Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 - 1985-86 Larry Bird

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,264
And1: 6,851
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#41 » by falcolombardi » Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:15 pm

SickMother wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:This may be a hot take that nobody will agree with.....

But if curry and magic are being so heavily considered, why not nash too?

His offense impact is up there with them (his offense team results may be more impressive than curry and even magic) and while he may be a worse defender i am not sure is a huge gap as last i checked there is no clear +/- evidence of him being a big defensive handicap


Nash's production is a pretty clear step below both Magic/Steph for me. Not as strong in the regular season & not as resilient in the playoffs...

Magic 86-87: 27.0 PER | .602 TS% | 112 TS+ | 15.9 WS | .263 WS/48 | 8.8 BPM | 124 ORtg | 106 DRtg
Magic 86-87 Playoffs?!?: 26.2 PER | .607 TS% | 3.7 WS | .265 WS/48 | 9.3 BPM | 129 ORtg | 107 DRtg

Curry 14-15: 28.0 PER | .638 TS% | 119 TS+ | 15.7 WS | .288 WS/48 | 9.9 BPM | 122 ORtg | 101 DRtg
Curry 14-15 Playoffs?!?: 24.5 PER | .607 TS% | 3.9 WS | .228 WS/48 | 8.8 BPM | 114 ORtg | 102 DRtg

Nash 05-06: 23.3 PER | .632 TS% | 118 TS+ | 12.4 WS | .212 WS/48 | 5.0 BPM | 121 ORtg | 109 DRtg
Nash 05-06 Playoffs?!?: 21.3 PER | .615 TS% | 2.6 WS | .153 WS/48 | 3.7 BPM | 120 ORtg | 116 DRtg


I dont want to lean too hard into offensive ratings alone, but the offense run over a larger sampme of the 05-07 suns is just mindblowing tho

Like sure it was a really talented offensive roster but so were the 17-19 warriors or the 87-89 lakers and suns were arguably the most impressive results wise of the 3

I see nash as a worse version of on-ball curry in most aspects (smaller and shorter for defense, worse rebounding,worse in shooting which says a lot about curry) but with a clear edge in decision making which is a really important aspect
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,264
And1: 6,851
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#42 » by falcolombardi » Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:21 pm

Btw, how wild would be to start talking about wade,
Oscar or west at this point

Wade is in some ways lebron-lite (or late 80's jordan with a weaker jumper?) and james/jordan made the list a while ago, his impact and boxscore metrics are both elite and his "carry job" ring is not too far off duncan and hakeem ones in this list (2006 is not usually seen as a floor raised team to a ring cause shaq but that was more of a "mere" all star version of him) and his boxscore in 2006 is all time great.

There are portability concerns in offense but he is an all time great on ball player with elite complementary skills for rebounding, cutting, floor running, defense for a guard, rim protection

That he can replace ball handlers (hence reducing the need to have a small guard on court) and provide high end wing level spacing/rebounding/rim protection as a de facto point guard is a lite version of the versatility cheat code lebron provides and similar to tge one point forward like magic, luka, grant hill give

Oscar is an all time great scorer who consistently lead league leading offenses for a decade, he is sort of a more efficient scoring chris paul

West led elite offenses for his era with great defensive rep for a wing/big guard
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,915
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#43 » by 70sFan » Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:30 pm

falcolombardi wrote:Btw, how wild would be to start talking about wade,
Oscar or west at this point

Wade is in some ways lebron-lite (or jumper-weak young jordan?) and james/jordan made the list a while ago, his impact and boxscore metrics are both elite and his "carry job" ring is not too far off duncan and hakeem ones in this list (2006 is not usually seen as a floor raised team to a ring cause shaq but that was more of a "mere" all star version of him) and his boxscore in 2006 is all time great.

