iggymcfrack wrote:Vote: Chris Paul Was looking at how many people have CP3 above Giannis and was thinking about it and if Paul has an average RAPM over an 18 year span that's higher than what Giannis has over a 10 year span, he probably deserves the spot ahead of him, right? Anyway, Paul's incredibly consistent advanced stats give him the spot here for me.
Alternate: Giannis Antetokounmpo Easily the best 5 year peak of anyone currently nominated. Even if you compare him to Erving's ABA years, he comes out well ahead in the regular season and roughly even in the playoffs.
Nominate: Nikola Jokic Only has Jordan-esque career numbers, all-time non-box impact, and the best single offensive season in NBA history. No big deal.
I think it'd be very much in your interests to give Nash your alternate nomination. At present that would put Nash ahead, and the Nash voters are going to be well aligned with the people you want to vote for. Plus I assume you have Nash ahead anyhow.
I have them both too far down to care which one gets nominated at this point. My big board of unselected players would be:
11. Jokic 12. Paul 14. Giannis 16. Stockton 20. Wade 21. Kawhi 25. Durant 26. Barkley 27. AD 28. Nash 29. Embiid 30. Erving
Since it's not realistic that I'd vote for either player, I'll leave the nominations to those that are more supportive of their respective candidates. If anything, I might put an alternate vote in for Stockton if he had more traction, but Nash and Moses are both too far down for me to support positively. If you were saying it was going to strategically support a nomination for Jokic to get Nash in, I'd disagree with that too as Jokic has 1 alternate nomination from Moses and 0 from Nash.
You seem to be big into exponentializing prime seasons and impact assessments. Have you seen Nash's RAPM (O-RAPM specific) track record along with WOWY? Both paint him as one of the best players remaining prime for prime.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
nash over moses would just be wild and so out of line with nba history. a low longevity non-title winner who didn't even make the finals over a high-peak, moderate longevity dominant alpha-title winner who also has a carry-job finals appearance.
Nash/Moses are tied 7-7 after preferences, by my count.
iggymcfrack wrote:Vote: Chris Paul Was looking at how many people have CP3 above Giannis and was thinking about it and if Paul has an average RAPM over an 18 year span that's higher than what Giannis has over a 10 year span, he probably deserves the spot ahead of him, right? Anyway, Paul's incredibly consistent advanced stats give him the spot here for me.
Alternate: Giannis Antetokounmpo Easily the best 5 year peak of anyone currently nominated. Even if you compare him to Erving's ABA years, he comes out well ahead in the regular season and roughly even in the playoffs.
Nominate: Nikola Jokic Only has Jordan-esque career numbers, all-time non-box impact, and the best single offensive season in NBA history. No big deal.
I think it'd be very much in your interests to give Nash your alternate nomination. At present that would put Nash ahead, and the Nash voters are going to be well aligned with the people you want to vote for. Plus I assume you have Nash ahead anyhow.
I have them both too far down to care which one gets nominated at this point. My big board of unselected players would be:
11. Jokic 12. Paul 14. Giannis 16. Stockton 20. Wade 21. Kawhi 25. Durant 26. Barkley 27. AD 28. Nash 29. Erving
Since it's not realistic that I'd vote for either player, I'll leave the nominations to those that are more supportive of their respective candidates. If anything, I might put an alternate vote in for Stockton if he had more traction, but Nash and Moses are both too far down for me to support positively. If you were saying it was going to strategically support a nomination for Jokic to get Nash in, I'd disagree with that too as Jokic has 1 alternate nomination from Moses and 0 from Nash.
No I'm saying that if you want a voter pool who is more inclined to support Giannis or Jokic or Wade then you'd be well served by Nash getting up now; because the longer you tie up the old timers trying to vote in Moses and Pettit, the more people like Jokic and Wade will be nominated. The old timer block will all rally around Pettit or Schayes next. Better to tie them up on Dr J and Moses while the Giannis's get through. People made this mistake in the teens when we had 4 old timers & 1 modern guy, because there were no nomination prefs yet and ppl split on the modern candidates.
Many Nash voters have no given any alternate, but the fact they're voting Nash over Moses or Pettit should tell you where they're leaning.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:I think it'd be very much in your interests to give Nash your alternate nomination. At present that would put Nash ahead, and the Nash voters are going to be well aligned with the people you want to vote for. Plus I assume you have Nash ahead anyhow.
