RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18

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

User avatar
2klegend
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,271
And1: 362
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#81 » by 2klegend » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:44 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
2klegend wrote:1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.


I think in about 2 years I will completely agree with you, but for now he needs a little more longevity to be this high, and I don't value longevity as much as the average voter

He already had 11 seasons of +20PER. That's West/Oscar territory already.
My Top 100+ GOAT (Peak, Prime, Longevity, Award):
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1464952
User avatar
2klegend
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,271
And1: 362
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#82 » by 2klegend » Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:50 pm

70sFan wrote:
2klegend wrote:
70sFan wrote:So Durant is disrespected because people don't rank him as high as you? Doesn't sound like a good argument at all...

Who from the 11-20 range is clearly worse than Durant and why?

KG
Malone
Dirk
West
Oscar
D-Rob

None of them accomplished a lick of things more than KD. All were 1st timer champ and statistically not superior to KD. Why are they ahead?

Because of number of things:

- all of them had clearly better longevity - even someone like West and Robinson,
- most of them peaked clearly higher,
- most posters here don't count rings as valuable criteria, had KD never joined to the Warriors he'd probably still be ringless but that wouldn't make him worse player at all,
- some of them have more accolades than him,
- most of them rank higher in historical impact analysis.

I mean, what's the case for Durant over West for example? 2 FMVPs is very weak one...

Not counting the superiority of Durant's stat over West.

West:
NBA champion (1972)
NBA Finals MVP (1969)
14× NBA All-Star (1961–1974)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1972)
10× All-NBA First Team (1962–1967, 1970–1973)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1968, 1969)
4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1970–1973)
NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1969)
NBA scoring champion (1970)
NBA assists leader (1972)

Durant:
2× NBA champion (2017, 2018)
2× NBA Finals MVP (2017, 2018)
NBA Most Valuable Player (2014)
10× NBA All-Star (2010–2019)
2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (2012, 2019)
6× All-NBA First Team (2010–2014, 2018)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2016, 2017, 2019)
NBA Rookie of the Year (2008)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (2008)
4× NBA scoring champion (2010–2012, 2014)

Worth mentioning his accomplishment consists of competing against Lebron in the same forward position in his span career.
My Top 100+ GOAT (Peak, Prime, Longevity, Award):
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1464952
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,847
And1: 10,552
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#83 » by 70sFan » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:32 pm

2klegend wrote:
70sFan wrote:
2klegend wrote:KG
Malone
Dirk
West
Oscar
D-Rob

None of them accomplished a lick of things more than KD. All were 1st timer champ and statistically not superior to KD. Why are they ahead?

Because of number of things:

- all of them had clearly better longevity - even someone like West and Robinson,
- most of them peaked clearly higher,
- most posters here don't count rings as valuable criteria, had KD never joined to the Warriors he'd probably still be ringless but that wouldn't make him worse player at all,
- some of them have more accolades than him,
- most of them rank higher in historical impact analysis.

I mean, what's the case for Durant over West for example? 2 FMVPs is very weak one...

Not counting the superiority of Durant's stat over West.

West:
NBA champion (1972)
NBA Finals MVP (1969)
14× NBA All-Star (1961–1974)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1972)
10× All-NBA First Team (1962–1967, 1970–1973)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1968, 1969)
4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1970–1973)
NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1969)
NBA scoring champion (1970)
NBA assists leader (1972)

Durant:
2× NBA champion (2017, 2018)
2× NBA Finals MVP (2017, 2018)
NBA Most Valuable Player (2014)
10× NBA All-Star (2010–2019)
2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (2012, 2019)
6× All-NBA First Team (2010–2014, 2018)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2016, 2017, 2019)
NBA Rookie of the Year (2008)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (2008)
4× NBA scoring champion (2010–2012, 2014)

Worth mentioning his accomplishment consists of competing against Lebron in the same forward position in his span career.

I mean, Durant has more rings and FMVPs (which are team accomplishments). He also has one more MVP (so does Iverson, Rose, Unseld, Cowens...). Then West has 4 more all-nba first team selections, 4 more all-star selections and 5 more all-defensive selections. You didn't prove anything, accolades don't make Durant look clearly better.

What stats makes Durant better than West by the way? I'm really curious about that one.
User avatar
ccameron
Rookie
Posts: 1,165
And1: 1,116
Joined: Jan 25, 2013

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#84 » by ccameron » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:34 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:On Dwyane Wade: I'm feeling him fall in my estimation and I don't like it. I loved watching Wade play and there was a time when I would have said Wade was as good as Kobe. But I don't think Wade is that great of a choice if you want someone to be the alpha on a truly great offense, and I don't think he's really that well suited to being a 2nd banana either. His lack of shooting matters in his prime, and his style of play seemed to doom him to limited longevity.