There are portability concerns in offense but he is an all time great on ball player with elite complementary skills for rebounding, cutting, floor running, defense for a guard, rim protection

Oscar is an all time great scorer who consistently lead league leading offenses for a decade, he is sort of a more efficient scoring chris paul

West led elite offenses for his era with great defensive rep for a wing/big guard

I'm thinking about West's case right now. He's my candidate for the next 5 spots (along with Mikan, Magic, Garnett and Curry/Oscar). Wade isn't far behind them, neither is Kobe. I think after getting most top tier bigs, perimeter players discussion will be interesting.
trelos6
Senior
Posts: 504
And1: 204
Joined: Jun 17, 2022
Location: Sydney

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#44 » by trelos6 » Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:30 pm

#9. 2017 Steph Curry.

I’d rather 2016 if not for the injury. Curry is the ultimate gravity guy. His presence alone makes life easier for the rest of his teammates.

#10. 1986 Larry Bird.

The legend was a dominant scorer and passer. Defended well and his shooting makes him a threat in any era.

#11. 2004 Kevin Garnett

It was a tossup between KG, and other defensive bigs like Hakeem 94 and Russell 64. Ultimately, KG’s offence gets him over the line. I think his spacing was a little better than Hakeem. Very close though.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,695
And1: 21,638
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#45 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:32 am

70sFan wrote:Your first argument was that the center position is dominated by roleplayers now and we don't have dominant players at this position. Now you're saying that the three players I mentioned are great because they impact the game in unique way. The same thing can be said to any all-time great player though. It's easy to simply label the 6 players voted in as "traditional centers", but there is nothing traditional in their game - all of them did it in unique way.


Let me first do an analysis and see if I can spot the outlier using a seemingly unrelated number.

Shaq 0
Kareem 0
Wilt 0
Duncan 0
Hakeem 0
Russell 2
Jokic 40

I think we can all spot the outlier here, and can probably tell right away this has something to do with the draft.

The number represents the number of draft choices teams made where they picked someone other than the player in question before that player got picked.

It's interesting that Russell shows up here as the only other big man that an NBA team dared to pass up, given that he certainly represents a considerably greater innovation in the game than any of the 0's in the gang. It's a bit of a fluke , because the Celtics famously arranged for this to happen, and Russell just led his college team to back to back titles in college - aka, the only thing that mattered back then - and that much of the conversation as to why teams wouldn't pick him involved race.

Now, with Jokic, clearly there's an argument here that something huge that has to be considered in Jokic being an international player who didn't come to play college in the US. But I think we all have to honest with ourselves when we answer the following question:

Would we have seen Jokic as an all-time great level NBA prospect if he spent a year in college? 2? 4? What would he have had to do at the college level to convince you that he'd be able to thrive to astonishing scale he has today?

I am skeptical there's anything he could have done that would have convinced NBA GM's that he could scale whatever success he had in college to the pros like he has. And yeah, race is a thing here, but it ain't the only thing, not by a long shot. What NBA team sets out and says "Y'know, let draft a guy who kinda plays like Walton so we can play one of those beautiful old-timey pivot-passer offenses!"? None of them, and not because no one ever thought of it before, but because it died a long time ago. Yet Jokic is such a colossal outlier of a talent, that he essentially forced it's re-birth (though credit to Malone and the Nuggets for running with it).

All this to say, I think it's pretty clear that Jokic is more unusual than these other cases, and attempts to say "but they are all unique in their own way!" just get in the way of doing some analysis that's really worth doing. Jokic's emergence is the most out-of-left-field rise of an all-time great the NBA has probably ever seen, and that's precisely why understanding the ingredients of that rise in particular are so fundamentally interesting.

70sFan wrote:Let's run a thought experiment. You say that Jokic works, because he's unique. Would you say it had he played in the 1970s for example? He's such an outlier that we probably would have a very hard time evaluating how he'd translate to modern game. I mean, who else is Jokic-like in 2022 NBA? The best comparison is young Sabonis? Would you be sure about Jokic translating to modern NBA if his closest comparison would be Sabonis? How about Giannis? Someone who can't shoot and relies heavily on his physicality and has big part of his impact on defensive end. It doesn't sound like someone built for 2022 game, but he made it work. We don't have any comparison for Shaq, Wilt or even Kareem now. We can speculate that they might have a tough time to adjust, but there are a lot of reasons to believe they would do just fine.

