RealGM

Who you got?

Baron Davis would be a HOFer if it weren't for injuries

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Baron Davis would be a HOFer if it weren't for injuries

Not the question asked.

Also, below-average to bad scorer, limp impact metrics relative to his peers, more exciting than highly effective. Did have a couple of very good playoff runs, though. With the HoF as it stands, maybe you're right (even if non-sequitur), but that's mostly sad, because the HoF has low standards, and Baron definitely wasn't worth it.

tsherkin wrote:

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Baron Davis would be a HOFer if it weren't for injuries

Not the question asked.

Also, below-average to bad scorer, limp impact metrics relative to his peers, more exciting than highly effective. Did have a couple of very good playoff runs, though. With the HoF as it stands, maybe you're right (even if non-sequitur), but that's mostly sad, because the HoF has low standards, and Baron definitely wasn't worth it.

I dont know about the impact part

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

Baron davis looks legit great in rapm

tsherkin wrote:limp impact metrics relative to his peers

Based on what? Baron was an impact giant from everything I have seen. Even WOWYR, which is more whelmed on him than most, still puts his prime above lead guards like Jason Kidd, Reggie Miller, and Tim Hardaway, and close behind superstars like Vince Carter, James Worthy, and Kevin McHale.

falcolombardi wrote:https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

Baron davis looks legit great in rapm

Floor-raising, maybe? You're talking about a notably inefficient scorer, a 2-time All-Star known more for dunks than anything else. Mediocre offenses the whole time with the Hornets. 03-07, which is the peak listed there, he was riddled with injuries. 50, 67, 46, 54 and 63 games played. Untrustworthy sample.

https://public.tableau.com/views/14YearRAPM/14YearRAPM?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no

Are a hundred thousand possessions an insufficient sample?

He certainly was never tested as a “ceiling raiser”, but the man could lift a floor with some of the best. Scoring efficiency is not everything when you still occupy the defence, pressure the rim while also stretching coverage with high volume distance shooting (for his era lol), create for your teammates at high levels, and provide excellent guard defence.

tsherkin wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

Baron davis looks legit great in rapm

Floor-raising, maybe? You're talking about a notably inefficient scorer, a 2-time All-Star known more for dunks than anything else. Mediocre offenses the whole time with the Hornets. 03-07, which is the peak listed there, he was riddled with injuries. 50, 67, 46, 54 and 63 games played. Untrustworthy sample.

Peak Westbrook was a notably inefficient scorer more known for his dunks or triple doubles than anythingh else

He still was the engine of a elite offense team in oklahoma 2012-2016, and was the impact metrics leader in a 2016 thunder team that was +8 in offense when healthy and the co anchor of a 2013 thunder that played +9 srs basketball

Inneficient volume scoring with huge creation and secondary additive skills (like fastbreak running off the defensive board or offensive rebounding) can be a valuable skillset even for high end teams

falcolombardi wrote:Peak Westbrook was a notably inefficient scorer more known for his dunks or triple doubles than anythingh else

True, if perhaps a little disingenuous based on the difference in production and team efficacy. A large difference between those two players. Some of it is visible in simpler stats like OBPM and what have you, though naturally those have their own limitations. Keep in mind that Westbrook at his peak was actually league-average or a shade better, whereas Baron Davis never even hit 99 TS+. There's a bit of a difference between them there, and of course he was never Westie on the offensive glass either, nor in terms of assist production, nor Box Creation, etc.

tsherkin wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:Peak Westbrook was a notably inefficient scorer more known for his dunks or triple doubles than anythingh else

True, if perhaps a little disingenuous based on the difference in production and team efficacy. A large difference between those two players. Some of it is visible in simpler stats like OBPM and what have you, though naturally those have their own limitations. Keep in mind that Westbrook at his peak was actually league-average or a shade better, whereas Baron Davis never even hit 99 TS+. There's a bit of a difference between them there, and of course he was never Westie on the offensive glass either, nor in terms of assist production, nor Box Creation, etc.

I am not necesarrily suggesting peak baron davis is as good as peak westbrook (although with how retroactively underated westbrook peak is getting these days it may become the new consensus)

Westbrook after all has even better impact metrics than baron from what i remember

But it shows that baron "archetype", doesnt preclude being the star or co-star in a high ceiling team or even a super high ceiling offense

falcolombardi wrote:I am not necesarrily suggesting peak baron davis is as good as peak westbrook (although with how retroactively underated westbrook peak is getting these days it may become the new consensus)

Westbrook after all has even better impact metrics than baron from what i remember

But it shows that baron "archetype", doesnt preclude being the star or co-star in a high ceiling team or even a super high ceiling offense

Right, but that's not what happened with Davis. His Hornets days were not marked by good team offenses at all. And while he was better than his raw scoring efficiency might have indicated, he was a prototypical example of poor early-2000s strategy overemphasizing isolation basketball and without any real attention paid to things beyond raw scoring average.

I don't disagree with your basic point. Iverson, leastwise in his peak seasons, is another example of this... though he, like Westbrook, outperformed Davis in terms of stuff like OBPM.

Davis wasn't horrible. In his top seasons, he was a +3, +4 type OBPM guy. He shouldered the load on some fairly limp teams. He became actually competent at the line once he left the Hornets for the Warriors, and was acceptable to decent from 3 for a couple seasons. He boosted some fairly crap offenses to some extent; his raw on/off isn't small. He also shot a bunch, leastwise from 02 onward (first AS season, at that). Not a hot choice, given his inefficiency, but with no one else but half a season of Jamal Mashburn, of all people, on that roster, what else were they going to do? Give the ball to the exciting guard, sure. All the way to 15th out of 29 in the league on offense. So there's only so much respect I'm willing to lend, you know?

And yes, there is a threshold of inefficiency which does blockade a team from reaching elite levels if the inefficiency is enough. Below league average is a good starting point, and that's where Davis dwelt his whole career. More particularly, he was sub 50% TS in 6 of his 13 seasons. Westbrook was that bad only in his first two seasons. Obviously, league average kept rising, but there was a wide difference in overall efficacy and production between someone like Westbrook and someone like Davis. I understand you're not making a direct comparison, I'm just circling back to the level of production required to make an inefficient scorer worthwhile, particularly one worse than league average. And that threshold has been rising right alongside league-average TS%, because wasting scoring possessions in volume is not a hot strategy, particularly if what you're chasing is high-end team offense.