RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #38 (Jason Kidd)

[Doctor MJ]

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:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
ljspeelman
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
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):

Rick Barry


Anthony Davis


Artis Gilmore


Manu Ginobili


Jason Kidd

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Rick Barry
Vote 2 - Artis Gilmore
Nomination 1 - Dolph Schayes
Nomination 2 - Clyde Drexler

Barry's '75 title run is just really impressive culminating in a sweep of the 60 win #1 ranked SRS bullets. Going up against Unseld, Hayes, Chenier and Porter was a very formidable opponent. He put up 29.5 PPG, 4 RPG, 5 APG, 3.5 SPG, .8 BPG on 44.4% FG and 93.8% FT (8 FTAs per game) in the series.

It's tough to parse out what he did in the ABA as it was in its early years and clearly weaker. That said he really did dominate the competition. In '69 for the oakland oaks he had a crazy +11.4 rTS, albeit in 35 games. He did follow that up with a +7.6 rTS in '70 on a relatively high volume 27.7 PPG on 58.2% TS.

I think Barry is more versatile than given credit for, especially as a playmaker. Longevity is just so so by my standards, but i've already voted in guys with similar longevity. I think he's accomplished enough overall for this range.

As for Gilmore, here are some things that impressed me in his 17 year career:

He used his size very well to create space, but it was more about agility than just sheer power. Far more athletic than you'd expect from someone his size as a finisher. He could go up in one fluid motion, absorb contact, and finish off balance without being right at the rim. As a rookie in the ABA, he took the league by storm, winning MVP and leading Kentucky to a league best 68-16 record. They finished 44-40 in the prior season. In his '75 championship run, he put up the following:

24.1 PPG, 17.6 RPG, 2.5 APG, 1 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 53.9% FG, 77.2% FT, 60.2% TS, 114 ORtg

He also had a monster 28 points and 31 boards in the title clincher. Even if we adjust for pace and a marginally lower overall talent level in the ABA, he still comes out looking rather impressive. And at the end of the day, I value his contribution to that championship highly regardless of any variables you want throw in there. Per David Friedman of 20 Second Timeout:

ABA Commissioner Dave DeBusschere challenged the NBA champion Golden State Warriors to play a three game series against Kentucky but, not surprisingly, the established league declined, realizing that it had nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose in staging such a matchup.

Gilmore's post-ABA longevity from '77-'86 (age 27-36)

19 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 2.1 APG, .6 SPG, 2.1 BPG, 60% FG, 72% FT, 64.6% TS, 118 ORtg

That's 10 seasons of consistent production well into his 30s. While he may get knocked for being a passive scorer as his career went on, I appreciate his ability to still be an effective second option with a volume scorer like Gervin. He didn't have as much playoff success in the NBA as he did in the ABA, but also faced tough competition along the way. In '77, '81, and '83, his teams would lose to the eventual NBA champs.

[trex_8063]

VOTE: Jason Kidd
On our Greatest Defensive Players by Position project some years ago voted Jason Kidd the best defensive PG of all-time.
For defensive peak, I think the argument can at least be made:

He was big for PG (6'4" and 205 lbs, according to bbref, which seems about right to me). He couldn't be bullied in the post by larger PG's or combo guards, and was quick enough to stay in front of most guards, big enough to fight through screens, and it wasn't a mis-match if he got switched on to a SG's or even some SF's. fwiw, His "effective height/length" is bigger than the 6'4" suggests too, because he has kinda wicked long arms (anyone know his wingspan? I'd be shocked if it's not at least 6'7").

And he was great at getting those long arms into the passing lane when defending pnr's (he's stick those poles right into the pocket-pass window). It's no wonder he's got more steals to his credit than anyone except the guy last voted in.
And he's a helluva good rebounding PG (behind perhaps only Westbrook and Magic, perhaps??).

It could be argued that he anchored (or co-anchored, with Jason Collins??) those league-leading or near league-leading NJ defenses of the early-mid 00's. That's in a defense-dominated era, too, fwiw.


Seems he was a pretty good passer, too, especially in transition, falling 2nd again all-time to John Stockton in dimes lent.


His scoring leaves something to be desired, and he's been criticized heavily for it at times. However, his ORAPM was consistently positive (even has a handful of years where it's in the top 15 of the league).

Combine that with his defensive imprint, consistency/durability and longevity (19 years in the league, decent contributor [at a minimum] in ALL of them), and he's my pick among the listed candidates.


Alt. vote: Artis Gilmore
Glad to see he got on the ballot finally. Me leaning toward longevity a bit more puts him in high contention here. I sort of view his career like Dwight Howard, but with better durability/longevity. Similarities include both being freakishly athletic big men who peaked kinda early; terrific finishers around the rim who were also defensive giants when their athleticism was still at its apex (though admittedly falling off quickly once injury took its toll on that athleticism: both had their affectiveness on that end drop dramatically before the age of 30). Both fantastic rebounders, limited passers.

Gilmore led a team to an ABA championship [as clear best player] in his 4th season. Dwight led his team [as clear best player] as far as the NBA Finals in his 5th season.

The major difference [for me], is Artis had better longevity.


Nomination: Elgin Baylor
Alt Nom: Clyde Drexler

A partial case for Baylor follows:

Spoiler:

The opening salvo to get Elgin Baylor on the list of eligible candidates (from my archives):


I view him as a very good [not great] scorer in his era.......a modern(ish) comp [as a scorer only] maybe being Carmelo Anthony.