Nobody in any era would say that Shaq archetype could work as the best player in the league... until we saw it.


The "just fine" conclusion, to me, blocks further analysis.

I'll go out on a limb and say you're not trying to say that you whole-heartedly believe that a player's ability to add value across different eras stays precisely the same. (2.5 sigma then, 2.5 sigma now!) or that it can be properly estimated just by some scaling value based on some kind of talent skill/factor. Probably rather more like you'd expect something within a certain range of variance to be very likely.

But how are you thinking through the game when you say, "Eh, they'll probably do just fine"? You're not.

By contrast, if you actually try to project a player into a different context where you know specific things are different, you're actively thinking about basketball and developing the models in your brain...which is to me the goal of the analyses we do here.

I'm not looking to suggest that you, 70sFan, don't think through the game. I know you do because I've seen your video work, and your descriptions of what you've gleaned from it. You're an active student of the game...but I would suggest that here you're missing an additional opportunity to study the game if you don't try to model and project as you do your rankings.

Can you be wrong when you model? Of course, because you're always going to be wrong no matter what you do. You're going to have stuff you think you know that is not so. The question is only whether you can work to paint a more accurate picture over time, by whatever means you can gain traction with.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
mdonnelly1989
Head Coach
Posts: 6,269
And1: 1,667
Joined: Aug 11, 2014
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#46 » by mdonnelly1989 » Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:36 am

1986 Bird - A top 5 playmaker. Efficienct scorer. And a clutch God. Maybe the clutchest shooter of all time.

1985 Magic - The 3rd greatest playmaker of all time behind MJ and Lebron. Efficient scorer. Versatile.

2005 Kobe - Greatest scoring clinic of my life time that year.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,264
And1: 6,851
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#47 » by falcolombardi » Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:38 am

mdonnelly1989 wrote:1986 Bird - A top 5 playmaker. Efficienct scorer. And a clutch God. Maybe the clutchest shooter of all time.

1985 Magic - The 3rd greatest playmaker of all time behind MJ and Lebron. Efficient scorer. Versatile.

2005 Kobe - Greatest scoring clinic of my life time that year.


Did you mean 2006 kobe? 2005 was a down year of sorts, his 35 points season was 2006
mdonnelly1989
Head Coach
Posts: 6,269
And1: 1,667
Joined: Aug 11, 2014
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#48 » by mdonnelly1989 » Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:39 am

falcolombardi wrote:
mdonnelly1989 wrote:1986 Bird - A top 5 playmaker. Efficienct scorer. And a clutch God. Maybe the clutchest shooter of all time.

1985 Magic - The 3rd greatest playmaker of all time behind MJ and Lebron. Efficient scorer. Versatile.

2005 Kobe - Greatest scoring clinic of my life time that year.


Did you mean 2006 kobe? 2005 was a down year of sorts, his 35 points season was 2006


Oh then yes. I get those two years mixed up. 2006 Kobe.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,695
And1: 21,638
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#49 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:58 am

falcolombardi wrote:Btw, how wild would be to start talking about wade,
Oscar or west at this point

Wade is in some ways lebron-lite (or late 80's jordan with a weaker jumper?) and james/jordan made the list a while ago, his impact and boxscore metrics are both elite and his "carry job" ring is not too far off duncan and hakeem ones in this list (2006 is not usually seen as a floor raised team to a ring cause shaq but that was more of a "mere" all star version of him) and his boxscore in 2006 is all time great.

