RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #48 (Kevin McHale)

[iggymcfrack]

As was pointed out by someone else:

Bill Walton actually has more regular season minutes in his career, and has played big minutes in more playoff series victories than Embiid, while also playing a key part on another champion later in his career.

I personally would not put Embiid over Walton at this point, but I'm not so much bothered by the idea that others would disagree that, so much as I worry about the fact that Walton hasn't gotten consideration at these heights for many years on the basis of his awful longevity. This makes me feel like I need to ask people:

Were you under the impression that the Top 100 previously drastically underrated Walton? If not, it might be that you're falling prey to an issue where you're pegging a guy's longevity quite differently depending on whether you're getting it by watching him in real time or by looking it up on bkref.

Embiid feels like he's had a pretty solid run as a superstar level player because when he's been healthy, he's basically been that level of player since he stepped foot on an NBA court 7 years ago. But in terms of how much he's actually played in that time frame, it's a Walton-level thing complete with all of the frustration of being dependent on a guy who is all too often hurt.

The thing about Walton is he may have had more regular season minutes as a whole, but they're split up between seasons in small enough bits where they don't really affect winning much. Outside of his title winning season, Bill Walton only started 2 playoff games. Those came in his second biggest minute year where he tried to come back from a regular season injury in the playoffs and was unable to continue. Other than that, he played such few minutes that his team was unable to even qualify for the playoffs until he joined Boston as a bench player averaging <20 MPG. Basically, he had one season where he gave his team a chance to contend until he was a bench guy.

Embiid misses a good number of games every year, but since his rookie season, but each of the last 5 seasons, he's played enough regular season games for the Sixers to finish with a decent seed and played enough in the playoffs that they had a chance to advance. None of those minutes are going into seasons where Philadelphia was non-competitive because Embiid didn't play enough. If you look at regular season minutes played in which he was an impact player and healthy enough that his team had any chance at winning a title, Walton has 2300 to Embiid's 11,700.

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time. He has the highest per minute scoring average of all-time. He ranks #2 in 25 year RAPM behind only LeBron. At this point in the list, down in the high 40s, he doesn't need to pile on postseason accomplishments on top of that level of play. He doesn't need to be a key part of playoff series victories. He just needs to somewhat maintain his incredible regular season level. Given that his playoff on/off has been higher than his regular season on/off and the injuries really only cost his team the series against Miami, I think it's fair to say that his lack of durability and playoff success hasn't been any kind of fatal flaw. It doesn't devalue the good things he's done. And I don't see anyone this far down the list whose good things have been as spectacular as Embiid's.

[OhayoKD]

As was pointed out by someone else:

Bill Walton actually has more regular season minutes in his career, and has played big minutes in more playoff series victories than Embiid, while also playing a key part on another champion later in his career.

I personally would not put Embiid over Walton at this point, but I'm not so much bothered by the idea that others would disagree that, so much as I worry about the fact that Walton hasn't gotten consideration at these heights for many years on the basis of his awful longevity. This makes me feel like I need to ask people:

Were you under the impression that the Top 100 previously drastically underrated Walton? If not, it might be that you're falling prey to an issue where you're pegging a guy's longevity quite differently depending on whether you're getting it by watching him in real time or by looking it up on bkref.

Embiid feels like he's had a pretty solid run as a superstar level player because when he's been healthy, he's basically been that level of player since he stepped foot on an NBA court 7 years ago. But in terms of how much he's actually played in that time frame, it's a Walton-level thing complete with all of the frustration of being dependent on a guy who is all too often hurt.

The thing about Walton is he may have had more regular season minutes as a whole, but they're split up between seasons in small enough bits where they don't really affect winning much. Outside of his title winning season, Bill Walton only started 2 playoff games. Those came in his second biggest minute year where he tried to come back from a regular season injury in the playoffs and was unable to continue. Other than that, he played such few minutes that his team was unable to even qualify for the playoffs until he joined Boston as a bench player averaging <20 MPG. Basically, he had one season where he gave his team a chance to contend until he was a bench guy.

Embiid misses a good number of games every year, but since his rookie season, but each of the last 5 seasons, he's played enough regular season games for the Sixers to finish with a decent seed and played enough in the playoffs that they had a chance to advance. None of those minutes are going into seasons where Philadelphia was non-competitive because Embiid didn't play enough. If you look at regular season minutes played in which he was an impact player and healthy enough that his team had any chance at winning a title, Walton has 2300 to Embiid's 11,700.

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time. He has the highest per minute scoring average of all-time. He ranks #2 in 25 year RAPM behind only LeBron. At this point in the list, down in the high 40s, he doesn't need to pile on postseason accomplishments on top of that level of play. He doesn't need to be a key part of playoff series victories. He just needs to somewhat maintain his incredible regular season level. Given that his playoff on/off has been higher than his regular season on/off and the injuries really only cost his team the series against Miami, I think it's fair to say that his lack of durability and playoff success hasn't been any kind of fatal flaw. It doesn't devalue the good things he's done. And I don't see anyone this far down the list whose good things have been as spectacular as Embiid's.

Averages tend to go down the more you play. By the dataset you're referring to, Embid's 5-year rapm is well behind several stretches from Duncan and KG let alone Lebron

[iggymcfrack]

As was pointed out by someone else:

Bill Walton actually has more regular season minutes in his career, and has played big minutes in more playoff series victories than Embiid, while also playing a key part on another champion later in his career.

I personally would not put Embiid over Walton at this point, but I'm not so much bothered by the idea that others would disagree that, so much as I worry about the fact that Walton hasn't gotten consideration at these heights for many years on the basis of his awful longevity. This makes me feel like I need to ask people:

Were you under the impression that the Top 100 previously drastically underrated Walton? If not, it might be that you're falling prey to an issue where you're pegging a guy's longevity quite differently depending on whether you're getting it by watching him in real time or by looking it up on bkref.

Embiid feels like he's had a pretty solid run as a superstar level player because when he's been healthy, he's basically been that level of player since he stepped foot on an NBA court 7 years ago. But in terms of how much he's actually played in that time frame, it's a Walton-level thing complete with all of the frustration of being dependent on a guy who is all too often hurt.

The thing about Walton is he may have had more regular season minutes as a whole, but they're split up between seasons in small enough bits where they don't really affect winning much. Outside of his title winning season, Bill Walton only started 2 playoff games. Those came in his second biggest minute year where he tried to come back from a regular season injury in the playoffs and was unable to continue. Other than that, he played such few minutes that his team was unable to even qualify for the playoffs until he joined Boston as a bench player averaging <20 MPG. Basically, he had one season where he gave his team a chance to contend until he was a bench guy.

Embiid misses a good number of games every year, but since his rookie season, but each of the last 5 seasons, he's played enough regular season games for the Sixers to finish with a decent seed and played enough in the playoffs that they had a chance to advance. None of those minutes are going into seasons where Philadelphia was non-competitive because Embiid didn't play enough. If you look at regular season minutes played in which he was an impact player and healthy enough that his team had any chance at winning a title, Walton has 2300 to Embiid's 11,700.

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time. He has the highest per minute scoring average of all-time. He ranks #2 in 25 year RAPM behind only LeBron. At this point in the list, down in the high 40s, he doesn't need to pile on postseason accomplishments on top of that level of play. He doesn't need to be a key part of playoff series victories. He just needs to somewhat maintain his incredible regular season level. Given that his playoff on/off has been higher than his regular season on/off and the injuries really only cost his team the series against Miami, I think it's fair to say that his lack of durability and playoff success hasn't been any kind of fatal flaw. It doesn't devalue the good things he's done. And I don't see anyone this far down the list whose good things have been as spectacular as Embiid's.

