RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #29 (James Harden)

[iggymcfrack]

As none of my picks last time (Pettit, Pippen, Frazier, Miller), I expect I'll repeat my vote, but I find myself thinking that we don't seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about John Havlicek. I'm obviously not prepared to make the argument, but I wonder if I'm underrating him at the moment.

I don’t think so. Played in a weak era in a situation where he was set up to do well in POY points due to the teams he played on and still only ranks 53rd there overall behind Jimmy Butler and Artis Gilmore. In box stats, he’s 39th all-time in win shares and outside the top 100 in PER. If we’re looking at guys who won a lot, I think Ginobili peaked much higher and we’re still quite a ways from him being a serious candidate.

[70sFan]

As none of my picks last time (Pettit, Pippen, Frazier, Miller), I expect I'll repeat my vote, but I find myself thinking that we don't seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about John Havlicek. I'm obviously not prepared to make the argument, but I wonder if I'm underrating him at the moment.

Hondo's case is pretty straightforward to me - he's extremely consistent and durable performer who didn't have any notable weaknesses in his game and his longevity is just fantastic - extremely underrated to me. He started his career in 1962/63 as a very good rookie and you can argue he was a sub-all-star player 15 years later after the merger. Even without taking into account the fact that long careers weren't common back then, that's incredible I mean, he was the link between Bob Pettit and Moses Malone when you look at it that way.

Personally, I think he has at worst 9 all-nba seasons (1967-75) and if someone is higher on his 6th man years (1965-66), you can make a credible argument that he has more than that. On top of that, he doesn't have a single season I'd call irrelevant in career evaluation because he was always a solid contributor.

Here is how I view the candidates in terms of CORP evaluation:

Patrick Ewing:

Spoiler:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 1 (1990)
Weak MVP-: 4 (1989, 1992-94)
All-nba: 4 (1988, 1991, 1995, 1997)
All-star: 1 (1996)
Sub all-star: 4 (1986, 1987, 1998, 1999)
Role player: 2 (2000, 2001)

James Harden:

Spoiler:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 3 (2018-20)
Weak MVP: 2 (2015, 2017)
All-nba: 4 (2013, 2014, 2016, 2023)
All-star: 3 (2012, 2021, 2022)
Sub all-star: 0
Role player: 2 (2010, 2011)

Bob Pettit:

Spoiler:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 4 (1957-59, 1963)
All-nba: 5 (1956, 1960-62, 1964)
All-star: 2 (1955, 1965)
Sub all-star: 0
Role player: 0

Scottie Pippen:

Spoiler:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 4 (1991, 1994-96)
All-nba: 4 (1990, 1991, 1993, 1997)
All-star: 3 (1998-00)
Sub all-star: 2 (1989, 2001)
Role player: 3 (1988, 2002, 2003)

John Stockton:

Spoiler:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 0
All-nba: 11 (1988-98)
All-star: 4 (1999-02)
Sub all-star: 1 (2003)
Role player: 3 (1985-87)

John Havlicek:

Spoiler:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 0
Weak MVP: 3 (1971-73)
All-nba: 6 (1967-70, 1974-75)
All-star: 4 (1965, 1966, 1976, 1977)
Sub all-star: 2 (1964, 1978)
Role player: 1 (1963)

The ranking based on CORP evaluation:

James Harden
John Stockton
Patrick Ewing
(Artis Gilmore)
John Havlicek
(Reggie Miller)
Scottie Pippen
(Jason Kidd)
(Rick Barry)
(Anthony Davis)
Bob Pettit

Now, that's not how I exactly would rank them. I feel more and more comfortable with taking Ewing ahead of Stockton with time and I think I'd have Pettit higher than Barry and Kidd (maybe Pippen? not sure). I think that Harden should be already in (clearly the best peak with 3 legit MVP-level seasons and solid longevity at this point), but the rest is all in the same tier.

