RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #74 (Giannis Antetokounmpo)

[trex_8063]

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. Stephen Curry
25. Bob Pettit
26. John Stockton
27. Steve Nash
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Patrick Ewing
30. Walt Frazier
31. James Harden
32. Scottie Pippen
33. Elgin Baylor
34. John Havlicek
35. Rick Barry
36. Jason Kidd
37. George Gervin
38. Clyde Drexler
39. Reggie Miller
40. Artis Gilmore
41. Dolph Schayes
42. Kawhi Leonard
43. Isiah Thomas
44. Russell Westbrook
45. Willis Reed
46. Chauncey Billups
47. Paul Pierce
48. Gary Payton
49. Pau Gasol
50. Ray Allen
51. Dwight Howard
52. Kevin McHale
53. Manu Ginobili
54. Dave Cowens
55. Adrian Dantley
56. Sam Jones
57. Bob Lanier
58. Dikembe Mutombo
59. Elvin Hayes
60. Paul Arizin
61. Anthony Davis
62. Robert Parish
63. Bob Cousy
64. Alonzo Mourning
65. Nate Thurmond
66. Allen Iverson
67. Tracy McGrady
68. Alex English
69. Vince Carter
70. Wes Unseld
71. Tony Parker
72. Rasheed Wallace
73. Dominique Wilkins
74. ???

Target stop-time will be around 9pm EST on Wednesday.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[HeartBreakKid]

Criteria

Spoiler:

I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health f their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.

1) Bill Walton. He is the best player by far here. He was probably a top 3 player in the world during his last couple years in college as well, though I believe this is NBA only. I am quite certain that Bill Walton is a top 20 peak ever. He is a top ten defensive anchor which alone adds more value than anyone left, and his offensive passing can generate very efficient offenses without him needing to score.

2)) Nikola Jokic. #2 vote I'll give to the only guy who is large and passes better than Walton. I'm not a longevity guy but Jokic has actually been a star caliber player for longer than people think. He was greatly underplayed in his 2nd season and Malone was criticized for that even back then. He has 4 seasons of all-star impact and two seasons where I had him as the 2nd best player in the league. I do think his offense is so special from his position that it causes an imbalance that makes him more valuable than two way bigs. His scoring ability might be the best among all the bigs left, and what's great about him is that he doesn't need to score a lot to have impact. Walton's defense is so intense that I can't imagine taking Jokic over that, but everyone else left is a tier or 2 down from either Walton's offense or his defense.


3) Giannis Antetokounmpo - I can see why he isn't getting much traction as he's still young. Though he has 6 seasons of being a good player and 5/6 of them he was all-nba caliber I think. Two well deserved MVP's is nothing to scoff at and even though he is slammed for his playoff failures he still did make the conference finals. I am fairly convinced that his crazy ability to finish in the paint as well as have the handles to get into there produces so much gravity that if he played with another real star you wouldn't be able to just "stay back and let Giannis shoot". As he is now he still requires 3-4 guys jumping in the paint - what if you replaced Khris Middleton with Curry, Bryant, Durant, Pierce etc - these are all guys who were 2nd options or co-anchors of teams. Seems like a lot of players who do not have MVP caliber teammates are held to the same standards as guys with them which does not make sense to me. I can see why me picking Jokic would be controversial, but Giannis seems pretty primed for this type of competition - I don't think he is any less valuable than Anthony Davis, and I am still not sure how Davis winning a title with LBJ convinces people that he is a much better post season player than Giannis.












Moncrief> K Johnson> B Wallace >B Jones> McAdoo > Nance > Greer> Hornacek > C Anthony

[trex_8063]

1st vote: Giannis Antetokounmpo
I'd previously bumped McAdoo in favour of Giannis, and subsequently bumped Big Mac even further. As I look closer, I find I'm having a hard time justifying putting him ahead of a few others too [while maintaining integrity of my process/criteria].

Thinking about it, really the ONLY thing I'm comfortable saying McAdoo is better at than Giannis is shooting [and admittedly he's a good ways better there]. But I think Giannis is at least a tiny bit better and literally everything else (and probably by pretty good margins at things like defense, finishing, and getting to the stripe).

Further, McAdoo's meaningful longevity is barely an edge over Giannis: he seemed to decline so quickly post-merger [or perhaps him struggling to thrive as a superstar post-merger is an indication he wasn't as dominant as '74 and '75 would have us believe?? just being devil's advocate there], and was relatively injury-dinged much of the time.

So yeah, I'm gonna go with Giannis [whose playoff woes are over-blown, imo, though I tend to value rs achievement more than most anyway].


2nd vote: Kevin Johnson
With the scandals in his personal life, it's almost as though the basketball community has turned their heads on this guy [certainly it seems like the only justification for him NOT being in the HOF yet, imo]. His longevity isn't great, but he was a near-monster in his prime.
Only a 3-time All-Star, but right there is a perfect example of how fallable accolades can be.
Take '89 as an example: KJ averaged 20.4 ppg @ +6.0% rTS and 12.2 apg anchoring the 2nd-rated offense [55-win team overall].......did NOT make the All-Star team [though was at least recognized All-NBA 2nd Team that year]. Even after Magic had to bow out of his All-Star appearance due to injury, KJ was NOT selected to replace him [instead they gave an ancient Kareem a legacy nod]. Meanwhile there were also guys like Dale Ellis and Kevin frickin' Duckworth on the West's AS team.

KJ would be at or near the helm of several elite or near-elite offenses: in the 7-year span of '89-'95 the WORST offense seen in Phoenix was a +3.9 rORTG; the best was a +6.2 [average was +5.11 rORTG.......again, that's over SEVEN years].
I'll try to provide some WOWY data for him later.


3rd vote: ???
Oh boy.....
Not sure who to go with, though it's definitely a cluster of PF [or combo forwards] who are in contention: Bosh, Marion, Nance, Grant, and McAdoo. I'm pretty sure those are the next 5 guys I'll be championing [in some order]. The only others I'm seriously considering are a couple of polar opposite under-sized centers: Ben Wallace and Dan Issel.
After that [in another interchangeable cluster] are guys like Hill, Jones, Melo, Worthy, and Moncrief.

So......[throws dart]: Chris Bosh(??)