But although he's a touch shorter than Melo, I'm not sure he wouldn't be a slightly better rebounder, even in the modern era. I know the league was marginally shorter and a bit less athletic at that time, but Baylor's pre-injury rebounding numbers are resoundingly impressive. Here are his reb/100 possession estimates by year:
'59: 15.3
'60: 15.85
'61: 17.75
'62: 16.3
‘63: 13.9

For comparison, here are some notable big-time big-men and their reb/100 possession estimates for the same years (and relation to Baylor's avg):
Pettit
'59: 17.1 (+1.8)
'60: 16.9 (+1.05)
'61: 18.9 (+1.15)
'62: 17.1 (+0.8)
‘63: 16.0 (+2.1)

Wilt
'59: na
'60: 20.9 (+5.05)
'61: 20.7 (+2.95)
'62: 19.4 (+3.1)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Russell
'59: 20.2 (+4.9)
'60: 19.9 (+4.05)
'61: 19.3 (+1.55)
'62: 16.3 (+2.8)
‘63: 19.9 (+6.0)

Wayne Embry
'59: 15.5 (+0.2)
'60: 17.1 (+1.25)
'61: 15.1 (-2.65)
'62: 14.3 (-2.0)
‘63: 15.0 (+1.1)

Walter Dukes
'59: 16.7 (+1.4)
'60: 16.1 (+0.25)
'61: 19.2 (+1.45)
'62: 16.4 (+0.1)
‘63: 15.7 (+1.8)

Dolph Schayes
'59: 14.4 (-0.9)
'60: 13.2 (-2.65)
'61: 11.9 (-5.85)
'62: 11.05 (-5.25)

Bailey Howell
'59: na
'60: 13.1 (-2.75)
'61: 14.3 (-3.45)
'62: 13.5 (-2.8)
‘63: 12.2 (-1.7)

When viewing that I'd note two things: every single one of those guys is taller than Elgin, and every single one of them was more a low-post player on one or both ends (so presumably would more frequently [than Elgin] be in the position to grab rebounds). And yet he's at least in the neighborhood of all of them except for Wilt and Russell----who are both a) legitimately BIG and b) legitimately freakish athletes, and c) considered on the short-list of greatest rebounders ever (and even Russell isn't far ahead of him in '61, fwiw).
Otherwise Baylor's reasonably close to everyone else, and well ahead of Schayes and Howell (though admittedly Schayes is trickling into his post-prime for most of the years referenced here).

He was a thick strong guy, good at creating space with his lower body, could jump (isn't he labeled the "grandfather of hang-time" or some such?), and seems to have had great anticipation for where the rebound was going (a la Jerry Lucas, Fat Lever, and Jason Kidd). All this has me suspecting that Baylor would be special kind of rebounder for the SF position in any era (maybe likened to Shawn Marion in this regard).


Basic WOWY:
‘59: 33-37 (.471) with, 0-2 without
‘60: 23-47 (.329) with, 2-3 (.400) without
‘61: 34-39 (.466) with, 2-4 (.333) without
‘62: 37-11 (.771) with, 17-15 (.531) without **West missed only 5 games, no one else in the regular rotation missed more than 2 games
‘63: 52-28 (.650) with


The Lakers in ‘58 were 19-53 with an SRS of -5.78. And then they obtained rookie Elgin Baylor.
In ‘59--with Baylor being the only relevant player acquisition--they improved by 14 games to 33-39, SRS of -1.42 (+4.36 improvement); also made it to the finals (defeating the 2.89 SRS defending champion Hawks 4-2 along the way). That strikes me as indication of fairly significant impact.

The big criticism on Baylor has been his offensive efficiency (relative to his astronomical volume), and whether he was really “helping” the offense.

The Laker team offensive rating improved with rookie Baylor by +2.8 (+1.4 in rORTG terms) in ‘59. I won’t claim that Baylor always “helped the offense optimally” to the best of his abilities; but I do think he helped it. Obviously other metrics of offensive production/efficiency suggest Baylor was a “big deal” (more on that below)......but what I’m beginning to wonder about is whether or not Baylor had a defensive impact that hasn’t been properly appreciated.

Maybe his capability as a rebounder eliminated a lot of second-chance points for opponents????

idk, but something I noted is that the Laker team rDRTG improved by -2.8 in ‘59. In ‘58, they were 8th of 8 defensively, DRtg +4.5 over league avg and +2.5 over the next worse team.
In ‘59, improved to +1.7 over league avg (6th of 8).
They would continue to improve defensively over the next couple of seasons with acquisitions of Jerry West and aging Ray Felix. And then interestingly their defense appears to suffer slightly in ‘62 when Baylor misses significant games:
In ‘61, the Laker DRtg is -1.3 to league average (again: minus is good), 4th of 8.
In ‘62 Baylor misses 32 games and the Laker DRtg falls a little: just -0.3 vs league average (though still 4th of 9).
In ‘63: no more big Ray Felix in playing significant minutes in the middle and Jerry West misses 25 games (things you’d expect to hurt the team defense); they otherwise obtain guard Dick Barnett, and the only other change from the previous year is that Baylor is healthy (doesn’t miss a game)…….and the team DRtg improves to -1.2 vs league average (3rd of 9).
And then beginning in ‘64 (perhaps non-coincidentally just as Baylor begins to be significantly hampered by knee injuries, which causes his overall effectiveness to suffer, as seen by sudden drop in PER, etc), the Laker team DRtg takes a sudden dip……...And it would never recovery to a better than average team defense (even with big bodies like Darrall Imhoff and Mel Counts) until ‘69 when they obtained Wilt Chamberlain.

So I’m starting to wonder if Baylor had a bigger impact defensively than he’s typically given credit for.
And I sort of wonder if he isn't like Carmelo Anthony scoring, Shawn Marion on the glass, with defense somewhere in between (and a little better passer than either). That's an awfully good player.

Anyway…..
Otherwise, I promised some tidbits regarding his overall production and efficiency during his prime years:

In ‘59 and rookie Elgin Baylor had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only a peak Bob Pettit.
In ‘60 he had the 2nd-highest PER in the league, behind only Wilt Chamberlain.
In ‘61: he had the highest PER (even ahead of Wilt, not to mention Pettit and rookie Oscar Robertson).
‘62 and ‘63: 2nd-best PER in the league both years, behind only Wilt Chamberlain (even ahead of triple-double season Robertson, as well as Pettit and Walt Bellamy’s insane rookie season).

That’s a super-impressive 5-year span. Yes, he drops off quite a bit after, but it’s not as though he faded into obscurity or ineffectiveness in subsequent years. He was a relevant player until ‘70. So…..


