 48.1% in 12 years)
Pistons - 3,717 in '55; 6,459 in '67 (increase 73.8% in 12 years)
Warriors - 5,878 in '55; 7,727 in '67 (increase of 31.5% in 12 years)
Lakers - 5,388 in '51; 4,494 in '56 (decrease of 16.6% in 5 years; note '56 is a mostly Mikan-less year in which they weren't very good, whereas the were a champion dynasty team in '51).
Avg 11,154 in '67 (more than double over either '51 or '56: a 148.2% increase from '56 (in just 11 years), 107.0% increase over their championship '51 team).
Knicks - 8,565 in '55; 11,716 in '67 (increase of 36.8%)
Nationals (Sixers) - 5,276 in '51; 4,539 in '56 (decrease of 14.0%); but then 8,224 in '67 (81.2% increase in 11 years)
Royals - 2,478 in '55; 4,755 in '67 (91.9% increase in 12 years).


TV Contracts and Ratings
Nielson Ratings of Televised NBA games: In '61 --> 4.8. In '65 --> 6.0. In '68 --> 8.2 (proportion of viewing public increased by >70% in 7 years).

*The NBA's first TV contract was for $39,000 in 1954 (adjusted for inflation, that's about $350,000 today).
*The first nationally televised NBA Finals game was in 1956.
*In the years circa-1960, there was a precipitous rise in TV ratings (especially after 1962), gate receipts, and player salaries (wish I had a few more of the specifics written in my notes).
*ABC paid $650,000 for NBA TV rights in 1964 (adjusted for inflation, that's nearly $5.1 million today). This is one of the little factoids I found so amazing: the price on TV contracts didn't double, didn't triple but rather increased by 14-15x in a span of one decade (even accounting for inflation). I realize the huge increase in the number of households that actually own a television could be a big contributor to this, but not enough to account for that big a hike on the price-tag.
*A November 1966 issue of Advertising Age reported that average TV audience size for the early '67 season was up 26% from the previous year.
*ABC's TV contract for the '68 season was almost $1 million (~$6.9 million, adjusted for inflation......that's nearly 20x what it had been just 14 years previously).
*TV ratings on NBA games rose steadily from when ABC first got rights to the NBA (in 1964) thru 1970. William Marsano of the TV Guide predicted basketball would be "the sport of the 70's" because it's popularity had been rising so fast and steadily in the 1960's.
*ABC's TV contract in 1969 cost $3 million (adjusted for inflation that's nearly $20 million today......well over 50x what was paid 15 years earlier).
*In 1974, CBC paid $27 million for a 3-year contract ($9 million per year, adjusted for inflation is ~$40 million per year).



Anyway, I'll let you process this information in any way you like. Just putting it out there....

Also, wrt to Mikan, I'm going to echo/paraphrase what another poster has said recently in one of these threads that Mikan was a pioneer of sorts.

The evolution/improvement/expansion seen in the sport of basketball from the mid-late 50's and into the 60's was, in no small part, because of George Mikan. And while I realise that's a very nebulous thing and very difficult to assign value to, I personally don't think it should be cast aside as irrelevant.

[pandrade83]

Pettit: Very impressive for his era and for his era, I think you can definitely argue he did more than Durant. His era was just a lot weaker than Durant's. His prime held up well - no "hanging on" years - 10 really good seasons. Held his own against Baylor/West just fine, worked with Hagan to knock off Russell's Celtics (albeit Russell only played 4 games) and was the best player in that series - dropped 50 in the final game. He held up very well even after Chamberlain & Russell joined the league & the league became progressively more athletic. He's a little bit lucky to get his chip - but that's part of how things go - ultimately he did get the chip and he DID anchor the league's best offense until the Big O & West came around. He'd be my 2nd choice here except for 1) the whole 50's thing & 2) I don't put as much stock in titles won from that era unless you beat one of Pettit, Russell, Chamberlain, West/Baylor, Robertson to do so. And he didn't actually BEAT Russell - that series was tied - but Boston had a massive point differential edge and nearly won Games 5 & 6 which lead me to believe that the Celtics would've won. Otherwise, see my comments from Mikan - you might as well have won the ACC (even after adjusting for health/nutritional benefits). I'll be voting for him before Mikan because of how he held up in a league that had those elite players in it - whereas I don't even think Mikan does that well if he is transported just 10 years ahead.

Excellent and concise post in general, btw (deserves more And1's than just the one I've given ).

