RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #17 (David Robinson)

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: David Robinson
Can’t believe he hasn’t gone in yet. Mikan over him felt especially gross. Top 5 regular season box stats of all-time, probably a top 3 defender all-time. Insane impact stats. Even in his absolute weakest area (postseason box stats), he still beats out several people who have gone already. I’d have him ahead of Russell and Wilt even.

Alternate: Chris Paul
4th best impact profile of the data-ball era, trailing only players who went in the top 5. Excellent longevity. Only weakness is that he struggled with playoff injuries a bit in the second half of his career. Probably still has more healthy top level runs than Magic though.

[iggymcfrack]

Wonder why Wade hasn't gotten any kind of traction

He was my second nominee choice after Erving last time, so I'll probably be picking him this time around.

I think the longevity thing really hurts in perception compared to a guy like Paul because they are seen as contemporaries, but Wade's career ended long ago and Paul is still going.

Am saying the same thing, considering Giannis has gotten some nominations so far. Which is no knack at Giannis, as he’s a hell of a force in his own right. I think Wade is a similar player prime for prime, however

The thing about Wade is even compared to modern players, he has a very short prime:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2006, 2009, 2010

Top 10 player: 2011, 2012

Impactful starter: 2005, 2007, 2013


That’s really not much to work with. Compare that to say Jokic:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2021, 2022, 2023

Top 10 player: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Impactful starter: 2016

When it comes to meaningful longevity, I think you can actually say Jokic has the edge. Same for Giannis. And both players did peak higher.

[One_and_Done]

Vote: David Robinson
Can’t believe he hasn’t gone in yet. Mikan over him felt especially gross. Top 5 regular season box stats of all-time, probably a top 3 defender all-time. Insane impact stats. Even in his absolute weakest area (postseason box stats), he still beats out several people who have gone already. I’d have him ahead of Russell and Wilt even.

Alternate: Chris Paul
4th best impact profile of the data-ball era, trailing only players who went in the top 5. Excellent longevity. Only weakness is that he struggled with playoff injuries a bit in the second half of his career. Probably still has more healthy top level runs than Magic though.

Agreed with most of this, though I have CP3 last among this group. I'm keen to get the debate going for Nash & Barkley soon too.

[Colbinii]

He was my second nominee choice after Erving last time, so I'll probably be picking him this time around.

I think the longevity thing really hurts in perception compared to a guy like Paul because they are seen as contemporaries, but Wade's career ended long ago and Paul is still going.

Am saying the same thing, considering Giannis has gotten some nominations so far. Which is no knack at Giannis, as he’s a hell of a force in his own right. I think Wade is a similar player prime for prime, however

The thing about Wade is even compared to modern players, he has a very short prime:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2006, 2009, 2010

Top 10 player: 2011, 2012

Impactful starter: 2005, 2007, 2013


That’s really not much to work with. Compare that to say Jokic:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2021, 2022, 2023

Top 10 player: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Impactful starter: 2016

When it comes to meaningful longevity, I think you can actually say Jokic has the edge. Same for Giannis. And both players did peak higher.

2011 Wade is much closer to Top 2 than he is Top 10.

[rk2023]

Vote: David Robinson
Can’t believe he hasn’t gone in yet. Mikan over him felt especially gross. Top 5 regular season box stats of all-time, probably a top 3 defender all-time. Insane impact stats. Even in his absolute weakest area (postseason box stats), he still beats out several people who have gone already. I’d have him ahead of Russell and Wilt even.

Alternate: Chris Paul
4th best impact profile of the data-ball era, trailing only players who went in the top 5. Excellent longevity. Only weakness is that he struggled with playoff injuries a bit in the second half of his career. Probably still has more healthy top level runs than Magic though.

In spite of the longevity gap between the two, Magic has still logged ~2100 more playoff minutes than C. Paul. Hard to see him having more top level "runs" than Magic with this considered.

[HeartBreakKid]

He was my second nominee choice after Erving last time, so I'll probably be picking him this time around.

I think the longevity thing really hurts in perception compared to a guy like Paul because they are seen as contemporaries, but Wade's career ended long ago and Paul is still going.