I think that Havlicek has the most all-star+ seasons among remaining candidates with the exception of Stockton. I like his longevity and postseason work clearly more than Pippen and I think he has a lot of non-boxscore value, which is why I don't care about things like PER or WS.

Regarding Hondo's offensive game, he's not the most efficient player but he brings so much value with his shooting and movement. I mean, once you factor in how he scored all these points (almost all halfcourt shots were jumpshots), he doesn't look nearly as inefficient as you may think (especially in the playoffs where he improves a ton). For people unfamiliar with his game, this is his postseason career-high highlight reel:

Watch on YouTube

His game was all about movement and quick decision making, that's something extremely valuable. He did a lot of things that weren't captured by the boxscore but helped his team to win games. For example, this is a game when 37 years old Havlicek faced prime Julius Erving in the playoffs. Despite poor shooting night, he contributed in other aspects of the game (defense, playmaking, ball-movement) and he arguably outplayed Julius for a Celtics win:

Watch on YouTube

I also made a short breakdown of Hondo's defensive abilities a few years ago:

Watch on YouTube

Havlicek is the type of defender who is heavily underrated by masses - smart communicator who didn't gamble much (at least in his prime, early on he gambled too much for my taste) and wasn't high-flying weakside shotblocker. Sturdy man defender with excellent hands who was athletic enough to bother the most athletic opponents.

I feel like Hondo should be considered in that 28-35 range easily, but I'm afraid he won't get enough interest to be that high. A shame, because he's often very overlooked in historical discussions. I think he deserves to be higher than Baylor or Barry.

[70sFan]

As none of my picks last time (Pettit, Pippen, Frazier, Miller), I expect I'll repeat my vote, but I find myself thinking that we don't seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about John Havlicek. I'm obviously not prepared to make the argument, but I wonder if I'm underrating him at the moment.

I don’t think so. Played in a weak era in a situation where he was set up to do well in POY points due to the teams he played on and still only ranks 53rd there overall behind Jimmy Butler and Artis Gilmore. In box stats, he’s 39th all-time in win shares and outside the top 100 in PER. If we’re looking at guys who won a lot, I think Ginobili peaked much higher and we’re still quite a ways from him being a serious candidate.

I don't know why him playing on Boston teams should give him many POY points. For the majority of his career he played with Bill Russell - a player who is considered a legit GOAT candidate, him playing next to such a player definitely didn't help him.

Bill Russell is also outside top 100 in PER, should we put him out of top 30? John Stockton is only 40th in career PER and you have him inside top 20. Garnett is 31st and you have him in top 5. I thought we put behind times where we considered career PER number as a relevant argument in top 100 discussion...

I think peak Manu vs peak Hondo is a legitimate discussion, but this is not a peak project. What makes you think that Manu has a better career than Havlicek? Is it only era thing?

[penbeast0]

I think the reason Pettit gets a playoff pass is the Hawks' ring in 1958. It's hard to call a guy a choker when in the close out game of the championship against the 11 titles in 13 years Celtics, he puts his team on his back and carried them to a 1 point victory with 50 points, 19 rebounds, and 19 of those points in the 4th quarter including 3 times in the last 6 minutes answering a Celtic bucket that brought them back to within 1 point when every single non-Hawks fan in the USA believed the Celtics would find a way to pull it out. (Whew, long sentence, let me take a breath.) Once you establish your "clutch" credentials like that, mere averages from the rest of your career has a hard time overcoming the narrative.

The caveat is that russell played only half that series and the celtics won the surrounding ones when russell played all the games(including one where the hawks had a 2-1 advantage).

To my knowledge no other russell opponent had the benefit of russell missing games.

There are explanations and a 1 point victory without Russell is probably a loss with Russell there, but my point was that that narrative of putting his team on his back and carrying it to a title counters the statistical narrative of a playoff failer.

[penbeast0]

...

I think peak Manu vs peak Hondo is a legitimate discussion, but this is not a peak project. What makes you think that Manu has a better career than Havlicek? Is it only era thing?

