RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #32 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 10/9/23)

Post #1 » by **Doctor MJ** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 3:46 pm

Our system is now as follows:

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:

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Walt Frazier

Kawhi Leonard

Reggie Miller

Scottie Pippen

John Stockton

AEnigma · Post #2 » by **AEnigma** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 4:17 pm

VOTE: Scottie Pippen
Alternate: will monitor how some of these freed Pettit votes go
NOMINATE: John Havlicek

Pippen is the name I am most confident in building around for an extended period. Frazier was impressive in his time but had a relatively short prime and an even shorter career. Miller has a playoff argument with the right team structure, but as a regular season player his overall indicators are less impressive; I also think Pippen would be more valuable if they were on the same team, even if Reggie might receive more attention as the team’s lead scorer. I do not see Stockton as a serious lead player, with only ~four years where I think maybe he could be one on a Pistons-esque contender. Kawhi’s durability issues are too much of a problem.

Havlicek is a flattened Pippen — lesser peak and prime, but longer extended peak and career.

Post #3 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 5:09 pm

AEnigma wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Citing the Sonics also underwhelms when two of the instances were specifically cited as postseasons where Stockton was generally okay even while the offence was not.

So my arguments [in favour of John Stockton] would be strengthened if he'd played worse in those series's??

I'm just not sure what to make of this particular statement.

Their playoff offense actually [usually] excelled relative to defenses faced. You suggest we must be cautious about giving Stockton much of the credit specifically because his individual numbers fell off too much.

I counter that we should expect to see drop in individual numbers [even with excellent rORTG] when facing the veritable gauntlet of good/elite defenses that they did year after year, and perhaps particularly Stockton's in some years because one of those good/elite defenses they faced repeatedly had an elite containment man-defender at PG.

You counter that, no, he actually played OK in those series's, so.......he still doesn't get credit.
Or is perhaps rather that he gets no credit for elite playoff offense if his individual numbers are off, but simultaneously must absorb the blame when it's poor even if his individual numbers are fine?

It just seems like you're dead-set against giving him any sort of "a win" in this conversation.

Or you are dead set against trying to parse my argument so you can give Stockton an unearned “win”. To my eye, Malone struggling hurt the Jazz more than Stockton struggling. To my eye, Malone elevating correlates better with the Jazz’s offensive elevation than Stockton elevating. To my eye, Stockton could be successfully replaced with several all-NBA/star guards, but Malone could not be successfully replaced in turn by power forwards of that general tier. Playing series against Gary Payton has nothing in particular to do with that and reads as grasping at straws to defend a player who struggled against plenty of weaker backcourts than that.

Sadly, I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this; too much philosophical difference in how we're approaching it.

With regards to the question I asked, for instance.....in a roundabout sort of way you seem to be [more or less] answering "yes": If he'd played worse when the Jazz offense was down==>that would result in his individual [box] performance more strongly correlating to the team==>which would strengthen your valuation of his importance to their offense==>and seemingly thus strengthen his argument for this spot (even though he plays worse than reality in this hypothetical).

fwiw, this appears reflected in the general sentiment around Malone, too.
In contrast to an earlier statement made [regarding his decline being less severe than Stockton], his year-to-year playoff declines in that span ('88-'97, where the Jazz playoff offense [on average] performed so well) were actually worse than Stockton, on average: he saw an average playoff PER decline of -3.34 (vs only -2.2 for Stockton), an average OBPM decline of -1.02 (vs -0.64 for Stockton), an average WS/48 decline of -0.0813 (vs -0.0618 for Stockton), while both averaged -6 drop in individual ORtg.

Looking at things collectively during that time period, there's not a lot distinguishing one from the other on offense (and if anything perhaps favour Stockton by a tiny margin??).....
Stockton: 20.4 PER, .163 WS/48 with 9.8 OWS, +5.1 OBPM, 117 ORtg in 39.0 mpg.
Malone: 22.5 PER, .156 WS/48 with 7.9 OWS, +4.2 OBPM, 109 ORtg in 42.4 mpg.

But because Malone's peaks and valleys correlate more strongly with the team's ups and down, you deem his relevance and value is overwhelming more important [apparently].
Which, fwiw, I'm not disputing at all that their success lives/dies on Malone's performance to a higher degree. Although......it's kinda typical that if your highest usage player [by far] is struggling, that's going to have an oversized impact on your team offense.

DISCLAIMER: Don't mistake the above as me saying Stockton was as [or more] important to their offense compared to Malone. I have not said that, nor am I now.
This is more about margins and methodology.

And I'm having difficulty gauging exactly where you stand on Stockton's importance. Because the tone and tenor of your posts have seemed to indicate that since his importance doesn't equal that of Malone, it can be hand-waved aside as sort of irrelevant and easily replaced.......which I don't believe to be the case.

There are alternate ways to view things, or additional things to consider. If, for example, one saw only the average declines, collective 10-year numbers, and the fact that their offense was generally super-resilient in the playoffs.....they might come away with the idea that Malone was being propped up to some degree by his teammates (because how could the offense possibly be so resilient in the playoffs when your star suffers such significant declines?).
Not saying they'd be right, mind you. Nor would tunnel-vision on the correlations, imo.