Am saying the same thing, considering Giannis has gotten some nominations so far. Which is no knack at Giannis, as he’s a hell of a force in his own right. I think Wade is a similar player prime for prime, however

The thing about Wade is even compared to modern players, he has a very short prime:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2006, 2009, 2010

Top 10 player: 2011, 2012

Impactful starter: 2005, 2007, 2013


That’s really not much to work with. Compare that to say Jokic:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2021, 2022, 2023

Top 10 player: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Impactful starter: 2016

When it comes to meaningful longevity, I think you can actually say Jokic has the edge. Same for Giannis. And both players did peak higher.

Wade is a lot better than just an impactful starter in those years. Also, why is 2007 a mention but not 2008?

In 2011 Wade was roughly as good as Lebron James was, so I'm not sure how you can just say he is just a top ten guy.

[Doctor MJ]

The thing about Wade is even compared to modern players, he has a very short prime:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2006, 2009, 2010

Top 10 player: 2011, 2012

Impactful starter: 2005, 2007, 2013


That’s really not much to work with. Compare that to say Jokic:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2021, 2022, 2023

Top 10 player: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Impactful starter: 2016

When it comes to meaningful longevity, I think you can actually say Jokic has the edge. Same for Giannis. And both players did peak higher.

Wade absolutely has a short prime that hurts him here, but since you're listing out Top X years, I'll say this:

Here are a list of guys who are either being discussed now for inclusion, or I'd expect to be discussed soon by the number of Top 5 POY seasons I have for them:

Kevin Durant 8
Karl Malone 8
Bob Pettit 8
David Robinson 7
Dirk Nowitzki 6
Julius Erving 5
Moses Malone 5
Dwyane Wade 5
Walt Frazier 4
Nikola Jokic 4
Steve Nash 4
Giannis Antetokounmpo 3
Charles Barkley 3
Chris Paul 3

Obviously that doesn't say anything about how high they were in my Top 5, or the years that they were near misses...as well as whether there's anything off-court that I see as extremely negative, so this isn't the precise ordering of my upcoming list.

[70sFan]

Fatigue affecting anything if there's enough of it is plausible.

And yes the manner earned would matter. But neither is measured by opponent team level regular season defense. That would be physiological and the manner of the foul.

For the broader picture see the full response that's taken from. If this were a real thing, I'd imagine we'd see greater variance at a career level in free throw shooting, especially on the downside. Based on the evidence cited above, I believe it isn't there and bucket variations, like yearly variations, are noise from small samples (in this instance a single player, playoff only, partial career, 621 attempts split into smaller buckets, exact size of each bucket not given).

If you actually do this analysis with all players, look at their RS splits between defense levels because you think fatigue-based free throw team level defense is real and significant thing and you have the evidence I'm willing to listen. (Or if you now find it a compelling theory and want to try it now, perhaps compelled by the theory of David Robinson being 85% against bad defenses and 65% against good ones as sustainable ...)

However my suspicion is that you don't do this and this theory is, per above, an ad hoc back-fitting of a rationalization onto noise.

I said I won't engage anymore, but I have seen this discussion in the last thread and I actually made such calculations for defense faced production in RS for 5 years stretches and I did 1992-96 Robinson. Here are the results:

Against bad (+2.0 or better per Basketball-Reference) defenses: 27.6/10.9/3.6 with 2.7 tov on 55.2 FG%, 75.3 FT% and 61.5 TS% (+7.8 rTS%) in 136 games and 37.1 mpg
Against good (-2.0 or better per Basketball-Reference) defenses: 25.1/11.5/3.3 with 2.8 tov on 49.4 FG%, 73.7 FT% and 56.5 TS% (+3.0 rTS%) in 114 games and 39.8 mpg

Don't have pace adjustments unfortunately, but for per36 here are the differences:

-4.1 points p36
-0.2 reb p36
-0.5 ast p36
-0.1 tov p36
-5.8 FG%
-1.6 FT%
-5.0 TS%
-4.8 rTS%

If you want to see any other center in comparison, please let me know.

could you do ft attempts too?

and uh...how about shaq

Sure!

FT attempts:

Against bad defenses: 10.2 FTA, 9.9 per36, 56.7% FTr
Against good defenses: 10.3 FTA, 9.3 per36, 58.2% FTr

There is no significant difference in his foul drawing ability.