Averages tend to go down the more you play. By the dataset you're referring to, Embid's 5-year rapm is well behind several stretches from Duncan and KG let alone Lebron

Sure. I'm not saying he actually peaked higher than KG or Duncan. I'm just saying that he's played really, really spectacularly well at times. Compared to other all-time greats who played big minutes, he's clearly inferior. But compared to Draymond or Dwight, I think it's fair to say that he has another level that they just don't have. He's a different caliber of player. Butler's an extremely variable player who's tapped into that level at points, but has gotten there a lot less consistently than Embiid even if he's been in the league longer.

[OhayoKD]

The thing about Walton is he may have had more regular season minutes as a whole, but they're split up between seasons in small enough bits where they don't really affect winning much. Outside of his title winning season, Bill Walton only started 2 playoff games. Those came in his second biggest minute year where he tried to come back from a regular season injury in the playoffs and was unable to continue. Other than that, he played such few minutes that his team was unable to even qualify for the playoffs until he joined Boston as a bench player averaging <20 MPG. Basically, he had one season where he gave his team a chance to contend until he was a bench guy.

Embiid misses a good number of games every year, but since his rookie season, but each of the last 5 seasons, he's played enough regular season games for the Sixers to finish with a decent seed and played enough in the playoffs that they had a chance to advance. None of those minutes are going into seasons where Philadelphia was non-competitive because Embiid didn't play enough. If you look at regular season minutes played in which he was an impact player and healthy enough that his team had any chance at winning a title, Walton has 2300 to Embiid's 11,700.

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time. He has the highest per minute scoring average of all-time. He ranks #2 in 25 year RAPM behind only LeBron. At this point in the list, down in the high 40s, he doesn't need to pile on postseason accomplishments on top of that level of play. He doesn't need to be a key part of playoff series victories. He just needs to somewhat maintain his incredible regular season level. Given that his playoff on/off has been higher than his regular season on/off and the injuries really only cost his team the series against Miami, I think it's fair to say that his lack of durability and playoff success hasn't been any kind of fatal flaw. It doesn't devalue the good things he's done. And I don't see anyone this far down the list whose good things have been as spectacular as Embiid's.

Averages tend to go down the more you play. By the dataset you're referring to, Embid's 5-year rapm is well behind several stretches from Duncan and KG let alone Lebron

Sure. I'm not saying he actually peaked higher than KG or Duncan. I'm just saying that he's played really, really spectacularly well at times. Compared to other all-time greats who played big minutes, he's clearly inferior. But compared to Draymond or Dwight, I think it's fair to say that he has another level that they just don't have. He's a different caliber of player. Butler's an extremely variable player who's tapped into that level at points, but has gotten there a lot less consistently than Embiid even if he's been in the league longer.

In terms of peak capacity? Yeah. In terms of championship equity offered over a season? murkier. Fwiw, Draymond actually does better in 5-year RAPM before a playoff jump, though that is potentially a product of health more than anything.

[70sFan]

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time.

That's a very misleading way of argumentation though. Embiid finished only 7 seasons so far. Throughout this 7 seasons, he averages 27.9 PER, which actually does put him at the top of all-time PER list. The problem is that when you look at other top 20 PER players at ages 22-28, they look significantly better than Embiid (in way more games as well):

2017-23 Embiid: 27.9

1986-92 Jordan: 30.5
2016-22 Jokic: 28.8
2007-13 James: 29.3
2016-22 Davis: 26.9
1995-01 Shaq: 29.1
1990-94 Robinson: 27.2 (didn't play before 24 years old)
1960-65 Wilt: 30.1 (didn't play before 23 years old)
1955-61 Pettit: 26.3
2011-17 Durant: 27.3
2017-23 Giannis: 29.2

Embiid would place at 7th place if we look only at these short periods. Still outstanding, but not really close to the best marks.

Comparing career numbers between players active at the heart of their primes to players with finished careers is just pointless.

[OhayoKD]

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time.

That's a very misleading way of argumentation though. Embiid finished only 7 seasons so far. Throughout this 7 seasons, he averages 27.9 PER, which actually does put him at the top of all-time PER list. The problem is that when you look at other top 20 PER players at ages 22-28, they look significantly better than Embiid (in way more games as well):

2017-23 Embiid: 27.9

1986-92 Jordan: 30.5
2016-22 Jokic: 28.8
2007-13 James: 29.3
2016-22 Davis: 26.9
1995-01 Shaq: 29.1
1990-94 Robinson: 27.2 (didn't play before 24 years old)
1960-65 Wilt: 30.1 (didn't play before 23 years old)
1955-61 Pettit: 26.3
2011-17 Durant: 27.3
2017-23 Giannis: 29.2

Embiid would place at 7th place if we look only at these short periods. Still outstanding, but not really close to the best marks.

Comparing career numbers between players active at the heart of their primes to players with finished careers is just pointless.

Curious what the playoff version of that looks like

[trex_8063]

I'll grant you Arizin's playoff resilience [in relation to Johnston's]; though does this mean the rs doesn't count/matter at all?

I wouldn't say the regular season doesn't matter at all, but the idea that you'd ever choose between two teammates who won a title together based on the regular season rather than the playoffs is to me pretty iffy. All the more so when the playoff guy has better longevity, more RS Win Shares, etc.

Again, I wouldn't "take" Johnston ahead of Arizin (perhaps not on my team, nor in an all-time sense). I speak to the margin of separation--->where you [presumably, and can correct me if I'm wrong] have Arizin apparently around #50 all-time, and Johnston perhaps not even in the top 120???

So we saw a full third of PEAK Arizin's minutes replaced by scrubs and replacement-level players; the lost minutes of Ed Mikan and Walt Budko likewise replaced by players who were mostly worse than them.
Then in backcourt we saw the full balance of Andy Phillip's minutes replaced by clearly much lesser players.

That the offense fell off substantially is not exactly a stop the presses! story.

So, in a nutshell you're saying that we don't know that the dropoff was all about Arizin.

I think a more accurate representation of what I'm saying is: we know to a virtual certainty that the dropoff was not all/only about Arizin. The only question is how much was?

I think the more clear cut information is the utter discrepancy between Johnston's statistical dominance and the team's utter incompetence.

In '52-53, Johnston led the league in PPG and TS Add...while the team went 12-57 had the worst offense in the league. Forget about triangulation loss of impact, the discrepancy between how good Johnston looked and how bad the team was is a glaring thing that simply must be considered.

Yup, in '53 he led the league in PPG and was 2nd in TS%; 1st in TS Add (by less than +8 above Ed Macauley), and the offense was bad.

And in '56 and '57----where he was third in league in ppg (with better pts/36 numbers than '53 [two best of his career]) while LEADING the league in TS% (also leading the league in TS Add by more than +40 over 2nd-place [and more than +100 over 3rd] **both years)---the Warriors have their two best offenses in franchise history to date, notably better than they'd had in '52 with peak Paul Arizin. (**EDIT: These are the 2nd and 3rd-best TS Adds of his career ['53 is only his 4th-best])

The correlation looks more substantial if taking in his full career, and not a single season (selected solely because it paints him in the most unflattering light).

Maybe you're just saying that it seems like my tone is disrespectful of Johnston, and if so, fair enough. It's not a great look to seem like a hater of a ghost.