I have them both too far down to care which one gets nominated at this point. My big board of unselected players would be:
11. Jokic 12. Paul 14. Giannis 16. Stockton 20. Wade 21. Kawhi 25. Durant 26. Barkley 27. AD 28. Nash 29. Embiid 30. Erving
Since it's not realistic that I'd vote for either player, I'll leave the nominations to those that are more supportive of their respective candidates. If anything, I might put an alternate vote in for Stockton if he had more traction, but Nash and Moses are both too far down for me to support positively. If you were saying it was going to strategically support a nomination for Jokic to get Nash in, I'd disagree with that too as Jokic has 1 alternate nomination from Moses and 0 from Nash.
You seem to be big into exponentializing prime seasons and impact assessments. Have you seen Nash's RAPM (O-RAPM specific) track record along with WOWY? Both paint him as one of the best players remaining prime for prime.
since there seem to be a million RAPM's and i don't know most of them, which one's say nash is good in RAPM (i certainly don't see why we would just look at O-RAPM)? The Cheema 97-21 set seems to have him at only +2.22 in the postseason, and pretty much all of nash's playoffs are prime seasons so he's not being drug down by off-prime years.
iggymcfrack wrote: I have them both too far down to care which one gets nominated at this point. My big board of unselected players would be:
11. Jokic 12. Paul 14. Giannis 16. Stockton 20. Wade 21. Kawhi 25. Durant 26. Barkley 27. AD 28. Nash 29. Embiid 30. Erving
Since it's not realistic that I'd vote for either player, I'll leave the nominations to those that are more supportive of their respective candidates. If anything, I might put an alternate vote in for Stockton if he had more traction, but Nash and Moses are both too far down for me to support positively. If you were saying it was going to strategically support a nomination for Jokic to get Nash in, I'd disagree with that too as Jokic has 1 alternate nomination from Moses and 0 from Nash.
You seem to be big into exponentializing prime seasons and impact assessments. Have you seen Nash's RAPM (O-RAPM specific) track record along with WOWY? Both paint him as one of the best players remaining prime for prime.
since there seem to be a million RAPM's and i don't know most of them, which one's say nash is good in RAPM (i certainly don't see why we would just look at O-RAPM)? The Cheema 97-21 set seems to have him at only +2.22 in the postseason, and pretty much all of nash's playoffs are prime seasons so he's not being drug down by off-prime years.
Engelmann's (from what it seems, the most prominent one) and Doctor MJ's chronology spreadsheet have been the ones I have cited thus-far in pushing for Nash.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
So this is: 1. NBA Playoffs 2. Against teams who played at a 50-32 pace 3. In games where the player played at least 24 minutes 4. Looking at OnWins - games where the players had a positive +/- 5. Looking at Wins. 6. Looking at differences between OnWins and Wins.
The first tab contains the top 200 guys by such OnWins, which can only go back to '96-97. Here's the leaderboard of those whose OnWins surpass their Wins by the most:
1. Steve Nash +10 2. Tim Duncan +9 3. Manu Ginobili +8 (tie) James Harden +8 5. Jason Kidd +7 (tie) Vlade Divac +7 (tie) Boris Diaw +7 (tie) Arvydas Sabonis +7 9. David Robinson +6 (tie) Anderson Varejao +6
And the lowest numbers - again among guys who are among the Top 100 in OnWins, so a pretty successful group:
1. Klay Thompson -8 2. Bruce Bowen -7 (tie) Robert Horry -7 4. Ron Harper -6 (tie) Jae Crowder -6 (tie) JR Smith -6 7. Mario Elie -5 8. Tyler Herro -4 (tie) Latrell Sprewell -4 (tie) Serge Ibaka -4 (tie) Tristan Thompson -4 (tie) Allan Houston -4 (tie) Dwyane Wade -4 (tie) Draymond Green -4
And for good measure, other guys I see on the list who are Top 100 candidates:
Scottie Pippen +5 Paul George +5 Joel Embiid +4 Chris Paul +4 Kevin Garnett +4 Chauncey Billups +4 Giannis Antetokounmpo +4 Rudy Gobert +4
Carmelo Anthony +3 Elton Brand +3 LeBron James +3 Ray Allen +3 Karl Malone +3 Russell Westbrook +3 Dikembe Mutombo +3 Vince Carter +3 Nikola Jokic +3 Anfernee Hardaway +2 Shaquille O'Neal +2 Dirk Nowitzki +2 Jeff Hornacek +2 Reggie Miller +2
Jayson Tatum +1 Ben Wallace +1 Anthony Davis +1 Luka Doncic +1 Kobe Bryant 0 Steph Curry 0 Kawhi Leonard 0 Pau Gasol 0 John Stockton 0 Michael Jordan 0 Dwight Howard 0 Damian Lillard 0 Allen Iverson 0
Tony Parker -1 Jimmy Butler -1 Rasheed Wallace -1 Kevin Durant -2 Paul Pierce -2 Shawn Marion -2 Chris Webber -2 Gary Payton -2 Dennis Rodman -2 Chris Bosh -3 Patrick Ewing -3
Looking at all these numbers I'd be remiss if I didn't note that Wade isn't coming off great here. I'll look at that in more depth.
