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

[tsherkin]

VOTE: James Harden
Alternate: John Stockton

Harden's an interesting one. Phenomenal RS scorer, MVP, underrating playmaking. Different postseason record than the unwashed masses realize, I think (better). Stunning isolation scorer. Three straight 30+ ppg scoring titles, including being only the third player ever to drop a 36+ ppg season.

Definitely a dude who should be on soon.

[LA Bird]

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

I said Pettit and Cousy have comparable resumes, not that they are comparable players. And that's my point - resume is not that useful for player evaluation (at least for the level of analysis on this board). Cousy not being voted in for another 20+ rounds is not because his resume is not up to par or there is some era bias. He is just not good enough as a player. And that's the same reason Pettit is not at Mikan's level.

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

Pettit's WS/48 declined every season of his career except one - it's a consistent pattern. And if you are going to credit him for his longevity ("Kept up his key traits even in his final season"), you can't then exclude his final two playoff runs because it inconveniently drags his career numbers down. To be fair, Pettit's peak postseason numbers are quite good. But even on that front, he gets beat by his own teammate Hagan, who led the playoffs in PER and WS/48 in their championship season together. Schayes also generally had better playoff advanced stats at the same PF position but I will talk about him in a later round when he is actually getting traction. But basically, Pettit is not consistently generating enough separation from his peers in the playoffs (on an individual or team level) to go this high IMO.

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

I'm not sure I understand this. What exactly is playing 11 games (as opposed to 10 or 9) affecting quite notably?

[tsherkin]

I said Pettit and Cousy have comparable resumes, not that they are comparable players. And that's my point - resume is not that useful for player evaluation (at least for the level of analysis on this board). Cousy not being voted in for another 20+ rounds is not because his resume is not up to par or there is some era bias. He is just not good enough as a player. And that's the same reason Pettit is not at Mikan's level.

Whether or not Pettit is at Mikan's level is immaterial, because Mikan is already in for this project. He was also playing even earlier than Pettit, which does change some conversations about the relative merit of his play. He was certainly wildly successful in his actual career, but there is also a noticeable drop in his efficacy with the widening of the lane, and they didn't have the 24-second clock until after he retired the first time. Now, he was a big boy and he was a good free throw shooter and he's responsible for creating drills that are STILL used for training bigs, so there's that to consider as well. There is also that the NBA integrated in 50-51, which was his 3rd season, so in terms of pool of competition, it took a minute for that to normalize.

So if we're speaking of quality of player, then we should spend SOME effort on what that guy was playing against and how he progressed across his career. Mikan worsened, but Pettit maintained.

Pettit's WS/48 declined every season of his career except one - it's a consistent pattern. And if you are going to credit him for his longevity ("Kept up his key traits even in his final season"), you can't then exclude his final two playoff runs because it inconveniently drags his career numbers down. To be fair, Pettit's peak postseason numbers are quite good. But even on that front, he gets beat by his own teammate Hagan, who led the playoffs in PER and WS/48 in their championship season together. Schayes also generally had better playoff advanced stats at the same PF position but I will talk about him in a later round when he is actually getting traction. But basically, Pettit is not consistently generating enough separation from his peers in the playoffs (on an individual or team level) to go this high IMO.

The amount of trust I have for seasons in which turnovers and possessions are estimated is only so high. And Hagan was quite good.

But as far as getting "beat by his own teammates Hagan," yeah. You're talking about a two-year peak for Cliff where he led the playoffs in TS%. Then 59-65, he averaged .153 WS/48 in the playoffs, .132 from 60-65. Pettit averaged .164 from 59-65 and .162 from 60-65 even with those last two years.