Era, efficiency (particularly in the Russell years where he was negative in TS ADD every year but 1, eye test, basically anything that starts with an e. On the other side of the argument, Havlicek played a lot more minutes, was more of an MVP candidate, more recognition when he was playing.

[70sFan]

...

I think peak Manu vs peak Hondo is a legitimate discussion, but this is not a peak project. What makes you think that Manu has a better career than Havlicek? Is it only era thing?

Era, efficiency (particularly in the Russell years where he was negative in TS ADD every year but 1, eye test, basically anything that starts with an e. On the other side of the argument, Havlicek played a lot more minutes, was more of an MVP candidate, more recognition when he was playing.

Well, scoring efficiency certainly is a point for Manu, although we have to remember that the majority of Ginobili efficiency is driven by two key aspects of his game - foul drawing and three point shooting. I am not sure how they translate across eras so different like 1970s vs 2000s, but I doubt Manu would be nearly as efficient in the 1970s. He wasn't elite inside finisher and his midrange game was his weakness throughout his prime. I'd also say that Manu didn't carry the same load on offensive end as peak Havlicek.

Eye-test is too general thing, I don't think Manu looks significantly better than Hondo on the tape, taking era differences into consideration. Manu was a very good defender, but Havlicek looks better to me. Havlicek is also very good in things that usually gave Manu advantage (off-ball play, secondary playmaking, decision making etc.). Then Havlicek also has a notable longevity and durability advantage (I hope nobody disagrees here).

I would be more happy to push Manu in top 40 with him playing more minutes, I don't think he's worse player than Havlicek. As it is though, I think John deserves to be put higher on top 100 list and it's the time to consider him (I have him around 30th spot personally).

[70sFan]

About Havlicek's inefficiency (especially in Russell's era) - well it's true that he often fluctuated around league average (often being below average early on) but we also should keep in mind that his postseason efficiency was significantly higher and it's not a matter of small sample in his case (like you know - winning 8 rings give you quite solid sample after all):

1965-75 Havlicek in RS: 21.0 adj pp75 on -0.3 rTS%
1965-75 Havlicek in PS: 21.5 adj pp75 on +2.9 rTS%

If we take only 2 best 3 seasons periods, his postseason scoring production looks very impressive actually:

1967-69 Havlicek in RS: 21.0 adj pp75 on -1.3 rTS%
1967-69 Havlicek in PS: 21.6 adj pp75 on +3.9 rTS%

1972-74 Havlicek in RS: 20.9 adj pp75 on +0.6 rTS%
1972-74 Havlicek in PS: 22.3 adj pp75 on +4.7 rTS%

I don't think I know a single player who improved his scoring production in postseason so consistently. As I said before, it's not the case of a very small sample - Havlicek played 127 postseason games during that sample. It doesn't make him an amazing first option scorer of course, but it does give me a pause at evaluating his scoring struggles in RS at face value.

[tsherkin]

Also, Cousy has a comparable resume to Pettit (1x MVP, 6x Champion, 10x All NBA First) and he likely won't even be top 50. It's not an era thing when players both right before and after them have already been voted in. The difference is playoffs performance.

Mmmm, but Cousy wasn't as good an era-relative scorer and faded worse with time. His scoring was dreadful from 58 onward, which was not the case for Pettit. And of course his titles come with Bill Russell, and Pettit never enjoyed that sort of team caliber. I don't find that quite the same situation.

But yes. I agree, there are some concerns with his postseason performances. Given the fairly small drop-offs in his shooting, scoring volume and every other aspect of the box score, it's not hard to wonder how much of that drop-off makes sense, and especially how much those last 16 games in his final two seasons play into that overall calculation. He led the playoffs in WS/48 in 1963, twice led the playoffs in PER and did well enough by OWS over his postseason career. He led the playoffs in OWS once and had 1.5+ 3 different occasions, peaking at 1.9 and sticking another 1.2 in there for good measure. He also led the playoffs in total games on 5 different occasions, which helps highlight the smaller sample of the older postseasons, particularly with those first-round byes and everything.

