RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 (Walt Bellamy)

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

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 (Walt Bellamy) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Mon May 17, 2021 3:18 am

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. Giannis Antetokounmpo
75. Kevin Johnson
76. Bobby Jones
77. Bob McAdoo
78. Shawn Marion
79. Dennis Rodman
80. Larry Nance
81. Ben Wallace
82. Hal Greer
83. Grant Hill
84. Sidney Moncrief
85. Damian Lillard
86. Chris Bosh
87. Horace Grant
88. Jeff Hornacek
89. Billy Cunningham
90. Dan Issel
91. James Worthy
92. Carmelo Anthony
93. Terry Porter
94. Cliff Hagan
95. Nikola Jokic
96. Jack Sikma
97. Gus Williams
98. Draymond Green
99. ????

Around 11pm EST on Tuesday to conclude this one.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

DCasey91 wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,633
And1: 21,560
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#2 » by Doctor MJ » Mon May 17, 2021 3:26 am

Repeating vote.

Doctor MJ wrote:Alright...

1. Connie Hawkins
2. Bill Walton
3. Chris Mullin

Other preferences in order:

Spoiler:
Zelmo Beaty
Mel Daniels
Bernard King
Tiny Archibald
Buck Williams
Dave DeBusschere
Dennis Johnson
Tom Heinsohn
Jerry Lucas
Walt Bellamy
LaMarcus Aldridge


Hawk love letter:

I think there's never been anyone like him, before or since. I'm dying to see more footage of him, because honestly I think he's got a bunch of moves that we don't have names for.

The roots of Hawkins becoming what he became are a story not of some kind of inevitable success through sheer talent, but of a guy with great talent getting bounced around and picking up stuff as he went.

Hawkins was a star in each of the following places:
1. The Schoolyard
2. Golden Age NYC High School Basketball
3. ABL
4. Harlem Globetrotters
5. ABA
6. NBA

All 6 of these things are a big deal, though I'll note that I'd consider (1) and (4) the best for understanding how Hawkins became what he became where (5) and (6) represent the proof in the pudding.

To speak on (1), the thing to understand is that play in the school yard all day is what the "good" Black boys did in this era. You were either playing basketball, or you were getting involved in gangs, pimping, and eventually drugs. So if you had basketball talent, this is where your family wanted you. Stay on the court, where it's safe.

And from the perspective of these Black kids, when they played (white) kids from other places, they just always got the sense that those white kids were far less experienced, because they were doing a lot of things other than playing basketball.

So, while Hawkins was dominating the incredibly high quality ball of NYC back then too, the Schoolyard was always where he developed his game. Just trying different things.

Others noted that while Hawkins lacked confidence in general, and was a poor reader and a poor student, he was an extremely quick learner when he saw someone else do something on the basketball court. When an opponent did something with the ball against Hawkins, Hawkins seemed to instantly have a new tool.

It's also important to note that in the Schoolyard, Hawkins didn't start out as The Man. He learned to play by fitting in around others who were older and better. We're talking about a kid who was playing against NBA pros (in the NBA off-season) before he was a High School star, so when he was playing those games, he wasn't just going in as the star. He learned to fit in. He learned how to be an aware passer before he learned to be a scorer.

About (3), so as many of you know, Hawkins was banned from college due to point shaving scandal (he later won a lawsuit clearing his name), so he ended up getting an opportunity in Abe Saperstein's ABL, which had various former NBA pros and a 3-point line. In the lone full season of that league, Hawkins would win MVP.

This is obviously impressive for a guy basically straight out of high school - and speaks both to his talent and how much experience he'd already had beyond just playing against other high schoolers - but I'd also argue that if not for the existence of the ABL, there's a good chance Hawkins would have died on the vine. He didn't have any other great skills other than basketball, so most likely he'd have ended up like many of his other peers still in Brooklyn which was being taken over by a see of heroin.

But his performance in the ABL, led to an invitation to join Saperstein's flagship product: The Harlem Globetrotters.

And as fortune would have it, Sweetwater Clifton - former New York Ren, Globetrotters, NBA all-star - played in the ABL that year with Hawkins, and re-joined the Globetrotters at the same time as Hawkins. And he told Hawkins basically, "You don't realize what kind of things you can do with those big hands!"

He mentored Hawkins on the ways you can use your ability to easily palm a hand. More flexibility when driving, more ways to protect the ball when you're guarded, myriad tricky passes, and the ability to rebound with just one hand so you can use your other arm (ahem, elbow) to fend of opponents.

I've noted before that big hands seem to be a Harlem Globetrotter thing. Beginning with the team's first clown - Goose Tatum - along through Clifton, Meadowlark Lemon, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Hawkins, and others - the Globetrotters seemed to look for guys with big hands in a way that the NBA has literally never done. I've also seen it noted that a particular Globetrotter was held back by his hand size despite being naturally very comedic.

There's a kind of trickery you can do with hands like this that lends itself well to comedy through basketball actions, and this raises the question of whether these Globetrotters were much better at certain basketball skills than NBA players.

There the answer is yes with an asterisk. Most of the tricks the Globetrotters did, while they required great skill, were not designed to hold up against actual defenders, and this was a source of frustration for Hawkins who felt that he was becoming soft due to not playing in a real competitive league, which I'd say was true.

At the same time, he'd still go back to NYC and play in the Schoolyard testing out techniques. Basically, he mined stuff out from the Globetrotters, and the stuff he found could work against actual defenders, he made a part of his repertoire. And this is how he became truly unique.

As we look at Hawkins ABA & NBA years, one of the things to understand is that both when he joined Pittsburgh in the ABA and Phoenix in the NBA, the teams did not immediately re-shape their offenses around Hawkins, and between these ramp up times, Hawkins increasing tendency toward injury, and a tendency for Hawkins to get down on himself, when we look at his yearly stats, it has to be noted that there was far more variance over the course of the season in team and Hawkins-specific performance than you'd expect not simply as a modern observer, but as a contemporary observer. Hawkins wasn't the absolute rock that you'd expect from a Jerry West, and this certainly doesn't help his Top 100 case.

But what this context also means is that when you look at Hawkins' yearly stats those first few years, as impressive as they look, know that they underrate what he was doing at his best.

I've noted before that in his first year in the ABA, Hawkins led the league in PPG despite being 3rd on his team in FGA. He did this by also leading the league in TS%, and do so while also leading the team in APG, RPG, and almost certainly BPG & SPM had they had that data (but interestingly he did not lead his team in TOs, and was 11th on his team in terms of TOs per minute). To lead a team to the title like this is amazing, but it does give rise to the question: Why were other guys shooting more than Hawkins?

The answer seems to be that these guys were just flat out bad chuckers who the coach couldn't get to pass the ball even though he'd sometimes bench them just to ensure the ball went to Hawkins, but apparently the team couldn't get anyone better mid-season (neither would last that much longer in the ABA).

Now, I tend to read stuff that focuses on Hawkins' perspective rather than the perspective Chico Vaughn, so bias is a concern. But my conclusion is that even in a young ABA that wasn't what it would later become, the Pittsburgh Pipers had no business winning a title given the lack of team play. But what was the case is that when Hawkins played the pivot, the offense hummed with Hawkins both scoring incredibly well and passing incredibly well.

Hawkins suffered the defining injury of his career midway through his second ABA season, and most don't think he was ever as good again, yet still he ended up blowing away the NBA once he got going.

What precipitated him getting going? Mid-way through the season, Phoenix Suns GM Jerry Colangelo fired coach Red Kerr, took over as coach, and had the team play with Hawkins in the high post as the guy the offense would run through. Prior to that point, Hawkins had been positioned in the corner while team captain Gail Goodrich dribbled, dribbled, dribble, and then shot. Goodrich, it should be noted seems to have had a good attitude and was willing to play in an offense with Hawkins as the focus, but when left to his own devices, he tended to just iso.

A few more anecdotes in Hawkins first year in the NBA:

1. After the Suns beat the Celtics in Boston, Bill Russell - who had retired the previous year - came over and gushed "You can do things with the ball I've never seen before!". (Hawkins responded "If you'd have been out there, you'd have blocked half my shots". Russell then said "I don't think so".)

2. Hawkins drew rave reviews as the best passer in the league. Was he better than Oscar? I'm not prepared to say that, but what I can say is that Hawkins was doing things Oscar could not. One described play involved Hawkins having the ball in the high post and making two quick passing fakes in opposite directions (which he could do because had had the ball palmed), and then casually dribbling through the now open lane to the basket.