Happy to see him discussed here although I don't have Wade this high on my all time list, but to address this -- when have you seen Wade on a truly great offense that was built around him? I don't think we ever saw it. He's been on defense first teams his whole career basically. In the early years with Shaq, that was definitely a defensive minded team, with a hodge-podge of ill-fitting veteran players. Wade had to take over because he had no choice. Even when Lebron got there, Spoelstra and Fizdale have talked about how they didn't even practice offense, they almost purely focused on defense.

As for Wade being ill suited to being a secondary star, I'm not sure I agree. Too often I think when people are discussing Wade's portability, they conflate the question to "how well does he fit with Lebron?" Not sure if that's what you're going on, but that's not the same question. Lebron of all players in the world is probably the worst fit in the world for a player like Wade, because he was essentially a 6'4" Lebron. And yet, after their first year, adapt he did, and I think people underrate how well he made that work. People tend to remember injured Wade in the 2013 and 2014 playoffs (and he was not 100% healthy in 2012 playoffs either) as an indication that the fit wasn't good, but that wasn't what was going on. After that first year, during the stretches that he was healthy, they worked seamlessly. It was one of the things that prompted Spoelstra to call Wade a "chameleon" in terms of what role he could play. But when he was injured, that's when they were vulnerable.

Wade has probably played as many different roles on differently constructed teams as any star payer ever.

I don't think Wade ever got to play for a team that was catered to Wade's strengths offensively. Wade would I think do really well surrounded by 3 point shooters, in the same way Lebron has nearly every year since 2013. So I don't share your concern about Wade being a great choice to lead a great offensive team -- the fact that he made it work when he didn't have that shouldn't be taken as an indication that his style of play necessitates that.

Of course you're right about his longevity and his style of play -- although if he came into the league with a meniscus, he actually would have had a pretty decently long prime, as that really took off a few years in the middle and in the end of his prime.
sansterre
Sophomore
Posts: 156
And1: 224
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#85 » by sansterre » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:41 pm

1. Chris Paul - one of the greatest point guards ever. I think he is underrated because he consistently ended up carrying relatively weak rosters. His personality may be an issue, but is it really that different from, say MJ? If Jordan had never gotten good teammates to support him, would part of his story be "great player, but his personality was just too hard to play with?"

2. Charles Barkley - one of the best offensive players available right now. As his athleticism waned he actually became a fairly capable distributor. Like Chris Paul suffers from never having been on any really strong rosters. Stud + teammates that are only good enough to tease contention = historical reputation of not being at "that" level. Just like how nobody took Jordan too seriously until he won the '91 Finals. I'm not saying that Barkley is Jordan, I'm just saying that we have a strong unconscious bias toward success. And players like Dr. J, who had teammates good enough to get them a ring, get a lot more respect than players who didn't.

3. Julius Erving - I think Erving is overrated. I think he had a splashy skillset and happened to be the biggest name / biggest volume scorer on a series of outstanding defenses (in the NBA). And his numbers in the ABA should be taken with a grain of salt. Still.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
DQuinn1575
Rookie
Posts: 1,038
And1: 344
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#86 » by DQuinn1575 » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:46 pm

70sFan wrote:
2klegend wrote:
70sFan wrote:Because of number of things:

- all of them had clearly better longevity - even someone like West and Robinson,
- most of them peaked clearly higher,
- most posters here don't count rings as valuable criteria, had KD never joined to the Warriors he'd probably still be ringless but that wouldn't make him worse player at all,
- some of them have more accolades than him,
- most of them rank higher in historical impact analysis.

I mean, what's the case for Durant over West for example? 2 FMVPs is very weak one...

Not counting the superiority of Durant's stat over West.

West:
NBA champion (1972)
NBA Finals MVP (1969)
14× NBA All-Star (1961–1974)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1972)
10× All-NBA First Team (1962–1967, 1970–1973)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1968, 1969)
4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1970–1973)
NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1969)
NBA scoring champion (1970)
NBA assists leader (1972)

Durant:
2× NBA champion (2017, 2018)
2× NBA Finals MVP (2017, 2018)
NBA Most Valuable Player (2014)
10× NBA All-Star (2010–2019)
2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (2012, 2019)
6× All-NBA First Team (2010–2014, 2018)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2016, 2017, 2019)
NBA Rookie of the Year (2008)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (2008)
4× NBA scoring champion (2010–2012, 2014)

Worth mentioning his accomplishment consists of competing against Lebron in the same forward position in his span career.

I mean, Durant has more rings and FMVPs (which are team accomplishments). He also has one more MVP (so does Iverson, Rose, Unseld, Cowens...). Then West has 4 more all-nba first team selections, 4 more all-star selections and 5 more all-defensive selections. You didn't prove anything, accolades don't make Durant look clearly better.

What stats makes Durant better than West by the way? I'm really curious about that one.