I did want to reply to a couple aspects of this paragraph, though.....

I don't think I'd be so quick to put the same value/label on achievements in '58 (Pettit's title) and those of Mikan's career. Not that I think the difference is HUGE, necessarily; but it's significant, just because the game was evolving rapidly at that time.

Other than the installing of the shotclock, I'll quote a prior post of mine as evidence of the rapidly expanding player pool:

Spoiler:

Finally going to present some tidbits and data pertaining to the growth in national popularity of basketball from the mid-50's thru the 1970's, as well as a little data pertaining to integration (as I believe these things bear direct relevance to size/quality of player pool that the pro league can draw upon).
Will preface with the size of the BAA/NBA in # of teams (just noting the years in which it changed), since talent concentration/dilution is something that people often bring up. You can make judgments for yourself regarding the size of the league vs the likely size of the player pool (as judged by popularity indicators provided below).....


Size of League
'47 - 11 teams
'48 - decreased to 8 teams
'49 - increased to 12 teams
'50 - increased to 17 teams with the merger
'51 - decreased to 11 teams
'52 - decreased to 10 teams
'54 - decreased to 9 teams
'56 - decreased to 8 teams
'62 - increased to 9 teams
'67 - increased to 10 teams
'68 - increased to 12 teams (ABA comes into existence)
'69 - increased to 14 teams
'71 - increased to 17 teams
'75 - increased to 18 teams
'77 - increased to 22 teams with the merger
'81 - increased to 23 teams
'89 - increased to 25 teams
'90 - increased to 27 teams
'96 - increased to 29 teams
'05 - increased to 30 teams


Integration
The first black person played in an NBA game in the '51 season (though obviously league was still almost exclusively white, pretty much throughout the pre-shotclock era).

'55 - 7.7% black
'61 - 28.0% black
'67 - 49.6% black

^^^The above is from my own count, simply tabulating every single player who played even a single game in the given season, and noting whether was white or black. I believe it crossed the 50% mark in either '68 or '69.

According to Wikipedia, the proportion of black players peaked in '95 (at 82% black). It has since declined (with the influx of [mostly white] European and other global talents), generally hovering somewhere in the 74-77% range.


Pertaining to Popularity of the Game (in the US)
Average Attendance for Franchises (50's and 60's)
Hawks - 3,588 in '55; 6,829 in '67 (increase of 90.3% in 12 years)
Celtics - 7,027 in '55; 10,409 in '67 (increase of 48.1% in 12 years)
Pistons - 3,717 in '55; 6,459 in '67 (increase 73.8% in 12 years)
Warriors - 5,878 in '55; 7,727 in '67 (increase of 31.5% in 12 years)
Lakers - 5,388 in '51; 4,494 in '56 (decrease of 16.6% in 5 years; note '56 is a mostly Mikan-less year in which they weren't very good, whereas the were a champion dynasty team in '51).
Avg 11,154 in '67 (more than double over either '51 or '56: a 148.2% increase from '56 (in just 11 years), 107.0% increase over their championship '51 team).
Knicks - 8,565 in '55; 11,716 in '67 (increase of 36.8%)
Nationals (Sixers) - 5,276 in '51; 4,539 in '56 (decrease of 14.0%); but then 8,224 in '67 (81.2% increase in 11 years)
Royals - 2,478 in '55; 4,755 in '67 (91.9% increase in 12 years).


TV Contracts and Ratings
Nielson Ratings of Televised NBA games: In '61 --> 4.8. In '65 --> 6.0. In '68 --> 8.2 (proportion of viewing public increased by >70% in 7 years).

*The NBA's first TV contract was for $39,000 in 1954 (adjusted for inflation, that's about $350,000 today).
*The first nationally televised NBA Finals game was in 1956.
*In the years circa-1960, there was a precipitous rise in TV ratings (especially after 1962), gate receipts, and player salaries (wish I had a few more of the specifics written in my notes).
*ABC paid $650,000 for NBA TV rights in 1964 (adjusted for inflation, that's nearly $5.1 million today). This is one of the little factoids I found so amazing: the price on TV contracts didn't double, didn't triple but rather increased by 14-15x in a span of one decade (even accounting for inflation). I realize the huge increase in the number of households that actually own a television could be a big contributor to this, but not enough to account for that big a hike on the price-tag.
*A November 1966 issue of Advertising Age reported that average TV audience size for the early '67 season was up 26% from the previous year.
*ABC's TV contract for the '68 season was almost $1 million (~$6.9 million, adjusted for inflation......that's nearly 20x what it had been just 14 years previously).
*TV ratings on NBA games rose steadily from when ABC first got rights to the NBA (in 1964) thru 1970. William Marsano of the TV Guide predicted basketball would be "the sport of the 70's" because it's popularity had been rising so fast and steadily in the 1960's.
*ABC's TV contract in 1969 cost $3 million (adjusted for inflation that's nearly $20 million today......well over 50x what was paid 15 years earlier).
*In 1974, CBC paid $27 million for a 3-year contract ($9 million per year, adjusted for inflation is ~$40 million per year).