3. Another anecdote: Apparently Hawkins could dribble through press defense unaided. When a team pressed the Suns, they'd pass the ball to Hawkins, and get out of the way, while he dribbled his way through opponents. If this seems unrealistic for a player generally, I'd note that this skill was a major thing before the shot clock, and the team most famous for this ability was the Globetrotters back in their still-competitive days in the '40s. Against the Mikan-led Lakers, the Globetrotters famously gave the ball to master-dribbler Marques Haynes, and he dribbled what remained of the 4th quarter away so that his team could take the last shot.

While the shot clock rendered this specific ability moot, the Globetrotters used it as part of their act, and so this was something the Globetrotter players actually practiced, and Hawkins honed the ability there.

So I'd say the most amazing thing isn't that someone could do this, but that Hawkins at 6'8" could do this.

4. I'd note that Wilt said that Hawkins was the only guy in the world who could play "all three positions" - by which he meant guard, forward, and center.

I should also note that Hawkins's quickness and agility was tied to his lithe fame, so when Hawkins played center, he took a severe beating that made it hard for him to sustain that kind of play over a season.

I'll also note that Hawkins was a guy who got very little training in formal defense. With his long arms and quickness he could get blocks and steals, but he struggled beyond that.

5. Some people hated his "clown antics". Some refs in particular. I think this makes sense because the Globetrotters - while they may be clowns - spend their games making their opponents look like fools. What happens when you do that to someone who isn't paid to take it? Animosity.

6. Among players, Elvin Hayes in particular apparently expressed hostility toward Hawkins, and this led to a showdown in the very last game of the '69-70 season which Hawkin's Suns needed to make the playoffs. The Suns were down 19 points at half time, and in the second half Hawkins & Hayes matched up. Hawkins led the team back to a victory with a 44/20/8 night on 30 FGA, and was said to have had 5 blocks & 5 steals in the 3rd quarter alone. Multiple of those blocks came on Hayes who went for 23/18/2 on 25 FGA.

7. In the playoffs, the Suns would fight hard before losing in 7 to the West/Wilt led Lakers, with some making the comment that it was essentially "the Lakers vs Connie Hawkins".

After that year, Hawkins would still have great runs, but injuries took more of a toll. The general feeling was that his body was much older than his age suggested having played 250 Globetrotter games per year while others his age were playing 25 college games per year, to say nothing about all that time on the Schoolyard.

In the end, with Hawkins, I think it's very hard to know how to rank him and so I completely understand those who won't have him in the Top 100. More than anything else, I hope others can just appreciate how singular he was, and how significant on a level beyond simple career impact.

But I do think he warrants a place above Bill Walton, who is my #3 pick here. Love, love, love Walton, but as much as Hawkins had longevity issues, I'd say Walton had them worse, and I'm not comfortable saying that Walton was clearly the better player best vs best. I think Walton was amazing like this, and he certainly has the defensive edge overall, but in some ways I feel like you could look at Walton on offense as a poor man's Hawkins.

Part of what I'm saying here is that I believe that the pivot-and-cut offense that Jack Ramsay instituted for Walton in Portland is not some completely new thing, but rather something that was huge and never really made it to the NBA. Once the basketball world saw Mikan & Kurland, pivot-and-cut passing didn't seem as useful as just pass to low post and score. And when that paradigm got challenged, it got challenged by perimeter-oriented offenses that in today's game are dominant.

I would submit that we've never really seen the potential for a pivot-and-cut offense in the modern NBA until Nikola Jokic, and I might make a comparison between Jokic & Hawkins. And on that front, note that I have Jokic below Walton. Through the end of last season, I didn't think Jokic had done enough to surpass Walton, but with this season, well, things are changing.

I will note, with regards to context, I consider Jokic to be more of "random genius" than Hawkins. I think Hawkins became what he did because he was shaped by unique context and had specific, rare physical gifts. Jokic seems like he was born like this.

Alright, beyond Hawk I've got Walton & Jokic on my ballot.

So first, what that means is that I'm clearly right now siding on peak/prime over longevity relative to some other folks. As I always say, I'm not going to tell you that your longevity weighting is wrong - I think that's up to personal philosophy.

I will say on Walton I've had him all over my ballots through the years and really don't know where to put him...but I do think that he deserves to be higher than Jokic through '19-20. I understand that you can argue that Jokic should win based on a longevity edge, but Jokic is obviously weak there as well, and Walton being a key part of a championship team 7 years after the first really cements that indelible impression I have of him.

If you just think Jokic through last year was better than Walton, I get that, but I'd not feel comfortable saying that because Walton was the best defender on the planet.

On Jokic over other guys, the first guy I want to mention is someone I've not even been listing out because he hasn't had traction: Draymond Green. When I look at current players not in, those two are the next ones on my list and to be honest I expected to have Green ahead of Jokic.

If I felt strongly about Green over Jokic, I'd be arguing for that now, but I'm not. I can see arguments both ways, but Green really doesn't have much of a longevity edge, and as special as Green was at his best, I do think Jokic was more special by a smidge even before this year.

On Tiny Archibald - I'm really convinced at this point that he was an absolute killer at his best. He feels like he should be easily a Top 100 guy for me, and I rank him above some guys already on the list, but obviously there are still guys left out there that I like even better.

Since Porter almost got in is that I actually would put Buck Williams over Porter. Porter's greater if you factor in just their Blazer career, but Buck's work on the Nets is big too, so I'm slotting Buck in.

Also, it's bugging me that Chris Mullin isn't being given more love. I think it's worth reiterating that he wasn't a "fringe Dream Teamer". He was more of a lock than Barkley, and his minutes played in the Olympics speaks to this. Basically he had a role with some similarities to what what Miller/Allen/Curry would later have, and which is still tremendously underrated today imho.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 20,772
And1: 19,174
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#3 » by Hal14 » Mon May 17, 2021 3:36 am

Hal14 wrote:1. Dennis Johnson
2. Tiny Archibald
3. Walt Bellamy

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).

https://www.sportscasting.com/larry-bird-reveals-the-best-player-hes-ever-played-with/

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%)

Here's a glimpse into how good Johnson was on defense:


Johnson was as good defensively as any guard to ever play. Only guards I might put over him on D are Jordan, Payton and maybe Frazier.

How clutch was Johnson? Take a look at this huge shot to beat the Lakers in the finals:


Want more clutch plays? Larry Bird made a great steal, but it wouldn't have mattered, the Celtics would have still lost that game (and the series) if Johnson didn't race in towards the basket, catch the ball in traffic and finish over a defender:


Johnson blocked 7 shots in a single NBA finals game (1978)

Johnson won NBA finals MVP (1979)

Johnson hit the first game winning 3-pointer in NBA playoff history (1980)



Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Then they add DJ to the team and beat the Lakers (with prime Magic and prime Kareem) in the NBA finals in 1984.

If you want a guys who put up some nice advanced stats in an era where advanced stats didn't even exist yet, sure go ahead and vote for Hornacek. But if you want to win, then DJ is your guy.

Dennis Johnson is considered by many to be one of the most underrated players of all time:



https://aminoapps.com/c/hoops/page/blog/most-underrated-nba-player-of-all-time-dennis-johnson/pXNH_Qun5plrpdaKeJJ7JElNaBb8Qez#:~:text=Johnson%20(R.I.P.)%20is%20NBA's%20all,the%20most%20underrated%20player%20ever.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3584-the-most-underrated-players-in-nba-history

https://www.celticsblog.com/2014/10/20/7012785/celtic-great-dennis-johnson-clutch-underrated

http://loganssportsratings.blogspot.com/2016/08/top-100-nba-players-45-dennis-johnson.html

Tiny is a 6 time all-star, 3x all NBA 1st team, 2x all NBA 2nd team. You want peak? Only player ever to lead the NBA in both scoring and assists in the same season. And he was a key piece on the 1981 NBA championship-winning Celtics. Solid defender. Very few point guards in the history of the game possessed his combination of scoring and distributing. And he did it in an era before it was easier for point guards to dominate the league (like it's been since 2005). He'd be even higher up this list if not for injuries, but still had 13 seasons which is pretty good longevity, especially for that era.

Bellamy was a dominant center who could do it all - hit shots, score with power inside, rebound, defend, run the floor. Good combination of size, strength and skill. Sure, his ability diminished in his later years, but that's why he's not a top 50 player. If you just look at top 1 or 2 years for peak, there are very few centers who can match Bellamy. It's about time he gets voted in:

1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,633
And1: 21,560
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#4 » by Doctor MJ » Mon May 17, 2021 3:44 am

Okay, so I'll bit trex. :)

First, trex gives a lot to consider here, so I'll pause to encourage others to read.

trex_8063 wrote:Few bullet points I wanted to bring up or re-iterate wrt LaMarcus Aldridge…..