[homecourtloss]

On Pettit, Hagan, Cousy, others…Some regressed WoWY data courtesy of Moonbeam (extra graph of Russell for his GoATness)

- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bob Cousy, Ed Macauley, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey



- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell



- Boston Celtics
Key players: John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Jo Jo White, Paul Silas, Don Chaney, Don Nelson



- St. Louis Hawks
Key players: Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Lenny Wilkens, Clyde Lovellette, Zelmo Beaty, Lou Hudson

[trelos6]

I think Havlicek was incredibly well rounded. Fantastic defender, as I have him for 13 all D level seasons. However, I can’t quite get to weak MVP with him in the early 70’s. His regular season scoring was 17-18 pp75 on +0-1.0 rTS%. Yes, in the playoffs he was more efficient. 21-22 pp75 on + 4.5-5.0 rTS%. And he was a great secondary distributor. If you give him 3 weak MVP level seasons, I have him tied with Walt Frazier.

Spoiler:

Let’s agree that 29-33 will be the current group of nominees: Ewing, Harden, Pettit, Pippen, Stockton.

It brings up some interesting choices for picks 34-40.

I have Walt Frazier leading the list.

Then a whole host of names which I can see making it:

[HeartBreakKid]

I was going to switch my vote from Pettit to Ewing but his playoff stats aren't that big of a drop off. He is only slightly less effective in the post season which is fairly common. His APG was more or less the same. Rebounds maybe down 1 per game in a very high pace era. Points and TS% were lower but still seem good for his era unless I am missing something.

The drop in WS/48 is interesting but I'm not sure if there is enough evidence to put him up there with Embiid and Malone as guys who can't play in the playoffs. I think he is not all that different from his RS version.

[OhayoKD]

On Pettit, Hagan, Cousy, others…Some regressed WoWY data courtesy of Moonbeam (extra graph of Russell for his GoATness)

- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bob Cousy, Ed Macauley, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey



- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell



- Boston Celtics
Key players: John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Jo Jo White, Paul Silas, Don Chaney, Don Nelson



- St. Louis Hawks
Key players: Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Lenny Wilkens, Clyde Lovellette, Zelmo Beaty, Lou Hudson

I mean the cold data is pretty clear cut. The celtics were more synonymous with russell than any other dynasty was synynumous with their best player(and it's not paticularly close).

You can even use 71 where they replaced russell with a good center and you are left a performance on par with the 95 bulls

If russell's 11 rings are worth a 4th place finish, then we shouldn't be ranking his teammates too highly

[Doctor MJ]

On Pettit, Hagan, Cousy, others…Some regressed WoWY data courtesy of Moonbeam (extra graph of Russell for his GoATness)

- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bob Cousy, Ed Macauley, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey



- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell



- Boston Celtics
Key players: John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Jo Jo White, Paul Silas, Don Chaney, Don Nelson



- St. Louis Hawks
Key players: Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Lenny Wilkens, Clyde Lovellette, Zelmo Beaty, Lou Hudson

Thank you for re-posting hcl!

So responding here looking at this again for my own benefit more than anything else:

Celtics:
- I'm surprised at how well Cousy stacks up in those later years compared to Sharman. Yes they kept winning without Sharman, but they then kept winning without Cousy. I'm generally not a guy who ends up championing Cousy, but what I'll say is that my temptation to champion Sharman instead of Cousy kind of dies with this data.

- I've also long had Sam Jones over Cousy, and this data seems like it favors Cousy. I'm skeptical, but may end up siding with Cousy there.

- I wouldn't take Heinsohn's early data too seriously given the fact he started the same year as Russell. Not saying it's a give that Heinsohn couldn't possibly be super-valuable, but I think this sort of collinearity is a clear thing to watch out for.

- I think Hondo stands out as the clear #2 Celtic behind Russell. My naive thought would have been that Cowens would look stronger than Hondo, and if that had been clear cut I might have championed him over Hondo, but as it stands, hard for me to see much reason to side with Cowens other than the fact that he won MVP...which I think was always seen as iffy.

- Still think I'd take Cowens over the rest. Open to debates involving Sam Jones, but this is more evidence that gives Cowens the prime advantage.