Among those who have received votes of any kind, I'm tentatively going with this order:
Giannis > KJ > Bosh > Marion > Nance > McAdoo > Wallace > Jones > Rodman > Greer > Hornacek > D.Johnson > Walton/Jokic (I need to think more about where I'd have Jokic in relation to Walton, though presently leaning Walton > Jokic; both are outside my top 100 as of 2020, though, so unlikely to be ahead of many players who may come up in Condorcet for me).

[Hal14]

1. Dennis Rodman
2. Dennis Johnson
3. Tiny Archibald

Rodman was:

-Top 5 rebounder of all time - arguably the best
-Top 5 defender of all time - arguably the best
-In terms of running through a wall to make a play, going all out to help his team, hustle, diving on the floor for loose balls - he's also top 5 of all time in that, arguably the best
-Won 5 titles. Was a top 3 player on his team for 3 of those titles (96-98) and probably a top 3 player on the other 2 (89, 90)..many people even think he should have won finals MVP in 96.

To me, that's good enough to be a top 70 player of all time. Sure, you can say that he couldn't score and that he was a head case who at times caused team turmoil - but that's why he's here and not 20 spots higher.

Love him or hate him, you've got to respect that he was one of the greatest players of all time:

Watch on YouTube

Johnson was Finals MVP in 79. The dude was an animal. Flying around the court like a bat outta hell, some of the best defense a guard has ever played. Going all out, hustling, taking it strong to the rim.

Next, let's look at 84. 83-84 was his first year on the Celtics. The year before that in 83 the Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Yes, KC Jones taking over as coach was a factor as well, but the Celtics adding Johnson was a HUGE reason why they went from being swept in the 2nd round in 83 to NBA world champs beating the Lakers in the finals the very next year in 84 (with Magic and Kareem in their prime).

In both 84 and 86 Johnson was one of the team's top 4 players, came through in the clutch time and time again and Bird is on record saying that Johnson was the best teammate he ever played with (meaning Bird thinks Johnson was better than Parish and Mchale).

Johnson was one of the best defensive guards of all time, easily one of the top 10 defensive guards ever. The guy had very good size and strength at the PG position which made him a tough matchup, early in his career had great explosiveness and athleticism, he could score inside, drive to the basket and as his career went on developed a deadly outside shot - especially in the mid range area, not as much from 3 because at the time 3's weren't being taken very much across the league (early in his career there was no 3 point line), plus he could rebound well, unselfishly looked to get the ball to his teammates but would make you pay dearly if you ignored him too much on offense, plus of course his outstanding defense.

Solid longevity, played 14 seasons (13 of which he played 27+ mins a game and all of them he played in 70+ games) which was solid for that era, especially considering he played in a ton (180 to be exact) of playoff games.

How about durability? The guy always played, he was always in the lineup. Out of his 14 seasons:
-he played 72+ games in 14/14 (100%)
-he played in 77+ games in 12/14 seasons (86%)
-he played in 80+ games in 7/14 seasons (50%)

How about Rasheed's durability?
-he played 72+ games in 14/16 (63%)
-he played in 77+ games in 8/16 seasons (50%)
-he played in 80+ games in 10/16 seasons (13%)

[penbeast0]

1. Bobby Jones, NBA history's greatest "glue guy," with super consistency and versatility, although a defensive star instead of an offensive one. Note that Jones has more 1st team All-Defense teams than any other player in history with 11 (2 ABA). He was 1st All-Defense team every year of his career until his final one where he was 2nd team. One of only 4 guys to ever average 2 blocks, 2 steals in a season and the only one not named Hakeem to do it twice (76, 77 with rounding to nearest 10th). Offensively, he was an 10-15ppg guy who, despite not being a post-up big, led the ABA/NBA in fg% three times and was an excellent passer as well. FInished 2nd and 4th in MVP voting in his two highest minute seasons. All this despite asthma that limited his stamina.

2. Giannis -- Very short prime but appreciably more than Bill Walton, the only player with a higher peak left. That and he didn't demand to be one of the highest paid guys in the league for a decade while only making it to the playoffs once.

3. Shawn Marion I know he complained about his role in Phoenix but it never seemed to affect his play on the floor. Terrific player even before Steve Nash, with Nash he ascended to amazing levels; always thought of him as the co-MPV on those SSOL teams (with Amare as overrated).



I am looking at Redman, Nance, H. Grant, Greer, Jeff Hornacek, Moncrief, McAdoo, Hawkins, DJ, Ben Wallace in roughly that order (lots of new names being mentioned). Those are subject to change and new players to be added. I don't have Walton on my top 100 despite his iconic status (and not sure about Hawkins or even Moncrief either). I don't see Jokic as top 100 without including this year.

[Dutchball97]

1. Giannis Antetokounmpo - Not the best longevity as he's only 26 and needed a few seasons to grow into his own but at this point in the list I'd definitely argue that 4 elite seasons that include solid post-season play every one of those years is really good. We've already voted in players with similar longevity to that and Giannis' peak is nothing to scoff at. He just lacks that one play-off run that cements him as elite in the post-season to place him ahead of the likes of Arizin or AD in my book. That said I do think Giannis' perception suffers from the same thing as Harden and that's the post-season play generally not living up to the standards set by their insane regular season play even though they still perform really well in the play-offs. Giannis had a disappointing post-season last year but he still had a 31.3 PER, .238 WS/48 and 11.2 BPM over 9 games. Bud's schemes not holding up, Bledsoe starting and Middleton seemingly unable to make a shot when Giannis is on the floor with him are the things that I blame more for the Bucks second round exit than I do Giannis' performance.

2. Nikola Jokic - I might be voting for Jokic for a while but I think he deserves to make the list at least. Jokic' case is very similar to Giannis in my opinion. Both have 4 high level years along with 1 other positively contributing year. While both have 4 great regular seasons it is clear Giannis has the edge up till 2020, which is why I have him ahead. The difference in longevity is just Giannis' first two years when he was barely a replacement level player so if you're fine with Giannis being voted in this range, how can you justify not having Jokic not in your top 100 at all? Their play-off resumes are comparable at this point as well. Giannis has 5.8 WS and 3.4 VORP in the post-season so far compared to 5.5 WS and 3.5 VORP for Jokic. Giannis has reached the play-offs more often (5 times) than Jokic (2 times) but both have 3 play-off series wins at this point. While Giannis has played 10 more games than Jokic, the reason why the numbers are still close is that both of Jokic' runs were arguably better than any of Giannis' play-off outings. I just think this is closer than a lot of people think already.