I don't think you "hate" on Neil Johnston as much as it feels perhaps like a necessary recalibration [downward] for your argumentation in favour of Arizin.

This is just my perception, but it seems [to me] like you: a) think very highly of Paul Arizin; and b) wish to persuade others to likewise think very highly of him (given he's been your primary nomination); but c) can't quite make the case without tearing his most notable teammate from the 50s down a peg or two (involving arguments that are less about "look how awesome Arizin was!" and more about "look how NOT awesome this supposed really good teammate was").

And toward that end there's been a degree of context missing, as well as a bit of "slight of hand" (look at THIS year, not these other years) within your arguments.

Again, that's just my perception. You can leave it in the refuse bin if you like.

[Doctor MJ]

As was pointed out by someone else:

Bill Walton actually has more regular season minutes in his career, and has played big minutes in more playoff series victories than Embiid, while also playing a key part on another champion later in his career.

I personally would not put Embiid over Walton at this point, but I'm not so much bothered by the idea that others would disagree that, so much as I worry about the fact that Walton hasn't gotten consideration at these heights for many years on the basis of his awful longevity. This makes me feel like I need to ask people:

Were you under the impression that the Top 100 previously drastically underrated Walton? If not, it might be that you're falling prey to an issue where you're pegging a guy's longevity quite differently depending on whether you're getting it by watching him in real time or by looking it up on bkref.

Embiid feels like he's had a pretty solid run as a superstar level player because when he's been healthy, he's basically been that level of player since he stepped foot on an NBA court 7 years ago. But in terms of how much he's actually played in that time frame, it's a Walton-level thing complete with all of the frustration of being dependent on a guy who is all too often hurt.

The thing about Walton is he may have had more regular season minutes as a whole, but they're split up between seasons in small enough bits where they don't really affect winning much. Outside of his title winning season, Bill Walton only started 2 playoff games. Those came in his second biggest minute year where he tried to come back from a regular season injury in the playoffs and was unable to continue. Other than that, he played such few minutes that his team was unable to even qualify for the playoffs until he joined Boston as a bench player averaging <20 MPG. Basically, he had one season where he gave his team a chance to contend until he was a bench guy.

Embiid misses a good number of games every year, but since his rookie season, but each of the last 5 seasons, he's played enough regular season games for the Sixers to finish with a decent seed and played enough in the playoffs that they had a chance to advance. None of those minutes are going into seasons where Philadelphia was non-competitive because Embiid didn't play enough. If you look at regular season minutes played in which he was an impact player and healthy enough that his team had any chance at winning a title, Walton has 2300 to Embiid's 11,700.

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time. He has the highest per minute scoring average of all-time. He ranks #2 in 25 year RAPM behind only LeBron. At this point in the list, down in the high 40s, he doesn't need to pile on postseason accomplishments on top of that level of play. He doesn't need to be a key part of playoff series victories. He just needs to somewhat maintain his incredible regular season level. Given that his playoff on/off has been higher than his regular season on/off and the injuries really only cost his team the series against Miami, I think it's fair to say that his lack of durability and playoff success hasn't been any kind of fatal flaw. It doesn't devalue the good things he's done. And I don't see anyone this far down the list whose good things have been as spectacular as Embiid's.

Well, it's certainly true that Walton's career is more split up than Embiid. As I've said, it's not so much that I object to Embiid over Walton as it is seeing them as if they're in two drastically different categories.

Re: played enough in the playoffs they had a chance to advance. I mean, as I've pointed out, they have advanced without him to varying degrees. In those first 3 playoff victories, Embiid wasn't one of the 5 biggest minutes guys, and every single time Simmons had a greater +/- than he did.

If by "chance to advance" you're referring to Philly's 0-5 record in the 2nd round, yeah, that could have happened in theory, but it never has. Let me put it it to you this way:

Any talk about Embiid being accomplished in the playoffs really needs to start with the first time he played big minutes in a series victory...which was in 2022.

In 2022 was Embiid a better playoff performer than, say, Jimmy Butler or Jayson Tatum? I don't think so, do you?
In 2023 was Embiid a better playoff performer than, say, Jimmy Butler or Jayson Tatum? I don't think so, do you?

I worry that if feels like I'm moving the goal post the way I keep bringing up different guys, but it's just because I see so many guys who I think have clearly accomplished more than Embiid to this point in his career.

Walton, Butler, Tatum? I'd have them all ahead of Embiid...and yet to this point I haven't case even a Nomination vote for any of them.

Re: talking about Embiid playing enough in the regular season that the 76ers were in the playoffs. It's true but once again, I think you have to consider realistically whether the 76ers wouldn't have been a playoff team without Embiid. Way back in Embiid's first playoff season, it was Simmons leading the 76ers on a major winning streak to end the season that continued through their 1st round victory largely without Embiid.

Now realistically, I think Simmons in current form couldn't do anything like this, but that was a mental thing induced in no small part by the presence of Embiid. I blame Simmons for that rather than anyone else, but the reality is that Simmons really seemed to know how to play when everything was built around him and the big problem came with him trying to find value on a team where he was expected to fit in around someone else.

This then to say that I think we should be careful about talking about Embiid as if he has lifted the 76ers from nowhere to the playoffs by himself. The reality is that he had help getting the team to the playoffs, help getting out of the 1st round, and he as yet has not got them out of the 2nd round.

Re: at this level, doesn't need playoffs success. Uh, the list from here on out will continue to be dominated by players who actually accomplished things in the playoffs because the playoffs are the focus of how NBA basketball is evaluated. You can personally state that you have a regular season focus on your rankings, but I don't think many will come with you.

And honestly, I'm skeptical this is how you're really thinking about this stuff in general. What I think is happening here is that you're relying on metrics that are available with major sample - which means the regular season - and then looking to see if what's happened in the playoffs absolutely makes you feel compelled to change your assessment.

You're convinced by his regular season dominance, and you see enough indicators in the playoffs to think that the disappointments there can largely be chalked up to noise. And the truth is I'm not sure I fundamentally disagree with you in the abstract idea of how good Embiid is at basketball...but in terms of what he's actually accomplished in the playoffs, Embiid's a guy more competing with Luka & Trae than he is with the guys he's actually competing with in our conversations, and it's not because he played with bad teammates that kept him from having opportunity. Embiid's has had far more opportunity than those other guys to make a playoff splash, and it just hasn't really happened.

[Doctor MJ]

I'll grant you Arizin's playoff resilience [in relation to Johnston's]; though does this mean the rs doesn't count/matter at all?

I wouldn't say the regular season doesn't matter at all, but the idea that you'd ever choose between two teammates who won a title together based on the regular season rather than the playoffs is to me pretty iffy. All the more so when the playoff guy has better longevity, more RS Win Shares, etc.

Again, I wouldn't "take" Johnston ahead of Arizin (perhaps not on my team, nor in an all-time sense). I speak to the margin of separation--->where you [presumably, and can correct me if I'm wrong] have Arizin apparently around #50 all-time, and Johnston perhaps not even in the top 120???

I mean, it's entirely possible. As I said before, this idea that 2 guys from the '50s should be close on these lists feels off to me. I'm suspicious whenever I see two contemporaries end up right next to each other on such lists. If there are a few guys between Arizin & Johnston within their era, shouldn't expect a pretty big gap between them on a list like this?

I can't help but think about West & Baylor and how shocking it would feel to old timers to see them 30 spots apart. And while analytics is a thing here, so is the fact that most of the guys in between them come from more modern eras. Guys that have a better case against Baylor than West.

