RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #35 (Walt Frazier)

Post #1 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Oct 15, 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):

Anthony Davis

Walt Frazier

John Havlicek

Jason Kidd

Reggie Miller

Post #2 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 3:19 pm

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.

Alternative: Reggie Miller Miller for his efficiency and playoffs, Havlicek for his motor and defense, Kidd for his defense and guard rebounding . . . . dang, it's arguable. Going with Miller but would be happy to be talked down.

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. 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. Pau Gasol is another F/C to look at too.

HeartBreakKid · Post #3 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:14 pm

My 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'd consider Kidd and Hondo.

My alternate voteis for Anthony Davis - Seems like when he was healthy he's been a pretty consistent top 5 guy who is usually quite good in the playoffs. Is very good at playing off ball and he grew into one of the best defenders of his generation. I suppose his efficiency and defensive reputation make me feel that he should go over Reed.

My nomination is for Manu Ginobili

My alternate nomination is for Willis Reed - Arguably just as good as Frazier albeit his career feels even shorter.

AEnigma · Post #4 » by **AEnigma** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:15 pm

VOTE: Reggie Miller
Alternate: John Havlicek
NOMINATE: Rick Barry
AltNom: Artis Gilmore

AEnigma wrote:Grade most the candidates as well as a few potential nominees on similar levels. At this point, I side with overwhelming longevity disparity among the franchise centrepieces available, and of that group, I am most confident in Miller or Havlicek to lead my team to consistent playoff success over time. I vacillate between the two: Miller is more specialised and “modern”, but Havlicek is more accomplished and fulfilled a role in his team’s pecking orders which would have been similar for Reggie in his place (Russell speaks for himself, but I take Cowens’ peak/prime over both Havlicek’s and Reggie’s as well).

Barry and Gilmore have more playoff uncertainty, but in that uncertainty it is easy to see them higher than I currently have them. I feel more comfortable in the career value of their respective archetypes than I do some others.

Assuming Barry makes it through this time, probably looking at Pierce next. Manu has been brought up a few times now, but Pierce has 50% more possessions and minutes played, without Manu having the requisite NBA prime advantage used to justify Giannis’s and Jokic’s high placements (much more mixed on Kawhi and Davis, and all have gone or will go several spots ahead of where I would have placed them, yet easy to see how the MVP scaling system does a lot of work for their cases).

OhayoKD · Post #5 » by **OhayoKD** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 4:56 pm

I'm thinking Artis Gilmore or Walt Frazier.

Post #6 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:04 pm

OhayoKD wrote:I'm thinking Artis Gilmore or Walt Frazier.

I don’t see Gilmore listed as a nominee (though I agree he should be by now)

OhayoKD · Post #7 » by **OhayoKD** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:05 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:I'm thinking Artis Gilmore or Walt Frazier.

I don’t see Gilmore listed as a nominee (though I agree he should be by now)

Huh, I could have sworn he was getting votes a few threads back.

Samurai · Post #8 » by **Samurai** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:07 pm

Vote for #35: 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.

Alternate vote: 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!"

Nomination: Artis Gilmore. Gotta admit that when I watched him play, I was never a big Gilmore fan. And I admit that in his later years, he was largely immobile and deserved his moniker of Rigor Artis. But in his prime, he was a very good center. In his prime, he had a decent array of moves in the low post to get his (very) high percentage shots off, whereas in his later years he was largely limited to putbacks and dunks. He was a solid defender (four time All ABA Defensive First Team and once on the All NBA Defensive Second Team), a very strong rebounder and excellent screen setter. To my eyes, he was the strongest player in the game during the post-Wilt and pre-Shaq years. He won a ring in 75, was the Playoffs MVP that year, league MVP in 72, and made 11 All Star games in his 18-year career.

