RealGM

Dwyane Wade '09 has been enshrined. We move on.

Vote: Jerry West '68

I'm not going to hold out until the bitter end here for '68 vs '66, but I'm still going to start out with '68.

The crux:

If you can't get passed West missing time in the regular season in '68, I totally get it.

If that's not the issue though, I really think the shift that year is not something to be brushed aside: If you're West and you'e a transcendently good player put with another volume scorer who won't adapt, I think it's clearly more impressive to find away to work better with him than simply amaze the world with what you can do without him.

I understand that that shift in '68 came with an offensive scheme that West did not design. He was arguably the exact same player just being used better...but I actually don't have any problem letting that be the basis for deciding between the years.

What is the difference between '66 and '68 West in terms of ability? Cause if they were the same, then I would have to give it to '66 due to playing more games. It looks like the productivity is the same from each season though.

I'm voting Dirk 11.

I've decided that his weaknesses in 06 were really fatal flaws because there were many short, agile players to guard Dirk in that era (he always seemed to play them too). At that point it became 09 vs 11 and tbh I just went with the one that stuck out most to me. I also realized that at the time (09 that is) I had Dirk ranked under Kobe, Wade, Lebron, and Paul. I'm not ready to vote Paul in yet but I can see 11 Dirk's argument over Paul. I can be convinced otherwise though.

Vote: 1968 Jerry West

Some people seem to be leaning 66 West, and perhaps I missed it but I don't understand why. Really, it can't be stats. Can't be team results. Can't be PS. Can't be contemporary reports. I don't get it...not saying it's impossible, but I don't understand it.

I've weighed in on the next group of guys a good deal, but here's where I'm at now:

-Glad someone brought up Penny. I have 96 Penny 29th, pretty clearly behind the glop of players that all been mentioned. 96 Penny impressed the hell out of me in the RPOY two summers ago, and every time I put him under a microscope he looks fantastic. 96 Shaq missed 24 games. Horace Grant missed 19. The Magic were a +3 SRS team without Shaq and with Grant and a +10 SRS team with both...with an offensive rating of 117.6 (+9.7)! Then Penny gave prime Scottie Pippen fits in the PS. The following year they were +3 with Grant again (+3 ORtg), only this time Penny missed 21 games and without him the Magic were a -6.5 SRS ream w a -7.9 ORtg.

-Leaning heavily toward Barkley next. I won't say the arguments against him have been useless...but the arguments for him have been way off base to me. He's a pseudo-savant on offense, an amazing passer, with an amazing feel for the game, who shows a long string of near dynastic results on offense leading to very strong overall teams.

The idea to use 15 games in 1991 Barkley -- a clear down year for him -- and try and take that as evidence that Barkley was only a +3.4 is simply silly. Variance is still a big issue at 15g, and there's stuff like a 22 pt win over 5.2 SRS Celtics...without Bird. (0 SRS team without him) Just axing the C's game makes Barkley +5.5 SRS difference in that sample alone. Then of course, we can look at the 90 76ers with Charles (+4.2 SRS), the 93 Suns (+5.3 SRS w/out KJ), 95 Suns (+3.4 w/out KJ), etc. etc. to see that maybe Barkley was way more as a player...

-Since I had Karl Malone and Barkley over Kobe, Karl isnext in line as well. Sort of amazed at the lack of discussion about Malone. It seems to me that the guys who don't have a stronger deviating peak season are suffering at times, and obviously Malone is (a) a late peak player and (b) one of the most consistent players ever. I see 95-98 Malone seasons of very similar value. And there's all kind of really impressive numbers, team results, playoff games/series, etc. in there to analyze. The crux of probably which will be how people see his defense, but how do you watch him, analyze the results, and not like his defense a good amount?

