RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #39 (Manu Ginobili)

[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


Elgin Baylor


Anthony Davis


Artis Gilmore


Manu Ginobili

[Doctor MJ]

Hey folks, I keep making mistakes on the vote count, and while I don't want to put blame on others for my mistakes, I'm going to ask folks to use a standard format for their votes from here on out to help me screw up less. I'm not going to purposefully not count your vote if you don't do this, but if you do as I ask you'll make us less likely to have issues like this in the future, which could potentially result in the final ranking being off from what it should have been.

So the format:

1. Please list out votes in 4 lines.
2. Please do this even if you're not putting 2nd votes in.
3. Please bold the player names, and don't bold most other text in your post.
4. Don't put the bolded vote line inside a quote. By all means quote your previous reasoning if you want, but put the vote itself outside the quote.

This should look something like this:

Induction Vote 1: Eenie

<reasoning>

Induction Vote 2: Meenie

<reasoning>

Nomination Vote 1: Miney

<reasoning>

Nomination Vote 2: Mo

<reasoning>

To be clear, you don't have to separate out the reasonings like this - I'd be even less likely to screw up if you literally put all your vote lines in a row - but I most of the time separate the reasonings because I see my voting post as a communication to others rather than just sending my vote to the project lead, and so I'd hate to have to give that up myself. (If I keep having issues after these rule changes failing to recognize voting posts that use the same format as I use, well, that will probably mean it's time for a bigger discussion.)

Thanks,
Doc

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Rick Barry
Alternate: Artis Gilmore
NOMINATE: Paul Pierce
AltNom: will wait to see how the Baylor votes distribute themselves, but guessing I will be choosing between Howard or Schayes.

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. 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 the early support of that group, but I have been less forgiving of short peaks/primes than most.

[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: Manu Ginobili: I prefer his more consistent even though lower minute impact to the often injured Anthony Davis among the shorter prime contenders.

Nominate: Draymond Green: Impact monster, great defense, enough offense with his playmaking and occasional 3 point shooting to be positive on that end though not a lot.

Alt nomination: Kevin McHale: Russell Westbrook is the best player left but it's just really hard to build a great team around him with his playstyle. Too ball dominant to be that inefficient in a league where we've seen how important spacing and efficiency are. Possibly in a previous era, I'd have voted him in already but no way to know how well he'd translate in a different situation. Considered Pierce, Lillard, and Schayes as well, feel free to talk me into changing my nomination.

[Doctor MJ]

Might as well just re-post my post from last time:

Induction Vote 1: Manu Ginobili

Watch on YouTube

Y'all have seen my argue blue in the face on Manu. Think I'll just leave it in Ben's hands here.

Induction Vote 2: Artis Gilmore

So, this is a flip because I was advocating for Rick Barry over Artis previously. Tough call between the two and I may flip again.

I might put it like this:

I think Artis was more valuable at peak.
I think Barry was a more resilient star.
I think Artis was better able to remain a positive contributor with time, on and off the floor.

While I don't think Artis was a superstar-level player in the NBA, and that is a disappointment, there's no doubt that his defense was valuable, and his high efficiency on limited volume offensive game was remarkably ahead of its time.

Nomination Vote 1: Draymond Green



Much like Manu, I'm past the point with Draymond where I'm finding reasons to not take the impact indicators that seriously. Green's career is absolutely remarkable as the #2, and a strong #2 on the dynasty of the modern era. I see him as the best defender of the era, and I think his playmaking impact on offense is significant, as is his leadership capacity - though that's not always in the positive direction.

Last thing I'll say here is that I'm high on Steph, Dray, Kerr, and the Warriors in general. I think what they've accomplished is remarkable, and expect to champion them in debates like this...although as I say that, I'm not sure I have Klay in my Top 100. I think Klay's had a great career, but I think Steph & Dray have been the shoulders on this the rest of the Warriors ride on piggy-back.

Nomination Vote 2: Kevin McHale

Exceptionally scary opponent. Outstanding defense, and extremely effective as a volume scorer. Not to be dismissed.

