OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Not really feeling this recent push of active players. Thirteen were already in, George's induction makes it 14, and Dame and now Gobert are on the ballot, and assuming they both get in, that's sixteen. And people are still talking about others(in the General thread if not here). Are we trying to get to 20 so we can have a list of the top 100 players ever where 1/5 of the list is currently playing? Seems like that would be opening the list up to accusations of recency bias. There are so many retired players still on the board that are deserving of the recognition, I don't know why we're in such a hurry to prematurely elevate some of these guys.
Well the only three I would say have reasonable case for “premature elevation” putting them on the list at all are Embiid, Doncic, and Tatum. Everyone else in consideration meets a typical minutes/seasons mark. Do you think Lillard and Lowry would have more merited cases if they had decided to retire in the offseason like Iguodala recently did?
Looking at minutes, Embiid is a massive negative outlier (as both of us highlighted at the time). Doncic would roughly match him if inducted, with five seasons of completed play. Tatum is a step ahead in minutes but only crossed the 20K mark this season. Jokic was an obvious inclusion, although I agree he went too high. Gobert has slightly more, but without the superstar play or postseason success. Kawhi, Davis, and Giannis slightly more, with both superstar play and postseason success (all three also went too high but were expected inclusions). Draymond with borderine superstar play and immense postseason success. Jimmy Butler, same, but Butler is the first to be in the top 250 for minutes played. Past Butler is Paul George and Lillard, slightly lacking in both success and true superstar status, but with 30,000 minutes played. Jrue slightly higher for minutes, and then Klay is in this range as well. Horford and Lowry higher than that. Finally, the top five in active minutes (plus Steph) were all obvious inclusions and had been obvious inclusions in prior projects.
Now, what about some of these other names. Sam Jones and Bill Sharman do not make the top 250 (although Jones is close). Neither does Cliff Hagan (and even that overstates his prime length). Bob McAdoo is on par with Butler and George, and again, that overstates his prime length. Baron Davis in the same range, and Cousy somewhat higher. There is a modern skew, sure, but that skew reflects both the size of the league and the evolution of top end career length, even before getting into league quality of play.
Going back to that idea of guys retiring. Here is the list of players on the list who were drafted after 2012 (so ten years):
- Giannis
- Jokic
- Draymond
- Embiid
- (Gobert)
Now it is five out of a hundred, or maybe six or seven depending on whether Tatum and Doncic make it in. To me, that seems reasonable.
This is all somewhat off memory, so take it as just a rough guide:
2003-12 — 12 plus Lillard
1993-2002 — 15 plus Rasheed
1983-92 — 13
1973-82 — 6 so far (plus Bobby and Dantley on their way)
1963-72 — 12?
1953-62 — 7 so far plus Hagan and likely Sam Jones
1952> — 3 so far plus at least Cousy
So yep, no issue, and if anything, 2003-12 looks a little
underrepresented relative to the preceding two decades of draft classes.
Some thoughts on the guys being talked about:
Gobert - Box and impact numbers seem to merit discussion on the whole, but his post-season team success is non-existent, he's won three playoff series in his career, and he had a negative +/- in two of the three playoff runs where he won a series, not to mention he was pretty widely criticized when the Jazz were eliminated his last year there. These Wolves this season have a been a surprise, and he's got the highest on/off on the team, so credit for that, but I'd like to see what they do in the playoffs first. Maybe he'll have earned a spot on the 2026 list, but I am really not excited for him to be on this one.
I voted for him more for the sake of fostering discussion, but in general I agree this would be early. I think someone like Horford should have gone before him, both by time played and for performance in the postseason.
Tatum - I'm a fan, but he's only midway through his seventh season, and he doesn't have the hardware Jokic has to warrant induction yet, plus when he did get to the Finals, he had a bad series, so that doesn't help either. I think he'll certainly have a strong case in the future, but it's too soon. I'm not a huge longevity guy on the backend(i.e. 20 years vs 10-15 years doesn't concern me much), but I've been very conservative about letting active players in, and especially those with relatively few years. I voiced this back when Jokic and Giannis were getting considered(they have the individual and team hardware to deserve inclusion, just thought it was a bit high), and I don't think I ever voted for Embiid(despite liking him), citing both the longevity and his playoff woes.
Doncic - Love his game, but even less longevity and team accomplishment than Tatum.
Generally agreed.
Lowry - Had a slow start to his career, his case rests on his Toronto years, and the team was perceived as a playoff shrinker until 2019. Not sure how much his time in Miami has added to his value. I respect him, but there are tons of retired players you can argue over him.
Not totally unfair, but eight years of all-star/NBA play, a title, and some useful support piece years does not leave him with a weak case either. I do not think someone like Hal Greer is a better player than Lowry, so then it becomes about how each person weighs Greer being a top ~five guard for several years in the 1960s against Lowry being a top ~ten guard for several years in the 2010s.
Jrue - Not sure we'd be talking about him without the 2021 Bucks title, and it bares pointing out that on that Bucks team, he was in #3 WS/48 and #2 in BPM in the RS, but #6 in WS/48(all of Giannis, BroLo, Portis, Connaughton, and Middleton were ahead), and #3 in BPM in the playoffs. The playoff WS/48 jumps out at me. Now, obviously, Jrue's value is largely in his defense, so his case lies more on his on/off, which particularly in the second half of his career is strong, RS and PO, but I temper that by saying that in New Orleans and Milwaukee he was playing with AD and Giannis respectively, who were also putting up strong on/offs(especially Giannis) and playing broadly the same minutes, so I'd be weary of some collinearity going on there. Also, right now, this season, his on/off is -5.7, despite the Celtics owning the best record in the NBA. He's certainly a positive-impact player, particularly on the defensive end, but not sold at all on him being in the Top 100. Too many other players to consider.
I will say my current sentiment is that (without considering 2024) he should go below Dennis Johnson if nothing else.
Kyrie - Honestly no one has talked much about him, but I assume somebody will bring him up - but he's not that efficient for someone who scores on as high a volume as he does without providing any defensive value, his playmaking isn't special, and he has glaring intangible issues, as well as durability issues, and hasn't had a whole lot of playoff success without LeBron.
Those are all reasons I would be stunned for someone to bring him up.
Dame and Gobert will probably get in seeing as they're on the ballot, but I really think we should be, and hope we are, done with with active players after that.
Doing that would create a massive
anti-modern skew. I did ten year chunks, but realistically the past four drafts before this project were irrelevant. Make it 2009-18, and you have twelve names out of a hundred. Want to expand to include more active names? Okay, then 2004-18 covers fifteen years (or twenty if counting those recent drafts) to add Westbrook, Durant, Dwight, and Chris Paul. Sixteen out of a hundred, covering a fifth to quarter of the league while the league was at its most talented and developed. At that point we may as well be the NBA Top 75 with its list of locked names like Dave Bing and Pete Maravich.
I also think this complaint is ludicrous when we went sixteen consecutive votes
without the induction of not only any active player, but
any player drafted in the 21st century. When an influx of “recent” players hits,
that will be the reason why; not because of some collective “recency bias” or whatever.
They did not have broad support at all, and Hagan has specifically lost support.
