1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.
2. Nomination vote now works the same way.
3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.
4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.
5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.
5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.
Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):
Spoiler:
AEnigma Ambrose ceilng raiser ceoofkobefans Clyde Frazier Colbinii cupcakesnake Doctor MJ Dooley DQuinn1575 Dr Positivity DraymondGold Dutchball97 eminence f4p falcolombardi Fundamentals21 Gibson22 HeartBreakKid homecourtloss iggymcfrack LA Bird JimmyFromNz Joao Saraiva lessthanjake ljspeelman Lou Fan Moonbeam Narigo OhayoKD OldSchoolNoBull One_and_Done penbeast0 rk2023 Samurai ShaqAttac Taj FTW Tim Lehrbach trelos6 trex_8063 ty 4191 ZeppelinPage
Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):
Vote for Steve Nash - Other than Giannis this is a battle of offensive juggernauts.
Durant, Barkley, Malone, and Nash are all heavy oriented offensive players with varying degrees of defensive limitations. Durant is highly inconsistent but compared to the others he is a better defender.
Malone and especially Barkley leave a lot to be desired on defense. Also, if you're going to reply "Malone may have been average" - that means he is bad. Saying someone is average at best means they are almost certainly below par, and it is not worth arguing just to make them look a little more palpable.
But basically, it comes down to if I want someone to really carry the best offense am I picking these big boys over Nash? And I really just do not see how I can.
Being a better scorer isn't relevant. Being a better rebounder isn't relevant. Those are means to an end. Nash being one of the best shooters and passers of all time is just a how when explaining his methods of becoming one of the best offensive players of all time which is the actual important part. What matters is if a team has Steve Nash and they generate more points than teams that have Barkley/Malone/Durant than that likely means Nash is the superior offensive player despite any PPG or rebounding differences.
Nash has been on the #1 offense for a billion years in two different clubs. He has been on the best offenses of all time and again, has more or less done so in two different clubs (defined by relative to their competition). While most people only look at Nash as existing between the years of 2005-2007, he did indeed exist before and after.
Nash's after years where people did not really care about him are the years that helped ensure that he wasn't just a flash in the pan to me. When you look at Nash and the Suns with a closer eye you can see that even if his boxscore numbers go down, his coach that supposedly made him a "system pg" left, or his teammates become irrelevant the Suns are always winning games and are always popping out great offenses. Even at 37 years old, his last season in Phoenix still lead to a top ten offense and a .500 record in a tough Western conference. That was a team that had Jared Dudley, Marcin Gortat and 40 year old Grant Hill as their best players.
I also think because Nash is a PG he hurts your defense a little less than Barkley. I think this is a major weakness for Barkley in this comparison. Even if they were equal on offense which might not be too far off, it's difficult to imagine many combinations of teams that are not hurt by Barkley playing bad defense (sometimes even on purpose).
People love talking about Barkley's rebounds, but if Barkley is a terrible defender then what is the point of referencing that he gets a lot of defensive rebounds? If the argument is that he gets a lot of offensive rebounds...well, yes, he is a great offensive player. No one is really denying that. I don't get why people talk about rebounds as if they are a spectrum of basketball that exist in a vacuum. They affect offense and defense just like every thing else.
Nash's lack of team success can be explained pretty easily, there was only like a two year window where the Suns had a chance and they simply lost to competitive teams. Most of the other years they weren't contenders. I have no doubt that the Suns could win a title with Nash as their "guy". And aside from that, Barkley, Durant, and Malone are either ringless or only won titles with literally the best team(s) of all time. So I don't think it is fair to really pick on Nash for that.
Alternate Vote is for Kevin Durant - Kevin Durant doesn't have quite the one way weakness as Charles Barkley but still has the scary scoring efficiency. I have a hard time seeing an argument for ol Chucky here.
Giannis has been one of the best players of the last few years but I am not fully sure if he is quite the monster he is made out to be. While he is a great boxscore stuffer, I think his scoring isn't quite as useful. Durant also struggles I think with his boxscore stats leading to high impact but not to the same degree.
I would like to see more analysis on Giannis' defense because that intrigues me most about him but for now I'd have to give the nod to Durant.
In terms of "goodness" and longevity CP3 is well there. He was the best player on a finals team a couple years ago in his mid 30s. His one weakness is he gets injured, and it's a major weakness, but hey, Karl Malone not being resilient is a major weakness also.
My nomination is for Nikola Jokic(I'm very peak oriented and he has enough seasons where it is pretty easy to see he is no fluke, he is probably better than some of the players on the top 10 list already)
HeartBreakKid wrote:Malone and especially Barkley leave a lot to be desired on defense. Also, if you're going to reply "Malone may have been average" - that means he is bad. Saying someone is average at best means they are almost certainly below par, and it is not worth arguing just to make them look a little more palpable.
What if I tell you he's better than that and that he peaked as a clear positive, impactful defender?
VOTE: Kevin Durant NOMINATE: Dwyane Wade AltNom: James Harden
I probably would have voted for Durant over Chris Paul but do not feel too strongly about it. Do not have their peaks too far apart when healthy (but I trust peak Durant’s health more), and Paul clearly has a longer and more complete career with a significant advantage pre-2010 and post-2019 (now inverted where Durant’s health is a less reliable quantity).
He should win this vote comfortably, but the two I would consider against him are Nash and Moses. There is some positional ambiguity with them which I do not see with Barkley, where I just outright would prefer Durant as my star forward. And Giannis again only has seven truly relevant seasons. Even Mikan had more than that, parlayed into much more success. Moses had seven years as a true superstar and fair surrounding seasons. I would say Durant had ~9 superstar seasons before the 2019 Finals injury, and he has been a part-time superstar since.
For nominations I am open to any of (in alphabetical order) Dwyane Wade, James Harden, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, and Scottie Pippen. I will vote for any of those five against anyone not among those five. Again, I am not considering Jokic yet with only seven kind-of relevant seasons. I have Pettit below Rick Barry, and while I respect that 1975 title run, I prefer the total careers of all five. I am open to being convinced with Gilmore (mostly by way of comparison with Moses and Ewing), but his NBA career leaves little to analyse too meaningfully, his team change in 1983 is nothing impressive, and his ABA career results are underwhelming given his talent relative to the league and the strength of his supporting cast. I will not be voting Stockton top thirty; he has Reggie Miller longevity but lacks Reggie’s postseason acumen.
Vote - Kevin Durant Alternate - Steve Nash Nomination - Dwayne Wade
Explained in post #23 in voting thread, please refer to that.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
Accidentally scrubbed this after the thread was over,, when I was copying the text but there was the same copy paste from page 1 of the last thread voting.