rk2023 wrote:(PS / sidenote, if you'd happen to have any down-time - would appreciate intel regarding the priv message I sent )
So this is: 1. NBA Playoffs 2. Against teams who played at a 50-32 pace 3. In games where the player played at least 24 minutes 4. Looking at OnWins - games where the players had a positive +/- 5. Looking at Wins. 6. Looking at differences between OnWins and Wins.
The first tab contains the top 200 guys by such OnWins, which can only go back to '96-97. Here's the leaderboard of those whose OnWins surpass their Wins by the most:
1. Steve Nash +10 2. Tim Duncan +9 3. Manu Ginobili +8 (tie) James Harden +8
Spoiler:
5. Jason Kidd +7 (tie) Vlade Divac +7 (tie) Boris Diaw +7 (tie) Arvydas Sabonis +7 9. David Robinson +6 (tie) Anderson Varejao +6
And the lowest numbers - again among guys who are among the Top 100 in OnWins, so a pretty successful group:
1. Klay Thompson -8 2. Bruce Bowen -7 (tie) Robert Horry -7 4. Ron Harper -6 (tie) Jae Crowder -6 (tie) JR Smith -6 7. Mario Elie -5 8. Tyler Herro -4 (tie) Latrell Sprewell -4 (tie) Serge Ibaka -4 (tie) Tristan Thompson -4 (tie) Allan Houston -4 (tie) Dwyane Wade -4 (tie) Draymond Green -4
And for good measure, other guys I see on the list who are Top 100 candidates:
Scottie Pippen +5 Paul George +5 Joel Embiid +4 Chris Paul +4 Kevin Garnett +4 Chauncey Billups +4 Giannis Antetokounmpo +4 Rudy Gobert +4
Carmelo Anthony +3 Elton Brand +3 LeBron James +3 Ray Allen +3 Karl Malone +3 Russell Westbrook +3 Dikembe Mutombo +3 Vince Carter +3 Nikola Jokic +3 Anfernee Hardaway +2 Shaquille O'Neal +2 Dirk Nowitzki +2 Jeff Hornacek +2 Reggie Miller +2
Jayson Tatum +1 Ben Wallace +1 Anthony Davis +1 Luka Doncic +1 Kobe Bryant 0 Steph Curry 0 Kawhi Leonard 0 Pau Gasol 0 John Stockton 0 Michael Jordan 0 Dwight Howard 0 Damian Lillard 0 Allen Iverson 0
Tony Parker -1 Jimmy Butler -1 Rasheed Wallace -1 Kevin Durant -2 Paul Pierce -2 Shawn Marion -2 Chris Webber -2 Gary Payton -2 Dennis Rodman -2 Chris Bosh -3 Patrick Ewing -3
my favorite harden one is game 2 in the 2015 WCF when harden puts up 39/10/9 on 74 TS% and the rockets are +12 in his 41 minutes but then are -13 in 7 minutes without him so he loses by 1. not an example, but in game 5 from the same series where harden was 2/11 with 12 turnovers, the rockets were somehow only -4 in 43 minutes with him but an amazing -10 in 4:45 without him.
Looking at all these numbers I'd be remiss if I didn't note that Wade isn't coming off great here. I'll look at that in more depth.
rk2023 wrote:(PS / sidenote, if you'd happen to have any down-time - would appreciate intel regarding the priv message I sent )
Ah, thank you for the reminder.
if i counted it right, wade is exactly even in the non-lebron years so having lebron be your off minutes is probably going to be tough in something like this.
rk2023 wrote: You seem to be big into exponentializing prime seasons and impact assessments. Have you seen Nash's RAPM (O-RAPM specific) track record along with WOWY? Both paint him as one of the best players remaining prime for prime.
since there seem to be a million RAPM's and i don't know most of them, which one's say nash is good in RAPM (i certainly don't see why we would just look at O-RAPM)? The Cheema 97-21 set seems to have him at only +2.22 in the postseason, and pretty much all of nash's playoffs are prime seasons so he's not being drug down by off-prime years.