Hawks:
- Hagan looking stronger than Pettit in those early years just plain makes sense. I'm definitely not opposed to the fundamental idea of Hagan being the better player in that run, but there's also a last-piece-of-the-puzzle thing going on. Hagan wasn't the only new acquisition at the time even if he was the most important one. The correlation may well have been possible in reverse with a different ordering of things.

- I should also say that if Pettit hadn't been the clear cut Finals MVP guy in that championship year, it would have been fairly easy for me to just see Hagan as a considerably better player than Pettit, and to buy into the idea that Pettit translated poor to the playoffs. As is, I'd have to give Pettit the nod for peak as well as longevity.

- The one guy there who arguably looks the more impressive than Pettit to me is Zelmo. Of course, didn't prime together.

[Doctor MJ]

I appreciate the discussion I've seen on Havlicek and hope to see more.

A point of comparison that I think I should probably mention is the one with Pippen.

I totally get seeing Hondo as a rich man's Pippen, and I have a pull toward that myself.

In my POY shares, I was surprised by how much stronger Pippen came out than Havlicek. I might be inclined to say that I hold the co-star of the Bulls' dynasty in very high esteem. Hondo can't really claim to have as been as big of a deal to the Russell Celtics for most years of that franchise run, and I don't place the '70s Celtics accomplishments to on a shelf that might be called "dynasty level".

[tsherkin]

I appreciate the discussion I've seen on Havlicek and hope to see more.

A point of comparison that I think I should probably mention is the one with Pippen.

I totally get seeing Hondo as a rich man's Pippen, and I have a pull toward that myself.

So this enters an interesting discussion, because Pippen obviously grades out as a more efficient scorer than Havlicek and also wasn't a high-usage guy in that regard. He wasn't as durable, didn't log as many MPG, but he was also at worst a comparable passer and in a similar tier defensively.

I'm very curious to see how this conversation unfolds.

[70sFan]

I appreciate the discussion I've seen on Havlicek and hope to see more.

A point of comparison that I think I should probably mention is the one with Pippen.

I totally get seeing Hondo as a rich man's Pippen, and I have a pull toward that myself.

So this enters an interesting discussion, because Pippen obviously grades out as a more efficient scorer than Havlicek and also wasn't a high-usage guy in that regard. He wasn't as durable, didn't log as many MPG, but he was also at worst a comparable passer and in a similar tier defensively.

I'm very curious to see how this conversation unfolds.

I think Pippen was more efficient scorer only in the RS, with Havlicek beating him cleanly in the playoffs in that regard. I don't have the time to opponent-adjustment calculations, but even when you look at raw postseason numbers, it doesn't look good for Pippen:

1967-75 Havlicek: 52.4 TS%
1990-98 Pippen: 52.3 TS%

Comparable raw efficiency (suggesting clearly worse relative one) on lower volume.

[OhayoKD]

I appreciate the discussion I've seen on Havlicek and hope to see more.

A point of comparison that I think I should probably mention is the one with Pippen.

I totally get seeing Hondo as a rich man's Pippen, and I have a pull toward that myself.

So this enters an interesting discussion, because Pippen obviously grades out as a more efficient scorer than Havlicek and also wasn't a high-usage guy in that regard. He wasn't as durable, didn't log as many MPG, but he was also at worst a comparable passer and in a similar tier defensively.

I'm very curious to see how this conversation unfolds.

In terms of basketball Pippen i think would be the better creator(not just talking passing there) and "make teammates better" guy with what he does as a floor-general, and as a ball-handler also coming into play. Would be curious what hondo's defensive argument is because while the bulls defense very much ascended with pippen it was cowens and russell whose arrival coincided with boston rising(and boston was not good defensively when it was just hondo).

Broadstrokes, Pippen's main advantages are
-> is alot more tied to the Bulls success than Hondo is to the Celtics
-> was more successful without potentially better teammates
-> led a contender as the clear-cut #1
-> Won more as a legitimate superstar

Hondo's advantages would be
-> could be argued as the best player for a championship run
-> won without the best player he played without
-> Won more

At any rate, I don't think "rich man's Pippen" really works. We can talk about this scoring all we want, but those celtics teams always won more on the back of defense in an era where defense reigned supreme and the Celtics didn't do much of anything when hondo wasn't paired with a superstar playing the most valuable position of that era.  