Voted: KD, altrnate Giannis
Nominated Harden, Jokic
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
DraymondGold wrote:so again, reasons to think giannis is not being penalized for longevity quite like others (i penalize him probably more for poor resiliency and basically only winning when every other major contender was injured). note that the average player is about +2 because obviously already being voted into the list has a positive bias.
The issue with "poor resliency" is the Bucks are generally playoff risers, not fallers. On the basis of their...defense usually outpacing their offensive drop-off":
Spoiler:
Giannis and the Bucks in the playoffs 2015: lose to the bulls as a role-player
2017: Giannis becomes a fringe superstar, team sees +3 srs improvement and plays a razor-close series(<1 ppg, 6 games) vs the +3.65 srs opponent(Giannis puts up strong offensive production)
2018: Giannis is a fringe MVP candidate, team mantains in the rs, and then playes an even closer series vs +3.2 srs Boston who nearly make the finals after beating the near +4.5 srs Sixers
2019: Giannis gets a not bad coach for the first time in his career and breaks out as a historically strong MVP winner as the Bucks jump by 8 points to post a historically remarkable +8 srs team(almost never happens in non-expansion periods) despite a cast that plays at .500 without him form 19-20(and marginally above from 21-23. That team improves to +13.75 in the playoffs on the back of a big defensive improvement. They are merely +7 in that oh so bad 6-game(1 ppg) loss to a coasting Toronto side which saw a cast capable of 60-win basketball add Kawhi Leonard, aka, clutch Durant, aka "resiliency king". In the conference finals Giannis's offensive production falters against one of the best defenses ever but he also puts up one of the best defensive performances ever to push a toronto side about as good as anyone Jokic has ever faced and far better than any team Jokic has ever beat to the brink(double-overtime and giannis fouling out prevented a 3-0 defecit).
2020: Giannis has one of the very best regular seasons ever(arguably better than any regular season from certain players who have already been voted in) and the Bucks post a +9.41 SRS(basically unheard of in non-expansion periods) with a team that plays average basketball without Antetokounmpo. Team collapses defensively in the bubble and are upset by the eventual finalists despite Giannis's offensive production improving from last year as their defense is torched by Miami. There is injury context with Giannis eventually missing a game and 3 quarters.
2021: Giannis coasts as merely a top 3 regular season player in the regular season and the Bucks post a +5.6 SRS(4th in the league) with a team that is a bit above .500 without him. The Bucks again get significantly better in the playoffs on the back of their defense and Giannis is good to great on both ends throughout as Giannis becomes one of the few players to win a championship... -> without a 2nd superstar -> without perennial all-star -> without "help" that is significantly > .500 without him -> without a strong playoff coach
The competition is fairly weak, but so was the support, and ultimately it's topped off with Giannis posting one of the greatest performances ever against a very good team on both ends of the floor
2022: Giannis is again, merely a top 3 regular season player, and the Bucks regress to +3(7th best) with the big-three missing a significant number of games. Bucks are(opponent-adjusted) more than +12 against the Bulls with Middleton and take a near-champion to 7 without a middleton in a not that close series(+8 point differential). Overall Bucks improve dramatically. again, on the back of their defense.
2023: Every contender is coasting and Giannis is again merely a top 3 regular season player as the Bucks post a 3rd best +3.61 SRS despite Middleton missing a bunch of games. Against Miami, Giannis misses almost half the series and is injured throughout. Consequently, the Bucks defense collapses as they lose to the eventual finalists(again)
8 postseasons total, 7 as a superstar, and the Bucks underperform twice and overperform 5 times despite a deeply flawed postseason coach, a cast who generally falls off in the playoffs(shooting especially). Both underperformances have injury context and when they lose, they are mostly losing to champions or finalists,
Durant 's teams rs overperformances are -> 2017, where KD sandbagged the regular-season and wasn't even his team's best scorer through 3 of 4 playoff rounds -> 2018, Warriors sandbag the regular-season and are on-pace to lose vs a less talented team -> 2016, outplayed by Westbrook with virtually any empirical approach -> 2012, little to no responsibility outside of scoring which...immediately plummets when they're asked to be a secondary on-ball in 2013, 2014, and 2016
Worse rs player, with better context, who gets to play with all-time playoff risers(westbrook, draymond, booker), and his teams don't actually rise at the same frequency as Giannis's Bucks, but sure...his per looks good in gsw when he...saw all his non-scoring repsonsibilities lowered to what they were in OKC(except defense to be fair)
And on that note...
trex_8063 wrote:Am I comparing Durant's ability as a playmaker to anyone listed there? NO.
Okay. How about against 2017 Kawhi Leonard(notably bad among superstars at this point) in a year you say KD's playmaking improved:
I don't know about you, but Kawhi seems to be creating more. I'd also be careful assuming KD meaningfully improved as a playmaker just because he completed passes before a score more frequently:
Spoiler:
fp4 wrote:is that how you're describing a 49/17/10 playoff game on 82 TS%? as "left in single coverage". also, the 10 assists make it seem hard to think he wasn't seeing some doubles.
Are you under the impression that players can't rack up assist counts without being doubled? KD is like, the textbook example of that assumption being dumb... [spoiler]
KD's assists and ast% went up going to Golden State. Stockton literally built his whole legacy of passing, out of single-coverage, to a guy who didn't have any assist-cancelling moves. Extra defensive attention is important for creation, not assist-racking. While a teammate is more likely to score while more open, It's easier to pass by a single guy than multiple. And KD often sees his assisting go up when the opposing team isn't keying in.
In fact the very next postseason, with a Celtics team that was keying in, his raw assists barely went up while his ast% dropped from 26 to 22.
Great playmakers consistently see a trade-off as they can pass by multiple defenders consistently. KD sucks vs doubles so the opposite often happens... [/quote][/spoiler] KD's pass attempts, opposing defensive attention, touches with the ball, and average-time per touch all went down. Was KD really offering more playmaking in gsw than he was in okc? How? It certainly wasn't a matter of him overcoming his limitations as a slasher:
Spoiler:
You say KD was a better playmaker but I think what actually happened is KD looked better with a reduced role, and that gets us back to Erving.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Julius generally
1.His team's primary playmaker? 2.His team's primary or co-primary ball-handler? 3. The guy who faced the most defensive attention?
You say Julius and Durant were "both not paticularly good" but I'd say by the standards of superstars Durant was notably bad and equating a dude who flucutated between secondary and tertiary and a primary is misleading.
Of course maybe you'd argue the scoring gap made up for it but that gets us to another problem: https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/zss88c/durant_vs_harden_revisited/ KD is a great all-time playoff scorer(by raw numbers)...when he's a tertiary on-ball guy. When he's the secondary? He's basically playoff James Harden.
Would you take James Harden with way worse playmaking over Dr J?