Alternate nomination: Elgin Baylor. Baylor was more highly regarded in his day than he is now. Back then when more advanced stats were unheard of and points were king, he was considered one of the very best in the game since he was a great volume scorer. Now we can look at his stats and realize he was not a particularly efficient shooter and in hindsight it would have made more sense to have West be the primary alpha on offense rather than splitting that role with Baylor. But we're getting to the point in looking at the others not yet nominated that Baylor deserves a mention. He was a ten-time All NBA First Team member, finished in the top 5 in points/game 8 times, and an excellent rebounder with 8 top ten finishes in rebounds/game. And while not known as much for his playmaking as his scoring, he still had 6 top ten finishes in assists/game. In the days before Dr J and long before MJ, Baylor was a pioneer in combining strength with grace, hops and that seemingly impossible trait of "hanging in the air" longer than what many deemed possible. I only saw Baylor play live after injuries took away much of his earlier athleticism, so the "magic" of Baylor was more what my dad would tell me about how incredible he was in his younger days. When my dad saw Dr J, and later Jordan, he felt he was seeing a younger Baylor reincarnated.

Post #9 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 7:55 pm

AEnigma wrote:Assuming Barry makes it through this time, probably looking at Pierce next. Manu has been brought up a few times now, but Pierce has 50% more possessions and minutes played, without Manu having the requisite NBA prime advantage used to justify Giannis’s and Jokic’s high placements (much more mixed on Kawhi and Davis, and all have gone or will go several spots ahead of where I would have placed them, yet easy to see how the MVP scaling system does a lot of work for their cases).

So, I think it totally makes sense to pick Pierce over Ginobili based on longevity, but I'd push back at the idea that there's not indicators that Ginobili was considerably better at basketball than Pierce.

To use Cheema's RAPM data here - which granted, is career rather than prime:

Regular Season
Ginobili 3.724
Pierce 3.542

Playoffs
Ginobili 5.169
Pierce 0.715

So yeah, I consider Ginobili in practice to be quite a bit more valuable than Pierce if you actually want to win championships.

Post #10 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:00 pm

And just for reference with respective Spur & Celtic Big 3's by Playoff RAPM

Ginobili 5.169
Garnett 4.767
Duncan 4.289
Allen 3.087
Pierce 0.715
Parker 0.368

iggymcfrack · Post #11 » by **iggymcfrack** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:21 pm

Vote: Anthony Davis
Elite 2-way player. Despite his reputation for always being injured, he's played in 55 of a possible 56 playoff games and has an incredible on/off of +11.1 in the playoffs. 4th all-time in PER, 5th all-time in playoff PER, 6th all-time in playoff WS/48. 3rd most efficient volume scorer in playoff history trailing only Kawhi Leonard and Kevin McHale. Coming off the most dominant defensive postseason in recent memory in 2023.

Alternate: Jason Kidd
Similar peak value to Frazier and Havlicek with much better longevity. He crushes Frazier in raw minutes, games, and seasons, and he had a higher BPM his final season in New York than Havlicek did in any of the 5 seasons he played for which BPM is available, representative of being an impact player for much longer.

Nominate: Manu Ginobili
This is someone I wasn't as high on going into this project, but after being convinced that he actually was the most valuable Spur on the 2005 title team I'm seeing him in a bit of a new light. His career impact numbers are incredible and the only knock on him was that he did it all playing low minutes and it might not be replicable in a larger role, but in 2005 he started every regular season game and the final 14 playoff games, averaging over 36 MPG over that span, and he was absolutely sublime. 21/6/5/2 on 51% from the field and 41% from three during possibly the hardest year to score in the history of the NBA and facing an all-time defense in the Finals.

OhayoKD · Post #12 » by **OhayoKD** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:31 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Assuming Barry makes it through this time, probably looking at Pierce next. Manu has been brought up a few times now, but Pierce has 50% more possessions and minutes played, without Manu having the requisite NBA prime advantage used to justify Giannis’s and Jokic’s high placements (much more mixed on Kawhi and Davis, and all have gone or will go several spots ahead of where I would have placed them, yet easy to see how the MVP scaling system does a lot of work for their cases).

So, I think it totally makes sense to pick Pierce over Ginobili based on longevity, but I'd push back at the idea that there's not indicators that Ginobili was considerably better at basketball than Pierce.