3. Ben Wallace - Boxscore stats generally don't do defensive specialists justice but even so Ben Wallace still comes out looking very well in stats like WS and BPM. Despite a relatively short 6 year prime Ben still has pretty solid longevity at this point in the list as well. The main factor why I'm voting for him here is his excellent post-season play. 3 consecutive post-season runs with 3+ WS and 1+ VORP is very impressive. That alone would be a strong play-off pedigree at this point but he has multiple other very solid performances in the post-season as well. His pivotal role for the Pistons in some very deep runs and even a championship shouldn't be understated.

Kevin Johnson > Gus Williams > Sidney Moncrief > Anfernee Hardaway > Horace Grant > James Worthy > Bobby Jones > Jeff Hornacek > Shawn Marion > Larry Nance > Hal Greer > Bob McAdoo > Dennis Rodman > Bill Walton > Dennis Johnson

[sansterre]

1. Larry Nance - Don't laugh. I know that nobody else has mentioned him (except for TRex bringing his name up to me). But I'm telling you, Larry Nance was considerably better than you think. You know that Bill James observation that people like players who do one thing historically well more than players who are quite good at everything (Lou Brock vs. Ron Santo is a good example - Santo was miles better, but Brock was more historically notable). Anyhow. This applies to Nance particularly. He was an athletic 6'10" power forward who played strong defense. He consistently posted strong defensive stats (Block% above 3.5 and Steal% above 1 for much of his career) and pretty much every metric we have (which are, in fairness, mostly box score driven) really like his defense. But he was no Hakeem or Ewing. He was merely an unusually good defending 4. He also rebounded well, averaging 13+% TRB for most of his career, but he was never great. Just quite good. Passing/ball control? His turnover were low for a big, and his assists were in the "not a liability, but definitely not strong" for a big. His scoring? His usage rate was rarely higher than 22%, and his PP75 were never much above 21-22%. But his efficiency was exceptional, posting seven different seasons with an rTS% above +5, and four above +6. You know who his statistical (not play style, just statistical) comp is? Kevin McHale.

McHale: 30.1k minutes, 22.4% usage, +6.7 rTS, 13.2% Reb, 8.1% Ast, 11.7% TO, 0.6% Stl, 3.2% Blk, +2.4 / +0.1 / +2.5
Nance: 30.7k minutes, 20.6% usage, +4.9 rTS, 13.6% Reb, 11.8% Ast, 11.3% TO, 1.4% Stl, 3.8% Blk, +2.3 / +1.4 / +3.6

They're comparable as rebounders. As passers Nance has a small edge. McHale is clearly the better scorer but Nance (according to box score metrics) was the notably better defender. Now, I'll be the first to admit that McHale's defense is underestimated by DBPM. I'm not trying to suggest that Nance was the better defender necessarily. But if I said "Picture McHale, slightly worse scorer, comparable defender and slightly better passer" . . . that's a pretty good player, right? And I'll stipulate that McHale's scoring took a jump in the postseason where Nance's didn't, but still. McHale got in a while ago. And it's worth mentioning that McHale's WOWYR numbers are fairly humdrum (+3.6 prime) compared to Nance's +5.1 prime.

So if Nance was so good, why is nobody talking about him? Because his teams never won. He was dominant on a series of decent Phoenix teams, and then they traded Nance and immediately took off. That may sound like a bad look for Nance but Phoenix got a haul for him. They basically got West and Corbin (their quality defensive bigs for the next five years) and Dan Majerle while replacing Nance with free agent Tom Chambers. Both teams got what they needed. And in Nance's twilight years (where he was still very good) his Cavs were quite good, breaking 50+ wins several times. But he was never on a team that made the Finals. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Nance was an excellent all-around player that both impact metrics (WOWYR) and box score metrics think very well of.

2. Shawn Marion - Pretty much every box-score stat *loves* Marion. He's at least a standard deviation above the mean of this group in BackPicks, PIPM, WS and VORP (in this group he is 3rd, 3rd, 2nd and 2nd respectively in those metrics). He's a really, really weird player. Given his success in box score metrics you might guess he was a scorer but he really wasn't. His usage in his prime was above average (but usually in the 22-23% range) and his efficiency was in the +0% to +2% range for much of it. His only strong shooting seasons were from '06 to '08 with Steve Nash, for which Nash perhaps deserves some credit. But Marion, whether he played a big SF or small PF was a ferocious rebounder for his position/height. If I ask StatHead for players 6'7" or under with seasons at 13% TRB or better, I get Charles Barkley having 14, and then next is Shawn Marion tied with Wes Unseld with 11. I'm not trying to sell you on Marion being a Rodman, he wasn't, he was just a really, really great rebounder for his size. He was never a good passer, but he mitigated the cost there by turning the ball over very rarely (consistent AST:TO > 1). And he was really, really good on defense. Not Bill Russell or anything, but he was a really strong defensive wing. With the understanding that these are just steals and blocks, if I ask StatHead for players that averaged 2.5% steals or better, and 2% blocks or better, I get 6 of Marion and Hakeem, 5 or Erving, 4 of Wade and Kirilenko and then others at 3. Blocks and steals are not great stats, but those are all extremely athletic players. After his prime, Marion reinvented himself as something of a rebounding/defensive specialist, and was a critical piece of the 2011 Mavericks. He played a long career (40k minutes) and also had a strong (if not flashy) prime. His AuRPMs are good but not as good as you'd think (slightly below average for this group) and his -> playoff numbers weren't great. But given his blend of strong prime *and* strong longevity, Marion is hard to pick against here. Unless you like flashy scorers. Then don't vote Marion.

3. Jeff Hornacek - "Jeff Hornacek!?" you say. "Jeff Hornacek" I say. There are simply not metrics that he looks bad in. His BackPicks BPM, Win Shares CORP and VORP CORP are all well above average for this group. His PIPM is a little underwhelming, though still above average. And his peak WOWYR of +5.2 is one of the best in this group. Surprising, right? And yet, he's weirdly excellent.