Even using accolades West is 10 time 1st team versus 6 for KD, I have West as a vastly superior defender than KD, and the rebounding and passing a push at best
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 6,910
And1: 2,582
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#87 » by colts18 » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:49 pm

I don't see how CP3 or Nash should be ranked ahead of Stockton. Stockton was near their levels for his prime and was good for double the length of those two. The more years pass, the more underrated Stockton becomes.
Dutchball97
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,627
And1: 1,422
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#88 » by Dutchball97 » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:50 pm

2klegend wrote:1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.


If you provide a complete ballot your vote won't go to waste. I've voted for KD for the 4th or 5th time now myself but there are enough good options left to include a 2nd and 3rd choice.
Dutchball97
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,627
And1: 1,422
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#89 » by Dutchball97 » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:52 pm

colts18 wrote:I don't see how CP3 or Nash should be ranked ahead of Stockton. Stockton was near their levels for his prime and was good for double the length of those two. The more years pass, the more underrated Stockton becomes.


Stockton was never really all that close to being the best player in the league. Nash was a back to back MVP and CP3 was a very close second, along with several more years as a top 5 player.
Jordan Syndrome
Rookie
Posts: 1,204
And1: 937
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#90 » by Jordan Syndrome » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:54 pm

Since the Slim Reaper fans are out at full force...and because I am really attempting to wrap my head around TS Add...Let's compare two superior players to Durant in Chris Paul and Steve Nash.

Steve Nash's teammates (With Nash's teams and without his teams) with respect to TS Add/48 Minutes.

Amar'e Stoudemire (2003, 2004): .42 / 1.00
Amar'e Stoudemire (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010): 4.90 / 4.46 / 6.31 / 3.75
Amar'e Stoudemire (2011, 2014): 1.37 / 2.35

Shawn Marion (2002, 2003, 2004): -.13 / .83 / -.12
Shawn Marion (2005, 2006, 2007): 1.16 / 2.45 / 1.99
Shawn Marion (2008 With and Without Phoenix, 2009, 2010, 2011): 1.86 / -1.34 / -.73 / -.27 / .38

Boris Diaw (2004, 2005): -.59 / -1.33
Boris Diaw (2006, 2007, 2008): .90 / .75 / -.71
Boris Diaw (2009 With and Without Phoenix, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016): 1.52 / .48 / .25 / .47 / 1.39 / 1.11 / -.26 / 1.18

Raja Bell (2004, 2005): -.68 / -.11
Raja Bell (2006, 2007, 2008): 1.57 / .69 / .58
Raja Bell (2011): -.30

Kurt Thomas (2004, 2005): -.44 / -1.30
Kurt Thomas 2006, 2007): -.24 / -.25
Kurt Thomas (2008, 2009): -.69 / -.32

Chris Paul's teammates (With Paul's teams and without his teams) with respect to TS Add/48 Minutes.

Blake Griffin (2011): .39
Blake Griffin (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017): 1.47 / 1.73 / 2.33 / .94 / .89
Blake Griffin (2018, 2019): -.67 / 1.25

J.J. Redick (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013): 2.16 / 1.52 / 1.70 / 1.41
J.J. Redick (2015, 2016, 2017): 3.58 / 4.02 / 2.00
J.J. Redick (2018, 2019, 2020): 2.58 / 1.96 / 3.41

Jamal Crawford (2010, 2011, 2012): 1.46 / .14 / -1.06
Jamal Crawford (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017): 1.12 / .80 / -.14 / -.58 / -1.15
Jamal Crawford (2018): -1.70

DeAndre Jordan (2011): 2.19
DeAndre Jordan (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017): 2.05 / 2.03 / 2.02 / 2.62 / 2.50 / 3.46
DeAndre Jordan (2018, 2019, 2020): 2.61 / 3.02 / 3.12


My main take aways from all of this data:
1) Stoudemire, Marion, and Bell all heavily relied on Nash to create efficient offense.
2) Diaw scales exceptionally well with talented rosters. His best numbers were with the MDA Suns and then Early 2010's Spurs.
3) Nash allowed players like Kurt Thomas to be "average" offensively when their skill-set was not an "average offensive skill-set. He allowed limited offensive players like Raja Bell become above average offensive players when they had little on-ball ability.

4) The Clippers struggled mightily after 2015 with Crawford's decline, Paul and Griffin's injuries. The team went from a 6-8 SRS team in the 2013-2015 years to a 4 SRS team in 2016 and 2017--they were no longer title contenders in 2016 and 2017.
5) Spot-up shooters like J.J. Redick scale exceptionally well next to Chris Paul and the team should have used Redick in much larger volumes.
6) As Jamal Crawford played on ball more and took more shots in isolation his TS Add decreased dramatically. Are players in Crawford's mold actually useful offensively?

My biggest take away is that Mike D'Antoni is a significantly better coach than Doc Rivers. Holy ****.
Jordan Syndrome
Rookie
Posts: 1,204
And1: 937
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#91 » by Jordan Syndrome » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:09 pm

1. Steve Nash

Best offensive player left in terms of Peak and Prime value (Reggie may take that). He is extremely portable to different era's given his shooting, passing and IQ and is an all-time great floor raiser as well as ceiling raiser. I don't have any questions about his level of play in the post-season and while his defense is questionable it is at the position of least need defensively.