Furthermore, I'll add some color to Malone's (consistent) play that I've never mentioned in all my Malone writing...in the peak Malone seasons, the Jazz were RAZOR close to 3 straight Finals appearances (and perhaps 2 titles). I'm not sure people realize that --

95: they lost to the Champs in a down-to-the-wire final game. The path would have then been Pho, SAS, Orl. Against them Utah was:

Pho +4.3 (4g) -- HCA
SAS -5.0 (5g) -- no HCA but a history of brutalizing SAS at this point in time
Orl+4.5 (2g) -- HCA

96: Lose in G7 WCF by 4 points...a series in which John Stockton was injured and averaged 10 pts and 8 ast shooting under 40%. Seattle, of course, was a 7.4 SRS team.

97: lose buzer of G1, flu game, steve kerr...
98: IMO, the Bulls are massive dogs in G7 without Scottie Pippen if Jordan misses the last shot.

Oh, and if you're first instinct is to say "see, Chicago/Jordan always won close ones and Malone/Jazz always lost close ones," don't be so sure. From 91-98 the Bulls played 44 5-point playoff games and they were 26-18 (28-20 if we include OT, where the Bulls were .500.) From 94-98, the Jazz played 32 5-point playoff games and they were 15-17 (4-3 in OT). (Keep in mind, the Jazz played a slightly harder schedule (5.0 SRS v 4.6 SRS) in those games, and The Bulls were a 10.9 MOV PS team in that stretch, whereas the Jazz were 7.2.)

-Paul v Nash is not at all clear to me. I DO have both over Dirk.

-Surprised no one has mentioned 75 Rick Barry. Pretty comfortably a top-30 peak player to me.

Vote: 03 Tracy McGrady

As I've said before, I personally think he was better at his peak than Kobe or Wade, and I just posted this in the previous thread:

FWIW, in the 7 games T-Mac missed in 03 (so small sample size), Orlando had a 97.7 ORating against an average 104.5 DRating (-6.8). Considering they were +1.6 on the season, using some rough math, they were about a +2.4 offense in the 75 games T-Mac played.

Consider that their (most common) starting lineup that year was (I'm assuming this is it from looking at the team page on BR):

PG - Jacque Vaughn
SG - Tracy McGrady
SF - Mike Miller
PF - Pat Garrity
C - Shawn Kemp

Also, Grant Hill got injured and his season ended after January 16. After his 2nd option once again goes down with an injury, T-Mac in his 39 games following January 16 averages, per 36:

31.1 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 5.7 apg, 2.5 TOpg, 57.0% TS (+5.1%), 118 ORating

Mike Miller gets traded 13 games after Hill goes down with an injury, and these are T-Mac's numbers if we include that:

13 games post-Hill injury, pre-Miller trade, per 36: 28.0 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 1.8 TOpg, 53.2% TS (+1.3%), 115 ORating

26 games post-Miller trade, per 36: 32.6 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.8 TOpg, 59.0% TS (+7.1%), 120 ORating

After the Grant Hill injury, Orlando in the 39 games T-Mac plays has a 107.4 ORating vs an average DRating of 103.6 (+3.8). So T-Mac steps his game up, and the offense gets better as well and plays at a level that would have been 4th in the league offensively over a whole season.

You can see how much better T-Mac plays after Miller's trade, and he himself commented on it, regarding his close friendship with Miller and how he would be tough on his new teammates. It seemed that T-Mac really zoned in, and made sure his teammates did as well, and Orlando entered the playoffs playing really well offensively.

Lightning25 wrote:What is the difference between '66 and '68 West in terms of ability? Cause if they were the same, then I would have to give it to '66 due to playing more games. It looks like the productivity is the same from each season though.

Well, I think I'd put it in terms of Nash:

Nash in Dallas and Nash in Phoenix weren't that different in their capabilities, but the changes in how Nash was used in Phoenix make him much more valuable, which is the difference between him being a fringe All-NBA guy and being an MVP. I don't think there'd be any qualms here as far as which Nash to side, so why the hesitation with West?

I understand that unlike with Nash, West was roughly as celebrated before and after, and if you just don't buy the improved impact, then of course you're not going to side with '68. However, if you do buy that West was contributing more value while he played in '68 than in '66, then why does it matter if he himself was the same guy both years?