To use Cheema's RAPM data here - which granted, is career rather than prime:

Regular Season
Ginobili 3.724
Pierce 3.542

Playoffs
Ginobili 5.169
Pierce 0.715

So yeah, I consider Ginobili in practice to be quite a bit more valuable than Pierce if you actually want to win championships.

I think now is a good time to start the draymond-ginobli "real mvp" deathbattle

AEnigma · Post #13 » by **AEnigma** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:42 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Assuming Barry makes it through this time, probably looking at Pierce next. Manu has been brought up a few times now, but Pierce has 50% more possessions and minutes played, without Manu having the requisite NBA prime advantage used to justify Giannis’s and Jokic’s high placements (much more mixed on Kawhi and Davis, and all have gone or will go several spots ahead of where I would have placed them, yet easy to see how the MVP scaling system does a lot of work for their cases).

So, I think it totally makes sense to pick Pierce over Ginobili based on longevity, but I'd push back at the idea that there's not indicators that Ginobili was considerably better at basketball than Pierce.

To use Cheema's RAPM data here - which granted, is career rather than prime:

Regular Season
Ginobili 3.724
Pierce 3.542

Playoffs
Ginobili 5.169
Pierce 0.715

So yeah, I consider Ginobili in practice to be quite a bit more valuable than Pierce if you actually want to win championships.

I did not dispute Manu being more valuable per possession, but it is not just “longevity” (although sure, Pierce did provide an extra two seasons of real value and something like an extra four or five seasons of “top 50” value). 2002-14 Pierce averaged 39 minutes a game in the playoffs, and 2003-14 Manu averaged 30 minutes a game in the playoffs. Pierce averaged 34 minutes a game for his career in the regular season, whereas Manu even in his NBA prime (2004-11) only averaged 29 minutes a game — while also missing more games! So I do not think the regular season value provided is remotely close even outside of raw career length.

The entirety of Manu’s potential value argument is tied to the postseason. I agree that Manu maintains his value better in the postseason, but still we come back to a substantial per game minutes gap, and without Pierce going through any Stockton-esque playoff production declines to confidently say that “+3.5 -> +0.7” should be taken as anything especially real or meaningful (I hammer this point constantly, but again, how do we feel about Jokic’s playoff RAPM?). Using Cheema’s database, the mixed sample gives Manu a +4.3 over 149K possessions. Strong, but in a rawer sense, not more value provided than Pierce’s +3.3 over 220K possessions.

You can think that Manu was just so useful in the postseason (despite low minutes) that he made the Spurs more successful than they would have been with a career’s worth of Pierce regardless of however many wins Pierce could have added to their regular season totals. At minimum I can agree they probably lose the 2005 Finals with Pierce in his place. However, I also would expect them to fare better than they did in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 (and 2002 on the “longevity” note, plus theoretical value in 1999-01 far eclipsing what Manu offered over Pierce in 2017/18).

Post #14 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:03 pm

Vote 1 - Walt Frazier
Vote 2 - John Havlicek
Nomination 1 - Rick Barry
Nomination 2 - Dolph Schayes

Frazier in the Finals

'70 (7 games): 17.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 10.4 APG, 54.1% FG, 77.5% FT, 5.7 FTAs per game

(yes, i'm aware of the potentially faulty assist count in game 7…)

'72 (5 games): 23 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG, 58.5% FG, 70.4% FT, 5.4 FTAs per game

'73 (5 games): 16.6 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 5.2 APG, 47.9% FG, 65% FT, 4 FTAs per game

While the knicks would lose in 5 games to the lakers in 72, this was without reed, so they didn't have much of a chance. That said, Clyde stepped up in his absence as evidenced by his impressive all around play. Overall, he was a great performer in the finals. He really had a solid case for finals MVP in 73, but the "big bias" of the time essentially put reed over the top. In addition, his historic game 7 in the '70 finals put the knicks over the top, some of which can be watched here:

Watch on YouTube

It's also worth noting the knicks nearly went to 4 finals in a row if not for a 2 pt game 7 loss to the bullets in the '71 ECF. Frazier led some truly great teams during that stretch.