That "all-time box" you talk about is all-time in specific conditions that are basically impossible to replicate. Additionally, take out the box-score and... viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2301003 It's hard to argue KD is even a top 5 guy among contemporaries. Maybe era-adjustment makes up the gap, but how many players are from the 70's are you taking over Julius?
Because without box, durant was not much better in gsw than okc. And honestly, I'm confused why people (not you)insist OKC undersells Durant when their strengths covered his weaknesses(passing, ball-handling, inside-scoring, defense, rebounding) and their weaknesses matched his strengths(spacing, effecient scoring).
Regardless, I think "KD was a similar playmaker to erving" probably oversells Durant's playmaking by an order of magnitude. 2013 is probably the playoff where KD actually did the most playmaking and it didn't stop a +9 srs regular-season team from collapsing vs 2 non-contenders as KD's scoring numbers plummeted. KD can't be trusted as even a secondary on-ball dude in the playoffs and that's not tenable on the vast majority of contenders. He's not a big-man. You can't build around his defense. You also can't build around his offense. Would you say that's true for Erving?
Natural point here to pivot onto box-score ad-populum/nash I think. Let's start with just recounting the claims box-score correlation TM was used to support
1. Downplaying the box score doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. In fact, these very rankings don't downplay it at all and hew quite closely to it.
The assertion was not "box-score correlates with pc-board rankings generally" or even "box-score correlates better with rankings than rapm'. It was "the rankings don't downplay the box-score at all" and "it doesn't make sense" to downplay it when evaluating a specific player.
With that in mind...
a. there was no 0%. you just missed someone in the range you specified.
No I didn't:
Spoiler:
Well, we've got 24 names, so they must at least start by position 24. So where does the first inducted person finally come in on the box score list?
1 Michael Jordan 2 George Mikan 3 LeBron James 4 Wilt Chamberlain 5 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 Giannis Antetokounmpo 7 Chris Paul 8 Shaquille O'Neal 9 Tim Duncan 10 Kevin Durant 11 Hakeem Olajuwon 12 Jerry West 13 Charles Barkley 14 Magic Johnson 15 David Robinson 16 Oscar Robertson 17 Dirk Nowitzki 18 James Harden 19 Julius Erving 20 Stephen Curry 21 Kevin Garnett 22 Larry Bird 23 Karl Malone 24 Kobe Bryant 25 Ray Allen 26 Dwyane Wade 27 Bill Russell
0 out of 2 is 0%
you seem to talk about sample size a lot but sure are proud that the box score thing, which was only based on prime, ever so slightly had different placements for longevity giants for the exact small sample cut-off you picked, right before that same measure quickly listed the longevity giants and then basically ran the table on the rest of the project. i mean you guys just referenced something that had wade 167th between 1997 and 2014 so i think a small deviation can be handled.
So Magic(14th by box) is a longetvity giant? Steph(20th by box)? Hakeem(11th by box)? Longetvity giants tend to be peak giants(at least by actual winning), the players your box-score misaligns with the most are players with big defensive anchors and players who create more than their assist totals suggest. Bird is 22nd and the big fight in his highly contentious 12th place win over Kobe was whether Bird qualifies as a "player who creates more than assist totals suggest".
i even went through the trouble of adding longevity (with a bonus for an FMVP) to the calculation. we're now lined up enough to say "Box*Longevity plus best player on a title team" does a pretty good job of explaining the votes so far.
Does it do better than the raw box? 2 out of the top 2, and 7 out of the top 10 but 23 out of 24 is now 22, and . Go back to that cheema thread and this time check possession-count. Is Wade still looking 167th?
Moreover, is there a reason we're trying to explain "votes" as opposed to "winning"? Are secondary sources>primary sources? Are we trying to measure a thing or an interpretation of a thing? The entire point of increasing human bias with box-score focused analysis is that it is less noisy and thus more accurate over larger scales! And yet... https://dunksandthrees.com/blog/metric-comparison Input rapm more directly? most accurate. Put more weight on box-component than on/off(raptor), less accurate!
Simple box? vs RAPM? Well RAPM ends up ahead of 2 of the 3 standard simple box things. BPM comes out a bit better(third of the gap between it and direct rapm-inputters[/b]). We replaced something that was more inclusive and less prone to directional bias and directly tied to the thing we rate players on("winning")box to reduce noise and...noise wasn't really reduced.
It's also not a mystery why. D-RAPTOR box fluctuates 7 x more with it's on/off component than O-RAPTOR does. And guys with big ppg who see their box and box-hybrids outpace their rapms or wowy. You know who scores a bunch, doesn't do much else, has nice steal/block rates and isn't a defensive anchor?
Spoiler:
rhymes with ant
no one here is actually using rapm as a 1:1 ranking. In Hakeem's #6 vote, a big defense was that RAPM isn't reality+. The box-score has been used by it's detractors. Just not as a player-ranker.
If you think Nash should be out of the top 30 or whatever, then why are we bothering with explaining votes. Your rationale for voting Nash lower should explain winning. What about nash's low box-score reflects reality better than his rapm or wowy?
If realgm voters, almost universally focused on "winning" as the end-goal of player participation, are more box-score orientated than they can justify via winning, then that would suggest they should downplay the box-score more.
okay, but that's not as good as 2006 dwade, wouldn't you agree?
Yes, which is part of why I have Wade ahead.
that's because there's nothing Sans spreadsheet loves more than a big win over a decent opponent in rounds 1 and 2. it gives you a quick boost against non-contenders that doesn't necessarily mean that much
If it doesn't mean much then why are you using SRS at all? The average regular-season opponent is worse. M.O.V either matters or it doesn't.
Do you even have reason to believe that Nash uniquely benefits from that?
playoff offenses that managed to lose because the defense somehow fell off even more than the offense got better in some of the bigger series. right? i mean the 2005 and 2010 WCF offenses do look truly incredible, like off the charts type stuff, but somehow the defenses fell off by more than 10 points, indicating that his teams are just hardcore leaning into offense at the expense of defense. is that not a reasonable interpretation? it can't just be that nash made the offense good and then, for completely unrelated reasons, the defense got terrible.
Why pick one or the other? Why pick two series? If you think this is a consistent thing which makes nash a big playoff-dropper, then just do an overall breakdown like me and Rk did with Giannis, or like I did with Durant
so why don't people poke holes? it's one of those things people mention then quickly brush past. he played with a guy who has already been voted in, both in their primes and definite all-star seasons for nash according to this project, and they managed a 1-2 conference finals deficit against one of duncan's weaker teams for their peak accomplishment. that's not inaccurate is it?
People do poke holes. That's why Nash is not the consensus offensive goat here, and people aren't taking what is one of the biggest single-year turnarounds ever at face-value. Bird won and didn't have a mavericks equivalent so his turnaround was taken alot more seriously, even if it doesn't really lineup with later results.