When he titled in 58, he played a playoff-high 11 games. That will affect things quite notably.

[falcolombardi]

I am not the biggest fan of james harden resiliency but a extremely solid decade of star-superstar play with great durability is a great sell at this level

Ewing is someone else who i debate around harden level, lower rs heights and durability so i prolly would pick james over him, albeit the difference in intangibles is rather notable. His profile is arguably easier to scale as a defensive lead + second scoring option too but i rather value the floorraising of harden in the modern offensive game and think the portability concerns are somewhat overstated as we saw in 2018

Pippen is the third guy i am looking at, his floorraising in 94 and early 95 looks as good as many other higher regarded "alphas" or whatever term we use for teams main giys but the sample size is tiny. His work alongside a big usage star as jordan was historically good for a second option adding a ton of off ball value while providing a surprising amount of offense for a not great scorer, also bonus points for providing dpoy-lite lift from a non interior position (may have been even more valuable in the modern game as a small ball 4 or even a 5 for stretches)

I see all these guys to have somewhat comparable lomgevity with harden having both the edge in durability but also the worst intangibles (ewing the best ones)

I pick harden for now without feeling completely sure as my pick

Go pippen as alternate for now close up with ewing

My nomination-reggie miller as an all time ps scoring force who led a offrnsive run in the level of much higher accolades/reputation stars with strong longevity and sramless fit into all kinds of teams thanks to a unmatched combo of height, foul drawing, shooting ability and off ball motor and acumen for a off-guard

My alt nom is kawhi for a incredibly high peak/prime marred by durability issues

[penbeast0]

...

One thing that always impressed me about Havlicek is how much he improved after most non-bigs hit their statistical prime and started sliding downward. If you look at the Russell years 62-63 to 68-69, he was a chucker with only one year at league average and 3 years of negative 100 TS Add or worse. To some degree this is because the Celtics offense allowed players to shoot quickly and push the pace rather than looking to get the ball to the more efficient players (basically outside of Sam Jones, there weren't any until they got Bailey Howell and Don Nelson) but it's still a bit damning.

But then look what happens as Hondo ages. From 196969-70 (age 29), an age where most players start declining a bit, Havlicek has a positive TS Add every remaining year of his career until his final two, basically the flip side of his early career. And, his assist % go up too; it certainly seems he is playing smarter. That's the part of his career where he was a very good player, a consistent All-Pro once he get help from Dave Cowens, Silas, White, and Chaney to form a new Celtics contender.

Even in the playoffs where yes, he was a consistent playoff riser throughout even his early career, his best years are from age 31-33 both in efficiency and assist% (except 68). He improved after age 30, a tribute to his intelligence and work ethic.

[lessthanjake]

Vote for #29: James Harden
Alternate Vote: Bob Pettit
Nomination: Kawhi Leonard
Alternate Nomination: Rick Barry

Harden had a period of time in which he had a decent argument for being the NBA’s best player. His box stats were outrageous, and some of his advanced impact numbers had him at the top of the league (others liked him less, to be fair). And he was a perennial MVP candidate. There is a concern about dropping in the playoffs, but honestly I just think his baseline is so far above most of these guys that playoff dropping doesn’t hold much water for me at this point. I just think Harden is the best player on the board.

The alternate vote is between Pettit and Pippen for me. I have concerns about the era Pettit played in, but ultimately I just think Pettit was more firmly at or near the very top of his era than Pippen was. Pettit won two MVPs and was top 5 in MVP voting in 7 seasons. Pippen never finished higher than 3rd in MVP voting and was top 5 only twice. I’m not actually convinced Pettit is the better basketball player, but I think he was a better player relative to his era, and while I discount his era, I think he barely pips ahead of Pippen for me here.