Frazier embodied just about all you could ask from a star player. He was a versatile playmaker with great decision making, rarely deterred by defensive pressure. On the other side of the ball, he's widely considered one of the best defensive guards of all time. He had the unique ability to lull a player into an "easy" drive to the basket, and then tapping the ball from behind for a steal and fast break bucket. He was also great in passing lanes, and had the size and speed to guard both the 1 and 2.

From a more intangible standpoint, Clyde fit in seamlessly with one of the most balanced scoring teams in NBA history. Team chemistry was huge, and he valued the importance of his teammates highly. Per Page 2 interview via ESPN:

The story of that night is that Reed's presence really inspired your team and really rattled the Lakers …

Frazier: Oh, unequivocally. If Willis didn't come out, I would not have had that game.

Is that right?

Frazier: Absolutely. He gave us the confidence we needed. The crowd ... the crowd propelled us to that win, man. They never shut up. They had us doing things we never thought we could do.

The knicks routinely ran an "option-less" offense, where "hit the open man" was the basic game plan. Clyde would further his ability to adapt to playing with other star players when his conference rival Earl Monroe was traded to NY. Two of the best guards in the game with only one ball to go around were expected to clash, but instead their styles of play complemented each other quite well en route to the '73 title.

Albert pointed out that Frazier, too, had to make accommodations. ''They both subjugated their game,'' he said. But, after playing so intensely against one another, Albert said: ''They both were so in tune with one another and what needed to be done. So it worked.''

- - - - -

But for basketball fans, Monroe's career was a tutorial in winning. ''By enthusiastically adopting the Knicks' philosophy,'' Bradley said, ''Earl helped to show that no one can accomplish alone as much as all of us can accomplish together.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/sports/backtalk-when-stars-collide-in-new-york.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D

70sFan · Post #15 » by **70sFan** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:19 pm

iggymcfrack wrote:Vote: Anthony Davis
Elite 2-way player. Despite his reputation for always being injured, he's played in 55 of a possible 56 playoff games and has an incredible on/off of +11.1 in the playoffs. 4th all-time in PER, 5th all-time in playoff PER, 6th all-time in playoff WS/48. 3rd most efficient volume scorer in playoff history trailing only Kawhi Leonard and Kevin McHale. Coming off the most dominant defensive postseason in recent memory in 2023.

Alternate: Jason Kidd
Similar peak value to Frazier and Havlicek with much better longevity. He crushes Frazier in raw minutes, games, and seasons, and he had a higher BPM his final season in New York than Havlicek did in any of the 5 seasons he played for which BPM is available, representative of being an impact player for much longer.

Nominate: Manu Ginobili
This is someone I wasn't as high on going into this project, but after being convinced that he actually was the most valuable Spur on the 2005 title team I'm seeing him in a bit of a new light. His career impact numbers are incredible and the only knock on him was that he did it all playing low minutes and it might not be replicable in a larger role, but in 2005 he started every regular season game and the final 14 playoff games, averaging over 36 MPG over that span, and he was absolutely sublime. 21/6/5/2 on 51% from the field and 41% from three during possibly the hardest year to score in the history of the NBA and facing an all-time defense in the Finals.

I am confused with the bolded part, can you tell me what is your conclusion after stating this fact? Do you honestly believe that 2012 Kidd was more valuable player than 1974 Havlicek, even on per minute basis?

iggymcfrack · Post #16 » by **iggymcfrack** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:12 pm

70sFan wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:Vote: Anthony Davis
Elite 2-way player. Despite his reputation for always being injured, he's played in 55 of a possible 56 playoff games and has an incredible on/off of +11.1 in the playoffs. 4th all-time in PER, 5th all-time in playoff PER, 6th all-time in playoff WS/48. 3rd most efficient volume scorer in playoff history trailing only Kawhi Leonard and Kevin McHale. Coming off the most dominant defensive postseason in recent memory in 2023.

