RealGM

The 79 Sonics are a team who lucked out quite alot, winning right before a golden era in basketball, when the opposition strength wasn't as great. It's also not at all clear Dennis Johnson was their best player, they were a team more in the mold of the 2004 Detroit Pistons... alot of all-star type guys, but nobody you'd ideally want to build a franchise around (though 2-3 of them would have been passable). Dennis Johnson is the same... you could make him a franchise player in a pinch, but it probably wouldn't work unless you had a stacked team in an awful year... like 79 for instance.

AnaheimRoyale wrote:The 79 Sonics are a team who lucked out quite alot, winning right before a golden era in basketball, when the opposition strength wasn't as great. It's also not at all clear Dennis Johnson was their best player, they were a team more in the mold of the 2004 Detroit Pistons... alot of all-star type guys, but nobody you'd ideally want to build a franchise around (though 2-3 of them would have been passable). Dennis Johnson is the same... you could make him a franchise player in a pinch, but it probably wouldn't work unless you had a stacked team in an awful year... like 79 for instance.

Of course, the answer is basically: "Yes, but 1979 didn't count." If Kareem or Gervin had won the title that year, then it damn well would have counted. But since it was Dennis Johnson, and we already know he wasn't special, then 1979 didn't count, because he wasn't special, because 1979 didn't count...

This isn't Pokemon, where you gain 2000 experience points for winning a title. 1979 counts, it's just like every other year, where we look at the context of what happened. The context was Dennis Johnson was just one all-star of many on his team, and they won against (vastly) weaker opponents than every year from 1980 through to 2012. If Kareem had won, it would indeed have been praised, not because of bias to Kareem, but because Kareem would have been carrying a team of bums to a title all by himself, over much more talented teams. Dennis was still a great player of course, but I'm not certain he was one of the top 100 players of all time...

And, it's hardly a fluke when the losing finalist from the previous year repeats as the Sonics did -- over the defending champions from the year before too -- though DJ was probably only the third best player on that team that year after defensive leader Jack Sikma and offensive leader Gus Williams.

Yeh, if I had praised the 78 Bullets, I'd look pretty silly... oh wait, I didn't, because they played before a golden era in basketball too, and were highly overrated, just like Unsled.

therealbig3 wrote:BTW, why is 09 unanimously considered better than 10 for LeBron?

By most metrics, 10 comes out on top. He played better in the playoffs in 09, but I think he faced a tougher team in 10 (Celtics) than any of the teams he played in 09. Are we really going to get on him that hard for one bad game? Overall, you've got a 30/9/7 on 60% TS RS with a 29/8/9 on 61% TS PS. His RS and PS +/- were better in 10 as well.

Just saying, I think 10 LeBron was slightly better than 09 LeBron, even though 09 LeBron was better in the playoffs.

I consider 09 and 10's regular season to be a wash or edge to 09. Lebron put up slightly better stats in 10 but OTOH the 09 team winning 66 Gs with IMO a less talented team tends to stick out to me as well. Generally I think both seasons give a similar thing.

And yes I consider the PS to be a signifcant difference. I mean Lebron dropped a 35/9/7 .62 TS% for 37 PER and 38.5ppg against the Magic. I would've seen it as a clearly better playoff run even without THAT game. With that game even with the perspective of "let's not overrate the importance of one game" it's still a blemish 09 doesn't have. I think Lebron knowing he was leaving CLE for MIA in July threw off his head a bit

Dr Positivity wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:BTW, why is 09 unanimously considered better than 10 for LeBron?

By most metrics, 10 comes out on top. He played better in the playoffs in 09, but I think he faced a tougher team in 10 (Celtics) than any of the teams he played in 09. Are we really going to get on him that hard for one bad game? Overall, you've got a 30/9/7 on 60% TS RS with a 29/8/9 on 61% TS PS. His RS and PS +/- were better in 10 as well.

Just saying, I think 10 LeBron was slightly better than 09 LeBron, even though 09 LeBron was better in the playoffs.

I consider 09 and 10's regular season to be a wash or edge to 09. Lebron put up slightly better stats in 10 but OTOH the 09 team winning 66 Gs with IMO a less talented team tends to stick out to me as well. Generally I think both seasons give a similar thing.

And yes I consider the PS to be a signifcant difference. I mean Lebron dropped a 35/9/7 .62 TS% for 37 PER and 38.5ppg against the Magic. I would've seen it as a clearly better playoff run even without THAT game. With that game even with the perspective of "let's not overrate the importance of one game" it's still a blemish 09 doesn't have. I think Lebron knowing he was leaving CLE for MIA in July threw off his head a bit

I'm certainly guilty of this at times, but there is more to a team with a guy in than just the final SRS.

-how versatile are they?
-how did certain lineups fare?
-how did the player do himself while in the game/lineup?
-what does the competition look like?

The last one is a little easier usually, because the distribution of players makes a big difference. Major parity, and a 4 SRS looks great. If it's a top-heavy league, maybe the 4 SRS team is feeding on re-building projects. It's certainly something to keep in mind.

The 2010 Cavs saw a 2.5 SRS drop.

A lot of that had to do with Shaq (http://www.82games.com/0910/09CLE18.HTM#onoff)
Some of it had to do with Mo Williams having a bit of a down year.

Look at the key lineups:
2009 to 2010 (per 48)
Williams+Varejao: -3.2 to -3.2
Williams+Varejao+LBJ: +11.4 to +17.2
Williams+LBJ: +17.6 to +1.6
-->Williams+LBJ+Shaq: -0.6
-->Williams+LBJ+No Shaq: 14.9
Varejao+LBJ: +14.2 to 13.1

So in this case I don't think it makes much sense to fixate on James and the small wins/SRS changes and equate them to him. I said at the beginning of the year "Cleveland can win in spite of Shaq," and the numbers bore than out entirely.