I’ve explained my rationale regarding these nominations in prior threads, so I’ll just generally refer back to those explanations.

[tsherkin]

Regarding Hondo's offensive game, he's not the most efficient player but he brings so much value with his shooting and movement. I mean, once you factor in how he scored all these points (almost all halfcourt shots were jumpshots), he doesn't look nearly as inefficient as you may think (especially in the playoffs where he improves a ton).

I remember reading the story of them slapping a pedometer on him to see how much he ran in a given game, heh.

He did grow more efficient over time. By 1970, he was a 104 TS+ player and stayed around 100, 101 for quite a while thereafter. Again, not a high-end efficiency guy, looked pretty good on the O boards, passed well, and he developed as a FT shooter quite nicely. At tempo, given as you say that he was mostly shooting jumpers, and that he wasn't getting tons of foul calls until 70 and later, his efficiency makes sense. And he was a playoff riser. He was a 49.2% TS guy in the RS, but 49.8% in the playoffs. Not a huge deal, but a 1-2% drop is pretty normal, so that maintenance is nice. In the first of the titles he won as a primary star, he was actually a significant riser. He was at 53.5% in 1974, which was +4.4% over playoff league average. In 76, he was at -1.6, though he was into his mid-30s and 2 years away from retiring at that point. For a similar look, MJ was at 52.4% in the 97 playoffs (2 years younger than 76 Hondo), which was -1.1% relative to postseason league average.

So, there's space to make an argument about how he played in the playoffs on O, at least, and some of the supporting things he did besides scoring.

You have the portability argument with him, and he leveraged his size well, at least in seasons for which we have the data, on the offensive glass. For a wing, anyway.

[Cavsfansince84]

Re: Hondo I don't really understand why there's almost no mention of his playoffs from 67-75. He might have been the best overall playoff performer in the league during that time minus Kareem. Not only high ppg but on really good efficiency most years with legit argument for finals mvp in both 68&69 along with 74. On top of being a strong playmaker and defender/leader.

[HeartBreakKid]

Re: Hondo I don't really understand why there's almost no mention of his playoffs from 67-75. He might have been the best overall playoff performer in the league during that time minus Kareem. Not only high ppg but on really good efficiency most years with legit argument for finals mvp in both 68&69 along with 74. On top of being a strong playmaker and defender/leader.

I think he's a strong contender for sure. I'd vote for him over Scottie tbh, not really sure what Scottie did that Hondo didn't do and more.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think he's a strong contender for sure. I'd vote for him over Scottie tbh, not really sure what Scottie did that Hondo didn't do and more.

I agree. Similar to Scottie but proved himself a lot more as a playoff performer and leader imo.

[penbeast0]

I remember reading the story of them slapping a pedometer on him to see how much he ran in a given game, heh.

He did grow more efficient over time. By 1970, he was a 104 TS+ player and stayed around 100, 101 for quite a while thereafter....

Where are you getting your TS Add numbers? I look at BB-R.com and I see his high season at 80 (1970), second best at 58 (71) and a rapid drop off from there with 3 1960s seasons over -100 and a career of -342.

[tsherkin]

I remember reading the story of them slapping a pedometer on him to see how much he ran in a given game, heh.

He did grow more efficient over time. By 1970, he was a 104 TS+ player and stayed around 100, 101 for quite a while thereafter....

Where are you getting your TS Add numbers? I look at BB-R.com and I see his high season at 80 (1970), second best at 58 (71) and a rapid drop off from there with 3 1960s seasons over -100 and a career of -342.

Not TS Add, TS+. 100*(TS%/lgTS%). Not the same stat.

EDIT to Add: I see him at 80.3, 57.7, 34.2, 15.6, 19.7, 9.5 and 12.0 from 1970 through 1976. Then -44.9 and -52.6 over his final two seasons. But he's also at 104, 103, 102, 101, 101, 101, and 101 TS+ over 70-76, and then 97 and 96 in his last two years.