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Manu Ginobli
Alt vote: Artis Gilmore
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.

[/quote]

[Rishkar]

Induction Vote 1: Manu Ginobili
Induction Vote 2: Elgin Baylor
Nomination Vote 1: Dolph Schayes
Nomination Vote 2: Chauncey Billups
Induction 1 Reaoning: I think Manu has the best non-Walton, non-Rose, non-Schayes, non-Yao, non-Moncrief, non-Hawkins, non-Sears peak left on the board, with much better longevity than those players. Incredible impact in a limited role, and someone who was a key component in the most dominant defensive dynasty since the 60's Celtics while being their primary offensive engine. Tony Parker gets too much of his credit, did Tony Parker ever kill a bat midgame? Was Tony Parker an efficent scorer? Was Tony Parker a good teammate? In all seriousness though, I have reservations about Ginobili's impact metrics (which is why he lands here instead of the top 25). I think his colinearity with Duncan credited him as being a more valuable defender than the eye test would suggest, and leading a bench unit inflates his plus minus. The question then becomes by how much, and I think around 40 is right about where he should fall.
Induction 2 Reasoning: Elgin is such a weird player to rank. His first year in the league, he was 4th in scoring and 3rd in rebounding; he was one of the most adapt rookies ever. He would remain among the league leaders for the next 5 years, before hurting his knees in the 1965 playoffs. I view his playstyle as a mix of Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, and Karl Malone. He had a vast arsenal of moves that allowed him to score on high volume and above average efficiency. Because of this variety, he held up well into the playoffs. He was also an incredible ball handler for a wing (being pretty comparable to Kobe's handle). The similarities I see with Bird is the creative passing and elite rebounding from a small forward. Elgin passed in such a unique fashion, and would consistently begin a shooting motion and finish it with a pass. This manipulated the defense in a Steve Nash type of way, and led to an unofficial rule in the league that you didn't double Elgin. His peers consistently praise his passing ability. I see him as a Karl Malone style defender, good in the post, athletic, and trying (with some fluctuation in effort) but in no way exceptional. Then, after his knee injury (and the knee issues leading up to it) he drops to a Carmelo Anthony type player (worse scorer but better rebounder) while not giving West the primacy he deserved. Short peak (placing him below Ginobili) and lots of health issues, but I think his level of play was clearly higher than any of the other nominees. I can't figure out his leadership or intangibles, but I'll link a Sports Illustrated issue that discusses them. https://vault.si.com/vault/1966/10/24/a-tiger-who-can-beat-anything

[Doctor MJ]

To add a bit more, I'll speak to other guys getting mentioned. Apologies, but since these are the guys I'm not picking, there's going to be some negativity:

Existing nominees:

- Rick Barry. Had him ahead of Gilmore previously. Arguments made by others have resonated for me in this comparison. Still likely my next to be on my Induction ballot.

- Anthony Davis. I think the debate between he and Gilmore is compelling, and can definitely see the case for Davis. This is one of those cases where I'd pick Davis for the modern game, but the entire body of work of Gilmore is still giving him the edge. Not just raw longevity, I literally have Gilmore ahead in my POY shares. All it's going to take for Davis to be the clear winner of this comparison though are more great years.

- Elgin Baylor. I think people made some good cases for Baylor in the comparison with Barry. I think of Baylor as more inefficient than Barry, and I really shouldn't. Now part of that comes from me comparing Baylor's efficiency to West's, and thinking about how much better Baylor's teams would have been had he gotten the memo that he needed to change how he played though. With Barry's playmaking, think I'll still be siding with Barry there, but can see the other point of view.

Guys getting on nomination mentions:

- Russell Westbrook. I think everyone knows I'm low on this Russ. The way he played his prime dominating the ball with weak decision making, shooting at max volume with weak shooting, and getting misguided rebounding credit because his bigs were instructed to let him get rebounds instead of getting them themselves, makes me see Russ as a guy who was just plain problematic even at his best, and outright destructive when he slipped.

With that said, Russ always gave his all, and in his best opportunities to win championships, there wasn't an ounce of self-destructive tendency in him.

