RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[colts18]

^^^This is overcome with sample size. It's just impossible to glean much beyond "what just happened to have happened that one time" when a player misses 6, 8, 10 games. 20+ games is a nice sample, and of course we want as little lineup fluctuation as possible in that span. (This also usually irons out H/A differences.)

Talking about in/out and RAPM 20 games into a season is somewhat useless.

Elgee, what happened to your website?

[lorak]

^^^This is overcome with sample size. It's just impossible to glean much beyond "what just happened to have happened that one time" when a player misses 6, 8, 10 games. 20+ games is a nice sample,

So why you posted many data with samples lower than 20+ games?

Talking about in/out and RAPM 20 games into a season is somewhat useless.

Using RAPM at this point of the season isn't useless. It's different than "normal" APM (for example from basketballvalue).

[ElGee]

Haha man you've asked me this question before. I literal discuss the differences in accuracy in 8 games of I/O versus 20...

[mysticbb]

DavidStern, you are comparing records with point differentials. Look at the point differential, adjust for the strength of schedule. Well, I'm not even sure what those numbers for Wade, Rose or Horford should prove here.

And you are correct, RAPM is different, we are also talking about prior informed RAPM, which is again different. Using prior informed RAPM based on 20 games in this season to explain stuff happened in those past 20 games is hardly a useful way. Prior informed RAPM can be used as predictor for the future outcome of games and is better at that than bascially all other available metrics. So, if you want to pick a player for upcoming games, you can choose prior informed RAPM.

We also have to take into account, that players with less minutes will have a lower impact on the outcome of the games. It makes a difference, whether a +5 players is playing 20 minutes or 40 minutes. The 40 minutes player will assure that during his minutes the team will be at +4, while 20 minutes player will make it +2. Thus, the in/out data will be less reliable for players with less minutes.

[Dr Positivity]

Speaking of RAPM, can't believe Bargnani is still -1.5 for this season, he's on a team that's 6-7 with him and 3-15 without

[mysticbb]

Speaking of RAPM, can't believe Bargnani is still -1.5 for this season, he's on a team that's 6-7 with him and 3-15 without

You have to take into account that this is adjusted for the strength of the teammates and opponents. Well, and you also looked at the prior informed. Bargnani was at -3.3 last season, it is a long way to improve from that value. He is -0.2 in non-prior informed, though.

[bbms]

T-Mac HAS to be the most overrated player ever.

[Dipper 13]

Wilt couldn't dominate Wayne freakin Embry.

To add to the post on the previous page, Embry was known to play Wilt as tough as any C in the league. Basically Embry was pushing a hobbled Wilt from behind (in a brutish manner that would be a definite foul under today's rules) while Russell & the others were playing in front of him, sagging off the shooters almost forming a circle around him. No 3 pt. line to space the floor.


Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA - Terry Pluto

Boston were OLDER and MORE INJURED.

I still cannot believe this comment. There is no need to lie. Below I will add an article highlighting Luke Jackson's big clutch shooting in the 4th quarter of Game 4 on badly pulled hamstring. When Lakers star Magic pulled his hamstring in '89 Finals, he could not even play the final game at all & much of the third game. I would mention B. Scott if his injury wasn't more serious, having torn the muscle. Back in the old days they were expected to gut it out under worse playing conditions, as Jackson did when he played the entire '65-'66 season on broken leg, casually shrugging it off as shin splints.



Williamson Daily News - Apr 10, 1968





New York Times - Apr 18, 1968

But injuries have depleted the team that ended the Celtics' eight-year reign last season. Wally Jones, the jump-shooting Philadelphia guard with the game-breaking touch, is doubtful for Friday. He aggravated his right knee, first injured during the series with the New York Knickerbockers, early in the opening quarter and did not return.

Wilt Chamberlain, the 7-foot pillar of the 76ers, produced 20 points but was in obvious pain with an ailing right leg.



Christian Science Monitor - Apr 18, 1968

Jackson is also a player who reacts well to pressure situations. In the fourth game of this years Eastern Division playoffs between Boston and Philadelphia Celtics' Coach Bill Russell brought in Wayne Embry to help him cool off Chamberlain. It was a gamble because it left Luke unguarded maybe 15 feet away from the basket, but still unguarded. If the 76ers decided to give Jackson the ball, he could shoot unhurried and unbothered.

Luke turned Russell's gamble into a disaster for Boston by hitting his next four shots. It was the kind of insurance you can't buy from Lloyd's of London. "What Jackson did won the game for us," Hannum said. "But because the man was not guarded, everyone acted like he should have done it - that this kind of thing would be routine for any player.