Also of note: Careful with "productivity" here. West & Baylor's scoring each went down in '68, but the offensive efficiency leapt forward. That's telling you that something better is being done, and the stars can't not be a part of that. And again going back to Nash: People have this weird tendency to say that Nash's individual stats went up when he went to Phoenix, but while his assists did go up, his general stats where right in the ballpark they'd been before.

So yeah, if you've been paying attention, you're probably quite used to siding with one year of a player over another simply because he's being used more wisely, and I think you should continue to do that when you approach West.

I don't really agree with 11 Dirk being his peak, unless it's winning bias. He had two monster series (LA and OKC), and then one decent series (Portland), and then one subpar series (Heat). He was overall not doing anything in the playoffs that he hasn't done before.

I would personally take any year from 08-10 as Dirk's peak. Offensively, comparable to 11 Dirk, but he was more active on the glass and he seemed to move better (which suggests better defense).

Doctor MJ wrote:I understand that unlike with Nash, West was roughly as celebrated before and after, and if you just don't buy the improved impact, then of course you're not going to side with '68. However, if you do buy that West was contributing more value while he played in '68 than in '66, then why does it matter if he himself was the same guy both years?

Also of note: Careful with "productivity" here. West & Baylor's scoring each went down in '68, but the offensive efficiency leapt forward. That's telling you that something better is being done, and the stars can't not be a part of that. And again going back to Nash: People have this weird tendency to say that Nash's individual stats went up when he went to Phoenix, but while his assists did go up, his general stats where right in the ballpark they'd been before.

So yeah, if you've been paying attention, you're probably quite used to siding with one year of a player over another simply because he's being used more wisely, and I think you should continue to do that when you approach West.

Thanks for clearing that up. I do plan on voting for West because he is the best two-way player left and I usually favor two-way players over one-way players. I'm just trying to decide which year but you've convinced me that '68 West should get the nod so...

Vote: 1968 Jerry West.

Nash in Dallas and Nash in Phoenix weren't that different in their capabilities, but the changes in how Nash was used in Phoenix make him much more valuable, which is the difference between him being a fringe All-NBA guy and being an MVP. I don't think there'd be any qualms here as far as which Nash to side, so why the hesitation with West?

By the way, I'm not sure if this is that true. I think Nash said something about how he completely re-evaluated himself when Dallas didn't re-sign him and he worked harder than ever.

Lightning25 wrote:By the way, I'm not sure if this is that true. I think Nash said something about how he completely re-evaluated himself when Dallas didn't re-sign him and he worked harder than ever.

I think there's some truth to that. I think one of the most powerful things you can do in life is use a new beginning to re-define yourself. While Nash had been a great big brother to Dirk in Dallas, he saw himself as a complimentary player. In Phoenix he really approached the opportunity as one where he would become the always-turned-on positive leader.

However, I don't see any reason he couldn't have been that earlier if he'd just been properly scouted and fostered from Day 1. It's dicey how to judge a career where something like this happens after a delay, but I'm pretty comfortable saying a guy's peak is when he was actually playing the best regardless of whether it could have happened earlier on.

Re: Barkley. A question arises to me with regards to his peak valued added: Was he really more valuable than, say, Dirk in '11?

Okay, now consider: While Dirk's '11 value had some special team sauce to it, Dirk only got the luxury of having a team customize and optimize for him because he was such a good soldier. I think it's fine to adjust for Dirk's good fortune relative to other good soldiers, but Chuck's a hot head, which is why he has that up & down career to begin with. I'm having trouble with the idea that I should essentially normalize away Dirk's front office edge relative to Chuck when it's no coincidence that Dirk had that edge.

ElGee wrote:The idea to use 15 games in 1991 Barkley -- a clear down year for him -- and try and take that as evidence that Barkley was only a +3.4 is simply silly.

Yeah, the year in which Barkley had his career high in PER, his 2nd highest WS/48 value of his career and according to my rating his best statistical season is now considered a "clear down year for him".

