RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #23

[dhsilv2]

Really wish I had a vote here just to put one more for Pettit. Kinda shocked wade went over him. 2 MVPs, 10 all nbas, beat the celtics and took them to two other game 7's. Era or not, his resume imo really outshines a lot of players being discussed here.

[dhsilv2]

So with regards to Durant, it just really bothers me that there is such a disconnect between his +/- and his box score stats, and that people for the most part tend to be infatuated by the latter. I pretty much only care about how much those numbers translate into impact, otherwise Adrian Dantley should go soon as well.

And this has held true despite two different team circumstances and two different sets of teammates. His DRAPM wasn't even very impressive, even on GS, despite that being a consensus improvement for him this year.

Now, I for one am not really surprised that Durant isn't a super high impact player (relative to other superstars...he's obviously a high impact player overall), because when I watch him, he doesn't seem to be imposing his will on the game on either side of the court, because he's not skilled enough offensively or defensively, and I'm pretty confident in believing that a player who scores 30+ PPG on 60%+ TS isn't necessarily having elite offensive impact, but that seems to be where most people are getting tripped up when it comes to Durant. His box score looks amazing, but the evidence shows that GS didn't even really improve all that much with him, and they still depend a lot more on Curry, even if he scored less on lower TS%.

To me, Durant has empty stats to a degree. Not to the point where he's no longer a stud of a player, but to the point that I see him as a borderline top 5 player instead of the "arguably best in the league" player that seems to be the popular narrative now...I would take LeBron, Curry, and CP3 over Durant without much hesitation, and I think I would probably favor Kawhi as well, and I think Westbrook has a really strong case too.

With all that in mind, I really don't think he should go ahead of Ewing, Paul, Nash, or Curry. Durant just isn't an all time great offensive anchor, due to the severe lack of gravity he has compared to Paul/Nash/Curry, and his defense has become pretty wildly overrated...to me, I don't see him as much more than an above average defensive wing. Certainly nowhere close to Ewing's defensive impact, and Ewing himself was a really good offensive big.

Do you think Ewing was a top 5 level player for much of his career? 6 times he was top 5 in MVP (never higher than 4 though). Not a single "advanced box score stats" has him ever as a top 5 guy.

I'm not seeing why Ewing is ahead of KD on your list here. The others I can see why you'd rank them over, both with awards and stats. But KD was also the consensus best player on a Thunder team that beat a spurs team on a record level win streak and made the finals, along with an MVP, so I could use that against Chris Paul. Longevity here doesn't really favor Ewing or Paul by much if any either.

Westbrook Harden Ibaka>any supporting cast Ewing ever had

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

I agree, but that doesn't really answer the bigger questions raised here. And I mostly threw in the finals in reference to Paul, not ewing.

[janmagn]

Vote: George Mikan
2nd vote: Dwyane Wade


George Mikan was a player who showed what it was like to be a real superstar. Without him, there is no Kareem or Hakeem or Ewing.


Now, at first look, he looks like he was a very inefficent post player, having a career peak of .428FG% and .509TS%. However, league average for FG% was .357% and for TS% .428%. His TS% was almost 10% higher than league average! He was ultimately efficent scorer for his era.

Mikan led the league in scoring three times and in rebounding twice. His career FT% .782% made him an elite foul shooter. He led the league in PER and WS three times, OWS twice and DWS five times, suggesting that he was a good to great defensive player.

In the playoffs, he stepped up his game. Not necesseraly scoring more, but scoring more efficently. His Playoff peak TS% of .543% is decent even for todays stantards. In his era, it was out of this world.

He really was one of the ultimate champions. In the NBL, in his two seasons he won two championships. And in the BAA/NBA, he played in six full seasons, winning five times.

Mikan suffered from many injuries, but also from rule changes. The lane was widened because of his dominance. Goaltending was an added violation, because of his dominance. The shot clock, that he can't see our game played without nowadays, was created because of his dominance.

[THKNKG]

My next five currently are:

Nash
Paul
Ewing
Mikan
Pettit

My vote is:

1. Nash
2. Paul

Nash and Paul are on the shortlist of best offensive players ever, and Nash on the even shorter shortlist.

The short version of the argument is impact. Beyond Mikan (who I've mentioned having questions about), no one remaining had the same capacity to lift teams to the degree these guys did, in my opinion.

[trex_8063]

Vote: George Mikan
2nd vote: Dwyane Wade


George Mikan was a player who showed what it was like to be a real superstar. Without him, there is no Kareem or Hakeem or Ewing.