Also, 1998-02 Shaq:

Spoiler:

Against bad (+2.0 or better per Basketball-Reference) defenses: 28.4/11.5/3.1 with 2.4 tov on 60.3 FG%, 51.8 FT% and 60.0 TS% (+8.1 rTS%) in 95 games and 36.4 mpg
Against good (-2.0 or better per Basketball-Reference) defenses: 28.1/12.8/3.0 with 3.1 tov on 55.1 FG%, 53.6 FT% and 56.3 TS% (+4.3 rTS%) in 139 games and 40.0 mpg

Don't have pace adjustments unfortunately, but for per36 here are the differences:

-2.8 points p36
+0.1 reb p36
-0.4 ast p36
-0.3 tov p36
-5.2 FG%
+1.8 FT%
-5.0 TS%
-4.7 rTS%

FT attempts:

Against bad defenses: 10.5 FTA, 10.4 per36, 55.3% FTr
Against good defenses: 11.5 FTA, 10.4 per36, 57.8% FTr

Also, worth mentioning:
- Shaq played 54 out of 139 games against good defenses in the playoffs (zero PS games against bad defenses),
- Robinson played 8 PS games out of 114 games against good defenses (4 PS games against bad defenses).

Postseason numbers against good defenses:

1998-02 Shaq: 28.4/14.1/2.9 with 3.2 tov on 55.0 FG%, 53.0 FT% and 56.0 TS% (+4.0 rTS%) in 54 games and 41.4 mpg
1992-96 Robinson: 19.6/12.5/4.1 with 2.1 tov on 41.8 FG%, 66.2 FT% and 47.9 TS% (-5.3 rTS%) in 8 games and 40.3 mpg

[iggymcfrack]

Am saying the same thing, considering Giannis has gotten some nominations so far. Which is no knack at Giannis, as he’s a hell of a force in his own right. I think Wade is a similar player prime for prime, however

The thing about Wade is even compared to modern players, he has a very short prime:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2006, 2009, 2010

Top 10 player: 2011, 2012

Impactful starter: 2005, 2007, 2013


That’s really not much to work with. Compare that to say Jokic:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2021, 2022, 2023

Top 10 player: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Impactful starter: 2016

When it comes to meaningful longevity, I think you can actually say Jokic has the edge. Same for Giannis. And both players did peak higher.

2011 Wade is much closer to Top 2 than he is Top 10.

Top 10 in this case would be “years ranked 3-10”. Wade was 4th in POY voting here that year behind Dirk, LeBron, and Dwight which seems about right to me. Jokic who I was comparing him to was 3rd in POY voting in 2020 which was even higher.

[iggymcfrack]

The thing about Wade is even compared to modern players, he has a very short prime:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2006, 2009, 2010

Top 10 player: 2011, 2012

Impactful starter: 2005, 2007, 2013


That’s really not much to work with. Compare that to say Jokic:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2021, 2022, 2023

Top 10 player: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Impactful starter: 2016

When it comes to meaningful longevity, I think you can actually say Jokic has the edge. Same for Giannis. And both players did peak higher.

Wade absolutely has a short prime that hurts him here, but since you're listing out Top X years, I'll say this:

Here are a list of guys who are either being discussed now for inclusion, or I'd expect to be discussed soon by the number of Top 5 POY seasons I have for them:

Kevin Durant 8
Karl Malone 8
Bob Pettit 8
David Robinson 7
Dirk Nowitzki 6
Julius Erving 5
Moses Malone 5
Dwyane Wade 5
Walt Frazier 4
Nikola Jokic 4
Steve Nash 4
Giannis Antetokounmpo 3
Charles Barkley 3
Chris Paul 3

Obviously that doesn't say anything about how high they were in my Top 5, or the years that they were near misses...as well as whether there's anything off-court that I see as extremely negative, so this isn't the precise ordering of my upcoming list.

If we go by POY voting, we come up with 5 top 5 seasons for Jokic and 4 for Wade which I’d agree with. Also, would strongly disagree with the Durant/Paul top 5 years. I’d probably give KD a total of 3 for 2012-2014 and I’d give CP3 something like 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 for a total of 7.