Anyway, I'll let you process this information in any way you like. Just putting it out there....

Also, wrt to Mikan, I'm going to echo/paraphrase what another poster has said recently in one of these threads that Mikan was a pioneer of sorts.

The evolution/improvement/expansion seen in the sport of basketball from the mid-late 50's and into the 60's was, in no small part, because of George Mikan. And while I realise that's a very nebulous thing and very difficult to assign value to, I personally don't think it should be cast aside as irrelevant.

Thanks for making me smart on this, Trex. This is useful information for sure!

[pandrade83]

Durant did really well with Westbrook missing large chunks of the season in 2014, though. OKC was #6 Offense, #3 SRS type team. I don't think we'll ever get to see him solo-ing again, but he's proven otherwise. You can build around him with an Ok cast and do just fine. I don't feel this is just a shot % type bias, in any sense. I'd post further but Durant is an established figure and I feel you would need more than RAPM and eye test (btw, what you posted is super subjective) to really make a case against him.

Edit:

Since you follow elgee, etc.



From 2016 Offseason. Significantly more to KD.

You point to the 2014 RS as proof that KD could do great things without Westbrook...but then I'd point to the playoffs the year before without Westbrook, and how much KD and the Thunder struggled.

Wait, you think the 2013 playoffs series vs the DPOY/TA/Tayshawn was an indictment on him w/o Russ? He put up 29/10/7 with Perkins/Thabo starting. If he had Steven Adams instead of Perkins that series goes 6/7. If Clippers had advanced a good chance okc wins that series with Clippers wing defense.

Love this. If this is your shining example that Durant can't carry the load alone, I don't really think there's a leg to stand on. Those supporting casts have been so fragile that in order to beat a good team, you need strong performances out of both Westbrook & Durant.

[Sublime187]

Spoiler:

How is Mikan even being considered at this point when none of his contemporaries are even close to being selected. Doesn't that speak volumes of the terrible competition he had? Yes he beat what was in front of him but that should not allow him to be this high on this list. At least not in front of others guys currently being discussed.

Did ANY of his contemporaries dominate to the degree he did?

I don't have the statistical data for the NBL, but he apparently was the clear [not close] stand-out MVP of that league, and won two consecutive NBL titles, iirc. Then he joined the BAA/NBA.

In '49 he led the BAA in ppg and was 3rd in TS%, while the Lakers were 1st/12 in ppg allowed.
In '50 he led the league in ppg, was 4th in TS%, and the Lakers were 2nd/17 in ppg allowed.
**We don't have rebounds recorded, but he was likely 1st or 2nd in that as well. And they won the title both years.
In '51 he led the league in ppg, was 5th in TS%, 2nd in rpg, while the Lakers were 1st/11 in ppg allowed.
In '52: 2nd in ppg (+2.08% rTS), 1st in rpg, while anchoring the #1 defense (#1 by a pretty good margin that year, one of the greatest defenses in NBA history). Championship.
'53: 2nd in ppg (+3.51% rTS), 1st in rpg, again anchoring #1 defense. Championship.
'54: 4th in ppg (+2.39% rTS), 2nd in rpg, anchored #2 defense. Championship.


Which of his contemporaries came even close to this level of impact and dominance? That should speak volumes as to why he should be considered long before any of his contemporaries are.

This is a valid point but I would like to add. How many white players have dominated the game post Mikan era? How many white players today are top 10 players? The game has historically been dominated by black players. If black players are allowed to play in Mikan's era, does he still standout this way? I strongly believe he would not. I understand once again that he beat what was in front of him but is he even play anything close to the best players available at that time?

In my opinion, he should not be given extra points for being a pioneer either. Players that are better should be placed accordingly.