Now, at first look, he looks like he was a very inefficent post player, having a career peak of .428FG% and .509TS%. However, league average for FG% was .357% and for TS% .428%. His TS% was almost 10% higher than league average! He was ultimately efficent scorer for his era.

Mikan led the league in scoring three times and in rebounding twice. His career FT% .782% made him an elite foul shooter. He led the league in PER and WS three times, OWS twice and DWS five times, suggesting that he was a good to great defensive player.

In the playoffs, he stepped up his game. Not necesseraly scoring more, but scoring more efficently. His Playoff peak TS% of .543% is decent even for todays stantards. In his era, it was out of this world.

He really was one of the ultimate champions. In the NBL, in his two seasons he won two championships. And in the BAA/NBA, he played in six full seasons, winning five times.

Mikan suffered from many injuries, but also from rule changes. The lane was widened because of his dominance. Goaltending was an added violation, because of his dominance. The shot clock, that he can't see our game played without nowadays, was created because of his dominance.

Wade has already been voted in. Perhaps you could put forth a different candidate for your 2nd pick.

[trex_8063]

George Mikan only played for 7 seasons. Technically 6 1/2 considered the missed games. Why him?

Quoting myself from OP of sign-up thread:

This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47).

So that's 8.5 seasons (and in an era with relatively terrible sports medicine, poor footwear, and relatively little financial motive to have a long career). EDIT: And considering that basically 8 of those 8.5 seasons were prime seasons.......his longevity really doesn't look bad---all things considered----against most of the top candidates presently.

[dhsilv2]

Since I've asked to join the fun, but won't likely get a vote here.

1. Pettit - 2 MVP's along with 10 first team all nba's. Biggest story, beat the russel celtics, followed by taking them to 2 game 7's. Given 11 allstar/all nba season his longevity is high enough. 7th all time in PER in an era where 30's didn't happen. Winshare ranks him 33rd, which given winshare rewards players who just never leave, that's a pretty darn impressive ranking for 11 years.

The next player in for me is a LOT harder, as to me Pettit should already be in. I think the list of next in is for me Nash, Mikan, KD, and Curry. I do perhaps overvalue the MVP award and that will be a consistent all be it not absolute requirement as we fill out the rest of the top 20. At this level, all players will be "flawed" yet I really think I should have 1-3 years where they were considered the BEST player or second best to a player already ranked. Titles similarly if you didn't win one, I'd want there to be a player ahead of you who won multiple and beat you, plus I'd be iffy on a player this high having another player from his era who also didn't win one.

Nash- Case for is simple. 2 time MVP. He is a big part of the end of hand checking to create this era, but he did his thing before that rule change. Easily one of the best offensive players (not scorers) to ever play the game. While he didn't win or make a finals, the suns were constantly a contender and lost to extremely difficult teams. Counter - his defense was awful though he was certainly great at drawing charges. He wasn't a low effort defender, he just didn't have the ability which is both a pro and minus I suppose. Lack of winning is an issue. He also bloomed late and in a "system" which maybe should be held against him.

Curry - Case is even simplier. He is the greatest offensive player ever imo. Two rings, 3 straight finals, and two MVPs. His peak is about as high as anyone. Negative, not a great defender though offensively under valued. His career length and MVP seasons are way too low. Much like his career length, I don't have much more to add here.

Mikan - The argument is simple here too. Greatest peak left, most dominate player left. The counter is just as simple. The era was really weak. I have zero idea what to think/do with a guy who played in the non shot clock era. Like all posters here, I'd assume, I never saw him play outside of some video footage that was really hard to watch. He has to get in soon imo, but I'm struggling to put him here.

KD - 10 years, 9 imo are allstar level, 8 are elite. 1 MVP. 1 title as a ... not sure I have a term for it. Mercenary? It was interesting as Curry was clearly the better player imo, but KD's value was that he brought the best iso player possible to a team where double teams are your death. The case against is really that he doesn't seem to have the impact his stats say he does. His defense is good, not elite. He looks better than perhaps he is? I dunno, I've got to think more about KD as this goes on.

Pick for second. Nash

[Lou Fan]

I am super pressed for time again but I wanted to get my vote in. Sorry I'm not providing much reasoning. Chef Curry is the choice for me here because his 3 year peak 2015-now has been unbelievable. He started a dynasty won multiple MVPs and his impact stats are ridiculous. Top 5 peak all time with 5 seasons of prime that have all been very good. His 2016 season was off the charts amazing and he should have won the ring without the bogus draymond suspension and all the injuries they had including the one to Curry's knee. His last 3 seasons have gone ring, 73 wins, ring. His gravity on the court is ATG. I value peak over longevity (though both matter to me) thats why I have supported Wade and Curry the last two threads. My reasoning is would you rather have a guy who was the capability to be an MVP/top5 player in the league and be the best player on champ for 5 years (ie Curry) or someone who can lead you to the playoffs every year and probably can't lead a team to the finals for 15 years (ie someone like Clyde Drexler or John Stockton).
2nd Vote: CP3 or Nash I can't decide someone give me a good argument.