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: John Stockton
3rd all-time in VORP trailing only LeBron and Jordan. 6th all-time in win shares trailing those two, Kareem, Wilt, and Malone. Received MVP votes in 12 different seasons. If you wanna say Malone was more valuable on those Jazz teams I won't argue, but I don't see how they're not at least comparable.

Nominate: Kawhi Leonard
At his peak was both the most efficient scorer in playoff history AND probably the best wing defender of all-time. Just an amazing incredible talent. Yeah, he only has 6 healthy playoff runs at a high level, but 2 of those ended up with him winning Finals MVP. Think he definitely gives you more ring equity than Harden.

Alternate: Anthony Davis
4th all-time in PER, 5th all-time in playoff PER, 6th all-time in playoff WS/48, and 11th all-time in playoff BPM. Tremendous defensive value that doesn't show up in the box score.

[70sFan]

In terms of basketball Pippen i think would be the better creator(not just talking passing there) and "make teammates better" guy with what he does as a floor-general, and as a ball-handler also coming into play. Would be curious what hondo's defensive argument is because while the bulls defense very much ascended with pippen it was cowens and russell whose arrival coincided with boston rising(and boston was not good defensively when it was just hondo).

I wouldn't consider Havlicek's case over Pippen defensively, but keep in mind that Russell-less Celtics were less talented defensively than Jordan-less Bulls.

Broadstrokes, Pippen's main advantages are
-> is alot more tied to the Bulls success than Hondo is to the Celtics
-> was more successful without potentially better teammates
-> led a contender as the clear-cut #1
-> Won more as a legitimate superstar

1. I don't think we have enough evidence to believe that.
2. That's misleading, because Cowens was only "arguably" better teammate, while Jordan is definitely a better player than Pippen.
3. So did Havlicek, unless you think that even 1972 Cowens was better than him.
4. Is that true? What Pippen seasons would you consider "superstar" and what about Hondo?

At any rate, I don't think "rich man's Pippen" really works. We can talk about this scoring all we want, but those celtics teams always won more on the back of defense in an era where defense reigned supreme and the Celtics didn't do much of anything when hondo wasn't paired with a superstar playing the most valuable position of that era.  

Again, the problem is that this assumes that Jordan-less Bulls were roughly as talented as Russell-less Celtics, which is not true.

[iggymcfrack]

I appreciate the discussion I've seen on Havlicek and hope to see more.

A point of comparison that I think I should probably mention is the one with Pippen.

I totally get seeing Hondo as a rich man's Pippen, and I have a pull toward that myself.

So this enters an interesting discussion, because Pippen obviously grades out as a more efficient scorer than Havlicek and also wasn't a high-usage guy in that regard. He wasn't as durable, didn't log as many MPG, but he was also at worst a comparable passer and in a similar tier defensively.

I'm very curious to see how this conversation unfolds.

Are Pippen and Hondo really in "a similar tier defensively"? I feel like a lot of people would grade Pippen as the greatest wing defender of all-time. In fact, isn't that a consensus opinion? He led the NBA in all-defensive shares 4 years in a row from '94-'97. He was an elite impact player defensively. Havlicek was very good and even was voted first team all-defense several years, but I don't think anyone has him on an all-time list. There's a big difference between very good and all-time great.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I’d assume pippen clears on defense but using defensive win shares is nasty

[OhayoKD]

In terms of basketball Pippen i think would be the better creator(not just talking passing there) and "make teammates better" guy with what he does as a floor-general, and as a ball-handler also coming into play. Would be curious what hondo's defensive argument is because while the bulls defense very much ascended with pippen it was cowens and russell whose arrival coincided with boston rising(and boston was not good defensively when it was just hondo).

