Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier
70sFan wrote:I wish we had as much discussion about other players, especially Kareem and Walton
70sFan wrote:I wish we had as much discussion about other players, especially Kareem and Walton
By the way, I'd love to see Ben breaking down Julius Erving athleticism in similar way to James. Many people view Doctor J as a dunker, but he was truly among the most athletic players ever - especially before the merger.
Statlanta wrote:70sFan wrote:I wish we had as much discussion about other players, especially Kareem and Walton
I watched those videos post discussion. It made me appreciate Walton's defense more. On the flip side it made me dislike Kareem's rebounding even more especially for a guy his size and the lack of notable bigs at the covered period
frica wrote:I do wonder how Eaton and Bol would have fared in the 60s.
Actually let's go back further.
What's the last year of NBL/BAA/NBA where Manute Bol could have feasibly won MVP?
Imagine Bol defending the basket where the opposing midgets have zero range and there's basically no key. Nigh-unbeatable. 40-50% block rate would be possibly in some games.
penbeast0 wrote:Statlanta wrote:70sFan wrote:I wish we had as much discussion about other players, especially Kareem and Walton
I watched those videos post discussion. It made me appreciate Walton's defense more. On the flip side it made me dislike Kareem's rebounding even more especially for a guy his size and the lack of notable bigs at the covered period
I think Kareem gets ripped on too much for his rebounding because he played forever and deemphasized rebounding to save energy in the 80s. In the 70s, he was a good rebounder; his rebound rate for that decade is over 18, better than, say, Jokic's today. He was never a great rebounder and the inevitable comparisons to Wilt and Russell who were among the GOATS make him look worse than he was, but he was decent. Now, in the 80s, he slid down to poor as he got older.
Statlanta wrote:70sFan wrote:I wish we had as much discussion about other players, especially Kareem and Walton
I watched those videos post discussion. It made me appreciate Walton's defense more. On the flip side it made me dislike Kareem's rebounding even more especially for a guy his size and the lack of notable bigs at the covered period
Reservoirdawgs wrote:I have really enjoyed these videos. Does anyone know if ElGee plans on actually ranking the peaks at some point? I get that is very much a secondary part of his Greatest Peaks series and I am way enjoying the video and his analysis from watching the film, but a guilty part of me does like seeing a ranking at the end of the day.
Reservoirdawgs wrote:I have really enjoyed these videos. Does anyone know if ElGee plans on actually ranking the peaks at some point? I get that is very much a secondary part of his Greatest Peaks series and I am way enjoying the video and his analysis from watching the film, but a guilty part of me does like seeing a ranking at the end of the day.
70sFan wrote:limbo wrote:But maybe a league-wide adoption and optimisation of smallball helped older LeBron in being able to be more effective offensively with less resistance waiting for him in the paint and teams not being able to as effectively load up his side of the floor in fear of getting threes rained on them. It's definitely something that seems plausible.
This is very important and overlooked point. LeBron was always huge (peaking in Miami at around 270 lbs) but he rarely was the biggest man on the floor in the late 2010s. Right now, even with dropping weight to ~250 lbs, he's often the biggest and strongest player on the court. For someone like James it creates additional physical advantage that he didn't enjoy to the same degree back then, despite being more athletic and bigger.
Djoker wrote:I thought I understood how Ben Taylor analyzes portability but I really don't. I looked at some of his grades... Why is prime Steve Nash a large negative for portability? Wouldn't his incredible passing and shooting scale really well on good teams? Like I can't imagine a team that doesn't get better adding Nash.
VanWest82 wrote:Lebron has definitely lost a lot defensively from 09-11 era but the gains he made in offensive versatility 12-13 (e.g. playing out of the post, improved consistency on his outside jumper, becoming at least competent off ball) far outweighed the dip in athleticism and energy on the other end. No one is ever going to throw a scheme at Lebron again and have that be the reason he lost. That stuff was still happening in 2010 and 2011, and so just because he didn't get to play a team who took things away from him on offense in 09 that doesn't mean was actually superior for that one year. He was just luckier.
I agree with other posters who've mentioned how fortunate Lebron has been over the last 5+ years with three point boom and introduction of all the zone/switching. Back in 2013 he still had to get through tough and physical front courts that challenged him on shots in the paint. The degree of difficulty was greater. He was at that sweet spot in his career where he'd unlocked everything offensively but still had the energy to defend on a nightly basis in Spo's help and recover scheme. His defense post 2013 is overrated.
sansterre wrote:Djoker wrote:I thought I understood how Ben Taylor analyzes portability but I really don't. I looked at some of his grades... Why is prime Steve Nash a large negative for portability? Wouldn't his incredible passing and shooting scale really well on good teams? Like I can't imagine a team that doesn't get better adding Nash.
The real problem (I infer) is that Nash *must* have the ball in his hands for 80% of his value. He's not an off-ball passer like Bird (or more accurately, never needed to be). If he doesn't have the ball he's not much of a rebounder or defender. He becomes an excellent spot-up shooter and that's it, which is good but it's a massive step down in value from being one of the best ball-dominant offensive players ever. If you pair Nash with Kobe/LeBron/Wade/Jordan/Iverson/Carmelo/TMac or any of the other strong 30%+ usage ball-dominant players you lose out (some) because all of those players need the ball to generate most of their value.
