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

[OldSchoolNoBull]

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.

I understand the point you're making here, but it's hard to see KD's impact on those Warriors teams in the numbers.

This is the 2016 Warriors - the year before KD joined, when they won 73 games and lost to LeBron in the Finals:

10.38 SRS
114.5 ORtg
103.8 DRtg
10.7 Net Rtg

This is the 2017 Warriors - KD's first year there:

11.35 SRS
115.6 ORtg
104.0 DRtg
11.6 Net Rtg

The increase is there, but the 2017 team's numbers are not dramatically better than those of the 2016 team with Barnes/Bogut in KD's place.

And the 2018 and 2019 teams' numbers are lower than both 2016 and 2017 - 5.79 SRS/6.0 Net Rtg and 6.42 SRS/6.4 Net Rtg.

Further, KD only had the the third highest RAPM on the team in 2017 and the fourth highest in 2018:

2017:
Steph: 8.15
Draymond: 4.80
Durant: 3.24

2018:
Steph: 4.11
Draymond: 2.79
Klay: 2.16
Durant: 1.56

Only in 2019 did KD have the highest RAPM on the team at 4.92.

I say all this as one who is reluctant to vote Jokic in yet due to relatively few years and one who could see voting for Durant as soon as after DRob/Dirk.

[Sign5]

Even if that were true, what does his opinion have to do with anything? It's not like we're mind controlled.

I figure he's the one who controls nominations based of

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order)

If not then it's my bad.

.

It IS your bad, considering the nominees are not decided by the OP, but rather by consensus of project participants.

That you pop in after 16 threads only to lay accusations [astonishingly incorrectly, as it turns out], only to then say "shut the f*** up" to the first poster who calls you out on this only accentuates the bizarre inappropriateness of this post. Warned and then some.

Masterful modding. This board needs more heroes like you.

[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.

.

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.

So, saying up front that your view is totally reasonable, I feel like I should probably elaborate on how Paul managed to miss the cut for me 3 times.

Let me say this beforehand though:

I'm really not looking forward to blowback for laying out negative of a player. I mean, y'all just saw the guy come in who had come to the conclusion that everything about me could be understood as an anti-Wade bias. That didn't come out of nowhere. It came out of me pointing out limitations and concerns in Wade's game, which I still believe even as I'm the first to nominate him in this project. So just to be clear, I haven't switched from an anti-Wade conspiracist to an anti-Paul conspiracist, this is just the current, imperfect conclusions I drew last pass through.

In the '08-09 RPOY, Chris Paul placed 5th. He was behind 4 guys in my Top 5. The other member of my Top 5 is Pau Gasol.

I feel like that immediately sets some context. Each of us views championship betas a bit differently, but I'm sure folks could imagine that I might be a bit high on them.

The really specific thing to point to beyond this is Paul's statistical fall off:

RS: 22.8 PPG, 59.9% TS, 3.0 TO, 30.7 PER
PS: 16.6 PPG, 50.5% TS, 4.8 TO, 16.1 PER

I don't think it should really be hard to see why I look at Gasol's playoffs as considerably more accomplished than Paul's, and that sways me.

In the '11-12 POY, Paul placed 3rd. So me moving Paul out of the Top 5 is a lot to justify compared the prior year. Honestly makes me think I may change my mind after looking back into it. But in general, look closely at the playoffs.

Look at Paul's stats in the regular season, and then compare them against the Spurs in that 0-4 sweep:

RS: 19.8 PPG, 58.1% TS, 2.1 TO/G
12 .8 PPG, 43.1% TS, 4.5 TO/G

Some might see this as cherry-picking ignoring the first round where he led his team to victory, but by all means factor that in as makes sense to you. I'm just pointing out the individual struggle of Paul's game as the headwind increased.

I think this makes it pretty clear why Paul's candidacy gets hurt in my mind. Is that enough to justify dropping him 3 spot? Far from a given. Those 3 guys ftr were Wade, Garnett & Harden.

Wade placing so highly honestly surprises me as I look back at my spreadsheet. Feels like a guy who could be lower...but in comparison to Paul, he never had a playoff series as problematic as Paul's against the Spurs this year (or Paul's against the Nuggets in '09 for that matter).

Garnett hopefully isn't that strange to PC Board folks but would be for most. Key things: a) I think Garnett's per minute impact was huge here, and b) he led his team to fight harder against Miami than anyone else.

Harden's gotta seem crazy to folks in general given that he was 6th Man. Picking Westbrook would surely seem less crazy by comparison - at least to Sam Presti - but there was a reason why the PC Board had a thread at the time debating whether Harden was a superstar-level player, and those reasons were absolutely tied to why Daryl Morey bet the farm on Harden and had it pay off (that time). I frankly think what we saw from Harden in '11-12 is probably the highest ceiling-raiser approach we ever saw him play at.

Okay, last one '12-13. Once again Paul is 3rd and I have him missing my Top 5 because of choosing Gasol, Curry & Westbrook over him. Westbrook's different than the other two. He's getting the nod based on me being super-impressed with what he and KD did in '12-13 in the regular season. He gets hurt in the playoffs which gives players a chance to jump past him, but I don't think Paul really pulled off that much in the playoffs to justify it. Gasol & Curry on the other hand I thought did quite a bit in the playoffs.

So there it is. Totally think it's fine if others disagree with me on all those comparisons, but at least you can see my flawed logic.

[Doctor MJ]

I figure he's the one who controls nominations based of



If not then it's my bad.

.

It IS your bad, considering the nominees are not decided by the OP, but rather by consensus of project participants.

That you pop in after 16 threads only to lay accusations [astonishingly incorrectly, as it turns out], only to then say "shut the f*** up" to the first poster who calls you out on this only accentuates the bizarre inappropriateness of this post. Warned and then some.