[penbeast0]

Not TS Add, TS+. 100*(TS%/lgTS%). Not the same stat.

Thanks. So 100 is the league average line rather than being something impressive. Makes more sense.

[tsherkin]

Not TS Add, TS+. 100*(TS%/lgTS%). Not the same stat.

Thanks

We both agree that he wasn't super efficient aside from his peak, I was just illustrating that he had a little peak and then hovered around league average for another half-decade or so. And you'll notice that he scaled down his volume after 67, it just looks huge because he was a bloody monster as far as MPG, so it inflates because he was just always on the court. But he averaged < 20 FGA36 from 68 forward and you can project that he wasn't a heavy usage guy in general.

[trex_8063]

VOTE: James Harden
Alternate: John Stockton

For justification of voting Harden, I'd largely refer people to fp4's post (#20 in this particular thread), which had convinced me to maybe nudge him just ahead of Barkley (whose career had looked very very similar and comparable to me)......which perhaps puts him a sliver ahead of Stockton, whom I had essentially tied with Barkley on my ATL.

In my own crude CORP numbers (which use a standardized value for each "tier", regardless of era/size of league/SRS parity/etc; also I perhaps factor missed games into the picture more than most, fwiw) that I've started, the highest in raw value among players still on the table are (players not yet nominees in parentheses):

(Dolph Schayes)
Bob Pettit
James Harden
John Stockton
(Artis Gilmore)
(Elgin Baylor)
(Rick Barry)
Patrick Ewing
(Clyde Drexler)
(Jason Kidd)
(Kawhi Leonard)
(Anthony Davis)
(Russell Westbrook)
Scottie Pippen


But then I have another figure that includes a longevity calibration.......this is to counter the "fringe All-Star for 50 years being GOAT" type of concerns. With that in place, the order of the above players doesn't change except that Jason Kidd falls back one place (now in between Leonard and Davis); though the margins are a little different.


Then I have an [arbitrary/subjective, though not arrived at without some reflection] "era adjustment", which weights the longevity-calibrated CORP number against an 'strength of era' score. Here's the order in the numbers that result after that is applied:

James Harden [he's #1 among players not already voted on to the list]
John Stockton [he's #2; All-NBA and All-Star years, in their bunches, add up]
Bob Pettit
(Dolph Schayes)
Patrick Ewing
(Artis Gilmore)
(Clyde Drexler)
(Kawhi Leonard)
(Jason Kidd)
(Anthony Davis)
(Elgin Baylor)
(Russell Westbrook)
(Rick Barry)
Scottie Pippen

Pippen just has too few seasons playing at a truly high [All-NBA or better] level, imo. I have him credit for only six of those. '93 is enough of a down year that I only credit him as an "All-Star", and I discount '98 [which otherwise would be All-NBA] because he missed damn near half the rs.
He has other "legacy chips" that help him in my ranking; and my ATL is not strictly based on my CORP scores anyway. But just thought I'd share this.

Harden and Stockton are the tops of those remaining by my weighted CORP valuations.


Harden and Stockton also come out #1 and #2 [among those still on the table], practically tied, by some other BROAD gauges I look at which utilize box-inputs, WOWY, team record/success, and accolades set against an strength-of-era assessment; Pettit again comes in 3rd by most versions. Pippen shakes out better in these, fwiw (averaging 4th among candidates). Ewing shakes out 5th in those.


I've been impressed by Stockton's impact profile (especially considering it's largely from his post-prime), which makes it tougher.
Traditionally, I'd rank Stockton ahead, though I'm not certain. And considering sentiment and momentum, I'm leveraing more support behind Harden for this round. Once he's gone, Stockton will definitely be my top pick.


Nomination: Elgin Baylor
Alt nom: Jason Kidd

I'm content with Kawhi or Gilmore at this point, too, and may switch for strategic reasons later.