Pointing out context and holding low-ends against someone is fine...if you do it consistently. The problem is people don't. Steph wasn't held back for not doing anything notable under Kerr. Shaq was not penalized for his team not showing significant improvement when he replaced 96 Magic. KG was not given a boost for posting shaq+ signals in a situation where he was clearly not optimized defensively.
If you care about low-ends, cool, but look at that for everyone. Players who aren't dependent on coaching or specific roster-construction to succeed probably aren't nearly as common as you think they are. This logic also goes both ways. If Nash is posting his best signals at 30, imagine what he could have been doing if he was used properly in his 20's?
(i'm sure there will be a bunch of adjustments that somehow prove they actually got worse).
And I'm sure if those adjustments did come, you'd reply with nonsensical compliants("pretend oakley was absolutely worthless" -> "you want us to pretend oakley was amazing!")
Either way, I don't think it matters that much that Nash could only produce his impact or team-success in x context down at 21. Especially when one or both of those arguments were practically ignored in threads 3, 8, 11, or 12.
and of course, you just nominated harden, who basically feels like nash with better numbers and an even better "oh so close" title argument against an even better team with more mitigating circumstances.
Well it wasn't the "numbers", but the better "oh so close", and better longetivity(which also helped him over wade) in a better league. Speaking of which...
well i would say this project definitely leans in the longevity direction.
And I'd say you definitely overrate the degree.
You were first decrying this when we voted in Kareem, but Kareem having more career value was accepted back in the 2014 thread. It was also definitely apparent in 2020 when a player basically no one was willing to call outright better than Jordan(Lebron) was voted above at #1. Yet Kareem got torched both times because while Lebron was "arguable" or "close", Kareem was considered to be clearly worse.
Poll all the people who voted kareem 2nd this time around, and I'm pretty sure nearly all of them would at least say Kareem's peak was "arguable" or ""near". Kareem being arguable over MJ at his best is what allowed his longetivity to nab him #2, just like Lebron merely being "arguable" nabbed him #1 3 years back.
Poll the KG posters on whether KG was at least "nearly" as good as Magic at his best, and you'd probably get the same results.
The formula is be "about as good AND play alot longer" and then you get the nod. If it's only "probably not nearly as good but played alot longer", that only gets you so far(see: kobe vs bird). Hell even if you --are-- nearly as good and play longer, there's no garuntee(west vs oscar).
Vote: Kevin Durant: While Durant's personality and ability to elevate teammates is certainly questionable, he's been one of the NBA's all-time greatest scorers and a solid defender for well over a decade in what I classify as the strongest era in league history (albeit one that is easier to be an ATG scorer than any other). I think there's been a backlash against him that will die down a bit over time and this seems the right spot for him though, again, it's close with Julius who will probably be my next choice.
Alternative: Giannis: Actually was planning to vote Julius here and certainly Julius has a longevity advantage but while Julius was as amazing in the ABA as Giannis has been in the NBA, I don't think he was actually more amazing or dominating. And the modern league is bigger, deeper, and more competitive than late era ABA. So balancing, I came down on the side of Giannis.
Nomination: Jokic Not sure this guy deserve this spot in front of guys like Frazier, Stockton, Moses, or Ewing, but not sure they don't. When in doubt, I will go with the active player knowing that sometimes I don't give them enough credit for what they've done.
Alternate Nomination: John Stockton -- I have Stockton as better than Nash, not as a pure offensive field general, it's close with Stockton doing a better job getting the ball to the open man in sets but Nash doing better in broken plays, but Stockton's ironman leadership and defense to me are more valuable than Nash's ability to occasionally have a big game (offset by small ones to bring Nash and Stockton back to the same rough scoring level) and the extra playoff numbers.
FWIW, I have also traditionally voted Bob Pettit before Barkley despite Barkley's numbers edge and more modern era due to Barkley's poor leadership and defense; not the guy I want leading my team. Probably Wade over Harden for the same reason though I haven't taken time to look at that comp seriously yet. Soon.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
HeartBreakKid wrote:Giannis has been one of the best players of the last few years but I am not fully sure if he is quite the monster he is made out to be. While he is a great boxscore stuffer, I think his scoring isn't quite as useful. Durant also struggles I think with his boxscore stats leading to high impact but not to the same degree.
To be clear, are you arguing Giannis, one of the best defenders ever, is overrated by the box-score to a higher degree than Durant is? Can you elaborate where exactly you think Durant is less overrated?
I would like to see more analysis on Giannis' defense because that intrigues me most about him but for now I'd have to give the nod to Durant.
Okay well I did rs and playoff impact comparisons to jokic(you have as a top 10 peak) so I' guess I can start with that
Regular-season impact
Spoiler:
I wouldn't say the only thing. I'll make a post giving a broader overview at some point, but based on cryptbeam's scaled apm(apparently designed to make 1-year stuff more cross comparable like ben taylor's), Gianni's 2019 scores much higher than any Jokic year and is the highest non-lebron or kg year in the data-set. It is also one of two-non lebron years in the top 7 with at least 5000 possessions played(if i was to make it top 10, there would also be 03 Duncan and 04 falls just short of 5000 possessions due to injury). I wouldn't put too much weight on this(we don't have longer time frames, and jokic/giannis have a combined 3-years showing up...) but whatever.
I also don't think Jokic coming out a bit better(and this is assuming they're all identical in terms of possessions) per-possession during a time span he played 5000 less minuites is that compelling of a case. Ditto with RPM.
RAPTOR loves Jokic, but metrics like LEBRON and Darko prefer Giannis.
Real-world impact also arguably favors Giannis with the +8 and +9 SRS Giannis led in 19/20 looking average in games without him(which would also suggest the on/off disparity is more a product of unfavorable rotations than an actual disparity in value). And I'll reiterate, one of those teams saw their srs go up in the playoffs despite playing a sandbagging toronto side that was much better than anyone Jokic's beat(or even been competitive against).
I think jokic has an arguable advantage, but I don't think it's clear-cut and ultimately Giannis's teams(largely on the strength of their defense) improve more in the playoffs. I think if you go one-year 2023 Jokic has a solid case vs any giannis stretch but i think 2019 and 2020 both have strong cases as the best rs between the too and from a purely impact perspective 2019 has a case as the best overall year with 2022 having a great playoff case.
Add that Giannis has the longevity and probably has been used less optimally and I'd prefer Giannis by impact leaving us with..