Engelmann's (from what it seems, the most prominent one) and Doctor MJ's chronology spreadsheet have been the ones I have cited thus-far in pushing for Nash.
so if i'm looking at the right thing, in Engelmann 97-22, Nash comes out only 42nd on the list and in offense it goes:
Player Offense LeBron James 7.2 Stephen Curry 6.6 Michael Jordan 6.5 James Harden 6.5 Nikola Jokic 6.2 Chris Paul 6.1 John Stockton 5.6 Kobe Bryant 5.6 Steve Nash 5.1
with nash coming in 9th in kind of the 4th tier with each tier being about a 0.5 point jump.
Just adding another post on the same rabbithole I just posted on, so really something that can be ignored by people not interest.
This is a deeper look at specific player's positive (OnWin > Win) or negative (OnWin < Win) post-seasons.
* All of Wade's negative years are Heatle years. * Most of Harden's positives come from OKC years. * Klay has 4 negative years, 3 neutral, and 1 positive. 3 of 4 negative years were chips, the other neutral. * Bowen is negative in all chip years. * Horry negative in 3 chip years, neutral in 2. * Dray is negative 3 years, neutral in the other 5. He is neutral in all chip years except '21-22.
* Nash has 7 positive years, 3 neutrals, and no negatives. Remarkable consistency. * Ginobili '04-05 is the single biggest OnWin number we've seen at 15 (in 12 team Wins). * Kidd's peak such OnWin season is 12 in the Mav champion year. Other than Mavs years, he never breaks 3. * Divac has 5 positives, 3 neutrals, and no negatives for the portion of the career we have. * Holy cow, Sabas is positive in all 5 post-seasons by this metric.
Something I'll note here is that there's a potential advantage to guys who play less:
If you play the entire game Wilt-style, then there can be no difference between OnWins and Wins.
So when we see guys like Ginobili, Divac, Sabas, OKC Harden and arguably Nash, it makes sense to keep in mind they played a bit less.
One_and_Done wrote:I think it'd be very much in your interests to give Nash your alternate nomination. At present that would put Nash ahead, and the Nash voters are going to be well aligned with the people you want to vote for. Plus I assume you have Nash ahead anyhow.
I have them both too far down to care which one gets nominated at this point. My big board of unselected players would be:
11. Jokic 12. Paul 14. Giannis 16. Stockton 20. Wade 21. Kawhi 25. Durant 26. Barkley 27. AD 28. Nash 29. Erving
Since it's not realistic that I'd vote for either player, I'll leave the nominations to those that are more supportive of their respective candidates. If anything, I might put an alternate vote in for Stockton if he had more traction, but Nash and Moses are both too far down for me to support positively. If you were saying it was going to strategically support a nomination for Jokic to get Nash in, I'd disagree with that too as Jokic has 1 alternate nomination from Moses and 0 from Nash.
No I'm saying that if you want a voter pool who is more inclined to support Giannis or Jokic or Wade then you'd be well served by Nash getting up now; because the longer you tie up the old timers trying to vote in Moses and Pettit, the more people like Jokic and Wade will be nominated. The old timer block will all rally around Pettit or Schayes next. Better to tie them up on Dr J and Moses while the Giannis's get through. People made this mistake in the teens when we had 4 old timers & 1 modern guy, because there were no nomination prefs yet and ppl split on the modern candidates.
Many Nash voters have no given any alternate, but the fact they're voting Nash over Moses or Pettit should tell you where they're leaning.
I am still confused by your logic. There are no "old-timers" in this project. People vote for various players but I haven't seen a single poster pushing strictly for old-school players.
You feel offended for every older nomination, but right now we are having a pool of 5 players out of which 3 are still active and one ended his career in 2000s. Most people nominated Nash this round. Where are all these old-timers?
One_and_Done wrote:Erving transcended his league more than Moses, and his game translates more today.
Does it? A large wing who can't shoot the 3, isn't a great passer [Worse than Kobe/Wade by a margin, for example] and didn't score at the volume of Wade/Kobe for most of his prime.