It's similar with Arizin & Johnston except that a) it's an even earlier time period, and b) the gap between players lower on the list becomes smaller and smaller. Whatever it would take from a 120 guy to become a 50 guy, it you double that, you're not getting anything like a GOAT player.

So we saw a full third of PEAK Arizin's minutes replaced by scrubs and replacement-level players; the lost minutes of Ed Mikan and Walt Budko likewise replaced by players who were mostly worse than them.
Then in backcourt we saw the full balance of Andy Phillip's minutes replaced by clearly much lesser players.

That the offense fell off substantially is not exactly a stop the presses! story.

So, in a nutshell you're saying that we don't know that the dropoff was all about Arizin.

I think a more accurate representation of what I'm saying is: we know to a virtual certainty that the dropoff was not all/only about Arizin. The only question is how much was?

Fair enough.

I think the more clear cut information is the utter discrepancy between Johnston's statistical dominance and the team's utter incompetence.

In '52-53, Johnston led the league in PPG and TS Add...while the team went 12-57 had the worst offense in the league. Forget about triangulation loss of impact, the discrepancy between how good Johnston looked and how bad the team was is a glaring thing that simply must be considered.

Yup, in '53 he led the league in PPG and was 2nd in TS%; 1st in TS Add (by less than +8 above Ed Macauley), and the offense was bad.

And in '56 and '57----where he was third in league in ppg while LEADING the league in TS% (also leading the league in TS Add by more than +40 over 2nd-place [and more than +100 over 3rd] both years)---the Warriors have their two best offenses in franchise history to date, notably better than they'd had in '52 with peak Paul Arizin.

The correlation looks more substantial if taking in his full career, and not a single season (selected solely because it paints him in the most unflattering light).

We're talking past each other here, so let me try to re-phrase:

If X causes Y, then if we see X, we should see Y.
If we see X, and don't see Y, then the two things are causally disconnected.

This is the significance of Wilt's '64-65 year where he still puts up MVP-level stats but doesn't seem to have any of the impact of before. Doesn't mean Wilt at his best isn't an MVP-level player, but it does mean that any arguments for Wilt being MVP that are reliant on such stats are making a causal assumption that has been disproven.

If a guy can rack up huge volume & efficiency in his scoring with it leading to worst-in-league results, there is a causal disconnect that has to be reconciled with.

It doesn't mean that Johnston can't play that role on a good team, but it does mean that when he does play that role, we shouldn't assume that his value on the team can be inferred by looking at those stats.

Maybe you're just saying that it seems like my tone is disrespectful of Johnston, and if so, fair enough. It's not a great look to seem like a hater of a ghost.

I don't think you "hate" on Neil Johnston as much as it feels perhaps like a necessary recalibration [downward] for your argumentation in favour of Arizin.

This is just my perception, but it seems [to me] like you: a) think very highly of Paul Arizin; and b) wish to persuade others to likewise think very highly of him (given he's been your primary nomination); but c) can't quite make the case without tearing his most notable teammate from the 50s down a peg or two (involving arguments that are less about "look how awesome Arizin was!" and more about "look how NOT awesome this supposed really good teammate was").

And toward that end there's been a degree of context missing, as well as a bit of "slight of hand" (look at THIS year, not these other years) within your arguments.

Again, that's just my perception. You can leave it in the refuse bin if you like.

Well so in a nutshell:

You think my criticisms about Johnston are about Arizin, and I would state strongly that they are not. It's natural to talk about them together because they were teammates, and thus contrasting one with the other is a clear starting point, and thus why my confusion when I see Johnston getting buzz before Arizin is in. I don't think a soul existed after 1956 who would have tried to argue that Johnston had had the better career than Arizin, and from that point onward Arizin further separated himself.

But I think in general you'll find that there are many teammate pairs where I champion both guys. Pettit & Hagan for example among contemporaries, Curry & Green among modern guys, etc. I'm low on Johnston because I see certain red flag concerns. Maybe those concerns are misplaced - there's much none of us know about '50s details - but I'd stand adamant that if you're not concerned about the lack of causal indicators between a guy's stats and team success, you're brushing past something important.

[eminence]

We're talking past each other here, so let me try to re-phrase:

If X causes Y, then if we see X, we should see Y.
If we see X, and don't see Y, then the two things are causally disconnected.

This is the significance of Wilt's '64-65 year where he still puts up MVP-level stats but doesn't seem to have any of the impact of before. Doesn't mean Wilt at his best isn't an MVP-level player, but it does mean that any arguments for Wilt being MVP that are reliant on such stats are making a causal assumption that has been disproven.

If a guy can rack up huge volume & efficiency in his scoring with it leading to worst-in-league results, there is a causal disconnect that has to be reconciled with.

It doesn't mean that Johnston can't play that role on a good team, but it does mean that when he does play that role, we shouldn't assume that his value on the team can be inferred by looking at those stats.

1) I do find it likely Johnston in '53 wasn't as good as he'd become at all the 'little-things' we know can drive impact but don't show up in the box-score (especially a 50's one), it was only his first season getting big minutes. Was he still likely impactful? Yeah, it's hard to be that level of scorer/rebounder and not be fairly positive (can you think of a modern example where a guy posted top of the league scoring/rebounding numbers and was anything below Allstar level?).

2) Yours feels like an oversimplification of the issue past the point of usefulness, teammates exist and obviously significantly impact Y. I'm in agreement with Trex that the Warriors cast around Johnston was awful and not that comparable to the one in '52, especially after Phillip* was gone.

*They were on a 22 win pace with Phillip, dropping to a 10 win pace without him.

For perspective I'd probably grade Johnston as an Allstar in '53/'58 and at an All-NBA level from '54-'57.

Arizin at Allstar in '51/'55/'58/'60/'61, All-NBA in '52/'57/'59 (notably the worst offense in the league in '59 despite Arizin's scoring prowess), and a low-level MVP in '56.

[WintaSoldier1]

As was pointed out by someone else:

Bill Walton actually has more regular season minutes in his career, and has played big minutes in more playoff series victories than Embiid, while also playing a key part on another champion later in his career.

I personally would not put Embiid over Walton at this point, but I'm not so much bothered by the idea that others would disagree that, so much as I worry about the fact that Walton hasn't gotten consideration at these heights for many years on the basis of his awful longevity. This makes me feel like I need to ask people:

Were you under the impression that the Top 100 previously drastically underrated Walton? If not, it might be that you're falling prey to an issue where you're pegging a guy's longevity quite differently depending on whether you're getting it by watching him in real time or by looking it up on bkref.

Embiid feels like he's had a pretty solid run as a superstar level player because when he's been healthy, he's basically been that level of player since he stepped foot on an NBA court 7 years ago. But in terms of how much he's actually played in that time frame, it's a Walton-level thing complete with all of the frustration of being dependent on a guy who is all too often hurt.

The thing about Walton is he may have had more regular season minutes as a whole, but they're split up between seasons in small enough bits where they don't really affect winning much. Outside of his title winning season, Bill Walton only started 2 playoff games. Those came in his second biggest minute year where he tried to come back from a regular season injury in the playoffs and was unable to continue. Other than that, he played such few minutes that his team was unable to even qualify for the playoffs until he joined Boston as a bench player averaging <20 MPG. Basically, he had one season where he gave his team a chance to contend until he was a bench guy.

