RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Paul Pierce)

[ShaqAttac]

i dont really know who to vote for but good args have been made for wb impact and he was maybe #1 on better teams than dwights and won an mvp. drexler teams also werent as good and the arg for him isnt that good. wb vs kobe is dumb but idt drexler is kobe so i guess ill go

VOTE

1. Dwight
idk his impact but it probably good considering he was a great defender who scored a bunch and beat peak bron. i was gonna vote dray but choking and punching ppl is not cool and its dumb people are using behavior against dwight while hyping dray

2. Draymond
his impact looks good and he wins a bunch. args for him bein able to carry teams are better than args against tbh

imma nom

Walton
chip and mvp and swept kareem and played more minutes than embid. also crazy impact

[MiamiBulls]

Against Who?

He’s taken games over with a much much superior team in in almost all instances where he’s had an opportunity to do this, while ALWAYS surrounded by competent defenders[ Which is necessary for him because his floor raising defensively is weak as a talent & Offensively is non-existent]

It’s easy to give him Credit for having a “impact” which led to GSW’s success when the team he’s on(GSW) has a extreme advantage over the teams they’re playing; Which you could attest to “because Draymond is on the team” but realistically if you took Draymond off the ‘17 and ‘18 Teams and replaced him with an championship starting quality player( WHO IS MUCH WORSE THEN A TOP 100 CAREER PLAYER), The warriors WOULD STILL WIN.

Draymond taking over a game when his team is superior & there’s low stakes for his team considering the leverage his team always asserts over the other team.

You saw Draymond without Curry for a full season, albeit he had some questionable personnel beside him;

Synopsis: If you’re a GM in what Situation do you want Draymond over Iverson, Maybe if you’re an established contender already with elite scoring options? Maybe 2-3 teams out of 30 in the NBA?

If I’m taking Iverson in 27/28 out of 30 instances as a GM there’s no way I can truly believe that Draymond as a career deserves to be over Iverson.

Against who? You're not aware that Draymond Green is a dominant playoff player? He has dominated teams and has helped win series while Curry wasn't even present. I'm not sure how you can watch basketball and not see his imprint on the game - do you really think everyone ranging from nerds on this forum to mainstream media talks about him for zero reason?

I don't get your point about impact or why you're putting in quotes. Impact means what players are more impactful at helping their team win. By what other measure would someone be a "better" basektball player? Better at playing 1 on 1 or half-court?

What do you mean by the warriors would win without him? The 2017 Warriors COULD win without him, they are the most stacked team of all time. You could literally remove Kevin Durant from the 2017 Warriors and they "would still win".


Draymond Green already won titles outside of 2017 and 2018. They certainly would not win any titles or go to the finals without him in 2015,16, 19 and 23.

Also, all you have done is talk about Green but not Iverson. Iverson has been on many lotto teams. Iverson has also only beaten teams that his teams were more talented than. Iverson has often been out played by the opposing teams best player. Iverson was also often out played by Mutombo in their iconic playoff run. If you took Iverson off the Nuggets and replaced him with Chauncey Billups the Nuggets would they become worse or better? The answer was better.

If I am GM on nearly any team I would pick Draymond Green because he is a better player and thus a better piece for the future. I would only pick Allen Iverson if I was playing for a franchise that made no money and this was the 90s where having a big draw made a tangible difference in the money your franchise made.

The rebuttal I assume is that Draymond Green would suck if he was just your only good guy, even though your team would suck if you only had Allen Iverson also. Maybe Iverson is better at carrying a terrible team to a below .500 record, but I don't see that as very important. The Sixers during the run that everyone talks about were not a terrible team, in case you are going to go there.

If you are trying to build a contender, which is the point, then Draymond Green is better. He is the best defensive player of his generation and a good playmaker. Allen Iverson when scaled back is like a 25-26 PPG caliber scorer on decent efficiency with low turnovers. He doesn't give your team any thing else, that isn't really superior to DPOY. Carmelo Anthony isn't superior to Dikembe Mutumbo.

Working backwards because I’m on a phone,

I think the biggest difference in comparison( Melo v Mutombo) V (Draymond V Iverson)

Mutombo is a pretty traditional rim protector who regardless of circumstance will always hold a tremendous amount of value based on him just guarding the 5 and being around the rim for the entire duration of the game.

A LOT Draymond’s value defensively comes from the context of his teammates( Having good enough perimeter defenders & a Solid Rim Presence around him so he can do his OLB things)

If I had to articulate the difference it’s the difference between a Great Defensive Tackle who can control the game just by merit of presence and a GREAT OLB who can really choke your defense out and force you not to do certain things on the field.

But a great OLB can be neutered by poor line up front, and end up giving consistently a solid 4 Yard gains because his Line is weak. This isn’t a fault of the OLB because it’s an impact sport by position and he can only do so much.

Rim Protectors/ Rim Presence have the D-Line presence I was referring to, While Draymond is a OLB who needs his line to stifle the action a bit so he can be effective.

Sorry for the long rant but the point is there’s so many contextual and situational pieces that Draymond needs to be successful I find it hard to value his impact at a similar level to traditional All time Rim protectors when they don’t have the same level of conditions to clear to have Elite Impact.

—
As for definition of impact, impact isn’t who’s better or worse it’s who has a bigger influence on the game.

Being impactful is important and ultimately what you want in a player but it’s also something that is extremely conditional and also based on the 4 teammates around you and the 5 players you’re playing against, and just because you as a player exhibit the most influence it does not mean you’re the best player on the team; It just means the variables available make you potentially a more important player

Situational Importance and Player-Quality are not synonymous.

In Raptor Analytics( 538); Alex Caruso was the 9th most impactful player, That means over the course of the season based on the opportunity he was given he was the most important player for his teams success; But that doesn’t mean he’s the best player on the bulls.

Importance V Quality of Player

More Examples in the Season(22-23)

JRUE Holiday #12th(5.7) > Giannis #15th( 5.4)
FVV#17th(+5) > Siakam#108(+.6)

Mike Conley #57(+2.3)>Rudy Gobert #68(+1.8)
__
Your impact is heavily dependent on the opportunity around you, it isn’t because of Draymond solely he’s a impactful player; He’s impactful because Draymond and his teammates allow him to have a highly successful level of impact while he’s on the floor.


My last part would be basketball is still a heavy matchup sport, characters and skill sets mix and mesh in a way that can aid or hurt your team; Which is why ceiling raising and floor raising alike are valued so highly when referring to a quality of a player.


Draymond is a Great player and was/is ultimate “Glue Guy” in the GSW Dynasty, but that doesn’t mean the glue is the supporting beams of the Dynasty; He is the glue that holds it together and you seem to be accrediting a lot of the support to the glue

2015-2018 Draymond was not some one-way Mutombo-esque Defensive star. He was more like a much better version of Peak Jason Kidd.