I mean sure, maybe Erving is a bit better at translating, but it isn't like Erving is as portable as Jerry West--who you **** all over.
I am afraid that argumentation is brought up only to rationalize picking few old-timers he likes, because his logic is all over the place.
rk2023 wrote: You seem to be big into exponentializing prime seasons and impact assessments. Have you seen Nash's RAPM (O-RAPM specific) track record along with WOWY? Both paint him as one of the best players remaining prime for prime.
since there seem to be a million RAPM's and i don't know most of them, which one's say nash is good in RAPM (i certainly don't see why we would just look at O-RAPM)? The Cheema 97-21 set seems to have him at only +2.22 in the postseason, and pretty much all of nash's playoffs are prime seasons so he's not being drug down by off-prime years.
Engelmann's (from what it seems, the most prominent one) and Doctor MJ's chronology spreadsheet have been the ones I have cited thus-far in pushing for Nash.
Nash also looks pretty good in ben's scaled set iirc with his 5-year stretch ranking 6th.
He also looks very good in cryptbeam's scaled set with 8 yeaqrs in the top 250(for comparison Wade has 5).
With the 4 databall spanning rapm sources I know of I'd interpret it as
Nash is also a darling in terms of real-world signals(2004->2005 turnaround, team still being really good without amare) but I have not really done any sort of in-depth analysis for him or wade
And then of course Nash has goated creation and leads the best regular-season and playoff offneses ever
You can poke holes(why were dallas not better than they were?) and "scalability" is a more legitimate concern here(relies heavily on offense, doesn't have a strong post-game, not an all-time cutter/slasher), but emperically speaking he has a very strong rs impact portfolio(with the most favorable interpretations even top 10-worthy but I think dallas needs to factor in somewhat).
His best teams also grade out reasonably well in the playoffs(overall) by sans method despite external context hindering both:
Spoiler:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +16.19 (1st), Playoff Defensive Rating: +5.71 (100th) Playoff SRS: +10.64 (48th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +2.00 (59th) Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +1.99 (59th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -4.09 (8th)
Round 1: Memphis Grizzlies (+2.6), won 4-0, by +11.0 points per game (+13.6 SRS eq) Round 2: Dallas Mavericks (+6.3), won 4-2, by +6.7 points per game (+13.0 SRS eq) Round 3: San Antonio Spurs (+9.6), lost 1-4, outscored by 4.2 points per game (+5.4 SRS eq) Round 4:
Spoiler:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +6.75 (33th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -3.63 (69th) Playoff SRS: +9.56 (70th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +1.10 (79th) Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.43 (48th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -2.67 (34th)
Round 1: Los Angeles Lakers (+0.2), won 4-1 by +10.4 points per game (+10.6 SRS eq) Round 2: San Antonio Spurs (+8.2), lost 4-2 by +0.5 points per game (+8.7 SRS eq)
Nash has been on 2 teams that can reasonably argue they were the 2nd best team in the playoffs(took the most games and the best point-differential) and was the best player on one and was without his team's best player on the other. His suns are realistically one of the best non-champions ever despite early exits specifically because they faced the eventual champions earlier. The yeah they didn't face the eventual champions, they faced an eventual finalist who also gave the actual their toughest fight in a razor-close series
The closest thing to a team-level black mark here is probably being taken to 7 by Kobe but that doesn't really hold up so well with injury context:
Spoiler:
Doctor Mj wrote:No he didn't. He went up against a Suns team that HAD BEEN clearly superior for most of the year before they got hit with more injuries. Then they lost their ability to hang in the paint, they played .500 ball the rest of the way, and this continued in the playoffs as they got outrebounded by 8 boards per game. Nobody should be winning series with rebounding that bad, but the Suns did, because their .500-ish ball was still about as good as the Lakers and Clippers.
Doctor MJ wrote:
Cigamodnalro wrote:This is the obviously year to bring up of course. I have no issue with people who think Kobe was a better candidate than Nash that year, but in general I've always found that year to be complete parity on the MVP front. Between these two Dirk, LeBron & Wade, it really could have gone to any of those guys.
Also ftr, those Lakers didn't take a healthy #2 seed to 7 games. That Sun team by that point had lost both their quality bigs and had been playing .500 ball getting wrecked on the boards from that point on.