Embiid misses a good number of games every year, but since his rookie season, but each of the last 5 seasons, he's played enough regular season games for the Sixers to finish with a decent seed and played enough in the playoffs that they had a chance to advance. None of those minutes are going into seasons where Philadelphia was non-competitive because Embiid didn't play enough. If you look at regular season minutes played in which he was an impact player and healthy enough that his team had any chance at winning a title, Walton has 2300 to Embiid's 11,700.

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time. He has the highest per minute scoring average of all-time. He ranks #2 in 25 year RAPM behind only LeBron. At this point in the list, down in the high 40s, he doesn't need to pile on postseason accomplishments on top of that level of play. He doesn't need to be a key part of playoff series victories. He just needs to somewhat maintain his incredible regular season level. Given that his playoff on/off has been higher than his regular season on/off and the injuries really only cost his team the series against Miami, I think it's fair to say that his lack of durability and playoff success hasn't been any kind of fatal flaw. It doesn't devalue the good things he's done. And I don't see anyone this far down the list whose good things have been as spectacular as Embiid's.

Well, it's certainly true that Walton's career is more split up than Embiid. As I've said, it's not so much that I object to Embiid over Walton as it is seeing them as if they're in two drastically different categories.

Re: played enough in the playoffs they had a chance to advance. I mean, as I've pointed out, they have advanced without him to varying degrees. In those first 3 playoff victories, Embiid wasn't one of the 5 biggest minutes guys, and every single time Simmons had a greater +/- than he did.

If by "chance to advance" you're referring to Philly's 0-5 record in the 2nd round, yeah, that could have happened in theory, but it never has. Let me put it it to you this way:

Any talk about Embiid being accomplished in the playoffs really needs to start with the first time he played big minutes in a series victory...which was in 2022.

In 2022 was Embiid a better playoff performer than, say, Jimmy Butler or Jayson Tatum? I don't think so, do you?
In 2023 was Embiid a better playoff performer than, say, Jimmy Butler or Jayson Tatum? I don't think so, do you?

I worry that if feels like I'm moving the goal post the way I keep bringing up different guys, but it's just because I see so many guys who I think have clearly accomplished more than Embiid to this point in his career.

Walton, Butler, Tatum? I'd have them all ahead of Embiid...and yet to this point I haven't case even a Nomination vote for any of them.

Re: talking about Embiid playing enough in the regular season that the 76ers were in the playoffs. It's true but once again, I think you have to consider realistically whether the 76ers wouldn't have been a playoff team without Embiid. Way back in Embiid's first playoff season, it was Simmons leading the 76ers on a major winning streak to end the season that continued through their 1st round victory largely without Embiid.

Now realistically, I think Simmons in current form couldn't do anything like this, but that was a mental thing induced in no small part by the presence of Embiid. I blame Simmons for that rather than anyone else, but the reality is that Simmons really seemed to know how to play when everything was built around him and the big problem came with him trying to find value on a team where he was expected to fit in around someone else.

This then to say that I think we should be careful about talking about Embiid as if he has lifted the 76ers from nowhere to the playoffs by himself. The reality is that he had help getting the team to the playoffs, help getting out of the 1st round, and he as yet has not got them out of the 2nd round.

Re: at this level, doesn't need playoffs success. Uh, the list from here on out will continue to be dominated by players who actually accomplished things in the playoffs because the playoffs are the focus of how NBA basketball is evaluated. You can personally state that you have a regular season focus on your rankings, but I don't think many will come with you.

And honestly, I'm skeptical this is how you're really thinking about this stuff in general. What I think is happening here is that you're relying on metrics that are available with major sample - which means the regular season - and then looking to see if what's happened in the playoffs absolutely makes you feel compelled to change your assessment.

You're convinced by his regular season dominance, and you see enough indicators in the playoffs to think that the disappointments there can largely be chalked up to noise. And the truth is I'm not sure I fundamentally disagree with you in the abstract idea of how good Embiid is at basketball...but in terms of what he's actually accomplished in the playoffs, Embiid's a guy more competing with Luka & Trae than he is with the guys he's actually competing with in our conversations, and it's not because he played with bad teammates that kept him from having opportunity. Embiid's has had far more opportunity than those other guys to make a playoff splash, and it just hasn't really happened.

Great Post, Great Dialoge.

A bit off-topic between the discussion between you and Iggy but I’m going to interject my own opinion and perspective and see how it ties together with your conversation.

Personally if I had to really boil it down, it seems like there’s a division based on the way you guys are seeing Joel,

Iggy is seeing him from a more “Hooper” perspective where he values his abilities to get buckets and defend buckets

While Doctor MJ is evaluating the totality of who Joel Embidd is as a basketball player while being heavily pessimistic toward Embidd based on (from his perspective) the glorification of Embidd’s abilities in a light that favors being a “Hooper” over a “Basketball Player”

Honestly I think there’s a good medium between the both of you, and I lean a bit towards Iggy’s stance on Joel Embidd. I don’t think he should be punished from an analysis standpoint for failing to have some of the components/characteristics that other AOT’s have on this list and it’s really damaging your perspective on Embidd based on the standard you have for everyone else.

It feels like you’re grading Embidd based on a subconscious rule of evaluation that obviously landed Embidd deep down in this spot instead of looking at him with an appreciation lens's.

( That was for Doctor MJ)

Iggy however is falling into the “Get Buckets” trap and is obviously dazzled by the amount “Hooping” Joel Embidd is doing in the regular season but doesn’t apply a critical scope towards who Joel Embidd is as a individual who directly effects the cohesion and success of a team. This is especially true because during Embidd’s time in Philly someone else has always been the scapegoat for the Sixers lack of Cohesion, Flow, and Success on the Floor.

The Main List of Scapegoats:
Hankie
Brett Brown
Simmons
Doc Rivers
—

So in this sense Iggy fails to critically analyze Embidd and forgoes a great understanding of who he is.

Basically Iggy isn’t critical enough and Doctor MJ is unappreciative towards Embidd.
-
I think Doctor MJ is more right than Iggy but I also appreciate Embidd’s ability to be dominant within the flow of an offense. He’s like a monster right hook for an offense, but obviously against playoff defenses they’re prepared for that action to occur.

[ It doesn’t take away the fact Embidd himself is a monster right hook and “scores” a lot of KO’s in the regular season due to his prowess… But it also bears the fact the right hook is more defendable within the playoffs. I haven’t seen the sixers yet and I’ve been hearing a lot about new offensive flow, so maybe new options in the offense can help his devastating weapon be more pronounced come Post-SZN.]

[trex_8063]

I mean, it's entirely possible. As I said before, this idea that 2 guys from the '50s should be close on these lists feels off to me.

If they're similar(ish) in overall quality, it shouldn't feel off at all.

I'm suspicious whenever I see two contemporaries end up right next to each other on such lists.

Like West/Oscar? Wilt/Russell? Magic/Bird? Paul/Durant? Kobe/Garnett?

We're talking past each other here, so let me try to re-phrase:

If X causes Y, then if we see X, we should see Y.
If we see X, and don't see Y, then the two things are causally disconnected.

So sort of like when Arizin has a +219 TS Add [4th-best of his 10-year career] while the associated offense was the single-worst [-3.5 rORTG] of his entire career?
Would that not be a little similar to Johnston's 4th-best TS Add [+261.2] coinciding with the single-worst offense [-4.1 rORTG] of his 8-year career?


But let's look closer at causal indicators "X" and "Y" [since you mentioned them again later in your post].....

I ran a correlation study of their respective TS Add vs team rORTG (not that scoring is the ONLY manner in which they can influence the offense, but scoring is the calling card of both players).
I counted '53-'58 as Johnston's prime, '52-'60 as Arizin's prime [obviously excluding '53 and '54].