How far up would you move Durant on this list?

BTW (trying to get off the post # 666)

With all this LA fans voting I'm not really surprised at some results.

I thought y'all might find this interesting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 0ZVE#gid=0

It's a Google doc listing the last 3 RealGM 100's ('06, '08, '11)

If anyone has access to the the original '03 one, that would be awesome, but I think it's probably lost for all time.

That's pretty cool.

Everyone jumped ship on Wilt!! I personally can't see how he gets placed lower than 4th.

thizznation wrote:That's pretty cool.

Everyone jumped ship on Wilt!! I personally can't see how he gets placed lower than 4th.

Yeah, personally think it's awesome to reflect on the changes. When I joined RealGM back in 2005 I did because it was the best basketball forum around (despite it's terribly confusing name), but there wasn't a real community like there is now. TrueLAfan and tsherkin were around writing great posts, but in general this notion of a "only on RealGM" type of trend in thinking really didn't exist. So some of the changes really reflect an evolution of thought among the board's more hardcore people.

Some things to notice:

Wilt going down, Russell going up. Back in 2006 opinion on these two guys was much more in line with current conventional thinking. I can think of one early dissenter though: penbeast, though I don't think he's ever really been down on Wilt, just high on Russell.

Oscar & Jerry fading, which is funny because I think most still respect the hell out of them. Their "fall" here seems a lot bigger in the rankings than it actually feels to me respect-wise.

'00s players rising. For obvious reasons, and they have a good amount to do with pushing Oscar & Jerry down.

Stockton dropping. This is actually even bigger than you might guess because I did get to see the 2003 list back in the day (though I wasn't part of the panel obviously), and the most amazing thing to me was that Malone & Stockton were almost rated the same. Might have been like 13 & 17. Totally blew my mind, and this is why you'll see me say sometimes that the most noteworthy trend for Stockton as he slides into history is him getting more respect than he used to. His fall in these rankings to me has always been a return to normalcy. One can argue that normalcy is incorrect, but the fact is people did not see Malone & Stockton as co-MVPs of the Jazz when they were in their prime.

I'll note that this can get tied in to Oscar & West, and maybe even Wilt: All of these guys have some huge volume and/or career stats that catch the eye of some people. It probably isn't a coincidence that all of these guys are falling in the rankings, even if there are clearly multiple factors at play.

A bunch of other interesting stuff with this list we can get into when the mood strikes.

Doctor MJ wrote:I thought y'all might find this interesting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 0ZVE#gid=0

It's a Google doc listing the last 3 RealGM 100's ('06, '08, '11)

If anyone has access to the the original '03 one, that would be awesome, but I think it's probably lost for all time.

wow so what changed peoples about bill and Kareem, how did Wilt get so high in 06..... hmm...

Josephpaul wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:I thought y'all might find this interesting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 0ZVE#gid=0

It's a Google doc listing the last 3 RealGM 100's ('06, '08, '11)

If anyone has access to the the original '03 one, that would be awesome, but I think it's probably lost for all time.

wow so what changed peoples about bill and Kareem, how did Wilt get so high in 06..... hmm...

The big differences with Russell & Wilt to my mind is the data analysis that's been done since. This isn't to say that people are making decisions only with stats - there is absolutely expert opinions of the day that agree with the current interpretation - however the data helps really give people confidence. The scale of Boston's defensive dominance that came and went with Russell is astonishing. With Wilt it's more complicated, but even more astonishing.

Josephpaul wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:I thought y'all might find this interesting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 0ZVE#gid=0

It's a Google doc listing the last 3 RealGM 100's ('06, '08, '11)

If anyone has access to the the original '03 one, that would be awesome, but I think it's probably lost for all time.

wow so what changed peoples about bill and Kareem, how did Wilt get so high in 06..... hmm...

I think HCA factored in a lot. Before many didn't use that argument, now it is the norm.

I apologize in advance if someone has asked this recently, but when is the next voting period? I'd like to get involved with this.

NyCeEvO wrote:I apologize in advance if someone has asked this recently, but when is the next voting period? I'd like to get involved with this.

Probably summer 2014, because during summer 2013 we will do (I hope so... ) Retro Defensive Player of the Year Project

DavidStern wrote:

NyCeEvO wrote:I apologize in advance if someone has asked this recently, but when is the next voting period? I'd like to get involved with this.

Probably summer 2014, because during summer 2013 we will do (I hope so... ) Retro Defensive Player of the Year Project

Along with Retro Offensive Player of the Year, I hope.

All these projects are turning into a resourceful reference within themselves, almost like an advanced ranking statistic compiled of all the advanced stats plus some good ol' fashioned eyeballin'. I like it.

thizznation wrote:All these projects are turning into a resourceful reference within themselves, almost like an advanced ranking statistic compiled of all the advanced stats plus some good ol' fashioned eyeballin'. I like it.

i for one think it's pretty damn awesome. i can't tell you how much I've learned.

And I agree with DS and ardee, while I don't know what will happen next summer, I'm hoping we decide to hold off on the Top 100 one more year. The Top 100 is just a beast. Not saying the RPOY wasn't a beast, but when it really started to drag we wrapped it up. Voting a 100 guys starts to drag well before spot 100. Best not to tackle it until we're all really itching for a re-do.

But with that said, penbeast has been the one running the 100 projects, so we'll see what he wants.