You are welcome to run "my simple box has a 96% correlation with the top 100 so far"(or 0% or 40% or 60% if we use different frames), but that aside not seeing any real reason Nash shouldn't be in a discussion for nomination here when players like Barkley(being in a conference away from the actual champions does not mean you were better), Durant(generally looks alot worse by impact including rapm(rs or playoffs), pretty much always sees his teams underperform when he's clearly or even arguably the #1), or chris paul are in this conversation(has never had the "took the champions the furthest" case outside of 1 year as a clear 2nd fiddle, big big playoff dropper despite great rs heights, ect).
2 MVPS, 2 "2nd best" teams, great impact on winning emperically, and fits the player profile of the most valuable offensive players ever while leading the best offenses ever with top 2 all-time creation metrics seems pretty reasonable.
He is a better scorer than Durant is...er, anything that isn't scoring and a better playmaker than Durant is a scorer(clear best of era vs a guy who ranges from 2-4 among contemporaries(lebron and kawhi are definitively better in the playoffs)). Is that overcome by situationally negative defense? The data(that which is tied to winning) would suggest no.
For the "Longetvity isn't that important" crowd, Nash over Durant is pretty easy
One_and_Done wrote:So West is granted the ability to shoot 3s, but Erving is not, because why now? 3pt shooting was discouraged in Erving's time, but strictly speaking he had a 322. 3pt% in the ABA, despite never being asked to shoot it, and never practising it. I think he'd have been fine shooting 3s with minimal need to tweak anything.
There is a different caliber of shooter between those two players, so it isn't unreasonable that one gets a certain credit and the other does not. Erving had two seasons of 1+ 3PA/g in his career, only one of which had 100+ 3PA. It isn't a suuuper reliable sample to discuss.
You probably aren't wrong, of course. You let him go to the corner with heavy passing support and that number is going to come up by quite a lot versus taking a bunch of end-clock heaves and unassisted shots above the break, no doubt. That's the big way that a lot of guys shoot that mid/high 30s percentage. He doesn't need to be Steph: he just needs to be Lebron from 3, so to speak, and that would probably be enough at like 34% or whatever, for sure.
West was a better shooter, so he very likely would have shot better. He was a better FT shooter, better and more prolific on long twos, better at shooting set and off a live dribble, just every facet of the skill. So he'd probably be better at it.
But Erving would thrive in transition. He would enjoy the more open lanes and lack of high-end shot-blocking. He could be used as the roll man in PnR, which would be a relatively new set for him but very functional. Sets which find mismatches for him so he could post up guards at the elbow/mid-block are also a thing, and he'd eat those up. I think he'd adapt pretty well. I don't think he'd be stunning us with his rTS but he'd still be reasonably efficient at worst. At worst, mind.
He had a decent handle, in-and-out dribbles and some stuff you didn't see all that commonly from guys in his day. He had a left hand for finishing and of course he could just palm the ball and go vertical and then you'd be left behind. That would work really well in the lane today as it did then. Him and Jordan, George Gervin. It's so rude when you can palm the ball off a live dribble as you're mid-drive, so effective.
One_and_Done wrote:Erving transcended his league more than Moses, and his game translates more today.
Does it? A large wing who can't shoot the 3, isn't a great passer [Worse than Kobe/Wade by a margin, for example] and didn't score at the volume of Wade/Kobe for most of his prime.
I mean sure, maybe Erving is a bit better at translating, but it isn't like Erving is as portable as Jerry West--who you **** all over.
I am afraid that argumentation is brought up only to rationalize picking few old-timers he likes, because his logic is all over the place.
Context is important, but this goes beyond Context.
Colbinii wrote:Does it? A large wing who can't shoot the 3, isn't a great passer [Worse than Kobe/Wade by a margin, for example] and didn't score at the volume of Wade/Kobe for most of his prime.
He was never really asked to score at that volume in the NBA. But tbf to him, maybe from 80-84, he was scoring at a similar per-possession rate in the NBA as he did in the ABA. He was just playing fewer minutes. Like, he was a 32.4 PTS100 guy in the ABA and 29.8 in the NBA. But from 80-84, he was a 32.5 PTS100 guy in the NBA. He had four seasons of >32 PTS100... one in the ABA in 76 and then three in a row in the NBA from 80-82 (34.8, career-high, 32.5 and 33.8).
