RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson)

Moderators: Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063

Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,182
And1: 1,606
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#101 » by Odinn21 » Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:39 pm

Jordan Syndrome wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:
sansterre wrote:1.Chris Paul
2.Charles Barkley
3.David Robinson

I very much like that you're putting an immense effort to your process and you're very keen to improve your understanding. Talking for myself, I don't like you changing your ballot so often. Chris Paul and Charles Barkley are likely to become ghost votes looking at the current tally, so you're still basically voting for Robinson but you changing your vote could easily end up in changing the outcome and it doesn't look like you're sure / certain of your placements. I don't think it is nice.
I don't know what our commissioner would say. This is just how I feel. Surely, I would like to see your input in the discussions. Just, personally, not comfortable with your votes.


The only issue I have with this is he does a "deep dive" on one player yet ignores the others.

Take 1994 David Robinson for example, he had 69.5% of his teams VORP on a +5.05 SRS team. That ratio crushes anything on CP3 in his career, yet CP3 is the only player he did the "focus" on.

I don't think he focuses on one player. I think what he's doing is coming up with newer (and probably more conceptual and contextual) approaches for his taste and the new winner just trumps the previous one. I've been there in the past, I think we've all been. And that's why I said maybe he shouldn't vote because he's just following his latest flow rather than being sure in his picks.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,085
And1: 5,071
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#102 » by trex_8063 » Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:42 pm

I heard back from one "ghost vote", and one was all it took as his pick was for Robinson [for transparency, it was Whopper_Sr who responded].
So I'm calling this one and will have the next up in a moment.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,468
And1: 1,741
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson) 

Post#103 » by drza » Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:18 am

Seems like there's no controversy. But if there's any lingering, I don't believe I got to vote in this thread, and I would have voted for Robinson as well (I voted for him last round, too).
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,959
And1: 11,673
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#104 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:08 am

eminence wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
eminence wrote:
Were there another S-curved revolution, say Curry heads the fine motor skills revolution and shooting 60% on 3's flying around screens is the new norm for perimeter players, would you be as comfortable dumping Mike off the edge based on this new knowledge, knowing that he never had anything approaching that level of physical ability?

I would also 100% disagree that Robinson would've been better in Mikan's era, it required a revolutionary with a fiery competitive drive for physical competition above all else, and Robinson wasn't anything like that, maybe he'd have been Kurland.


I absolutely see another S-curve pertaining to the 3 yes, and quite frankly if I didn't see that, I wouldn't have voted for LeBron over Mike. I think the way that LeBron navigated the massive shift of the league is incredible and I've long said that Jordan was far more of a one-note player who never really showed the ability to change his game to the same degree.

Can I imagine a scenario where Jordan cease to be an incredible NBA player though? Not really, but if I ever thought that, then yes, it would hurt Jordan on this particular list.

By contrast, while I talk about Mikan as arguably the most Hall-worthy player of all time, my actual #1 there is probably Jordan. Jordan was named the Athlete of the Century after all, completely re-shaped how the NBA was seen, made Nike, and somehow made boys think shoes were cool.

I think the players more likely to be affected when look back at the tail end of the 3-point revolution are the actual 3-point shooters. Right now, Curry is the outlier of outliers, but what if 2 decades from now there are 50 guys who can shoot the 3 better than he could? Then he'll likely drop a lot more on my list than Jordan who will probably still be the best Jordan-type player for the forseeable future.

It's specifically the spearheads who are most vulnerable to the aftereffects of their revolution when we ask "But who would be better at basketball?"

It's worth noting that back in the early threads we talked about GOAT physicists, and in the realm of science, the spearhead is really everything. No one cares how many decades Newton remained good at math, they care about what he did first. And this sort of list is one we can make for basketball too, it's just not the typical focus.


That feels pretty half-hearted, 'I would, but that's virtually impossible'

And to be clear, MJ isn't Mikan in this analogy, he's Nat Holman (probably more accurately he'd be Lapchick/Edwards). Curry is Mikan.


Curry is indeed Mikan in the analogy, but I don't know if I'd say Jordan is any of those other guys.