[iggymcfrack]

Just for fun, I decided to look through actual POY voting on this site for Paul and Durant. Paul gets 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 for a total of 6 top 5 seasons and Durant gets 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018 for a total of 7 top 5 seasons. So the voters would give Durant one less top 5 season than you did and Paul one less top 5 season than me. Giving Paul only 3 top 5 seasons is ridiculously harsh IMO although you'd probably feel the same way about how many I give to Durant.

[Doctor MJ]

Just for fun, I decided to look through actual POY voting on this site for Paul and Durant. Paul gets 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 for a total of 6 top 5 seasons and Durant gets 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018 for a total of 7 top 5 seasons. So the voters would give Durant one less top 5 season than you did and Paul one less top 5 season than me. Giving Paul only 3 top 5 seasons is ridiculously harsh IMO although you'd probably feel the same way about how many I give to Durant.

So, ftr, in my current tallies I have:

Paul: 2008, 2014, 2015 - but I think your other choices are reasonable.
Durant: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

Incidentally, in 2019, I had Durant in my Top 5 where others had Jokic. I love, love, love Jokic, but hard for me to see the case for him over KD in that year.

[rk2023]

Across the board (sans Dirk, whom I. have voted for already):

Erving -
+: Pretty solid longevity, coming in and being the unimpeachable ABA GOAT from the age(s) of 21-25 - then following with 11 solid NBA seasons with a consistent value over replacement accrued.
+: Could be some evidence that his ABA -> NBA translation more or less was a result of awkward fit/construction at first - as well as better than usual benches. In the playoffs, he looks somewhat more like what we would expect to see. Relating to the original point as well, It doesn't appear the ABA was *that* much weaker than the NBA in years Erving was reaching his peak as a player - giving a very good shot he had a somewhat consistent run of MVP-level play (strong argument for best peak, out of the nominees)

-: His 76ers impact profile is a tough not to crack and somewhat underwhelming compared to what I'd expect given Erving's stature. There's some +/- data that is in his favor, some that isn't - where the consistency (lack thereof rather) is puzzling. How much of this could be attributed to situation rather than Erving's own value proposition(s)?
-: Some studies have the ABA as like 90% of the NBA (atleast Taylor mentioned this in BackPicks back in 2018). If this estimate is overstated and the ABA comes out being a fair share under to a greater extent, perhaps further mental curving ought to be done for Erving's 5 years. Wonder how this could swing his career value..

Malone -
+: Longevity titan. One of the players (along with Russell, Kareem, LBJ) whom proved age to be just that of a number. Boasts ironman durability to complement, seldom missing games and performing at a weak MVP (perhaps mildly higher) level all of the 90s with some solid years to complement.
+: Underrated team results. Yeah, the Sloan system, was predictable and had some fall-off in the playoffs (that from incredible RS indicators). Even with that, there's statistical evidence in favor of the 90s Jazz being the best core to never win a ring. I'd say such started and ended with Malone. His individual impact is hard to really single out due to lack of a stable WOWY sample and extreme lineup co-linearity, but there's a decent shot Utah's goodness started and ended with K. Malone.

-: Postseason tail-off leading to questions as to how far Malone can take a team as a first option. I think me being not as high on Malone's peak also is a result of this - more or less. From what I've seen (doing a film study of his 97/98 PS at the moment), Malone's offensive approach seems very textbook/rigid rather than dynamic and adaptable. Following such a style is something I can see as a key driver for why his scoring efficiency went down a fair share. I don't think he was adding all-time defensive impact (still a formidable player on that end, no doubt) to compensate either (eg. akin toDuncan, Hakeem, Garnett) - so I'm not sure if I'd take him as a #1 over some of the guys in candidacy.

Robinson -
+: Monster impact footprint, where he showed almost unimpeachable value to some of his Spur casts pre-Duncan (part of it can be attributed to an empty cupboard of guard play / big-man depth at times, but I can't really take away the on/off/WOWY/GPM results away from him).
+: Ability to provide a great floor across situations with his defensive presence. Same shpiel about "rim protection valuable, Robinson protects rim good, anchored amazing defenses and showed Duncan the ropes" as expected. Don't think there's anything novel here - it's more or less consensus he's a Pantheon++ defender due to his combination of athleticism and size.
+: Scalable offensive game. Robinson was an athletic marvel, pretty quick, and smart enough off-the-ball to be a good play-finisher and have an approach to scoring (best served in a complimentary role, which I'll elaborate upon soon) that meshes well with all sorts of perimeter play. I don't buy what one poster is trying to push about his mid-range arsenal and PnP potential/range however.