There are portability concerns in offense but he is an all time great on ball player with elite complementary skills for rebounding, cutting, floor running, defense for a guard, rim protection

That he can replace ball handlers (hence reducing the need to have a small guard on court) and provide high end wing level spacing/rebounding/rim protection as a de facto point guard is a lite version of the versatility cheat code lebron provides and similar to tge one point forward like magic, luka, grant hill give

Oscar is an all time great scorer who consistently lead league leading offenses for a decade, he is sort of a more efficient scoring chris paul

West led elite offenses for his era with great defensive rep for a wing/big guard


To me Oscar & West have serious cases over Bird & Magic, so I don't think you're crazy at all there. I always seem to end up siding with Bird & Magic, but Oscar & West were incredible.

I'm lower on Wade at this point that I used to be, and maybe I'm too low. When he was on, I used to call him a mutant 3-year-old because of his outlier (young Jordan-esque motor), and I think that's a big deal. But...if Wade can shoot well, the Heat probably become something more like the "not 2, not 3, not X" thing they were actually hoping to be. As it was, I think you can argue LeBron's later Cavs had the more impressive despite LeBron having less talent.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
capfan33
Pro Prospect
Posts: 856
And1: 743
Joined: May 21, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#50 » by capfan33 » Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:21 am

falcolombardi wrote:Btw, how wild would be to start talking about wade,
Oscar or west at this point

Wade is in some ways lebron-lite (or late 80's jordan with a weaker jumper?) and james/jordan made the list a while ago, his impact and boxscore metrics are both elite and his "carry job" ring is not too far off duncan and hakeem ones in this list (2006 is not usually seen as a floor raised team to a ring cause shaq but that was more of a "mere" all star version of him) and his boxscore in 2006 is all time great.

There are portability concerns in offense but he is an all time great on ball player with elite complementary skills for rebounding, cutting, floor running, defense for a guard, rim protection

That he can replace ball handlers (hence reducing the need to have a small guard on court) and provide high end wing level spacing/rebounding/rim protection as a de facto point guard is a lite version of the versatility cheat code lebron provides and similar to tge one point forward like magic, luka, grant hill give

Oscar is an all time great scorer who consistently lead league leading offenses for a decade, he is sort of a more efficient scoring chris paul

West led elite offenses for his era with great defensive rep for a wing/big guard


I'm already considering West as I think he was pretty absurd at his peak, probably the best scorer until Kareem and arguably a top-5 scorer ever with good playmkaing, and possibly elite defense for a guard. Especially ignoring health I think he easily has a top-15 peak ever.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,695
And1: 21,638
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#51 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:22 am

falcolombardi wrote:
I dont like how that video talks about the evolution of the game in a "imrpoving and optimizing" way because basketball is not a sport who has stayed static rules and reffing wise, far from it. If basketvall had the same rules and reffing as the 60's then i could agree with the idea moderm basketball is the ultimate version of it until now

The reason why curry can revolucionize the game is because 70+ years into the game story someone got a radical idea to implement a 3 point line, and to a lesser degree because over the decades new changes like looser ballhandling rules or loose reffing on moving screens elevated the potential of what curry ball would eventually be able to achieve

Imagine if in soccer it was decided that goals from outside the goal area (the bigger of the two squares) was worth 2 goals, the whole game would change in a way that goes counter to current meta

Would that mean players and teams from the 2010's should be punished cause their style was optimized for the rules of the time? If nba decides to implement rules and reffing that nerfs 3 point shooting and makes the game mpre like the 90's will we punish curry for it?

Even the word "evolution" doesnt actually mean "improving" it actually means -adapting- and adapting to rules (aka the 3 point line) and reffing (aka looser ballhandling, seconds in the paint rules that limit post ups, refs that dont like calling fouls on post ups but do on slashing)

Just as 3 point shooting became the new meta, post up basketball could come back as the new meta dependign on how the game evolves or rules and reffing changes and it wouldnt be any less valid or
-artificial- than creating the 3 point line was

There is nothingh more "real" about a version of basketball with 3 point shooting that with it, with ilegal defense than without it, with second in the paint that without it, with strict ballhandling rules than without them