For example, in the first 2 Rounds of the 2017 Playoffs Draymond averaged: 15 PTS per/75 9 REBS per/75 9 ASTS per/75 5 STOCKS per/75 on eFG 64% TS 66%

Excellent connective passing, with hyper efficient scoring along with his standard Elite Defense

Allen Iverson in contrast has had negative scoring Efficiency against every single Defensive Opponent in his entire Playoffs career outside of the 2003 v Hornets & 2005 v Pistons.

[WintaSoldier1]

Against who? You're not aware that Draymond Green is a dominant playoff player? He has dominated teams and has helped win series while Curry wasn't even present. I'm not sure how you can watch basketball and not see his imprint on the game - do you really think everyone ranging from nerds on this forum to mainstream media talks about him for zero reason?

I don't get your point about impact or why you're putting in quotes. Impact means what players are more impactful at helping their team win. By what other measure would someone be a "better" basektball player? Better at playing 1 on 1 or half-court?

What do you mean by the warriors would win without him? The 2017 Warriors COULD win without him, they are the most stacked team of all time. You could literally remove Kevin Durant from the 2017 Warriors and they "would still win".


Draymond Green already won titles outside of 2017 and 2018. They certainly would not win any titles or go to the finals without him in 2015,16, 19 and 23.

Also, all you have done is talk about Green but not Iverson. Iverson has been on many lotto teams. Iverson has also only beaten teams that his teams were more talented than. Iverson has often been out played by the opposing teams best player. Iverson was also often out played by Mutombo in their iconic playoff run. If you took Iverson off the Nuggets and replaced him with Chauncey Billups the Nuggets would they become worse or better? The answer was better.

If I am GM on nearly any team I would pick Draymond Green because he is a better player and thus a better piece for the future. I would only pick Allen Iverson if I was playing for a franchise that made no money and this was the 90s where having a big draw made a tangible difference in the money your franchise made.

The rebuttal I assume is that Draymond Green would suck if he was just your only good guy, even though your team would suck if you only had Allen Iverson also. Maybe Iverson is better at carrying a terrible team to a below .500 record, but I don't see that as very important. The Sixers during the run that everyone talks about were not a terrible team, in case you are going to go there.

If you are trying to build a contender, which is the point, then Draymond Green is better. He is the best defensive player of his generation and a good playmaker. Allen Iverson when scaled back is like a 25-26 PPG caliber scorer on decent efficiency with low turnovers. He doesn't give your team any thing else, that isn't really superior to DPOY. Carmelo Anthony isn't superior to Dikembe Mutumbo.

Working backwards because I’m on a phone,

I think the biggest difference in comparison( Melo v Mutombo) V (Draymond V Iverson)

Mutombo is a pretty traditional rim protector who regardless of circumstance will always hold a tremendous amount of value based on him just guarding the 5 and being around the rim for the entire duration of the game.

A LOT Draymond’s value defensively comes from the context of his teammates( Having good enough perimeter defenders & a Solid Rim Presence around him so he can do his OLB things)

If I had to articulate the difference it’s the difference between a Great Defensive Tackle who can control the game just by merit of presence and a GREAT OLB who can really choke your defense out and force you not to do certain things on the field.

But a great OLB can be neutered by poor line up front, and end up giving consistently a solid 4 Yard gains because his Line is weak. This isn’t a fault of the OLB because it’s an impact sport by position and he can only do so much.

Rim Protectors/ Rim Presence have the D-Line presence I was referring to, While Draymond is a OLB who needs his line to stifle the action a bit so he can be effective.

Sorry for the long rant but the point is there’s so many contextual and situational pieces that Draymond needs to be successful I find it hard to value his impact at a similar level to traditional All time Rim protectors when they don’t have the same level of conditions to clear to have Elite Impact.

—
As for definition of impact, impact isn’t who’s better or worse it’s who has a bigger influence on the game.

Being impactful is important and ultimately what you want in a player but it’s also something that is extremely conditional and also based on the 4 teammates around you and the 5 players you’re playing against, and just because you as a player exhibit the most influence it does not mean you’re the best player on the team; It just means the variables available make you potentially a more important player

Situational Importance and Player-Quality are not synonymous.

In Raptor Analytics( 538); Alex Caruso was the 9th most impactful player, That means over the course of the season based on the opportunity he was given he was the most important player for his teams success; But that doesn’t mean he’s the best player on the bulls.

Importance V Quality of Player

More Examples in the Season(22-23)

JRUE Holiday #12th(5.7) > Giannis #15th( 5.4)
FVV#17th(+5) > Siakam#108(+.6)

Mike Conley #57(+2.3)>Rudy Gobert #68(+1.8)
__
Your impact is heavily dependent on the opportunity around you, it isn’t because of Draymond solely he’s a impactful player; He’s impactful because Draymond and his teammates allow him to have a highly successful level of impact while he’s on the floor.


My last part would be basketball is still a heavy matchup sport, characters and skill sets mix and mesh in a way that can aid or hurt your team; Which is why ceiling raising and floor raising alike are valued so highly when referring to a quality of a player.


Draymond is a Great player and was/is ultimate “Glue Guy” in the GSW Dynasty, but that doesn’t mean the glue is the supporting beams of the Dynasty; He is the glue that holds it together and you seem to be accrediting a lot of the support to the glue

2015-2018 Draymond was not some one-way Mutombo-esque Defensive star. He was more like a much better version of Peak Jason Kidd.

For example, in the first 2 Rounds of the 2017 Playoffs Draymond averaged: 15 PTS per/75 9 REBS per/75 9 ASTS per/75 5 STOCKS per/75 on eFG 64% TS 66%

Excellent connective passing, with hyper efficient scoring along with his standard Elite Defense

Allen Iverson in contrast has had negative scoring Efficiency against every single Defensive Opponent in his entire Playoffs career outside of the 2003 v Hornets & 2005 v Pistons.

It’s tough to look at this post with an unbias view.

Per 75 Numbers over a 8 Game Sample, In two series where GSW won both times 4-0 very convincingly is tough to use as ample evidence… Paired with the fact he had 3 offensive superstars to rack up a great efficiency because there’s No offensive pressure on you.

It’s not very convincing when you use a 8 game sample when you refer back to my earlier point in the post about having 0 pressure because of Leverage

[OhayoKD]

Really surprised at how drastically that graph changes (80+ to almost zero for Reed, 85 to 30 for Lanier) when apparently 4 of the 5 years are the same for each new data point. Any explanation?

Sample-size. Per-season that's very tiny compared to say, an 82-games or 21 games in a single-year.

I think Moonbeam's psuedo-rapm process might be the gold-standard, but it's still psuedo rapm built off data with 200 times less granularity and even RAPM's value is mostly about frequency/repititon over longer stints, not actual peak impact in specific years.