It is amazing how some people are reverting to complete nonsensical statements whenever the data is not fitting their preconceptions.

ElGee wrote:Variance is still a big issue at 15g, and there's stuff like a 22 pt win over 5.2 SRS Celtics...without Bird. (0 SRS team without him) Just axing the C's game makes Barkley +5.5 SRS difference in that sample alone.

Yeah, we should eliminate the game completely, what a sound logic. Why not just replace the 5 SRS with 0 SRS in the calculation and go from there? Oh well, because it wouldn't change that much in the end.

ElGee wrote:Then of course, we can look at the 90 76ers with Charles (+4.2 SRS), the 93 Suns (+5.3 SRS w/out KJ), 95 Suns (+3.4 w/out KJ), etc. etc. to see that maybe Barkley was way more as a player.

Nobody was arguing that you can't build a good team around Barkley, just that his skillset doesn't make it easy. But yeah, your portability stuff only applies to certain players like James, where you went on a crusade explaining why a +8 team is not really a +8 team. :roll:

drza wrote:But here's the thing...that makes sense in an RPoY sense because in that project we're looking only at what actually happened in that one given year in those given circumstances. However, in this project we've repeatedly been looking at who would give a generic championship contender the best chance. Which means we're looking at hypotheticals, and we can't just assume that the exact same injury would occur under all circumstances.

I'm quoting this because drza makes a great point here when discussing 09 vs 10 Wade, but I think this matters in a, for example, 11 Dirk vs 11 Wade discussion: a player having a better season in a particular year than someone else matters in a RPOY type discussion, but in this hypothetical scenario where we are pretty much assuming all of these players are playing with championship-caliber supporting casts and speculating where they would take them...I could absolutely understand 11 Wade over 11 Dirk in that instance. Because if we give him a team where he's the unquestioned #1, he would revert back to 09/10 Wade more, and we could assume he's a smarter player due to 1 more year of experience, which could help him out on either side of the ball. We also see how good defensively he is when there's less pressure on him to create so much on offense. So just because his impact and "allowed" playing level that year was not on par with someone else, doesn't mean that year when considering peak play can't be propped over someone else's "better" year, if that makes sense.

This applies to a bunch of different player comparisons that I've seen as well.

I suggest taking a peak at per 36 stats with '66 and '68. For '66 we have 2 1/2 more points but on .573 TS% compared to .590 TS% on '68. Check out the free throws though. in '66 he was converting over 2 more free throws a game on a higher clip than '68.

Now look at the FG% of '66 compared to '68. In '66 he was shooting 47% from the field and in '68 he's shooting 51%. His fg and TS was better in '68.

Not only that, but his TS% in '66 got a decent boost from all the freethrows he was making at a higher clip than usual. It looks like he was attacking the rim more in '66 and in '68 taking smarter shots.

Now for assists we have .4 more per 36 in '68 compared to that in '66. I know this is a minuscule difference but we are really splitting hairs here when trying to find absolute peaks in players.


So far this fits the narrative that Doctor MJ is portraying. In the '68 season he is adjusting his volume scoring to fit in better to the offense. In '68 it looks like he is taking higher quality shots from the field, and distributing it more; rather than attacking the rim and converting free throws at a higher rate (which seems to be what he was doing in '66). This is key especially when talking about portability.


West seems like a high efficiency, high impact player (shame we dont have RAPM data for him) . He is a great ball handling guard who can distribute at the 1 or can extend the floor with range at the 2. He is a solid defender with good athleticism and wingspan. These attributes show me a player with extremely high portability.


I would go with '68 West.

Doctor MJ wrote:However, I don't see any reason he couldn't have been that earlier if he'd just been properly scouted and fostered from Day 1. It's dicey how to judge a career where something like this happens after a delay, but I'm pretty comfortable saying a guy's peak is when he was actually playing the best regardless of whether it could have happened earlier on.