Masterful modding. This board needs more heroes like you.

Folks, please ignore this guy right now, don't escalate things.

Sign5, stop digging your own hole. Go spend time somewhere else that makes you feel positive.

[Sign5]

It IS your bad, considering the nominees are not decided by the OP, but rather by consensus of project participants.

That you pop in after 16 threads only to lay accusations [astonishingly incorrectly, as it turns out], only to then say "shut the f*** up" to the first poster who calls you out on this only accentuates the bizarre inappropriateness of this post. Warned and then some.

Masterful modding. This board needs more heroes like you.

Folks, please ignore this guy right now, don't escalate things.

Sign5, stop digging your own hole. Go spend time somewhere else that makes you feel positive.

Yes don't escalate things guys! Or else! The hole of words typed on a forum of complete strangers. I'm honestly unsure what I'll do at this point. Thanks for your triumphant effort in calming this battle. I'll be sure to remember how I upset random people on the internet when I'm conducting buisness, in the gym or participating in other hobbies. I can tell you're successful in your life! Anyways enjoy.

[f4p]

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.

I understand the point you're making here, but it's hard to see KD's impact on those Warriors teams in the numbers.

This is the 2016 Warriors - the year before KD joined, when they won 73 games and lost to LeBron in the Finals:

10.38 SRS
114.5 ORtg
103.8 DRtg
10.7 Net Rtg

This is the 2017 Warriors - KD's first year there:

11.35 SRS
115.6 ORtg
104.0 DRtg
11.6 Net Rtg

The increase is there, but the 2017 team's numbers are not dramatically better than those of the 2016 team with Barnes/Bogut in KD's place.

and now the playoffs. 15-9 with a +4.4 net rating to 16-1 with a +13.5 net rating. so worth +9 when it mattered. no one questioned whether the warriors could win regular season games. but after struggling against an injured team in the 2015 finals and gagging away the 2016 finals, it appeared lebron was a bit of a mental block for the team. KD removed that and helped them arguably be the best team ever (2001 lakers probably the best playoff team when factoring in kawhi's injury). and of course, the 2018 team that finished 5th in Sans Top 100, lost 4-1 in the 2019 finals in games KD didn't play, so once again he feels fairly integral to winning and not winning for the warriors in the playoffs.

and of course, kind of like the 2019 2nd round, the 2017 regular season seems to just be blaming KD for steph underperforming. steph went from one of the greatest regular seasons ever in 2016 to a fairly pedestrian 2017 regular season, somehow even being way less efficient despite almost certainly getting better shots:

PER: 31.5 to 24.6
TS%: 66.9% to 62.4%
WS48: 0.318 to 0.229
BPM: 11.9 to 6.9

those are fairly staggering drops for a guy who wasn't injured and played 79 games, especially for what was voted his "peak" season. in other words, either steph got way worse or the warriors clearly downshifted in the regular season as they probably felt that the lesson to be learned from the 2016 playoffs was that they wore themselves out in the 2016 regular season.

[Owly]

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.

This may be oversimiplified but trying to boil this down to its essance:
If I'm correct you're saying injuries don't matter if the comp is to a player eliminated around the same time or especially earlier?

If so, I think I would strongly disagree.

Playoffs are a thorny, uneven playing field.

What to do with injuries is tough and hard to balance fairly.

But for someone campaigning on Chris Paul's late series struggles, where we know he's had some injuries ...

Across all players considered functional absence from the last two rounds (missed a bit of g5, all g6 round 2 [one could argue the "critical" end of it - I wouldn't], 12m cameo in the finals) their absence should nuke your chances.

If someone's absent for round 1 but you're mostly healthy RS and can expect to have locked in a strong seed, maybe you can expect to have some chance to get through it. (And I ... think ... if this happens they happen not to do so this ends up being a bigger ding on the injured guy than an injury that locks you out of tougher opponents).

In terms of the season, Durant had he locks you into "do what you can" in conference finals and finals. He happened to be on a team that could survive that [but that, along with the general long-term impact picture, kind of just pointed out who the heavier lifter was] but the title probability add he gives you is close to 0. If you're good enough to win the sort of teams faced in the final two rounds ... your odds are already really good and there may be diminishing returns on what you bring and then you can't bring it for what should be the tougher challenges anyhow.

Particularly jarring is "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." So if the team loses performance doesn't matter? Is that the implication. I don't know what else I could be expected to take from this. I don't know how much of a slippery slope it requires to get from here to "Literally only players on the champs matter". Because ... "if [any or every non-champ player] had simply have sat out the season, it literally wouldn't have mattered to the results" ... I guess it depends how much one thinks individual games for teams now rendered non-contenders (if the player lost is at this level) matter as results in this context.

As I said there are different ways to do this and it's hard to do fairly but the implication that contributions in a loss don't matter and "if X's team don't advance, Y's injury doesn't matter" ... you do see how Y's injury curtails his teams chances in about all scenarios. And okay scenarios is playing with different worlds and maybe he doesn't get injured but [a] Kevin Durant gets hurt quite a lot for the back half of his career, perhaps especially the last 5 or so years, [b] how is this any reflection on Jokic's value or championship probability added or whatever you're seeking to measure?

I don't know I just ... struggle to make sense of this approach as ... I understand it(??)

[OhayoKD]

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.

I don't know. I think more often I've seen the opposite where because they have the mantle of "greatest team ever" and "dynasty" people inflate how much total-credit there is to be thrown around so they can justify placing everyone involved as better than those who had the misfortune of not getting an invitation.