Alternate: Jason Kidd
Similar peak value to Frazier and Havlicek with much better longevity. He crushes Frazier in raw minutes, games, and seasons, and he had a higher BPM his final season in New York than Havlicek did in any of the 5 seasons he played for which BPM is available, representative of being an impact player for much longer.

Nominate: Manu Ginobili
This is someone I wasn't as high on going into this project, but after being convinced that he actually was the most valuable Spur on the 2005 title team I'm seeing him in a bit of a new light. His career impact numbers are incredible and the only knock on him was that he did it all playing low minutes and it might not be replicable in a larger role, but in 2005 he started every regular season game and the final 14 playoff games, averaging over 36 MPG over that span, and he was absolutely sublime. 21/6/5/2 on 51% from the field and 41% from three during possibly the hardest year to score in the history of the NBA and facing an all-time defense in the Finals.

I am confused with the bolded part, can you tell me what is your conclusion after stating this fact? Do you honestly believe that 2012 Kidd was more valuable player than 1974 Havlicek, even on per minute basis?

No, Havlicek rose pretty hard during the playoffs in 1974. I'm just saying that on the whole, Kidd was significantly better from age 35-39 than Havlicek was from age 33-37 which makes it pretty hard for Hondo to go ahead given their similar peaks and the fact that Kidd came into the league younger, and the fact that Kidd's New York year could look better even on a regular season per minute basis is evidence of that. If you really want to make it a fair fight, look at them both at age 33. Kidd in 2007 >>> Havlicek in 1974. He averaged 15/11/11/2 for the playoffs on above average efficiency and had a BPM of 8.6, good for 2nd in the NBA that season.

iggymcfrack · Post #17 » by **iggymcfrack** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 10:33 pm

AEnigma wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Assuming Barry makes it through this time, probably looking at Pierce next. Manu has been brought up a few times now, but Pierce has 50% more possessions and minutes played, without Manu having the requisite NBA prime advantage used to justify Giannis’s and Jokic’s high placements (much more mixed on Kawhi and Davis, and all have gone or will go several spots ahead of where I would have placed them, yet easy to see how the MVP scaling system does a lot of work for their cases).

So, I think it totally makes sense to pick Pierce over Ginobili based on longevity, but I'd push back at the idea that there's not indicators that Ginobili was considerably better at basketball than Pierce.

To use Cheema's RAPM data here - which granted, is career rather than prime:

Regular Season
Ginobili 3.724
Pierce 3.542

Playoffs
Ginobili 5.169
Pierce 0.715

So yeah, I consider Ginobili in practice to be quite a bit more valuable than Pierce if you actually want to win championships.

I did not dispute Manu being more valuable per possession, but it is not just “longevity” (although sure, Pierce did provide an extra two seasons of real value and something like an extra four or five seasons of “top 50” value). 2002-14 Pierce averaged 39 minutes a game in the playoffs, and 2003-14 Manu averaged 30 minutes a game in the playoffs. Pierce averaged 34 minutes a game for his career in the regular season, whereas Manu even in his NBA prime (2004-11) only averaged 29 minutes a game — while also missing more games! So I do not think the regular season value provided is remotely close even outside of raw career length.

The entirety of Manu’s potential value argument is tied to the postseason. I agree that Manu maintains his value better in the postseason, but still we come back to a substantial per game minutes gap, and without Pierce going through any Stockton-esque playoff production declines to confidently say that “+3.5 -> +0.7” should be taken as anything especially real or meaningful (I hammer this point constantly, but again, how do we feel about Jokic’s playoff RAPM?). Using Cheema’s database, the mixed sample gives Manu a +4.3 over 149K possessions. Strong, but in a rawer sense, not more value provided than Pierce’s +3.3 over 220K possessions.