[pandrade83]

So on Durant - you mention '14 & '16 - yes - there's things he could've done better. But if 30-8-9 ('14) & 28-6-7 ('16) while scoring pretty efficiently is underperforming - I'm not sure what else to tell you - other than that really spells out just how good he is. We're voting on player #23 here, not player #3; the warts are pretty small compared to who's left.

I've been following along when I could with the Paul, and now Paul/Durant discussions. For the most part just in absorb mode, but I did notice the underlined above and wanted to clarify because those assist numbers seemed way high from my memory. So, I looked it up.

In 2014, Durant averaged 29.6 pts (57% TS), 8.9 reb, 3.9 assists, 3.8 TO, +7.1 on/off +/-
In 2016, Durant averaged 28.4 pts (54% TS), 7.1 reb, 3.3 assists, 3.6 TO, +6.0 on/off +/-

Those assist numbers clearly don't jive with what you wrote. Looking at how the stat columns are laid out on B-R, is it possible that you accidentally used the DRB number in place of assists?

As far as the comp, if it's Durant vs Paul, then I tend to be on the side that Paul has consistently, throughout his career, including in the playoffs, been a bigger impact player than Durant. Interesting questions have been brought up as to whether Paul's style places a limit on his upside, or whether his control of his teams is so large that it makes him look relatively better while limiting the team's upside. And I think those are discussions worth having, and thoughts like that have started to sway me in some comparisons (e.g. Paul vs Kobe in 2008). But against Durant, those points are less convincing to me because Paul's level of impact has just been consistently well beyond anything that we've seen from Durant in their careers. Paul has issues with health in the playoffs, but when he plays I've been more impressed with him than with Durant in the postseason as well.

As far as this voting slot, among those that have received votes so far my leaning would be Ewing and Paul as my frontrunners (and I haven't even had the chance to weigh in on Ewing yet). Joe's most recent Mikan post made me feel something, though, so I'm marinating on him as well. But I'm not sure that I'll be able to get back to this thread again before voting, and I want to have something on the board. So, I'll vote:

1st: Ewing
2nd: Paul
HM: Mikan

You're right - good catch. The ast numbers were a smidge high - unintentional error.

[andrewww]

I've been following along when I could with the Paul, and now Paul/Durant discussions. For the most part just in absorb mode, but I did notice the underlined above and wanted to clarify because those assist numbers seemed way high from my memory. So, I looked it up.

In 2014, Durant averaged 29.6 pts (57% TS), 8.9 reb, 3.9 assists, 3.8 TO, +7.1 on/off +/-
In 2016, Durant averaged 28.4 pts (54% TS), 7.1 reb, 3.3 assists, 3.6 TO, +6.0 on/off +/-

Those assist numbers clearly don't jive with what you wrote. Looking at how the stat columns are laid out on B-R, is it possible that you accidentally used the DRB number in place of assists?

As far as the comp, if it's Durant vs Paul, then I tend to be on the side that Paul has consistently, throughout his career, including in the playoffs, been a bigger impact player than Durant. Interesting questions have been brought up as to whether Paul's style places a limit on his upside, or whether his control of his teams is so large that it makes him look relatively better while limiting the team's upside. And I think those are discussions worth having, and thoughts like that have started to sway me in some comparisons (e.g. Paul vs Kobe in 2008). But against Durant, those points are less convincing to me because Paul's level of impact has just been consistently well beyond anything that we've seen from Durant in their careers. Paul has issues with health in the playoffs, but when he plays I've been more impressed with him than with Durant in the postseason as well.

As far as this voting slot, among those that have received votes so far my leaning would be Ewing and Paul as my frontrunners (and I haven't even had the chance to weigh in on Ewing yet). Joe's most recent Mikan post made me feel something, though, so I'm marinating on him as well. But I'm not sure that I'll be able to get back to this thread again before voting, and I want to have something on the board. So, I'll vote:

1st: Ewing
2nd: Paul
HM: Mikan

A serious question.. I have a good feel as to what kind of player you generally value, which brings me to this... Is a swiss army knife do it all player more desirable than a player who may not have as many tools in the tool belt, but consistently leads his teams to more team success? Because in my mind, "impact" is all with one end goal in mind... to win games. Not to put up stats.