2. Julius Erving

His ABA years tend to get a bit overrated but I see his NBA years as underrated. Complete career from a superstar to a transition to a 1B/2 star. Excellent player to have on a team and while I don't know if his skill-set is perfectly portable on paper he is willing and able to make himself fit next to any collection of stars and talent. I like his peak a hair more than Durant's and I am more impressed with Erving's consistency as a player relative to Durant (The next best Small Forward and competition here).

3. Chris Paul

I am unsure of how to differentiate Paul and Curry at the moment. They are contemporaries and more easily comparable versus Nash so I will need some time to decide but right now I will go with Paul. Reasonings: Cop-out, Advanced Stats Savant, Highest IQ player ever, Consistency into the post-season which get overblown by many (See David Robinson).

I have a lot of players in my next group who are not getting any traction and I will only be bringing up players who have legitimate traction.
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 49,105
And1: 11,830
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#92 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:10 pm

1. Julius Erving
2. Bob Pettit
3. Kevin Durant

We're getting into the range with players with peaks I like but aren't quote long enough (Nash, Moses, Curry, Wade, etc), or players who fall short from intangibles perspective to me (Barkley, Paul, etc.) or don't quite peak high enough (Stockton). Erving and Pettit are two of the best remaining as I'm high on them as peak players and are greatly respected leaders who did it consistently. Dr J has a legit peak in 76, and Pettit went toe to toe with other 60s guys voted in as far as I'm concerned.

I have issues with Durant, he's almost certainly a non top 20 regular season player for me, however I guess he makes up for it with some flat out dominant playoff/finals performances and his game scaling well to that environment.
Woke is a secular religion
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 16,906
And1: 19,231
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#93 » by Clyde Frazier » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:35 pm

Vote 1 - Julius Erving
Vote 2 - Charles Barkley
Vote 3 - Moses Malone

For years, erving's ABA career was looked upon as either insignificant to some, or far less significant than what he accomplished in the NBA. I've always felt he never got a fair shake as a result, although it seems he's more appreciated here than by the general public.

Interestingly, his TS% in his first 5 ABA seasons (55.8%) was identical to his first 5 NBA seasons. He remained an efficient player transitioning from the ABA to NBA.

And while it's a much smaller sample size, let's look at the playoffs while we're at it. His ABA playoff TS% was 57.5%, and his NBA playoff TS% (77-81) was 55.3%. Yes, there's still a decrease in production, but nothing that screams, "Man, this guy was really just an average player masquerading as a superstar in the ABA."

It's very possible that he peaked earlier than some other players do, and he would've performed just as well in the NBA in say 76. By all accounts, he was an absolute monster of a player that season, and from the games i've seen, there was no denying that.

The decrease in scoring production can also be attributed to his role changing when he went from the nets to the sixers. While he still led the sixers in scoring in 77, they had 3 other bonafide scorers in McGinnis, Doug Collins and World B Free:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1977.html

Gene Shue specifically asked him to take on more of a "jack of all trades" role as opposed to putting up big scoring #s, and erving followed suit. They would end up getting upset by the blazers in the finals, but making the jump to the NBA and going to the finals out of the gate was impressive nonetheless. He avg'd ~30 PPG, 7 RPG, 5 APG, 2.7 SPG and 1 BPG on 54% FG and 86% FT, which included a 40 pt performance in the 2 pt game 6 loss. He quickly made his mark on the NBA.

I think what he accomplished as far as winning and production is concerned should still be valued highly regardless of the league. I have no problem with weighing the ABA less, but his overall body of work is still substantial. He was also the face of an entire league that struggled to keep its head above water for its entire existence. That's a lot of pressure for a guy who could've just been another all star in the more stable NBA.

As his NBA career went on, he was still an extremely productive player (transcending the 2 leagues winning MVP in 81 at age 30) who went on many deep playoff runs. It's always my contention that great players need good players around them to win championships. Would Magic have still won rings without kareem? Yes, possibly, but very unlikely that he wins 5. Sixers finally got over the hump when they traded for moses, and erving achieved the elusive NBA title. They also steamrolled the playoffs that season going 12-1 (almost "fo fo fo"!) He had a solid finals putting up ~19 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 5 APG, 1 SPG and 2.8 BPG on 47% from the field and 80% from the line.

He had solid longevity, too. In his 16th season, he was still putting up ~17 PPG, 4 RPG, 3 APG, 1 SPG and 1.6 BPG on 53% TS. He retired as a productive player as opposed to fizzling his way out. It wasn't nearly as common back then to play 15+ seasons, either. Outisde of baylor and connie hawkins, erving really set the standard for the athletic wing like we'd never seen before. He would see a fleet of players (including jordan) try to emulate the way he played the game, and that means something. When you combine that with the fact that he was an elite player in his own right, I think he's more than deserving at this spot.
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 49,105
And1: 11,830
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#94 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:45 pm

therealbig3 wrote:As someone not taking part and observing in the background, I personally don't understand a Curry>Nash case, if we're looking beyond a ring count.