Playoff translation
Spoiler:
Giannis and the Bucks in the playoffs 2015: lose to the bulls as a role-player
2017: Giannis becomes a fringe superstar, team sees +3 srs improvement and plays a razor-close series(<1 ppg, 6 games) vs the +3.65 srs opponent(Giannis puts up strong offensive production)
2018: Giannis is a fringe MVP candidate, team mantains in the rs, and then playes an even closer series vs +3.2 srs Boston who nearly make the finals after beating the near +4.5 srs Sixers
2019: Giannis gets a not bad coach for the first time in his career and breaks out as a historically strong MVP winner as the Bucks jump by 8 points to post a historically remarkable +8 srs team(almost never happens in non-expansion periods) despite a cast that plays at .500 without him form 19-20(and marginally above from 21-23. That team improves to +13.75 in the playoffs on the back of a big defensive improvement. They are merely +7 in that oh so bad 6-game(1 ppg) loss to a coasting Toronto side which saw a cast capable of 60-win basketball add Kawhi Leonard, aka, clutch Durant, aka "resiliency king". In the conference finals Giannis's offensive production falters against one of the best defenses ever but he also puts up one of the best defensive performances ever to push a toronto side about as good as anyone Jokic has ever faced and far better than any team Jokic has ever beat to the brink(double-overtime and giannis fouling out prevented a 3-0 defecit).
2020: Giannis has one of the very best regular seasons ever(arguably better than any regular season from certain players who have already been voted in) and the Bucks post a +9.41 SRS(basically unheard of in non-expansion periods) with a team that plays average basketball without Antetokounmpo. Team collapses defensively in the bubble and are upset by the eventual finalists despite Giannis's offensive production improving from last year as their defense is torched by Miami. There is injury context with Giannis eventually missing a game and 3 quarters.
2021: Giannis coasts as merely a top 3 regular season player in the regular season and the Bucks post a +5.6 SRS(4th in the league) with a team that is a bit above .500 without him. The Bucks again get significantly better in the playoffs on the back of their defense and Giannis is good to great on both ends throughout as Giannis becomes one of the few players to win a championship... -> without a 2nd superstar -> without perennial all-star -> without "help" that is significantly > .500 without him -> without a strong playoff coach
The competition is fairly weak, but so was the support, and ultimately it's topped off with Giannis posting one of the greatest performances ever against a very good team on both ends of the floor
2022: Giannis is again, merely a top 3 regular season player, and the Bucks regress to +3(7th best) with the big-three missing a significant number of games. Bucks are(opponent-adjusted) more than +12 against the Bulls with Middleton and take a near-champion to 7 without a middleton in a not that close series(+8 point differential). Overall Bucks improve dramatically. again, on the back of their defense.
2023: Every contender is coasting and Giannis is again merely a top 3 regular season player as the Bucks post a 3rd best +3.61 SRS despite Middleton missing a bunch of games. Against Miami, Giannis misses almost half the series and is injured throughout. Consequently, the Bucks defense collapses as they lose to the eventual finalists(again)
8 postseasons total, 7 as a superstar, and the Bucks underperform twice and overperform 5 times despite a deeply flawed postseason coach, a cast who generally falls off in the playoffs(shooting especially). Both underperformances have injury context and when they lose, they are mostly losing to champions or finalists,
Jokic and the Nuggets in the playoffs
2019 Jokic is a fringe MVP candidate and Nuggets see a 2.5 SRS improvement to post a strong +4.13(7th best). They win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Spurs(7 games, 1 ppg) and then lose a razor-close series(7 games, actually outscore by 1 ppg) against the +4.4 SRS Nuggets who proceed to get destroyed in a sweep against a losing-finalist. You may recall the champion that year was that Raptors side that just about survived Giannis.
2020 Jokic is again a fringe MVP candidate and the Nuggets regress to +2.5 thanks to injuries to Jokic's best teammates. In the playoffs they get lucky against the +2.5 Jazz winning in 7 despite getting outscored by 3-points a game. They then upset the +6.6 Clippers in a close series(7 games, <1ppg) before getting thumped by the eventual champs(5 games, 4 ppg). You may recall the Heat, without their leading scorer and with their defensive anchor hobbled, were the only team all playoffs to take the Lakers to a 6th game.
2021 MVP Jokic leads a +4.8 Nuggets side(6th best) despite a team that is outright bad without him. They proceed to win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Trailblazers(6 games, actually outscored) and are then obliterated in a sweep against the +5.5 eventual finalist Suns(15! ppg). Those suns would lose to...checks notes...Giannis's Bucks. Nuggets are bad without Jokic
2022 B2B MVP Jokic leads a +2.15 Nuggets team(injuries play a big-factor) and then is thumped in 5 by the +5.15 eventual champs(8 ppg).
2023 Should have been B2B2B MVP Jokic, with a team that is still bad without him in 13 games, leads the Nuggets to a +3 srs(6th best in the league). Against a relatively weak field(though everyone coasting undersells the competition) they are dominant in the postseason going 16-6 with a m.o.v of +8. This is an all-time dominant run, but it also coincides with dramatic cast elevation and unusually favorable injury context(like Milwaukee's 2021 Run). Nonetheless as a singular note it has a decent case against anything Giannis has done considering -> team is bad without him(in the regular-season anyway) -> unusually dominant -> One-superstar(Murray is close)
5 postseasons total, I think it's fair to say the Nuggets overperformed in 2 and underperformed in 2. A weaker trackrecord than Giannis's Bucks despite -> a better playoff coach -> teammates generally elevating(Murray arguably outplayed Jokic in 2020)
The Nuggets are also flatly a far worse regular-season and postseason team getting destroyed when they face eventual finalists and champions which Milwaukee only really do if Giannis gets hurt. When the Nuggets faced a 2019 Raptors-calibre opponent, they were crushed despite Murray playing like a superstar. The Bucks have never suffered a defeat like the Nuggets did against the suns despite running into an eventual or defending finalist each of the last 5 playoffs.
Giannis's Bucks have also posted 2 regular-seasons where their srs nearly doubled any of the suns and one of those regular-seasons was followed by post-season improvement and a tough fight against the type of team the nuggets tend to get dominated by.
All considered, saying Giannis has "Playoff issues" and Jokic doesn't seems like you're applying a gigantic double-standard because Jokic id a one-way player while Giannis is a two-way one. Just like when we act like Jordan was "perfect" any-run he posts sub-2009 Lebron box-aggregates or when we act like Shaq is more "unstoppable" than two-way bigs because defense doesn't matter.
Excepting their championship years, Giannis has led far better regular season and playoff teams, and has also has a significant longetivity advantage, while elevating more often. And while Jokic's regular-season impact looks great(like Giannis)...
iggymcfrack wrote:So, I'm very convinced by the Jokic > Giannis arguments. Time to change my nomination as well as my all-time list.
[/quote][/quote] Since you've used playoff on/off as justification before...