*Going into this current season he had the 61st-highest career PER and 94th-highest career WS/48 of all-time…...and as these are rate metrics it’s worth noting this is in an avg of 34.4 mpg, in a career that spans over 1000 games in 14 seasons.
For perspective, Kawhi Leonard has NEVER averaged as much as 34.4 mpg in a single season…..not once. But that was LMA’s 14-year average.

**He was 61st all-time in career WS.

***BPM/VORP don’t like him as much, though he was still 89th all-time [or since 1973] in career rs VORP.

****He was tied for 62nd all-time in total All-Star selections [7]; this while playing his entire career in the Western Conference [in a 30-team league].

*****Although never 1st Team, he is tied for 50th all-time in total All-NBA selections [5]; this again while playing his entire career in a 30-team league.

******In terms of PIPM, he peaked at +3.5 (which, fwiw, is higher than the peak PIPM years for guys like Paul Millsap, Jack Sikma, NBA-Dan Issel, or even Kevin McHale; and only -0.1 shy of Reggie Miller’s peak, -0.2 shy of Larry Nance’s peak). He also has 7-8 OTHER years around +2 or higher.

*******From ‘06-’11 he has the 15th-best RAPM in that six-year span [despite that including his rookie season].

********Looking more broadly at the 18-year period of ‘97-’14, he had the 28th-best RAPM within that span (again: in big minutes).

*********And despite the fact that he was only in the league for 8 of those 18 years, he’s still 24th in RAPM points above average (basically cumulative value added according to RAPM) in that span.
Of the 23 players ahead of him in that span, only THREE of them have NOT already [long since] been voted on to our list…...and all three of those [Luol Deng, Baron Davis, and Metta] came into the league earlier and thus have more years [and far more possessions] contained within this time-period in which to accrue cumulative value.
LaMarcus went on to have 3-4 more very solid years via RAPM after this sample.

EDIT: And for whatever it's worth [considering we have more reliable metrics in his era], his WOWYR is also damn near all-time tier.

In short, there’s a lot to suggest that LaMarcus Aldridge has one of the 30-35 best careers of the last quarter-century (a time period which encompasses ~45% of all the player-seasons that have yet occurred in BAA/NBA/ABA history [and likely the most competitive 45% of that history]).

And yet I’m still almost on island here at #98. :dontknow:


Alright so here's the thing:

I wouldn't vote for Aldridge for the Hall as I don't think his career has amounted to anything worth telling anyone about in the future, except if I'm talking about the struggles that Damian Lillard had to deal with.

Now, he certainly had a successful career and made a lot of money doing it. But at the same time:

1. His career really doesn't matter for any team he's ever played for. A brief summary of both franchises shouldn't mention his name.

2. This isn't a coincidence. The reason he doesn't matter to Blazers history is because he literally became uncomfortable and bolted after his alpha place in the pecking order got usurped. That same ego insecurity led him to demand a trade after it became clear that Kawhi would be the star of the Spurs.

3. Fundamentally I see Aldridge as a guy who really felt at his most comfortable as the alpha scorer on a team, but someone not good enough in that role to expect to lead a contender doing so.

This then curls back around to the peak vs longevity balancing act.

If you see Aldridge as a guy with a slightly lower peak than the guys I've been championing (Hawkins, Walton), then it makes perfect sense to vote for him ahead of those guys.

If you see Aldridge as a guy who having him on your team either means letting him lead a team that will guarantee you never win a title or will guarantee you'll need to deal with his ego, then comparing him with truly top tier players is no comparison.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#5 » by HeartBreakKid » Mon May 17, 2021 8:53 am

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 of 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) Elton Brand. Brand was a consistent 20/10 guy for 8 seasons with decent passing and legit shot creation. He was also a good defender, perhaps not as good as his shot blocks suggest - and likely over shadowed cause his prime coincided with some freak defenders at PF like Garnett, Duncan and to a lesser extend Rasheed Wallace. However, for the longevity heads who like to add the value of players careers, I feel like 8 seasons of 20/10/2.5/2 is pretty damn hard to beat at this point. Not to mention the guy had a great peak, maybe not Bill Walton good but he was a 25 PPG and 2.5 BPG player at his peak, this is at a time when scoring wasn't easy either. He only has a sample size of one playoff run in his prime, and in that run he nearly made the Western Conference finals and he was incredible in both series against Denver and Phoenix.

3) Mark Price. I chose Mark Price over my #4 (Mullin) because I think he offers a lot of offensive utility. He's good at creating his own shot, making plays for others, slowing down the pace, pick and roll, long range bombs. He doesn't have the defensive issues that Chris Mullin has either. He has 5-6 good reasonably healthy prime seasons, as well as some seasons as a useful roleplayer whos impact was probably better than his boxscore stats.




Names in bold are new additions to my list.



Mullin > Butler > P Hardaway > Beaty > Hawkins > King > Kemp > Webber > Dennis Johnson > Ramsey > Lowry > Sikma > Archibald > Aldridge > Lucas > Heinsohn > Bellamy > Johnston > DeBusschere > Dandridge
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 29,830
And1: 9,590
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#6 » by penbeast0 » Mon May 17, 2021 11:08 am

1. Bob Dandridge -- similarly, a versatile very good 3rd option who could score if needed, play good defense and swing to the 4 (Milwaukee) or 2 (Washington).

2. Chris Webber-- Hard to believe it but I'm holding my nose and voting for Chris Webber. Hated him as a supertalented but whiny player in Washington, then he went on to more success in Sacramento though continuing his history of choking in big moments. I'd love to vote for almost anyone else but he's probably the best choice left.

3. Walt Bellamy -- another talented guy I just couldn't get into that played in Washington putting up big stats without any wins to match. I didn't see him in his first few years, by the time I did, he always seemed to be just putting in the time rather than playing with fire but video shows a different player and his stats are the best left.


Zelmo Beaty
Maurice Cheeks
Dennis Johnson
Mookie Blaylock
Mark Price
Connie Hawkins
Chris Mullin -- smart pure shooter, lead footed wing defender
LaMarcus Aldridge -- long consistent career
Elton Brand -- shorter career, though it peaked higher than Aldridge, lot of bad teams around him
Marques Johnson -- peaked higher than King, shorter career, substance abuse issues
Penny Hardaway -- another strong but short peak career cut down to size by injuries
Bernard King -- a couple of great playoff performances, reasonably efficient scorer but brings little else and had substance abuse issues.
Tiny Archibald -- Amazing for a couple of years on Kings, like Isiaih Thomas that year in Boston, but with his lack of defense and the way his scoring game worked, can't really see him as a key ceiling raiser piece.
Dave DeBusschere -- excellent defender, not a long career, poor shooter relative to league
Bill Walton -- 1 and a half years is not enough
David Thompson -- Another skywalker, great scorer, but career destroyed by cocaine
Kyle Lowry -- good player but not that good
Tommy Heinsohn -- inefficient volume scorer, not impressed with his defense, not a good passer, I don't think he makes my top 8 players who played with Russell much less my top 100 (S. Jones, Havlicek, Sharman, Howell, KC Jones, Cousy, Ramsey, Sanders. . . Jim Loscutoff? Larry Siegfried?).

GUARDS
Dennis Johnson, Mookie Blaylock, Maurice Cheeks, Nate Archibald

Cheeks (low volume) and Archibald (high volume) are the only ones with significantly positive efficiency, with the other three down below league average during their 5 year primes. DJ has the big rep, both on defense and in awards, Mookie also had a great defensive rep and was ahead of his time shooting low percentage from 2 but a lot of 3's, Cheeks is another very good defender. Cheeks and Blaylock generated assists like point guards, DJ didn't. Tiny is the best floor raiser but probably the worst ceiling raiser which I tend to value more.

I rate them:
1. Cheeks -- good defense, leadership, efficient scoring though at low volume, I have to say I'd rather have him as my PG than any of the others except in unusual situations and I don't see DJ as a good enough shooting guard for his ability to guard wings to rate him higher.
2a. DJ -- tempted to go Mookie here but DJ's versatility on the defensive end (and face it, if they are getting any traction it's on their defense) give him the edge despite Mookie's playmaking and range (tempted AGAIN to switch this!)
2b. Blaylock -- spread the floor and played great defense, very modern player. Got assists but not a great creator, scored nearly as much as DJ but no more efficient despite his 3 point range.
4. Nate Archibald -- Isiaih in Boston showed you can compete with a Tiny type PG as the main man, though it's hard. He did show a willingness to sacrifice his personal game for team goals when he went to Boston and his peers rated him highly there.