You can think that Manu was just so useful in the postseason (despite low minutes) that he made the Spurs more successful than they would have been with a career’s worth of Pierce regardless of however many wins Pierce could have added to their regular season totals. At minimum I can agree they probably lose the 2005 Finals with Pierce in his place. However, I also would expect them to fare better than they did in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 (and 2002 on the “longevity” note, plus theoretical value in 1999-01 far eclipsing what Manu offered over Pierce in 2017/18).

It's kinda iffy how you look at these comparisons, whether it's age or year in the league, but considering that Manu and Pierce were born 3 months apart, I'd tend to just swap them in the same seasons at the same age when making a comparison. In 2011, Manu had a higher BPM than Pierce in both the regular season and postseason, played more RS minutes than Pierce, and nearly matched him in postseason MPG averaging 35 compared to 38 for Pierce. He had an on/off of +13.2 in the RS and +20.3 in the postseason compared to +17.6 and +0.8 for Pierce. Manu played fantastic that season, I don't see what Pierce would be expected to possibly do better. Also, you talk about longevity in terms of the years they didn't play in the league together, but I really doubt that Pierce could have showed the kind of impact in 2014 that Manu did, leading the Spurs in on/off in both the regular season and postseason in their championship year. That was a solid 3 years after Pierce last really had a majorly impactful season.

AEnigma · Post #18 » by **AEnigma** » Mon Oct 16, 2023 11:05 pm

iggymcfrack wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:So, I think it totally makes sense to pick Pierce over Ginobili based on longevity, but I'd push back at the idea that there's not indicators that Ginobili was considerably better at basketball than Pierce.

To use Cheema's RAPM data here - which granted, is career rather than prime:

Regular Season
Ginobili 3.724
Pierce 3.542

Playoffs
Ginobili 5.169
Pierce 0.715

So yeah, I consider Ginobili in practice to be quite a bit more valuable than Pierce if you actually want to win championships.

I did not dispute Manu being more valuable per possession, but it is not just “longevity” (although sure, Pierce did provide an extra two seasons of real value and something like an extra four or five seasons of “top 50” value). 2002-14 Pierce averaged 39 minutes a game in the playoffs, and 2003-14 Manu averaged 30 minutes a game in the playoffs. Pierce averaged 34 minutes a game for his career in the regular season, whereas Manu even in his NBA prime (2004-11) only averaged 29 minutes a game — while also missing more games! So I do not think the regular season value provided is remotely close even outside of raw career length.

The entirety of Manu’s potential value argument is tied to the postseason. I agree that Manu maintains his value better in the postseason, but still we come back to a substantial per game minutes gap, and without Pierce going through any Stockton-esque playoff production declines to confidently say that “+3.5 -> +0.7” should be taken as anything especially real or meaningful (I hammer this point constantly, but again, how do we feel about Jokic’s playoff RAPM?). Using Cheema’s database, the mixed sample gives Manu a +4.3 over 149K possessions. Strong, but in a rawer sense, not more value provided than Pierce’s +3.3 over 220K possessions.

You can think that Manu was just so useful in the postseason (despite low minutes) that he made the Spurs more successful than they would have been with a career’s worth of Pierce regardless of however many wins Pierce could have added to their regular season totals. At minimum I can agree they probably lose the 2005 Finals with Pierce in his place. However, I also would expect them to fare better than they did in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 (and 2002 on the “longevity” note, plus theoretical value in 1999-01 far eclipsing what Manu offered over Pierce in 2017/18).

It's kinda iffy how you look at these comparisons, whether it's age or year in the league, but considering that Manu and Pierce were born 3 months apart, I'd tend to just swap them in the same seasons at the same age when making a comparison.

Pierce played more; that is to his advantage, and I am not going to filter out good seasons like 2002 just because Manu was not in the league.

In 2011, Manu had a higher BPM than Pierce in both the regular season and postseason,

Don’t care.

played more RS minutes than Pierce

Wrong.

and nearly matched him in postseason MPG averaging 35 compared to 38 for Pierce.

So still averaging 10% less, and here without the excuse of the team not needing him to play more.

He had an on/off of +13.2 in the RS and +20.3 in the postseason compared to +17.6 and +0.8 for Pierce.