[UDRIH14]

someone needs to tell why is russell and wilt rank so high? i think players like shaq, duncan, hakeem could dominate or replicate what these guys do their respective eras they played in or even h2h against those guys....for whatever abilities those 2 have, its not like they going to dominate the 3 players i mention or score at will against them or shutting them down...

[therealbig3]

someone needs to tell why is russell and wilt rank so high? i think players like shaq, duncan, hakeem could dominate or replicate what these guys do their respective eras they played in or even h2h against those guys....for whatever abilities those 2 have, its not like they going to dominate the 3 players i mention or score at will against them or shutting them down...

It's not one-on-one, what they would do individually against them doesn't matter, it's about how they impact the team.

And for that reason, I actually agree that Wilt was ranked too high and should have been ranked under those 3 players that you mentioned.

Russell, on the other hand, was such an awesome defender and understood the game so well, that his impact was off the charts compared to those 3, so he's ranked higher. I agree with that, he's one of 2 players who has an argument for GOAT imo, the other being MJ.

[UDRIH14]

Russell, on the other hand, was such an awesome defender and understood the game so well, that his impact was off the charts compared to those 3, so he's ranked higher. I agree with that, he's one of 2 players who has an argument for GOAT imo, the other being MJ.

you think hakeem or duncan cant anchor those boston teams? the same cant be said about russell if he was to anchor the rockets and spurs defensively and offensively...

[drza]

Russell, on the other hand, was such an awesome defender and understood the game so well, that his impact was off the charts compared to those 3, so he's ranked higher. I agree with that, he's one of 2 players who has an argument for GOAT imo, the other being MJ.

you think hakeem or duncan cant anchor those boston teams? the same cant be said about russell if he was to anchor the rockets and spurs defensively and offensively...

I don't get the impression that you read the threads. Not because the arguments made in the thread would have to convince you, but if you had read them you could at least address them directly. Your comments here are the exact type that we've addressed ad nauseum in this project. So before re-starting the argument from the same spots, you could at least know where things were left off so that the discussion could advance instead of just going over old ground.

One cliff notes answer to your question: there's no real way to discern how much value to give to an innovator. In Russell, you literally have the guy that invented jumping to block shots on defense. Hakeem came very late to basketball, and even Duncan was a swimmer early on that only came to basketball once he started growing. So no, there's no guarantee at all that either of them would have had the innovative genius to develop the defensive style of play that they eventually used...and without that, no, you can't just state definitively that they'd have had Russell's impact.

[Doctor MJ]

Russell, on the other hand, was such an awesome defender and understood the game so well, that his impact was off the charts compared to those 3, so he's ranked higher. I agree with that, he's one of 2 players who has an argument for GOAT imo, the other being MJ.

you think hakeem or duncan cant anchor those boston teams? the same cant be said about russell if he was to anchor the rockets and spurs defensively and offensively...

drza's response said the bulk of what needs to be said here, but also: You equating Duncan's defense with Russell & Hakeem is amusing to me. Forget about overall quality of player for a second, Duncan isn't at all the same type of defender that the other two are. For you to imply that you could just plug Duncan into Russell's role is just silly. Everything was predicated on Russell's freakish build which Hakeem is one of the few players in history that's similar.

[penbeast0]

That and, great as they were, neither Hakeem nor Duncan is the rebounder that Russell was relative to their eras either.

People are starting to catch on to how great Russell's defensive impact was thanks to several posters who posted team defensive ratings and ratings relative to league, but they often forget that his rebounding was GOAT level as well although Rodman and possibly Wilt might be higher (Russell was higher than Wilt by a hair in per minute numbers but Wilt played the bigger minutes).

[therealbig3]

Russell, on the other hand, was such an awesome defender and understood the game so well, that his impact was off the charts compared to those 3, so he's ranked higher. I agree with that, he's one of 2 players who has an argument for GOAT imo, the other being MJ.

you think hakeem or duncan cant anchor those boston teams? the same cant be said about russell if he was to anchor the rockets and spurs defensively and offensively...

drza's response said the bulk of what needs to be said here, but also: You equating Duncan's defense with Russell & Hakeem is amusing to me. Forget about overall quality of player for a second, Duncan isn't at all the same type of defender that the other two are. For you to imply that you could just plug Duncan into Russell's role is just silly. Everything was predicated on Russell's freakish build which Hakeem is one of the few players in history that's similar.

I'm assuming you're saying Duncan isn't really close to being the defender that Hakeem was (forget Russell, I don't think anyone is comparable defensively)?

Why is that? I know Duncan doesn't fit the Russell mold like Hakeem...but to be honest, he wasn't all that far off when he was younger. Pretty agile, covered a lot of court, good shot blocker, high defensive IQ, great positioning, great rebounding, etc.