For another comparison:

Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) rs
Per 100 Possessions: 38.7 pts, 10.0 reb, 5.1 ast on 61.7% TS% (+8.0% on league avg)
26.9 PER, .250 WS/48 in 38.8 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) rs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.3 pts, 15.7 reb, 4.2 ast on 49.9 TS% (+2.7%)
26.1 PER, .195 WS/48 in 42.1 mpg


Kevin Durant (‘10-’14) playoffs
Per 100 Possessions: 35.8 pts, 10.2 reb, 5.2 ast on .583 TS% (+4.6%)
24.4 PER, .189 WS/48 in 42.3 mpg

Elgin Baylor (‘59-’63) playoffs
Estimated Per 100 Possessions: 30.4 pts, 13.2 reb, 3.5 ast on 51.2 TS% (+4.0%)
25.1 PER, .183 WS/48 in 44.0 mpg

Spoiler:

When thinking about what has driven improvement in the league......integration has helped, but I suspect most of us agree that probably the biggest factor is size of player pool.

And obviously things like scheming/coaching/strategy/analytics have helped toward getting players guided toward better and more effective outcomes. Skills training, shot mechanics, etc, have also evolved, improving the all-around quality of play. However, these latter things are all EXTRINSIC factors: they are things that players from 50-60 years ago would have absorbed if they had been immersed in them from day one (like today's players).

Otherwise, increasing the size of the player pool that the league can tap into is probably the largest driver of improved player quality.

And I think arguably the biggest driver in player pool size is the popularity of the game. As such, I think there is something to be said for those players who were, quite simply, big draws: the guys that put butts in seats, and who inspired the imaginations of younger generations of players.

I bring this up as another small plug for Elgin Baylor. In his time, he was certainly someone who fits this distinction. I'll offer one quote:

“.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….”

I'd place the career of either of these guys ahead of that of Rick Barry. Will try to post more to that sentiment later.
Suffice to say that I think we're getting on toward long overdue for having Baylor at least listed among the nominees. I don't think his career is behind Barry's, and I simply have a very hard time seeing it FAR behind.

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Rick Barry
Alternate: Artis Gilmore
NOMINATE: Paul Pierce
AltNom: Elgin Baylor

Very open to uh four of the candidates, again for reasons largely discussed throughout #35. Kidd’s support seems the shakiest. I will start with Barry and Gilmore, but I might swap out my vote for Davis depending on how other ballots go. I am a bit more impressed by Barry relative to Gilmore: I think he stood out more positionally, and while that is a product of Gilmore’s position being more competitive, if the average value of Gilmore’s seasons is closer to prime Dikembe or McHale (top ~50 players in their own right, to be clear), that gives me some pause. Barry on the other hand has the distinction of being the best passing forward pre-Bird (imo), and while I agree that he had good defensive support in 1975, I think it is worth remembering that Gilmore had one of the best supporting casts in the ABA and ultimately won his sole title going through two -4 SRS teams and a +1 SRS team.

Turning to nominations, I had a lengthier discussion on Pierce in the #35 thread. Have him right in line with Jason Kidd but am willing to defer slightly to Kidd on the basis of peak accomplishments (MVP contention, back-to-back Finals as the best player — albeit in the a conference that did not have any of the top three teams and probably not even any of the top four or five times). I do not see a meaningful gap in their respective RAPM values, WOWY values, number of seasons at a certain level of play…

For alternates, I have no passion for other likely nominees at this stage. Looks like Baylor has a fair shot, which would be fine, and I probably will pick him above most of the others in the discussion right now. I want to start pushing centres once I sort out my order. I think Cowens, Mourning, Howard, and Lanier all have reasonably valid cases, although I recognise Lanier is the toughest as the one with the least playoff success. Howard has some early support, but I have been less forgiving of short peaks/primes than most.

[Joao Saraiva]

Can I vote for Dwight Howard?

[Samurai]

Vote for #38: 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.

Alternate vote: 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.

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.

Alternate Nomination: Dwight Howard. If I were starting a team, I am not sure who I would draft first between Howard and Gilmore. But since it is very close for me, it only feels right that if Artis is now one of the nominees that Dwight should be as well. DPOY for three consecutive years should be reason enough. But he was also an elite rebounder, leading the league in rebounds/game 5 times and finished in the top ten 13 times. Averaged 20+ points/game 4 times and finished in the top twenty in TS% 9 times despite being a poor FT shooter. He has had some durability issues with injuries, his propensity to draw technicals isn't helpful and he brings some locker room drama, all of which has kept me from nominating him thus far. But I think we are at a point where he deserves some consideration.

[Clyde Frazier]

Can I vote for Dwight Howard?

He isn't on the ballot yet. You can nominate him though.

[iggymcfrack]

I'm finally at the point in the project where everyone I have ranked in my top 30 has been nominated and I don't have a clear nomination. I did have Embiid in my top 30 at one point for his regular season stats, but his health has just been such an issue in the playoffs. 2019 was the only year where he played every playoff game for the Sixers and his box score numbers generally go down quite a bit when he's banged up.

On the other hand, he's only missed 1 or 2 games in the years he misses games and his career playoff on/off is +12.1, still at an all-time level. Also, his box score stats while poor in the playoffs relative to his own standard are still better than most candidates at this point.

Ultimately, going off the decades analysis that was suggested earlier to see who I should be looking at next, I think I'm going to choose Russell Westbrook. His 2017 season was a tour de force that doesn't get anywhere near enough credit because his team gave him no support in the playoffs and he declined shortly thereafter. From 2012-2017, Westbrook played 64 playoff games with an on/off of +17.5. He burned bright and quick and at various times in his career was an overrated player who didn't impact winning, but in his prime he really was an elite, elite player with a peak completely unmatched by anyone else yet to be nominated.

[trelos6]

Vote: Rick Barry 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%.

Alt Vote: Kidd. Best PG defender, decent offensively. Good longevity.

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: Dolph Schayes

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%.

Looking at all the guys on the board, plus a few to be nominated, I think this is how I'd rank them.