WINGS
Dandridge is the most versatile of the wings, playing 4 in Milwaukee and 2 in Washington as well as the 3. He is an all-defense candidate, which none of the rest can claim while also an excellent 3rd, passible second option scorer on decent efficiency. He did whine in Milwaukee but was a class pro after that in Washington. Marques Johnson, Bernard King, and Chris Mullin all had some strong offensive years, Marques was the only one not a weak defender but also the shortest career of the 3. All efficient volume scorers, none played that long, King had some nice playoff runs. Both Marques Johnson and Bernard King had substance abuse issues and Chris Mullin had one of the ugliest haircuts ever seen outside of boot camp. Close between the 3. Connie Hawkins and David Thompson both would easily have been top 100 player but for injuries (Hawk) and drugs (skywalker).

BIG MEN
Walt Bellamy was a true 1960 (and 70s) center. Good scorer, not a particularly good defender or passer, had a MONSTER rookie year on a super weak expansion team (in the league's most inflated year) then declined from that point on. A rep as being annoying in the locker room and showing up overweight. By the numbers, he's clearly the choice.

Webber or Brand. Webber and Brand decent rim protectors; Webber a good (some say great) big man passers. Efficiency, Brand was decent, Webber below average; Webber the volume scorer, then Brand. Walton just didn't have enough peak seasons.

DeBusschere had better defense than either but his shooting is just too ugly to compete at this level despite his rep.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,000
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#7 » by Dutchball97 » Mon May 17, 2021 12:48 pm

1. Anfernee Hardaway - Penny has a pretty short prime but it's more of a Grant Hill case where they still have high level seasons after their major injuries instead of a Bill Walton or Connie Hawkins who really fell off quick. Penny's peak in 1996 overall was very strong and despite losing to the Heat in the first round the next year, he was clearly the best player in that series. He also pretty much always showed up in the play-offs. When he was 30 he was pretty much done though and was an average player at best in the regular season but even then he showed up strong in the 03 and 04 play-offs when he was 31 and 32 respectively. He's a fringe top 100 guy who will likely just miss the cut due to questionable longevity but I think it's nevertheless worth it to give him his due here.

2. Jimmy Butler - Butler already has a pretty impressive career. 6 seasons of a very solid prime and a pretty strong peak in 2017. I expect Butler to be a no brainer for the 2023 list as his current season might just be his best yet. Butler has also had 3 strong play-off runs. The first in 2015 with the Bulls and then the last two years with the 76ers and the Heat respectively. Butler's leadership and effort also isn't something to discount.

3. Zelmo Beaty - I didn't quite expect him to make my ballot this project but with the 90s seeing a lot of the guys I had towards the top of my list finally breaching the list Beaty moves up to #3 now. Looking at his NBA career only this is already looking pretty impressive. Beaty wasn't a world beater in the NBA but he was good and pretty consistently so. I noted earlier how LMA didn't once break .100 WS/48 in the play-offs in his stint with the Blazers but we see Beaty here never drop below .100 WS/48 in the post-season in his NBA career (or entire career for that matter). Then we can add a couple of pretty great peak years in the ABA on top of that. Especially the 70/71 season was incredibly impressive, being the clear best player in the regular season and then leading his team to a ring with a dominant performance. It's hard to rate the early 70s ABA. We know it's already tougher than when Hawkins came in and dominated in the late 60s but not yet as competitive as it was in the mid 70s when Dr J was putting in work. I'd be pretty comfortable assuming the 71 season to be somewhere in the middle but if anyone is convinced the ABA didn't significantly improve much untill about the 73 season I'd be open to arguments as I'm not much of an ABA expert.

Paul George > Kyle Lowry > Marques Johnson > Jerry Lucas > Neil Johnston > Walt Bellamy > Chris Webber > Bill Sharman > Bob Dandridge > Maurice Cheeks > Frank Ramsey > Elton Brand > Chris Mullin > Andrei Kirilenko > Eddie Jones > LaMarcus Aldridge > Bernard King > Bill Walton > Connie Hawkins > Dennis Johnson > Tom Heinsohn > Dave DeBusschere > Tiny Archibald
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#8 » by trex_8063 » Mon May 17, 2021 11:49 pm

Dutchball97 wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:Nobody going to respond to post #2?


I just don't think LMA achieved enough in the post-season. Can any of his Portland post-seasons even be called good? I can see why a longevity based argument can be made for him but when there are so many more impressive primes still out there I'd like to at least see that consistent regular season impact continue in the play-offs.


A fair point, though not exactly a unique one at this stage of the game. There are a number of guys voted in already with notable playoff struggles [some worse than LMA's].....e.g. Nique, Cousy, Lillard among the more recent ones.

As to the "can any?" question....
idk, '14 is sort of polarized yes/no:
*He was a hot mess in the 2nd round against the eventual champ Spurs; although let's not overlook he was matched against Duncan part of the time, this was the #3 defense overall, and an all-time great team [which they did just as well against---couple points better, actually---as the EC champ Heat].
**HOWEVER, how about the 1st round to even make it as far as the Spurs: they had to beat a 54-win [+5.05 SRS] Rocket team without HCA to even reach the semis.....which they did in six games. Everyone remembers Dame [who was great in the series] because of the shot. Few seem remember that LaMarcus was also remarkable during that series: going for 29.8 ppg @ +0.5% rTS [unadjusted], 11.2 rpg, 2.7 bpg, 2.0 apg, and only 1.17 topg (again, his GOAT-tier big-man turnover economy that few seem to recall or even notice when criticizing his use of mid-range shooting). He averaged a fairly monster 23.2 GameScore in those six games.
I think it's safe to say that if he isn't playing that well, there's no Spurs series to speak of [he had 46 pts [62.6% TS] and 18 reb in a 2-pt win in G1, for example].


Beyond that, it's worth noting he had a couple pretty good post-season runs in San Antonio.



Owly wrote:Well what do you want? Everyone has their own process, people aren't generally out to argue against others.

But I'll say at the margins ...

All-NBA appearances with no weighting is going to be a bit generous to a never first-teamer.


I made the disclaimer that there was no 1st Team for LMA in that very statement, fwiw.

But as far as weighting.....
I have an "award points" scoring [for use in one family of "formulas"] to provide a weighted score for All-Stars, All-NBA's, as well as All-D, DPOY, and scoring titles. Defensive awards a scaled somewhat lightly, because it's assuming many of those recipients were also All-Stars and/or All-NBA [in no small part due to their defense; so not wanting to reward them twice (though DPOY + All-D will frequently be doing that already)...]. Scoring titles weighted even lighter for same reason [and also more skepticism of the definitive value of scoring lots]. Basically it's like this:
Scoring Title: 0.5 pts
All-Def 2nd: 1.5 pts
All-Def 1st: 2 pts
DPOY: 2.5
All-Star: 3
All-NBA 3rd: 4
All-NBA 2nd: 6
All-NBA 1st: 8

Note: these are the raw values with no weighting or accounting of era/league......the above makes no distinction between these things. So for our purproses here: an All-Star selection received in a time when literally HALF the league's starters were "All-Stars" is scored the same as an All-Star received while playing in the tougher conference in a 30-team league [like each and every one of LMA's].
ABA awards included, too, btw....

By that scoring, LaMarcus is tied [with Chris Webber, Tim Hardaway, Damian Lillard, and Paul Westphal] for 76th all-time.

Players already voted in who score BEHIND him in this accounting:
*Dave Cowens [*though he has 1 MVP]
Alonzo Mourning
Alex English
Tony Parker
Kevin McHale
Chris Bosh
Bobby Jones
Pau Gasol
Robert Parish
Dan Issel
Kevin Johnson
Bob McAdoo
Dennis Rodman
Vince Carter
Sam Jones
Chauncey Billups
Adrian Dantley
Draymond Green
Nate Thurmond
James Worthy
Cliff Hagan
Wes Unseld
Reggie Miller
Bob Lanier
Shawn Marion
Jack Sikma
Jeff Hornacek
Horace Grant
Terry Porter
Manu Ginobili
Nikola Jokic
Rasheed Wallace
.....so basically a third of those already voted in, as well as the majority of players being discussed at this stage.