[OhayoKD]

Against Who?

He’s taken games over with a much much superior team in in almost all instances where he’s had an opportunity to do this, while ALWAYS surrounded by competent defenders[ Which is necessary for him because his floor raising defensively is weak as a talent & Offensively is non-existent]

It’s easy to give him Credit for having a “impact” which led to GSW’s success when the team he’s on(GSW) has a extreme advantage over the teams they’re playing; Which you could attest to “because Draymond is on the team” but realistically if you took Draymond off the ‘17 and ‘18 Teams and replaced him with an championship starting quality player( WHO IS MUCH WORSE THEN A TOP 100 CAREER PLAYER), The warriors WOULD STILL WIN.

Draymond taking over a game when his team is superior & there’s low stakes for his team considering the leverage his team always asserts over the other team.

You saw Draymond without Curry for a full season, albeit he had some questionable personnel beside him;

Synopsis: If you’re a GM in what Situation do you want Draymond over Iverson, Maybe if you’re an established contender already with elite scoring options? Maybe 2-3 teams out of 30 in the NBA?

If I’m taking Iverson in 27/28 out of 30 instances as a GM there’s no way I can truly believe that Draymond as a career deserves to be over Iverson.

Against who? You're not aware that Draymond Green is a dominant playoff player? He has dominated teams and has helped win series while Curry wasn't even present. I'm not sure how you can watch basketball and not see his imprint on the game - do you really think everyone ranging from nerds on this forum to mainstream media talks about him for zero reason?

I don't get your point about impact or why you're putting in quotes. Impact means what players are more impactful at helping their team win. By what other measure would someone be a "better" basektball player? Better at playing 1 on 1 or half-court?

What do you mean by the warriors would win without him? The 2017 Warriors COULD win without him, they are the most stacked team of all time. You could literally remove Kevin Durant from the 2017 Warriors and they "would still win".


Draymond Green already won titles outside of 2017 and 2018. They certainly would not win any titles or go to the finals without him in 2015,16, 19 and 23.

Also, all you have done is talk about Green but not Iverson. Iverson has been on many lotto teams. Iverson has also only beaten teams that his teams were more talented than. Iverson has often been out played by the opposing teams best player. Iverson was also often out played by Mutombo in their iconic playoff run. If you took Iverson off the Nuggets and replaced him with Chauncey Billups the Nuggets would they become worse or better? The answer was better.

If I am GM on nearly any team I would pick Draymond Green because he is a better player and thus a better piece for the future. I would only pick Allen Iverson if I was playing for a franchise that made no money and this was the 90s where having a big draw made a tangible difference in the money your franchise made.

The rebuttal I assume is that Draymond Green would suck if he was just your only good guy, even though your team would suck if you only had Allen Iverson also. Maybe Iverson is better at carrying a terrible team to a below .500 record, but I don't see that as very important. The Sixers during the run that everyone talks about were not a terrible team, in case you are going to go there.

If you are trying to build a contender, which is the point, then Draymond Green is better. He is the best defensive player of his generation and a good playmaker. Allen Iverson when scaled back is like a 25-26 PPG caliber scorer on decent efficiency with low turnovers. He doesn't give your team any thing else, that isn't really superior to DPOY. Carmelo Anthony isn't superior to Dikembe Mutumbo.

Working backwards because I’m on a phone,

I think the biggest difference in comparison( Melo v Mutombo) V (Draymond V Iverson)

Mutombo is a pretty traditional rim protector who regardless of circumstance will always hold a tremendous amount of value based on him just guarding the 5 and being around the rim for the entire duration of the game.

A LOT Draymond’s value defensively comes from the context of his teammates( Having good enough perimeter defenders & a Solid Rim Presence around him so he can do his OLB things)

If I had to articulate the difference it’s the difference between a Great Defensive Tackle who can control the game just by merit of presence and a GREAT OLB who can really choke your defense out and force you not to do certain things on the field.

But a great OLB can be neutered by poor line up front, and end up giving consistently a solid 4 Yard gains because his Line is weak. This isn’t a fault of the OLB because it’s an impact sport by position and he can only do so much.

Rim Protectors/ Rim Presence have the D-Line presence I was referring to, While Draymond is a OLB who needs his line to stifle the action a bit so he can be effective.

Draymond is far and away the primary paint-protector for the warriors. He also is an all-time help defender and is one of the best defensive coordinators in history. All three correlate very well with being able to carry otherwise bad defenders.

The idea Draymond isn't an optimal defensive floor-raiser is just an argument on a badly justified theory. We have seen Draymond have massive defensive impact on teams that were outright terrible defensively without(2021) so reality would seem to contradict you.

2015 Lebron is a very discount version of draymond defensively and was able to lead an elite -5 playoff defense with a cast of players who were nuetral or negative at the pre-cleveland spots.

Only protecting the rim is not as good for floor-raising as being able to protect the rim and coordinate teammates and being good on the perimiter.

Draymond is the OLB and the Tackle and the defensive coordinator. His presence allows teammates to rack up weakside blocks far more than the reverse happens. His IQ also can turn otherwise negative/neutral defensive presences into good ones.

That's why his impact, which is almost all coming from the defensive side, is so high. And that is something which translates to good teams and bad.

Defenders like Draymond have a much better track-record of carrying defenses than defenders like Mutembo, especially in the playoffs.

[WintaSoldier1]

Against who? You're not aware that Draymond Green is a dominant playoff player? He has dominated teams and has helped win series while Curry wasn't even present. I'm not sure how you can watch basketball and not see his imprint on the game - do you really think everyone ranging from nerds on this forum to mainstream media talks about him for zero reason?

I don't get your point about impact or why you're putting in quotes. Impact means what players are more impactful at helping their team win. By what other measure would someone be a "better" basektball player? Better at playing 1 on 1 or half-court?

What do you mean by the warriors would win without him? The 2017 Warriors COULD win without him, they are the most stacked team of all time. You could literally remove Kevin Durant from the 2017 Warriors and they "would still win".


Draymond Green already won titles outside of 2017 and 2018. They certainly would not win any titles or go to the finals without him in 2015,16, 19 and 23.

Also, all you have done is talk about Green but not Iverson. Iverson has been on many lotto teams. Iverson has also only beaten teams that his teams were more talented than. Iverson has often been out played by the opposing teams best player. Iverson was also often out played by Mutombo in their iconic playoff run. If you took Iverson off the Nuggets and replaced him with Chauncey Billups the Nuggets would they become worse or better? The answer was better.

If I am GM on nearly any team I would pick Draymond Green because he is a better player and thus a better piece for the future. I would only pick Allen Iverson if I was playing for a franchise that made no money and this was the 90s where having a big draw made a tangible difference in the money your franchise made.