There's a specific point I'm trying to make here about being in the role that's overtaken by innovation when not all roles are. Consider LeBron. Is it a huge problem for LeBron that he's not an amazing shooter? No, because the best place for him to be is at the epicenter of whatever's happening able to pass out in all directions as needed, or of course attack the rim directly. You don't need all your guys to be amazing long-distance shooters as long as enough of them are. But if you're an outlier specifically because you're the best 3-point shooter, and down the road you wouldn't be anything like the best 3-point shooter, you're going to lose that outlier status while the LeBrons of the world are still doing their thing.

Consider someone else: Hank Luisetti. Luisetti may well have been Steph Curry 75 years ahead of time. Incredible shooter, 6'2" so in the same basic range as Curry. It's possible his game would have actually translated better to the modern game than it did back then, and thus while there's so much uncertainty about him that I'd want to be careful asserting what he could "definitely do", there really isn't a reason to think of him as a "pre-Mikan player" in the same way it does for Holman who was both 1) too short for the modern game, and 2) not a long-distance shooter.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
User avatar
Joao Saraiva
RealGM
Posts: 11,910
And1: 4,798
Joined: Feb 09, 2011
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson) 

Post#105 » by Joao Saraiva » Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:31 am

Well I wasn't here to respond but I'd take Robinson over Mikan too. So I'm ok with the result.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
User avatar
eminence
General Manager
Posts: 8,238
And1: 4,961
Joined: Mar 07, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#106 » by eminence » Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:01 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
eminence wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
I absolutely see another S-curve pertaining to the 3 yes, and quite frankly if I didn't see that, I wouldn't have voted for LeBron over Mike. I think the way that LeBron navigated the massive shift of the league is incredible and I've long said that Jordan was far more of a one-note player who never really showed the ability to change his game to the same degree.

Can I imagine a scenario where Jordan cease to be an incredible NBA player though? Not really, but if I ever thought that, then yes, it would hurt Jordan on this particular list.

By contrast, while I talk about Mikan as arguably the most Hall-worthy player of all time, my actual #1 there is probably Jordan. Jordan was named the Athlete of the Century after all, completely re-shaped how the NBA was seen, made Nike, and somehow made boys think shoes were cool.

I think the players more likely to be affected when look back at the tail end of the 3-point revolution are the actual 3-point shooters. Right now, Curry is the outlier of outliers, but what if 2 decades from now there are 50 guys who can shoot the 3 better than he could? Then he'll likely drop a lot more on my list than Jordan who will probably still be the best Jordan-type player for the forseeable future.

It's specifically the spearheads who are most vulnerable to the aftereffects of their revolution when we ask "But who would be better at basketball?"

It's worth noting that back in the early threads we talked about GOAT physicists, and in the realm of science, the spearhead is really everything. No one cares how many decades Newton remained good at math, they care about what he did first. And this sort of list is one we can make for basketball too, it's just not the typical focus.


That feels pretty half-hearted, 'I would, but that's virtually impossible'

And to be clear, MJ isn't Mikan in this analogy, he's Nat Holman (probably more accurately he'd be Lapchick/Edwards). Curry is Mikan.


Curry is indeed Mikan in the analogy, but I don't know if I'd say Jordan is any of those other guys.

There's a specific point I'm trying to make here about being in the role that's overtaken by innovation when not all roles are. Consider LeBron. Is it a huge problem for LeBron that he's not an amazing shooter? No, because the best place for him to be is at the epicenter of whatever's happening able to pass out in all directions as needed, or of course attack the rim directly. You don't need all your guys to be amazing long-distance shooters as long as enough of them are. But if you're an outlier specifically because you're the best 3-point shooter, and down the road you wouldn't be anything like the best 3-point shooter, you're going to lose that outlier status while the LeBrons of the world are still doing their thing.

Consider someone else: Hank Luisetti. Luisetti may well have been Steph Curry 75 years ahead of time. Incredible shooter, 6'2" so in the same basic range as Curry. It's possible his game would have actually translated better to the modern game than it did back then, and thus while there's so much uncertainty about him that I'd want to be careful asserting what he could "definitely do", there really isn't a reason to think of him as a "pre-Mikan player" in the same way it does for Holman who was both 1) too short for the modern game, and 2) not a long-distance shooter.