Nash has clearly demonstrated imo he's more "unguardable" against a wide variety of defenses in a playoff situation. He didn't need Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green around him to lead playoff offenses that were comparable to the 2017 Warriors playoff offense, and he's led multiple playoff offenses that are crystal clearly better than any other year of the Warriors dynasty under Curry.

I'm just not seeing the case for Curry over Nash offensively, at all...not in terms of team offense, not in terms of enabling teammates, not in terms of individual ability against elite defenses. And unless Curry is secretly a DPOY caliber player, any difference between them defensively is marginal at best and this pretty much gives Nash the victory in this comparison, no?


First off to point out the Suns never dominated as much on offense as the Warriors in the last 2 rounds of 2017, yes if you want to compare their performance against Utah as similar as the Suns playing the Spurs that would be reasonable, but it's not as if Nash's teams peaked higher on offense. Curry has led offenses in the regular season as dominant as the Suns. A handful of playoff series is a small sample size and I don't think the team evidence is really clear cut in either direction.

Secondly I would take Amare and Marion offensively over Klay and Draymond personally, Amare to me is the best offensive player either played with outside of Durant. He's a better fit for Nash than Klay is for Curry, I don't consider Klay to be a better fit for Curry than Pippen is for Jordan or Wade is for Lebron, having a guard with overlap strengths and weaknesses came back to bite them in several of the playoff series Curry struggled on offense because they didn't have enough ways to create other offense by ballhandling or post play. Nash and Amare is one of the best fits in history.

The Suns were ahead of their time by having dominant pick and roll (punting on defense/rebounding at C to do it) surrounded by shooters when people didn't know yet how effective this strategy was. I think there is a lot of reasons for their success on offense beyond just Nash carrying them. Finally it's far from irrelevant that Nash isn't good on defense.

With that said I can buy Nash over Curry, I'm not voting for either of them due to their prime longevity being a bit limited.
Woke is a secular religion
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,085
And1: 5,071
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#95 » by trex_8063 » Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:32 pm

I know you may be feeling picked upon, but there are a few things I wanted to respond to, a few points of clarification to provide [because I think the gist of certain opinions has been missed], and I’ll provide some data/info that hopefully may be of use for all….


Dutchball97 wrote:Seems like I opened the saltmines. I'm not even the guy who started about offense. I'm talking about overall impact. When looking at the regular season then D-Rob's overall impact has an argument for the back end of the top 10 or at least top 15.


I would say top 10 for rs only rather easily (particularly if longevity isn’t a big consideration for you).


Dutchball97 wrote: In the play-offs I'm looking at what they actually did and I'm sorry if you don't see KD as a more impressive play-off performer than D-Rob. Talking about KD like he has no defense is ridiculous as well. He definitely wasn't known for his defense in his early days, which is why I don't agree with 2014 being KD's peak. I prefer 2017 comfortably due to his much better play-offs that year. In terms of overall impact, which is offense and defense and everything inbetween.

Team defense might be equally valuable to team offense but we're looking at individuals here....


Team defense is the collective impact of five individual impacts (which, as you just stated, when added up can equal the value of team offense [which is also, when fully distilled, the sum of five individual impacts]).

Relating to this, I think you’re misinterpreting why so many people have been “piling on” the critiques in this thread. You’ve continually alluded to longevity as something that’s creating disagreement, and even more so you’ve repeatedly brought up the importance of playoffs vs regular season as the other major contributing factor to disagreement.

And certainly these philosophical differences contribute to the disconnect. But I think the larger issue that has created this blow-back you’ve been enduring is your view on offense v defense, and how this relates [directly] to comparisons like Durant vs Robinson, etc.

You’d implied that if Robinson was very close to Durant or Barkley offensively during the rs, then sure he can be considered better overall [in the rs] on account of his defense…...basically implying that defense is appropriate to use as a sort of tie-breaker, or to overcome a very small offensive gap; nothing more.
Ergo, because Durant is clearly more impactful offensively in the playoffs, he MUST be more impactful overall.

You’ve blithely dismissed any possible case for someone like Robinson, going so far as to take a sort of I’d-like-to-see-you-try [to make the case] attitude toward it (post #12), and also lumping Robinson together with Karl Malone (presumably because you view them as similar OFFENSIVELY in the playoffs [even though they’re worlds apart defensively]).
Durant is clearly better offensively, so that alone closes the book on the comparison as far as you’re concerned.

But THAT is where people are [primarily] disagreeing with you--->It’s not so much a fundamental disagreement on the importance of the playoffs that is creating the discord: it’s that you’re casually brushing aside the case for a player like Robinson because it’s built more around defense than on offense (and defense just doesn’t matter that much [to you]).