Yeah Pierce had the misfortune of facing a better team in the postseason and having his bench perform well. What a shame.

Pierce’s plus/minus was +10 per game against the Knicks. Manu’s was +5 against the Grizzlies. Would you think Pierce had a better postseason if his bench had been so bad that the Celtics lost their series?

Manu played fantastic that season, I don't see what Pierce would be expected to possibly do better.

Being healthy for the postseason might help. Maybe Pierce’s actual move should have been to miss some games against the Heat so his impact averages looked better.

Also, you talk about longevity in terms of the years they didn't play in the league together, but I really doubt that Pierce could have showed the kind of impact in 2014 that Manu did, leading the Spurs in on/off in both the regular season and postseason in their championship year. That was a solid 3 years after Pierce last really had a majorly impactful season.

Perhaps he would have looked more impactful if he could have cut down his minutes to playing less than half the game.

Pierce objectively aged worse than Manu did, but one of them was treated like a part-timer throughout his twilight years, and the other was asked to do a lot more. And I would rather have young Pierce than old Manu either way.

trelos6 · Post #19 » by **trelos6** » Tue Oct 17, 2023 12:20 am

VOTE: WALT FRAZIER

I've outlined Frazier vs Stockton in the past. I think they were close, with the slight edge to Frazier IMO. He has a pretty good peak, ok longevity, and that's enough to get him here at 35.

Alt: John Havlicek

If you give some of Havlicek's early 70's seasons a weak MVP designation, then he sits here behind Frazier. He was the jack of all trades, able to score, facilitate and was a fantastic wing defender.

Nomination: Dwight Howard

Fantastic defender in his prime. Also had very good rim gravity. Yes, couldn't do anything outside the rim, but boy was he amazing with his catch radius and dunking prowess. Hung around due to his defensive ability. Great weak MVP level peak (at this point in the top 100), and 10+ years as an All-D level center.

Alternate: Rick Barry

I was considering Dolph Schayes here. Probably the second best player of the 50's. Schayes had 8 seasons over 10 WS, 7 seasons over .200 for WS/48. Compare that with Jason Kidd's 2 and 0 seasons, Stocktons 13 and 14, Miller's 11 and 5. Suggests he's in the ball park. Ultimately, I have him at 2 weak MVP level seasons, 8 All NBA Seasons, 12 All Star seasons. His peak 3yr PS was 25.3 pp75 on +7 rTS%, and regular season he was around 17-18 pp75 on +5-6 rTS%. I think he had one hell of a resume, but is just pipped by Rick Barry for me.

Barry had 2 weak MVP level seasons, 9 All NBA, 11 All Star, and 3 All D level seasons. Very good floor spacer, and decent passer for his position. Volume scoring was ok. Peak seaons was 25.4 pp75 on +0.7 rTS%. 3 year PS was 26.4 pp75 on -1 rTS%. Ultimately, I liked Barry a little more, and enough to get him in as my alternate nomination.

homecourtloss · Post #20 » by **homecourtloss** » Tue Oct 17, 2023 1:27 am

homecourtloss wrote:Vote: Walt Frazier
ALT Vote: Reggie Miller
Nomination: Draymond Green
ALT Nomination: Manu Ginobli

I think I prefer a peak Walt and peak Kawhi to Miller though it’s close; Miller has more career value, but his peak impact signals, leave some thing to be desired.

Moonbeam wrote:

Having someone like Frazier as a guard creator/scorer/lead premier defender gives a team a lot of flexibility in filling out the rest of the roster to create a contending team. Can be seen in his masterpiece game seven versus the Lakers in 1970 when he was the best player on the court in a game in which Jerry West, and will chamberlain both play the entire game.

Watch on YouTube

Moonbeam wrote:

But I also love Reggie Miller’s overall efficacy including in the playoffs, which was basically inelastic other than some games played when he was 37 years old. It didn’t really matter how good the defense was, e.g., vs. the Knicks in 1994It’s very very close, and all of these players are deserving.