-: Empirically one of the biggest bottom-feeders (eg. goes off against weak defenses, struggles against elite ones) - which shows up looking at his RS -> PS translation and is quite noticeable even in a RS setting when filtering by opponents. I believe AEnigma posted some of these snippets (I have before as well) of information, and it looks somewhat damning in a vacuum. Am aware that his mediocre situation(s) for a fair share of his prime perhaps amplified this, but if those were to be better throughout his prime - would his raw and partially derived impact pop out nearly as much and would he be viewed as highly as he is this project? Rhetorical, but a lot of these concerns are being unanswered more or less.. For me, it seems there is a pretty clear answer - which I've elaborated upon plenty.

Paul -
+: Like Robinson, his RS impact footprint (different situations, team contexts too) looks incredible and replicable. Longevity (especially for a 6'0 dude) pops out as rather impressive - as playing at an MVP level for a decade apart barring some injuries and then stockpiling some nice support years as a Rocket/Sun/Thunder helps him in these conversations.
+: In a more amplified way of Robinson as an all-time defender and Durant as an all-time scorer, I think Paul has an even better claim than either as "better" in a macro area of basketball - being (imo) a top 3 playmaker of all time. Being a QB and engine at many stops with obscene facilitation results to show for it (though overstated to an extent, with risk averse / conservative style of play) Is something I see as a feather in Paul's cap. He's just a very skilled player as a whole, with great shooting and defense to his name too.

-: Durability. Yeah, this one goes without saying. I think there's years Paul outright nukes his teams' chances of advancing by missing games. Fair share of time missed through his prime also bottlenecks how many Top 5 / MVP level seasons Paul has - which I think sets him back.
-: Post-season results. No, I'm not a "rangzzz" guy or one whom thinks Paul by any means imaginable is a choker. But can he be good enough to be the #1 on a championship team? From what I've seen, his teams' results and ratings tail off in a PS setting. I'd attribute such to injuries decently so (whether it's him or Blake Griffin, they could never stay together for a whole playoff 'run') - but even healthy Paul's PS track record doesn't seem to parallel that of his Regular Season(s). More of the clippers' tail-offs have been due to defense (imo) but the same goes true for offense. Doc posed this question (don't have an answer for it myself), but could it be possible that Paul's calculated and cognizant approach is a bottleneck offensively in a Ps setting. If team defense results have (supposedly) poor translation, how much is that on Paul and how valuable is his defense?

Durant -
+: Pretty impressive longevity. Yeah, there are missed years like 2015/2020 - but coming back from an achilles tear being a Weak-MVP level player is no small feat in the slightest (on top of a decade of all-nba+ level play when available). At this point, Durant could be the best regular season scorer of all time - and his shooting certainly has aged well. I think he's come a decent way as an all-around player too (albeit, still with holes).
+: Of course, world class scoring is what propels KD's game. I think he's rather scalable (not to the extent some make it to be though) and has a good argument towards being the best "plug and play" scorer / release valve option in NBA History even if I, myself, wouldn't regard him as the clear-cut #1 in this department.

+/-: No pun intended, this is about plus/minus and impact itself But anyhow.. looking through data, more box-oriented and even box/on-off hybrids are the ones that grade Durant rather highly and certainly more-so than metrics focusing on pure +/-. Am curious why this could be the case, and think there's at-least some situational context needed here (eg. Westbrook controlling more through playmaking , GSW's 'system' built around Steph).

-: Compared to other all-time guys, I have questions on how effective he can be over an extended, sustainable span as an "offensive catalyst" (same holds true for Paul and K. Malone, for different reasons and extents). Scoring is his biggest claim to fame, and aside from his 3 years in the Bay - there's some decline (though a bit overstated) in what he brings to the table there. IMO, Durant is also in the middle-ground where he doesn't have the functional strength to play like a big-man but has a higher C.O.G. / more ball control problems than other perimeter contemporaries [even taller ones like LBJ / McGrady]. There's certainly some unique benefits this middle-position provides (some of which, he has accrued) but some downsides which have come to light before. Considering his defense isn't too much a needle mover, there's even more question to what his holistic PS track record / impact footprint might look like.

