Transplanting from last thread as it's still relevant....
DCasey91 wrote:
I like that analogy if we were playing for value
We are to some degree, no?
Does '16 Curry [the only unanimous MVP in NBA history, I think] not have value (and a bloody lot of it) because he didn't win? Is '04 Billups better or more valuable than '16 Curry because Chauncey won?
DCasey91 wrote:
If the goal wasn’t to win as much as value as possible but the true goal was to win the prize Walton is on a different level of
Again: IF the window in which to do it is ONE season [one "hand"]. Absolutely. If the window with which to achieve "the prize" is one year, obviously you go with Walton 100% of the time vs any of the secondary/tertiary stars we're talking about.
But if the window is a player's whole career?......that's a valid question, even if your focus is STRICTLY on "the prize" only.
Let's remember: a title is not guaranteed just because you have the league's best player. If it were, Lebron would have like 10 titles, Jordan would probably have like 9, Wilt would have more than 2, etc.
You can note that Walton DID win the title.....but I'm talking about turning away from result-oriented thinking.
*What if he'd had a worse supporting cast that particular year?
**What if he didn't have that brilliant coach who unleashed Walton's value?
***What if his organization said "you're a star, and you're going to play as much as one" and thus didn't cater to Walton's relative "fragility" (and instead played him 36 mpg and didn't rest him for a quarter of the season).....and thus his body broke down by the '77 playoffs (something which happened in '78 anyway).
****What if we allow him the same team circumstance, but plunk them into a more competitive league?
What if, what if, what if. It's never a sure thing.
Again, in terms of championship odds added, '77 Walton might add something like *30% odds [over a replacement level player] in a vacuum. (*This 30% [and figures to follow] are just spit-balled figures, though not far off perhaps from the values suggested by those who take the deep-dive into CORP methodology.)
30% added chance because it depends on so many other factors (what kind of cast is assembled around him, what/who is between them and "the prize", coaching, luck with injuries, etc). Again, it's FAR from a guarantee.
'78, from strictly "prize"-
only focus, has only a little above 0%, frankly.....because his body broke down by the post-season [we're talking about a fairly literal no-show for the playoffs].
'86 maybe adds something like 10%.
Other seasons combine add up to only a little [probably <10%], mostly because he just wasn't healthy or available.
And that's it.
A player like prime Horace Grant perhaps never adds more than maybe something like ~12-15% in any single season [nothing close to the 30% peak Walton added]......but he gives you 7-8 of those prime seasons, plus at least 5-7 years giving you some small shred [like 3-5% added].
The odds [of assembling the necessary cast around Grant] are longer, because you frankly need MORE help than you do with peak Walton (you need players actually BETTER than Grant)........and that's harder to come by, even though someone like Grant leaves you more money/resources to work with (more on that below).
But you have such a BIGGER window of time in which to make it happen [whereas Walton gives you ONE good chance, one other fair chance, and mostly nothing else].
A useful way of thinking of this might be another game of chance analogy......
Suppose having peak Walton gives you something like a coin-flip chance of winning it all, whereas with Grant it's more like a standard 6-sided dice where a 6 ONLY is a win.
With Walton you have a 1 in 2 chance; with Grant your chances are just 1 in 6......but with Walton you get
ONE flip of the coin, but with Grant you get SEVEN rolls of the dice.
With Walton, there is a 50% chance you walk away without winning your flip.
With Grant---after seven tries---there is only 27.9% chance you walk away without ever rolling a 6.
I'm not saying those are the actual probabilities, but you hopefully get the gist. It's counter-intuitive for many people, but sometimes the lesser player who provides the
MUCH longer window is actually the one who ultimately provides higher probability of winning "the prize" [eventually].
Now, one can certainly argue, "Perhaps; but that second player [Grant, or whoever] also requires a longer time-commitment to see it thru to full fruition. Whereas with Walton you can take your [brief] try, go busto, and move on to someone new (while the other franchise is still waiting and seeing with their Grant-like player)."
And that's a totally valid counterpoint, which I can't entirely dismiss.
However, one potential counter-counterpoint might be in noting that the BIG star [like Walton, or whoever] also typically comes with a much higher price tag (told you I'd come back to this). So although you need LESS help to place alongside him [relative to Grant] to get you over the hill, you also have LESS money with which to obtain that cast.
And this can be especially troublesome if you're locked into a huge contract with an always-injured player (as WAS the case with Walton, incidentally). Walton was a huge salary drain [for both the Blazers and Clippers, iirc] during years in which he either wasn't playing, or was barely playing.
Anyway, food for thought, I hope.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