There could be differing views on the correlations, too, based on role.
Suppose we see a series or playoff run Malone suffers HUGE decline, while Stockton doesn't, and their playoff offense declines.
This could be viewed as Malone dropping the ball. Stockton performed, but he can't carry the team when the big guy is off.
I wonder how bad things would have looked if Stockton stunk it up, too?......the offense would no longer look as good [as resilient] through this span of years, but at least Stockton's correlation to the team outcome would look better.

Alternately, where Stockton's shooting is a bit off, scoring down (associated box metrics down), but his teammates perform well and the offense is a success.......this could in some instances be viewed as Stockton satisfying that which is ALWAYS his mandate on the court: get my teammates going. He ALWAYS viewed his own scoring as a secondary consideration (to a fault, even). Not saying that their success is always to his credit, but it might be to a degree true in some instances (and [it's important to note] this virtually never works in the other direction [teammates to Stockton], because of Stockton's unique role).

All I am and/or have been saying:
*On average during Stockton's prime (span of a full decade) the Jazz had VERY good [near-elite] offenses.
**Those offenses were [usually] REMARKABLY playoff-resilient. Like, seriously: I wonder how an average +2.8 boost to rORTG compares to other all-time teams over a broad span of years.
***Stockton was clear 2nd-best offensive player on these teams for all except 1-2 years [where he was the BEST offensive player].
****Stockton's individual numbers fell off less than Malone's did on average.

Speaking for myself (and again: we'll obviously not see eye-to-eye here), I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that he probably has something significant to do with that playoff offensive success, regardless of what the correllation to his individual box-based metrics look like.

And fwiw, within the context of where/why we're discussing him:
Would his importance to their playoff offense being less than the guy voted in at #19 really remove him from contention here at #32? Considering he too has great longevity and really solid defensive impact signals?

Post #4 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 5:20 pm

VOTE: John Stockton

For starters, I'm going to resurrect an old conversation (in spoiler). Short summary: dispells the myth that Utah's offense had tendency to fail in the playoffs. Not actually the case, weighted against strength of defenses faced. And it's worth noting that all of their most notable under-performances all occurred AFTER Stockton's injury and he was relegated to a more limited-minute role....

Spoiler:

As some bullet-point additional arguments.....
He's 6th all-time in career rs WS, the best of anyone still on the table; next closest (more than 16 WS behind in 11th place [and coming in weaker league environment]) is Artis Gilmore, followed by Reggie Miller another 15+ WS behind Gilmore.

He's 3rd all-time [or since 1973] in career rs VORP, again the best of anyone still on the table; next closest (more than 33 VORP behind in 20th place) is Jason Kidd.

Empty stats, surely.
Except his AuPM/RAPM are very consistent with this box-based metrics, even though we're missing most of his prime.

He's best of who's left in my era-weighted and longevity-adjusted CORP figures, too. That's just my opinion, though. However, fwiw, I never once ranked a season of his as high as a full "Weak MVP", and the scoring I assigned to "All-NBA" or "All-Star" are not overly generous either.

Also see post #5 [vs Pippen] from #31 thread for further argumentation, as well as the below discussion from #30 thread:

Spoiler:

trex_8063 wrote:
f4p wrote:this is a weird part of the project. with hakeem in 6th and harden inside the top 30, my watch is ended, so to speak. at first glance, none of the nominees feel like they should be in the top 30, but at the same time, i'm at a loss for who should take their place. i suppose the mvp alphas are about the furthest i've ever really thought about actual specific rankings for players. i might think this guy or that guy belongs in the top 40 or the top 50, but actually putting a spot on it, i've never really gotten to that point.

Well, we [or at least I] will miss your participation.

Regarding this approach, I suspect it's common, and it perhaps leads to the philosophical differences where some wouldn't give differing approaches [such as CORP-based, or similar] the time of day.......because it requires a complete rewire of their thinking on player ranking.
But as you've noted: if starting from the standpoint of looking only at "MVP alphas", you eventually run out of those players as you get further down the list. So then what? Either one drops out of the project because they have no more to offer [feel "at a loss", as you said, for what to do]; or alternately, they begin a completely new criteria to rank who's left (which could be sort of like changing the rules in the middle of the game: one wouldn't necessarily have the same criteria for ranking players from start to finish).
How big a problem a LACK of internal consistency is to your process I suppose is subjective. Though imo, a process that involves literally moving of the goal-posts somewhere around the midway point should be viewed as a problem on some level.

I've got a list [needs updating] that goes well out into the 300's; and I wanted a process that was consistent and could be applied to ALL: from the LeBron's and Jordan's down to the Otis Birdsong's, Jack Marin's, Dick McGuire's of the game.

Therein is the beauty [imo] of a cumulative [though longevity-calibrated] value approach, of some sort.

f4p wrote:stockton actually does fairly well by the box score, certainly the longevity stuff like career VORP and WS, and even if i don't fully believe his late-career RAPM, it's not crazy to talk about him here, even if i'm not sure top 20 malone and top 30 stockton can really stand up to scrutiny with their team accomplishments. .