[rk2023]

Just for fun, I decided to look through actual POY voting on this site for Paul and Durant. Paul gets 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 for a total of 6 top 5 seasons and Durant gets 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018 for a total of 7 top 5 seasons. So the voters would give Durant one less top 5 season than you did and Paul one less top 5 season than me. Giving Paul only 3 top 5 seasons is ridiculously harsh IMO although you'd probably feel the same way about how many I give to Durant.

.

Paul is/was a top 5 guy for me in:
2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

Durant is/was a top 5 guy for me in:
2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

I listed years I feel confident in such selections, though there are some other ones applicable - contingent on what one values. Gives them both seven such seasons though.

[iggymcfrack]

Just for fun, I decided to look through actual POY voting on this site for Paul and Durant. Paul gets 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 for a total of 6 top 5 seasons and Durant gets 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018 for a total of 7 top 5 seasons. So the voters would give Durant one less top 5 season than you did and Paul one less top 5 season than me. Giving Paul only 3 top 5 seasons is ridiculously harsh IMO although you'd probably feel the same way about how many I give to Durant.

So, ftr, in my current tallies I have:

Paul: 2008, 2014, 2015 - but I think your other choices are reasonable.
Durant: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

Incidentally, in 2019, I had Durant in my Top 5 where others had Jokic. I love, love, love Jokic, but hard for me to see the case for him over KD in that year.

2019 Durant (RS): 24.2 PER, .204 WS/48, 5.5 BPM, +16.1 on/off
2019 Jokic (RS): 26.3 PER, .226 WS/48, 9.1 BPM, +3.2 on/off

2019 Durant (PS): 26.8 PER, .206 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, +8.2 on/off, missed half of the postseason injured, team swept WCF without him
2019 Jokic (PS): 29.6 PER, .263 WS/48, 11.6 BPM, +23.7 on/off

You really find it hard to see a case for Jokic there? Looks to me like Jokic was better even without accounting for Durant getting hurt and missing the most important games of the season. When you factor that in, it’s a slam dunk.

[LukaTheGOAT]

He was my second nominee choice after Erving last time, so I'll probably be picking him this time around.

I think the longevity thing really hurts in perception compared to a guy like Paul because they are seen as contemporaries, but Wade's career ended long ago and Paul is still going.

Am saying the same thing, considering Giannis has gotten some nominations so far. Which is no knack at Giannis, as he’s a hell of a force in his own right. I think Wade is a similar player prime for prime, however

The thing about Wade is even compared to modern players, he has a very short prime:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2006, 2009, 2010

Top 10 player: 2011, 2012

Impactful starter: 2005, 2007, 2013


That’s really not much to work with. Compare that to say Jokic:

Elite, peak of his powers, top 2 player in the league: 2021, 2022, 2023

Top 10 player: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

Impactful starter: 2016

When it comes to meaningful longevity, I think you can actually say Jokic has the edge. Same for Giannis. And both players did peak higher.

2005 Dwyane Wade pre-injury in the ‘05 playoffs (IA per 75):

•) 28.6 points
•) 6.3 rebounds
•) 7.0 assists (5.5 morey assists)
•) 1.3 bad pass tov.
•) 1.3 steals
•) 1.3 blocks
•) +4.6 opp. adjusted rTS%
•) Heat had a +2.8 rORtg w/ Wade on-court

That looks like an MVP-level player to me. You can deduct some for the injury, but I think merely an impactful player is underselling him.

[Owly]

Vote: David Robinson
Can’t believe he hasn’t gone in yet. Mikan over him felt especially gross. Top 5 regular season box stats of all-time, probably a top 3 defender all-time. Insane impact stats. Even in his absolute weakest area (postseason box stats), he still beats out several people who have gone already. I’d have him ahead of Russell and Wilt even.

Alternate: Chris Paul
4th best impact profile of the data-ball era, trailing only players who went in the top 5. Excellent longevity. Only weakness is that he struggled with playoff injuries a bit in the second half of his career. Probably still has more healthy top level runs than Magic though.

In spite of the longevity gap between the two, Magic has still logged ~2100 more playoff minutes than C. Paul. Hard to see him having more top level "runs" than Magic with this considered.