Basically, I read his portability as a "How much of this player's value would he retain if added to a 55-60 win team?" And a 55-60 win team likely already has a ball-dominant player that drives the offense. That's how a Ben Wallace can be more 'portable' than a Steve Nash, even if Nash is the better player, because Wallace retains a larger amount of his value when added to a strong roster than a Nash might.
I think the concerns are slightly overstated, but I think I understand where they come from.
Jaivl wrote:sansterre wrote:Djoker wrote:I thought I understood how Ben Taylor analyzes portability but I really don't. I looked at some of his grades... Why is prime Steve Nash a large negative for portability? Wouldn't his incredible passing and shooting scale really well on good teams? Like I can't imagine a team that doesn't get better adding Nash.
The real problem (I infer) is that Nash *must* have the ball in his hands for 80% of his value. He's not an off-ball passer like Bird (or more accurately, never needed to be). If he doesn't have the ball he's not much of a rebounder or defender. He becomes an excellent spot-up shooter and that's it, which is good but it's a massive step down in value from being one of the best ball-dominant offensive players ever. If you pair Nash with Kobe/LeBron/Wade/Jordan/Iverson/Carmelo/TMac or any of the other strong 30%+ usage ball-dominant players you lose out (some) because all of those players need the ball to generate most of their value.
Basically, I read his portability as a "How much of this player's value would he retain if added to a 55-60 win team?" And a 55-60 win team likely already has a ball-dominant player that drives the offense. That's how a Ben Wallace can be more 'portable' than a Steve Nash, even if Nash is the better player, because Wallace retains a larger amount of his value when added to a strong roster than a Nash might.
I think the concerns are slightly overstated, but I think I understand where they come from.
Doesn't really make a lot of sense, cause there's *zero* opportunity cost to have the ball in Nash's hands. Guys like Thomas, Kidd I get - but not a single "shared" offense has offered better results than what Nash managed. You just can't get any better. Same with Magic.
(I understand it's Taylor's argument, not yours)
sansterre wrote:Djoker wrote:I thought I understood how Ben Taylor analyzes portability but I really don't. I looked at some of his grades... Why is prime Steve Nash a large negative for portability? Wouldn't his incredible passing and shooting scale really well on good teams? Like I can't imagine a team that doesn't get better adding Nash.
The real problem (I infer) is that Nash *must* have the ball in his hands for 80% of his value. He's not an off-ball passer like Bird (or more accurately, never needed to be). If he doesn't have the ball he's not much of a rebounder or defender. He becomes an excellent spot-up shooter and that's it, which is good but it's a massive step down in value from being one of the best ball-dominant offensive players ever. If you pair Nash with Kobe/LeBron/Wade/Jordan/Iverson/Carmelo/TMac or any of the other strong 30%+ usage ball-dominant players you lose out (some) because all of those players need the ball to generate most of their value.
Basically, I read his portability as a "How much of this player's value would he retain if added to a 55-60 win team?" And a 55-60 win team likely already has a ball-dominant player that drives the offense. That's how a Ben Wallace can be more 'portable' than a Steve Nash, even if Nash is the better player, because Wallace retains a larger amount of his value when added to a strong roster than a Nash might.
I think the concerns are slightly overstated, but I think I understand where they come from.
VanWest82 wrote:sansterre wrote:Djoker wrote:I thought I understood how Ben Taylor analyzes portability but I really don't. I looked at some of his grades... Why is prime Steve Nash a large negative for portability? Wouldn't his incredible passing and shooting scale really well on good teams? Like I can't imagine a team that doesn't get better adding Nash.
The real problem (I infer) is that Nash *must* have the ball in his hands for 80% of his value. He's not an off-ball passer like Bird (or more accurately, never needed to be). If he doesn't have the ball he's not much of a rebounder or defender. He becomes an excellent spot-up shooter and that's it, which is good but it's a massive step down in value from being one of the best ball-dominant offensive players ever. If you pair Nash with Kobe/LeBron/Wade/Jordan/Iverson/Carmelo/TMac or any of the other strong 30%+ usage ball-dominant players you lose out (some) because all of those players need the ball to generate most of their value.
Basically, I read his portability as a "How much of this player's value would he retain if added to a 55-60 win team?" And a 55-60 win team likely already has a ball-dominant player that drives the offense. That's how a Ben Wallace can be more 'portable' than a Steve Nash, even if Nash is the better player, because Wallace retains a larger amount of his value when added to a strong roster than a Nash might.
I think the concerns are slightly overstated, but I think I understand where they come from.
Disagree some re Nash who was an excellent off ball player because he was such a good screener and moved well without the ball (post 04). He definitely wasn't on Curry's level but they share a lot of similar traits in that respect. I do agree Nash was better on ball though so in relative terms to his own ability his off ball game wasn't at the same level. I'd imagine some of the portability stuff has to do with his defense.
Edit: I see you replied to Djoker already. Makes sense.
Also, what's an off-ball passer?
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.