It's fine to say he's not Hakeem, but you're making it seem like he's not even close, and I don't buy that. I have been convinced that KG is the better defender between him and Duncan (your explanation about covering large areas of the court makes a lot of sense), but it's not like Duncan was slow footed in his prime. I see KG being the #1 defender of this era, Duncan a close #2. If Hakeem/Russell/KG are the cream of the crop defensively, I think Duncan is just below that tier.

Basically, my long winded way of saying that I don't agree that it's ridiculous to include Duncan in this conversation as a defensive anchor, lol.

[Deus]

but also: You equating Duncan's defense with Russell & Hakeem is amusing to me. Forget about overall quality of player for a second, Duncan isn't at all the same type of defender that the other two are. For you to imply that you could just plug Duncan into Russell's role is just silly. Everything was predicated on Russell's freakish build which Hakeem is one of the few players in history that's similar.

Duncan was much better than Russell was on the offensive end of the floor.
Duncan was a great defender, just like Hakeem and Russell. You've obviously never seen the guy play on a regular basis like me, being a Mavericks fan for the last 20 years.

And to say that Russell and Hakeem had "freakish" builds is silly. They both had freakish athletic ability compared to Duncan, but Duncan had much better fundamentals. Hence his nickname.

[therealbig3]

Question that I've been debating, and I don't really want to make a new thread about it:

Why is Barkley ranked over Nash, even by the guys that love Nash (ElGee, Doctor MJ)?

Barkley seems to be worse on either side of the ball, so what is the argument for Barkley over Nash?

[mopper8]

I'm assuming you're saying Duncan isn't really close to being the defender that Hakeem was (forget Russell, I don't think anyone is comparable defensively)?

Why is that? I know Duncan doesn't fit the Russell mold like Hakeem...but to be honest, he wasn't all that far off when he was younger. Pretty agile, covered a lot of court, good shot blocker, high defensive IQ, great positioning, great rebounding, etc.

It's fine to say he's not Hakeem, but you're making it seem like he's not even close, and I don't buy that. I have been convinced that KG is the better defender between him and Duncan (your explanation about covering large areas of the court makes a lot of sense), but it's not like Duncan was slow footed in his prime. I see KG being the #1 defender of this era, Duncan a close #2. If Hakeem/Russell/KG are the cream of the crop defensively, I think Duncan is just below that tier.

Basically, my long winded way of saying that I don't agree that it's ridiculous to include Duncan in this conversation as a defensive anchor, lol.

I totally agree with this, and would add that while I generally think "covering large areas" is probably the most important thing a defender can do, that's not the end of defense, and there are other areas where Duncan exceeds Garnett, namely contesting shots at the rim. You have essentially parity between the two on the defensive glass...KG was slightly better at his peak. I also probably prefer Duncan to body up bigger post players, though obviously KG is more able to step out on laterally quick players. Still, to the extent there is separation between the two, I find it minimal at best.

[Doctor MJ]

Question that I've been debating, and I don't really want to make a new thread about it:

Why is Barkley ranked over Nash, even by the guys that love Nash (ElGee, Doctor MJ)?

Barkley seems to be worse on either side of the ball, so what is the argument for Barkley over Nash?

This is an excellent question, and one I have a tough time answering. I'll be thinking about it more. What I will say:

-I have tremendous respect for Barkley. He is without question a top 10 offensive player of all-time. There's never been anything like him.

-Makes sense to knock his defense, but one also has to remember his rebounding impact which was just profound.

[Doctor MJ]

but also: You equating Duncan's defense with Russell & Hakeem is amusing to me. Forget about overall quality of player for a second, Duncan isn't at all the same type of defender that the other two are. For you to imply that you could just plug Duncan into Russell's role is just silly. Everything was predicated on Russell's freakish build which Hakeem is one of the few players in history that's similar.

Duncan was much better than Russell was on the offensive end of the floor.
Duncan was a great defender, just like Hakeem and Russell. You've obviously never seen the guy play on a regular basis like me, being a Mavericks fan for the last 20 years.

And to say that Russell and Hakeem had "freakish" builds is silly. They both had freakish athletic ability compared to Duncan, but Duncan had much better fundamentals. Hence his nickname.

Seriously, your response to me making the distinction between the style of a current player and two players from previous eras is to say that I clearly haven't watched enough of the current player? Think about what you're saying.

My opinion on a guy like Russell is always a bit vulnerable because I truly haven't seen that much of him...which also means that almost certainly YOU haven't seen that much of him either and yet your convinced that properly rating Duncan next to him is primarily dependent on unusually copious amounts of Duncan. This is silly.

Anyway, Duncan's never been the jump-out-of-the-gym type, which is why casual fans consider him so boring, and why he has such a boring nickname. Doesn't mean he can't have been better than Hakeem or Russell necessarily, but no, he didn't play defense the same way.