The rebuttal I assume is that Draymond Green would suck if he was just your only good guy, even though your team would suck if you only had Allen Iverson also. Maybe Iverson is better at carrying a terrible team to a below .500 record, but I don't see that as very important. The Sixers during the run that everyone talks about were not a terrible team, in case you are going to go there.

If you are trying to build a contender, which is the point, then Draymond Green is better. He is the best defensive player of his generation and a good playmaker. Allen Iverson when scaled back is like a 25-26 PPG caliber scorer on decent efficiency with low turnovers. He doesn't give your team any thing else, that isn't really superior to DPOY. Carmelo Anthony isn't superior to Dikembe Mutumbo.

Working backwards because I’m on a phone,

I think the biggest difference in comparison( Melo v Mutombo) V (Draymond V Iverson)

Mutombo is a pretty traditional rim protector who regardless of circumstance will always hold a tremendous amount of value based on him just guarding the 5 and being around the rim for the entire duration of the game.

A LOT Draymond’s value defensively comes from the context of his teammates( Having good enough perimeter defenders & a Solid Rim Presence around him so he can do his OLB things)

If I had to articulate the difference it’s the difference between a Great Defensive Tackle who can control the game just by merit of presence and a GREAT OLB who can really choke your defense out and force you not to do certain things on the field.

But a great OLB can be neutered by poor line up front, and end up giving consistently a solid 4 Yard gains because his Line is weak. This isn’t a fault of the OLB because it’s an impact sport by position and he can only do so much.

Rim Protectors/ Rim Presence have the D-Line presence I was referring to, While Draymond is a OLB who needs his line to stifle the action a bit so he can be effective.

Draymond is far and away the primary paint-protector for the warriors. He also is an all-time help defender and is one of the best defensive coordinators in history. All three correlate very well with being able to carry otherwise bad defenders.

The idea Draymond isn't an optimal defensive floor-raiser is just an argument on a badly justified theory. We have seen Draymond have massive defensive impact on teams that were outright terrible defensively without(2021) so reality would seem to contradict you.

2015 Lebron is a very discount version of draymond defensively and was able to lead an elite -5 playoff defense with a cast of players who were nuetral or negative at the pre-cleveland spots.

Only protecting the rim is not as good for floor-raising as being able to protect the rim and coordinate teammates and being good on the perimiter.

Draymond is the OLB and the Tackle and the defensive coordinator. His presence allows teammates to rack up weakside blocks far more than the reverse happens. His IQ also can turn otherwise negative/neutral defensive presences into good ones.

That's why his impact, which is almost all coming from the defensive side, is so high. And that is something which translates to good teams and bad.

Defenders like Draymond have a much better track-record of carrying defenses than defenders like Mutembo, especially in the playoffs.

It’s obvious you aren’t ready to even consider changing your stance on Draymond.

You tried to give Draymond double jeopardy credit for being a help side defender [ Weak/Strong Side Rotation/Rim Protection is apart of Help-Defense]

And you also didn’t read my post about the conditions nessecary for Draymond to be successful because you still accredit Draymond with his Coordination abilities which has inherent linkage to the players around him, it is a more dependent attribute then other basketball abilities; Which I refer to in my post about my grievances but doesn’t change the actual impact of his ability.

You also conveniently choose to use 2021 as your choice for Draymond’s floor raising/impact capture defensively, But chose to ignore/exclude 2019-2020 when he had much less defensive help and obviously much less success.

You then use a all time player( Lebron) as a comparison to try and allure the audience with another name that captures lots of Grace within the mind.

You also allude to Draymond as a game-breaking figure with “He is the OLB and DE, and Coordinator”

This is not right.

The Neutral/Negative, Into Good Situation is true in fair context.

Lastly the reason we’re arguing this is because there aren’t many defenders like Draymond who have to clear an ample amount of conditions relative to his other Defensive Goat Peers.

Swipe at another poster removed. Keep it civil please. If you don't can't keep civil because of another posters takes, put them on ignore.

[penbeast0]

...
Defenders like Draymond have a much better track-record of carrying defenses than defenders like Mutembo, especially in the playoffs.

Who do you consider the 3 defenders most like Draymond?

Who would be 3 defenders most like Mutombo?

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Paul Pierce
Didn't expect to be voting for Pierce this early, but the impact numbers aren't that much worse than Embiid or Draymond and the minutes difference is stark. 46K minutes for Pierce compared to 22K for Draymond and 13K for Embiid. So over 2:1 on Draymond and over 3.5:1 on Embiid. That's a huge advantage for a guy who had some pretty high highs.

Alternate: Joel Embiid
His peak is incredibly impressive. Would be the all-time NBA leader in PER if he had enough minutes to qualify. Has managed a tremendous on/off in the playoffs too even while often dinged by injuries.

Nominate: Gary Payton
27th all-time in VORP and 30th all-time in win shares while being one of the best man defenders of all-time. Really brought impact in all three phases of the game.

[Samurai]

Vote for #47: Kevin McHale. Six-time All Defensive Team member , three of them on the first team. Was also an excellent low post shooter with an unstoppable plethora of moves. I may be in the minority on this but I also think he could have been a decent 3-point shooter if he had been raised in today's game; he made 36% in 90-91 on over 100 attempts and was a career 80% FT shooter. Not the quickest defender on the perimeter but he made up for it with his freakish wingspan.

Alternate Vote: Dwight Howard. If I were starting a team, he certainly wouldn't be the first center I would pick. But there have now been about a dozen centers chosen so I think Howard should get some serious consideration. DPOY for three consecutive years should be reason enough. But he was also an elite rebounder, leading the league in rebounds/game 5 times and finished in the top ten 13 times. Averaged 20+ points/game 4 times and finished in the top twenty in TS% 9 times despite being a poor FT shooter. He has had some durability issues with injuries, his propensity to draw technicals isn't helpful and he brings some locker room drama, all of which has kept me from nominating him thus far. But I think we are at a point where he deserves some consideration.

Nomination: Paul Arizin. If I gave more credit to being a trailblazer/innovator, he would have been nominated sooner. Entering the league in 1950 when the game was based on 2-hand set shots and very slow offensive sets, Arizin introduced a weapon that continues to be a mainstay in the NBA today: the jump shot. In addition to his shooting proficiency (led the league in FG% once and finished in the top five in TS% 5 times), he was also known as a great leaper, slick ballhandling and tough defense. And while he wasn't an elite rebounder at only 6-4, he still managed to finish in the top twenty in rebounds/game 6 times.

Alternate nomination: Bob Lanier. Just a personal favorite of mine. Had the second best low post hook shot I've ever seen. Feathery soft mid-range jumper. If I had to forge a guess, I could see him being able to shoot 3's like Chris Bosh if he grew up in a more modern era. Decent but not elite rebounder, he set picks that made defenders feel as if they ran into a parked truck.