And yet Giannis is the one with "issues" apparently
The Bucks defense generally improves by enough to outpace their offensive drop-off in the playoffs and Giannis torches Durant in pretty much any non-box approach(and even with box-hybrids) in the rs.
KD on the other hand is a big playoff dropper:
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
f4p wrote:
70sFan wrote: basically all of your examples are "they were injured", which would seem the point of the phrase "given the circumstances". and the other 2 are "they went as far as you could expect, but not in a good way", which is probably not the general point of saying someone underperformed (if i guess at OaD's meaning).
The general point of saying someone underperformed is that they underperformed, not that they "underperformed to a degree that prevented what would have otherwise been a championship". "otherwise would have been a championship" is a matter of luck and timing, not KD's qualities as a player.
If the 9 SRS Thunder getting thumped by +4 srs team(who proceed to lose by 11-points a game to a non-champion) is not an underperformance, then maybe the "is westbrook the real mvp" conversations should have started a year earlier.
As it so happens, in the first round, OKC went from outscoring the +3.6 srs Rockets by 16 points over 2 games with westbrook to...playing them dead-even(2-2, 1> point differential) without.
IOW, regardless of KD's numbers(which proceeded to historically collapse against Memphis), when Westbrook wasn't on the floor, the Thunder were big underperformers. When westbrook was on they performed.
Just like in 2014 where they undeperformed in the 1st round with westbrook hobbled and then overachieved the next two with westbrook running the show.
Incidentally it was Westbrook who posted the gaudy playoff impact. Westbrook who posted record-breaking creation metrics, and Westbrook who Popavich decided was more important to stop in 2016 when he put Kawhi on him and had the Spurs deter him with three-man walls while leaving everyone else(including KD) in single coverage.
Also no. The 2019 Warriors underperformed with KD in the games he played in. The 2018 Warriors underperformed vs the only team that could realistically challenge them(that sentence is not contingent on kd being the superstar who joined). That leaves 2017 where Durant wasn't even his team's best scorer for not one, not two, but three of four rounds of the playoffs. Against every defense except for the one that was the worst suited to guard him, KD wasn't even his team's primary at the one thing he's elite at
And then there are the stats...
What's also annoying is his non-GSW stats are still better than guys we have already voted in, as is what he accomplished with his teams, so why is he getting a demerit for it. I have no idea how anyone can attribute the OKC success to KD, when they were 25-11 without him in 2014 and KD was killing it. KD was clearly the driver of winning on those teams.
And then there's the blatant double-standard where westbrook is dismissed because what kd does without him in the regular season while conveniently ignoring that the Warriors won at a 65-win pace without him in the year he broke through...
I think what you meant to say was that KD's "scoring stats" are better than *some of the guys who voted in a list full of vastly better defenders and vastly better playmakers(and there are many of those who aren't even nominated yet).
The KD defenders keep trumpeting slashlines(or better yet, just post his ppg) to make assertions like "kd was arguably better than steph" and "kd went toe to toe with lebron" as if great scoring and limited everything else is what generates top offenses.
But the best regular season offenses ever come from magic and nash. The best playoff offenses ever come from magic, nash, and Lebron. Nash and Magic are both much better playmakers than scorers. They dominate play-val and passer-rating and box-creation. Not PPG or TS ADD or true-shooting. They also are great ball-handlers who organize their teammates and have everything run through them.
Despite this, no one defending Durant in this thread has bothered to address durant's playoff efficiency skyrocketing when he was the third-on-ball dude in 2012 and only returning when he was third again in Golden State. Nor do they address how his assists/ast% often go down when he faces extra-coverage and up when he is demonstrably creating less for his teammates.
Is your eye-test just a "hesi-tween-splash" test?
If you have to pretend 5 games vs the defense that was the least suited to guard him was a "boss battle" to defend him as an 'arguable #1', then KD wasn't a #1. If you have to ignore KD getting creamed by Lebron on every front that isn't ppg and ts to pretend they were "toe to toe", then KD was not going toe to toe. If the only way to defend KD is to cherrypick what you like and pretend everything else doesn't matter, then KD does not belong in this conversation.
PS: this is not serious
certainly seem to indicate the problem was the lack of spacing and sub-optimal support cast in OKC.
2016 really underscores how bad the fit around KD was. Instead of shooters, he had a starting line-up of Adams, Ibaka, Roberson and Russell. The 2nd best shooter on the team after KD was Ibaka. That’s terrible. In hindsight it’s amazing KD was able to get them so close to taking out the 73 Warriors to begin with. The Thunder teams lacked the balance and depth those Mavs teams tended to have (and often the high end of the Mavs teams rivalled some of those Thunder teams).
First, off, Durant was not carrying scrubs. That sub-optimal supporting cast played at a 48-win pace at full-strength without Durant in 2015. That was a relative down-year in terms of support. And it's telling they were post such high regular-season marks despite Durant pretty much never grading out as one of the best of the best in impact.
You bring up the 2014 regular-season(which was, to be clear, alot worse by srs than what Durant was doing with Westbrook in 2013). butw hen he didn't have westbrook, KD was stuck in dead-heats vs the +3 srs rockets(6 points worse) and getting whopped by the +4 grizzlies. OKC was relatively untalented when it came to scoring. But your teammates do not need to score a bunch to offer strong support or to function well without you. OKC were capable of both.
This also ties into what is honestly a bastardization of the term "fit". "Fit" is not a matter of how many points your teammates put up or how much spacing they offer. Fit is a question of how well they --fit-- around your strengths and weaknesses and here you are reaching about a mile and a half.
KD, as noted earlier, is generally very bad at retaining efficiency when he's asked to do things with the ball(other than shoot). He's also generally pretty bad about upping his volume when his teammates don't shoot much. He's also, relative to his size and position, a weak rebounder, with limited scoring gravity.
So who did Presti draft?
A volume scorer with goated(for position) rebounding, a shitton of rim-gravity. who also happens to be an excellent ball-handler, and one of the best passers ever. Wow. What a horrible fitting co-star!
Bonus: He's also an all-time playoff elevator who ups his numbers and impact against the best teams. Might be useful if the guy "driving" things does this:
(regular season)
(playoffs)
Also yeah, the OKC were not so good at scoring and shooting...which should make KD super valuable to them!
They were also good at...defense, rebounding, inside-scoring, passing, ball-handling, and for some of those years...they were also really deep. OKC covered all his weaknesses, and were reliant on his strengths, and were pretty good without him...but they lacked spacing! Truly the hardest road.
He only played in arguably the best situation in the league. Clearly an unrepresentative sample. The only way we can fairly assess Durant is by taking his slashlines and box-whatever at face-value when he goes to the best situation ever.
Also please don't talk about the rockets. Or the regular-season. Or his scoring numbers in 3 of 4 rounds in the playoffs. Or his RAPM. Or his on/off. Or his non-scoring role/responsibilities on the Warriors, or anything that's happened after(unless it's his 2 great games against the Bucks...)