[70sFan]

Spoiler:

How is Mikan even being considered at this point when none of his contemporaries are even close to being selected. Doesn't that speak volumes of the terrible competition he had? Yes he beat what was in front of him but that should not allow him to be this high on this list. At least not in front of others guys currently being discussed.

Did ANY of his contemporaries dominate to the degree he did?

I don't have the statistical data for the NBL, but he apparently was the clear [not close] stand-out MVP of that league, and won two consecutive NBL titles, iirc. Then he joined the BAA/NBA.

In '49 he led the BAA in ppg and was 3rd in TS%, while the Lakers were 1st/12 in ppg allowed.
In '50 he led the league in ppg, was 4th in TS%, and the Lakers were 2nd/17 in ppg allowed.
**We don't have rebounds recorded, but he was likely 1st or 2nd in that as well. And they won the title both years.
In '51 he led the league in ppg, was 5th in TS%, 2nd in rpg, while the Lakers were 1st/11 in ppg allowed.
In '52: 2nd in ppg (+2.08% rTS), 1st in rpg, while anchoring the #1 defense (#1 by a pretty good margin that year, one of the greatest defenses in NBA history). Championship.
'53: 2nd in ppg (+3.51% rTS), 1st in rpg, again anchoring #1 defense. Championship.
'54: 4th in ppg (+2.39% rTS), 2nd in rpg, anchored #2 defense. Championship.


Which of his contemporaries came even close to this level of impact and dominance? That should speak volumes as to why he should be considered long before any of his contemporaries are.

This is a valid point but I would like to add. How many white players have dominated the game post Mikan era? How many white players today are top 10 players? The game has historically been dominated by black players. If black players are allowed to play in Mikan's era, does he still standout this way? I strongly believe he would not. I understand once again that he beat what was in front of him but is he even play anything close to the best players available at that time?

In my opinion, he should not be given extra points for being a pioneer either. Players that are better should be placed accordingly.

Bob Cousy was the best point guard until 1960 probably.
Bob Pettit was arguably the best PLAYER until 1960. He was top 5 until 1965 probably.
Dolph Schayes was still one of the best forwards in the league until he declined.
Paul Arizin won NBA title after Mikan retirement as the best player in the league and was one of the best players in the league until retirement.

Plenty of players Mikan played against did just fine in 1960s with much more black players.

[mikejames23]

Spoiler:

How is Mikan even being considered at this point when none of his contemporaries are even close to being selected. Doesn't that speak volumes of the terrible competition he had? Yes he beat what was in front of him but that should not allow him to be this high on this list. At least not in front of others guys currently being discussed.

Did ANY of his contemporaries dominate to the degree he did?

I don't have the statistical data for the NBL, but he apparently was the clear [not close] stand-out MVP of that league, and won two consecutive NBL titles, iirc. Then he joined the BAA/NBA.

In '49 he led the BAA in ppg and was 3rd in TS%, while the Lakers were 1st/12 in ppg allowed.
In '50 he led the league in ppg, was 4th in TS%, and the Lakers were 2nd/17 in ppg allowed.
**We don't have rebounds recorded, but he was likely 1st or 2nd in that as well. And they won the title both years.
In '51 he led the league in ppg, was 5th in TS%, 2nd in rpg, while the Lakers were 1st/11 in ppg allowed.
In '52: 2nd in ppg (+2.08% rTS), 1st in rpg, while anchoring the #1 defense (#1 by a pretty good margin that year, one of the greatest defenses in NBA history). Championship.
'53: 2nd in ppg (+3.51% rTS), 1st in rpg, again anchoring #1 defense. Championship.
'54: 4th in ppg (+2.39% rTS), 2nd in rpg, anchored #2 defense. Championship.


Which of his contemporaries came even close to this level of impact and dominance? That should speak volumes as to why he should be considered long before any of his contemporaries are.

This is a valid point but I would like to add. How many white players have dominated the game post Mikan era? How many white players today are top 10 players? The game has historically been dominated by black players. If black players are allowed to play in Mikan's era, does he still standout this way? I strongly believe he would not. I understand once again that he beat what was in front of him but is he even play anything close to the best players available at that time?

In my opinion, he should not be given extra points for being a pioneer either. Players that are better should be placed accordingly.

Oh come on now. Stockton has been voted in and Nash is soon to be here. Bird is a Top 10 all time player. Even if we assumed he was just one of the best white players, it's time he got in.