The R-score for their respective primes is indeed better for Arizin: 0.196 for prime Neil Johnston, vs 0.520 for prime Arizin.
For full careers it narrows: 0.250 for Johnston, 0.418 for Arizin (not a particularly strong correlation for either player on full careers, you'll note).

Suppose we wanted to remove some "noise" caused by some truly poor supporting casts? Because let's face it: no matter how good someone is, if you saddle them with trash support, they won't be able to lift them above mediocrity [at best] (we see this even with all-time greats who are better than Arizin/Johnston). Bad casts [obviously] are going to drag the team rating down, even while the good/great player is doing his good/great thing.
So what happens if we select only for years where they had at least semi-competent help?.....

Well, Arizin only had ONE season ['59] where he was stuck with a truly poor cast; the ONLY year it could be said he had a cast even close to as bad as Johnston had in BOTH '53 and '54. Arizin's '59 cast might even be marginally worse on offense than Johnston's in '54, though probably not overall (I would say not even AS BAD overall). His '59 cast does at least have a semi-capable [though historically overrated] facilitator in Guy Rodgers, and some better defenders; but it also has an awful lot of chuckers.

'53 is the worst supporting cast of the three years, however, and clearly so, imo.

btw, if we look at what transpired in '54 and '59---(because I think these are similar-tiered supporting casts overall; many people may disagree and state Arizin's '59 cast is clearly better based on name-recognition, but I think there's an argument to be made that it's no better [or at least very little better] than what Johnston had in '54)---we see a very similar overall outcome:
Arizin managed at .444 win% and -2.29 SRS with his squad (only -3.5 rORTG [dead last]).
Johnston managed a .403 win% and -1.89 SRS with his (-0.8 rORTG).

Anyway, what happens if we REMOVE the single-worst supporting cast year from the data for each player (that's '53 for Johnston and '59 for Arizin)?
Arizin's prime R-score is now 0.792, and his career R-score is .656.
Johnston's prime is 0.364, his career R-score now 0.467.

So the appearance of correlation is improved for both, and actually marginally more so for Arizin, which was a little unexpected for me, tbh (I think it is partly because [aside from Arizin's '52 mark], his TS Adds tend to lag behind those of Johnston. I suspect if instead of raw TS Add I used something like how for above/below they are to their career single-season AVERAGE TS Add, things may look substantially different (maybe I'll play with that later)).


But we haven't completely removed the "bad cast noise" for Johnston......because he suffered TWO years with a poor cast, whereas Arizin really only had the one. So what happens if I remove BOTH of '53 and '54 from Johnston's sample (and '59 from Arizin's)?.....

Now Johnston's prime R-score is 0.822, and his career R-score 0.634 (vs 0.792 and 0.656, respectively, for Arizin [with '59 removed]).
Well gosh, it looks like basically a dead heat when neither is being dragged down by genuinely sub-par supporting cast.


And where the correlation is REALLY strong (almost a linear relationship) is in looking at their COMBINED TS Add and the rORTG.

In overlapping prime years, the R-score is 0.983.
For ALL years they were on the same team [in any capacity] it's still a super-strong correlation of 0.967.

Which, to me, indicates there's some compounding effect, where BOTH players matter, BOTH are contributing substantially to the success of the offense.


So there's a harder look at the causal indicators you mentioned repeatedly, just to prove I'm not ignoring them. I'm just chosing to take stock of context [rather than casting it aside as unimportant] so I may do better job of comparing apples to apples.


Hey, fwiw, I have Arizin ranked comfortably ahead of Johnston all-time (not 70(ish) places, but comfortably). But it's on the basis of Johnston's steeper playoff decline and Arizin's better longevity.
As far as their respective ability to anchor a good offense in that time period, you feel like you're talking past me, telling me I gotta look at the causal indicators.

This is me basically saying "No you."

I feel you are the one who is not looking at the full picture, who is [whether intentionally or not] putting up blinders to various inconvenient contextual details:
*You tunnel-vision on the single-least correlated year for Johnston, while failing to recognize the extremely similar year that exists for Arizin.
**You generally hand-waive away the fact that the TWO best offenses in the entire careers of BOTH players occurred in the EXACT two years that represent Neil Johnston's TWO highest pts/36 min averages AND simultaneously his TWO best rTS%'s for his entire career.
***And [as per above] you appear to disregard that after "correcting" for truly terrible supporting casts, their correlation to good offense is almost exactly the same.

[Doctor MJ]

We're talking past each other here, so let me try to re-phrase:

If X causes Y, then if we see X, we should see Y.
If we see X, and don't see Y, then the two things are causally disconnected.

This is the significance of Wilt's '64-65 year where he still puts up MVP-level stats but doesn't seem to have any of the impact of before. Doesn't mean Wilt at his best isn't an MVP-level player, but it does mean that any arguments for Wilt being MVP that are reliant on such stats are making a causal assumption that has been disproven.

If a guy can rack up huge volume & efficiency in his scoring with it leading to worst-in-league results, there is a causal disconnect that has to be reconciled with.

It doesn't mean that Johnston can't play that role on a good team, but it does mean that when he does play that role, we shouldn't assume that his value on the team can be inferred by looking at those stats.

1) I do find it likely Johnston in '53 wasn't as good as he'd become at all the 'little-things' we know can drive impact but don't show up in the box-score (especially a 50's one), it was only his first season getting big minutes. Was he still likely impactful? Yeah, it's hard to be that level of scorer/rebounder and not be fairly positive (can you think of a modern example where a guy posted top of the league scoring/rebounding numbers and was anything below Allstar level?).

2) Yours feels like an oversimplification of the issue past the point of usefulness, teammates exist and obviously significantly impact Y. I'm in agreement with Trex that the Warriors cast around Johnston was awful and not that comparable to the one in '52, especially after Phillip* was gone.

*They were on a 22 win pace with Phillip, dropping to a 10 win pace without him.

For perspective I'd probably grade Johnston as an Allstar in '53/'58 and at an All-NBA level from '54-'57.

Arizin at Allstar in '51/'55/'58/'60/'61, All-NBA in '52/'57/'59 (notably the worst offense in the league in '59 despite Arizin's scoring prowess), and a low-level MVP in '56.

Well, let's agree that what we're seeing is a situation where when Johnston '53 got the ball in a position where he felt confident to shoot, he was extremely effective, and that the question is what was going wrong outside of that, and presume that better perimeter talent is what's needed to surround Johnston.

The question then is how to rate something like this. I'm someone big on what we call ceiling-raisers, and what I've described sounds like a guy who isn't a great floor raiser but might be a great ceiling raiser. Problem is, against elite competition he tended to struggle to do his thing.

[Doctor MJ]

The thing about Walton is he may have had more regular season minutes as a whole, but they're split up between seasons in small enough bits where they don't really affect winning much. Outside of his title winning season, Bill Walton only started 2 playoff games. Those came in his second biggest minute year where he tried to come back from a regular season injury in the playoffs and was unable to continue. Other than that, he played such few minutes that his team was unable to even qualify for the playoffs until he joined Boston as a bench player averaging <20 MPG. Basically, he had one season where he gave his team a chance to contend until he was a bench guy.

Embiid misses a good number of games every year, but since his rookie season, but each of the last 5 seasons, he's played enough regular season games for the Sixers to finish with a decent seed and played enough in the playoffs that they had a chance to advance. None of those minutes are going into seasons where Philadelphia was non-competitive because Embiid didn't play enough. If you look at regular season minutes played in which he was an impact player and healthy enough that his team had any chance at winning a title, Walton has 2300 to Embiid's 11,700.