- Dolph Schayes. Well, I would say he's the next old timer on my list. The tricky part comes from how to try to slot him in with the more modern players. To be honest I'm something of a skeptic for Schayes even within his own era, and so that makes it hard for me to try era-degree-of-difficulty adjust. I probably won't end up being one of his champions, but it makes sense he's getting some traction now.

- Dwight Howard. So, that thing about Westbrook not self-destructing? Welp, Howard self-destructed. He had basically a perfect situation in Orlando, ruined it, then dragged his heels, then finally got traded...which was then followed by him failing to make an impact again and again and again from then on out as anything like a star player despite the fact he was only 26 years old when he left Orlando.

This is the sort of thing that really stings for me personally in projects like this. When your case is based on how you played in a situation that you actively f**d up, how am I supposed to look at building around you? I think Orlando was basically in a no-win situation with Howard as a mental timebomb, and it basically goes without saying that the same was true for every subsequent team he went on that expected him to play like a star.

- Paul Pierce. Makes sense. I'm not sure if I have him above teammate Ray Allen, but both will be candidates for me pretty soon.

- Bill Walton. Love, love, love Big Red, but he just had too many injury issues for me to have him this high. If we were doing a project that was more about total basketball playing career and not just time in the NBA/ABA, that would be very different.

- Clyde Drexler. Totally makes sense why others see Drexler here, but I'm skeptical on Drexler. I feel like there's a tendency with a lot of alphas of that era as roughly as good as how good their teams were - and understandable proxy - but I think this really overstates what Drexler actually brought to the table, and fails to appreciate how impressive the supporting cast around him was.

- Damian Lillard. So, this is an understandable choice. But aside from the fact that I have draftmates Davis & Draymond ahead of him, there's one other contemporary I'd have a hard time saying Dame's had the better career than at this point: Jimmy Butler.

[Owly]

Vote: Manu Ginobli
Alt vote: Russ Westbrook
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.

It kind of depends on the question asked and I just watched it the once at release but I thought it makes the case for more than that, it just backs off, in the very end, from actually concluding something stronger.

[Rishkar]

Much like Manu, I'm past the point with Draymond where I'm finding reasons to not take the impact indicators that seriously. Green's career is absolutely remarkable as the #2, and a strong #2 on the dynasty of the modern era. I see him as the best defender of the era, and I think his playmaking impact on offense is significant, as is his leadership capacity - though that's not always in the positive direction.

I find this really surprising because (correct me if I'm wrong here) didn't you vote Gobert for POY in 2021? I've always seen Gobert as pretty clearly the best defensive force of my lifetime (or at least comparable with post-prime Kevin Garnett). Is playoff elevation the reason for having Green as the best defender of the era, or is it based on cumulative defensive value? I don't mean to put Draymond down here (2016 was an incredible year of his own and I might start nominating him soon) and I'm very biased in this comparison (I grew up modeling my game after Gobert and Tim Duncan, whereas Draymond is one of my least favorite players ever) but I'm curious on how he's providing more defensive value than a premier rim protector, who is pretty switchable, and elite rebounder.

[Rishkar]

NOMINATE: Paul Pierce

ALT Nomination: Paul Pierce

What is the argument for Pierce over Allen? I feel like they were pretty comparable in their prime, with Allen remaining a more impactful player post-prime.

[Owly]

To add a bit more, I'll speak to other guys getting mentioned. Apologies, but since these are the guys I'm not picking, there's going to be some negativity:

Existing nominees:

- Rick Barry. Had him ahead of Gilmore previously. Arguments made by others have resonated for me in this comparison. Still likely my next to be on my Induction ballot.

- Anthony Davis. I think the debate between he and Gilmore is compelling, and can definitely see the case for Davis. This is one of those cases where I'd pick Davis for the modern game, but the entire body of work of Gilmore is still giving him the edge. Not just raw longevity, I literally have Gilmore ahead in my POY shares. All it's going to take for Davis to be the clear winner of this comparison though are more great years.