I guess I'd say the point of my hypothetical is that MJ/LeBron/whoever's role has been obsoleted (in the hypothetical) by these seemingly otherworldly shooters who barely miss inside of half-court (say North Korea is to basketball what the Kalenjin were/are to distance running). I completely agree that it's an impossible hypothetical and their roles are actually very safe going forward (hell, even the midget bigman we'd thought Mikan obsoleted have made a comeback). My thought is simply that it seems silly to dump MJ - media GOAT, popularized basketball around the world, ESPN athlete of the Century, etc - by the wayside just because we'd hypothetically found a strictly 'better' way to play the game. I use MJ as the example here, though I'm actually not all that high on him relative to the consensus specifically because he has all those accolades.

Good shoutout on Luisetti, wish we could've seen he and the rest of his generation go pro.
'17-'18 APBR Win Projections Champion (1st of 20)
'18-'19 5th of 18
'19-'20 2nd of 17 (For now?)
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,959
And1: 11,673
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#107 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:12 am

eminence wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
eminence wrote:
That feels pretty half-hearted, 'I would, but that's virtually impossible'

And to be clear, MJ isn't Mikan in this analogy, he's Nat Holman (probably more accurately he'd be Lapchick/Edwards). Curry is Mikan.


Curry is indeed Mikan in the analogy, but I don't know if I'd say Jordan is any of those other guys.

There's a specific point I'm trying to make here about being in the role that's overtaken by innovation when not all roles are. Consider LeBron. Is it a huge problem for LeBron that he's not an amazing shooter? No, because the best place for him to be is at the epicenter of whatever's happening able to pass out in all directions as needed, or of course attack the rim directly. You don't need all your guys to be amazing long-distance shooters as long as enough of them are. But if you're an outlier specifically because you're the best 3-point shooter, and down the road you wouldn't be anything like the best 3-point shooter, you're going to lose that outlier status while the LeBrons of the world are still doing their thing.

Consider someone else: Hank Luisetti. Luisetti may well have been Steph Curry 75 years ahead of time. Incredible shooter, 6'2" so in the same basic range as Curry. It's possible his game would have actually translated better to the modern game than it did back then, and thus while there's so much uncertainty about him that I'd want to be careful asserting what he could "definitely do", there really isn't a reason to think of him as a "pre-Mikan player" in the same way it does for Holman who was both 1) too short for the modern game, and 2) not a long-distance shooter.


I guess I'd say the point of my hypothetical is that MJ/LeBron/whoever's role has been obsoleted (in the hypothetical) by these seemingly otherworldly shooters who barely miss inside of half-court (say North Korea is to basketball what the Kalenjin were/are to distance running). I completely agree that it's an impossible hypothetical and their roles are actually very safe going forward (hell, even the midget bigman we'd thought Mikan obsoleted have made a comeback). My thought is simply that it seems silly to dump MJ - media GOAT, popularized basketball around the world, ESPN athlete of the Century, etc - by the wayside just because we'd hypothetically found a strictly 'better' way to play the game. I use MJ as the example here, though I'm actually not all that high on him relative to the consensus specifically because he has all those accolades.

Good shoutout on Luisetti, wish we could've seen he and the rest of his generation go pro.


But what I'm saying is that MJ & LeBron aren't the guys we have reason to think could get obsoleted by someone doing the same thing as them but better, and part of the reason for that is that they don't have a specific innovation that can be focused on and developed in subsequent generations in the same way Mikan did and Curry does.

By the way, basketball footage from a movie Luisetti was in - because he was such a big deal, they put him in a romance movie in part as an excuse to film him playing basketball - for those interested, it's below. I'm going to say up front, this is a clear case of the director saying "Now do a bunch of those tricky dribbling things you're known for" and thus we're not getting to see him play for real, but I still think it's interesting to see how he moves, as people back then really raved about everything about him (shooting, dribbling, feel, etc) in a way they just don't for anyone else. I have to say that the video doesn't make me think "Wow, he'd be amazing today", but I'm inclined to withhold judgment.

Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
User avatar
LA Bird
Veteran
Posts: 2,598
And1: 1,999
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson) 

Post#108 » by LA Bird » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:16 am

The only time I have seen Luisetti's name before was in Associated Press's Greatest player of the first half century award in 1950 where he almost beat peak Mikan.

1. George Mikan (139 votes)
2. Hank Luisetti (123 votes)
3. Nat Holman (31 votes)
4. Chuck Hyatt (16 votes)
5. Alex Groza (13 votes)

Quite impressive considering Mikan had won his 3rd/4th consecutive title and Luisetti hadn't played any basketball for years.
JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 59,195
And1: 4,633
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#109 » by JordansBulls » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:24 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
eminence wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Curry is indeed Mikan in the analogy, but I don't know if I'd say Jordan is any of those other guys.

There's a specific point I'm trying to make here about being in the role that's overtaken by innovation when not all roles are. Consider LeBron. Is it a huge problem for LeBron that he's not an amazing shooter? No, because the best place for him to be is at the epicenter of whatever's happening able to pass out in all directions as needed, or of course attack the rim directly. You don't need all your guys to be amazing long-distance shooters as long as enough of them are. But if you're an outlier specifically because you're the best 3-point shooter, and down the road you wouldn't be anything like the best 3-point shooter, you're going to lose that outlier status while the LeBrons of the world are still doing their thing.

Consider someone else: Hank Luisetti. Luisetti may well have been Steph Curry 75 years ahead of time. Incredible shooter, 6'2" so in the same basic range as Curry. It's possible his game would have actually translated better to the modern game than it did back then, and thus while there's so much uncertainty about him that I'd want to be careful asserting what he could "definitely do", there really isn't a reason to think of him as a "pre-Mikan player" in the same way it does for Holman who was both 1) too short for the modern game, and 2) not a long-distance shooter.


I guess I'd say the point of my hypothetical is that MJ/LeBron/whoever's role has been obsoleted (in the hypothetical) by these seemingly otherworldly shooters who barely miss inside of half-court (say North Korea is to basketball what the Kalenjin were/are to distance running). I completely agree that it's an impossible hypothetical and their roles are actually very safe going forward (hell, even the midget bigman we'd thought Mikan obsoleted have made a comeback). My thought is simply that it seems silly to dump MJ - media GOAT, popularized basketball around the world, ESPN athlete of the Century, etc - by the wayside just because we'd hypothetically found a strictly 'better' way to play the game. I use MJ as the example here, though I'm actually not all that high on him relative to the consensus specifically because he has all those accolades.

Good shoutout on Luisetti, wish we could've seen he and the rest of his generation go pro.


But what I'm saying is that MJ & LeBron aren't the guys we have reason to think could get obsoleted by someone doing the same thing as them but better, and part of the reason for that is that they don't have a specific innovation that can be focused on and developed in subsequent generations in the same way Mikan did and Curry does.

By the way, basketball footage from a movie Luisetti was in - because he was such a big deal, they put him in a romance movie in part as an excuse to film him playing basketball - for those interested, it's below. I'm going to say up front, this is a clear case of the director saying "Now do a bunch of those tricky dribbling things you're known for" and thus we're not getting to see him play for real, but I still think it's interesting to see how he moves, as people back then really raved about everything about him (shooting, dribbling, feel, etc) in a way they just don't for anyone else. I have to say that the video doesn't make me think "Wow, he'd be amazing today", but I'm inclined to withhold judgment.



Maybe it's me but I can't tell who I am supposed to be looking at in that clip. :-?
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,959
And1: 11,673
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson) 

Post#110 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:44 am

LA Bird wrote:The only time I have seen Luisetti's name before was in Associated Press's Greatest player of the first half century award in 1950 where he almost beat peak Mikan.

1. George Mikan (139 votes)
2. Hank Luisetti (123 votes)
3. Nat Holman (31 votes)
4. Chuck Hyatt (16 votes)
5. Alex Groza (13 votes)

Quite impressive considering Mikan had won his 3rd/4th consecutive title and Luisetti hadn't played any basketball for years.