Let's imagine that we looked for strong (but not dominant) shooting guard seasons. We're looking for a 2nd/3rd option, so sub 22% usage. He needs to break an OBPM of +2, TS above 57% and post PPX above 22. But we want him to be a solid passer who doesn't make mistakes, so AST% > 22% and TO% below 12.5%. That's a pretty specific player I just asked for. But Hornacek had six of those seasons; nobody else had more than 1. What if I loosened the terms? If I allowed usage rates higher than 22% I'd get Jordan and Kyrie tying with him. If I dropped the shooting efficiency requirement Fat Lever had four of those seasons. If I remove the assist requirement Hornacek had 8 seasons, with Reggie Miller and J.J. Reddick having 5 each. My point is, I'll stipulate that Hornacek was only an average usage player. But within those constraints he 1) scored efficiently, 2) passed well (or at least for volume), 3) turned the ball over very little (Assist:TO of 2.5 for much of his career) and 4) overall contributed to offenses at a solid level. And he did it for a long freaking time. He never really had a "Peak" because his seasons were metronomically excellent. He put up four straight 3+ VORP seasons in Phoenix, then another five in Utah. So if you're trying to remember Hornacek's time when he dominated the league . . . you won't find it. He was merely really good for a very long time.

And he kept showing up on strong teams. His age 25 season (1989) was when the Suns took a big step forward. Was he the one driving it? No, KJ was. But Johnson surely benefited from the spacing that Hornacek provided. And by VORP, Hornacek was the 2nd best player on both the '89 and '90 Suns (two teams that made my Top 100 list). In '92 The Suns posted a +5.68 RSRS with Hornacek as their best player (according to VORP). From 1992 to 1993 the Suns replaced Hornacek with Danny Ainge, and replaced Tim Perry and Andrew Lang with Charles Barkley and Cedric Ceballos. And the team's RSRS improved by . . . +0.59. Perry + Lang -> Barkely + Ceballos is clearly a monster upgrade. And Danny Ainge was no pushover. Was losing Hornacek a bigger blow than we thought? I don't want to overplay it; KJ missed almost half the year and that was clearly a driving force. And I'm not trying to sell you on the idea that Hornacek was a Barkley-level player. He wasn't. But even with KJ missing some time, you'd think the jump from '92 to '93 would be bigger than it was. Unless Hornacek was actually better than anyone realized.

And then Utah. Here are their seasons starting at '93:

1993: 47-35, +1.74 RSRS
1994: 53-29, +4.10 RSRS
1995: 60-22, +7.76 RSRS
1996: 55-27, +6.25 RSRS
1997: 64-18, +7.97 RSRS

They acquired Hornacek in the middle of one of those seasons; any guesses which?

Look. This is all slightly circumstantial. There are other factors that explain why the Jazz went from being decent to being the best team in the conference besides Jeff Hornacek. But Hornacek was clearly a big part of it.

Naysayers would argue that Hornacek was a bad first option. This is totally true. He had no business running your offense as the primary ball handler. But as long as he wasn't asked to take more than 20% of the team's shots he'd space the floor, can shots at a well-above average rate, pass well, not screw anything up and generate a fair number of steals. And the combination of these things had a consistent and genuine impact, even if no one of them is particularly remarkable.

We don't have AuRPM for his whole career, but here are his numbers with the Jazz starting at Age 31:

+3.4, +2.8, +5.9, +5.2, +4.5, +3.1

Two +5 seasons toward the tail-end of his career? That's damned impressive.

Nance > Shawn Marion > Hornacek > Terry Porter > Horace Grant > D.Green? > Kyle Lowry > B.Wallace > Eddie Jones > Bosh > Bellamy > Jokic > A.Kirilenko > Hill > M.Cheeks > B.Walton > P.George > Giannis > Webber > LaMarcus Aldridge > KJ > D.Issel > A.Iguodala > H.Greer > Moncrief > J.Worthy > A.Hardaway > B.Jones > J.Butler > D.Lillard > D.Johnson > D.Rodman > C.Mullin > B.McAdoo > K.Irving > K.Thompson

[Odinn21]

3. Jeff Hornacek - "Jeff Hornacek!?" you say. "Jeff Hornacek" I say.

There are some fundamental issues in your approach.
First, there are many players you can not evaluate them by looking at their impact numbers because those numbers are not reliable enough.
Second, your "against heliocentricism" approach is not earned by the players available at this point. It made sense when the on court production was given and close. For example David Robinson vs. Dirk Nowitzki. But we're at a point that gaps in on court production are bigger and open to different interpretations.

There's literally no way that Jeff Hornacek was better/greater than Kevin Johnson. None, whatsoever. And these were teammates on an offensive powerhouse in the late '80s / the early '90s. No team or time difference. I always think Hornacek as a budget Ginobili, as somewhat joke but also rather serious. What you're doing is like saying Manu Ginobili is greater than Russell Westbrook or Isiah Thomas.

[sansterre]

3. Jeff Hornacek - "Jeff Hornacek!?" you say. "Jeff Hornacek" I say.

There are some fundamental issues in your approach.
First, there are many players you can not evaluate them by looking at their impact numbers because those numbers are not reliable enough.
Second, your "against heliocentricism" approach is not earned by the players available at this point. It made sense when the on court production was given and close. For example David Robinson vs. Dirk Nowitzki. But we're at a point that gaps in on court production are bigger and open to different interpretations.

There's literally no way that Jeff Hornacek was better/greater than Kevin Johnson. None, whatsoever. And these were teammates on an offensive powerhouse in the late '80s / the early '90s. No team or time difference. I always think Hornacek as a budget Ginobili, as somewhat joke but also rather serious. What you're doing is like saying Manu Ginobili is greater than Russell Westbrook or Isiah Thomas.

Oh Odinn, it's been a long time since you declared that I was obviously wrong about something. I kind of missed it.

Impact metrics are only one factor in my rankings. I won't lie that Hornacek comes out looking good whether I use WOWYR or his available years of AuRPM. And KJ's impact metrics for '89 and '90 are excellent I am sure. I don't weight KJ's WOWYR numbers much at all on account of how WOWYR isn't very reliable that far back. But still.

Here's the thing. I'm kind of allowed to vote however seems best to me as long as it isn't outright bone-headed. Hilariously, if I just voted for the remaining players in order of points per game over their career, my rankings might produce less consternation. Or, for that matter, if I just voted for the player that was the biggest name on the most teams that won a title. I don't really care about either of those.

I would never try and tell you that KJ at his best was worse than Hornacek at his best. KJ at his best was really, really good. Sure, he was only 6'1" and not particularly good at defense. And sure back in those days, he wasn't a particularly good shooter at range. But his distribution and rim-attacking skills were elite. Hornacek at his best was very good, KJ was better.