Players still on the table who actually have MORE "award points" than him are:
Dennis Johnson
Jim Pollard
Yao Ming
Paul George
Amar'e Stoudemire
Slater Martin
Ed Macauley
Spencer Haywood
Tiny Archibald
Jerry Lucas
Neil Johnston
Bob Davies
Bill Sharman


^^^First thing I note here is that this list is less than half the length of the other.
Second thing I notice is that more than half of them are getting all/most of their awards in a tiny league---when All-Stars in particular were MUCH easier to come by---often even pre-shot clock [possibly in the BAA]), or in the ABA.......in fact, only four of the 13 listed accrued the majority of their award points post-merger.
Thirdly---although I didn't list the actually scores---I can tell you that only those last four listed actually beat LMA by double-digits in this accounting [ALL of whom played 100% of their careers pre-merger, and in some instances big chunks pre-shotclock].


Not that award-counting should necessarily mean a whole lot anyway [it generally doesn't for me]. However, wanting to be broad in my approach [and knowing it DOES matter a lot to some], I simply wanted to point out that: no matter HOW you slice it, Aldridge is FAR closer to the top of available candidates than he is to the bottom, in terms of accolades received.
There are precious few left on the table who could be said to have a notable edge on him in this once era has been considered.


Owly wrote:Total WS might, I would guess, marginally overrate him versus some candidates, if he is, as I'd guess, higher end minutes than some candidates, due to its very low baseline.


Depends on how you look at it, and how you want to semantically define "overrate". I mean, to some degree it's to LMA's credit that he's able to stay on the floor large minutes AND be productive while doing so, no? Some guys get limited minutes because their bodies have shown definitive signs of not being able to tolerate otherwise.
At any rate, I listed BOTH WS/48 and total WS [even in WS/48, his career mark is higher than 99th].


Owly wrote:Millsap I believe isn't in nor on your condorcet list (so a slightly odd bar no?). Sikma barely so (and a very tight field now). And for most this isn't a peaks project.


Millsap isn't listed in my condorcet accounting because no one has really lobbied for him yet [I'm keeping it "uncluttered"]. If it were to become necessary to include him, he'd be behind LMA, though ahead of guys like Walton, Tiny, DJ, King, Heinsohn (as well as recent inductees Jokic, Draymond, Cunningham, +/- maybe Gus Williams).

I'm not quite clear wrt to what you're saying about Sikma there. If it's that he's not on my condorcet listing, that's because he's off the table [so I removed him]. I'm reasonably high on Jack Sikma [he's quite close to Aldridge for me], so I'm glad he's got in.


Owly wrote:I would guess he's riding some strong priors (or very unlucky with lineups) if he's got three or four "very solid" additional RAPM years. His on off is only more than marginally above 0 in two ('15, '18).


I do prefer PI when available [I think J.E. does too, which is why when he lists something as just "RAPM" it's generally referring to PI as a default]. However, my samples for '18 and '19 [and I believe '20, too, actually] are NPI. He has strong RAPM's for '15 and '16 [PI], and '18 [NPI]. So your concern might apply to '16, but it's hard to say.

Single-season on/off can be fairly noisy. '17 Kawhi, for example, was a mere +1.6 [and an atrocious +8.4 defensively!].....but none of us were questioning he was a superstar (and he was still given All-D 1st!).
So idk....


Owly wrote:Blaylock and Schrempf have higher 97-14 RAPMs with largely outside of prime samples and might warrant mention as competition (Blake could be discussed too, though minutes hurt) from that data.


I agree.



Owly wrote:The above are nit picks though, coming only since you asked for a response. That 97-14 number surprised me the first time I saw it and moved me up on him.

And your case (whilst I might tweak it at the margins) outlines why he is a serious contender here.


I appreciate the response. :)
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#9 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 18, 2021 12:09 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Alright so here's the thing:

I wouldn't vote for Aldridge for the Hall as I don't think his career has amounted to anything worth telling anyone about in the future, except if I'm talking about the struggles that Damian Lillard had to deal with.

Now, he certainly had a successful career and made a lot of money doing it. But at the same time:

1. His career really doesn't matter for any team he's ever played for. A brief summary of both franchises shouldn't mention his name.


I think you'll have to allow that #1 here is pretty much pure conjecture (and it relates to something I'll bring up below, noted with ***).

And "hasn't mattered" really isn't true wrt did he help the Blazers win games. He did.
We can look at the sharp improvements seen shortly after his arrival (as well as S.A.'s sharp improvement on his arrival)---similar to how others have been viewing Tom Heinsohn's impact.
We can look at his WOWYR [which is something like 12th or 14th all-time; only one player NOT already on the list (Yao) has higher].
Or we can look at his RAPM [as I did].

Some are more accurate/reliable than others; but they're all kinda saying the same thing.
And this is without even looking at his box composites [which also kinda put him in relatively high standing among candidates still on the table (except perhaps for peak-only)].

But I agree with one thing that you are [in so many words] alluding to: he doesn't have a narrative.
I think I chimed in on the "Is LMA a HOF'er?" thread with regards to this too. His career lacks a compelling narrative or cool success story.

However, if I find that's just about the ONLY thing I can come up with to hold him back, well......I don't want to be totally dismissive, but to a degree I'm kinda "narrative schmarrative".

I mean, take Dennis Johnson as an example.....
He's got some attitude issues early in his career too: if I'm not mistaken, he burned some bridges in one [or both?] of Seattle and Phoenix, and didn't become a good teammate until Boston.
And otherwise, in terms of who was actually better at playing basketball, it's kinda hard to make the case for DJ, no? [for peak, prime, or career]......without basically saying "although nearly everything suggests LMA was at least as good [or better], I just think DJ was better regardless."

But DJ has a narrative. :dontknow:


Doctor MJ wrote:2. This isn't a coincidence. The reason he doesn't matter to Blazers history is because he literally became uncomfortable and bolted after his alpha place in the pecking order got usurped. That same ego insecurity led him to demand a trade after it became clear that Kawhi would be the star of the Spurs.

3. Fundamentally I see Aldridge as a guy who really felt at his most comfortable as the alpha scorer on a team, but someone not good enough in that role to expect to lead a contender doing so.

This then curls back around to the peak vs longevity balancing act.


***Perhaps more than peak vs longevity, I think this curls back to an idea that raising the ceiling is all-important; raising the floor means squat.

An idea I disagree with, btw.


Doctor MJ wrote:If you see Aldridge as a guy with a slightly lower peak than the guys I've been championing (Hawkins, Walton), then it makes perfect sense to vote for him ahead of those guys.

If you see Aldridge as a guy who having him on your team either means letting him lead a team that will guarantee you never win a title or will guarantee you'll need to deal with his ego, then comparing him with truly top tier players is no comparison.


Were we not seeing him mesh with a better player [and forming a contender-level team as result] in San Antonio, though?
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#10 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 18, 2021 12:16 am

1st vote: LaMarcus Aldridge
This was initially almost a coin-flip between him and Webber, but I'm more and more comfortable with it.
I don't think he peaked quite as high (peaking at probably a weak All-NBA 2nd Team level), but he was just so solidly consistent for about 11 straight years. It's left him in fairly high standing in various counting and cumulative metrics, but he also has a handful on years rating out in the top 12-15 of the league in terms of impact (see below).

Where some people try to label LMA as a low-efficiency volume scorer, I'd advise looking to his turnover economy, which is arguably GOAT [like for real: GOAT] among big-men. So his all-around offensive efficiency should be viewed in light of that.

He always struck me as reasonably solid defensively through his prime [above neutral at his worst].

And where some try to label him "empty stats", I'd note that is simply NOT reflected in the actual impact metrics. For instance, I'd note he has NINE seasons >+2 RAPM, and EIGHT above +3.
Below is his league rank in combined PI RAPM by year:
'09: 16th
'10: tied for 18th
'11: 21st
'12 (NPI): tied for 31st
'13: tied for 15th (with All-NBA 1st teamer Tim Duncan)
'14 (NPI): tied for 15th
'15: 25th
'16: 22nd
'17: notable dip (still positive, but no where near top of the league)
'18 (NPI, rs-only): 12th

So that's a solid decade where his impact metrics would fairly consistently posit him as a fringe All-Star at worst (and All-NBA 2nd/3rd team level at best), especially considering he played anywhere from 30.6 to 39.6 mpg [avg of 35.7 mpg] over this decade while missing relatively few games.

tbh, I'm sort of surprised he doesn't have more support. Prior to the start of this current season he:
*Had the 61st-highest career PER of all-time; this while avg >34 mpg in >1000 games.
**Was 61st all-time in career WS.
***Was 90th in career VORP.

And all of this with a decent impact profile (as noted above), while also nabbing SEVEN All-Star selections [in the tough West, too], FIVE All-NBA honors (3x 3rd, 2x 2nd), and THREE top-10 finishes in the MVP vote (for the people placing serious emphasis on media accolades).
More complete outline noted above in post #2.