I can speak for myself in that I tend to think players who can do everything but tend to put a cap on a good team's ceiling as a lesser player than what a large majority of this forum values.

[Doctor MJ]

So with regards to Durant, it just really bothers me that there is such a disconnect between his +/- and his box score stats, and that people for the most part tend to be infatuated by the latter. I pretty much only care about how much those numbers translate into impact, otherwise Adrian Dantley should go soon as well.

And this has held true despite two different team circumstances and two different sets of teammates. His DRAPM wasn't even very impressive, even on GS, despite that being a consensus improvement for him this year.

Now, I for one am not really surprised that Durant isn't a super high impact player (relative to other superstars...he's obviously a high impact player overall), because when I watch him, he doesn't seem to be imposing his will on the game on either side of the court, because he's not skilled enough offensively or defensively, and I'm pretty confident in believing that a player who scores 30+ PPG on 60%+ TS isn't necessarily having elite offensive impact, but that seems to be where most people are getting tripped up when it comes to Durant. His box score looks amazing, but the evidence shows that GS didn't even really improve all that much with him, and they still depend a lot more on Curry, even if he scored less on lower TS%.

To me, Durant has empty stats to a degree. Not to the point where he's no longer a stud of a player, but to the point that I see him as a borderline top 5 player instead of the "arguably best in the league" player that seems to be the popular narrative now...I would take LeBron, Curry, and CP3 over Durant without much hesitation, and I think I would probably favor Kawhi as well, and I think Westbrook has a really strong case too.

With all that in mind, I really don't think he should go ahead of Ewing, Paul, Nash, or Curry. Durant just isn't an all time great offensive anchor, due to the severe lack of gravity he has compared to Paul/Nash/Curry, and his defense has become pretty wildly overrated...to me, I don't see him as much more than an above average defensive wing. Certainly nowhere close to Ewing's defensive impact, and Ewing himself was a really good offensive big.

Do you think Ewing was a top 5 level player for much of his career? 6 times he was top 5 in MVP (never higher than 4 though). Not a single "advanced box score stats" has him ever as a top 5 guy.

I'm not seeing why Ewing is ahead of KD on your list here. The others I can see why you'd rank them over, both with awards and stats. But KD was also the consensus best player on a Thunder team that beat a spurs team on a record level win streak and made the finals, along with an MVP, so I could use that against Chris Paul. Longevity here doesn't really favor Ewing or Paul by much if any either.

Westbrook Harden Ibaka>any supporting cast Ewing ever had

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

I don't actually disagree with that assessment, but I would have to point out that Ewing had a supporting cast that made the final once he got injured.

Imagine what Durant's supporting cast could have accomplished if Ewing had gotten injured on their team.

[drza]

I've been following along when I could with the Paul, and now Paul/Durant discussions. For the most part just in absorb mode, but I did notice the underlined above and wanted to clarify because those assist numbers seemed way high from my memory. So, I looked it up.

In 2014, Durant averaged 29.6 pts (57% TS), 8.9 reb, 3.9 assists, 3.8 TO, +7.1 on/off +/-
In 2016, Durant averaged 28.4 pts (54% TS), 7.1 reb, 3.3 assists, 3.6 TO, +6.0 on/off +/-

Those assist numbers clearly don't jive with what you wrote. Looking at how the stat columns are laid out on B-R, is it possible that you accidentally used the DRB number in place of assists?

As far as the comp, if it's Durant vs Paul, then I tend to be on the side that Paul has consistently, throughout his career, including in the playoffs, been a bigger impact player than Durant. Interesting questions have been brought up as to whether Paul's style places a limit on his upside, or whether his control of his teams is so large that it makes him look relatively better while limiting the team's upside. And I think those are discussions worth having, and thoughts like that have started to sway me in some comparisons (e.g. Paul vs Kobe in 2008). But against Durant, those points are less convincing to me because Paul's level of impact has just been consistently well beyond anything that we've seen from Durant in their careers. Paul has issues with health in the playoffs, but when he plays I've been more impressed with him than with Durant in the postseason as well.

As far as this voting slot, among those that have received votes so far my leaning would be Ewing and Paul as my frontrunners (and I haven't even had the chance to weigh in on Ewing yet). Joe's most recent Mikan post made me feel something, though, so I'm marinating on him as well. But I'm not sure that I'll be able to get back to this thread again before voting, and I want to have something on the board. So, I'll vote:

1st: Ewing
2nd: Paul
HM: Mikan

A serious question.. I have a good feel as to what kind of player you generally value, which brings me to this... Is a swiss army knife do it all player more desirable than a player who may not have as many tools in the tool belt, but consistently leads his teams to more team success? Because in my mind, "impact" is all with one end goal in mind... to win games. Not to put up stats.