I don't know about the bolded (though people state similar sentiment often; but I just disagree).

I mean, they were the 2nd-best team of a DECADE, and perhaps clearly so; this in a very competitive era, trailing only one of the greatest sports dynasties of all-time. Looking at the overall breakdown of the 90's:

*They failed to win at least 50 games (at least 53, actually [pro-rating '99]) just ONCE (where they went 47-35). They won 60+ games FOUR TIMES (2nd to only the Bulls).

**ON AVERAGE, they won 56.57 games per season......for a decade (is barely 2nd to the Bulls for the decade, who avg 56.63 wins/season; 3rd-best were the Sonics with 52.70 wins/season, then 4th is the Suns at 52.03 wins/season). Seattle is the ONLY other team to not have a losing record at least once in the decade (though they had THREE seasons of .500).

***The Jazz AVERAGE SRS in the 90's was +5.28 (more or less contender-level, or close to it). That's 2nd to only Chicago's +5.59. 3rd is a bigger drop-off to Seattle at +4.70 (followed by an equally large gap to Phoenix at 4th with +4.12).

***Obviously, that put them in the playoffs all 10 seasons (Suns and Knicks were the only other teams of the decade to do so).

****They made it past the 1st round SEVEN times (3rd to only Chicago and New York in the decade).

*****They made it [at least] as far as the Conference Finals FIVE times in the decade (2nd to only Chicago).

******They have TWO teams inside the top-65 of Sansterre's 100 Greatest Teams (2nd to only Chicago in the decade), one of them in the top 35. They rate as the 7th and 10th-best teams of the entire decade.
That 10th-best team of the decade came with a fairly weak bench (but the trio of Malone/Stockton/Hornacek was just so strong it carried to this level). fwiw, a weak bench (or weak from 4/5 thru 12) was a common occurrence throughout the late 80s and first half of the 90s, too. Some years they had a weak(ish) 3rd-best player. Mark Eaton was a defensive beast, but he was also an offensive liability. Frank Layden himself called Eaton an "empty uniform" on offense, and said that they were "basically playing 4 against 5 on offense" anytime Eaton was on the court.
The team rated 7th-best of the decade (35th of all-time) fell in the WCF in 7 games [though outscoring their opponent by nearly 3 ppg in the series, fwiw] to a team that is rated the 12th-best of the decade (75th-best of all-time). Though even if the Jazz had won that series, they'd have found themselves up against the #1 team of the decade (#2 of all-time) in the Finals.
That 10th-best team of the decade DID make it to the Finals, but there faced the team rated 4th-best of the decade (14th of all-time), and fell in six games.

*******They made it to the NBA finals twice overall (tied with Houston and New York for 2nd in the decade). And save for a couple terrible shotclock calls [which wouldn't even be allowed to happen today], they may have been the WINNERS of the '98 Finals.
In as much as you lamented "Chris Paul's ****ing hamstring", one could lament "****ing shotclock calls". It's no different.
And would anyone think this would not "stand up to scrutiny" then? I doubt it.
Again, as much as people may say rings don't matter to them, they do.

This is to say nothing of additional respectable success they had in late 80s and early 00s (winning record and playoffs every year they were together).

Additional discussion on playoffs (relates to discussion in post #3 above):

Spoiler:

trex_8063 wrote:I wanted to post something wrt to the offenses that prime John Stockton was part of. The typical narrative is something to the effect of "great in rs, collapse in playoffs", right? If that even vague describes your mindset, PLEASE READ ON.

.....Because on closer look, this doesn't quite seem to be the case.

I'm going to look at that prime, year-by-year, with playoff rORTG gauged relative to the defenses faced (please take the time to read):

'88
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: pre-prime Karl Malone (still a bit raw at this stage: a volume scorer, but efficiency not yet up there, lacks solid mid-range touch, not a good passer, turnover-prone), Thurl Bailey (fair/decent scoring forward), Mark Eaton ("empty uniform" on offense, according the Jazz coach), Bobby Hansen (avg offensive player), Marc Iavaroni (defensive role player, kinda bad on offense), Rickey Green (33 years old, avg offensive player at this point), Darrell Griffith (post-injury; not a good offensive player), Melvin Turpin (OK(ish)), Kelly Tripucka (a bit dinged up for much of the year; then missed 6 weeks straight and was awful for 11 games comeback [45.7% TS, 2.4 GameScore, -23 net rating])
rs rORTG: -1.2
Playoff rORTG: +2.17 (11-game sample; G7 in WCSF)
Change: +3.37