And I think we can illustrate this with Harden who, filtering out garbage time, played the KD Warriors to a dead-heat in back to back postseasons with chris paul on the floor. That combination also won the majority of the games between the duos, yet it seems "greatest team ever" does not offer much of a positive boost for the reputation of the players who ran into them more than it's cited as a potential excuse.

People hated the KD move largely because barring an injury to the core, no one --should-- be able to challenge them and be it from a box-production or a team-success approach, they anticipated it would be practically impossible for anyone not on those teams to distinguish themselves positively from Durant/steph. The Warriors were fated to crush everyone....except they didn't crush the harden-cp3 rockets. And them winning at all is not really something that can be tied to Durant. The Houston Rockets proved to be the challenger for the greatest team ever everyone else was not yet mysteriously no individual involved is generally held in similar regard to any of the key individuals involved with the Warriors.

FWIW, I'd also speculate that the 2019 Bucks had good chances vs the 2019 Warriors with KD. I do not think the Warriors had the personnel to successfully execute what the Raptors managed and in lieu of that, the Bucks were looking to be an all-time juggernaut in their own right. Alas, Nurse, Kawhi, and Gasol had other plans.

and now the playoffs. 15-9 with a +4.4 net rating to 16-1 with a +13.5 net rating. so worth +9 when it mattered. no one questioned whether the warriors could win regular season games. but after struggling against an injured team in the 2015 finals and gagging away the 2016 finals, it appeared lebron was a bit of a mental block for the team.

Doesn't change much but may as well adjust for opponents here. You may recall 2016 featured 2 regular-season juggernauts(4 if you look at games where the best players played) and 4 playoff ones in a period without expansion(I believe that is the only time that has happened). If we adjust for opponent...

15 Warriors -> +9.8 psrs
16 Warriors -> +11.27 psrs
2017 Warriors -> +19.45 psrs
2018 Warriors -> +15.75 psrs
2019 Warriors with Durant:
first round -> Outscores +1.1 Clippers by +9.8 = +10.9 srs eq
first four games of the WCSF -> Outscores +7.8 Rockets by +.25 = +8.1 srs eq
(he is -1 in game 5 vs Houston and +6 vs the +9.1 raptors for anyone who wants to finish the calc)

There is plenty of favorable opponent injury context for both iterations of the Warriors, but Durant holds up pretty well fixing in on 2017 with an 8-point delta. Paired with his playoff on/off, rs impact, the warriors performance without him in the rs, and his box-score contributions through 3 of 4 rounds, I'd say it's fair to mark KD's 2017 as an extremely bootleg variant of Kobe's 2001.

Everything after seems pretty underwhelming and if we peek before we see three playoff runs where, asked to do superstar things outside of scoring, he folds while his teammate posts better impact, adjusted impact, and conventional box.

There are also two games left in single coverage vs the Bucks where he replicates what Luka did for 7 against the Kawhi-PG Clippers, nice scoring numbers in 2012 when he grades out as an ineffectual role-player in every other facet of the game, and the 2014 regular-season. Otherwise he is getting outplayed by teammates, posting pedestrian playoff on/off, playoff apm, playoff aupm, regular-season apm, and regular season on/off while being a marginal defender, offering little as a creator, and being disproportionately dependent on all-time playmakers for his scoring efficiency because his handles are extremely limited relative to other modern offensive centerpieces.

Durant's legacy is basically built on a single series he had the privilege of being "needed for" against a team that was horribly set-up to stop him in just about the easiest context possible.

Durant is a pretty viable candidate for "greatest casts across a career of any superstar" and has converted that into 1 championship as a clear 2nd fiddle, and another championship where an opposing injury bailed him out despite being paired with 2 superstars. His teams have always been good to contention-worthy without him with even the 2015 thunder playing near 50-win basketball with the other starters and no KD.

For all the hype and scoring titles, his "making teams win" resume reads a lot like Pippen's(with 5 less rings). Just looking at the last 20-years, Lebron, Duncan, KG, Steph, Shaq, Giannis, Kobe, Harden, Duncan, Chris Paul, Jokic, Wade, and Nash are all more valuable regular-season forces and Durant isn't some resiliency stand-out unless you squint.

On most teams he's probably an outright faller and I very much doubt he'd be discussed this high if he'd been involved in a more typical situations.

[One_and_Done]

KD is closer to 5th all-time than he is to Pippen. I'd have voted KD around 10-12, he's way too talented to be compared to Pippen, and I love Pippen.

[SpreeS]

Careers RS rOrtg to PS rOrtg (net and decrease %)

Nash +9.59 +7.79 -1.80 .187
Curry +7.86 +6.25 -1.61 .205
Jokic +6.82 +4.83 -1.99 .292
Dirk +6.70 +4.70 -2.00 .299
Paul +6.50 +2.18 -4.32 .665
Kobe +5.52 +3.84 -1.68 .304
Harden +5.44 +3.56 -1.88 .346
Doncic +5.42 +2.98 -2.44 .450
Lillard +5.34 +0.27 -5.07 .950
Embiid +4.71 +2.96 -1.75 .372

It may be useful for someone to make decisions. Looks like Nash/Paul offences like day and night in PO. Even Harden offence with all his lapses looks better in PO than Paul's.

[Colbinii]

Careers RS rOrtg to PS rOrtg (net and decrease %)

Nash +9.59 +7.79 -1.80 .187
Curry +7.86 +6.25 -1.61 .205
Jokic +6.82 +4.83 -1.99 .292
Dirk +6.70 +4.70 -2.00 .299
Paul +6.50 +2.18 -4.32 .665
Kobe +5.52 +3.84 -1.68 .304
Harden +5.44 +3.56 -1.88 .346
Doncic +5.42 +2.98 -2.44 .450
Lillard +5.34 +0.27 -5.07 .950
Embiid +4.71 +2.96 -1.75 .372

It may be useful for someone to make decisions. Looks like Nash/Paul offences like day and night in PO. Even Harden offence with all his lapses looks better in PO than Paul's.