I prefer modern basketball style and rules but i dont like acting like they are tge ultimate or definitve version of basketball

As to your point about bigs, literally the top 3 mvp candidates and the mpst common picks for current top 2 players (jokic and giannis) who won the last 4 mvps are all bigs. Add that davis was a top 3 player in the world just 2 years ago and that zion (unless you see him as a wing) is the most hyped prospect of the last 5-6 years too

Gobert, towns, adebayo,ayton, green among other high impact players. The most hyped prospect of this draft is a big (chet holgrem) and the most hyped prospect since maybe davis (a big too) is wenbayama, another center

Guards are coming of a golden generation of sorts (curry, harden, paul, westbrook, lillard and others)

and wings may have had their own golden era (lebron, kawhi, durant being 3 of the most talented wings ever + george, butler, etc)

These two coincided with a nadir in big man talent that many thought would be the new normal across the 2010's but since then big man talent made a huge resurgence and is now looking like one the most talented crop of bigs ever in the 2020's

Is not unlikely that the 2020's will be a resurgence era for big dominance of the league overall, the 2020 (davis althoufh admiteddly co leading with an all time wing) and 2021 (giannis) already show that trend going on


Okay but consider this:

The NBA implemented the 3-point shot in 1980.

So that means, if you're like me, and didn't watch NBA basketball until the '80s, then in your time, you've never watched an NBA that would not have all its teams beaten badly by modern NBA teams if they went back in time to that period. What's happened in that time period, more than anything else, is that teams have found new strategies that work better, and then players were developed to be better players given the new level of strategic optimization.

It has been, in a nutshell, "improving and optimizing" - more than anything else - while you have been engaged with it.

We can debate that if you want, but I don't mean it to be a debate. To me this is just a rather harsh truth that I think we need to accept.

If you want to push this to the side in your all-time GOAT list specifically because that goes earlier than the '80s, and a rule change can then claim to top strategic/skill growth as the more important thing, I think that's perfectly fine, to be clear. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that you aren't watching actual progress out there.

The progress that's gone on in basketball in the 21st century deserves to be recognized for the unexpected development and accomplishment that it is.

Re: new great bigs. Just want to acknowledge the truth in this. It will be fascinating to see what the Wembanyamayama-Hey! generation brings to the game.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
capfan33
Pro Prospect
Posts: 856
And1: 743
Joined: May 21, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#52 » by capfan33 » Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:25 am

70sFan wrote:
capfan33 wrote:The portability edge is decent here

Care to elaborate?

and I really don't like Magic defensively in the modern era as I think even back then he was getting covered a lot by his team. I think there's a good chance on a different team, and definitely today, that he would be a defensive liability while Steph, contrary to the popular narrative, hasn't been.

I have to say that it sounds quite strange to be honest. Magic never played with elite defensive team from top to bottom like Curry did for majority of his prime. It was Curry who was covered a lot, surrounded by all-defensive members all over the place.

Magic wouldn't defend guards in modern game, as he rarely did during his best seasons. I don't see Magic as bad defender and he could be a very positive piece if motivated. I don't have enough time recently to make a long video breakdowns, but I will post old Blackmill's post about Magic's defense in game 4 of 1987 finals (I changed video to available one, as well as time to suit the action):

Blackmill wrote:Rewatched 1987 finals G4. Most people remember Magic's game wining hook shot from this game, but what stood out to me was his defense.



The 4th begins with the score 85-78 in favor of the Celtics. Magic had been resting for the last few minutes of the 3rd, but interestingly, Pat Riley put Magic back into the game for the last possession... to play defense? It seems so since the Lakers likely wouldn't get another shot. Anyways, let's look at the 4th quarter.

1:00:18 Magic does gamble here and leaves his man open. Possibly his only bad play of the quarter.

1:01:42 Magic switches onto Bird to deny him the ball, drains much of the shot clock doing this, then does a solid job at contesting after being bumped.