- Elgin Baylor. I think people made some good cases for Baylor in the comparison with Barry. I think of Baylor as more inefficient than Barry, and I really shouldn't. Now part of that comes from me comparing Baylor's efficiency to West's, and thinking about how much better Baylor's teams would have been had he gotten the memo that he needed to change how he played though. With Barry's playmaking, think I'll still be siding with Barry there, but can see the other point of view.

Guys getting on nomination mentions:

- Russell Westbrook. I think everyone knows I'm low on this Russ. The way he played his prime dominating the ball with weak decision making, shooting at max volume with weak shooting, and getting misguided rebounding credit because his bigs were instructed to let him get rebounds instead of getting them themselves, makes me see Russ as a guy who was just plain problematic even at his best, and outright destructive when he slipped.

With that said, Russ always gave his all, and in his best opportunities to win championships, there wasn't an ounce of self-destructive tendency in him.

- Dolph Schayes. Well, I would say he's the next old timer on my list. The tricky part comes from how to try to slot him in with the more modern players. To be honest I'm something of a skeptic for Schayes even within his own era, and so that makes it hard for me to try era-degree-of-difficulty adjust. I probably won't end up being one of his champions, but it makes sense he's getting some traction now.

- Dwight Howard. So, that thing about Westbrook not self-destructing? Welp, Howard self-destructed. He had basically a perfect situation in Orlando, ruined it, then dragged his heels, then finally got traded...which was then followed by him failing to make an impact again and again and again from then on out as anything like a star player despite the fact he was only 26 years old when he left Orlando.

This is the sort of thing that really stings for me personally in projects like this. When your case is based on how you played in a situation that you actively f**d up, how am I supposed to look at building around you? I think Orlando was basically in a no-win situation with Howard as a mental timebomb, and it basically goes without saying that the same was true for every subsequent team he went on that expected him to play like a star.

- Paul Pierce. Makes sense. I'm not sure if I have him above teammate Ray Allen, but both will be candidates for me pretty soon.

- Bill Walton. Love, love, love Big Red, but he just had too many injury issues for me to have him this high. If we were doing a project that was more about total basketball playing career and not just time in the NBA/ABA, that would be very different.

- Clyde Drexler. Totally makes sense why others see Drexler here, but I'm skeptical on Drexler. I feel like there's a tendency with a lot of alphas of that era as roughly as good as how good their teams were - and understandable proxy - but I think this really overstates what Drexler actually brought to the table, and fails to appreciate how impressive the supporting cast around him was.

- Damian Lillard. So, this is an understandable choice. But aside from the fact that I have draftmates Davis & Draymond ahead of him, there's one other contemporary I'd have a hard time saying Dame's had the better career than at this point: Jimmy Butler.

On Baylor-Barry
Fwiw, conventional wisdom was this wasn't a discussion.
On a more actual level ... Barry's playmaking ... at it's best I think he (probably) is a great passer. But that happens circa ... '74? That aligns with two of his top 3 box years in a strong league (up there with his 2nd NBA year), but then he's on a lower overall level at least on the production side for 76-78 and then worse. The fuller ABA seasons aren't that dominant ... weaker than Cunningham's arrival year, RS only I don't think he's separating himself from Donnie Freeman apart from minutes (rate-wise I'm not sure he's better, looking at box stuff). The only time he looked like a colossus there (a) the league was 2nd tier and (b) he couldn't stay healthy.

Baylor has longevity of quality issues especially on the production side (think I was surprised WoWY stuff later still solid, from memory).

As ever I haven't gotten to a point where I could be happy with a consistent process for a list. But my inclination is early Baylor is more or less a genuinely top tier ... ish - there are pantheon guys above him and maybe he was overrated at the time but ... for a spell in a way I don't think Barry was and my guess is Barry's 6th, 7th, 8th etc ... best years aren't making up that gap.

[Doctor MJ]

Much like Manu, I'm past the point with Draymond where I'm finding reasons to not take the impact indicators that seriously. Green's career is absolutely remarkable as the #2, and a strong #2 on the dynasty of the modern era. I see him as the best defender of the era, and I think his playmaking impact on offense is significant, as is his leadership capacity - though that's not always in the positive direction.