[trex_8063]

Nomination: Paul Arizin. If I gave more credit to being a trailblazer/innovator, he would have been nominated sooner. Entering the league in 1950 when the game was based on 2-hand set shots and very slow offensive sets, Arizin introduced a weapon that continues to be a mainstay in the NBA today: the jump shot.

I've heard others state this, and I just want to make something clear: Arizin did NOT introduce the jump-shot to basketball. It had been introduced like a DECADE before he even played in the NBA by this man:



......Kenny Sailors.


In fact, here is a photo of him taking one (photo taken several years before Arizin played his first NBA):




It might be fair to say Arizin helped greatly in popularizing the shot; but he most certainly did NOT introduce it.


Side-note: I feel like this serves as a nice retort for nay-sayers who post a photo of some random player from circa-1950 and say something to the effect of "this doesn't 'look' like an professional athlete"; as apposed to this phenomenal looking specimen:



Or this one:




Kenny Sailors had a serious build on him (in an era that neither encouraged nor facilitated weight training for basketball players), and check out the elevation on that jump shot (with those crappy-a** shoes of the 1940s, too).


For people who like to say that players from that era didn't know how to dribble........aside from pointing out the obvious differences in how ball-handling was officiated, I'd ask you to closely scrutinize the ball in the first photo above. Notice how it has essentially crumpled and deformed upon impact with the floor?
The ball itself was of much lower quality and FAR more unpredictable in its bounce in those days. Hell, prior to 1952 it was an actual inflated bladder sewn into a leather bag (an actual sewn seam---much like you see on a football---across one side).

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Draymond Green



Saying something relevant to the direction things have taken to start the '23-24 season:

I think Draymond makes it really clear why it's so hard to draw the line between on-court and off-court impact when we see him get violent on the court. There's good and bad to green, and figuring out how to reconcile all of that makes ranking even harder than it already is evaluating a guy impact really isn't well-captured by the box score.

What I'm most firm on is that Draymond is a generational-level defender, and being the anchor of a defense that was critical in enabling a dynastic run means a lot to me regardless of everything else.

I don't think there's any doubt that Draymond's level of achievement in the NBA would vary drastically depending on where he ended up. Now, I think that's mostly about a) coaches not recognizing how impactful he can be, and b) the good fortune of being part of a lightning-in-a-bottle situation. The former is something I try not to count against the player. The latter is something that means different things to me depending on what I'm evaluating. When I'm looking at total career achievement, well, the phrase "it is what it is" comes to mind.

I think Draymond's also typically been a positive on the offensive side of the ball too, and I think his force of personality has often helped galvanize his teams.

But the negatives are there, it's just a question of what they mean. I'll certainly say they hurt Draymond, but how to quantify how much? No objective way. I tend to ask questions like:

"Could I build a dynastic core with him being him and being critical to the core?"

I ask this partially with respect to how good the player is of course, but I'm also thinking about the warts of a guy's professionalism. Some guys are prone to losing motivation, some guys want things that are unreasonable, some guys are prone to self-annihilating jealousy. And so on that front, a thing that gets in the way of using a guys for a many-year core can hurt a lot.

And while we could imagine a career path where we something that Green's attitude would make it impossible to do this, since we actually saw this, I don't really have the same doubts as I do for some other guys.

Induction Vote 2: Kevin McHale

Just an exceptionally capable guy on both ends of the floor who was able to blends with others to create arguably the best team peak of the era.

Nomination Vote 1: Paul Arizin



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

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

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

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

Am I saying Arizin had poor impact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination Vote 2: Dave Cowens

I think it's time for Cowens. I don't think he should have won MVP...but I don't think he was far from it. He really came in and his arrival re-opened the championship window for the post-Russell Celtics. Playing with extreme motor which seems to be respected as high on the BBIQ scale (despite the shooting efficiency), this is an impressive thing to me.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Paul Pierce

Induction Vote #2: Dwight Howard

This round is coming down to Pierce and Dwight, and with Dwight currently holding a 6-5 lead after secondary votes, I'm voting for Pierce to tie it up.

I usually side with a higher peak, and I do think Dwight peaked a bit higher than Pierce for those few years in Orlando - 2008-2012 - but Pierce was an impactful player for a much longer time than Dwight. JE's 1997-2022 RAPM supports this - Pierce is #25, with 3.2 O-RAPM, -1.8 D-RAPM(negative is good here), 5.0 RAPM, 3.7 lower bounds, and 6.4 upper bounds; Dwight is #122, with -0.2 O-RAPM, -2.7 D-RAPM, 2.5 RAPM, 1.2 lower bounds, and 3.8 upper bounds. Now clearly Dwight's later career is dragging those numbers down and probably under-representing his peak, but the point stands that Pierce maintained quality play for considerably longer, and I don't think the gap in peaks is so big as to give this to Dwight. In addition to the longevity factor, Pierce was also a much, much better leader.

A few anecdotes:

2002
In 2002, he took a team on which Antoine Walker and Kenny Anderson were the only other players averaging more than 30mpg to 49 wins, a 1.75 SRS(not super impressive, but it was #9, so a top 10 SRS, and look who his teammates were), and the ECF, including a first-round win over a Sixers team that had been in the Finals the previous year(albeit they had taken a step back and Boston had HCA). In the ECF, they took two wins off the Kidd Nets - the best team in the East - including a memorable Game 3 win in which they came back from 21 down in the fourth quarter, led by Pierce who scored 19 points on 7 shots in the 4th alone. At +12.4 and +11.8, Pierce led the team in on/off in both RS and PO comfortably.

2005
In 2005, his teammates were 36 year old Gary Payton, Ricky Davis, Raef LaFrentz, rookie(and raw) Al Jefferson, rookie Tony Allen, Mark Blount and others; at the deadline, Payton was traded away in a package to re-acquire Antoine Walker, who had been traded away in 2003(and Payton was immediately waived and re-signed with Boston). Just not a very good team. Pierce recorded a career-high 5.05 RAPM and a +7.9 RS on/off, leading the team to 45 wins and a playoff birth with a roster that probably had little business being there.

Let's talk about that playoff series. They were #3(because of the division-winners-get-the-top-three-seeds rule that doesn't exist anymore, they'd have been #4 or #5 otherwise) and they were playing the #6 Pacers. This was the Pacers team that had their season derailed by the Malice At The Palace; they'd lost Artest for the whole season and Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson for a chunk of it, and even though Artest was still gone by the playoffs, O'Neal and Jackson were back, Reggie was trying to end his career on a high note, and the team was better than their seed. It honestly would've been a significant upset if the Celtics had won. Nevertheless, the Celtics took those Pacers to seven games. Pierce a had a negative on/off in the playoff series, but what do you expect with that roster?