1:03:11 Magic helps on Birds cut and strips the ball, stopping a likely layup, but he bangs his knee and goes out of the game. He re-enters the game, limping noticeably at 1:05:33.

1:06:00 Magic races back in transition and stops what would have been a 2-on-1 fast break by deflecting the ball.

1:07:21 At first glance I thought Magic over helped on Dennis. But then I realized he was playing the pass to Parish, which I think was arguably the correct decision, especially since he's able to run Ainge off the 3-point line on the kick out. If Thompson is a little sharper with his rotation responsibility, this would have been a contested shot.

1:08:40 Magic is guarding two since the Lakers have doubled McHale. He does a good job closing out, forcing both Dennis and then Ainge to give up their shots, and the Celtics must take a less than ideal shot.

1:09:45 Magic covers McHale who was left open underneath the basket during Lakers rotations. He does an excellent job denying McHale the shot before rotating onto Parish and helping force a 24 second violation.

1:11:52 Magic helps on Bird and Cooper gets the block. If you watch the different angle replay at 1:12:40, you see Cooper got the block in part because Bird exposed the ball to Cooper in order to avoid Magic's block attempt.

1:12:10 Magic helps on Dennis's drive and forces a tough shot.

1:13:17 Magic does a good job fighting over Kite's screen to pressure Ainge's shot. Today the game plan would likely be to ice the screen, but I don't remember the Lakers doing that much if at all. Otherwise Magic made a high effort play fighting past Kite.

1:16:20 Magic shows good instincts by moving onto McHale, anticipating that Thompson will be the help, and he'll have help-the-helper responsibility. Bird actually misses the open pass to Dennis and instead goes for a pass to Ainge. If you watch closely, you'll see Magic's quick close out forces Bird to pull back his pass, and proceed with a handoff. Because of this, Ainge is forced into a long, not-perfectly-squared-up three rather than a cleaner spot up.

1:24:20 Magic does a good job denying the pass from Bird to Dennis, and then shading the play so that Bird can't pass to Parish who was otherwise available.

1:26:05 Magic is defending the Dennis-Parish PnR. Magic switches with Kareem and does a really good job at keeping Parish from getting deep position until Kareem can re-switch. Magic signals for Cooper to stick to Ainge, but Cooper doesn't notice initially, and both close out to Dennis. As a result the Lakers are scrambling and Bird gets an open corner three. Nonetheless good defense by Magic. If you watched just this quarter you'd think Magic was the better defender than Cooper.

1:27:37 The hook shot.

That's 12 meaningful (5-7 I'd consider very meaningful) defensive plays in the 4th quarter with some being the difference between a stop and a sure make. Magic was legitimately quick, had size and strength, plus a better motor than people give him credit for, and possessed generally great instincts. The Lakers defense this season was rotation heavy and very much a team effort, but Magic was probably the most important Laker defender in the final minutes of this game. The last game I watched of Magic was from the 1991 finals, when he looked a lot like a liability. This was a nice reminder that during his peak he could be a very positive defender.



And he did have resiliency and led great offenses, but I'm not particularly impressed by the competition he faced, specifically in 87 his run to the finals was a complete joke. 2 negative SRS teams with the best defense being 15th out of 23 teams in DRTG.

The thing is that competition didn't change anything in Magic-led teams offensive results:

1987 Lakers: +0.9 defense faced, +10.7 rORtg
1988 Lakers: -2.2 defense faced, +8.3 rORtg
1990 Lakers: -3.8 defense faced, +8.4 rORtg
1991 Lakers: -2.1 defense faced, +5.9 rORtg

Curry didn't face siginifcantly better defensive competition in any of his title seasons:

2015 Warriors: -1.0 defense faced, +4.1 rORtg
2016 Warriors: -0.1 defense faced, +4.2 rORtg
2017 Warriors: -1.2 defense faced, +11.4 rORtg
2018 Warriors: -1.2 defense faced, +6.5 rORtg

Magic faced significantly stronger defensive competition in 1988-91 period than Curry did and Lakers offense was still better than Warriors (outside of massive outlier in 2017).