Do you have this for CP3 prime [2008-2018] as well as His rOn-Court rating?

[Doctor MJ]

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.

I understand the point you're making here, but it's hard to see KD's impact on those Warriors teams in the numbers.

This is the 2016 Warriors - the year before KD joined, when they won 73 games and lost to LeBron in the Finals:

10.38 SRS
114.5 ORtg
103.8 DRtg
10.7 Net Rtg

This is the 2017 Warriors - KD's first year there:

11.35 SRS
115.6 ORtg
104.0 DRtg
11.6 Net Rtg

The increase is there, but the 2017 team's numbers are not dramatically better than those of the 2016 team with Barnes/Bogut in KD's place.

And the 2018 and 2019 teams' numbers are lower than both 2016 and 2017 - 5.79 SRS/6.0 Net Rtg and 6.42 SRS/6.4 Net Rtg.

Further, KD only had the the third highest RAPM on the team in 2017 and the fourth highest in 2018:

2017:
Steph: 8.15
Draymond: 4.80
Durant: 3.24

2018:
Steph: 4.11
Draymond: 2.79
Klay: 2.16
Durant: 1.56

Only in 2019 did KD have the highest RAPM on the team at 4.92.

I say all this as one who is reluctant to vote Jokic in yet due to relatively few years and one who could see voting for Durant as soon as after DRob/Dirk.

Well there's no doubt that his regular season impact compared to the '15-16 was inconsequential, and that context has everything to do with why Durant was so heavily criticized for much of what followed. I honestly have zero interest in defending Durant's choices here. I penalize him significantly for his toxic off-court impact.

Nevertheless, I believe the '16-17 Warriors were the best team in history, and am reluctant to take for granted the role of the major players in such an accomplishment.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

This may be oversimiplified but trying to boil this down to its essance:
If I'm correct you're saying injuries don't matter if the comp is to a player eliminated around the same time or especially earlier?

If so, I think I would strongly disagree.

Playoffs are a thorny, uneven playing field.

What to do with injuries is tough and hard to balance fairly.

But for someone campaigning on Chris Paul's late series struggles, where we know he's had some injuries ...

Across all players considered functional absence from the last two rounds (missed a bit of g5, all g6 round 2 [one could argue the "critical" end of it - I wouldn't], 12m cameo in the finals) their absence should nuke your chances.

If someone's absent for round 1 but you're mostly healthy RS and can expect to have locked in a strong seed, maybe you can expect to have some chance to get through it. (And I ... think ... if this happens they happen not to do so this ends up being a bigger ding on the injured guy than an injury that locks you out of tougher opponents).

In terms of the season, Durant had he locks you into "do what you can" in conference finals and finals. He happened to be on a team that could survive that [but that, along with the general long-term impact picture, kind of just pointed out who the heavier lifter was] but the title probability add he gives you is close to 0. If you're good enough to win the sort of teams faced in the final two rounds ... your odds are already really good and there may be diminishing returns on what you bring and then you can't bring it for what should be the tougher challenges anyhow.

Particularly jarring is "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." So if the team loses performance doesn't matter? Is that the implication. I don't know what else I could be expected to take from this. I don't know how much of a slippery slope it requires to get from here to "Literally only players on the champs matter". Because ... "if [any or every non-champ player] had simply have sat out the season, it literally wouldn't have mattered to the results" ... I guess it depends how much one thinks individual games for teams now rendered non-contenders (if the player lost is at this level) matter as results in this context.

As I said there are different ways to do this and it's hard to do fairly but the implication that contributions in a loss don't matter and "if X's team don't advance, Y's injury doesn't matter" ... you do see how Y's injury curtails his teams chances in about all scenarios. And okay scenarios is playing with different worlds and maybe he doesn't get injured but [a] Kevin Durant gets hurt quite a lot for the back half of his career, perhaps especially the last 5 or so years, [b] how is this any reflection on Jokic's value or championship probability added or whatever you're seeking to measure?

I don't know I just ... struggle to make sense of this approach as ... I understand it(??)

Responding to various points:

a) In the context of any given year, I find it hard to penalize Player A relative to Player B due to Player A getting injured after Player B stopped accomplishing anything.

b) This doesn't mean that we can draw broader conclusions about about endurance, durability, etc, when a player gets injured, and in the context of a Career project, that stuff can certainly act as a penalty.

c) Pertaining to my posted evaluation of Chris Paul, note that I was focusing on season-by-season analysis, and as far as I now, wasn't doing anything pertaining to Paul that was inconsistent with (a). If you see a specific bug in my logic, please do let me know. As I've said, I've certainly made such mistakes before.

d) Re: "functional absence...should nuke your chances". Not sure precisely what you're saying here. Please elaborate, and feel free to give specific examples, particularly if you think I might be inconsistent with regard to them.

e) re: "So if the team loses performance doesn't matter?". Well, let's first clarify that I said it wouldn't matter to the result. The results were losses, and presumably would have been losses had Jokic not played too.

f) I'd emphasize though that I'm not literally saying that/how Jokic played in those 2 games provides no information and can't be used in our evaluation of him. Rather, I'm saying that if those two games are what elevate Jokic ahead of Durant for someone, I think that's pretty strange. Having Jokic ahead of Durant before that point doesn't seem bizarre to me at all, but the idea that it was those 2 games that stick in people's minds as the deciding factor just doesn't seem realistic to how anyone does analysis.