I can speak for myself in that I tend to think players who can do everything but tend to put a cap on a good team's ceiling as a lesser player than what a large majority of this forum values.

I think the bolded lines (which, in hindsight, is much of the post itself) are the key ones for us to get on the same page. But really, and ironically, the first underlined portion is exactly WHY many (including me) like the "impact stat" approach. Because the goal of an individual IS to lead the team to more success, not to put up stats. When one says "put up stats", by definition you're talking about putting up "box score stats", because you can't pad your +/- stats without helping the team.

As I've said before, the +/- stats are really the evolution of the ringzzzz argument. Used to be, there were 2 main ways to quantify (e.g. using numbers, not the eye test) how good a player was: their stats (e.g. box score) or how successful their teams were (e.g. ringzzz). The latter argument was that, since a player was on a good team, they must be doing more to help their teams win than a player with similar production on a bad team. That boxscore stats could be "empty", but that there were "intangibles" to the game that helped make some players a winner while others just put up stats.

The impact stat approach is completely independent of the box score stats a player might put up. The whole set of measures is meant to tie a player's presence on the court to a certain amount of change in their team's scoring margin. The very "intangibles" that the ringzzz side would refer to, are actually accounted for in the impact approach. So when someone is talking about measured "impact", to me, what they're actually talking about is a players "impact on their team's success". Which, again, is like a more quantified, individual measure of how much a player is putting towards his team getting ringzzz.

So, returning it to the first bolded line, what you said doesn't reflect my position. I would only (mainly) like the do-it-all player more if he was consistently showing a bigger impact on his team's ability to win. Thus, I'd only be picking that player if HE was the one leading his teams to more success. If, on the other hand, the player without as many tools is doing more to help his team win then I'd say he was making a bigger impact and thus likely to be preferred.

As to your second bolded line, especially as it relates to the post of mine that you quoted, I think it's worthy of further exploration. Does Paul REALLY put a cap on a good team's ceiling? If so, then that acts as a negative for him. But that needs to be teased out and shown. So far, no one has really shown any compelling (in my mind) proof that this is really what's going on with Paul. Especially when compared with a player like Durant, who's never shown that he can have as much impact (on his team's ability to win games) as Paul has shown.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Pettit
Alt: Paul

Sticking with my votes from before.

I will say that Ewing has a great case over Pettit. I do think Ewing tends to be way overrated as an offensive anchor, but he was a good offensive player and fantastic on defense. Pretty debatable vs Pettit, but I admire Pettit more.

Sticking with Paul in the other slot. It's all so iffy. but I do think Paul has been more reliably impactful than Ewing among others.

Nash is the next guy on my mind, but I don't really want to be the one championing him as I feel potentially biased there.

[penbeast0]

I am super pressed for time again but I wanted to get my vote in. Sorry I'm not providing much reasoning. Chef Curry is the choice for me here because his 3 year peak 2015-now has been unbelievable. He started a dynasty won multiple MVPs and his impact stats are ridiculous. Top 5 peak all time with 5 seasons of prime that have all been very good. His 2016 season was off the charts amazing and he should have won the ring without the bogus draymond suspension and all the injuries they had including the one to Curry's knee. His last 3 seasons have gone ring, 73 wins, ring. His gravity on the court is ATG. I value peak over longevity (though both matter to me) thats why I have supported Wade and Curry the last two threads. My reasoning is would you rather have a guy who was the capability to be an MVP/top5 player in the league and be the best player on champ for 5 years (ie Curry) or someone who can lead you to the playoffs every year and probably can't lead a team to the finals for 15 years (ie someone like Clyde Drexler or John Stockton).
2nd Vote: CP3 or Nash I can't decide someone give me a good argument.

"Chef" Curry? A man of many talents!