He couldn't, because he couldn't keep up the pace in the playoffs. During the regular season he had 20.9 PER, 59.2 TS% and 0.176 WS/48 from 2001 to 2004. In the playoffs he went down to 17.2 PER, 55.4 TS% and 0.103 WS/48. Conditioning was one aspect and one reason the Mavericks didn't want to raise the contract offer. There was the constant scheme that Nash couldn't play big minutes in the playoffs and keep his level. We can specifically look at the matchups with Mike Bibby. Well, Nash got outplayed by Bibby in average in 17 playoff games. Maybe that was just a matchup problem, like we see it for several players against certain players? But that wasn't the case here, during the regular season Nash killed Bibby, making 18/10 per 36 min while having a 69.2 TS% (from 2002 to 2004 that is)!

Nash not just switched teams, but also changed his offseason routine, his diet, basically all stuff around basketball in order to be better prepared, also for the playoffs. And it paid off. Now we add the different rule interpretation to the mix and Nash becomes a much more impactful player who can sustain that level for a longer timespan.

Personally I would pick 2007 as Nash' peak, and I would say that surely belongs in before players like Barkley, McGrady or the Malone's.

I see some of Barkley's awesome offense but poor defense arguments to be similar to some of Nash's. However, this issue at the 4 is very large when compared to the defense that is needed by the pg. PG's effect on the defense has been shown to be small when compared to that of the front-court.

Vote: '68 West.

mystic, I always thought you were high on 03 McGrady (or at least, I remember that from the discussions you've participated about him in the past). What changed? Is it because of his unimpressive RAPM in 03? Because that's really all I see that could be wrong with his season that year. Because going by your SPM:

03 McGrady RS: +6.15
03 McGrady PS: +5.13

06 Kobe RS: +5.92
06 Kobe PS: +2.55

07 Kobe RS: +4.70
07 Kobe PS: +3.55

08 Kobe RS: +5.10
08 Kobe PS: +5.99

09 Wade RS: +6.35
09 Wade PS: +5.50

10 Wade RS: +5.80
10 Wade PS: +5.69


Why the clear separation? Where do you have T-Mac's peak?

thizznation wrote:I see some of Barkley's awesome offense but poor defense arguments to be similar to some of Nash's. However, this issue at the 4 is very large when compared to the defense that is needed by the pg. PG's effect on the defense has been shown to be small when compared to that of the front-court.

Not only that, Nash's offense was better too.

Just to start up a discussion on CP3. He was inseparable from Kobe (voted at #15) and better imo than LeBron (just a year away from his peak) that season. Had an unreal playoff run individually too (25/6/12 on 58 TS% on Kidd). Hopefully people don't forget he was a much much more dynamic player before his injury who was making 30/10 games look effortless. He ended the discussions about who the best PG in the league was, in a league with a prime Steve Nash. Skills and mentality wise he gave you exactly what you want from a PG, nothing you can point to and say "but he couldn't...". He has the skills to play at any speed, with any kind of talent and can adjust his game to whatever the team needs.

Look at how much quicker/aggressive he was (unguardable with his ability to change pace and find seams) and how much better his shot making ability was compared to now:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqtprNCcGNU[/youtube]


Only thing is, I really don't know what to make of is his defense that season. Hornets were a good defensive team and he played the most minutes, so naturally you would think he wasn't a liability but rapm says he was bad. His activity/energy, quick hands and ability to play passing lanes are obviously great, he's naturally intelligent on both ends, but his man defense is the main concern here. He actually did a good job on Kidd when the Mavs posted him up to exploit what they felt was a weakness. Parker had a couple of good games (one dominant one) but overall didn't really play above his normal level or anything. Billups handed it to him in '09 but he was just video game hot at times (but Paul also is really bad at contesting shots so it was a perfect storm).

My assessment on purely watching him play never pinned him as a defensively liability that year (susceptible to some things but overall had a positive impact) so is there a reason he looks bad defensively? He has a solid positive rating defensively in '09. Did he really improve that much more in '09 (when he had to carry the team even more offensively due to injuries) that in one season he goes from being bad to great, or is his '08 rating not representative of his defense?