'89
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone [in prime now], Mark Eaton, Thurl Bailey, Darrell Griffith, Mike Brown (defensive role player [terrible on offense]), Bobby Hansen (injured and declined this year), Mark Iavaroni (even worse on offense this year), Jim Les (also atrocious on offense)----NOTE [imo]: aside from Malone/Stockton, this cast is virtually bereft of offensive talent. The 3rd-best offensive player is Thurl Bailey (hardly a Hornacek, or Kareem/Worthy/Byron Scott, or Shawn Marion, or Kevin Love, or probably even a Toni Kukoc or Horace Grant). After that, literally EVERY other rotational player is bad on offense; not merely "not good", but outright BAD [even terrible in many instances].
rs rORTG: -1.2
Playoff rORTG: -1.7 (3-game sample; 1st round sweep)
Change: -0.5

'90
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Thurl Bailey [who seems to be falling off slightly, fwiw], Mark Eaton, Bobby Hansen (never bounced back to prior form; he’s terrible this year), Blue Edwards (meh), Darrell Griffith (Dunkenstein does refine his 3pt shot a bit this year, and is “not bad” offensively in a reduced-minute role), Mike Brown (better than last year, though still not good), Delaney Rudd (terrible, like putridly bad), Eric Leckner (meh).
rs rORTG: +2.2
Playoff rORTG: +2.1 (5-game sample; 1st round)
Change: -0.1

'91
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Mark Eaton, Thurl Bailey (declining further, is now a sort of poor offensive player), Jeff Malone (excellent mid-range shooter, can get his own shot [somewhat]; not much of anything else on offense, zilch playmaker), Blue Edwards, Mike Brown, Darrell Griffith (fell off a cliff; terrible in what will be his final season), Delaney Rudd (less bad compared to year before).
rs rORTG: +0.7
Playoff rORTG: +5.46 (9-game sample; G5 in WCSF)
Change: +4.76

'92
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Jeff Malone, Blue Edwards (improved, now average(ish) on offense), Mark Eaton (nearing his last legs; always terrible on O, he’s now almost shockingly useless on that end), Tyrone Corbin (OK(ish); gets some offensive rebounds, doesn’t screw up much), Mike Brown, rookie David Benoit (meh), very limited minutes from Delaney Rudd and rookie Eric Murdock (meh).
rs rORTG: +4.0
Playoff rORTG: +8.49 (16-game sample; G6 in WCF)
Change: +4.49

'93
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Jeff Malone [possibly in early decline], Tyrone Corbin, Jay Humphries (kinda bad), David Benoit, Mike Brown [worse this year, for whatever reason], Larry Krystkowiak (kinda bad), Mark Eaton (last legs: final season, though his TS jumps dramatically from year before, though still tiny volume).
rs rORTG: +1.6
Playoff rORTG: -2.1 (5-game sample; 1st round)
Change: -3.7

'94
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Felton Spencer (kinda bad: good offensive rebounder, but non-relevant low-volume scorer, zilch passer, kinda turnover-prone), Ty Corbin, Tom Chambers (don’t get excited: 34-year-old version, average(ish) offensive player), Jeff Malone, Jay Humphries, rookie Bryon Russell, David Benoit, Jeff Hornacek*** (***Jeff was a late-season acquisition; would rank higher in playing time in the playoffs).
rs rORTG: +2.3
Playoff rORTG: +4.91 (16-game sample; G5 in WCF)
Change: +2.61

'95
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Jeff Hornacek, David Benoit, Antoine Carr (decent(ish) on offense), Adam Keefe (OK(ish) offensively), Tom Chambers, John Crotty, Felton Spencer, Bryon Russell.
rs rORTG: +6.0
Playoff rORTG: +8.8 (5-game sample; 1st round)
Change: +2.8

'96
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Jeff Hornacek, David Benoit, Adam Keefe, Antoine Carr, Chris Morris, Felton Spencer, rookie Howard Eisley (terrible on offense), Greg Foster (terrible).
rs rORTG: +5.7
Playoff rORTG: +7.37 (18-game sample; G7 in WCF)
Change: +1.67

'97
Supporting cast in descending order of minutes: Karl Malone, Jeff Hornacek, Bryon Russell, Greg Ostertag, Antoine Carr (35 years old, declined), Howard Eisley (still kinda bad), rookie Shandon Anderson (kinda bad), Chris Morris (in bizarrely bad down-year), Greg Foster, Adam Keefe (somewhat down year)
rs rORTG: +6.9
Playoff rORTG: +7.0 (20-game sample; G6 in Finals)
Change: +0.1

So the narrative……
Offense collapses in the playoffs, supposedly. Yet we see that the Jazz offense [relative to defenses faced] actually gets BETTER in the playoffs in 7 of 10 seasons in Stockton’s prime. A few years they got better by quite a lot.

In fact, they got better by around +2.8 on average over these 10 seasons.

There are FOUR years with a playoff rORTG of +7 or higher; TWO better than +8 (one of these BEFORE Hornacek arrived, too), peaking at a +8.80 playoff rORTG.

ALL THREE seasons where prime versions of Malone/Stockton/Hornacek coincided resulted in playoff rORTG’s of +7 or better.

The 10-year AVERAGE rORTG in playoff games during Stockton’s prime was +5.55.

Their offense did do worse in the playoffs [relative to rs] AFTER ‘97. Is it a coincidence that this is Stockton’s post-prime?