Oh man, check out this Esquire article, Hank Luisetti: Basketball Wizard from 1945 by Ward Lambert.

In a nutshell:

Stanford came to Madison Square Garden in 1936, and Hank Luisetti completely changed the face of basketball with one performance.

It's absurd to imagine something like this happening in the modern landscape because the sport is so mature, but it's all the more remarkable to consider that this was pre-TV and all of this came from word of mouth from those who watched it live one random night in the middle of the season. How could any performance seen by so few and of such little context possibly have this kind of effect?

I'm not justifying it with "He must have been that good!" because I think it's clear there is no amount of goodness that could guarantee something like this could happen. Clearly the ground was fertile for a phenomenon like this and Luisetti happened to be that guy...

but this article is written 9 years later as if it was the 2nd coming of Jesus, and despite the fact Luisetti was only 29 in 1945, he'd stopped playing basketball by then after first heading off to the war.

This is myth-making zealotry of the highest order and I haven't seen it of any early 20th century figure the way I've seen it for Luisetti, which tells you at the very least that people saw SOMETHING.

Relating to those other guys listed, part of what I find interesting about them is that they all have such different stories and I don't think any ranked list made by a single person would be in that order. That list represents a conflict in philosophies, and even with all that disagreement, nary a single Black player is mentioned.

Alright so Mikan you know about, but just to be clear: By the time 1950 rolled around, Mikan had been in the basketball world's vision for 8 years. This includes college of course because up through the '40s, college remained king in the minds of the public.

Worth noting that Groza had been around only 3 years by that time, even including college. Clearly these voters were to some degree prisoners of the moment, but go look at Groza's 2 years in the pros before he's banned forever, the guy was clearly an extreme talent. He led the NBA in both years in TS Add, to use that new bkref stat that I might be the only who finds it fascinating. Add Groza along with Kurland as the other guys from right around Mikan's age group who might have been better than he was had they actually played (and played full careers) in the NBA.

You've seen us mention Holman before. To me he was pretty clearly the actual White Player of the Half Century based on a method like the ones we use now that's more based on cumulative accomplishment. Holman was the star of the Original Celtics in the '20s when they were the best basketball team in the world. As he did that he wrote a series of books relating to 'Scientific Basketball' and coached CCNY's college basketball team. He would retire as a player around the same time as the great depression really killed the money in the pros and so would go out basically as the undisputed champion of basketball.

Anyone from the time who thought in terms of career accomplishment would have had Holman WAY ahead of Luisetti, but nobody talks about Holman like they talk about Luisetti.

I know the least about Hyatt. Aside form being a college star, he was apparently huge in AAU basketball (which I've not read much about).
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 42,959
And1: 11,673
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#111 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:45 am

JordansBulls wrote:Maybe it's me but I can't tell who I am supposed to be looking at in that clip. :-?


Well I could be wrong, but I was thinking he was the fancy dribbler (on the team going from left to right).
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
User avatar
eminence
General Manager
Posts: 8,238
And1: 4,961
Joined: Mar 07, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson) 

Post#112 » by eminence » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:52 am

Luisetti certainly had the respect of his peers, I know he cooked Pollard and Dallmar a couple times during the war for the service championship.

No real footage of play though, though it was a very very very different game (can you imagine a tip-off after every basket?)
'17-'18 APBR Win Projections Champion (1st of 20)
'18-'19 5th of 18
'19-'20 2nd of 17 (For now?)
DQuinn1575
Rookie
Posts: 1,038
And1: 344
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson) 

Post#113 » by DQuinn1575 » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:26 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
LA Bird wrote:The only time I have seen Luisetti's name before was in Associated Press's Greatest player of the first half century award in 1950 where he almost beat peak Mikan.

1. George Mikan (139 votes)
2. Hank Luisetti (123 votes)
3. Nat Holman (31 votes)
4. Chuck Hyatt (16 votes)
5. Alex Groza (13 votes)

Quite impressive considering Mikan had won his 3rd/4th consecutive title and Luisetti hadn't played any basketball for years.