Dwight Howard
Rick Barry
Dolph Schayes
Russell Westbrook
Jason Kidd
Anthony Davis
Joel Embiid
Artis Gilmore

Manu is a hard one for me to rate, his peak is phenomenal. I guess if you had him above Rick Barry I wouldn't complain. I have him at 1 weak mvp level season, 4 more all nba level seasons, and 3 more all star level seasons. All up, that gets him a little above a guy like Clyde Drexler, but still well behind the guys I have listed above.

Now let's say in 05 he was MVP level, then I'll give him weak MVP for 2011. A few more all nba level years in 06, 07, 08, 10, 14. A couple more all star level, and 2 all D level seasons, now I have him a hair under Rick Barry, just above Westbrook. And you know what, I think that's totally fine.

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Manu Ginobli
Alt vote: Jason Kidd
Nomination: Draymond Green
ALT Nomination: Paul Pierce

Just in time, Taylor comes out with a video about Manu. No new revelations and the same questions about whether he could do the same things for 38 or 40 minutes per game, but Taylor makes a case for Manu being the 1b (in some ways a 1a) to Duncan.

[url]

Watch on YouTube

;t=1609s[/url]

Some relevant graphs (no new real info info other than maybe offensive load when solo on court but good to point out)






I wrote a bit about him in the “Peak Manu in 2023” thread and the nature of his game that translates into this high impact

In essence, Manu’s game was characterized by the additive nature of his contributions to his team's MOV. His monster RAPM can be attributed not only to his individual skills but also to the additive nature of everything that he did. He wasn't just good at just about everything (most players aren’t); his goodness translated into tangible benefits for the entire team in pretty much all aspects of basketball. This is a reason why his RAPM numbers looked like what they did throughout his career. His play either lead to individual results from him (box score) or helped the results of the players around him.

His versatility was such that he wasn't below average in any aspect of the game. He could score (off the ball in motion off of cuts or as a spot up shooter, with the ball in screen-roll actions, in iso, in transition) defend (individual and team), pass and play-make (with the ball, or off of quick passes off of his motion) effectively. This well-roundedness allowed him to impact the game positively in various ways, not only directly off of his direct box score contributions, but due to the additive nature for his teammates through his actions in every phase of the game.

He had no real weaknesses and good in every aspect of the game, both individually and in a team concept.

1. Defense: Ginobili's defense wasn't just about stopping his man. His defensive often led to turnovers, steals, and fast-break opportunities for the Spurs. I wish we had some Synergy stats from his prime to see this. His ability to disrupt opponents' plays was a catalyst for his team's defensive success, including high % offense off defense. He was also a good vocal leader on defense, getting teammates in position.

Once in transition, his ability to excel there played a role in the Spurs’ offense. He was pushing the ball up the court and making plays in transition or setting up transiron threes or easy scores for teammates. Ginobili's speed and decision-making created fast-break opportunities that boosted the team's offensive efficiency

2. Playmaking and Passing: While not always the primary ball-handler, Ginobili's playmaking abilities often led to high leverage offense opportunities that were created out of nothing sometimes, but also synergized well with what Pop wanted to do on offense even though Pop knew that he had to rein in Ginobili’s wildly, creative and often risky play. His passes and court vision created scoring opportunities for his teammates including many hockey assists.

3. Offensive Movement: Ginobili's non-stop movement on the court was a nightmare for defenders. His cuts, screens, and off-ball plays not only created opportunities for himself but also for teammates. One of the things about Ginobili was that his movement didn’t just lead to catch and shoot opportunities once he got the ball, but his movement would lead to him getting the ball and then creating off of that catch once defenders had been taken out of posirtion via the motion offense and his movement. so, he could score in isolation, he could score on catch/shoot, he could score via cuts, he could make assisting passes off of his motion. Once he got the ball, he could create a hockey assist once he got the ball out of motion.

Doc MJ wrote about some of his impact signals (and Draymond’s) in the same thread:

Spoiler:

So I said "Yes", but I should be really clear:

I've been getting higher and higher on Ginobili with time. Let me state something up front that I need folks to know I acknowledge:

To what extent was Ginobili unable to play more MPG? I'll acknowledge that if this was indeed a major problem, then it makes total sense to be considerably less impressed with Ginobili than I am, and to vote "No" on this poll.

Okay, so in terms of Ginobili, what do I see?

1. His style of play is that of the intuitive genius. He makes improvisations in the moment that surprise everyone on the court, and it's often beautiful.

2. Players like this tend to either boom or bust analytically. A player who sees an opening that could work has some percentage chance of success. If that chance is lower than what the offense could otherwise achieve, then the player can quite easily hurt your team.

But Ginobili pops like crazy in the +/-, which means that was we're talking about here is someone with sufficient dexterity and risk assessment to harness the creativity productively.

3. For those unfamiliar with the specifics of Ginobili, know first that Ginobili is a known darling of +/- metrics. To just give one study that I think encapsulates things in the right general direction:

Calculating Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus for 25 Years of NBA Basketball

Based on this list, which serves as a career average RAPM for most of these players, this is the leaderboard they give:

1. LeBron
2. Embiid
3. Garnett
4. Paul
5. Curry
6. Duncan
7. Jokic
8. Ginobili
9. Draymond
10. Tatum

By no means does this "prove" Ginobili was the 8th best player for the time period in question - it wouldn't even if we didn't know about Ginobili's limited minutes, but we do know that that's a thing too.

But the key point is that this data makes Ginobili look quite good right from the start. I'd say everyone on that list in their peak would be expected to be a Top 10 player today - though aside from Ginobili, I'm sure there's disagreement pertaining to Draymond.

Now though, this data gives most of the weight to the regular season.

How about a pretty-close playoff-only model?

1998-2019 Playoffs RAPM

Leaders:

1. LeBron
2. Draymond
3. Ginobili
4. Robinson
5. Kawhi
6. Embiid
7. Duncan
8. Durant
9. Garnett
10. Curry

The fact that Ginobili actually passes up Duncan isn't necessarily the big deal - cuz minutes - but the fact that he's showing a clear upward trend is significant. If Ginobili was mostly about feasting on secondary lineups from weak teams, we'd expect that advantage to go down in the playoffs. Instead it's going up.