I wouldn't consider Havlicek's case over Pippen defensively, but keep in mind that Russell-less Celtics were less talented defensively than Jordan-less Bulls.

Sure.

Broadstrokes, Pippen's main advantages are
-> is alot more tied to the Bulls success than Hondo is to the Celtics
-> was more successful without potentially better teammates
-> led a contender as the clear-cut #1
-> Won more as a legitimate superstar

1. I don't think we have enough evidence to believe that.

What evidence would you like to see there.

2. That's misleading, because Cowens was only "arguably" better teammate, while Jordan is definitely a better player than Pippen.

Considering i acknowledge that hondo was arguably the best player on a champion later, I'm not sure how that's misleading. Both are true.

3. So did Havlicek, unless you think that even 1972 Cowens was better than him.

I don't have a strong opinion on when exactly the balance shifted, but I don't think the 72 Celtics played like a contender in the playoffs. They won pretty decisively vs a negative srs opponent in round one(6 games, but +8 differential), but they were equally uncompetitive(5 games, -8 diff) against a +2 srs Knicks side that would not come close to giving the lakers their best fight(5 games, -4) and were pushed about as hard by the negative srs bullets(-9, 6 games).

Do you consider the 2018 raptors contenders? Seems similar to me.

4. Is that true? What Pippen seasons would you consider "superstar" and what about Hondo?

I have 91 to 96 pippen as clear cut with 97 and 98 probably qualifying too. I think 1990 Pippen is similar to 67-69 Hondo in that he wasn't a superstar for the whole regular season but arguably played like one in the playoffs.

At any rate, I don't think "rich man's Pippen" really works. We can talk about this scoring all we want, but those celtics teams always won more on the back of defense in an era where defense reigned supreme and the Celtics didn't do much of anything when hondo wasn't paired with a superstar playing the most valuable position of that era.  

Again, the problem is that this assumes that Jordan-less Bulls were roughly as talented as Russell-less Celtics, which is not true.

Well the 95 Bulls without Jordan or Grant posted a higher srs(+3.8) and similar record to the 71 Celtics despite Pippen filing a trade request. Would you say the Celtics were still less talented once they drafted Cowens?

[70sFan]

What evidence would you like to see there.

Any type of evidence would be cool.

Considering i acknowledge that hondo was arguably the best player on a champion later, I'm not sure how that's misleading. Both are true.

Fair enough.

I don't have a strong opinion on when exactly the balance shifted, but I don't think the 72 Celtics played like a contender in the playoffs. They won pretty decisively vs a negative srs opponent in round one(6 games, but +8 differential), but they were equally uncompetitive(5 games, -8 diff) against a +2 srs Knicks side that would not come close to giving the lakers their best fight(5 games, -4) and were pushed about as hard by the negative srs bullets(-9, 6 games).

Do you consider the 2018 raptors contenders? Seems similar to me.

Yeah, I think 2018 were contenders. Definitely not the strongest ones, but they did contend.

I have 91 to 96 pippen as clear cut with 97 and 98 probably qualifying too. I think 1990 Pippen is similar to 67-69 Hondo in that he wasn't a superstar for the whole regular season but arguably played like one in the playoffs.

You seem to be way higher on 1998 than me. To me, injured Pippen was far from superstar level - very far in fact.

I don't think 1990 Pippen is on 1967-69 Havlicek level. If you compare how 1990 Pippen did against the best team he faced (Pistons) and compare that to some of the best opponents faced by Havlicek (1967 Sixers, 1969 Knicks, 1969 Lakers), it's no contest to me.

Well the 95 Bulls without Jordan or Grant posted a higher srs(+3.8) and similar record to the 71 Celtics despite Pippen filing a trade request. Would you say the Celtics were still less talented once they drafted Cowens?

I thought you are high on era-relative SRS in Russell vs Jordan discussions. Does it not matter when we talk about Pippen vs Hondo?

[70sFan]

I appreciate the discussion I've seen on Havlicek and hope to see more.