Yeah, sorry, but this revisionism is getting old. If you want to pretend Durant was a much better player in San Franciso. Fine. You want to talk about his great per and game-score on a 73-win team? whatever. But stop trying to rewrite what happened before this inexplicable jump.
Durant had a great team with talented players that fit around his strengths and weaknesses including a "chucker" co-star his teams feel off massively without. Moreover in the "boss battles", it was his teammate that drove OKC while Durant regressed. Sure, KD did alright in the regular-season. But once the playoffs rolled around, it was Westbrook who went nova, while Durant went Scottie.
Durant is simply one of the least resilient superstars ever. And that probably has something to do with him being one of the most one-dimensional. He is also a strong candidate for greatest stat-padder ever, and very much belongs in the conversation for "most overrated", with nonsense like "went toe to toe with Lebron", "arguably the best player on the greatest team ever", and "was a shoe-size away from beating the bucks by himself" being the centerpieces of his legacy
Frankly, if you're considering hesi tween pip this high, then maybe you'd be better off just voting in the original article. 6 is bigger than 2. And risers are generally better than wilters.[/quote]
I don't see what KD's "translates to winning" case is
OhayoKD wrote: Giannis has been one of the best players of the last few years but I am not fully sure if he is quite the monster he is made out to be. While he is a great boxscore stuffer, I think his scoring isn't quite as useful. Durant also struggles I think with his boxscore stats leading to high impact but not to the same degree.
2019 Jokic is a fringe MVP candidate and Nuggets see a 2.5 SRS improvement to post a strong +4.13(7th best). They win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Spurs(7 games, 1 ppg) and then lose a razor-close series(7 games, actually outscore by 1 ppg) against the +4.4 SRS Nuggets who proceed to get destroyed in a sweep against a losing-finalist. You may recall the champion that year was that Raptors side that just about survived Giannis.
2020 Jokic is again a fringe MVP candidate and the Nuggets regress to +2.5 thanks to injuries to Jokic's best teammates. In the playoffs they get lucky against the +2.5 Jazz winning in 7 despite getting outscored by 3-points a game. They then upset the +6.6 Clippers in a close series(7 games, <1ppg) before getting thumped by the eventual champs(5 games, 4 ppg). You may recall the Heat, without their leading scorer and with their defensive anchor hobbled, were the only team all playoffs to take the Lakers to a 6th game.
2021 MVP Jokic leads a +4.8 Nuggets side(6th best) despite a team that is outright bad without him. They proceed to win a razor-close series against the +1.8 Trailblazers(6 games, actually outscored) and are then obliterated in a sweep against the +5.5 eventual finalist Suns(15! ppg). Those suns would lose to...checks notes...Giannis's Bucks. Nuggets are bad without Jokic
2022 B2B MVP Jokic leads a +2.15 Nuggets team(injuries play a big-factor) and then is thumped in 5 by the +5.15 eventual champs(8 ppg).
2023 Should have been B2B2B MVP Jokic, with a team that is still bad without him in 13 games, leads the Nuggets to a +3 srs(6th best in the league). Against a relatively weak field(though everyone coasting undersells the competition) they are dominant in the postseason going 16-6 with a m.o.v of +8. This is an all-time dominant run, but it also coincides with dramatic cast elevation and unusually favorable injury context(like Milwaukee's 2021 Run). Nonetheless as a singular note it has a decent case against anything Giannis has done considering -> team is bad without him(in the regular-season anyway) -> unusually dominant -> One-superstar(Murray is close)
5 postseasons total, I think it's fair to say the Nuggets overperformed in 2 and underperformed in 2. A weaker trackrecord than Giannis's Bucks despite -> a better playoff coach -> teammates generally elevating(Murray arguably outplayed Jokic in 2020)
The Nuggets are also flatly a far worse regular-season and postseason team getting destroyed when they face eventual finalists and champions which Milwaukee only really do if Giannis gets hurt. When the Nuggets faced a 2019 Raptors-calibre opponent, they were crushed despite Murray playing like a superstar. The Bucks have never suffered a defeat like the Nuggets did against the suns despite running into an eventual or defending finalist each of the last 5 playoffs.
Giannis's Bucks have also posted 2 regular-seasons where their srs nearly doubled any of the suns and one of those regular-seasons was followed by post-season improvement and a tough fight against the type of team the nuggets tend to get dominated by.
All considered, saying Giannis has "Playoff issues" and Jokic doesn't seems like you're applying a gigantic double-standard because Jokic id a one-way player while Giannis is a two-way one. Just like when we act like Jordan was "perfect" any-run he posts sub-2009 Lebron box-aggregates or when we act like Shaq is more "unstoppable" than two-way bigs because defense doesn't matter.
Excepting their championship years, Giannis has led far better regular season and playoff teams, and has also has a significant longetivity advantage, while elevating more often. And while Jokic's regular-season impact looks great(like Giannis)...
Your statement about the Bucks is fair enough, though it sounds apologetic. But I don't think we are talking much about the two players at this point, much less Jokic.
Sounds more like you're talking about the Nuggets than Jokic here.
"The nuggets beat this team". "The Nuggets lost to this team". "The Nuggets are not as good as an RS team as the Bucks". What do those things have to do with Jokic's playoff resiliency? They're not even in the same conference, which makes it more strange. Giannis having a better regular season team doesn't mean that Giannis is a better player than Jokic, much less a more resilient playoff player (it's irrelevant).
The Nuggets had a roster people were lower on and had competition that people were higher on. I would say the Nuggets usually overachieved compared to their pre season odds.
You're also using intentional negative adjectives like saying the Nuggets got lucky, which I think destroys the credibility. Are you trying to persuade me or are you trying to call me a hypocrite of some sort for saying one is more resilient than the other?
Giannis has a significant longevity advantage? This has been mentioned several times already but they are players roughly of the same age, from the same generation, Jokic became a great player just shortly after Giannis did and is healthier (you kept mentioning injuries when talking about Giannis). What do you mean by "significant"?
That feels like saying Kobe Bryant has a significant longevity edge over Dirk Nowitzki in 2008 because by that point Bryant had been in the league as a younger unproductive player, he became a star player earlier than Dirk did, and Dirk's mainstream recognition came a bit after he had actually became one.
If the gap in longevity between Jokic and Giannis is significant then what word would you use to describe Giannis' longevity vs Nash, Malone, Durant etc?