[drza]

I am super pressed for time again but I wanted to get my vote in. Sorry I'm not providing much reasoning. Chef Curry is the choice for me here because his 3 year peak 2015-now has been unbelievable. He started a dynasty won multiple MVPs and his impact stats are ridiculous. Top 5 peak all time with 5 seasons of prime that have all been very good. His 2016 season was off the charts amazing and he should have won the ring without the bogus draymond suspension and all the injuries they had including the one to Curry's knee. His last 3 seasons have gone ring, 73 wins, ring. His gravity on the court is ATG. I value peak over longevity (though both matter to me) thats why I have supported Wade and Curry the last two threads. My reasoning is would you rather have a guy who was the capability to be an MVP/top5 player in the league and be the best player on champ for 5 years (ie Curry) or someone who can lead you to the playoffs every year and probably can't lead a team to the finals for 15 years (ie someone like Clyde Drexler or John Stockton).
2nd Vote: CP3 or Nash I can't decide someone give me a good argument.

"Chef" Curry? A man of many talents!

You can blame Drake and Hip Hop for that nickname.

[penbeast0]

"Chef" Curry? A man of many talents!

You can blame Drake and Hip Hop for that nickname.

Hadn't realized it was a real nickname; thought it was autocorrect being "helpful."

[andrewww]

I think the bolded lines (which, in hindsight, is much of the post itself) are the key ones for us to get on the same page. But really, and ironically, the first underlined portion is exactly WHY many (including me) like the "impact stat" approach. Because the goal of an individual IS to lead the team to more success, not to put up stats. When one says "put up stats", by definition you're talking about putting up "box score stats", because you can't pad your +/- stats without helping the team.

As I've said before, the +/- stats are really the evolution of the ringzzzz argument. Used to be, there were 2 main ways to quantify (e.g. using numbers, not the eye test) how good a player was: their stats (e.g. box score) or how successful their teams were (e.g. ringzzz). The latter argument was that, since a player was on a good team, they must be doing more to help their teams win than a player with similar production on a bad team. That boxscore stats could be "empty", but that there were "intangibles" to the game that helped make some players a winner while others just put up stats.

The impact stat approach is completely independent of the box score stats a player might put up. The whole set of measures is meant to tie a player's presence on the court to a certain amount of change in their team's scoring margin. The very "intangibles" that the ringzzz side would refer to, are actually accounted for in the impact approach. So when someone is talking about measured "impact", to me, what they're actually talking about is a players "impact on their team's success". Which, again, is like a more quantified, individual measure of how much a player is putting towards his team getting ringzzz.

So, returning it to the first bolded line, what you said doesn't reflect my position. I would only (mainly) like the do-it-all player more if he was consistently showing a bigger impact on his team's ability to win. Thus, I'd only be picking that player if HE was the one leading his teams to more success. If, on the other hand, the player without as many tools is doing more to help his team win then I'd say he was making a bigger impact and thus likely to be preferred.

As to your second bolded line, especially as it relates to the post of mine that you quoted, I think it's worthy of further exploration. Does Paul REALLY put a cap on a good team's ceiling? If so, then that acts as a negative for him. But that needs to be teased out and shown. So far, no one has really shown any compelling (in my mind) proof that this is really what's going on with Paul. Especially when compared with a player like Durant, who's never shown that he can have as much impact (on his team's ability to win games) as Paul has shown.

The problem I have with impact stats is...for example, in the 2017 RS the impact stats say Kawhi Leonard was nothing special defensively. But everyone knows thats far from the truth.

By the same token, the 2001 playoffs..had Kobe as the clear leader in impact among the superstar players. Based on that, if I were to preach that 2001 Kobe was superior in impact to what some perceive as close to peak Shaq... I'd be ridiculed for having that stance. But the advanced stats, raw stats, results, and him being a part of a twin anchor top heavy team fully support him being arguably the best and most important player during those playoffs.

Impact stats have a tendency to let external variables factor in too much in an individual player's evaluation imo. Certain players can also cherry pick opportunities to make their impact seem greater than it is. For example, game 4 of the 2013 Finals... Wade was clearly the driving force when the game was still in the balance and turned that series around for Miami from potentially being down 3-1 to 2-2 instead. Lebron stat pads once the game has been decided and the raw box score stats dont show that. A player shooting 34% from 3 may seem to be a better shooter than someone who shoots 33% as an example, but that doesnt account for the latter player being such a threat from deep that multiple defenders are in his face every time he shoots, while the player shooting 34% is always wide open for a reason.

Also in CP3's case, similar to Lebron, I am of the opinion that these types of players are great floor raisers but questionable ceiling raisers. But at the highest level, I believe having a greater ceiling is more valuable than being a floor raiser.

[dhsilv2]

"Chef" Curry? A man of many talents!

You can blame Drake and Hip Hop for that nickname.

Hadn't realized it was a real nickname; thought it was autocorrect being "helpful."