Oh man, check out this Esquire article, Hank Luisetti: Basketball Wizard from 1945 by Ward Lambert.

In a nutshell:

Stanford came to Madison Square Garden in 1936, and Hank Luisetti completely changed the face of basketball with one performance.

It's absurd to imagine something like this happening in the modern landscape because the sport is so mature, but it's all the more remarkable to consider that this was pre-TV and all of this came from word of mouth from those who watched it live one random night in the middle of the season. How could any performance seen by so few and of such little context possibly have this kind of effect?

I'm not justifying it with "He must have been that good!" because I think it's clear there is no amount of goodness that could guarantee something like this could happen. Clearly the ground was fertile for a phenomenon like this and Luisetti happened to be that guy...

but this article is written 9 years later as if it was the 2nd coming of Jesus, and despite the fact Luisetti was only 29 in 1945, he'd stopped playing basketball by then after first heading off to the war.

This is myth-making zealotry of the highest order and I haven't seen it of any early 20th century figure the way I've seen it for Luisetti, which tells you at the very least that people saw SOMETHING.

Relating to those other guys listed, part of what I find interesting about them is that they all have such different stories and I don't think any ranked list made by a single person would be in that order. That list represents a conflict in philosophies, and even with all that disagreement, nary a single Black player is mentioned.

Alright so Mikan you know about, but just to be clear: By the time 1950 rolled around, Mikan had been in the basketball world's vision for 8 years. This includes college of course because up through the '40s, college remained king in the minds of the public.

Worth noting that Groza had been around only 3 years by that time, even including college. Clearly these voters were to some degree prisoners of the moment, but go look at Groza's 2 years in the pros before he's banned forever, the guy was clearly an extreme talent. He led the NBA in both years in TS Add, to use that new bkref stat that I might be the only who finds it fascinating. Add Groza along with Kurland as the other guys from right around Mikan's age group who might have been better than he was had they actually played (and played full careers) in the NBA.

You've seen us mention Holman before. To me he was pretty clearly the actual White Player of the Half Century based on a method like the ones we use now that's more based on cumulative accomplishment. Holman was the star of the Original Celtics in the '20s when they were the best basketball team in the world. As he did that he wrote a series of books relating to 'Scientific Basketball' and coached CCNY's college basketball team. He would retire as a player around the same time as the great depression really killed the money in the pros and so would go out basically as the undisputed champion of basketball.

Anyone from the time who thought in terms of career accomplishment would have had Holman WAY ahead of Luisetti, but nobody talks about Holman like they talk about Luisetti.

I know the least about Hyatt. Aside form being a college star, he was apparently huge in AAU basketball (which I've not read much about).


Luisetti was a big deal because the teams from the West weren't supposed to be very good, and the hicks from the West beat the unbeatable New York teams.
Groza did play on back-to-back winning NCAA teams so his placement, and there was a lot of mixture of college and pro players in lists like this one, and AP athletes of the year in the 50s; not uncommon for college football players to rate higher than the pros.
It wasn't a lot different for most of the country and the ABA; most of the nation rarely saw Doctor J play, there were very few games on National TV, and other than New York they weren't in the biggest cities. From Sports Illustrated in 74-75 season "The greatest shame of this is a guy like Bobby Jones. Here is the very best all-round young player in the game, and three-fourths of the country doesn't even know whether he's white or black."" -
User avatar
Baski
Analyst
Posts: 3,676
And1: 3,089
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#114 » by Baski » Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:24 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Baski wrote:
A note on Paul:

Him being traded to Phoenix makes it really clear how next year is going to be big for Paul's legacy. Paul thus far largely has a career where he's managed not to make his teammates better despite playing the "make your teammates better" position exceptionally well. Paul likes control, and he's going to a place where he needs to not be a control-freak or it just won't work. It's Booker's backcourt and Paul best never delude himself otherwise.

Hmmm. Gotta say this is surprising to read. That kind of comment fits someone like Kyrie Irving rather than Chris Paul. What's your basis for this?


Here's what I'm referring to, and note that I'm fine if you think my off-the-cuff argumentation along these lines is hyperbolic and/or sloppy.