You further reinforced this philosophy with the statement [direct quote]: “defense isn’t half as important as offense”.

I [as well as everyone else who is piling on the critique] find this to be a pretty dubious statement. It’s a statement that---if taken literally---justifiably should be met with skepticism and frankly…..perhaps a pinch of doubt regarding the credibility/knowledgeability of the speaker.

You stated that looking at basketball as though it’s offense on one hand and defense on the other is a very flawed way of looking at it. That may be true to a degree…...but I guarantee that looking at it in this way [“defense isn’t half as important”] is a flawed way of looking at the game (and yes I’ll provide my homework below).

One poster called you out on this already, though said so with very little tact [almost framed it more as a personal jab, though that does NOT excuse you telling him to “**** right off”, btw. That’s in clear violation of forum rules; I didn’t issue a warning only because he was less than tactful and subsequently seemed to take your response in stride. But so I’m clear: that kind of response is never OK].
But it is indeed a highly questionable statement to make (and yes I’ll show my homework that demonstrates this below).

Btw, at one point itt you’d said “I’m not even the guy who started about offense”, but as far as I can tell you ARE the one who sort of kicked things off with that statement (in response to 70sFan alluding to the importance of defense). And it was stated without providing any proof or evidence (more on this below).

I mean, people often argue that an offensive superstar can influence or impact nearly every possession on offense in a way that a defensive superstar cannot. I’m not 100% sure that’s true, or at any rate am pretty certain it’s not true to NEAR the extent that those people typically think it is.

I’ll give an example related to the Rudy Gobert and the Utah Jazz that I’ve been a big fan of for the last few years…..

This past season the Jazz were 3rd in the league in terms of fewest 3PAs allowed [while also being 13th in 3P% allowed]; consequently they were 3rd in the league in made 3pters allowed per game.
In ‘19 they were 1st in 3PAs allowed while still being respectable [15th] in 3P% allowed; as result they were 2nd in the league in terms of fewest made 3pters allowed per game (and the one team who bested them played a slower pace--->the Jazz were actually tied for 1st in 3PM/100 possessions allowed).

One might try to say this has nothing to do with Gobert, since he’s guarding the interior; but in actuality it has A LOT to do with Gobert: the Jazz perimeter defenders are encouraged to close out hard at all times, to even chase opponents off the line--->basically deployed to take away the 3pt shot at the expense of having the opponent blow by them off the dribble. Why? Because they can do so with near-impunity because Rudy Gobert has got their backs.

Does a casual fan realize the cumulative play-over-play defensive impact this provides over the course of a whole game [or even realize this is happening at all]? I sincerely doubt it.
And does Gobert get any individual credit by way of a standard boxscore? No, he does not. But this is just one of numerous examples we could come up with of how a defensive INDIVIDUAL can be influencing nearly every possession defensively.

Kevin Garnett would provide numerous examples, too. I vaguely recalled on play [which I think was broken down in this project] against the Spurs: Duncan is deep in the post [on a semi-transition, iirc], trying to get the ball on the right block (the ball on the wing). Garnett does a fantastic job denying an entry pass, so Duncan aborts action and fades back toward the weak-side block as the wing passes back to the top of the key [Parker?] just as I believe a screen was coming to Parker’s left; a shooter is camped in the weak-side [left] corner. The shooter’s man is hedging to help on the roll-man as Tim Duncan see’s what is developing and subtly tries to position himself to screen Garnett away from helping on the corner shooter…..problem is Garnett seems to have sensed the play even before Duncan did and quickly gets around Duncan to be in help position. And he’s so long and athletic he basically positions himself in a way that he still has contact with Duncan while also being in a position he can easily close on the shooter if the pass goes there. Thus the pass never happens; Garnett blew up the play before it could happen. Parker ends up driving into the paint, Garnett steps up and forces an extremely difficult shot which misses, though he did leave Duncan only partially boxed out, so Duncan gets the offensive rebound; but then Garnett contests that put-back too, which again misses, and Garnett gets the rebound.

Most casual fans only notice that the Spurs missed two shots before Garnett got a rebound; that’s it.
But Garnett first denied a deep post score before eliminating a potential corner trey attempt, before drastically altering TWO shots before securing the rebound.

Against a defender like Amare Stoudemire you probably either see the Spurs get a DEEP post isolation attempt by Duncan OR a wide-open corner trey for a teammate.

And a player like Garnett is influencing plays in a similar way all the time.

Dutchball97 wrote: An individual's offense, especially an individual who is the first option for a team like KD or D-Rob, has a higher impact than individual defense.


Again, you state this as though it’s a given; but I don’t see where you’ve offered anything beyond conjecture as evidence.

I actually took the time to look at 23 seasons [‘97-’19] of RAPM data, comparing the league-best ORAPM and the league-best DRAPM in each year. I also tabulated the top 10 ORAPMs/DRAPMs in each season, and compared the average of those top 10’s.