But now focusing further on the deeper playoffs I'll quote what I recently posted on another thread:

So, 70s asked about whether I was using RS, PS, or both, and I said Both.

I figure there's not a lot of curiosity about the RS, so here's some PS data.

This is for the 3 year ranges specified before (Spurs 2005-07, Warriors 2014-16).

If we go by +/- per game:

Green +6.88
Ginobili +6.11
Curry +4.76
Duncan +3.84
Thompson +3.17
Parker +3.11

And since we're talking Ginobili, if I do a per 48 minutes:

Ginobiil +9.09
Green +8.95
Curry +6.08
Duncan +4.92
Thompson +4.26
Parker +4.01

We can also do a "deep playoffs" evaluation by chopping out April. So just based on May & June:

+/- per game

Ginobili +6.40
Curry +4.06
Green +4.00
Duncan +3.67
Parker +3.11
Thompson +1.21

And per 48:

Ginobili +9.33
Curry +5.13
Green +5.09
Duncan +4.60
Parker +3.97
Thompson +1.62

Note that because the Warriors were eliminated in the first round in '13-14, you can definitely see this as cherry picking for the Warrior trio, but I'm actually looking to focus the attention on the Argentine. Ginobili's numbers are truly insane, and a reason to wonder about how strong the Spurs could have been if they had been strategically different in this era.

Key takeaway: Ginobili isn't just standing out more in the playoffs, he's specifically standing out in the deep playoffs in a way I'm not sure we have anyone can match.

Here's where I'll also note that in each of the 4 titles the Spurs won with Ginobili, he led the team in playoff +/-. Going back to '96-97, we haven't seen this from anyone else.

Oh, and there's also the matter that he led Argentina to the Gold Medal in the 2004 Olympics then came back to the NBA and was really the dominant force carrying the Spurs through that 2005 playoff gauntlet.

It's astonishing stuff.

Finally circling back to the MPG issue:

While I don't want to appear as if I'm saying that the MPG limitations could not have been based on something fundamentally real and definitive - maybe that motor wears itself out quicker than most over the course of a game - I think we have to recognize that there's good reason to think that this is one sort of situation where a guy may not ever get used to true optimality. Why?

1. He joined a team that had already won a title with their current young franchise player as the focal point of the team's offense, and wasn't looking to make a switch.

2. He played an improvisational style that at times broke the play the Spurs were trying to use. Former teammate Robert Horry recently commented something astonishing:

Let me just say this: You got yours because, if Manu Ginobili would have did the things he was supposed to do, I would have had like 10 championships.

This is the sort of statement gives us a window into how things felt within the team when Ginobili did his own thing on the court. They were frustrated by it. They saw it blowing up possessions at times, and at least one of them, thought the bad was really weighing the team down.

Horry, and anyone like him, was 100% wrong in his assessment. The reality is that Ginbili was helping and helping like crazy...

But on a team that was build around another offensive fulcrum, the frustration of letting Manu be Manu could very well have played a part in putting Ginobili with secondary units.

3. It worked really well, as it was. With Ginobili in this secondary role, the Spurs were excellent for a long time and won 3 titles in 5 years, including - perhaps importantly - Ginobili's rookie year. What all this means is that there really never was a time in that first half decade where Pop was likely to be asking himself, "What if we're going about things backwards on offense?". Even when you know it's your defense that's carrying the real load, if your offense is already good built around your star, are you really going to try something radically different?

So yeah, while I'll never be able to prove it, I actually think there's pretty good reason to think that Ginobili would be a first-class superstar in today's game if he were to land in the right place.

I feel like refraining from trying to peg him at a specific slot in today's league, beyond responding to the poll with the "Yes", but I'll say this:

In my latest assessment, I ranked Ginobili as having the most impressive '04-05 campaign out of any player. In years where the Spurs fall short Ginobili's limited MPG makes him hard to consider in such rare, but in a year where he was pretty clearly the best player on the best team through the 4 series victories, hard for me to insist that other players should rank above him when I really don't think they and their extra minutes could have achieved what Ginobili did.

[trex_8063]

Whoops, wrong thread. Deleted.

[penbeast0]

Vote: Artis Gilmore: Not the personality type I want as my leader, would have been a much greater player if less passive, but an incredible physical talent who would score, defend the post, block shots, and even shoot FTs very well for a big.
Alt Vote: Jason Kidd: Offense was meh, poor shooting, very good playmaking, outstanding offensive rebounding; defense puts him here. Defensive rebounding and help defense gave him some excellent impact indicators on the defensive end, probably better than any PG in history other than Walt Frazier and his longevity is strong too.

Still thinking about Manu, I prefer his more consistent even though lower minute impact to the often injured Anthony Davis among the shorter prime contenders.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
1. Artis Gilmore

One and Done made a good case:

Spoiler:

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

2. Jason Kidd

-> Good longevity
-> Good enough peak to lead contenders

Not really the best player left, but his longevity is good enough here I think

Nomination

1. Westbrook

Honestly weird he hasn't gotten discussion yet(and now that I think about he probably should have already been inducted by now)

but whatever, let's get this going

-> All-time Creator with all-time playoff elevation and all-time playoff impact
-> Was the most valuable piece on a team that thumped a 67-win team and took a 73-win team to 7, probably the best playoff performer in 2014 on a team which pushed the tiki-taka spurs without their best defender
-> Track-record of elevating against better opponents
-> Excellent cultural figure/teammate by all accounts, something which he leveraged to help OKC sign Paul George to a long-term contract, something they are still benefitting from
-> Great RS floor-raiser, 45-wins(full-strength) without KD with OKC's shallowest cast in 2015, and 2017 was even better
-> Saw a +9 srs team in 2013 turn into something like a +3 one when he was hurt
-> Excellent clutch player
-> Underrated longetivity, has been an elite playoff creator as early as 2010(when he elevated vs the eventual champions as he tends to do), had a strong 2023

Alt-nomination

2. Draymond

Will get into this more but he has the leas empirical question marks than Manu, the better real-world profile, arguably better RAPM/plus-minus, is more proven without Steph, and I'd say has the best series performance in the 2016 finals.