Anyway, for ALL of Stockton’s prime and post-prime (‘88 thru ‘03, which gets into Malone’s post-prime, too), the Jazz averaged a +3.95 rORTG in the playoffs........that’s still +0.88 better than their rs [on average, over a 16-year period], and still elite (or nearly so).

So where is this narrative derived from?
It seems pretty clear that, during Stockton’s prime at least, if the Jazz “failed” in the playoffs, it was more commonly their defense that underperformed.

Maybe it’s because of a notion that the offense failed them more in the LATE rounds???

It is true that their average rORTG specifically IN THE FINALS was -1.15.
Though note that includes a year of Stockton’s POST-prime [‘98], where things bottomed out. It might also be worth acknowledging that the Bulls may have been a better defense in the Finals than their rs DRtg suggests (because Pippen had missed like half the rs).

They were +1.4 rORTG in ‘97 in the Finals.

Their AVERAGE rORTG in games played in the WCF (28-game sample, FIVE separate WCF): +6.94 rORTG.
Their average rORTG in WCSF games looks close to that, at a glance; first round a little less.

Anyway, just saying. The offense performed (even in the playoffs) during Stockton’s prime.

Alternate vote: Scottie Pippen

Nomination: Elgin Baylor
Alt nom: Jason Kidd

Will try to engineering some discussion about these two later as well.

Samurai · Post #5 » by **Samurai** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 6:02 pm

Vote for #32: John Stockton. I acknowledge that Stockton's peak wasn't as high as some other nominees. But his longevity and consistency are offsetting factors for me. Stockton's consistency is just incredible; finishing in the top 10 in assists for nine straight seasons would be highly impressive but leading the league in assist % for 14 out of 16 seasons is near impossible to wrap my head around. Especially when you have guys like prime Magic Johnson running around at the beginning of that streak and Jason Kidd during the latter part of that streak. Throw in 8 seasons in the top 5 in TS % and his 5 seasons on the All Defensive 2nd team just becomes the cherry on top.

Alternate vote: Walt Frazier. Was always a fan of his and felt he was largely underrated since his role on the Knicks wasn't to be a dominant shooter. The Knicks were the epitome of a team-first emphasis in which the ball kept moving and resulted in guys like Frazier, Reed, DeBusschere, Barnett (then Monroe), Bradley, Lucas, etc. all getting their shots. Frazier was so good and efficient that if I were Red Holzman I probably would have wanted Frazier shooting more and DeBusschere and Bradley shoot a little less, but no one was asking me to coach the team. But within the parameters that Holzman wanted, Frazier played his part superbly. He took care of the ball, shot a very high percentage, and was a dominant man defender. 7-time All Defensive First Team, 4-time All NBA First Team (and 2-time second team), he was a guy who did everything very well with no glaring weakness.

Nomination: John Havlicek. GOAT-level stamina and motor. Four time All NBA First Team and seven time All NBA Second team. Eight time champion and Finals MVP in 74. Great all-around swing man who was an all star as both a guard and a forward, he could score (finished in the top 20 in ppg 11 times; as high as 2nd in 71), pass (finished in the top 20 in assists/game 11 times; as high as 4th in 72), and defend (five time All NBA Defensive First Team and three time All NBA Defensive Second Team). Hondo was a terrific athlete - played baseball in college (hitting over .400 as a freshman), in 1962 he was drafted by both the Celtics and the NFL's Cleveland Browns. Former coach Rick Weitzman called Havlicek the best natural athlete he ever came into contact with. Teammate Dave Cowens was convinced that Hondo could have also excelled at track, particularly the 800 meters. Teammate Satch Sanders marvelled at how Hondo could just run forever without sweating or getting tired. Sanders told him "You're gifted as an athlete. But don't be looking at everyone else and expecting them to run with you. Because that's not going to happen!"

Alternate Nomination: Jason Kidd. Outside of great shooting, could pretty much do whatever else you needed from a guard. Elite defense and rebounding for his position. Led the league three times in assists/game and trails only Stockton in total career assists, as much a testament to his outstanding longevity as well as his passing skills. Finished in the top 10 in MVP voting five times. Rookie of the year in 95, All NBA First Team 5 times as well as another year on the All NBA Second Team and nine times on the All NBA Defensive Team (4 times on the First Team and 5 times Second Team). And he did improve his 3-point shooting over the second half of his career, currently 15th in most career 3-pointers made and was 11th in 3-point % in 2010 at the age of 36. Won a ring in 2011 and his 43 three's during the championship run were an important contribution to the title.

AEnigma · Post #6 » by **AEnigma** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 6:13 pm

I am not taking a stance that Stockton does not merit contention. Cumulative CORP or whatever makes an easy case right away, although my CORP assessments would themselves be a lot lower than most of his supporters. My reservations are primarily about his higher end value.

trex_8063 wrote:And I'm having difficulty gauging exactly where you stand on Stockton's importance. Because the tone and tenor of your posts have seemed to indicate that since his importance doesn't equal that of Malone, it can be hand-waved aside as sort of irrelevant and easily replaced.......which I don't believe to be the case.