Stephen Curry

Pronunciation: \STEFF-ihn\

Wardell Stephen Curry II ▪ Twitter: StephenCurry30

(Steph, Baby-Faced Assassin, Chef Curry)

[trex_8063]

I am super pressed for time again but I wanted to get my vote in. Sorry I'm not providing much reasoning. Chef Curry is the choice for me here because his 3 year peak 2015-now has been unbelievable. He started a dynasty won multiple MVPs and his impact stats are ridiculous. Top 5 peak all time with 5 seasons of prime that have all been very good. His 2016 season was off the charts amazing and he should have won the ring without the bogus draymond suspension and all the injuries they had including the one to Curry's knee. His last 3 seasons have gone ring, 73 wins, ring. His gravity on the court is ATG. I value peak over longevity (though both matter to me) thats why I have supported Wade and Curry the last two threads. My reasoning is would you rather have a guy who was the capability to be an MVP/top5 player in the league and be the best player on champ for 5 years (ie Curry) or someone who can lead you to the playoffs every year and probably can't lead a team to the finals for 15 years (ie someone like Clyde Drexler or John Stockton).
2nd Vote: CP3 or Nash I can't decide someone give me a good argument.

I don't have time to make a good argument for either (I'd personally go with Paul at this point); but you'd better decide, otherwise your secondary vote is voided and non-transferable.

[drza]

Spoiler:

I think the bolded lines (which, in hindsight, is much of the post itself) are the key ones for us to get on the same page. But really, and ironically, the first underlined portion is exactly WHY many (including me) like the "impact stat" approach. Because the goal of an individual IS to lead the team to more success, not to put up stats. When one says "put up stats", by definition you're talking about putting up "box score stats", because you can't pad your +/- stats without helping the team.

As I've said before, the +/- stats are really the evolution of the ringzzzz argument. Used to be, there were 2 main ways to quantify (e.g. using numbers, not the eye test) how good a player was: their stats (e.g. box score) or how successful their teams were (e.g. ringzzz). The latter argument was that, since a player was on a good team, they must be doing more to help their teams win than a player with similar production on a bad team. That boxscore stats could be "empty", but that there were "intangibles" to the game that helped make some players a winner while others just put up stats.

The impact stat approach is completely independent of the box score stats a player might put up. The whole set of measures is meant to tie a player's presence on the court to a certain amount of change in their team's scoring margin. The very "intangibles" that the ringzzz side would refer to, are actually accounted for in the impact approach. So when someone is talking about measured "impact", to me, what they're actually talking about is a players "impact on their team's success". Which, again, is like a more quantified, individual measure of how much a player is putting towards his team getting ringzzz.

So, returning it to the first bolded line, what you said doesn't reflect my position. I would only (mainly) like the do-it-all player more if he was consistently showing a bigger impact on his team's ability to win. Thus, I'd only be picking that player if HE was the one leading his teams to more success. If, on the other hand, the player without as many tools is doing more to help his team win then I'd say he was making a bigger impact and thus likely to be preferred.

As to your second bolded line, especially as it relates to the post of mine that you quoted, I think it's worthy of further exploration. Does Paul REALLY put a cap on a good team's ceiling? If so, then that acts as a negative for him. But that needs to be teased out and shown. So far, no one has really shown any compelling (in my mind) proof that this is really what's going on with Paul. Especially when compared with a player like Durant, who's never shown that he can have as much impact (on his team's ability to win games) as Paul has shown.

The problem I have with impact stats is...for example, in the 2017 RS the impact stats say Kawhi Leonard was nothing special defensively. But everyone knows thats far from the truth.

By the same token, the 2001 playoffs..had Kobe as the clear leader in impact among the superstar players. Based on that, if I were to preach that 2001 Kobe was superior in impact to what some perceive as close to peak Shaq... I'd be ridiculed for having that stance. But the advanced stats, raw stats, results, and him being a part of a twin anchor top heavy team fully support him being arguably the best and most important player during those playoffs.

Impact stats have a tendency to let external variables factor in too much in an individual player's evaluation imo. Certain players can also cherry pick opportunities to make their impact seem greater than it is. For example, game 4 of the 2013 Finals... Wade was clearly the driving force when the game was still in the balance and turned that series around for Miami from potentially being down 3-1 to 2-2 instead. Lebron stat pads once the game has been decided and the raw box score stats dont show that. A player shooting 34% from 3 may seem to be a better shooter than someone who shoots 33% as an example, but that doesnt account for the latter player being such a threat from deep that multiple defenders are in his face every time he shoots, while the player shooting 34% is always wide open for a reason.