An important point to consider I think when using finals +/- is that Draymond has generally ran into much better finals opponents. Have not done it with the celtics(though I imagine they'd look good), but every other finals opponent Draymond has run into entered with a higher rolling srs/psrs than any finals opponent Manu has run into. The weakest, the 2015 cavs, came off a series where they performed at +16 vs the hawks with kyrie barely playing and no kevin love.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Anthony Davis
All-time box score numbers. DPOY impact defensively. Playoff riser.

Alternate: Manu Ginobili
Incredible impact profile, best player in the world in 2005, 4 rings

Nominate: Russell Westbrook
All-time floor raising in 2017. Incredible prime from 2012 to 2018 that clearly beats the remaining candidates IMO.

[f4p]

Spoiler:

he said people fall off from the ABA to the NBA because the NBA was better. then says the modern NBA is better than the old NBA.
that seems like he was talking about league quality.

He said that:

"all these guys who played in the ABA like Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, etc., is that it's pretty consistent that their ABA numbers look like an all-time peak and their NBA numbers look very meh in comparison"

which is not true in Gilmore's case. Gilmore's numbers are the same before he went to the league and after.
I'm not denying the difference in league quality, I'm denying that Gilmore's production looks "very meh in comparison", because it's false.

so then why did you say someone must be looking at the box score too much to say jaylen brown is a superstar?

Because Jaylen Brown posted 27/7/4 slashline in the last season? His composites are weak, but some people stop at looking at raw averages you know?

well...

I don't find PER useful at all

that, for one.

, because it doesn't measure anything.

sure it does. it measures production.

It's not irrational, do you know what "irrational" means?

PER measures how many numbers people collect across the game within a rigid formula that isn't fitted into anything that can be related to the result of basketball game.

just the results of this project.

It's production, but it's not basketball production. PER measures the ability to collect stats within a very artifical and completely arbitrary model.

not really all that arbitrary. a lot of it is just a possession counter.

So yeah, PER measures something. Fouls+turnovers also measure something, but it doesn't mean I should take seriously such indicators. I reject PER because I don't find any usefullness in that after a rational analysis. I don't reject it because I don't like results.

this seems unlikely.

so you're taking the unibro approach. all the numbers are bad?

No, all stats measure specific things. Some of them present valuable data, others don't. We don't have any stat that shows you how good someone is at basketball (which is so complex that it's probably impossible to create such stat), so I don't need to look strictly at the list of the best players at PER, BPM or RAPM to create my list.

ahh yes, the usual strawman that box score people only look at one thing while the rest of you have discovered the art of looking at more than one thing.

It doesn't mean I shouldn't use any numbers, quite the opposite. Raw +/- is critical to understand the correlations within rosters, RAPM tries to adjust the outcome for faced opponents and teammates, so it's a good indicator of how successful your team is with one player on the court relative to faced opponents and teammates, but it's not a measurement of player's "goodness" either. Various models of BPM try to estimate +/- based on boxscore production. I'd say it's weaker indicator of player's value, but it does a decent job at including "production" and exclude noisy results from RAPM. At least it's fitted to something quantifible on the basketball court, unlike PER.

scoring and rebounding and blocking shots i would say are pretty quantifiable things that affect a basketball game. in fact, the people who do lots of those things are often the people that people like you rank highly.

Everything has its value, but the idea that I should reject John Havlicek from the conversation because he has a mediocre PER numbers (even though I know exactly why he has low PER and why we should look at things PER doesn't even try to measure) is just a lazy, crude number reading, that's not basketball analysis.

hmm, was that what i said we should do? reject havlicek from the conversation?

so we shouldn't look at the most common stats we have for all of the players for all of history? things that can give us a common basis for comparison for everybody. just sweep it away?

No? I literally said in the part you specifically quoted here that "box score numbers are useful at what they measure. They have their limitations, but you use them as a starting point of your analysis". Please, discuss in a good faith because for now it looks like you're just projecting your prejudices on me.

so PER is useless but the box score is a good starting point. that seems quite contradictory.

you realize that for some of these older players, we are very limited in what data we have available. i mean you seem to personally have a lot of video, but watching most of these older players is not the kind of thing that has just seeped in by osmosis like seeing a bunch of bird or magic games on espn classics or hardwood classics. unless one has dedicated a whole bunch of time to finding and watching old basketball games, there is only so much some people are going to have seen certain players. and even for the most diehard, there is apparently very limited ability to basically see anything from the 60's and before (someone once said 9 full games i think?).

I mean, if you don't have the time and dedication to watch 1970s NBA games, then simply don't talk about things you have no idea about. It's something I have always found disturbing - nowadays people think they have to have an opinion about everything.

did you just get through yelling at some kids on your lawn? yes, how disturbing, discussing older players in a sport.

That's not true - if you don't know something, that's fair. I don't know about a lot of things related to basketball and I'm not trying to pretend that I do based on reading basketball-reference pages.

so there's simply no way to know if havlicek or russell or babe ruth were good at their sports without having seen lots of them? this seems unlikely.

I think an honest approach is that if you really don't have any time to watch old games, just don't rank old players. If you have the time but don't have the access for old games, just tell me what player you'd like to see in action and I will provide footage (if I have any of course).

and again, Siakam does not have as good of numbers as Barry, especially in the playoffs. you've now said equating Brown to Havliced and Siakam to Barry are because of the box score, when neither are on their level based on the box score.

2023 Brown: 27/7/4, 19.1 PER, .100 WS/48, 1.3 BPM
1974 Havlicek: 23/6/6, 17.4 PER, .151 WS/48, 2.0 BPM

I don't know, Brown looks better than peak-ish Havlicek on the first look.

you mean except for the fairly large playoff gap, the numbers i posted for brown? taking 1973-74 for hondo, 20 to 16 in PER, more than doubling in WS48 at 0.192 to 0.086, huge BPM gap of 5.8 to 1.0 (only 1 year for havlicek). brown doesn't seem close to peak havlicek in these respects.

i suspect lots of people in this project have said lots of things about lots of players they have never watched. and definitely commented on games and series that now exist only in a spreadsheet.