Embiid does a lot of things that are unprecedented. He has the highest regular season PER of all-time. He has the highest per minute scoring average of all-time. He ranks #2 in 25 year RAPM behind only LeBron. At this point in the list, down in the high 40s, he doesn't need to pile on postseason accomplishments on top of that level of play. He doesn't need to be a key part of playoff series victories. He just needs to somewhat maintain his incredible regular season level. Given that his playoff on/off has been higher than his regular season on/off and the injuries really only cost his team the series against Miami, I think it's fair to say that his lack of durability and playoff success hasn't been any kind of fatal flaw. It doesn't devalue the good things he's done. And I don't see anyone this far down the list whose good things have been as spectacular as Embiid's.

Well, it's certainly true that Walton's career is more split up than Embiid. As I've said, it's not so much that I object to Embiid over Walton as it is seeing them as if they're in two drastically different categories.

Re: played enough in the playoffs they had a chance to advance. I mean, as I've pointed out, they have advanced without him to varying degrees. In those first 3 playoff victories, Embiid wasn't one of the 5 biggest minutes guys, and every single time Simmons had a greater +/- than he did.

If by "chance to advance" you're referring to Philly's 0-5 record in the 2nd round, yeah, that could have happened in theory, but it never has. Let me put it it to you this way:

Any talk about Embiid being accomplished in the playoffs really needs to start with the first time he played big minutes in a series victory...which was in 2022.

In 2022 was Embiid a better playoff performer than, say, Jimmy Butler or Jayson Tatum? I don't think so, do you?
In 2023 was Embiid a better playoff performer than, say, Jimmy Butler or Jayson Tatum? I don't think so, do you?

I worry that if feels like I'm moving the goal post the way I keep bringing up different guys, but it's just because I see so many guys who I think have clearly accomplished more than Embiid to this point in his career.

Walton, Butler, Tatum? I'd have them all ahead of Embiid...and yet to this point I haven't case even a Nomination vote for any of them.

Re: talking about Embiid playing enough in the regular season that the 76ers were in the playoffs. It's true but once again, I think you have to consider realistically whether the 76ers wouldn't have been a playoff team without Embiid. Way back in Embiid's first playoff season, it was Simmons leading the 76ers on a major winning streak to end the season that continued through their 1st round victory largely without Embiid.

Now realistically, I think Simmons in current form couldn't do anything like this, but that was a mental thing induced in no small part by the presence of Embiid. I blame Simmons for that rather than anyone else, but the reality is that Simmons really seemed to know how to play when everything was built around him and the big problem came with him trying to find value on a team where he was expected to fit in around someone else.

This then to say that I think we should be careful about talking about Embiid as if he has lifted the 76ers from nowhere to the playoffs by himself. The reality is that he had help getting the team to the playoffs, help getting out of the 1st round, and he as yet has not got them out of the 2nd round.

Re: at this level, doesn't need playoffs success. Uh, the list from here on out will continue to be dominated by players who actually accomplished things in the playoffs because the playoffs are the focus of how NBA basketball is evaluated. You can personally state that you have a regular season focus on your rankings, but I don't think many will come with you.

And honestly, I'm skeptical this is how you're really thinking about this stuff in general. What I think is happening here is that you're relying on metrics that are available with major sample - which means the regular season - and then looking to see if what's happened in the playoffs absolutely makes you feel compelled to change your assessment.

You're convinced by his regular season dominance, and you see enough indicators in the playoffs to think that the disappointments there can largely be chalked up to noise. And the truth is I'm not sure I fundamentally disagree with you in the abstract idea of how good Embiid is at basketball...but in terms of what he's actually accomplished in the playoffs, Embiid's a guy more competing with Luka & Trae than he is with the guys he's actually competing with in our conversations, and it's not because he played with bad teammates that kept him from having opportunity. Embiid's has had far more opportunity than those other guys to make a playoff splash, and it just hasn't really happened.

Great Post, Great Dialoge.

A bit off-topic between the discussion between you and Iggy but I’m going to interject my own opinion and perspective and see how it ties together with your conversation.

Personally if I had to really boil it down, it seems like there’s a division based on the way you guys are seeing Joel,

Iggy is seeing him from a more “Hooper” perspective where he values his abilities to get buckets and defend buckets

While Doctor MJ is evaluating the totality of who Joel Embidd is as a basketball player while being heavily pessimistic toward Embidd based on (from his perspective) the glorification of Embidd’s abilities in a light that favors being a “Hooper” over a “Basketball Player”

Honestly I think there’s a good medium between the both of you, and I lean a bit towards Iggy’s stance on Joel Embidd. I don’t think he should be punished from an analysis standpoint for failing to have some of the components/characteristics that other AOT’s have on this list and it’s really damaging your perspective on Embidd based on the standard you have for everyone else.

It feels like you’re grading Embidd based on a subconscious rule of evaluation that obviously landed Embidd deep down in this spot instead of looking at him with an appreciation lens's.

( That was for Doctor MJ)

Iggy however is falling into the “Get Buckets” trap and is obviously dazzled by the amount “Hooping” Joel Embidd is doing in the regular season but doesn’t apply a critical scope towards who Joel Embidd is as a individual who directly effects the cohesion and success of a team. This is especially true because during Embidd’s time in Philly someone else has always been the scapegoat for the Sixers lack of Cohesion, Flow, and Success on the Floor.

The Main List of Scapegoats:
Hankie
Brett Brown
Simmons
Doc Rivers
—

So in this sense Iggy fails to critically analyze Embidd and forgoes a great understanding of who he is.

Basically Iggy isn’t critical enough and Doctor MJ is unappreciative towards Embidd.
-
I think Doctor MJ is more right than Iggy but I also appreciate Embidd’s ability to be dominant within the flow of an offense. He’s like a monster right hook for an offense, but obviously against playoff defenses they’re prepared for that action to occur.

[ It doesn’t take away the fact Embidd himself is a monster right hook and “scores” a lot of KO’s in the regular season due to his prowess… But it also bears the fact the right hook is more defendable within the playoffs. I haven’t seen the sixers yet and I’ve been hearing a lot about new offensive flow, so maybe new options in the offense can help his devastating weapon be more pronounced come Post-SZN.]

I appreciate the thoughtful response Winta.

On the point in bold, I'm curious what you see me as holding against Embiid that I shouldn't, and failing to appreciate that should.

[Doctor MJ]

I mean, it's entirely possible. As I said before, this idea that 2 guys from the '50s should be close on these lists feels off to me.

If they're similar(ish) in overall quality, it shouldn't feel off at all.

I mean, I think Pettit & Hagan are more similar in quality and a 70-spot difference for them has been normal. I don't recall you see those two guys so feel free to chime in on that specific thing, but my point though is that gaps like this are really not all that uncommon from my perspective.

I'm suspicious whenever I see two contemporaries end up right next to each other on such lists.

Like West/Oscar? Wilt/Russell? Magic/Bird? Paul/Durant? Kobe/Garnett?

Absolutely. Doesn't mean it's wrong when it happens, but I think it often is even when it's on my own list. I don't change my lists just to make them "look more realistic", but yeah, when I see that after all these decades I still can't seem to wedge other players in between West & Oscar - regardless of which one is higher - I'm suspicious that surrounding context is making me anchor them to each other in a way that they really shouldn't be.