Yet, for anyone whose first thought about Jokic vs Durant in '18-19 is Durant's injury, I'd argue that that's effectively what they're doing whether they realize it or not.

g) Now, I do think it understandable if one's evaluation of these players in general factors in durability/endurance explicitly, particularly in a project like this one. Just keep in mind that in the context of a particular season, if an injury-prone guy doesn't get injured, I think pretty much everyone would look at you crazy for knocking his season on the basis of the injuries he might've had be didn't.

h) Re: "how is this any reflection on Jokic?". My evaluation of Durant has no direct bearing on Jokic. This came up in the context of Top 5 seasons which you're perfectly fine to not care one bit about. Does it really matter that a guy was 6th instead of 5th in one year? Arguably no...but I'd note that when I gave my tallies for guys - and Chris Paul in particular - it sure seemed like it mattered to some people, and the response I got from them was not apathy but objection.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know. I think more often I've seen the opposite where because they have the mantle of "greatest team ever" and "dynasty" people inflate how much total-credit there is to be thrown around so they can justify placing everyone involved as better than those who had the misfortune of not getting an invitation.

And I think we can illustrate this with Harden who, filtering out garbage time, played the KD Warriors to a dead-heat in back to back postseasons with chris paul on the floor. That combination also won the majority of the games between the duos, yet it seems "greatest team ever" does not offer much of a positive boost for the reputation of the players who ran into them more than it's cited as a potential excuse.

People hated the KD move largely because barring an injury to the core, no one --should-- be able to challenge them and be it from a box-production or a team-success approach, they anticipated it would be practically impossible for anyone not on those teams to distinguish themselves positively from Durant/steph. The Warriors were fated to crush everyone....except they didn't crush the harden-cp3 rockets. And them winning at all is not really something that can be tied to Durant. The Houston Rockets proved to be the challenger for the greatest team ever everyone else was not yet mysteriously no individual involved is generally held in similar regard to any of the key individuals involved with the Warriors.

FWIW, I'd also speculate that the 2019 Bucks had good chances vs the 2019 Warriors with KD. I do not think the Warriors had the personnel to successfully execute what the Raptors managed and in lieu of that, the Bucks were looking to be an all-time juggernaut in their own right. Alas, Nurse, Kawhi, and Gasol had other plans.

To point to objective measures of perception:

1. Both Curry & Durant's POY shares fell after they teamed up.

2. Both Curry & Durant made very little progress in our Top 100 between 2017 & 2020 despite losing only once series in that 3-year span, in the finals, while crippled by injuries that quite possibly are the only reason the team didn't 3-peat.

This doesn't mean that there isn't some other measure we could find where they are being helped by the team-up, but it does mean that if you didn't see any way in which these players' credit-allocations were being hurt, well, there ya go.

Re: Harden & Paul.

1. Harden got more POY shares in both Chris Paul years than Curry or Durant.

2. Harden saw a much bigger jump in the 2020 Top 100 than Curry or Durant.

3. Paul managed to stay in front of Curry in the 2020 Top 100 despite the fact that his reputation took significant hit after Harden kicked him to the curb.

So I'd say that in the short term, among the folks here, Harden at the very least benefitted considerably more from the Curry & Durant team-up than Curry & Durant did, and this is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Of course now we're in 2023, and in the 3 years since that last project, Harden's burned or attempted to burn 3 franchises to the ground chasing super-teams that never won titles. So yeah, when people think about Harden now, they're no longer thinking about the fact that the '17-18 Rockets might have been the best non-Warrior team of the 2010s, and are instead thinking about recent events.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote Karl Malone
Alternate Dirk Nowiztki
Nomination John Stockton

It's time. Karl Malone has a regular season career that is top 10 all time.

He was a great offensive anchor, a very solid man to man defender.

His scoring ability grew during his career as the Jazz were later able to operate trough him in the post. Very reliable midrange scorer, ferocious attacking the rim and a menace in the open court. For the ones that say he relied on Stockton... well, Stockton was going downhill in 98 and he almost delivered us a championship, playing two of his most superb games in G5 and G6 of the 98 finals.

I understand he has some playoff drop in some cases, but let's not make it seem it was always like that. 92, 94, 98 are examples of superb campaigns.

He's the only guy left with a longevity in the realm of LeBron, KAJ and Duncan. And since that was clearly a factor before I think we should give Malone a spot here.

He was a jerk off the court... yes. But we're not judging that here, right?

[Owly]

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.

This may be oversimiplified but trying to boil this down to its essance:
If I'm correct you're saying injuries don't matter if the comp is to a player eliminated around the same time or especially earlier?

If so, I think I would strongly disagree.

Playoffs are a thorny, uneven playing field.

What to do with injuries is tough and hard to balance fairly.

But for someone campaigning on Chris Paul's late series struggles, where we know he's had some injuries ...

Across all players considered functional absence from the last two rounds (missed a bit of g5, all g6 round 2 [one could argue the "critical" end of it - I wouldn't], 12m cameo in the finals) their absence should nuke your chances.

If someone's absent for round 1 but you're mostly healthy RS and can expect to have locked in a strong seed, maybe you can expect to have some chance to get through it. (And I ... think ... if this happens they happen not to do so this ends up being a bigger ding on the injured guy than an injury that locks you out of tougher opponents).

In terms of the season, Durant had he locks you into "do what you can" in conference finals and finals. He happened to be on a team that could survive that [but that, along with the general long-term impact picture, kind of just pointed out who the heavier lifter was] but the title probability add he gives you is close to 0. If you're good enough to win the sort of teams faced in the final two rounds ... your odds are already really good and there may be diminishing returns on what you bring and then you can't bring it for what should be the tougher challenges anyhow.