Can he be “easily” replaced by his backups? Evidently no. Can he be “easily” replaced by a league average point guard? No. Can he be “easily” replaced by the average starting point guard in his era? No. Can he be easily replaced as a 20-year starting presence? No; among point guards, he pretty much stands alone there (although Chris Paul is closing in), and that is indeed to his credit but carries more relevance in a raw CORP assessment.

I question his “replaceability” more by peak/prime comparison with the other all-time point guards. Now, on some level the extended prime / unparalleled career length does cut against that. Sure, he was not very good for them in the 1998 postseason, but hey, at that age only a few point guards have ever done better. What if 1988-91 Stockton replaced 1995-98 Stockton? Well, maybe they win a title, or two, or three.

However, this is passive theory, because at his core, I do not think having peak Stockton does much to help me win a title as my best player, nor do I think having him for twenty years is any real guarantee that I can build a team where his presence is making me substantially more likely to win a title than the shorter careers of better players. Stockton’s consistency does put him above many players I think peaked higher (e.g. Walton or McGrady as the most extreme examples). It does put him above a few players I think had a better prime (e.g. Mourning and Lanier). And it does put him above all the players I think had a reasonably similar prime which simply did not maintain for as long (e.g. Kidd, Isiah, Payton, etc.).

None of that is really tied to Stockton’s impact signals on a specific roster construction next to a specific co-star under a specific coaching system, nor how that results in box score outputs that different equations think correlate with a certain level of absolute impact.

iggymcfrack · Post #7 » by **iggymcfrack** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 7:35 pm

Of the top 20 players in career VORP (RS + playoffs combined) only 2 of them aren’t voted in so far. #3 Stockton and #20 Kidd. It’s honestly getting kinda weird and puzzling how low everyone’s been on Stockton so far.

Post #8 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:14 pm

VOTE JOHN STOCKTON: Agree that he's slid quite a bit this project despite incredibly strong impact stats from the end of his career. To me, he's arguably the greatest playmaker in NBA history with only Oscar, Magic, Nash, and Paul having a case against him. He took bad offensive Utah rosters to good offensive ratings and when they added a third above average offensive player in Hornacek, he made them one of the best in the league. Add to that he is one of the most efficient scoring PGs in history, gets all defense awards for his outstanding (admittedly dirty) help defense, and was one of the great ironmen in NBA history. There are arguments against him, that he wasn't a lead scorer and that he didn't up his game tremendously in the playoffs though the stats indicate that his teams actually did despite Karl Malone's not having a history of great playoffs either. But you can easily build an NBA champion around him as long as you have some other scoring alternatives.

Alernative vote Walt Frazier: A valuable offensive player with excellent efficiency and someone that ran an offense that coaches have been using as a model for the last 50 years. Defensively, he was apparently one of the great point of attack stoppers v. other PGs with excellent size and athleticism, and he upped his game in the NBA finals twice to bring NY it's only NBA championships. On the downside he was not a heliocentric offensive PG who had the ball in his hands all the time and his offenses were not historically that impressive and his career was fairly short.

NOMINATE Artis Gilmore: Gilmore was a bit underwhelming in the NBA despite putting up some of the most efficient scoring seasons in NBA history. But in the ABA, he was a monster, making his impact even stronger as the league got stronger toward the end. Part of that was gameplanning, Chicago played him closer to the basket on both ends than Kentucky making him work a bit less on defense but also to affect less shots as a rim protector while making the shots easier and more efficient on offense but more difficult to get the ball to him to score. Part of it was his personality, he was a relatively passive athlete who didn't call his own number or push things. If he'd had the personality of a Alonzo Mourning or Mel Daniels with his size and skills, he'd be in the conversation for 6th best center of all time with David Robinson and Moses Malone.

Alternative Manu Ginobili: Could have gone for a few guys here. Dantley for the best remaining scoring numbers but it seems a bit early for a guy who didn't elevate his teams as much as his numbers would suggest. Jason Kidd for his defensive impact and playmaking but it seems almost wrong to have him even in the conversation with Stockton who on a whole different level as a point guard. Kevin Mchale hasn't been mentioned, strong two way impact for a very good ultra stacked team with one great year as lead option when Bird wasn't at his peak. I used to think he was a poor rebounder but have come around on it; when playing next to Larry Bird, there aren't as many opportunities.

lessthanjake · Post #9 » by **lessthanjake** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:20 pm

Vote for #32: Kawhi Leonard
Alternate Vote: Scottie Pippen
Nomination: Rick Barry
Alternate Nomination: John Havlicek

I’m voting for Kawhi. There’s longevity and injury concerns, but I just think he’s the best player out of the nominees. This is someone who has had a 29.0 PER, 11.0 BPM, and 0.262 win shares per 48 minutes in the playoffs since 2015-2016, while also being a great defender (no, he wasn’t as good on defense in those years as he was earlier, but he was still great). He’s struggled with injuries in that timeframe, but when he’s played he has IMO played at a level significantly higher than any of these other nominees, and was at a level where there’s a real question whether, when healthy, he’s the NBA’s best player. And then we add on top of that his earlier years as an absolutely elite defender.