But KJ only had *eight* seasons where he played at least 1900 minutes. If I upped the standard to 2100 minutes he'd only have *six*. Hornacek has twelve, by either standard. For a voter looking at total career value instead of just peak, is it really that crazy to imagine a rational person thinking that Hornacek's career might have more value?

So yeah, Hornacek was never the highest usage player on his teams. But, surprise, KJ never was either. So you can't even really argue that KJ was a first option when Hornacek wasn't; neither of them were. If you mean that Hornacek was never the best player on a Top 100 team (on my list) compared with Johnson, that's totally understandable. Hornacek did play on more (4 to 2) but that isn't necessarily fair.

If you're arguing who had the flashier skillset it's obviously Johnson. And if you're arguing who collected more MVP shares it's almost certainly KJ (though I haven't checked). Then again, Hornacek was the prototypical floor-spacing smart-passing third option, a kind of player that the league of the 90s really didn't appreciate that much. Nowadays a Ray Allen or a Klay Thompson gets a fair amount of respect, but Hornacek in the 90s? I'm not saying Hornacek was as good a scorer as either (for the first eight years of their careers Hornacek shot 1% better but on 4.4% lower usage than Thompson) but Klay was almost pure finisher while Hornacek was a successful second distributor (Hornacek averaged 2.4 times as many assists per 100 as Klay, but turnovers only 20% higher). And Hornacek rebounded better. OBPM actually likes Hornacek's first eight seasons over Klay's.

In the modern game, if a combo spacer-distributer was throwing up consistent RPMs in the +4 and +5 range, he'd get a fair amount of love. A pretty good number of all-stars. Not MVP love, but still. But in the 90s? Hornacek got *one* all-star game. Nobody at the time realized, not only how good he was, but how valuable a player of his type was. He's like the anti-Iverson, who at his peak was the darling of the voters, but in retrospect probably wasn't as good as he seemed. Hornacek, a floor spacer before that was really in vogue, was good at a lot of things. That he could play on the Jazz and throw up some pretty high AuRPMs (at the end of his career) even on a team with Stockton and Malone is a pretty strong indicator of the kind of impact he could have even when accounting for his teammates.

I don't expect other people to agree.

If your position is that KJ was "Greater" than Hornacek, sure. Whatever that means.

But if you think reasonable minds could not find that Hornacek had more Career Value than KJ . . . I think that you're wrong. Hornacek has more win shares and VORP in both the regular season and playoffs, and while KJ had better peak seasons, he also had a lot of seasons where injuries cratered his value. I'm not saying that the Win Shares / VORP thing is dispositive. I'm just saying that, from a Career Value point of view, Hornacek has a legitimate argument.

If I've somehow misunderstood this process, and I'm *actually* supposed to be picking the guy who would sell the most shoes, then Hornacek's about to drop a long way down on my list . . .

[Odinn21]

...

First and foremost, you'd vote however you think, feel, want, etc.

I don't like throwing around floor and ceiling raising too much. Hornacek was a ceiling raising complementary player. To enable Hornacek, you'd need a player that Hornacek would complement, quite possibly a better player. He's the reason why the Jazz started to better in the playoffs. But there's no way he is a top 80 material. His prime doesn't stack up enough.

But KJ only had *eight* seasons where he played at least 1900 minutes. If I upped the standard to 2100 minutes he'd only have *six*. Hornacek has twelve, by either standard. For a voter looking at total career value instead of just peak, is it really that crazy to imagine a rational person thinking that Hornacek's career might have more value?

This looks like you've gone too overboard with valuing longevity. It looks like you're almost disregarding entire up ticks coming from peak/prime quality.

A quick example;
KJ played barely 1350 minutes in 1994-95 regular season. And if Barkley hadn't sh.t the bed in the 4th quarter with constant turnovers, KJ was on the verge of pulling one of the greatest game 7 victories against the Rockets. Chances of getting a performance like that from Hornacek is like one fifth of KJ looking at their postseason track record.

Which one gave his teams higher chance of winning with their direct individual performance and impact?

So yeah, Hornacek was never the highest usage player on his teams. But, surprise, KJ never was either. So you can't even really argue that KJ was a first option when Hornacek wasn't; neither of them were.

KJ to Chambers was pretty similar to Nash to Amar'e. Yeah, KJ wasn't the #1 scoring option but he was still their offensive creator, their main hub on offense. So, it's not exactly apples to apples in here. You could trust KJ as if he was a #1 scoring option, he has good and enough performances to back that claim up and you couldn't with Hornacek.

Having Hornacek this high comes off as "that's what you'd want from a player on a contending team" and while it's a good instinct, it's not the only or the big angle to consider.

[sansterre]

...

If you think I undervalue peak, that's certainly possible.

But let's not act like KJ was invincible at his best. He posted three seasons at the bottom of the Top 10 in OBPM (and he certainly wasn't adding much value on defense), and finished twice at the bottom of the top ten in MVP voting. A damn sight better than Hornacek's best for sure, but I feel like the consensus is that KJ was one of the top 3 players in the league in his prime or something and that just wasn't the case (at least by no standard we have presently).

I'm serious, there simply aren't metrics that like KJ better than Hornacek. PIPM thinks they're comparable over their career, and Hornacek comes out ahead on pretty much everything else.

I could totally be wrong. The metrics could totally be wrong. But I feel like there are a lot of heuristic biases in play that favor KJ:

1) The flashy skillset bias. Johnson had a really flashy skillset (you know who had comparable/better OBPM numbers around the same time? Mark Price. You know who *nobody* likes more than KJ? Mark Price. You know who has a boring-@ss skillset compared to KJ? Mark Price. Doesn't make him worse though).
2) The memorable story bias. KJ was memorable for leading the Suns into contention in '89 and '90. Is that really what happened? There were a *lot* of emerging players on those teams; they'd just added defensive bigs in West/Corbin, Hornacek was developing, Majerle was developing and they'd just added Tom Chambers. KJ certainly made a leap that season, but the entire roster changed around him by '89. So he got a lot of the credit for the upgrade, but he probably got more credit than he deserved. Nevertheless, the storyline became "Kevin Johnson leads the Suns into contention, but injuries derail a career that otherwise would have no doubt led to greatness."
3) The What-If bias. Players who *should* have gone on to greatness but missed time always seem to get the benefit of the doubt in conventional analysis. Walton *should* have gone on to greatness. Jordan *could* have won more titles in '94 and '95. KJ *should* have gone on to be one of the Top 10 PGs of all time. But when you're looking at career value, none of those things show up. Jordan didn't play in '94? Cool. Zero value. KJ only had six seasons above 2100 minutes? Cool.