Obviously, that still isn't in the same strata as what Wade and Kobe were doing, but the Sixers made the Finals made the Finals four times between 77 and 83 and won a title, so I don't think anyone in Philly was complaining (and they averaged 61 wins per season from 80-83. Different routes. You don't NEED to be a volume scorer. In fact, it was traditionally frowned upon pre-Jordan. The whole "you can't be a scoring leader and win titles" thing, even though that was a bit BS even back then, recalling 30.6 ppg from Rick Barry in 75 when he was #2 in PPG...). Doctor J blended in with his teams pretty well.
So this is: 1. NBA Playoffs 2. Against teams who played at a 50-32 pace 3. In games where the player played at least 24 minutes 4. Looking at OnWins - games where the players had a positive +/- 5. Looking at Wins. 6. Looking at differences between OnWins and Wins.
The first tab contains the top 200 guys by such OnWins, which can only go back to '96-97. Here's the leaderboard of those whose OnWins surpass their Wins by the most:
1. Steve Nash +10 2. Tim Duncan +9 3. Manu Ginobili +8 (tie) James Harden +8 5. Jason Kidd +7 (tie) Vlade Divac +7 (tie) Boris Diaw +7 (tie) Arvydas Sabonis +7 9. David Robinson +6 (tie) Anderson Varejao +6
And the lowest numbers - again among guys who are among the Top 100 in OnWins, so a pretty successful group:
1. Klay Thompson -8 2. Bruce Bowen -7 (tie) Robert Horry -7 4. Ron Harper -6 (tie) Jae Crowder -6 (tie) JR Smith -6 7. Mario Elie -5 8. Tyler Herro -4 (tie) Latrell Sprewell -4 (tie) Serge Ibaka -4 (tie) Tristan Thompson -4 (tie) Allan Houston -4 (tie) Dwyane Wade -4 (tie) Draymond Green -4
And for good measure, other guys I see on the list who are Top 100 candidates:
Scottie Pippen +5 Paul George +5 Joel Embiid +4 Chris Paul +4 Kevin Garnett +4 Chauncey Billups +4 Giannis Antetokounmpo +4 Rudy Gobert +4
Carmelo Anthony +3 Elton Brand +3 LeBron James +3 Ray Allen +3 Karl Malone +3 Russell Westbrook +3 Dikembe Mutombo +3 Vince Carter +3 Nikola Jokic +3 Anfernee Hardaway +2 Shaquille O'Neal +2 Dirk Nowitzki +2 Jeff Hornacek +2 Reggie Miller +2
Jayson Tatum +1 Ben Wallace +1 Anthony Davis +1 Luka Doncic +1 Kobe Bryant 0 Steph Curry 0 Kawhi Leonard 0 Pau Gasol 0 John Stockton 0 Michael Jordan 0 Dwight Howard 0 Damian Lillard 0 Allen Iverson 0
Tony Parker -1 Jimmy Butler -1 Rasheed Wallace -1 Kevin Durant -2 Paul Pierce -2 Shawn Marion -2 Chris Webber -2 Gary Payton -2 Dennis Rodman -2 Chris Bosh -3 Patrick Ewing -3
Looking at all these numbers I'd be remiss if I didn't note that Wade isn't coming off great here. I'll look at that in more depth.
rk2023 wrote:(PS / sidenote, if you'd happen to have any down-time - would appreciate intel regarding the priv message I sent )
Ah, thank you for the reminder.
Cool work.
My inkling is the sample sizes are so small and over a large sample size everyone who is a + player [Whether +0.5 or +8] will regress to 1.00.
For Dr J's inconsistent on/off, do we have any sense of what the rotations were like in those years? Was Dr J playing with the bench slightly more than Cheeks or Bobby Jones or Malone or McGinnis?
I know we don't have full play by play or anything like that, but we do have the occasional game and I know Squared2020 has some play by play data from 80/85. If so, that might be an interesting contextual factor that could help explain his lower on/off. If not, that would also be valuable information.
DraymondGold wrote:For Dr J's inconsistent on/off, do we have any sense of what the rotations were like in those years? Was Dr J playing with the bench slightly more than Cheeks or Bobby Jones or Malone or McGinnis?
I know we don't have full play by play or anything like that, but we do have the occasional game and I know Squared2020 has some play by play data from 80/85. If so, that might be an interesting contextual factor that could help explain his lower on/off. If not, that would also be valuable information.
Unsure if he has a heat map posted on the historical PM thread, but I would reckon one might be there upon request
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
)