Particularly jarring is "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." So if the team loses performance doesn't matter? Is that the implication. I don't know what else I could be expected to take from this. I don't know how much of a slippery slope it requires to get from here to "Literally only players on the champs matter". Because ... "if [any or every non-champ player] had simply have sat out the season, it literally wouldn't have mattered to the results" ... I guess it depends how much one thinks individual games for teams now rendered non-contenders (if the player lost is at this level) matter as results in this context.

As I said there are different ways to do this and it's hard to do fairly but the implication that contributions in a loss don't matter and "if X's team don't advance, Y's injury doesn't matter" ... you do see how Y's injury curtails his teams chances in about all scenarios. And okay scenarios is playing with different worlds and maybe he doesn't get injured but [a] Kevin Durant gets hurt quite a lot for the back half of his career, perhaps especially the last 5 or so years, [b] how is this any reflection on Jokic's value or championship probability added or whatever you're seeking to measure?

I don't know I just ... struggle to make sense of this approach as ... I understand it(??)

Responding to various points:

a) In the context of any given year, I find it hard to penalize Player A relative to Player B due to Player A getting injured after Player B stopped accomplishing anything.

b) This doesn't mean that we can draw broader conclusions about about endurance, durability, etc, when a player gets injured, and in the context of a Career project, that stuff can certainly act as a penalty.

c) Pertaining to my posted evaluation of Chris Paul, note that I was focusing on season-by-season analysis, and as far as I now, wasn't doing anything pertaining to Paul that was inconsistent with (a). If you see a specific bug in my logic, please do let me know. As I've said, I've certainly made such mistakes before.

d) Re: "functional absence...should nuke your chances". Not sure precisely what you're saying here. Please elaborate, and feel free to give specific examples, particularly if you think I might be inconsistent with regard to them.

e) re: "So if the team loses performance doesn't matter?". Well, let's first clarify that I said it wouldn't matter to the result. The results were losses, and presumably would have been losses had Jokic not played too.

f) I'd emphasize though that I'm not literally saying that/how Jokic played in those 2 games provides no information and can't be used in our evaluation of him. Rather, I'm saying that if those two games are what elevate Jokic ahead of Durant for someone, I think that's pretty strange. Having Jokic ahead of Durant before that point doesn't seem bizarre to me at all, but the idea that it was those 2 games that stick in people's minds as the deciding factor just doesn't seem realistic to how anyone does analysis.

Yet, for anyone whose first thought about Jokic vs Durant in '18-19 is Durant's injury, I'd argue that that's effectively what they're doing whether they realize it or not.

g) Now, I do think it understandable if one's evaluation of these players in general factors in durability/endurance explicitly, particularly in a project like this one. Just keep in mind that in the context of a particular season, if an injury-prone guy doesn't get injured, I think pretty much everyone would look at you crazy for knocking his season on the basis of the injuries he might've had be didn't.

h) Re: "how is this any reflection on Jokic?". My evaluation of Durant has no direct bearing on Jokic. This came up in the context of Top 5 seasons which you're perfectly fine to not care one bit about. Does it really matter that a guy was 6th instead of 5th in one year? Arguably no...but I'd note that when I gave my tallies for guys - and Chris Paul in particular - it sure seemed like it mattered to some people, and the response I got from them was not apathy but objection.

Briefly and if I've got a response

a) I guess I just don't get the chronological framing. We're after the fact. See (d)

d) (and maybe others). Durant was functionally absent from late in round 2. I put functionally to cover that technically he appeared in a finals game. "Nuke your chances" ... almost every team with a player of present level consideration on would if that guy was absent have no chance of winning a conference finals and a finals series. KD happened to be on one that could. But in 99.9% of cases if you've got a superstar on a superstar contract and that guy goes down and can't play those rounds your team is done. Their chances of winning are infinitesimally small. And this is probably the core of my point. If one is on a injuries happen as they happened model Durant's "championship probability added" is near zero. You're probably dead and if you aren't there's a fair chance Durant was fairly redundant anyhow.

e) See (a)

f) See (a). We've seen the season. It's not Jokic passes in two games (assuming one had him behind before). It's we don't have evidence that Jokic nukes his value by rendering himself unavailable.

g) Struggling to parse here. With the knowledge we have Durant seems injury prone at this point. He also gets injured. In "exactly as it was" models he wasn't available for the later rounds. In fuzzier likelihood models we seem to see he's injury prone and also did happen to get injured (safe to say at this end or some middle balance ... there's evidence injury affects his value this season). The "if he weren't injured ..." I'm not sure of the relevance ....
Fwiw if a Walton team got eliminated in the first round (or didn't make the playoffs) and didn't have a serious injury ... it's difficult but I could see a "we can't be sure on his continued health" penalty. It would require getting pretty deep into the weeds to apply that fairly and consistently though.

h) Yeah, arbitrary line rankings don't matter to me (at a glance it did seem very low on Paul but it's not my fight). But yeah it's just this Jokic/time framing was invoked. See (a) I guess.

[f4p]

I don't know. I think more often I've seen the opposite where because they have the mantle of "greatest team ever" and "dynasty" people inflate how much total-credit there is to be thrown around so they can justify placing everyone involved as better than those who had the misfortune of not getting an invitation.

And I think we can illustrate this with Harden who, filtering out garbage time, played the KD Warriors to a dead-heat in back to back postseasons with chris paul on the floor. That combination also won the majority of the games between the duos, yet it seems "greatest team ever" does not offer much of a positive boost for the reputation of the players who ran into them more than it's cited as a potential excuse.