If individual defense “isn’t half as important” as individual offense, this should be reflected by way of the elite DRAPMs being only about half [or even less] of the elite ORAPMs.

But as it turns out, the league-best DRAPM was actually HIGHER than the best ORAPM every year except two between ‘97-’05. So that’s 7 years out of 23 where the best DRAPM was not only above half the best ORAPM, it was above the ORAPM period.
The average of the top 10’s was higher for DRAPM than for ORAPM for 5 seasons (‘01-’05).

And it’s perhaps not surprising that all of those years were circa-2000, given that was a slowed down defensive grudge-match era. That’s why they made the rule-changes [such as the hand-checking rule] to open the game up and make it more high-scoring.

Overall, for all 23 years, the league-best DRAPM averaged out to being 86.8% as high as the league-best ORAPM (range of 54.4% to 157.5%).
The avg of top 10 DRAPMs averaged out to being an almost identical 86.9% of the ORAPM top 10 avg (range of 52.5% to 121.8%).


So whereas you’ve suggested it “isn’t half as important”, the best evidence we have on the topic suggests it actually carries 80-90% the same value (and that’s even with recent years trending things toward offense-favourable rules and officiating [which is reflected in the ORAPM/DRAPM splits]).
I suspect if we had this data going back to the NBA’s origins, it might skew things slightly back in defense’s favour [especially with Bill Russell influencing the numbers].


Dutchball97 wrote: How else do you explain Trae Young being an All-Star when no amazing defender with bad offense even comes close to getting any accolades? Is it just casuals who are biased?



Yes! Or rather, just oblivious to much of what is going on during a game.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 9,085
And1: 5,071
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#96 » by trex_8063 » Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:37 pm

1st vote: Julius Erving
Another nice 2-way player. Could potentially fill up the boxscore in a variety of ways: scoring, rebounding, perhaps an underrated passer, active on the help D. If he has a weakness, I think it's his on-ball man defense.
His carry-job in '76 looks ridiculous on paper; it's just hard to gauge based on how weird [diluted] the 70s appear in general, and then in the ABA to boot. But he was the uber-anchor on BOTH sides of the ball for that team, which rolled on thru to a title.
Got 16 total seasons, coming into the ABA as an instant super-star, and retaining true All-Star status thru at least his 14th; still a very very good role player in his final two seasons (even a fringe All-Star in '86).


2nd vote: Chris Paul
The last two spots were a bit of a toss-up between CP3, Barkley, and perhaps John Stockton [again, I value longevity, and yes I think he was that good]. I could potentially be influenced to switch things, but for now I'm leaning slightly to Paul after the season he just put together in his 15th season (15 seasons in which he's never been worse than fringe All-NBA 3rd Team material [except in probably '10 when he simply missed too many games]).

3rd vote: Charles Barkley

I'm rushed right now, or I'd write more. I don't have time right now to tally things and get the next thread going. Hopefully in the next hour?....
Sorry guys.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 22,520
And1: 4,789
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#97 » by penbeast0 » Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:59 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:1. Julius Erving
2. Bob Pettit
3. Kevin Durant

We're getting into the range with players with peaks I like but aren't quote long enough (Nash, Moses, Curry, Wade, etc), or players who fall short from intangibles perspective to me (Barkley, Paul, etc.) or don't quite peak high enough (Stockton). Erving and Pettit are two of the best remaining as I'm high on them as peak players and are greatly respected leaders who did it consistently. Dr J has a legit peak in 76, and Pettit went toe to toe with other 60s guys voted in as far as I'm concerned.

I have issues with Durant, he's almost certainly a non top 20 regular season player for me, however I guess he makes up for it with some flat out dominant playoff/finals performances and his game scaling well to that environment.


Love the Pettit mention. He isn't there for me yet but if they are still both on the board, count me as one who thinks he was superior to Elgin Baylor (the 5th and 6th best players of the early 60s with a strong drop off after them to the next group of players -- Thurmond, Sam Jones, Greer, etc.). Pettit had the efficiency edge (magnified by #s relative to the league), scored as much, rebounded more (though part of that was role -- Pettit was a 4/5 while Baylor was a 4/3), and had a stronger defensive rep. The only real Baylor argument is that Baylor was a better passer (again, some of that is role dependent) plus maybe an argument that Baylor's playoff production was more in line with his regular season numbers. However, despite being a couple of years older (in an era when league efficiency was increasing strongly) and a bigger dropoff from rs, Pettit's playoff scoring efficiency was still higher for his career than Baylor's by a little so I don't see that as particularly strong.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Jordan Syndrome
Rookie
Posts: 1,204
And1: 937
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#98 » by Jordan Syndrome » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:08 am

penbeast0 wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:1. Julius Erving
2. Bob Pettit
3. Kevin Durant

We're getting into the range with players with peaks I like but aren't quote long enough (Nash, Moses, Curry, Wade, etc), or players who fall short from intangibles perspective to me (Barkley, Paul, etc.) or don't quite peak high enough (Stockton). Erving and Pettit are two of the best remaining as I'm high on them as peak players and are greatly respected leaders who did it consistently. Dr J has a legit peak in 76, and Pettit went toe to toe with other 60s guys voted in as far as I'm concerned.