Vote: KD Alternate vote: Steve Nash Nomination: James Harden Alt Nomination: Dwayne Wade
Many of Kevin Durant’s flaws have been brought up in past threads, but overall he has improved his weaknesses in play, making, and in Defense to go along with inelastic scoring efficacy, especially in the regular season. There is a meta-discussion to be had about just how much impact an all time great elite scorer who is not the best play maker and isn’t really an impact defender (though improved) can have. Honestly, with a little improvement in his game he should really be much higher, but we have what we have. I have him narrowly ahead of Steve Nash and Harden who probably have slightly better impact profiles. Someone like Dwyane Wade peaks higher but his longevity hurts him. Giannis doesn’t have the total amount of seasons yet, but I am pretty sure that the next time around we do the top 100 that he will have already been voted in by now.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
For Giannis, it’s much more a when rather than an if ITO passing firm T-20 players - let alone Durant.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
Now that he’s nominated, I’m putting Steve Nash above Giannis for my alternate vote. Basically, to me Nash is on the shortlist for greatest offensive players ever, and I think individual offense is enough more important than individual defense (particularly in more modern eras) that I think that along with a dash of extra longevity puts Nash above Giannis even though Giannis is definitely way more of a “two-way player.”
As for the nominations, it’s the same as before, except my alternate is now Wade instead of Nash, since Nash is already nominated. Wade’s run in 2006 has to weigh really highly at this point of things, where very few potential nominees have anything like it, and then he also has a stint as a #2 on two title teams. He’s lacking some longevity, but I don’t think there’s really anyone left that could be nominated that has a comparable peak and better longevity anyways, and I tend to care more about peak.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
I have Kevin Durant above all here for career value.
I’ll post my thoughts on the new people later.
I’m nominating James Harden. One of the best possessions in history is a Harden isolation at the top of the key from 2016-19. His ability to get to the rim, draw contact, his step back was copied by many, changed how he was guarded. Heliocentric offences took off with Harden. He could handle the volume and drive good offences.
OhayoKD wrote: Giannis has been one of the best players of the last few years but I am not fully sure if he is quite the monster he is made out to be. While he is a great boxscore stuffer, I think his scoring isn't quite as useful. Durant also struggles I think with his boxscore stats leading to high impact but not to the same degree.
More of a commentary on their offense.
Okay so how does the box-score overrate giannis's offense more than KD's?
Giannis generally faces more defensive attention, handles the ball more, and makes more passes. I'd say KD generally faces less defensive attention, his assists pretty consistently outpace his creation(ex: worse teammate splits than kawhi in 2017 despite averaging as many assists as steph) and his playoff-box plummets whenever he's the focus of the defense or is upgraded to a secondary ball-handler.
What is the box-score missing about KD vs Giannis on offense?
"The nuggets beat this team". "The Nuggets lost to this team". "The Nuggets are not as good as an RS team as the Bucks". What do those things have to do with Jokic's playoff resiliency?'
Because more reselient players see their teams translate better in the playoffs? The goal is to win.
Team resiliency can be seen as -> player resliency+cast resiliency+variance
Do you have reason to assume variance is biased in the bucks favor? Do you have reason to think Giannis's teammates elevate more? Is Gainnis better utilized by his coach? If the answer to all of these is no, then the most likely explanation for the Bucks being more resilient is that Giannis has been more resilient because of his defense
They're not even in the same conference, which makes it more strange. Giannis having a better regular season team doesn't mean that Giannis is a better player than Jokic, much less a more resilient playoff player (it's irrelevant).
Why do they need to be in the same conference? If winning is irrelevant when why did you vote russell #2. If you want to argue that the difference in help was bigger than the difference in results, than make the argument, but you can't just ignore the results.
The Nuggets had a roster people were lower on and had competition that people were higher on. I would say the Nuggets usually overachieved compared to their pre season odds.
??? So actual results, and actual translation is irrelevant, but pre-season odds matters?
Why would we look at what people thought was likely(because of the player--and--the supporting cast and past performance) instead of just looking at help, results, skillset, and what happened in actual games
You're also using intentional negative adjectives like saying the Nuggets got lucky, which I think destroys the credibility. Are you trying to persuade me or are you trying to call me a hypocrite of some sort for saying one is more resilient than the other?
That was a reply to oldschoolbulls, but saying a team got lucky when they win despite being outscored isn't unusual. I presented both mov and the game-break down for both giannis and jokic. I don't see the issue. If Giannis had been outscored in a win i'd say the bucks got lucky too.
Giannis has a significant longevity advantage? This has been mentioned several times already but they are players roughly of the same age, from the same generation, Jokic became a great player just shortly after Giannis did and is healthier (you kept mentioning injuries when talking about Giannis). What do you mean by "significant"? ?
He has 7 superstar years to 5 from Jokic. I never said Giannis had a better career at this point than the other guys, but your post seemed to suggest you thought KD' was flat-out better than Giannis, so I brought up a comparison to a player you have higher than KD and then brought up KD
Vote for #22: Giannis. Not entirely comfortable with this pick due to his lack of longevity compared to to the other nominees; would likely feel much more confident in this if he continues his pace another couple of years. But his prime has been so impressive so far that it becomes a mitigating factor for me. George Mikan Trophy winner in 2017, two-time MVP , Finals MVP, and DPOY - his accolades speak for themselves. Particularly impressive to me is his gravity; the opposing team has to shift their overall strategy to account for him on both ends of the court more than I've seen from the other nominees.
Alternate vote: Moses Malone. Sure, he had his limitations as a player. But he was so elite in his strengths that the sum of his parts is hard to ignore. GOAT-level offensive rebounder. Excellent scorer with a surprisingly soft touch out to 15 feet. Outstanding longevity - not only 8th most career minutes but I read his total of 49,444 as forty-nine thousand and fo, fo, fo! Three-time MVP, Finals MVP, four-time All NBA First team, four-time All NBA Second Team, and two-time All NBA Defensive Team (one first team and one second team).
Nomination: Bob Pettit. To be clear, I have not and still do not believe in time machines so anyone wanting to time machine Pettit to the present NBA or a future era must first convince me that a time machine exists. Without a time machine, it is obvious that he would be terrible today since the man is over 90 years old. And also completely irrelevant. He was a 2-time MVP and 10-time All NBA First Team and Second Team once. I will also concede that I never saw him play live. But his adaptability is extremely impressive to me. His first season was 1955 and Neil Johnston was the big star then (a broken-down Mikan came out of retirement to play 37 games in 56). But by 1964, Pettit's second to last season, he was competing against the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor, Lucas and Havlicek. The league strength was much higher in 1964 than 1955 and yet Pettit was still All NBA First Team in 64. He was the bridge from the Mikan era to the Russell/Wilt/Oscar/West era and he was elite in both eras.
Alternate Nominee: Dwyane Wade. If he had a longer prime, he'd be higher for me. But at his peak he was outstanding at both ends of the court. GOAT-level slasher, solid passer for an SG at his peak and an elite defender.