I find this really surprising because (correct me if I'm wrong here) didn't you vote Gobert for POY in 2021? I've always seen Gobert as pretty clearly the best defensive force of my lifetime (or at least comparable with post-prime Kevin Garnett). Is playoff elevation the reason for having Green as the best defender of the era, or is it based on cumulative defensive value? I don't mean to put Draymond down here (2016 was an incredible year of his own and I might start nominating him soon) and I'm very biased in this comparison (I grew up modeling my game after Gobert and Tim Duncan, whereas Draymond is one of my least favorite players ever) but I'm curious on how he's providing more defensive value than a premier rim protector, who is pretty switchable, and elite rebounder.

Ah. I actually had Gobert 3rd in 2001 after Giannis & Jokic. But something I did say is that in the regular season, when I had Gobert at #2 for MVP behind Jokic, I never felt like I had a great argument for why Gobert wasn't my #1. Had everyone else been siding with Gobert at #1 I'd have put him there, but with everyone siding with Jokic, and me literally thinking Jokic was a better player than Gobert, I let myself be swayed by something that felt more right to me.

I'm afraid I'm something of a Gobert skeptic specifically because of what's happened in the playoffs. In a year like 2001 you can see my process where Gobert doesn't fall that much just because of a disappointing playoffs - I tend to think about the playoffs as a way guys can rise in my rankings rather than fall, and while Giannis rose, no one else really did to the extent I felt like they deserved to rank ahead of Gobert. But on the question of whether Gobert's apparent playoff issues are real, I think they are, and I think they've gotten worse with time for reasons that go beyond Gobert himself aging. I just think teams are used to Gobert, and they know how to mitigate/exploit him when they really need to.

Incidentally, I say something similar about Artis Gilmore who I'm voting for. Were I using a criteria based on how well players would do today, many bigs from the past would rank lower than they actually will on my list here. Gobert is thus what you might call "unlucky" to play in this era as opposed to one with less mature spacing.

Re: How is Draymond providing more defensive value than a premier, traditional defensive anchor-type?

1. Spacing-based strategy decreases the value of rim-protection and increases the value of mobility.

2. The removal of the illegal defense rule allows defense to respond better to any emergent situation, which aside from placing more value on mobility, increases the value of pattern recognition and communication - which are both places where Green is in GOAT contention.

To be clear: This doesn't mean that a guy like Draymond must be more valuable as a defender than a guy like Gobert - that's just my assessment of things with a significant amount of analytics involved - but in terms of how the value is being added, I think it basically boils down to those two categories.

[Doctor MJ]

On Baylor-Barry
Fwiw, conventional wisdom was this wasn't a discussion.
On a more actual level ... Barry's playmaking ... at it's best I think he (probably) is a great passer. But that happens circa ... '74? That aligns with two of his top 3 box years in a strong league (up there with his 2nd NBA year), but then he's on a lower overall level at least on the production side for 76-78 and then worse. The fuller ABA seasons aren't that dominant ... weaker than Cunningham's arrival year, RS only I don't think he's separating himself from Donnie Freeman apart from minutes (rate-wise I'm not sure he's better, looking at box stuff). The only time he looked like a colossus there (a) the league was 2nd tier and (b) he couldn't stay healthy.

Baylor has longevity of quality issues especially on the production side (think I was surprised WoWY stuff later still solid, from memory).

As ever I haven't gotten to a point where I could be happy with a consistent process for a list. But my inclination is early Baylor is more or less a genuinely top tier ... ish - there are pantheon guys above him and maybe he was overrated at the time but ... for a spell in a way I don't think Barry was and my guess is Barry's 6th, 7th, 8th etc ... best years aren't making up that gap.

Understandable. How would you respond to this thought?

Barry led a team to a chip in the mid-70s with basically no other stars around him and him playing drastically more minutes than any of his teammates - they rotated in & out while he played as much as possible.

It's hard for me to imagine Baylor doing the same.