This will depend on what is meant by "top level runs" ... however ...

They do say more runs, not deeper ones. And Magic tended to accumulate deep runs in part because he played in a conference very thin on rival contenders for a substantial chunk of his career.

Then too whilst Magic stayed healthy, there's probably more capacity for staying alive if you miss or are diminished a game or two if you are on those teams in that conference than Paul's teams did when he got dinged up. In fairness, on the flipside the smaller league and format meant sometimes LA could only play 3 rounds early on (though this does not, as noted, mean high level competition). Summarizing, (granting the term's fuzziness) minutes doesn't quite seem to be a measure of what the poster is talking about and ... whatever you are using it as a measure of, Magic played in a context friendly to him accumulating such minutes.

[Doctor MJ]

Just for fun, I decided to look through actual POY voting on this site for Paul and Durant. Paul gets 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 for a total of 6 top 5 seasons and Durant gets 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018 for a total of 7 top 5 seasons. So the voters would give Durant one less top 5 season than you did and Paul one less top 5 season than me. Giving Paul only 3 top 5 seasons is ridiculously harsh IMO although you'd probably feel the same way about how many I give to Durant.

So, ftr, in my current tallies I have:

Paul: 2008, 2014, 2015 - but I think your other choices are reasonable.
Durant: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

Incidentally, in 2019, I had Durant in my Top 5 where others had Jokic. I love, love, love Jokic, but hard for me to see the case for him over KD in that year.

2019 Durant (RS): 24.2 PER, .204 WS/48, 5.5 BPM, +16.1 on/off
2019 Jokic (RS): 26.3 PER, .226 WS/48, 9.1 BPM, +3.2 on/off

2019 Durant (PS): 26.8 PER, .206 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, +8.2 on/off, missed half of the postseason injured, team swept WCF without him
2019 Jokic (PS): 29.6 PER, .263 WS/48, 11.6 BPM, +23.7 on/off

You really find it hard to see a case for Jokic there? Looks to me like Jokic was better even without accounting for Durant getting hurt and missing the most important games of the season. When you factor that in, it’s a slam dunk.

Keep in mind that Jokic and the Nuggets didn’t win another game after Durant’s injury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iggymcfrack]

So, ftr, in my current tallies I have:

Paul: 2008, 2014, 2015 - but I think your other choices are reasonable.
Durant: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

Incidentally, in 2019, I had Durant in my Top 5 where others had Jokic. I love, love, love Jokic, but hard for me to see the case for him over KD in that year.

2019 Durant (RS): 24.2 PER, .204 WS/48, 5.5 BPM, +16.1 on/off
2019 Jokic (RS): 26.3 PER, .226 WS/48, 9.1 BPM, +3.2 on/off

2019 Durant (PS): 26.8 PER, .206 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, +8.2 on/off, missed half of the postseason injured, team swept WCF without him
2019 Jokic (PS): 29.6 PER, .263 WS/48, 11.6 BPM, +23.7 on/off

You really find it hard to see a case for Jokic there? Looks to me like Jokic was better even without accounting for Durant getting hurt and missing the most important games of the season. When you factor that in, it’s a slam dunk.

Keep in mind that Jokic and the Nuggets didn’t win another game after Durant’s injury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK? Durant chose to play for a superteam where they don’t really need him early on. The first round they could possibly lose, the series was tied 2-2 when he left the game with a 3 point lead in the 3rd quarter. The team was -1 with him on the floor for the game. They proceeded to win that game by 5, then beat the Rockets by 5 on the road in Game 6 and sweep the WCF. If Durant didn’t play, the season probably finishes exactly the same for the Warriors. His impact was nonexistent.

The Nuggets needed Jokic to even make the playoffs and he led them further than the Warriors got before Durant’s injury, carrying them past a game Spurs team, and getting 3 wins in the second round before ultimately falling just short. His impact was much larger even aside from the fact that he just played better all season. If you want another statistical comparison, RAPTOR combines RS and PS, box and impact, and it has Jokic at +8.8 for the season (3rd) with Durant at +5.1 (20th). What is even the case for Durant over Joker that season? I don’t see it.