Sure just seems like he ticks off more than enough of the necessary boxes for the mid-90s section of the list.



2nd vote: Chris Webber
Short(ish) prime, and certainly under-achieved his potential [though his potential was REALLY damn high]. He's still a very nice peak and top 2-3 years, with some useful years outside of that. An OK [and somewhat versatile] scorer, EXCELLENT passing big-man, very very good rebounder, good defender when engaged (though I'll freely acknowledge he was NOT consistently engaged).
Although he's an under-achiever [boy, this is a lukewarm endorsement!], I think he did enough in his career to warrant consideration here.


3rd vote: Zelmo Beaty
He's been name-dropped [not only be me, as of last thread]. I'm gonna start pushing for him.
The more I look at him, the more underrated he looks. Several really solid NBA season (seemed pretty reliable for around 18-21 pts and 11-14 reb on VERY good shooting efficiency basically all thru the mid-late 60s). What's more is he has a passable to decent defensive reputation (known as a pretty physical [almost "enforcer"-type??] defender).

Then he jumps into the ABA of the early-mid 70s (an ABA that had Rick Barry, Mel Daniels, and Dan Issel, plus Erving, Gilmore, and McGinnis by Zelmo's 2nd season), and he immediately looks like one of its very best players for those first two seasons. By his 3rd season in the ABA [now age 33], he declines to being merely fringe All-Star level.

I'll try to post a little more later, but he just looks like a very solid candidate.
Cheeks, Sikma, and Porter also very close here.

Have updated my list [for Condorcet purposes] to include ANYONE who has received votes of any kind, plus some others who are definitley on my radar:
LMA > Webber > Beaty > Cheeks > Lowry > Walker > DeBusschere > Hawkins > Bellamy > Johnston > D.Johnson > Walton > Dandridge > Tiny > King/Penny > Heinsohn (may change the order on Walton/Tiny as we go along, but this is how I'm currently feeling; I'll decide between Penny and King [two great players cut short by injury] if I need to).
Could also see bumping Hawkins ahead of DeBusschere +/- Walker. DeBusschere pops a little [visually] when I was doing the game log project, though. Admittedly not always in a good way [takes a lot of shots at questionable accuracy]; but holy crap was he active. Rebounds, deflections, assists, points, generally busting plays; and fwiw he was willing/capable of shooting from the outside, so there was at least a little spacing effect. He'd fit nice in the modern league (where era portability is important to anyone).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,633
And1: 21,560
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#11 » by Doctor MJ » Tue May 18, 2021 4:52 am

trex_8063 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Alright so here's the thing:

I wouldn't vote for Aldridge for the Hall as I don't think his career has amounted to anything worth telling anyone about in the future, except if I'm talking about the struggles that Damian Lillard had to deal with.

Now, he certainly had a successful career and made a lot of money doing it. But at the same time:

1. His career really doesn't matter for any team he's ever played for. A brief summary of both franchises shouldn't mention his name.


I think you'll have to allow that #1 here is pretty much pure conjecture (and it relates to something I'll bring up below, noted with ***).

And "hasn't mattered" really isn't true wrt did he help the Blazers win games. He did.
We can look at the sharp improvements seen shortly after his arrival (as well as S.A.'s sharp improvement on his arrival)---similar to how others have been viewing Tom Heinsohn's impact.
We can look at his WOWYR [which is something like 12th or 14th all-time; only one player NOT already on the list (Yao) has higher].
Or we can look at his RAPM [as I did].

Some are more accurate/reliable than others; but they're all kinda saying the same thing.
And this is without even looking at his box composites [which also kinda put him in relatively high standing among candidates still on the table (except perhaps for peak-only)].

But I agree with one thing that you are [in so many words] alluding to: he doesn't have a narrative.
I think I chimed in on the "Is LMA a HOF'er?" thread with regards to this too. His career lacks a compelling narrative or cool success story.

However, if I find that's just about the ONLY thing I can come up with to hold him back, well......I don't want to be totally dismissive, but to a degree I'm kinda "narrative schmarrative".

I mean, take Dennis Johnson as an example.....
He's got some attitude issues early in his career too: if I'm not mistaken, he burned some bridges in one [or both?] of Seattle and Phoenix, and didn't become a good teammate until Boston.
And otherwise, in terms of who was actually better at playing basketball, it's kinda hard to make the case for DJ, no? [for peak, prime, or career]......without basically saying "although nearly everything suggests LMA was at least as good [or better], I just think DJ was better regardless."

But DJ has a narrative. :dontknow:


Re: "conjecture". I wouldn't agree with that word, but I could see using a word like "subjective". It's fine if others see his career adding up to something more than I do.

Re: "lacks cool success story". You make this sound like I'm talking about something that lacks meaningful substance. Go tell that to folks in Portland. I'm all for guys switching teams if they want to, but there's a cost when you do this just as there is when you switch the organization you work for. And when fundamentally the reasons for leaving speak to a person's own insecurities preventing them from taking their places among a franchise's pantheon, well, there's a void where something more should be in Aldridge's career.

Re: DJ. I'm not looking to argue for DJ - worth noting that I haven't been advocating for any of those Sonics and am on the record calling them one of the weakest champs in history - but it's meaningful that he won championships on two different teams - once as Finals MVP, and once taking a smaller role on a greater team. In the end, there's something there for DJ.

Re: has narrative. I might suggest you're reducing "team accomplishments" to "narrative", and I would suggest that this is antithetical to an NBA-based focused project.

trex_8063 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:2. This isn't a coincidence. The reason he doesn't matter to Blazers history is because he literally became uncomfortable and bolted after his alpha place in the pecking order got usurped. That same ego insecurity led him to demand a trade after it became clear that Kawhi would be the star of the Spurs.

3. Fundamentally I see Aldridge as a guy who really felt at his most comfortable as the alpha scorer on a team, but someone not good enough in that role to expect to lead a contender doing so.

This then curls back around to the peak vs longevity balancing act.


***Perhaps more than peak vs longevity, I think this curls back to an idea that raising the ceiling is all-important; raising the floor means squat.

An idea I disagree with, btw.


We absolutely see floor-raising differently, and that's okay.

That said: I value floor-raising in a guy whose doing it in a small market like Portland if he won't cave in the ceiling when a true alpha comes along. I value it less in a guy switching teams to go somewhere that doesn't need a floor-raiser. I value it even less when it comes in an insecure trade-demand prone package.

trex_8063 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:If you see Aldridge as a guy with a slightly lower peak than the guys I've been championing (Hawkins, Walton), then it makes perfect sense to vote for him ahead of those guys.

If you see Aldridge as a guy who having him on your team either means letting him lead a team that will guarantee you never win a title or will guarantee you'll need to deal with his ego, then comparing him with truly top tier players is no comparison.


Were we not seeing him mesh with a better player [and forming a contender-level team as result] in San Antonio, though?


Well let's make sure we're not confusing "Kawhi led a contender" with "Kawhi & Aldridge synergized really well".

I'm not aware of any +/- data that indicates that Kawhi's WOWY data with Aldridge was particularly "wow".

On the other hand I do know that Kawhi's numbers were way better than Aldridge's were when they played together, that Kawhi's led contenders wherever he's gone, and that when I think of "Who should Kawhi play with?" I don't tend to think the answer is "A volume shooter with middling efficiency who can't run the offense from the perimeter".

Would I feel some amount different if they'd broken through and won the title together? Yup I would. I'd argue for Kyle Lowry over Aldridge, and that title is part of it.

I'm sorry I'm so negative here, particularly because he just had a serious health scare. He's a human being and I want him to live a long and happy life. Competition in this list is tough though.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#12 » by sansterre » Tue May 18, 2021 1:25 pm

#1. Kyle Lowry - This may seem incongruous, but Kyle Lowry has some pretty strong selling points. His career has actually been quietly impressive. He's got four different 10+ Win Share seasons and over 30k career minutes. He's got four seasons above 4.5 VORP. Did you know that of all active NBA players he's currently 11th in Win Shares and VORP? These are respectably impressive stats. But would you believe that Kyle Lowry's impact metrics are outstanding? He put up a +4.5 AuRPM in 2014, a +4.6 AuRPM in 2015, a +6.5 in 2016 (10th in the league) and a +6.3 in 2017 (6th). His RAPM in 2018 (including playoffs) was 6th in the league (ESPN's RPM has him #1), ESPN's RPM has him 5th in 2019 and it has him 6th in 2020. By Impact metrics, Kyle Lowry's been a Top 10 player in the league for the past five years.