We're talking past each other here, so let me try to re-phrase:

If X causes Y, then if we see X, we should see Y.
If we see X, and don't see Y, then the two things are causally disconnected.

So sort of like when Arizin has a +219 TS Add [4th-best of his 10-year career] while the associated offense was the single-worst [-3.5 rORTG] of his entire career?
Would that not be a little similar to Johnston's 4th-best TS Add [+261.2] coinciding with the single-worst offense [-4.1 rORTG] of his 8-year career?

It's certainly the analogue to bring up, but you're also talking about a drastically smaller overall team drop-off with a new coach focused on defense and allowing another player (Woody Saulsberry) have a way too much shooting primacy.

But let's look closer at causal indicators "X" and "Y" [since you mentioned them again later in your post].....

I ran a correlation study of their respective TS Add vs team rORTG (not that scoring is the ONLY manner in which they can influence the offense, but scoring is the calling card of both players).
I counted '53-'58 as Johnston's prime, '52-'60 as Arizin's prime [obviously excluding '53 and '54].

The R-score for their respective primes is indeed better for Arizin: 0.196 for prime Neil Johnston, vs 0.520 for prime Arizin.
For full careers it narrows: 0.250 for Johnston, 0.418 for Arizin (not a particularly strong correlation for either player on full careers, you'll note).

Suppose we wanted to remove some "noise" caused by some truly poor supporting casts? Because let's face it: no matter how good someone is, if you saddle them with trash support, they won't be able to lift them above mediocrity [at best] (we see this even with all-time greats who are better than Arizin/Johnston). Bad casts [obviously] are going to drag the team rating down, even while the good/great player is doing his good/great thing.
So what happens if we select only for years where they had at least semi-competent help?.....

Well, Arizin only had ONE season ['59] where he was stuck with a truly poor cast; the ONLY year it could be said he had a cast even close to as bad as Johnston had in BOTH '53 and '54. Arizin's '59 cast might even be marginally worse on offense than Johnston's in '54, though probably not overall (I would say not even AS BAD overall). His '59 cast does at least have a semi-capable [though historically overrated] facilitator in Guy Rodgers, and some better defenders; but it also has an awful lot of chuckers.

'53 is the worst supporting cast of the three years, however, and clearly so, imo.

btw, if we look at what transpired in '54 and '59---(because I think these are similar-tiered supporting casts overall; many people may disagree and state Arizin's '59 cast is clearly better based on name-recognition, but I think there's an argument to be made that it's no better [or at least very little better] than what Johnston had in '54)---we see a very similar overall outcome:
Arizin managed at .444 win% and -2.29 SRS with his squad (only -3.5 rORTG [dead last]).
Johnston managed a .403 win% and -1.89 SRS with his (-0.8 rORTG).

Anyway, what happens if we REMOVE the single-worst supporting cast year from the data for each player (that's '53 for Johnston and '59 for Arizin)?
Arizin's prime R-score is now 0.792, and his career R-score is .656.
Johnston's prime is 0.364, his career R-score now 0.467.

So the appearance of correlation is improved for both, and actually marginally more so for Arizin, which was a little unexpected for me, tbh (I think it is partly because [aside from Arizin's '52 mark], his TS Adds tend to lag behind those of Johnston. I suspect if instead of raw TS Add I used something like how for above/below they are to their career single-season AVERAGE TS Add, things may look substantially different (maybe I'll play with that later)).


But we haven't completely removed the "bad cast noise" for Johnston......because he suffered TWO years with a poor cast, whereas Arizin really only had the one. So what happens if I remove BOTH of '53 and '54 from Johnston's sample (and '59 from Arizin's)?.....

Now Johnston's prime R-score is 0.822, and his career R-score 0.634 (vs 0.792 and 0.656, respectively, for Arizin [with '59 removed]).
Well gosh, it looks like basically a dead heat when neither is being dragged down by genuinely sub-par supporting cast.


And where the correlation is REALLY strong (almost a linear relationship) is in looking at their COMBINED TS Add and the rORTG.

In overlapping prime years, the R-score is 0.983.
For ALL years they were on the same team [in any capacity] it's still a super-strong correlation of 0.967.

Which, to me, indicates there's some compounding effect, where BOTH players matter, BOTH are contributing substantially to the success of the offense.


So there's a harder look at the causal indicators you mentioned repeatedly, just to prove I'm not ignoring them. I'm just chosing to take stock of context [rather than casting it aside as unimportant] so I may do better job of comparing apples to apples.


Hey, fwiw, I have Arizin ranked comfortably ahead of Johnston all-time (not 70(ish) places, but comfortably). But it's on the basis of Johnston's steeper playoff decline and Arizin's better longevity.
As far as their respective ability to anchor a good offense in that time period, you feel like you're talking past me, telling me I gotta look at the causal indicators.

This is me basically saying "No you."

I feel you are the one who is not looking at the full picture, who is [whether intentionally or not] putting up blinders to various inconvenient contextual details:
*You tunnel-vision on the single-least correlated year for Johnston, while failing to recognize the extremely similar year that exists for Arizin.
**You generally hand-waive away the fact that the TWO best offenses in the entire careers of BOTH players occurred in the EXACT two years that represent Neil Johnston's TWO highest pts/36 min averages AND simultaneously his TWO best rTS%'s for his entire career.
***And [as per above] you appear to disregard that after "correcting" for truly terrible supporting casts, their correlation to good offense is almost exactly the same.

Okay, I've read your thoughts here and I'll chew on them.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Draymond Green



Repeating vote:

Spoiler:

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



Repeating vote:

Spoiler:

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: Dwight Howard

Induction Vote #2: Kevin McHale

I just think Dwight had a higher peak as a #1, and McHale doesn't quite have the longevity or, imo, floor-raising ability that Pierce had to overcome that.

Nomination Vote #1: Paul Arizin

Nomination Vote #2: George Gervin

Going with Arizin because it seems like he's the one best positioned to compete with Lanier here in terms of votes, and I think Arizin maybe peaked higher in era-relative terms.

I think Gervin is the guy I'd actually champion the most out of the current candidates(perhaps Gasol or Cowens) and frankly, it's starting to get insulting to him that he's not even nominated yet.

Sorry for the short explanations, it's late and I'm just getting my vote in.

[OhayoKD]

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

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Draymond Green
Alt vote: Dwight Howard
Nominate: Dave Cowens
Alt nomination: Bob Lanier

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]

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

McHale - 5 (AEnigma, Clyde, Samurai, beast, trex)
Dwight - 4 (LA Bird, trelos, HBK, OSNB)
Embiid - 1 (iggy)
Green - 3 (Doc, Ohayo, hcl)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between McHale & Dwight:

McHale - 1 (Doc)
Dwight - 1 (hcl)
neither - 2 (iggy, Ohayo)

Kevin McHale 6, Dwight Howard 5

Kevin McHale is Inducted at #48.

Nomination Vote 1:

Lanier - 2 (AEnigma, LA Bird)
Gervin - 1 (Clyde)
Johnston - 1 (trelos)
Arizin - 3 (Samurai, Doc, OSNB)
Bobby - 1 (beast)
Gasol - 1 (trex)
Payton - 1 (iggy)
Reed - 1 (HBK)
Davies - 1 (Ohayo)
Cowens - 1 (hcl)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Arizin & Lanier:

Lanier - 2 (iggy, hcl)
Arizin - 0 (none)
neither - 6 (Clyde, trelos, beast, trex, HBK , Ohayo)

Bob Lanier 4, Paul Arizin 3

Bob Lanier is added to Nominee list.