[Doctor MJ]

2019 Durant (RS): 24.2 PER, .204 WS/48, 5.5 BPM, +16.1 on/off
2019 Jokic (RS): 26.3 PER, .226 WS/48, 9.1 BPM, +3.2 on/off

2019 Durant (PS): 26.8 PER, .206 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, +8.2 on/off, missed half of the postseason injured, team swept WCF without him
2019 Jokic (PS): 29.6 PER, .263 WS/48, 11.6 BPM, +23.7 on/off

You really find it hard to see a case for Jokic there? Looks to me like Jokic was better even without accounting for Durant getting hurt and missing the most important games of the season. When you factor that in, it’s a slam dunk.

Keep in mind that Jokic and the Nuggets didn’t win another game after Durant’s injury.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK? Durant chose to play for a superteam where they don’t really need him early on. The first round they could possibly lose, the series was tied 2-2 when he left the game with a 3 point lead in the 3rd quarter. The team was -1 with him on the floor for the game. They proceeded to win that game by 5, then beat the Rockets by 5 on the road in Game 6 and sweep the WCF. If Durant didn’t play, the season probably finishes exactly the same for the Warriors. His impact was nonexistent.

The Nuggets needed Jokic to even make the playoffs and he led them further than the Warriors got before Durant’s injury, carrying them past a game Spurs team, and getting 3 wins in the second round before ultimately falling just short. His impact was much larger even aside from the fact that he just played better all season. If you want another statistical comparison, RAPTOR combines RS and PS, box and impact, and it has Jokic at +8.8 for the season (3rd) with Durant at +5.1 (20th). What is even the case for Durant over Joker that season? I don’t see it.

Okay, let me expand on what I meant:

If your argument for Jokic over Durant is heavily based on Durant's injury, then it makes sense to carefully consider the timeline.

If you believe that Durant had the lead over Jokic prior to Durant's injury, and that Jokic becomes the choice because of that injury, it seems logical that you'd be pointing to what Jokic was doing while Durant was injured that makes all the difference.

But that would mean you're making a choice between two players who combined played 184 games that year based primarily on 2 Denver Nugget games where they blew a series lead and got eliminated by a lower seeded team that got swept in the next round.

I wouldn't suggest anyone should do that, but if someone didn't know better, I'd expect they'd expect the person thinking this way would be trying to knock the guy on the Nuggets, which makes arguing for Jokic based on these facts all the more problematic.

Now look, if you want to make an argument about durability being something you quantify on its own merits when evaluating players, cool, not saying it's impossible to prefer Jokic over Durant in that season at all.

Just keep in mind that if Jokic had simply sat out the games after Durant got hurt, it literally wouldn't have mattered to the results.

I say all of this from the perspective of a guy who had ended up siding with the Jokic-type non-injured guy when evaluating years in history without actually realizing the exact timelines of the players involved. For me, knowing all the facts, if I'm going to end up siding with a guy for reasons pertaining to his rival's playoff injury, I'm going to need that guy to actually lead his team somewhere after said injury, so I try to take notice of these timelines.

And of course, it's easier for me to do so when I remember watching all of this, with all these details in mind, unfold as it occurred. I was someone who had been championing Jokic for years, and was already known as something of a KD-skeptic, so believe me I was watching to see if I could justify Jokic over Durant. Had Denver won their 2nd round matchup and then given Golden State any kind of fight, I'd expect I'd have elevated him above KD. That's not what happened though.

As I say all of this, I certainly understand ranking Jokic ahead of Durant based on the regular season - he was higher in MVP voting after all - and I wouldn't really want to argue that Durant should rise above Jokic based on the playoffs.

So yeah, I'm higher on KD's regular season than many. I've said a few times in this project that I think both Curry & Durant get underrated when it comes to perception around their success together. People see how dominant they were together, they combine that with the super-team nature of their get together, and they essentially allocate less credit for them than they would the stars of most championship runs. I understand the instinct, but I'd argue it falls prey to the idea that all championships are the same. I believe those Warriors were the best team ever in '16-17, and I think it unlikely they lose to anyone in the playoffs in '18-19 if not for injuries.

There have been so, so many super-teams in NBA history that have been trying for that level of dominance. Only one produced the best team in history. I think we should be really cautious about convincing ourselves that the key players involved didn't accomplish that much.