How is this possible? After all, Lowry is a good offensive player but not great. He's pretty consistently in the low 20s for usage and his shooting was only around +3 or +4 in his five-year peak. How good can he be? But he's also a weirdly quality rebounder. Kyle Lowry may be the best rebounding six footer ever (not a huge claim to fame, but still). He has eight different seasons at 7% TRB or higher, while no other six footer has more than 4. You could argue that he's a rebound-chaser, but his impact metrics suggest that isn't the case. He's a strong floor spacer (half his shots are threes and he made them at 38% over the last ten seasons) and a strong passer (passer ratings at 6.5 or higher from Ben Taylor). I won't argue that he has the offensive impact of a Lillard (though he surely has more longevity). But unlike Lillard, Lowry is a strong defender, generally considered an underrated team defender with a knack for drawing charges. And if he's an actual plus on defense (as most metrics consider him) that means he doesn't need to be as good on offense for the same level of impact.

Has he struggled in the playoffs historically? Yes. But no more than Lillard has, and Dame has been getting a fair amount of love in these votes. And recently Lowry has turned it around in the postseason, posting the 4th best RAPTOR-WAR in the '19 playoffs (+6.6 average) and 5th best in the '20 playoffs (+9.3).

Like Porter, like a lot of guys I champion, he's not super-sexy. But he's had a long career and a strong peak. Instead of being an all-offense chucker he's good at everything, and was a key piece in leading the Raptors to their first ever NBA title. Maybe he deserves some love too. :)

#2. Walt Bellamy - If ever a player was optimized to show up well in the limited stats we have from the first two decades of the league, Walt Bellamy is it. His Win Share CORP absolutely blows everyone else out of the water. He put up seven different 10+ Win Share seasons, including a 16 WS rookie year (where he was 2nd in the league). Like Bob McAdoo and Tiny Archibald he hit the league hard, put up a lot of great seasons, but peaked early and was regressing hard by the time he approached his late 20s/early 30s. Bellamy was a monster scorer, perhaps the best scoring big of the 60s besides . . . some guy I can't remember. Bellamy routinely took 25+% of his shots and made them in the +6% to +8% range, which is really good (especially for the 60s). He was also a strong rebounder (not great). Detractors would argue that he didn't really port his performance into the playoffs well, that he wasn't often a motivated defender and that the Knicks took off once they traded him. As to the first two points that's fair, but I don't agree with the last one. Bellamy was built to be a floor-raiser, a guy who could take a lot of shots (and make them well) no matter what the defense did to stop him. But the Knicks had Clyde Frazier *and* Willis Reed *and* Cazzie Russell. They didn't need a floor-raising scorer, they needed a ceiling-raising defender and they got a great one in Dave DeBusschere (incidentally, the change in the Knicks as a result of the Bellamy -> DeBusschere swap is literally the perfect example of the flaws in the "first option uber alles" philosophy of player evaluation. Bellamy had a long career (for that era), during which he put up Top 6 numbers in points five times. A lot of his other metrics aren't great; his WOWYR is low, his playoff metrics aren't great (of course, he didn't make the playoffs at his peak) and the BackPicks BPM doesn't like him much. But his Win Shares are fantastic. Again, he's like Tiny/McAdoo if their peaks had gone way longer. He's not the kind of player I normally like, but the sheer weight of his scoring and performance on weaker teams merits consideration.

#3. Eddie Jones - Massive impact two-way player whose contributions showed up strong no matter what team he was on.

Kyle Lowry > Bellamy > Eddie Jones > Z.Beaty > A.Kirilenko > M.Cheeks > S.Kemp > Laimbeer > B.Walton > P.George > LaMarcus Aldridge > Webber > A.Iguodala > Schrempf > Lucas > A.Hardaway > D.DeBusschere > J.Butler > M. Johnson > B.King > Dandridge > D.Johnson > C.Hawkins > M.Price > C.Mullin > N.Johnston > K.Irving > Heinsohn > K.Thompson > Archibald
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#13 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 18, 2021 3:14 pm

Thru post #12:

LaMarcus Aldridge - 1 (trex_8063)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Kyle Lowry - 1 (sansterre)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Penny Hardaway - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bob Dandridge - 1 (penbeast0)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)


About 12 hours left for this one.
This is almost assuredly going to come down to all-around extensive condorcet ruling.

So I'm going to need a listing from everyone [if you've not already done so] that includes:
Walton
DJ
Hawkins
LaMarcus
Penny
Bellamy
Lowry
Heinsohn
King
Dandridge


Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

DCasey91 wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 29,830
And1: 9,590
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#14 » by penbeast0 » Tue May 18, 2021 4:26 pm

Adding Penny and Lowry to my original post
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,395
And1: 8,078
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#15 » by trex_8063 » Tue May 18, 2021 4:46 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Adding Penny and Lowry to my original post


You have Lowry listed in two [rather wildly different] places.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,131
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#16 » by Owly » Tue May 18, 2021 5:55 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
Owly wrote:Well what do you want? Everyone has their own process, people aren't generally out to argue against others.

But I'll say at the margins ...

All-NBA appearances with no weighting is going to be a bit generous to a never first-teamer.


I made the disclaimer that there was no 1st Team for LMA in that very statement, fwiw.

But as far as weighting.....
I have an "award points" scoring [for use in one family of "formulas"] to provide a weighted score for All-Stars, All-NBA's, as well as All-D, DPOY, and scoring titles. Defensive awards a scaled somewhat lightly, because it's assuming many of those recipients were also All-Stars and/or All-NBA [in no small part due to their defense; so not wanting to reward them twice (though DPOY + All-D will frequently be doing that already)...]. Scoring titles weighted even lighter for same reason [and also more skepticism of the definitive value of scoring lots]. Basically it's like this:
Scoring Title: 0.5 pts
All-Def 2nd: 1.5 pts
All-Def 1st: 2 pts
DPOY: 2.5
All-Star: 3
All-NBA 3rd: 4
All-NBA 2nd: 6
All-NBA 1st: 8

Note: these are the raw values with no weighting or accounting of era/league......the above makes no distinction between these things. So for our purproses here: an All-Star selection received in a time when literally HALF the league's starters were "All-Stars" is scored the same as an All-Star received while playing in the tougher conference in a 30-team league [like each and every one of LMA's].
ABA awards included, too, btw....

By that scoring, LaMarcus is tied [with Chris Webber, Tim Hardaway, Damian Lillard, and Paul Westphal] for 76th all-time.

Players already voted in who score BEHIND him in this accounting:
*Dave Cowens [*though he has 1 MVP]
Alonzo Mourning
Alex English
Tony Parker
Kevin McHale
Chris Bosh
Bobby Jones
Pau Gasol
Robert Parish
Dan Issel
Kevin Johnson
Bob McAdoo
Dennis Rodman
Vince Carter
Sam Jones
Chauncey Billups
Adrian Dantley
Draymond Green
Nate Thurmond
James Worthy
Cliff Hagan
Wes Unseld
Reggie Miller
Bob Lanier
Shawn Marion
Jack Sikma
Jeff Hornacek
Horace Grant
Terry Porter
Manu Ginobili
Nikola Jokic
Rasheed Wallace
.....so basically a third of those already voted in, as well as the majority of players being discussed at this stage.


Players still on the table who actually have MORE "award points" than him are:
Dennis Johnson
Jim Pollard
Yao Ming
Paul George
Amar'e Stoudemire
Slater Martin
Ed Macauley
Spencer Haywood
Tiny Archibald
Jerry Lucas
Neil Johnston
Bob Davies
Bill Sharman


^^^First thing I note here is that this list is less than half the length of the other.
Second thing I notice is that more than half of them are getting all/most of their awards in a tiny league---when All-Stars in particular were MUCH easier to come by---often even pre-shot clock [possibly in the BAA]), or in the ABA.......in fact, only four of the 13 listed accrued the majority of their award points post-merger.
Thirdly---although I didn't list the actually scores---I can tell you that only those last four listed actually beat LMA by double-digits in this accounting [ALL of whom played 100% of their careers pre-merger, and in some instances big chunks pre-shotclock].


Not that award-counting should necessarily mean a whole lot anyway [it generally doesn't for me]. However, wanting to be broad in my approach [and knowing it DOES matter a lot to some], I simply wanted to point out that: no matter HOW you slice it, Aldridge is FAR closer to the top of available candidates than he is to the bottom, in terms of accolades received.
There are precious few left on the table who could be said to have a notable edge on him in this once era has been considered.


Owly wrote:Total WS might, I would guess, marginally overrate him versus some candidates, if he is, as I'd guess, higher end minutes than some candidates, due to its very low baseline.