I have issues with Durant, he's almost certainly a non top 20 regular season player for me, however I guess he makes up for it with some flat out dominant playoff/finals performances and his game scaling well to that environment.


Love the Pettit mention. He isn't there for me yet but if they are still both on the board, count me as one who thinks he was superior to Elgin Baylor (the 5th and 6th best players of the early 60s with a strong drop off after them to the next group of players -- Thurmond, Sam Jones, Greer, etc.). Pettit had the efficiency edge (magnified by #s relative to the league), scored as much, rebounded more (though part of that was role -- Pettit was a 4/5 while Baylor was a 4/3), and had a stronger defensive rep. The only real Baylor argument is that Baylor was a better passer (again, some of that is role dependent) plus maybe an argument that Baylor's playoff production was more in line with his regular season numbers. However, despite being a couple of years older (in an era when league efficiency was increasing strongly) and a bigger dropoff from rs, Pettit's playoff scoring efficiency was still higher for his career than Baylor's by a little so I don't see that as particularly strong.


Consider me someone who is strongly considering Pettit at #20 (With CP3, Barkley, Stockton) and I don't have Baylor on my radar.
DQuinn1575
Rookie
Posts: 1,038
And1: 344
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#99 » by DQuinn1575 » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:18 am

trex_8063 wrote:


Again, you state this as though it’s a given; but I don’t see where you’ve offered anything beyond conjecture as evidence.

I actually took the time to look at 23 seasons [‘97-’19] of RAPM data, comparing the league-best ORAPM and the league-best DRAPM in each year. I also tabulated the top 10 ORAPMs/DRAPMs in each season, and compared the average of those top 10’s.

If individual defense “isn’t half as important” as individual offense, this should be reflected by way of the elite DRAPMs being only about half [or even less] of the elite ORAPMs.

But as it turns out, the league-best DRAPM was actually HIGHER than the best ORAPM every year except two between ‘97-’05. So that’s 7 years out of 23 where the best DRAPM was not only above half the best ORAPM, it was above the ORAPM period.
The average of the top 10’s was higher for DRAPM than for ORAPM for 5 seasons (‘01-’05).

And it’s perhaps not surprising that all of those years were circa-2000, given that was a slowed down defensive grudge-match era. That’s why they made the rule-changes [such as the hand-checking rule] to open the game up and make it more high-scoring.

Overall, for all 23 years, the league-best DRAPM averaged out to being 86.8% as high as the league-best ORAPM (range of 54.4% to 157.5%).
The avg of top 10 DRAPMs averaged out to being an almost identical 86.9% of the ORAPM top 10 avg (range of 52.5% to 121.8%).


So whereas you’ve suggested it “isn’t half as important”, the best evidence we have on the topic suggests it actually carries 80-90% the same value (and that’s even with recent years trending things toward offense-favourable rules and officiating [which is reflected in the ORAPM/DRAPM splits]).
I suspect if we had this data going back to the NBA’s origins, it might skew things slightly back in defense’s favour [especially with Bill Russell influencing the numbers].




So I came at this a different way - I looked at the NBA each year since 1977 (the merger), and took the standard deviation of points per 100 possessions for the offense, and the Standard deviation of the defense. If the variation is more for offense, then there is more of a spread between good and bad. The largest offense deviation was 4.22, the smallest 2.16, and the average 3.30. The average defense deviation was 2.96 - 89.9% of the variance as offense - and right in line with the 86.9% you got on an individual basis. This is team based, which of course is made up of individuals, but came up with basically the same result - the variance in defense play is about 90% of that of offense, so defense is 90% of offense. This is one of the things I wanted to do in the project, and glad you did this to spur me on to do this now.
Joey Wheeler
Starter
Posts: 2,401
And1: 1,331
Joined: May 12, 2017

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #18 

Post#100 » by Joey Wheeler » Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:38 am

I'm probably too late to join the voter pool as I've been away from this forum for a while, but just in case I'll leave a ballot

1-Kevin Durant

Should already be in, don't see any case for some of the guys already in over him. GOAT level scorer, imo the best ever in that regard along with Jordan, his insane volume and efficiency holds up even in the biggest stage in the Finals. Very good longevity already too.

2-Charles Barkley

One of the best offensive players ever, super efficient scorer, great offensive rebounder, he was outright dominant during his prime.

3-Moses Malone

I don't like his skillset for the modern NBA, but his in-era dominance can't be denied, he dominated the league and was an enormous difference maker. You could argue for a higher spot, but again I don't think his game has really aged well.

Return to Player Comparisons