2007
The 2006-07 sample gives us an interesting WOWY sample. Pierce played 47 games and missed 35 with an injury in the middle of the season and then, I guess, getting shut down at the end. The Celtics were 20-27 with Pierce. That doesn't look great, but they were a soul-crushing 4-31 without him. I haven't looked deeply into who else might have been missing games, but it's hard to imagine anyone else's absence being that impactful. By those winning percentages, if Pierce had played all 82 games, they'd have gone 38-44, and if he had played 0 games, they'd have gone 9-73. Given that the 8th seed that year won 40 games, that's essentially the difference between borderline playoff team and historically bad. His 4.71 RAPM seems to bare this out.

I believe these three seasons show that Pierce had a solid floor-raising ability as a #1.

2008
In the 2007-08 championship season, as Garnett's #2, Pierce was +9.8 in the RS and +8.6 in the playoffs with a 4.87 RAPM. Garnett's impact numbers were better, but we have Garnett's entire Minnesota tenure to show us where he gets without a serious #2. Pierce deserves all the credit in the world for winning that championship next to Garnett and, you may disagree, but I think he deserved that Finals MVP.

His statline for that series was 21.8ppg, 6.3apg, 4.5rpg on 58.8% TS. In addition to that, he wanted and took on the task of guarding Kobe for most, or at least large chunks, of the time. Kobe's TS in the previous three playoff series had been 59.4%, 62.9%, and 58.5%. In the Finals, it was 50.5%. Now, I won't say that was all Pierce, but I think a good amount of it was. So this is a series where Pierce scores an efficient 20+ points, is his team's leading playmaker outside of Rondo, locks down one of the game's greatest scorers on the other side, and grabs a few boards to boot. Especially given that Garnett had a terrible offensive series - 47% TS - I think Pierce deserved that MVP and deserves credit for showing up in a big way at one of the biggest moments of his career.

He maintained decent impact all the way until 14-15 in Washington - 1.78 RAPM, .138 WS/48 and 1.5 BPM RS, and .190 WS/48 and 3.8 BPM PS that season. It was really only those last two years with the Clippers where he really fell off.

So for his floor-raising as a #1, his ceiling-raising as a #2, and his longevity, I'm giving the nod to Pierce.

Nomination Vote #1: Paul Arizin

Nomination Vote #2: Ray Allen

Looks like Jimmy is going to get it this time, but Arizin is the next closest, and he was an efficient scorer relative to the league he was in, a solid rebounder, won a title as a #1, and I like championing guys from the more distant past.

As for Ray, I think he might be a little underrated here.

He took the Bucks to the ECF, and got one game away from the Finals, as his team's #1, recording 4.2 RAPM, +6.3 on/off and +9.2 rTS in the regular season, and a ridiculous +25 in the playoffs, while actually improving his TS by +0.3 and recording .223 WS/48 and 8.3 BPM, both playoff career highs, and a box line of 25.1ppg, 6.0apg, and 4.1rpg. Really underappreciated playoff run for him.

He never had too much to work with in Seattle, but his RAPMs for those five years were 5.35, 3.9, 4.22, 4.75, and 2.99. They missed the playoffs four out of five seasons, but it really wasn't his fault, and they did have the one year in 2005 where they won 52 games and got to the second round before falling to the Spurs.

In Boston, he recorded a +8.0 on/off during their 2008 playoff run to the championship, and a +9.6 in their doomed KG-less 2009 run and a crazy outlier +36.7 in the 2011 playoffs. I don't think they would've had the success they had without him.

In Miami, he was a role player, but in 2013 he was +12.6 in 23 playoff games, and he capped it off with the biggest shot of his career(he was also +5.0 in the 2014 playoffs).

He was one of the more clutch players in recent memory, he always seemed to hit a big shot when his team needed it, the numbers suggest he may be a playoff riser, he was consistently impactful - +4.9 career RS, +11.0 career PO, 3.5 career RAPM in JE's 1997-2022 set - in multiple teams and roles, as a #1 in Milwaukee and less successfully in Seattle, as part of a Big 3 in Boston, and as a role player in Miami, over 18 years.

He's a guy you always feared when he was playing against you.

He's also a guy that would fit in the current league well.

[iggymcfrack]

Induction Vote 1: Draymond Green



Saying something relevant to the direction things have taken to start the '23-24 season:

I think Draymond makes it really clear why it's so hard to draw the line between on-court and off-court impact when we see him get violent on the court. There's good and bad to green, and figuring out how to reconcile all of that makes ranking even harder than it already is evaluating a guy impact really isn't well-captured by the box score.

What I'm most firm on is that Draymond is a generational-level defender, and being the anchor of a defense that was critical in enabling a dynastic run means a lot to me regardless of everything else.

I don't think there's any doubt that Draymond's level of achievement in the NBA would vary drastically depending on where he ended up. Now, I think that's mostly about a) coaches not recognizing how impactful he can be, and b) the good fortune of being part of a lightning-in-a-bottle situation. The former is something I try not to count against the player. The latter is something that means different things to me depending on what I'm evaluating. When I'm looking at total career achievement, well, the phrase "it is what it is" comes to mind.

I think Draymond's also typically been a positive on the offensive side of the ball too, and I think his force of personality has often helped galvanize his teams.

But the negatives are there, it's just a question of what they mean. I'll certainly say they hurt Draymond, but how to quantify how much? No objective way. I tend to ask questions like:

"Could I build a dynastic core with him being him and being critical to the core?"

I ask this partially with respect to how good the player is of course, but I'm also thinking about the warts of a guy's professionalism. Some guys are prone to losing motivation, some guys want things that are unreasonable, some guys are prone to self-annihilating jealousy. And so on that front, a thing that gets in the way of using a guys for a many-year core can hurt a lot.

And while we could imagine a career path where we something that Green's attitude would make it impossible to do this, since we actually saw this, I don't really have the same doubts as I do for some other guys.

Induction Vote 2: Kevin McHale

Just an exceptionally capable guy on both ends of the floor who was able to blends with others to create arguably the best team peak of the era.

Nomination Vote 1: Paul Arizin



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

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

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

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

Am I saying Arizin had poor impact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination Vote 2: Dave Cowens

I think it's time for Cowens. I don't think he should have won MVP...but I don't think he was far from it. He really came in and his arrival re-opened the championship window for the post-Russell Celtics. Playing with extreme motor which seems to be respected as high on the BBIQ scale (despite the shooting efficiency), this is an impressive thing to me.

Good post. I liked that you took the criticisms of Arizin raised in the last thread and addressed them. It’s a valid point that guys can be objectively better players in a worse era and have lesser numbers because they played in less star centered systems. If you’re comparing peaks for say Larry Bird and Luka Doncic, I think this is a very reasonable line of thought.

When comparing the ‘50s to the ‘90s, I’m not sure that style of play can really make up for having lesser numbers. The competition difference is massive comparing a worldwide league to a regional league that’s not fully integrated. Furthermore, I’m not sure that Arizin necessarily has the skillset to scale up into a larger role. He never averaged 3 APG in a season. It’s not like he was some potential offensive hub in the making that was held back due to the strategies of the time. He was pretty much just a volume scorer.