Hornacek didn't have a dramatic or flashy skillset. He was simply really good at several things and made a big difference for his teams in his role. I know that conventional analysis dislikes players like that, but it doesn't make them worse.

To be clear, none of the above right now is arguing (specifically) that Hornacek was definitely better than KJ. It's just arguing that the "there's no way that Hornacek was more valuable than KJ" position may not be quite so ironclad.

[trex_8063]

...

First and foremost, you'd vote however you think, feel, want, etc.

Good debate on both sides.

Having Hornacek this high comes off as "that's what you'd want from a player on a contending team" and while it's a good instinct, it's not the only or the big angle to consider.

tbf, sansterre could come right back at you with an argument that ends with that same line.

Obviously I'm higher on KJ [as he's on my ballot], but I don't think it's absurd to be considering Hornacek at this stage, and I'd personally like to see him get some traction at some point before we reach 100. I too am a total career value guy, though.
I could see raising him higher in my listing (ahead of Greer, and possibly Rodman as well; that's where it ends I think: can't see putting him ahead of B.Jones or Wallace).

Between considerations about longevity and defense (Hornacek was actually passable [net neutral] on that end for most of his career......might have even been a tiny net positive a couple years; KJ was not....ever), it's not as crazy a comparison as it might appear at first glance.

Hornacek is definitely on my short-list of most underrated players. His portability on good teams is probably better, fwiw; otoh, he's more "replaceable" than KJ, too.

And I generally agree Hornacek's value really only comes thru as a complimentary piece (with [better?] talent around him).
Take the '93 Sixers as an example: he suddenly finds himself as the "1b" [to Hersey Hawkins] on a weak cast......and the result is a 23rd-ranked offense, 26 wins, -5.25 SRS (they were awful defensively, too).
Hornacek is putting up 19.1/6.9 (which is his highest apg by a good margin, 2nd-highest ppg [though career-highest in pts/100]), but it's to little effect. They're still struggling to keep their heads above water.

A player like KJ raises that floor quite a bit more, imo.

AuRPM

For clarity, I've assumed you're referring to AuPM [from Ben Taylor's works], yes?

Do you use RAPM for the years it's available? In terms of impact, it's more "pure" (though not necessarily more *accurate).
*Though in terms of accuracy, it's surely A LOT better than WOWYR. otoh, WOWYR is available for nearly all eras (and I can certainly understand wanting to use the "same yard-stick" wherever possible).
But for '97 on, RAPM is certainly the superior tool.

EDIT: fwiw, Hornacek still looks fantastic from '97-'00 via RAPM.

[sansterre]

AuRPM

For clarity, I've assumed you're referring to AuPM [from Ben Taylor's works], yes?

Do you use RAPM for the years it's available? In terms of impact, it's more "pure" (though not necessarily more *accurate).
*Though in terms of accuracy, it's surely A LOT better than WOWYR. otoh, WOWYR is available for nearly all eras (and I can certainly understand wanting to use the "same stick" wherever possible).
But for '97 on, RAPM is certainly the superior tool.

EDIT: fwiw, Hornacek still looks fantastic from '97-'00 via RAPM.

I don't really know where it comes from; there's just an AuRPM sheet floating in the ether (somebody sent me a link on the forums) that I snagged that has values from '94 on (and some select values earlier than that). I don't have any problem switching from AuRPM to RAPM for more modern years. I know you linked some pages and I poked them briefly but I need to dig those back up.

But yeah, every single impact-specific metric (WOWYR, AuRPM, RAPM) seems to really, really like Hornacek.

And I'll freely stipulate that he was a garbage floor-raiser.

But it surely is possible for Hornacek to be a more valuable ceiling-raiser than KJ was a floor-raiser (over their careers).

If Hornacek had played for weak teams, would he even sniff this list? Definitely not. He'd need a good team situation that needed ceiling-raisers to shine. Which he totally had. But if we're allowed to punish players for playing in not ideal circumstances, we're surely allowed to reward people for absolutely making the most of the situation they were given. If you're making a "Take this player, replay his career (with missed time) a thousand times on a thousand different teams and estimate their total career value" argument, then yeah, KJ probably wins that. Hornacek would be of little value (and was, given a small sample size) on a mediocre or worse team.

But if all we're doing is evaluating how valuable their career was as it actually happened then an excellent ceiling-raiser who lucked out by being on good teams his whole career can absolutely put together a career that put up Top 100 career value.

That's the argument anyway. As always, could be wrong.

[Odinn21]

...

There are things you're basically putting words about them in my mouth.

I didn't say KJ was a top 3 player in the league. I didn't say KJ has to be that good because he was flashy.
Mark Price is a good mention. He's one of the Gs from the '90s that I'd easily consider over Hornacek. Why not Price or Porter but Hornacek? Why not Moncrief, Lillard, Greer from different eras?

---

Ah, OBPM mention. Let's take a look at OBPM for offense;

Kevin Johnson from 1988-89 to 1995-96
529 games, 19083 minutes, 4.3 obpm, 0.076 o-vorp per 48 in regular season
87 games, 3420 minutes, 4.3 obpm, 0.079 o-vorp per 48 in playoffs

John Hornacek from 1989-90 to 1996-97
550 games, 19053 minutes, 2.7 obpm, 0.053 o-vorp per 48 in regular season
67 games, 2451 minutes, 3.2 obpm, 0.057 o-vorp per 48 in playoffs

Outside of those 7 seasons, Hornacek added value to his career in 1988-89 and his last 4 seasons in the league & KJ had a good regular season in 1996-97 and a good playoffs in 1998.

KJ's playtime doesn't fall short of Hornacek's in prime to prime comparison. His offensive output comes off as the higher one and it's not that close.

As for defense, we're not comparing one of them to Moncrief in here. The gap on defense (I doubt if there's a meaningful one TBH) is negligible.

If Hornacek truly could be compared to Kevin Johnson, why did not '93 Sixers do better? Floor and ceiling raising happen simultaneously, not separately. Why his offensive efficiency went down despite he had his 2nd best season in per game numbers (2nd highest ppg, 3rd highest rpg and the highest apg)? And why his team did not do any better than 26 wins and -5.25 srs?