Do you think that's a good thing?
Also, you can study games and series that are not on the tape anymore by reading reports, collecting articles and looking at stats. Most people do only the third part and they often think they know everything necessary.

reading reports, so just going with what someone else thought? how do we vet who knows what they are talking about? who says they weren't just going by the box score, as was the wont of many back in the day before they had much of anything to go by. any more than we can look at stats we've seen for other players and conclude how strong a different player might be? a huge part of analytics is being able to draw conclusions from large amounts of data you haven't been able to personally go over with a fine-toothed comb.

and even saying someone "watched" a player from the 60's might mean they saw a 10 minute clip of a few games.

Yeah and it's better to watch what's available than to stop at looking at boxscores. It seems that you try to contradict one with another, while it's necessary to do both.

all sorts of sports lists are made that feature players the rankers have never seen.

That's why almost all of them are bad.

well, then we should probably remove a whole bunch of votes from this project.

one way to do this is think about players and archetypes you have seen play a lot, think about what their numbers look like, and then look at the older player's numbers and try to surmise things from that. if you understand how the archetypes and numbers usually work, you don't necessarily have to see Player A numbers > Player B numbers; therefore, Player A > Player B. if you know Player B is a better defender and a creator who is likely to be underrated in certain stats and they are already close to parity with Player A, you can guess that Player B is actually the better player. maybe some people aren't comfortable with being able to do that.

How can you understand the archetype without watching a single game of a player? Especially considering that we're talking about the best players ever, who often went beyond archetypes. Like, it's impossible to understand Larry Bird game without watching him in action. I think it's also very hard to understand what made Rick Barry good without watching his games. Some may think that Artis Gilmore and Dwight Howard played the same way, but it's far from the truth.

We have to work with all the information we have. Sometimes it's not much, but it's not an excuse for lazy people to do nothing outside of reading basketball-reference page...

i always forget how much smarter and more dedicated you box score skeptics are than the rest of us dummies. obviously, we've never watched a game, played it all our lives, made gobs of spreadsheets about resiliency, expected championships, SRS upsets, etc, watched hardwood classics at 1 in the morning and then watched the next one at 3 in the morning. if you think a 28 PER is good because everyone who has ever had a 28 PER was good, you obviously just haven't put enough thought into why your life is meaningless because andre drummond had a 22 PER a couple of times.

[70sFan]

Spoiler:

he said people fall off from the ABA to the NBA because the NBA was better. then says the modern NBA is better than the old NBA.
that seems like he was talking about league quality.

He said that:

"all these guys who played in the ABA like Barry, Gilmore, Dr. J, etc., is that it's pretty consistent that their ABA numbers look like an all-time peak and their NBA numbers look very meh in comparison"

which is not true in Gilmore's case. Gilmore's numbers are the same before he went to the league and after.
I'm not denying the difference in league quality, I'm denying that Gilmore's production looks "very meh in comparison", because it's false.

so then why did you say someone must be looking at the box score too much to say jaylen brown is a superstar?

Because Jaylen Brown posted 27/7/4 slashline in the last season? His composites are weak, but some people stop at looking at raw averages you know?

well...



that, for one.

, because it doesn't measure anything.

sure it does. it measures production.

It's not irrational, do you know what "irrational" means?

PER measures how many numbers people collect across the game within a rigid formula that isn't fitted into anything that can be related to the result of basketball game.

just the results of this project.

It's production, but it's not basketball production. PER measures the ability to collect stats within a very artifical and completely arbitrary model.

not really all that arbitrary. a lot of it is just a possession counter.

So yeah, PER measures something. Fouls+turnovers also measure something, but it doesn't mean I should take seriously such indicators. I reject PER because I don't find any usefullness in that after a rational analysis. I don't reject it because I don't like results.

this seems unlikely.

so you're taking the unibro approach. all the numbers are bad?

No, all stats measure specific things. Some of them present valuable data, others don't. We don't have any stat that shows you how good someone is at basketball (which is so complex that it's probably impossible to create such stat), so I don't need to look strictly at the list of the best players at PER, BPM or RAPM to create my list.

ahh yes, the usual strawman that box score people only look at one thing while the rest of you have discovered the art of looking at more than one thing.

It doesn't mean I shouldn't use any numbers, quite the opposite. Raw +/- is critical to understand the correlations within rosters, RAPM tries to adjust the outcome for faced opponents and teammates, so it's a good indicator of how successful your team is with one player on the court relative to faced opponents and teammates, but it's not a measurement of player's "goodness" either. Various models of BPM try to estimate +/- based on boxscore production. I'd say it's weaker indicator of player's value, but it does a decent job at including "production" and exclude noisy results from RAPM. At least it's fitted to something quantifible on the basketball court, unlike PER.

scoring and rebounding and blocking shots i would say are pretty quantifiable things that affect a basketball game. in fact, the people who do lots of those things are often the people that people like you rank highly.

Everything has its value, but the idea that I should reject John Havlicek from the conversation because he has a mediocre PER numbers (even though I know exactly why he has low PER and why we should look at things PER doesn't even try to measure) is just a lazy, crude number reading, that's not basketball analysis.

hmm, was that what i said we should do? reject havlicek from the conversation?

so we shouldn't look at the most common stats we have for all of the players for all of history? things that can give us a common basis for comparison for everybody. just sweep it away?

No? I literally said in the part you specifically quoted here that "box score numbers are useful at what they measure. They have their limitations, but you use them as a starting point of your analysis". Please, discuss in a good faith because for now it looks like you're just projecting your prejudices on me.

so PER is useless but the box score is a good starting point. that seems quite contradictory.

you realize that for some of these older players, we are very limited in what data we have available. i mean you seem to personally have a lot of video, but watching most of these older players is not the kind of thing that has just seeped in by osmosis like seeing a bunch of bird or magic games on espn classics or hardwood classics. unless one has dedicated a whole bunch of time to finding and watching old basketball games, there is only so much some people are going to have seen certain players. and even for the most diehard, there is apparently very limited ability to basically see anything from the 60's and before (someone once said 9 full games i think?).