People hated the KD move largely because barring an injury to the core, no one --should-- be able to challenge them and be it from a box-production or a team-success approach, they anticipated it would be practically impossible for anyone not on those teams to distinguish themselves positively from Durant/steph. The Warriors were fated to crush everyone....except they didn't crush the harden-cp3 rockets. And them winning at all is not really something that can be tied to Durant. The Houston Rockets proved to be the challenger for the greatest team ever everyone else was not yet mysteriously no individual involved is generally held in similar regard to any of the key individuals involved with the Warriors.

while i heavily agree with the points about the rockets, the warriors literally did not win the year before KD got there, had 2 of the best teams ever with him, and then didn't win without him in 2019. like i don't see how to untangle KD from them winning just because of some plus/minus numbers. winning one 3 years later when big bad lebron and the 2018 rockets are gone doesn't mean they could have done it in 2017 and 2018 without durant.

FWIW, I'd also speculate that the 2019 Bucks had good chances vs the 2019 Warriors with KD. I do not think the Warriors had the personnel to successfully execute what the Raptors managed and in lieu of that, the Bucks were looking to be an all-time juggernaut in their own right. Alas, Nurse, Kawhi, and Gasol had other plans.

i mean looking like juggernauts and then losing is kind of the bucks thing, with three #1 seed losses in 5 years.

and now the playoffs. 15-9 with a +4.4 net rating to 16-1 with a +13.5 net rating. so worth +9 when it mattered. no one questioned whether the warriors could win regular season games. but after struggling against an injured team in the 2015 finals and gagging away the 2016 finals, it appeared lebron was a bit of a mental block for the team.

Doesn't change much but may as well adjust for opponents here. You may recall 2016 featured 2 regular-season juggernauts(4 if you look at games where the best players played) and 4 playoff ones in a period without expansion(I believe that is the only time that has happened). If we adjust for opponent...

15 Warriors -> +9.8 psrs
16 Warriors -> +11.27 psrs
2017 Warriors -> +19.45 psrs
2018 Warriors -> +15.75 psrs
2019 Warriors with Durant:
first round -> Outscores +1.1 Clippers by +9.8 = +10.9 srs eq
first four games of the WCSF -> Outscores +7.8 Rockets by +.25 = +8.1 srs eq
(he is -1 in game 5 vs Houston and +6 vs the +9.1 raptors for anyone who wants to finish the calc)

There is plenty of favorable opponent injury context for both iterations of the Warriors, but Durant holds up pretty well fixing in on 2017 with an 8-point delta. Paired with his playoff on/off, rs impact, the warriors performance without him in the rs, and his box-score contributions through 3 of 4 rounds, I'd say it's fair to mark KD's 2017 as an extremely bootleg variant of Kobe's 2001.

Everything after seems pretty underwhelming and if we peek before we see three playoff runs where, asked to do superstar things outside of scoring, he folds while his teammate posts better impact, adjusted impact, and conventional box.

There are also two games left in single coverage vs the Bucks

is that how you're describing a 49/17/10 playoff game on 82 TS%? as "left in single coverage". also, the 10 assists make it seem hard to think he wasn't seeing some doubles. i feel like quite a few people have been left in single coverage and didn't quite put up a nearly 50 point triple double against a fairly good defense (-5 and -2.5 in the next 2 rounds after smothering the Heat).

where he replicates what Luka did for 7 against the Kawhi-PG Clippers, nice scoring numbers in 2012 when he grades out as an ineffectual role-player in every other facet of the game,

yeah, if you have numbers showing 2012 KD as an ineffectual role player, it's definitely time to stop using those numbers. he averaged 30/7/4 on 65.7 TS% in the WCF and Finals, knocking off a juggernaut spurs team that was on a 20 game winning streak and 31-2 in their previous 33 games and giving the heat everything they wanted in a series where games 2-4 were decided by a combined 16 points (and westbrook had a 45 TS% against the spurs and all of 2 apg more than KD so unless we're giving all of the credit to harden, it's hard to see how KD isn't the driving force).

and the 2014 regular-season. Otherwise he is getting outplayed by teammates, posting pedestrian playoff on/off, playoff apm, playoff aupm, regular-season apm, and regular season on/off while being a marginal defender, offering little as a creator, and being disproportionately dependent on all-time playmakers for his scoring efficiency because his handles are extremely limited relative to other modern offensive centerpieces.

Durant's legacy is basically built on a single series he had the privilege of being "needed for" against a team that was horribly set-up to stop him in just about the easiest context possible.

it's also built on leading a team to the finals and going toe to toe with lebron as a 23 year old, something steph was never able to do (well, i guess he got close to injured lebron this year). that team also came back as a +9 team the following year and had it ruined due to injuries. and then had what looked like an easy title ruined by injuries to harden and kyrie. when your best non-warriors chances get taken down by injury, things aren't going to look as great.

Durant is a pretty viable candidate for "greatest casts across a career of any superstar" and has converted that into 1 championship as a clear 2nd fiddle, and another championship where an opposing injury bailed him out despite being paired with 2 superstars. His teams have always been good to contention-worthy without him with even the 2015 thunder playing near 50-win basketball with the other starters and no KD.

how did okc hold up after durant? they went straight to 1st round fodder and didn't pass go or collect $200. they even stayed there after adding paul george. the warriors couldn't win the 2019 finals and missed 2 straight playoffs after KD the irrelevant left.

and lol on the clear second fiddle who dominated the finals that the first fiddle couldn't? i don't know why this seems so irrelevant to you and others. the warriors were coming off 2 subpar finals from steph. it almost cost them one against a heavily injured opponent and then did cost them the next year. then they manhandled that same opponent with KD putting up 35 ppg on 70 TS% in the finals. we can't just skip the final boss fight and talk about some plus/minus from the warmup matches like those are what's important.