---

2) The memorable story bias. KJ was memorable for leading the Suns into contention in '89 and '90. Is that really what happened? There were a *lot* of emerging players on those teams; they'd just added defensive bigs in West/Corbin, Hornacek was developing, Majerle was developing and they'd just added Tom Chambers. KJ certainly made a leap that season, but the entire roster changed around him by '89. So he got a lot of the credit for the upgrade, but he probably got more credit than he deserved. Nevertheless, the storyline became "Kevin Johnson leads the Suns into contention, but injuries derail a career that otherwise would have no doubt led to greatness."

This is how usually plays out. Take a look at rosters and minute allocations of 2003 Suns, 2004 Suns and then 2005 Suns. Nash was the driving force of his team, and he got the credit for it.

If I (or anyone else active in the project) were big on what-ifs, we'd be talking about Penny Hardaway or Bill Walton would've made the list by 20 spots earlier.

What I see is, you're arguing over general conceptions those are not present in here and you're trying to over-correct those general perceptions.

[trex_8063]

I don't really know where it comes from; there's just an AuRPM sheet floating in the ether (somebody sent me a link on the forums) that I snagged that has values from '94 on (and some select values earlier than that).

Could you post the link just so I can see? I suspect it's the same one I have, which is I believe the work of Ben Taylor.
I know of RPM and of AuPM, but had never heard "AuRPM", that's why I ask.

Although as I understand it AuPM [short for Augmented Plus/Minus] more or less is, in principle, RPM ["Real" Plus/Minus, as found on espn.com]......just slightlyly different in the actual methodology. So calling it AuRPM is sort of po-TAY-to/po-TAH-to; just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

I don't have any problem switching from AuRPM to RAPM for more modern years. I know you linked some pages and I poked them briefly but I need to dig those back up.

But yeah, every single impact-specific metric (WOWYR, AuRPM, RAPM) seems to really, really like Hornacek.

Very true.
It would be interesting to see what he looks like in that '93 season previously referenced, for comparison. Alas....

And I'll freely stipulate that he was a garbage floor-raiser.

But it surely is possible for Hornacek to be a more valuable ceiling-raiser than KJ was a floor-raiser (over their careers).

Sure.

If Hornacek had played for weak teams, would he even sniff this list? Definitely not. He'd need a good team situation that needed ceiling-raisers to shine. Which he totally had. But if we're allowed to punish players for playing in not ideal circumstances, we're surely allowed to reward people for absolutely making the most of the situation they were given.

I don't necessarily advocate either.

If you're making a "Take this player, replay his career (with missed time) a thousand times on a thousand different teams and estimate their total career value" argument, then yeah, KJ probably wins that. Hornacek would be of little value (and was, given a small sample size) on a mediocre or worse team.

While perhaps not specifically using a Monte Carlo simulations model you describe, to some degree many of us do attempt to evaluate these players "in a vacuum", as it were: trying to size up what kind of player they were (rather than what happened to them).
It's tricky, though, because to a degree we're forced to utilize what ACTUALLY transpired to inform our opinions.
While I think it's important to not overly-reward [or punish] players for shear dumb luck [or lack thereof], I admit I do sometimes caution others to not try TOO hard to TOTALLY remove luck from the equation [because the speculation just gets too noisy].

But it's still important to think about. Especially when we have evidence ['93] that Hornacek is not going to thrive in just any old environment in the same way that KJ could.

Sort of on the same topic, it's important to always remember impact metrics [particularly the "pure" ones] are not measuring "player goodness"; they're measuring player goodness + utilization/role + fit/chemistry.

But if all we're doing is evaluating how valuable their career was as it actually happened then an excellent ceiling-raiser who lucked out by being on good teams his whole career can absolutely put together a career that put up Top 100 career value.

That's the argument anyway. As always, could be wrong.

There's no right or wrong way, necessarily; to each his own (as long as it's actually about basketball). Though for myself, I want to evaluate the player himself [not the circumstance he found himself in] as much as I can safely manage.
I think many feel similarly. ALTHOUGH I occasionally feel some chose to correct/not correct for luck rather selectively.

[sansterre]

...

What I see is, you're arguing over general conceptions those are not present in here and you're trying to over-correct those general perceptions.

1) I've already said that I'm looking at career value. Saying that KJ's prime was better isn't really persuasive, as I haven't really argued that point.
2) Saying that neither of them are Moncrief-level defenders so therefor are comparable defensively is pretty disingenuous. Obviously we don't know, but the limited metrics we have like Hornacek far more, and Hornacek's reputation defensively is generally about neutral, where KJ's reputation varies from 'average' to 'rly bad'. Given the data at hand, we probably should assume that Hornacek was the more valuable defender, perhaps by a fair amount.
3) That said, I'll stipulate that if we were going purely by offensive value, I'd give it to KJ even for career value. But I don't think there's a lot of evidence for that position.
4) Likewise, if I've already stipulated that Hornacek was bad at floor-raising, saying "but he was bad at floor-raising!" won't really be persuasive.

We have 9.4k minutes from KJ in the AuRPM window. His numbers:

1994: +2.3 for 2.5k minutes
1995: +0.8 for 1.4k minutes
1996: +2.4 for 2.0k minutes
1997: +0.7 for 2.7k minutes
1998: +0.7 for 1.3k minutes

We have 13.9k minutes from Hornacek in the AuRPM window. His numbers:

1995: +3.4 for 2.7k minutes
1996: +2.8 for 2.6k minutes
1997: +5.9 for 2.6k minutes
1998: +5.2 for 2.5k minutes
1999: +4.5 for 1.4k minutes
2000: +3.1 for 2.1k minutes

I'll be the first one to say that AuRPM isn't magic, or guaranteed accurate or anything. But it's basically saying that in the second 40% of their careers Hornacek was way, way more valuable to his teams than KJ was to his.

Their box score numbers for these seasons?

Hornacek: 0.179 WS/48, +3.0 OBPM, +0.6 DBPM, +3.6 BPM
Johnson: 0.181 WS/48, +4.1 OBPM, -0.4 DBPM, +3.6 BPM

So the box score metrics think they were comparable per-minute, but Hornacek played more, making him more valuable.