The biggest knock on Kawhi is, of course, longevity and injuries. It’s a big downside. But his longevity didn’t stop him from being the clear-cut best player on a championship team—something that all of the other nominees lack. Nor did it stop him from being Finals MVP in another championship team. He was so good that even with lesser longevity he achieved things individually that these other guys did not. And, more generally, at a certain point, I just think longevity has to step aside when one player is clearly better than the rest, and that’s how I see it with Kawhi. If I saw him as the better player but injuries and lesser longevity had prevented him from achieving much, that’d be different, but that’s not what’s happened. He is a better player whose achievements I’d put up there with every other nominee’s (except maybe Pippen, more on that below). In that context, longevity has to give way.

My alternate vote is Scottie Pippen. He’s the one guy here who perhaps achieved more individually than Kawhi. He never won a title as the #1 player on a team (which I value substantially higher than doing it as the #2 player), but he did ultimately win 6 titles. And I see him as being at least as good (and probably better) than the other nominees besides Kawhi. The decision between him and Kawhi isn’t an easy one, but I ultimately just see Kawhi on a slightly higher tier as a player.

I’ve explained my Rick Barry nomination before. He was the best player on a title team, dragged his team to the finals in 1967 while posting extremely gaudy stats, and went to the finals in the ABA. He was consistently all-NBA first team. I think he should be nominated already, because I see his achievements as being above multiple current nominees.

70sFan · Post #10 » by **70sFan** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:26 pm

lessthanjake wrote:The biggest knock on Kawhi is, of course, longevity and injuries. It’s a big downside. But his longevity didn’t stop him from being the clear-cut best player on a championship team—something that all of the other nominees lack.

That's not true, Frazier was clearly the best player on 1973 team.

I’ve explained my Rick Barry nomination before. He was the best player on a title team, dragged his team to the finals in 1967 while posting extremely gaudy stats, and went to the finals in the ABA. He was consistently all-NBA first team. I think he should be nominated already, because I see his achievements as being above multiple current nominees.

The bolded part is questionable, considering that he had a teammate that was arguably better than him that year.

trelos6 · Post #11 » by **trelos6** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:28 pm

Spoiler:

My argument for Pippen is the same.

vote: Pippen

alt vote. Kawhi Leonard. Probably best peak of remaining players. 5 all NBA, 8 all star campaigns is a bit short vs others, but I think his peak makes up for it.

Outlined Frazier v Stockton below. It’s close.

Spoiler:

Nom: Havlicek. I have him a bit lower, but if you can get to a few weak MVP level seasons in the early 70’s, he definitely belongs.

Alt. nom: Dwight Howard. Fantastic defender in his prime. Did enough on offense as a lob catcher. Was a dominant defender for 10+ seasons.

AEnigma · Post #12 » by **AEnigma** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:39 pm

iggymcfrack wrote:Of the top 20 players in career VORP (RS + playoffs combined) only 2 of them aren’t voted in so far. #3 Stockton and #20 Kidd. It’s honestly getting kinda weird and puzzling how low everyone’s been on Stockton so far.

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

HeartBreakKid · Post #13 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:41 pm

My vote is for Kawhi Leonard - At two different points he was an awesome defender and an awesome scorer. His health and priorities never made them line up at least not for a long time, but I think his dominance as a scorer and defender depending on the year is truly special.

Alternate vote is for Walt Fraizer - Another injury prone, short prime but high peak guy. His offense is underappreciate due to his low boxscore stats. From watching him it seems like he was a legitimate pass first guy with great shooting. He has a very prototypical tool kit for an MVP caliber point guard. If I was more of a longevity guy I would put Stockton over him though as I think Stockton is not too far from him ability wise.

My nomination is for Anthony Davis - I don't feel good about it. But I think in 2-3 more threads he should deserve more consideration. Hard career to parse through.

My alternate nomination is for Willis Reed - Arguably just as good as Frazier albeit his career feels even shorter. I might put him over Davis, but I think alot of the guys I am voting for at this point in the project are going to be injury prone fellas.

Post #14 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:46 pm

Why I don't support Rick Barry or John Havlicek.

Barry had that one magical year of 1975 (and 76 until the playoffs) that gets him consideration but otherwise he was a scoring machine of decent not strong efficiency with very good passing and meh defense. Add to that he was a sulking entitled baby of a player who obviously and admittedly quit on the court more than once in his career and he's a guy I don't want in my locker room unless there is no one close in terms of talent.

Havlicek is the opposite. He was a super high motor hustling player that played good defense and he turned himself into a slightly above efficiency scorer in the weaker leagues of the post Russell 70s NBA. But this is a guy who shot a lot and for his career he's a -341.6 TS Add. He played on very fast paced offenses much of his career so his scoring totals seem a bit inflated but I've never been as impressed by guys who shot more while making less than the guys around them. It would seem a player credited for being highly intelligent would see that and adjust. You will see others say the same thing about Elgin Baylor but it seems Havlicek gets a pass for it.