I just really don’t see what his advantage is over superstar level modern candidates. Compare him to Ray Allen for instance. I haven’t seen him get any traction yet. Allen has the same general player profile where most of what he does is just score. He had the same rTS% in a MUCH tougher league. He had a better PER over his 10 year prime than Arizin had over his 10 year career. And Allen has twice the longevity. It’s not like Allen benefited from being a heliocentric star whose volume was the key to his success. The only real edge I see for Arizin is that he had a brief moment as the biggest fish in a very small pool whereas Allen spent his whole career in a larger pool.

[Owly]

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

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

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

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

Quibbles, not to say I disagree overall... or that I'd back Hagan here or whatever ...

All-star ... okay but
- not really a direct measure of players (see also "Yay, points")
- especially at that time when all teams needed representation so teams were functionally capped
- you believe in an S curve development right? Arzin posts his two highest WS totals (in shorter seasons) and establishes himself as a star in the league's early years.
Now for the Hagan specific comp maybe his first year stats might suggest he wouldn't be ready. Or that playing out of position didn't suit him. Or service rendered him more rusty than Arizin. It hurts, but it's hard to be sure what's going on.

I would quibble with asserting that it is "crystal clear" a player "deserved" FMVP "by a landslide" off the data we have. Maybe you've got those games, tabulated full box-scores and on-off and scouted closely ... I think I'd have left more wiggle room in the phrasing.

Even just fading back to the full title run (or chip), okay Pettit put in his seemingly (much) weaker performances versus the Pistons and the Pistons weren't good. Still Hagan was great and the Hawks win games 1 and 2 by 3 points each. If the Hawks lose both of those (taking the other results as a given or not) the Hawks are in a bad way (and unfortunately we likely don't get to see Pettit's finals, only that weak first series).

But if I were championing Hagan it would be as a good playoff performer overall, not on a single series.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
1. Draymond Green


-> Superstar impact by every approach throughout prime
-> Playoff-Riser
-> Centerpiece of an arguably era-best defense
-> Cornerstone of an all-time dynasty
-> Best-in-league calibre defender
-> One of the few two-way floor-generals in history

Nomination:
1. Bob Davies

As I am mainly using an era-relative framework it feels like a good time to reach into Mikan's era

2. Bill Walton

A little too good to not at least be in the discussion, even if he's a hard-sell for a career-value approach

Draymond is far and away the primary paint-protector for the warriors. He also is an all-time help defender and is one of the best defensive coordinators in history. All three correlate very well with being able to carry otherwise bad defenders.

The idea Draymond isn't an optimal defensive floor-raiser is just an argument on a badly justified theory. We have seen Draymond have massive defensive impact on teams that were outright terrible defensively without(2021) so reality would seem to contradict you.

2015 Lebron is a very discount version of draymond defensively and was able to lead an elite -5 playoff defense with a cast of players who were nuetral or negative at the pre-cleveland spots.

Only protecting the rim is not as good for floor-raising as being able to protect the rim and coordinate teammates and being good on the perimiter.

Draymond is the OLB and the Tackle and the defensive coordinator. His presence allows teammates to rack up weakside blocks far more than the reverse happens. His IQ also can turn otherwise negative/neutral defensive presences into good ones.

That's why his impact, which is almost all coming from the defensive side, is so high. And that is something which translates to good teams and bad.

Defenders like Draymond have a much better track-record of carrying defenses than defenders like Mutembo, especially in the playoffs.

It’s obvious you aren’t ready to even consider changing your stance on Draymond.

Certainly not when the argument is a badly baked hypothetical, no.

You tried to give Draymond double jeopardy credit for being a help side defender [ Weak/Strong Side Rotation/Rim Protection is apart of Help-Defense]

The ability to protect the paint, and Draymond is far and away the Warriors primary paint-protector/deterrent, is not synonymous with Draymond's ability to cover large swaths of ground to plug up gaps on the perimeter, no.

And you also didn’t read my post about the conditions nessecary for Draymond to be successful because you still accredit Draymond with his Coordination abilities which has inherent linkage to the players around him, it is a more dependent attribute then other basketball abilities; Which I refer to in my post about my grievances but doesn’t change the actual impact of his ability.

No, because, as we have seen with draymond and discount draymond(defensively), it is an effect that works with otherwise bad or nuetral defenders.

You also conveniently choose to use 2021 as your choice for Draymond’s floor raising/impact capture defensively, But chose to ignore/exclude 2019-2020 when he had much less defensive help and obviously much less success.

The season Draymond was playing with a minutes restriction? Neat. You convienently chose to exclude everythign that happened before 2020 as "cieling-raising". If you must fixate on the year Draymond was out on a minutes restriction and the Warriors were trying to get a lottery pick, then you really don't have much of a case.

You then use a all time player( Lebron) as a comparison to try and allure the audience with another name that captures lots of Grace within the mind.

Lebron is a discount version of Draymond defensively. Not sure what "all-time player" has to do with anything.

You also allude to Draymond as a game-breaking figure with “He is the OLB and DE, and Coordinator”

Because he is, and, historically, that is (defensively) game-breaking which is why by impact Draymond has fair claim as the best defender of an era. That is why he looks great with rapm or wowy or whatever else. 

Lastly the reason we’re arguing this is because there aren’t many defenders like Draymond who have to clear an ample amount of

Embid, per synergy, is a comparable paint deterrent to Gobert and has played with strong defensive support throughout his prime. Yet he is not as impactful defensively.

...
Defenders like Draymond have a much better track-record of carrying defenses than defenders like Mutembo, especially in the playoffs.

Who do you consider the 3 defenders most like Draymond?

Who would be 3 defenders most like Mutombo?

For Draymond

As the pinnacle of the archetype: Russell, has Draymond's cerebral advantage and a better physical profile.

As peers: Giannis, KG, Hakeem: all three sport physical advantages, lag behind cerebrally, and functionally gain ground on peers as primary paint-protectors who can also do a bunch of work on the perimeter

As "Lite" versions: Pippen, Lebron, Kidd, CP3. These are players who split paint-protection duties but are able to retain suprising influence on defense(relative to position/physical stature) thanks to both their ability to coordinate and help.

Also "lite": JJJ, Bam

For Mutembo

Pinnacle: Rudy Gobert, David Robinson. Former is a similarly imposing and study tower with extremely strong fundamentals but can cover significantly more ground significantly quicker. Latter is a more domineering physical presence

Peers: Dwight, Embid, both are/were league-leading rim-protectors/paint-protectors who could do some work on slashers

Lite: Grant? Oakley? Looking for a "non-big" version of a traditional big gets wierd.