Depends on how you look at it, and how you want to semantically define "overrate". I mean, to some degree it's to LMA's credit that he's able to stay on the floor large minutes AND be productive while doing so, no? Some guys get limited minutes because their bodies have shown definitive signs of not being able to tolerate otherwise.
At any rate, I listed BOTH WS/48 and total WS [even in WS/48, his career mark is higher than 99th].


Owly wrote:Millsap I believe isn't in nor on your condorcet list (so a slightly odd bar no?). Sikma barely so (and a very tight field now). And for most this isn't a peaks project.


Millsap isn't listed in my condorcet accounting because no one has really lobbied for him yet [I'm keeping it "uncluttered"]. If it were to become necessary to include him, he'd be behind LMA, though ahead of guys like Walton, Tiny, DJ, King, Heinsohn (as well as recent inductees Jokic, Draymond, Cunningham, +/- maybe Gus Williams).

I'm not quite clear wrt to what you're saying about Sikma there. If it's that he's not on my condorcet listing, that's because he's off the table [so I removed him]. I'm reasonably high on Jack Sikma [he's quite close to Aldridge for me], so I'm glad he's got in.


Owly wrote:I would guess he's riding some strong priors (or very unlucky with lineups) if he's got three or four "very solid" additional RAPM years. His on off is only more than marginally above 0 in two ('15, '18).


I do prefer PI when available [I think J.E. does too, which is why when he lists something as just "RAPM" it's generally referring to PI as a default]. However, my samples for '18 and '19 [and I believe '20, too, actually] are NPI. He has strong RAPM's for '15 and '16 [PI], and '18 [NPI]. So your concern might apply to '16, but it's hard to say.

Single-season on/off can be fairly noisy. '17 Kawhi, for example, was a mere +1.6 [and an atrocious +8.4 defensively!].....but none of us were questioning he was a superstar (and he was still given All-D 1st!).
So idk....


Owly wrote:Blaylock and Schrempf have higher 97-14 RAPMs with largely outside of prime samples and might warrant mention as competition (Blake could be discussed too, though minutes hurt) from that data.


I agree.



Owly wrote:The above are nit picks though, coming only since you asked for a response. That 97-14 number surprised me the first time I saw it and moved me up on him.

And your case (whilst I might tweak it at the margins) outlines why he is a serious contender here.


I appreciate the response. :)

Briefly ...
All X Team/accolades
You did note that they were second teams or less. You still used it with a rank attached, that would have him far higher than here. You asked for a response, I think it's very fair to note that, yeah, no first teams could be an issue. Less of an issue here, but you used a rank before, now it's well he's before above guys and after some guys not. I think consistent output would be preferable and fwiw versus those already in for me doesn't really matter (to me) unless there's a clear specific anchoring point regarding internal consistency.

I don't know what to make of the points system at a glance. 2nd team seems a bit close to first team if it's a legit divide of elite talents (see later) who move the needle more. I would era adjust - as you note for smaller leagues the percentile is very different.

But fundamentally I wouldn't look to close as I'm loathe to rate on accolades unless I know they are viably near the least worst information source and/or add something new. I'm inclined to think neither is the case in the modern era. But if we are ... yeah Aldridge joint 50th. I don't like the output but I knew the process of coming to it was bad too. As mild supporting evidence and reference for others the points ranking might have sufficed. The All-NBA count passes right over me, it's telling us nothing new or in better detail than other measures.


PIPM
Sikma relates to barely in. It's not that he's a crazy benchmark. It's that it's a very small part of the picture. Where does that peak rank overall. More pertinently to careers how does his career rank (or compare primarily to those actually in the available field but if you see others as relevant ...). As is, It's not really enough to do anything with if you aren't very familiar with the measure, and if you are ... you already know it and more.

None of what you said addresses that WS has a too low baseline. Assuming you don't think a two hundred player-years at 0,001 WS/48 is not only not the same as one player year of .200, but utterly valueless, you know what I mean. I said overall there's a good case, so I'm not going to point out every angle that's okay but a career value measure might be better with above average, above good or even above replacement. I'm pretty sure you know this and have looked at this.


RE: PI RAPM, if you want to know how good a player is, it's probably a better estimate. If you want to know impact in that season ... I'm unsure. And if you're going to herald a player for a good RAPM through '14 and then say he held on well using PI RAPM ... I'm not an expert in how it works but it seems there might be a cycle going on there. Yes on-off is of course noisy. Fwiw, I'd argue any single year impact metric is (though of course to lesser degrees). I'm not that into evaluating single years. But only two of those years looked significantly positive so given the claim it seemed worth noting.

He's a viable candidate. As before a reasonable case was presented. I just think my angles would have given a fuller, fairer picture.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 29,830
And1: 9,590
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#17 » by penbeast0 » Tue May 18, 2021 6:55 pm

Fixed
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,859
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#18 » by drza » Tue May 18, 2021 7:37 pm

Quick story, I just shouted out our project on national radio. Max Kellerman had me on his radio show debating whether the 2020 Hall of Fame class was the best NBA class in history, and he got to talking about how he thought people were sleeping on how good Robinson and Stockton were (they went in with MJ in 2016). I told him I was a basketball nerd, and that every 3 years me and a group of about 40 of my basketball nerd friends do a 6-month top-100 ranking project. Talked about how this project started last October and is to player 99 now (even though I had to miss much of it once the season started), and that we had Robinson 18 and Stockton 26. He couldn't believe we had Duncan 5 and Bird 10, thought Kobe should go in top-10 and thought KG was too high as well. I didn't even tell him we had LeBron over Jordan, as he believes Jordan to be the greatest athlete in the history of American sports and called him so in the interview. But I digress.

Once this project came up, it dominated the rest of the interview. We were supposed to talk the current Bucks vs the Nets, but we couldn't stop debating the historical rankings. It was fun, for me, since usually I don't get to talk much history on ESPN...they want primarily current events. Plus, it was fun to shout out our projects (Max walked off by calling me a true nerd, not just a basketball one, which I couldn't argue with...)
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,633
And1: 21,560
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#19 » by Doctor MJ » Tue May 18, 2021 9:42 pm

drza wrote:Quick story, I just shouted out our project on national radio. Max Kellerman had me on his radio show debating whether the 2020 Hall of Fame class was the best NBA class in history, and he got to talking about how he thought people were sleeping on how good Robinson and Stockton were (they went in with MJ in 2016). I told him I was a basketball nerd, and that every 3 years me and a group of about 40 of my basketball nerd friends do a 6-month top-100 ranking project. Talked about how this project started last October and is to player 99 now (even though I had to miss much of it once the season started), and that we had Robinson 18 and Stockton 26. He couldn't believe we had Duncan 5 and Bird 10, thought Kobe should go in top-10 and thought KG was too high as well. I didn't even tell him we had LeBron over Jordan, as he believes Jordan to be the greatest athlete in the history of American sports and called him so in the interview. But I digress.

Once this project came up, it dominated the rest of the interview. We were supposed to talk the current Bucks vs the Nets, but we couldn't stop debating the historical rankings. It was fun, for me, since usually I don't get to talk much history on ESPN...they want primarily current events. Plus, it was fun to shout out our projects (Max walked off by calling me a true nerd, not just a basketball one, which I couldn't argue with...)


Love this so much!
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,940
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #99 

Post#20 » by Odinn21 » Tue May 18, 2021 10:17 pm

99. Walt Bellamy
His prime has some inconsistencies but he had a career trajectory of a ‘00s player in the ‘60s with good quality. It’s all there for him.
(In terms of first few seasons, Bellamy and Hawkins are pretty similar but curious about why Hawkins should be a better candidate than Bellamy, Cunningham, Issel with their entire careers. It’s arguable that Hawkins peaked higher to begin with...)

100. Bernard King
Arguably the best peak among the big scoring wings of the '80s (Gervin, Dantley, English and Wilkins). Even after the injuries he was still a good impact ended up with nearly 20k career point.
I know my list is quite harsh on Bill Walton and Connie Hawkins who do not have much to show for outside of their top 3 or 4 seasons. But King is not like them to me. If anything, King is like a more impactful Carmelo Anthony IMO.

Kemp was my 3rd choice but we've reached a point that 3rd choices go below 100 mark, so I'm sliding him to my condorcet selections.

S. Kemp > M Price > D. DeBusschere > B. Dandridge > C. Mullin > J. Butler > C. Webber > K. Lowry > L. Aldridge > Z. Beaty > E. Jones > E. Brand > C. Hawkins > B. Walton > A. Hardaway > N. Archibald > N. Johnston > D. Johnson > T. Heinsohn > F. Ramsey > M. Daniels
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.

Return to Player Comparisons