70sFan · Post #15 » by **70sFan** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 8:57 pm

What efficient scorers did Havlicek play with during his best years? Do you think he should have given more scoring chances to Don Nelson?

lessthanjake · Post #16 » by **lessthanjake** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 9:10 pm

70sFan wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:The biggest knock on Kawhi is, of course, longevity and injuries. It’s a big downside. But his longevity didn’t stop him from being the clear-cut best player on a championship team—something that all of the other nominees lack.

That's not true, Frazier was clearly the best player on 1973 team.

I’ve explained my Rick Barry nomination before. He was the best player on a title team, dragged his team to the finals in 1967 while posting extremely gaudy stats, and went to the finals in the ABA. He was consistently all-NBA first team. I think he should be nominated already, because I see his achievements as being above multiple current nominees.

The bolded part is questionable, considering that he had a teammate that was arguably better than him that year.

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

Post #17 » by **tsherkin** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 9:30 pm

lessthanjake wrote:That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

I question the idea that Isiah was the best player on an ensemble cast, to be honest.

ZeppelinPage · Post #18 » by **ZeppelinPage** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 9:43 pm

70sFan wrote:What efficient scorers did Havlicek play with during his best years? Do you think he should have given more scoring chances to Don Nelson?

Yeah, he was doing what was needed for his team. I hate this idea that because you shoot a lot on low efficiency you somehow don't have a high basketball IQ. Certain teams need guys like Havlicek to shoot simply because other players cannot, either because they cannot handle that load or they don't have enough confidence. Guys like Jerry West and Lou Hudson have mentioned how difficult it is to shoot 20+ times night in and night out, and many players cannot do that. Even Rick Barry has touched on this point, referring to how he and Elgin would take "hard shots" when other players cannot and how difficult it is to actually get so many shots off by hustling and moving--it requires an incredible amount of stamina that is not possible for most.

Players that are more efficient on lower volume tend to be called higher basketball IQ, but in some cases you could argue that their team needed them to be more aggressive and they didn't realize that.

iggymcfrack · Post #19 » by **iggymcfrack** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 9:52 pm

AEnigma wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:Of the top 20 players in career VORP (RS + playoffs combined) only 2 of them aren’t voted in so far. #3 Stockton and #20 Kidd. It’s honestly getting kinda weird and puzzling how low everyone’s been on Stockton so far.

You might find it less weird and puzzling if you paid attention to the criticisms rather than repeating VORP ranks.

It's always "well he didn't peak that high". Never mind that the guys who actually did peak extraordinarily high like Jokic, Giannis, and Kawhi all went extremely low too. Like if it's all about peak, Kawhi should be in the top 20. If it's all about value over the course of a career, Stockton should be top 15. I don't see a consistent argument that keeps both out of the top 30.

Owly · Post #20 » by **Owly** » Thu Oct 5, 2023 9:59 pm

lessthanjake wrote:
70sFan wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:The biggest knock on Kawhi is, of course, longevity and injuries. It’s a big downside. But his longevity didn’t stop him from being the clear-cut best player on a championship team—something that all of the other nominees lack.

That's not true, Frazier was clearly the best player on 1973 team.

I’ve explained my Rick Barry nomination before. He was the best player on a title team, dragged his team to the finals in 1967 while posting extremely gaudy stats, and went to the finals in the ABA. He was consistently all-NBA first team. I think he should be nominated already, because I see his achievements as being above multiple current nominees.

The bolded part is questionable, considering that he had a teammate that was arguably better than him that year.

That’s a fair point about Frazier, but I think he was the best player on the 1973 Knicks in a similar way to Isiah Thomas with the Bad Boys Pistons—the best of an ensemble cast. But it’s a fair point.

Frazier had the best Reference box-composite across the board, RS and playoffs, without a defensive boxscore, whilst having one of the best defensive reputations on his team.

Thomas mostly doesn't have a composite lead apart from the '90 playoffs, he has the benefit of a defensive boxscore crediting him strongly, often regarding him as the equal or better of Rodman or Dumars which is substantial out of line with perception at the time.

Frazier also was a clear leader in award recognition at the time in a way that Thomas wasn't.

And fwiw, that "finals dragging" ... beyond the already noted point regarding Thurmond (and his impact signal) ... that route to the finals saw them go through a 0.31 SRS Lakers team that was considerably worse than on paper as they had had West for 66 RS games but only a single minute of the playoffs and a Hawks team with a -1.44 SRS. And even then Barry only shot for a .407 fg% through those rounds on route to a WS/48 for the playoffs very, very slightly weaker than Thurmond's (granted that's a measure that kills him for his inefficiency but it does so for Thurmond too [admittedly not rewarding Barry's volume] without recognizing his D) and indeed several other Warriors, with many teammates assisting at higher rate in that playoffs. He had gaudy ppg once in the final but whilst box aggregation mileages can differ, whether looking at the journey or overall including the finals I'm not sure that not terribly efficient volume scoring without a great deal of evidence of playmaking amounts to a particularly strong productivity playoffs.