I mean, if you don't have the time and dedication to watch 1970s NBA games, then simply don't talk about things you have no idea about. It's something I have always found disturbing - nowadays people think they have to have an opinion about everything.

did you just get through yelling at some kids on your lawn? yes, how disturbing, discussing older players in a sport.

That's not true - if you don't know something, that's fair. I don't know about a lot of things related to basketball and I'm not trying to pretend that I do based on reading basketball-reference pages.

so there's simply no way to know if havlicek or russell or babe ruth were good at their sports without having seen lots of them? this seems unlikely.

I think an honest approach is that if you really don't have any time to watch old games, just don't rank old players. If you have the time but don't have the access for old games, just tell me what player you'd like to see in action and I will provide footage (if I have any of course).

and again, Siakam does not have as good of numbers as Barry, especially in the playoffs. you've now said equating Brown to Havliced and Siakam to Barry are because of the box score, when neither are on their level based on the box score.

2023 Brown: 27/7/4, 19.1 PER, .100 WS/48, 1.3 BPM
1974 Havlicek: 23/6/6, 17.4 PER, .151 WS/48, 2.0 BPM

I don't know, Brown looks better than peak-ish Havlicek on the first look.

you mean except for the fairly large playoff gap, the numbers i posted for brown? taking 1973-74 for hondo, 20 to 16 in PER, more than doubling in WS48 at 0.192 to 0.086, huge BPM gap of 5.8 to 1.0 (only 1 year for havlicek). brown doesn't seem close to peak havlicek in these respects.

i suspect lots of people in this project have said lots of things about lots of players they have never watched. and definitely commented on games and series that now exist only in a spreadsheet.

Do you think that's a good thing?
Also, you can study games and series that are not on the tape anymore by reading reports, collecting articles and looking at stats. Most people do only the third part and they often think they know everything necessary.

reading reports, so just going with what someone else thought? how do we vet who knows what they are talking about? who says they weren't just going by the box score, as was the wont of many back in the day before they had much of anything to go by. any more than we can look at stats we've seen for other players and conclude how strong a different player might be? a huge part of analytics is being able to draw conclusions from large amounts of data you haven't been able to personally go over with a fine-toothed comb.

and even saying someone "watched" a player from the 60's might mean they saw a 10 minute clip of a few games.

Yeah and it's better to watch what's available than to stop at looking at boxscores. It seems that you try to contradict one with another, while it's necessary to do both.

all sorts of sports lists are made that feature players the rankers have never seen.

That's why almost all of them are bad.

well, then we should probably remove a whole bunch of votes from this project.

one way to do this is think about players and archetypes you have seen play a lot, think about what their numbers look like, and then look at the older player's numbers and try to surmise things from that. if you understand how the archetypes and numbers usually work, you don't necessarily have to see Player A numbers > Player B numbers; therefore, Player A > Player B. if you know Player B is a better defender and a creator who is likely to be underrated in certain stats and they are already close to parity with Player A, you can guess that Player B is actually the better player. maybe some people aren't comfortable with being able to do that.

How can you understand the archetype without watching a single game of a player? Especially considering that we're talking about the best players ever, who often went beyond archetypes. Like, it's impossible to understand Larry Bird game without watching him in action. I think it's also very hard to understand what made Rick Barry good without watching his games. Some may think that Artis Gilmore and Dwight Howard played the same way, but it's far from the truth.

We have to work with all the information we have. Sometimes it's not much, but it's not an excuse for lazy people to do nothing outside of reading basketball-reference page...

i always forget how much smarter and more dedicated you box score skeptics are than the rest of us dummies. obviously, we've never watched a game, played it all our lives, made gobs of spreadsheets about resiliency, expected championships, SRS upsets, etc, watched hardwood classics at 1 in the morning and then watched the next one at 3 in the morning. if you think a 28 PER is good because everyone who has ever had a 28 PER was good, you obviously just haven't put enough thought into why your life is meaningless because andre drummond had a 22 PER a couple of times.

With all respect, I won't continue this discussion if you keep doing that in a bad manner. You are not listening me and you are also trying to make me look stupid. It's not worth my or your time really.

[Ambrose]

Vote: Rick Barry

One of the most underrated superstars of all time. Dipping for the ABA I think damaged his reputation within the NBA, and cost him a handful of prime seasons. As a whole he's absolutely a top 40 player ever, and has one of the more impressive unsung title runs.

Alternate: Jason Kidd

Absolutely transformative defender everywhere he went, and combined with his incredible transition play, one of the stronger impact guys left.

Nominate: Dwight Howard

Doesn't get nearly enough credit for what he did in Orlando, and while the middle of his career was more about numbers than impact, he did eventually turn it around to become a key role player later on.

[Samurai]

Vote
[b]2. Hondo

-> Great longevity, one of the all-time minute leaders/
-> Good enough peak to co-lead a title-team
-> Good playoff elevation, especially for his pre-prime

Not really the best player left, but his longevity is good enough here I think

.

I believe Hondo was already voted in last round.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
[b]2. Hondo

-> Great longevity, one of the all-time minute leaders/
-> Good enough peak to co-lead a title-team
-> Good playoff elevation, especially for his pre-prime

Not really the best player left, but his longevity is good enough here I think

.

I believe Hondo was already voted in last round.

Thank you for spotting. I have edited

[OhayoKD]

so we shouldn't look at the most common stats we have for all of the players for all of history? things that can give us a common basis for comparison for everybody. just sweep it away?

No? I literally said in the part you specifically quoted here that "box score numbers are useful at what they measure. They have their limitations, but you use them as a starting point of your analysis". Please, discuss in a good faith because for now it looks like you're just projecting your prejudices on me.

so PER is useless but the box score is a good starting point. that seems quite contradictory.

The part you quoted does not say the box score is a good starting point. If anything it implies the opposite. PER being useless and the box-score being useful is also not contradictory. A thing being x does not mean that anything which uses said thing as a basis is also x.