Also Lite: Myles Turner, Bill Laimbeer, Alonzo Mourning

[penbeast0]

Wow, those aren't the comps I have at all.

For Dray, I don't have him as much of a rim protector, a little bit but certainly not comparable to Russell, JJJ, etc. where they are dominant in that respect. I have the best comps as Rodman, Meta World Peace, and Bobby Jones. Great defenders who defended well against bigs with lower body strength, positioning, and leaping while being all over the floor. Not great offensive matches as Green can't match Rodman's rebounding or Jones's scoring efficiency while they don't play the point forward role but defensively.

Defensively for Mutombo, I looked at Gobert, but also the likes of Eaton and late career Wilt who leveraged their great length into at the rim intimidating presences (Russell, Hakeem, DRob, way too mobile and active for steals, Bol not able to hold position inside, Mutombo and Thurmond more physical and without the length).

[HeartBreakKid]

Draymond Green played the most like Maurice Stokes. They were the same size, played the same position, anchored elite defenses presumably without all time great rim protection, and were often their teams best or most active passer. Other than the fact that they are like 70 years apart they have one of the closest comps despite having a very unique skill set/size.

Watch on YouTube

[OhayoKD]

Wow, those aren't the comps I have at all.

For Dray, I don't have him as much of a rim protector, a little bit but certainly not comparable to Russell, JJJ, etc. where they are dominant in that respect. I have the best comps as Rodman, Meta World Peace, and Bobby Jones. Great defenders who defended well against bigs with lower body strength, positioning, and leaping while being all over the floor. Not great offensive matches as Green can't match Rodman's rebounding or Jones's scoring efficiency while they don't play the point forward role but defensively.

Defensively for Mutombo, I looked at Gobert, but also the likes of Eaton and late career Wilt who leveraged their great length into at the rim intimidating presences (Russell, Hakeem, DRob, way too mobile and active for steals, Bol not able to hold position inside, Mutombo and Thurmond more physical and without the length).

I suspect you greatly underrate how much Draymond actually protects the paint. I cannot find the direct data-points, but on the basis of stats like this applying a filter of "bigs and helpers":

Spoiler:

Here is how bball index grades Draymond's rim-protection over the last several years:

14: C
15: B+
16: B+
17: A+
18: B-
19: B+
20: B+
21: A
22: B
23: A

Again, this is specifically in comparison to bigs and helpers.

If you're interested, I could probably do the same paint-load thing I did with 91 Chicago for Draymond and Rodman respectively. I suspect the tape would have Rodman spending about as many possessions as a paint-protector as Pippen while Draymond spends significantly more possessions doing that than anyone else on the Dubs but I guess it's better to check the tape and be sure. It might also, unlike the stat above, capture when teams avoid plays because of draymond's presence or when teammates rack up weakside contests because of draymond's presence

I suspect if we are on the same page on Draymond as a paint-protector the rest works itself out.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Kevin McHale
Vote 2 - Dwight Howard
Nomination 1 - George Gervin
Nomination 2 - Willis Reed

Ultimately taking McHale over Dwight with his contributions throughout the celtics' several deep playoff and title runs. Devastating offensive player and still fit in with the rest of the Celtics game plan. If Dwight’s prime was slightly longer I might go the other way. I do think dwight peaked in 2011 as an MVP level player though, which is why I have him right behind McHale. Had a small role in the lakers' 2020 tile run, but still a positive late career note for him.

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Draymond Green
Alt vote: Paul Pierce
Nominate: Dave Cowens
Alt nomination: Jimmy Butler

Draymond’s Case

We have too many pieces of data, including RAPM with confidence levels, playoffs only RAPM, effect on win probability, etc., to not seriously consider Draymond here.

Regular Season



1. Lebron, 5.54, 274K Poss
2. KG, 5.1, 206K Poss
3. CP3, 4.8, 181K Poss
4. Steph, 4.7, 142K Poss
5. Duncan, 4.7, 241K Poss
6. Manu, 4.3, 131K Poss
7. Draymond, 4.25, 110K Poss
8. PG, 4.05, 126K Poss
9. Dirk, 3.89, 238K Poss
10, Lillard, 3.87, 112K Poss
HM: Harden, Shaq, Lowry

Playoffs



1. Lebron, 5.9, 41K Poss
2. Draymond, 5.5, 18K Poss
3. Manu, 5.2, 23K Poss
4. KG, 4.8, 19K Poss
5. Duncan, 4.3, 34K Poss
6. Curry, 4.2, 17K Poss
7. Harden, 4.1, 22k Poss
8. Shaq, 3.9, 24K Poss
9. KD, 3.7, 24K Poss
10. PG, 3.2, 16K Poss
HM: Allen, Danny Green, Westbrook

Biggest Risers (Using graph 2 RS)

1. Draymond, +1.2
2. Rondo, +.9
3. Manu, +.8
4. Billups, +.7
5. Prince, +.7
6. Horry, +.6
7. Danny Green, +.6
8. Lebron, +.3
9. Harden, +.3
10. Westbrook, +3
HM: Allen, Wade, Shaq

Notes

-> Lebron, Manu, and Draymond are the only players with a top-10 rs score to see an increase in their playoffs. That increase would have been higher for all 3 if I'd used graph 1 instead of graph 2.

2015, 2016, and 2017 Draymond in the playoffs:


In JE’s RS+PS 1997-2022 RAPM set, there is tiny set of players who are -4 career defense impact players and the majority of them are negatives on offense, or are basically neutral. A player who can be a monster defensive impact player, and be a positive impact offensive player is a unicorn, a unicorn who is going to give your team a chance to win over a long stretch of time.

In JE’s set, we have nearly 2,500 player careers and out of these players, only TWO have a +2.0 or better ORAPM, and a -4 or better DRAPM, i.e., KG and Duncan. We only have three who are +1.5 or better ORAPM, and a -4 or better DRAPM, i.e., KG, Tim, and Draymond.



And of course his overall impact



Often people bring up that he is not a “rim protecting specialist,” but Draymond’s does provide a paint presence and rim protection, while also being one of the greatest defensive communicators of the past 25 years, allowing him to quarterback defenses.



If you go through the seasons from 2015 through 2023, you see some elite tracking numbers for how much worse opponents shot against Draymond vs. everyone else for shots under 6 feet and under 10 feet from the rim. Pick any of the seasons at random; those numbers on the far right over there:







[/quote]

We saw this in the 2022 finals versus the Boston Celtics:

Nobody was making anything against Draymond these playoffs, especially in the paint or near the rim:



And the Celtics didn’t do much better:



Jayson Tatum and Jalen Brown hated going up against him:




Earlier in the 2022 playoffs, Draymond was the only one who could slow down Jokić in a little bit, shooting 67% against everybody else:



I could go on, but one last thing is JE’s study a player’s effect on win probability
[/quote]