Ok so I do think it's hyperbolic so we can get that out of the way early.

Paul does not show signs of massively improving his teammates shooting efficiency the way Nash does.

Consider when Paul went to the Clippers and much was expected in terms of him being able to transform teammates:

In '10-11, pre-Paul, the Clippers had a team TS Add of 9.3.

In '11-12, with Paul, the Clippers TS Add went up 102.3...but Paul himself was a 110.7, so the rest of the team's TS Add was actually -8.4. When you consider that in '10-11 the team also had Baron Davis who was a negative TS Add, we do in fact appear to be in a situation where Paul's presence was at best neutral at giving his teammates better shots.

By contrast, consider Nash's arrival in Phoenix.

In '03-04 the team's TS Add was 64.9.

In '04-05 it went up to 629.5. Yes Nash was part of that with a +146.7, but you're still talking about a TS Add gain of nearly 500 without Nash.


TS Add looks like an interesting stat. I wonder why you only focused on the 1st years on new teams though. Taking a look at the stats for the Clippers over the years, I see that the Clippers improved in TS Add from 102.3 to:

2013- 334.3 where minus Paul it's 215.5
2014- 416.8 where minus Paul it's 337.1, further remove Griffin for being a top 3 MVP candidate and that's 198
2015- 516.5 where minus Paul it's 353.3
2016- 278.7 where minus Paul it's 194.8
Even with the mess that was 2017- 342.5 where minus Paul it's 232.1
Paul leaves the Clippers and they go back to their 2010 levels-74.9 with Blake playing little but offering up a negative TS when he did play
Paul joins the 2020 Thunder and they go from -201.6 to 109.1

I think it's worth noting how Paul's teams never reached the bonkers peaks that teams like the 2016 Warriors (827.7, 55% of which was from Curry. Holy ****), 2013 and 2014 Heat (763.6, 44% from LeBron) did. But there's a lot of evidence he does make his teammates shoot better if we're going by TS Add, as his team's numbers generally hold up well against a few prime LeBron seasons and the peaks of some other notable offensive dynamos in the modern game. For example:

2012 Heat-262.2, 44.4 without Lebron
2015 Cavs-335.9, 207.5 without Lebron
2016 Cavs-265, 111.6 without Lebron
2017 Cavs-360, 148.8 without Lebron
2018 Cavs-489.4, 255.7 without Lebron
2020 Lakers-142.7, 105.7 without Lebron

2018 Nuggets-257.7, 149.3 without Jokic
2019 Nuggets-minus 33.4, minus 114.3 without Jokic
2020 Nuggets-99.3, 2.5 without Jokic

2012 Thunder- 502.9, primarily from KD and Harden. 42.9 without em
2013 Thunder produced an epic 733.7 with a -8.8 from Westbrook. Go KD/Westbrook
2014 Thunder produced 389.2 with a 383.9 from peak KD

2006 Mavs-206.8, 13 without Dirk
2007 Mavs-270.3, 69 without Dirk
2011 Mavs-332.4, 139.1 without Dirk

2006 Lakers-64.2, minus 54.1 without Kobe
2008 Lakers-400.4, 256.2 without Kobe
2009 Lakers-136.5, 69.7 without Kobe
2010 Lakers-minus 74.9, minus 82.6 without Kobe

Your first reaction when you see pretty much all of these is probably " But wait. Insert Context Here". Yeah, me too, as I did with Paul. There's a whole bunch of reasons why the numbers bear out this way, very few of which have anything to do with how much better these players make their teammates. Basically Paul has a much bigger effect on his teammates efficiency than TS Add would suggest.

OKC's TS Add for every Westbrook year post-Durant is a huge negative, and while I personally would be more than happy to point to that as proof that Westbrook is a balhogging cancer that doesn't help his team beyond getting TDs and selling tickets, the more objective takeaway is that TS Add is a very wonky context-dependent stat. CP3 does well with it, but it's probably not the best tool to use to make a judgement like "Chris Paul has managed not to make his teammates better". I say this acknowledging that you called it an off-the-cuff argument and most likely have some more evidence to back up your opinion.
"Chris Paul does not show signs of massively improving his teammates shooting efficiency the way Nash does" is far less questionable, but those are two different almost unrelated things.