[Rishkar]

Much like Manu, I'm past the point with Draymond where I'm finding reasons to not take the impact indicators that seriously. Green's career is absolutely remarkable as the #2, and a strong #2 on the dynasty of the modern era. I see him as the best defender of the era, and I think his playmaking impact on offense is significant, as is his leadership capacity - though that's not always in the positive direction.

I find this really surprising because (correct me if I'm wrong here) didn't you vote Gobert for POY in 2021? I've always seen Gobert as pretty clearly the best defensive force of my lifetime (or at least comparable with post-prime Kevin Garnett). Is playoff elevation the reason for having Green as the best defender of the era, or is it based on cumulative defensive value? I don't mean to put Draymond down here (2016 was an incredible year of his own and I might start nominating him soon) and I'm very biased in this comparison (I grew up modeling my game after Gobert and Tim Duncan, whereas Draymond is one of my least favorite players ever) but I'm curious on how he's providing more defensive value than a premier rim protector, who is pretty switchable, and elite rebounder.

Ah. I actually had Gobert 3rd in 2001 after Giannis & Jokic. But something I did say is that in the regular season, when I had Gobert at #2 for MVP behind Jokic, I never felt like I had a great argument for why Gobert wasn't my #1. Had everyone else been siding with Gobert at #1 I'd have put him there, but with everyone siding with Jokic, and me literally thinking Jokic was a better player than Gobert, I let myself be swayed by something that felt more right to me.

I'm afraid I'm something of a Gobert skeptic specifically because of what's happened in the playoffs. In a year like 2001 you can see my process where Gobert doesn't fall that much just because of a disappointing playoffs - I tend to think about the playoffs as a way guys can rise in my rankings rather than fall, and while Giannis rose, no one else really did to the extent I felt like they deserved to rank ahead of Gobert. But on the question of whether Gobert's apparent playoff issues are real, I think they are, and I think they've gotten worse with time for reasons that go beyond Gobert himself aging. I just think teams are used to Gobert, and they know how to mitigate/exploit him when they really need to.

Incidentally, I say something similar about Artis Gilmore who I'm voting for. Were I using a criteria based on how well players would do today, many bigs from the past would rank lower than they actually will on my list here. Gobert is thus what you might call "unlucky" to play in this era as opposed to one with less mature spacing.

Re: How is Draymond providing more defensive value than a premier, traditional defensive anchor-type?

1. Spacing-based strategy decreases the value of rim-protection and increases the value of mobility.

2. The removal of the illegal defense rule allows defense to respond better to any emergent situation, which aside from placing more value on mobility, increases the value of pattern recognition and communication - which are both places where Green is in GOAT contention.

To be clear: This doesn't mean that a guy like Draymond must be more valuable as a defender than a guy like Gobert - that's just my assessment of things with a significant amount of analytics involved - but in terms of how the value is being added, I think it basically boils down to those two categories.

That makes plenty of sense (I also had Gobert third), it just comes down to different perspective. My first season of watching live basketball was that 2021 season with Gobert, and let me tell you as someone who watched 70+ games that year, our perimeter defense was awful. Royce O'Neal and an old Mike Conley were our bright spots. Bogdanović and Mitchell were unplayable on that side of the court, and incidentally our depth likely hurt here as well (giving Clarkson and Ingles minutes doesn't help at all in this department). I understand Gobert's playoff failure to be more of a. being asked to do much more than any (non Russell) center could be expected to cover on defense and b. being unable to punish smaller, more mobile defenders on offense (making his own job harder).

[Rishkar]

On Baylor-Barry
Fwiw, conventional wisdom was this wasn't a discussion.
On a more actual level ... Barry's playmaking ... at it's best I think he (probably) is a great passer. But that happens circa ... '74? That aligns with two of his top 3 box years in a strong league (up there with his 2nd NBA year), but then he's on a lower overall level at least on the production side for 76-78 and then worse. The fuller ABA seasons aren't that dominant ... weaker than Cunningham's arrival year, RS only I don't think he's separating himself from Donnie Freeman apart from minutes (rate-wise I'm not sure he's better, looking at box stuff). The only time he looked like a colossus there (a) the league was 2nd tier and (b) he couldn't stay healthy.