Also in CP3's case, similar to Lebron, I am of the opinion that these types of players are great floor raisers but questionable ceiling raisers. But at the highest level, I believe having a greater ceiling is more valuable than being a floor raiser.

A few things.

1) Impact stats don't tell you how good a player is. They specifically measure how much a player's presence correlates to a team result. It's an actual measurement, not a value statement. Thus, it's more like looking at how many points someone scored as evidence of the statement "he's a great scorer".

So for Kawhi, we can factually say that his presence on the court this year didn't correlate with a big positive change in his team's defensive scoring margin. That's not saying Kawhi is nothing special on defense, it's indicating a fact that the Spurs defense this year didn't have their defensive scoring margins tied to Kawhi's presence. Then, it's up to the analyst to interpret what that means. In 2015 & 2016, Leonard finished in the top-7 in DRAPM both years, the only player besides Draymond to do so. Thus, in previous years he DID correlate with excellent defensive results. Was 2017 a fluke? Was his impact majorly affected by Duncan's retirement? Were teams playing Kawhisolation offense this year and exposing the weaknesses in the Spurs defensive frontline when Kawhi was on the court? Was Kawhi focused more on offense than defense this season, which affected his defensive output? These, and other factors/questions have to be considered before deciding whether Kawhi was "anything special" on defense in 2017. You're not going to be able to make a value statement for his defensive goodness with only a DRAPM score, especially not from a single season.

2) Impact stats ARE influenced by situation...just like boxscore stats are.

3) Impact stats can be noisy, and the strength of the measure improves with more data/repeated measures.

These last two points work together, and are why you get much more robust information when you examine a player's impact over time. If a player is in a situation where his impact isn't reflective of the best impact he can give, such as Wade and LeBron playing next to each other, one would hope that if you look over a career there would be other instances where the player is better able to show what they can do (such as Wade and LeBron in 2010 and before).

The example of any given game's +/- (like your Wade/LeBron mention) will be extremely high noise. But, put a bunch of those games together, and the likelihood is that flukes will fall out in the wash, and eventually you'll get a reliable signal.

This can even be true for a relatively small group of games, like any given playoffs run. However, again, I say use the measure for what it is...a measure, and then put it in context.

To your example, in the 2001 playoffs, Kobe had a much better on/off +/- than Shaq did. Let's look closer:

1) No one should ever use any one playoff run as an absolute data point/standalone argument.

2) One should also note that Shaq had by-far the highest on/off +/- scores on the team in the playoffs of each of the other three Lakers Finals runs (2000, 2002 and 2004)

3) In 2001, the Lakers faced four straight outstanding frontlines (Sabonis/Sheed, Divac/Webber, Duncan/Robinson & Mutombo) including two legendary interior defenses. From scouting, Kobe was considered a key difference against the Spurs (for example), who weren't equipped to handle him.

Could go further, but hopefully you see my point. In that Kobe/Shaq example, looking at the (admittedly noisy) +/- scores for the entirety of that 2000 - 2004 run indicated that Shaq was correlating much more overall to the Lakers' playoffs fortunes than Kobe. For 2001 in particular, it's possible that the counter-result was a fluke of noise...but in context, there were actually play-related considerations for why a transcendant Kobe may have really been more tied to the Lakers' success in that particular playoffs run than Shaq was. It's a reasonable result, even given the noise concerns of small samples of +/- data.

Anyway, the ultimate point (putting your two last posts together) is that no, I don't necessarily value jack-of-all-trades over dominance. My analysis is going to go deeper than that. And yes, I'm going to factor in the available impact stats. The stats aren't perfect, nor are they meant to be standalone arguments, ESPECIALLY in small sample sizes, but they give evidence to help quantify how much impact a player is having on his team's ability to win. And that's an important body of evidence, as it helps zero in on what I consider to be the most important thing that a player is trying to do on the court: help his team win.

And to your very last point...I'm fine with it, if you can make a good case that it's true. Show me that Paul or LeBron limit their teams' upside, and maybe I'll re-evaluate how I see them. In this very project, I argued and gave (what I consider to be reasonable) evidence that LeBron's portability/scaleability isn't as strong as a player like Duncan (here: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared ). And that, therefore, even though LeBron has better maximum RAPM scores than Duncan, an argument could be made that Duncan was just as valuable overall because he could maintain his maximum impact on a larger number of teams. I made that case, and defended it in the face of (as you'd expect) strong opposition. So, to you, I'd say...do the same. Show me that Paul is limiting his team's upside, and make a case that this is a large enough negative to rank some other player above him. I'll certainly read it, and I can be convinced. But just saying "it's my opinion" doesn't really do much to sway me.