You also specifically mentioned teammates shooting efficiency, but "making teammates better" should be about more than that imo. Looking at a stat like Ortg which incorporates Paul's greatest strength of turnover reduction, Paul's teams have always been at or near the top in general, elite when he plays and not so much when he doesn't (And he doesn't play a lot, so we should look at his teams' ranking in Ortg with that in mind).
Without even checking, I'm sure there isn't any stat that paints a trend of Paul's teammates doing the same or worse on offense with him than without him. 2019 may taint that a bit, but I'm still confident he'll come out smelling like roses under any stat that measures offensive impact. I think you agree that he's a fantastic offensive guard, so I find it hard to see how you can reconcile that with a lack of making teammates better.

There is a general trend of Nash's teammates being significantly affected in TS Add by playing with him, and you just don't see the same thing from Paul.

Does that mean Paul isn't a great offensive point guard? No. Paul's value add comes from turnover reduction. The Clippers went from last in TO% to 2nd in the entire league with Paul's arrival. That's no small thing...but it's not what we typically talk about when we talk about a facilitator "making life easy for his teammates".

This is part of the broader point where Nash is a guy who looks to punish the defense for giving any opening at all as soon as (or even before) the window of opportunity opens, whereas Paul looks to slow things down and make sure that possessions aren't ruined with mistakes. That's why we call Nash ultra-aggressive and Paul conservative.

Which is better? The data in general seems to indicate that Nash's way has a higher ceiling. Taking risks is dangerous, but when you're smart enough to pull it off, it's worth doing.


There's a lot of evidence to suggest that players tend to shoot better playing next to Nash than Paul. That would hold true for all but a few PGs in history, so I don't see that as saying much in the way of "Paul doesn't make his teammates better". "Nash makes his teammates better than Paul does his", sure I can get on board with that.

None of this means that Paul can't make up the difference with defense, but there's also the matter of the frustration Paul's teammates tend to feel with him. I think we generally have this sense of "You keep telling me I need to do things your way but I'm fine doing things my way" with Paul's teammates that literally has truth to it, and this eventually leading to toxic relationships. Meanwhile, people loved playing with Nash. Even the ones who chose to leave, it's not because they actually disliked playing with Nash. He was always a joy to play with.

Yeah there is definitely that. Personally I would find his poor durability more annoying than his attitude if I were his teammate. If Jordan were made of glass like CP3 is, his teammates would be far less willing to call him a great leader because they wouldn't win anything and get chewed out constantly.
Hilarious NBA player Nicknames:
1. Nicholas Kaboom
2. Kawh1/11
3. Glass
4. LeBaby
5. Zaza Pacheapshot
6. Wayoff/Backboard/Panic P, Covid 13 :lol:
7. Rapestaps Rapezingis
8. Yawnnis Icantshootthough
9. Day to Davis
10. Vucci-Mane :lol:
Lost92Bricks
Starter
Posts: 2,060
And1: 1,943
Joined: Jul 16, 2013

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 

Post#115 » by Lost92Bricks » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:34 am

Dr Positivity wrote:To me CP's personality is a real issue. CP and Blake obviously didn't like each other and it played out on the court as despite being a perfect fit in style of play, and both being great passers for their position, I didn't think their chemistry ever really got there as much as a combination like Kobe and Pau. They reminded me of Tmac and Yao who often overperformed with one or the other but together was less than the sum of their parts. He goes to Houston and it's successful but falls apart mentally by the 2nd year, and Paul and Harden not getting along likely cost them a golden opportunity to win the title as otherwise they'd have been in great shape simply by waiting out the Warriors.

CP3 and Blake are not perfect fits. Blake is not a good shooter and Chris loves pick and pop.

David West was a perfect fit with Paul. Lamarcus Aldridge, Dirk Nowitzki, Amare Stoudamire, guys like that are perfect fits because they are good midrange jumpshooters.

Return to Player Comparisons