Baylor has longevity of quality issues especially on the production side (think I was surprised WoWY stuff later still solid, from memory).

As ever I haven't gotten to a point where I could be happy with a consistent process for a list. But my inclination is early Baylor is more or less a genuinely top tier ... ish - there are pantheon guys above him and maybe he was overrated at the time but ... for a spell in a way I don't think Barry was and my guess is Barry's 6th, 7th, 8th etc ... best years aren't making up that gap.

Understandable. How would you respond to this thought?

Barry led a team to a chip in the mid-70s with basically no other stars around him and him playing drastically more minutes than any of his teammates - they rotated in & out while he played as much as possible.

It's hard for me to imagine Baylor doing the same.

I think I'm both really high on peak Baylor and really low on the 70's as a decade, so I think Baylor could have that title (I'd actually think he would perform even better).

[Doctor MJ]

I find this really surprising because (correct me if I'm wrong here) didn't you vote Gobert for POY in 2021? I've always seen Gobert as pretty clearly the best defensive force of my lifetime (or at least comparable with post-prime Kevin Garnett). Is playoff elevation the reason for having Green as the best defender of the era, or is it based on cumulative defensive value? I don't mean to put Draymond down here (2016 was an incredible year of his own and I might start nominating him soon) and I'm very biased in this comparison (I grew up modeling my game after Gobert and Tim Duncan, whereas Draymond is one of my least favorite players ever) but I'm curious on how he's providing more defensive value than a premier rim protector, who is pretty switchable, and elite rebounder.

Ah. I actually had Gobert 3rd in 2001 after Giannis & Jokic. But something I did say is that in the regular season, when I had Gobert at #2 for MVP behind Jokic, I never felt like I had a great argument for why Gobert wasn't my #1. Had everyone else been siding with Gobert at #1 I'd have put him there, but with everyone siding with Jokic, and me literally thinking Jokic was a better player than Gobert, I let myself be swayed by something that felt more right to me.

I'm afraid I'm something of a Gobert skeptic specifically because of what's happened in the playoffs. In a year like 2001 you can see my process where Gobert doesn't fall that much just because of a disappointing playoffs - I tend to think about the playoffs as a way guys can rise in my rankings rather than fall, and while Giannis rose, no one else really did to the extent I felt like they deserved to rank ahead of Gobert. But on the question of whether Gobert's apparent playoff issues are real, I think they are, and I think they've gotten worse with time for reasons that go beyond Gobert himself aging. I just think teams are used to Gobert, and they know how to mitigate/exploit him when they really need to.

Incidentally, I say something similar about Artis Gilmore who I'm voting for. Were I using a criteria based on how well players would do today, many bigs from the past would rank lower than they actually will on my list here. Gobert is thus what you might call "unlucky" to play in this era as opposed to one with less mature spacing.

Re: How is Draymond providing more defensive value than a premier, traditional defensive anchor-type?

1. Spacing-based strategy decreases the value of rim-protection and increases the value of mobility.

2. The removal of the illegal defense rule allows defense to respond better to any emergent situation, which aside from placing more value on mobility, increases the value of pattern recognition and communication - which are both places where Green is in GOAT contention.

To be clear: This doesn't mean that a guy like Draymond must be more valuable as a defender than a guy like Gobert - that's just my assessment of things with a significant amount of analytics involved - but in terms of how the value is being added, I think it basically boils down to those two categories.

That makes plenty of sense (I also had Gobert third), it just comes down to different perspective. My first season of watching live basketball was that 2021 season with Gobert, and let me tell you as someone who watched 70+ games that year, our perimeter defense was awful. Royce O'Neal and an old Mike Conley were our bright spots. Bogdanović and Mitchell were unplayable on that side of the court, and incidentally our depth likely hurt here as well (giving Clarkson and Ingles minutes doesn't help at all in this department). I understand Gobert's playoff failure to be more of a. being asked to do much more than any (non Russell) center could be expected to cover on defense and b. being unable to punish smaller, more mobile defenders on offense (making his own job harder).