also, while KD has certainly had good teammates, KD's "cast" in OKC once harden left was basically westbrook, who finished i think 43rd in the last project, so not exactly kareem playing with magic or anything. and of course, westbrook didn't play in 2 of their 4 playoffs after they made the finals in 2012 so can't really count as a supporting cast if you are in street clothes. and in the ones where he was healthy they went to the WCF in 2014 and then knocked off a 10 SRS team in 2016 and almost knocked off another 10 SRS team in the conference finals. for okc to win in 2016, they would have had to easily eclipse the combined opponents SRS record (and that's with cleveland only being a +5.5) and there's a reason that every playoff run by everybody that would have required a +25 combined opponents SRS has ended in failure.

so like 3 strong supporting casts before he got to the warriors? one of which got to the finals and one of which beat a 67 win team and almost beat a 73 win team? and if we're not counting the warriors wins then what else is there after the warriors? he didn't play in 2020. 2021 had both of his best teammates injured so once again that's not a good cast (and KD was amazing without them) and 2022 was just him and kyrie, and i know you're not about to tell me you think kyrie is the ultimate winner. so what are we left with, 34 year old KD getting to play with devin booker and cp3 once again getting hurt in the playoffs on a team that was so shallow they were practically not playing the bench? it seems like a much better set of supporting casts on paper than in reality based on who was actually healthy enough to play.

For all the hype and scoring titles, his "making teams win" resume reads a lot like Pippen's(with 5 less rings). Just looking at the last 20-years, Lebron, Duncan, KG, Steph, Shaq, Giannis, Kobe, Harden, Duncan, Chris Paul, Jokic, Wade, and Nash are all more valuable regular-season forces and Durant isn't some resiliency stand-out unless you squint.

On most teams he's probably an outright faller and I very much doubt he'd be discussed this high if he'd been involved in a more typical situations.

how would he be discussed if westbrook stays healthy in 2013 and they win it all? or he gets dirk's luck and gets lebron playing terribly in the finals in 2012 like he did in 2011 and now durant has an early alpha title to set the narrative (let's not pretend dirk is as high as he is without that win or that dirk somehow made lebron choke). or harden stays healthy in 2021 and he is first to win a post-warriors ring before steph?

[One_and_Done]

Vote Karl Malone
Alternate Dirk Nowiztki
Nomination John Stockton

It's time. Karl Malone has a regular season career that is top 10 all time.

He was a great offensive anchor, a very solid man to man defender.

His scoring ability grew during his career as the Jazz were later able to operate trough him in the post. Very reliable midrange scorer, ferocious attacking the rim and a menace in the open court. For the ones that say he relied on Stockton... well, Stockton was going downhill in 98 and he almost delivered us a championship, playing two of his most superb games in G5 and G6 of the 98 finals.

I understand he has some playoff drop in some cases, but let's not make it seem it was always like that. 92, 94, 98 are examples of superb campaigns.

He's the only guy left with a longevity in the realm of LeBron, KAJ and Duncan. And since that was clearly a factor before I think we should give Malone a spot here.

He was a jerk off the court... yes. But we're not judging that here, right?

I find this kind of vote to be problematic. If Mailman and Stockton were round top 16 and top 22 of all-time, then why didn't they accomplish more? For many years they were kicked out of the playoffs by very meh teams. I say that as someone who has been supporting Malone. It's Stockton who I have problem with. His case is based on overemphasis on advanced stats IMO. The MVP voting during his career does not suggest n MVP type of rating, and that's the sort of players we should be considering here.

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote Karl Malone
Alternate Dirk Nowiztki
Nomination John Stockton

It's time. Karl Malone has a regular season career that is top 10 all time.

He was a great offensive anchor, a very solid man to man defender.

His scoring ability grew during his career as the Jazz were later able to operate trough him in the post. Very reliable midrange scorer, ferocious attacking the rim and a menace in the open court. For the ones that say he relied on Stockton... well, Stockton was going downhill in 98 and he almost delivered us a championship, playing two of his most superb games in G5 and G6 of the 98 finals.

I understand he has some playoff drop in some cases, but let's not make it seem it was always like that. 92, 94, 98 are examples of superb campaigns.

He's the only guy left with a longevity in the realm of LeBron, KAJ and Duncan. And since that was clearly a factor before I think we should give Malone a spot here.

He was a jerk off the court... yes. But we're not judging that here, right?

I find this kind of vote to be problematic. If Mailman and Stockton were round top 16 and top 22 of all-time, then why didn't they accomplish more? For many years they were kicked out of the playoffs by very meh teams. I say that as someone who has been supporting Malone. It's Stockton who I have problem with. His case is based on overemphasis on advanced stats IMO. The MVP voting during his career does not suggest n MVP type of rating, and that's the sort of players we should be considering here.

There's more than two players on a team.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Stockton and Malone's case rest more on longevity, and I guess maybe you could argue their lack of championships as a reason to value the exponential impact of true all-time level play over what they gave you over many years.

As someone who values peak a lot, it seems like I am lower on those 2 than the rest of the board.

I would also add though, that multiple members on the Jazz suffered notable PS drops. I think it could point their system being a bit simplistic and/or able to take advantage during the RS against unprepared teams. However, those same advantages weren't quite there come the 2nd season.

As Ben mentioned in this podcast regarding the older version of his ScoreVal (8:45 mark or so).


https://open.spotify.com/episode/0L0BzE3plnT9q2o2s152r6?si=cfyunwAsTzClCpa9Kz8LjQ

Malone had the #1 largest drop in ScoreVal (from RS to PS).

Stockton had the 9th largest drop.

Jeff Hornaceck had the 12th largest drop.

Mehmet Okur had the 5th largest drop.

Bryon Russell had the 15th largest drop.

Boozer had the 20th largest drop.

Many of them played a lot of PS basketball under Jerry Sloan.