You may argue that VORP is biased against KJ because it has Hornacek's DBPM as considerably higher than KJ's. And that DBPM is highly unreliable. But how then do you square the fact that AuRPM thinks that Hornacek was *way* more valuable for this span of their careers?

My position is pretty simple: most metrics seem to think that Hornacek added more career value than Johnson did. Box score, Impact, whatever, they're all fairly aligned.

For me to believe that KJ had a more valuable career I'd pretty much have to believe:

1) that AuRPM is garbage and means nothing; and
2) that WOWYR is garbage and means nothing; and
3) that KJ's box-score metric value underrates him because
a) it doesn't realize that he was actually a good defender and/or
b) it underrates how earth-shaking his offensive impact during his prime seasons was.

I'm not at #1, am halfway to #2, don't have any reason to believe 3a and am open to 3b, but there isn't a lot of evidence for it.

[sansterre]

While perhaps not specifically using a Monte Carlo simulations model you describe, to some degree many of us do attempt to evaluate these players "in a vacuum", as it were: trying to size up what kind of player they were (rather than what happened to them).
It's tricky, though, because to a degree we're forced to utilize what ACTUALLY transpired to inform our opinions.
While I think it's important to not overly-reward [or punish] players for shear dumb luck [or lack thereof], I admit I do sometimes caution others to not try TOO hard to TOTALLY remove luck from the equation [because the speculation just gets too noisy].

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tNsaR8RwgEkGy57U_P4j1eAzYF9VnyOmIv6I2t3r4is/edit#gid=0 is the AuRPM sheet I yanked out of another sheet.

And I think that by far the best argument against Hornacek is that if you neutralize for luck with roster fit, he drops way out of the Top 100.

But for a numbers-based analysis I really, really, really don't know how to skew for that. Numbers are really good at figuring out how good a certain season was, but not so much about how it would have been in another context.

Maybe at some point I'll figure out a reliable way to adjust my ratings for that sort of roster-independent evaluation. But until then I kind of have to play them like they lie. And by that standard Hornacek is pretty valuable.

[Odinn21]

For me to believe that KJ had a more valuable career I'd pretty much have to believe:

1) that AuRPM is garbage and means nothing; and
2) that WOWYR is garbage and means nothing; and
3) that KJ's box-score metric value underrates him because
a) it doesn't realize that he was actually a good defender and/or
b) it underrates how earth-shaking his offensive impact during his prime seasons was.

I'm not at #1, am halfway to #2, don't have any reason to believe 3a and am open to 3b, but there isn't a lot of evidence for it.

David Robinson was a better player than Allen Iverson in 2000-01 season.
Manu Ginobili was a better player than Paul Pierce in 2005-06 season.
Ray Allen was a better player than Dirk Nowitzki in 2009-10 season.
Just because AuRPM/RAPM/WOWYR saying so. Agreed or disagreed?

You still are not looking at +/- and wowyr data without roles in consideration. AuRPM is not garbage but you're taking it as if the nature of the stat is not role reliant.
Hornacek had massive +/- data while playing for the Jazz as a clear 3rd best player next to Karl Malone and John Stockton who had even higher +/- valuations. All of my examples are basically ceiling raisers in their ideal situations vs. floor raisers. Doesn't mean they were better.

[sansterre]

For me to believe that KJ had a more valuable career I'd pretty much have to believe:

1) that AuRPM is garbage and means nothing; and
2) that WOWYR is garbage and means nothing; and
3) that KJ's box-score metric value underrates him because
a) it doesn't realize that he was actually a good defender and/or
b) it underrates how earth-shaking his offensive impact during his prime seasons was.

I'm not at #1, am halfway to #2, don't have any reason to believe 3a and am open to 3b, but there isn't a lot of evidence for it.

David Robinson was a better player than Allen Iverson in 2000-01 season.
Manu Ginobili was a better player than Paul Pierce in 2005-06 season.
Ray Allen was a better player than Dirk Nowitzki in 2009-10 season.
Just because AuRPM/RAPM/WOWYR saying so. Agreed or disagreed?

You still are not looking at +/- and wowyr data without roles in consideration. AuRPM is not garbage but you're taking it as if the nature of the stat is not role reliant.
Hornacek had massive +/- data while playing for the Jazz as a clear 3rd best player next to Karl Malone and John Stockton who had even higher +/- valuations. All of my examples are basically ceiling raisers in their ideal situations vs. floor raisers. Doesn't mean they were better.

So, to rephrase your argument in the light that I would consider most favorable, is it fair to say the following:

"For players whose value derives primarily from offensive performance, their metrics need to be scaled back in accordance with their role, so a #2 option with similar stats to a #3 option should be considered the superior player."

If this is the case, what's your cutoff? A point? Two points? How much value is a role difference worth? Not trying to be sardonic, I'm genuinely interested.

[Odinn21]

So, to rephrase your argument in the light that I would consider most favorable, is it fair to say the following:

"For players whose value derives primarily from offensive performance, their metrics need to be scaled back in accordance with their role, so a #2 option with similar stats to a #3 option should be considered the superior player."

If this is the case, what's your cutoff? A point? Two points? How much value is a role difference worth? Not trying to be sardonic, I'm genuinely interested.

"so a #2 option with similar stats to a #3 option should be considered the superior player."
This is an interesting interpretation because I think I've been very clear about roles and how I see loads coming from those roles.

- How much value is a role difference worth?
Depends on the situation. Let's take a look at different situations shall we? Assume the following teams without KJ or Hornacek please.
You have a team like 1993 Sixers. They are at the rock bottom. Is having KJ or having Hornacek better for that team?
You have a team like 1997 Suns. They might make the playoffs but it's obvious that they'd have a hard time to make the 2nd round. KJ or Hornacek?
You have a team like 1990 Suns. They are good for a 2nd round or a conf. finals exit with a solid offensive driving force. KJ or Hornacek?
You have a team like 1993 Suns. They have a chance to be contenders with an all-star level player next to their superstar. KJ or Hornacek?
You have a team like 1997 Jazz. They have a chance to be contenders with a solid #3 player next to their superstars. KJ or Hornacek?

I went bottom of the league > barely making the playoffs > solidly making the playoffs but not contending > contending for the NBA title. If you see a different situation, let me know. Having Hornacek over Lillard/KJ/Moncrief/Greer/Price is playing out as a player more impactful as a #3 is better than higher motor, higher effort, higher on court production players. What's the chance of having a team that'd make use of Hornacek more/better than those guards?