A point of comparison that I think I should probably mention is the one with Pippen.

I totally get seeing Hondo as a rich man's Pippen, and I have a pull toward that myself.

So this enters an interesting discussion, because Pippen obviously grades out as a more efficient scorer than Havlicek and also wasn't a high-usage guy in that regard. He wasn't as durable, didn't log as many MPG, but he was also at worst a comparable passer and in a similar tier defensively.

I'm very curious to see how this conversation unfolds.

Are Pippen and Hondo really in "a similar tier defensively"? I feel like a lot of people would grade Pippen as the greatest wing defender of all-time. In fact, isn't that a consensus opinion? He led the NBA in all-defensive shares 4 years in a row from '94-'97. He was an elite impact player defensively. Havlicek was very good and even was voted first team all-defense several years, but I don't think anyone has him on an all-time list. There's a big difference between very good and all-time great.

I think the difference is more like "elite" vs "all-time great". Very good undersells Havlicek, especially for career value.

[OhayoKD]

What evidence would you like to see there.

Any type of evidence would be cool.

Well right now there's

-> The Celtics winning before hondo
-> The Celtics still looking like the best team in the league when hondo missed time
-> Celtics dropping off more without russell and still dropping off more when they added cowens
-> Celtics offense being average while their defense was great

vs

-> Bulls skyrocket basically overnight as Pippen scales up(and fp4's metric sees a big box-jump in the playoffs) with their defense notably jumping from average to elite to all-time
-> Bulls only ever win with Pippen as MJ's co-star
-> The Bulls do not look like the best team in the league when Pippen misses games during the second three-peat
-> Bulls are a better offense, but they're also an elite defense(especially in the playoffs which they weren't before pippen emerged as their anchor)

I don't have a strong opinion on when exactly the balance shifted, but I don't think the 72 Celtics played like a contender in the playoffs. They won pretty decisively vs a negative srs opponent in round one(6 games, but +8 differential), but they were equally uncompetitive(5 games, -8 diff) against a +2 srs Knicks side that would not come close to giving the lakers their best fight(5 games, -4) and were pushed about as hard by the negative srs bullets(-9, 6 games).

Do you consider the 2018 raptors contenders? Seems similar to me.

Yeah, I think 2018 were contenders. Definitely not the strongest ones, but they did contend.

Okay then we have a difference of definition I guess

I have 91 to 96 pippen as clear cut with 97 and 98 probably qualifying too. I think 1990 Pippen is similar to 67-69 Hondo in that he wasn't a superstar for the whole regular season but arguably played like one in the playoffs.

You seem to be way higher on 1998 than me. To me, injured Pippen was far from superstar level - very far in fact.

Maybe. Pippen's offensive numbers don't look great. But the Bulls also posted a -8 defense in the playoffs(17th in sansterre's list) and I think Pippen played some of his best defense ever vs the Jazz those finals.

I don't think 1990 Pippen is on 1967-69 Havlicek level. If you compare how 1990 Pippen did against the best team he faced (Pistons) and compare that to some of the best opponents faced by Havlicek (1967 Sixers, 1969 Knicks, 1969 Lakers), it's no contest to me.

I mean in terms of scoring yeah, but the Bulls also posted a -5 defensive rating vs the pistons(did better vs them defensively than any of other team in their title years) and were -3 for those playoffs(am using flat-ratings here). Pippen probably a better creator too.

Well the 95 Bulls without Jordan or Grant posted a higher srs(+3.8) and similar record to the 71 Celtics despite Pippen filing a trade request. Would you say the Celtics were still less talented once they drafted Cowens?

I thought you are high on era-relative SRS in Russell vs Jordan discussions. Does it not matter when we talk about Pippen vs Hondo?

[/quote]
Sure it does, but I don't see that helps Hondo here. The top teams had better srs in 72 than 95. When Russell was playing, the srs was unusually low, even in 1969. In certain years, Russell's competition topped at +2 srs.