So, in terms of him having bad defensive perimeter teammates, I get that, and will acknowledge that there's always some winning bias I struggle to correct for.

But it would be easier to be a Gobert believer for me if what I saw was his team defenses consistently doing a lot better with Gobert compared to without Gobert in the playoffs, and that's just not what we see. No man is an island in basketball, but if a guy's presence is carrying with it a ton of impact, we're accustomed to being to able to see it with data like this. To be swayed then, probably at least I'd need to see rigorous statistical arguments showing that Gobert's defense actually appears to be extremely impactful in the playoffs even when his team's defense isn't working that well. Beyond that, it'd help to see Gobert make some dominant defensive runs in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

On Baylor-Barry
Fwiw, conventional wisdom was this wasn't a discussion.
On a more actual level ... Barry's playmaking ... at it's best I think he (probably) is a great passer. But that happens circa ... '74? That aligns with two of his top 3 box years in a strong league (up there with his 2nd NBA year), but then he's on a lower overall level at least on the production side for 76-78 and then worse. The fuller ABA seasons aren't that dominant ... weaker than Cunningham's arrival year, RS only I don't think he's separating himself from Donnie Freeman apart from minutes (rate-wise I'm not sure he's better, looking at box stuff). The only time he looked like a colossus there (a) the league was 2nd tier and (b) he couldn't stay healthy.

Baylor has longevity of quality issues especially on the production side (think I was surprised WoWY stuff later still solid, from memory).

As ever I haven't gotten to a point where I could be happy with a consistent process for a list. But my inclination is early Baylor is more or less a genuinely top tier ... ish - there are pantheon guys above him and maybe he was overrated at the time but ... for a spell in a way I don't think Barry was and my guess is Barry's 6th, 7th, 8th etc ... best years aren't making up that gap.

Understandable. How would you respond to this thought?

Barry led a team to a chip in the mid-70s with basically no other stars around him and him playing drastically more minutes than any of his teammates - they rotated in & out while he played as much as possible.

It's hard for me to imagine Baylor doing the same.

I think I'm both really high on peak Baylor and really low on the 70's as a decade, so I think Baylor could have that title (I'd actually think he would perform even better).

Makes sense. I'll say a couple things:

1. I think we should keep in mind that Barry wasn't having an anomalous peak here. (I'd say Barry was roughly at this level in the '60s.) So even if you think Baylor had the higher peak - as relevant as that was to what I previously said - do keep in mind that Baylor probably needs to do more than that to have a greater career than Barry.

2. I really think in Baylor's era, one star coming in from college could elevate a team's offense to elite levels. Oscar did that of course, and while it's fine to point out that Baylor's not competing against Oscar here, I think we have to note how far the Lakers were from achieving something like that before West. I just don't think Baylor's decision making was very good, despite the fact that he's got a beautiful highlight real of ambitious passes that worked. We don't see the ones that resulted in turnovers, nor do we see how Baylor took advantage of simple opportunities to create easy buckets for his teammates. With Baylor I think what we really have is a scorer who at times faced defenses that just didn't have the match-up to stop him, and in such cases he could just score and score and score. Extremely valuable when that's what's happening, but not something that I think scales that well against great defenses or, or having teammates that are really good at scoring themselves.

[AEnigma]

NOMINATE: Paul Pierce

ALT Nomination: Paul Pierce

What is the argument for Pierce over Allen? I feel like they were pretty comparable in their prime, with Allen remaining a more impactful player post-prime.

? I mean, I guess I will give Allen 2014 > 2016, but I am not sure I am seeing that otherwise.

I agree they are pretty comparable. But I think Pierce tends to be marginally better throughout because he offers more defensively than Allen, and while Allen is a better player on offence, he is not such a singular engine that I think it makes up for that defensive disadvantage.

[penbeast0]

Do you have Pierce as a good defender? I have him pretty average in the Alex English type category, not bad, but not good either, with less consistent effort.