Great post, and I honestly forgot how ridiculous Magic's teams were on offense. Looking at those numbers, it is hard to see Curry over Magic but I do think DoctorMJ has a point in how Curry's shooting ability is such an outlier even compared to the 2nd greatest shooter ever (whoever that is) and how he's basically mastered something that even in the highly evolved/competitive state basketball is in right now no one really has an answer to.

With that being said, I'm reconsidering my vote now, as I said I could put Bird, Magic, Curry and KG in virtually any order.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,264
And1: 6,851
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#53 » by falcolombardi » Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:27 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:Btw, how wild would be to start talking about wade,
Oscar or west at this point

Wade is in some ways lebron-lite (or late 80's jordan with a weaker jumper?) and james/jordan made the list a while ago, his impact and boxscore metrics are both elite and his "carry job" ring is not too far off duncan and hakeem ones in this list (2006 is not usually seen as a floor raised team to a ring cause shaq but that was more of a "mere" all star version of him) and his boxscore in 2006 is all time great.

There are portability concerns in offense but he is an all time great on ball player with elite complementary skills for rebounding, cutting, floor running, defense for a guard, rim protection

That he can replace ball handlers (hence reducing the need to have a small guard on court) and provide high end wing level spacing/rebounding/rim protection as a de facto point guard is a lite version of the versatility cheat code lebron provides and similar to tge one point forward like magic, luka, grant hill give

Oscar is an all time great scorer who consistently lead league leading offenses for a decade, he is sort of a more efficient scoring chris paul

West led elite offenses for his era with great defensive rep for a wing/big guard


To me Oscar & West have serious cases over Bird & Magic, so I don't think you're crazy at all there. I always seem to end up siding with Bird & Magic, but Oscar & West were incredible.

I'm lower on Wade at this point that I used to be, and maybe I'm too low. When he was on, I used to call him a mutant 3-year-old because of his outlier (young Jordan-esque motor), and I think that's a big deal. But...if Wade can shoot well, the Heat probably become something more like the "not 2, not 3, not X" thing they were actually hoping to be. As it was, I think you can argue LeBron's later Cavs had the more impressive despite LeBron having less talent.



Ehh, the 2011 ring is more on lebron, and the falloff after the 2013 regular season is arguably more on wade injuries

i dont think wade jumpshot per se is what stopped heat from winning more rings when wade b
Was the best player on the floor in 2011 finals and was past his prime by 2014 regardless, wade lack of longevity (and lebron wanting to go back to win at cleveland probably) was what stopped heat from competing for more rings

And since this is a peak project and not a career one i dont think it holds much bearing
capfan33
Pro Prospect
Posts: 856
And1: 743
Joined: May 21, 2022
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#54 » by capfan33 » Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:30 am

falcolombardi wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:Btw, how wild would be to start talking about wade,
Oscar or west at this point

Wade is in some ways lebron-lite (or late 80's jordan with a weaker jumper?) and james/jordan made the list a while ago, his impact and boxscore metrics are both elite and his "carry job" ring is not too far off duncan and hakeem ones in this list (2006 is not usually seen as a floor raised team to a ring cause shaq but that was more of a "mere" all star version of him) and his boxscore in 2006 is all time great.

There are portability concerns in offense but he is an all time great on ball player with elite complementary skills for rebounding, cutting, floor running, defense for a guard, rim protection

That he can replace ball handlers (hence reducing the need to have a small guard on court) and provide high end wing level spacing/rebounding/rim protection as a de facto point guard is a lite version of the versatility cheat code lebron provides and similar to tge one point forward like magic, luka, grant hill give

Oscar is an all time great scorer who consistently lead league leading offenses for a decade, he is sort of a more efficient scoring chris paul

West led elite offenses for his era with great defensive rep for a wing/big guard


To me Oscar & West have serious cases over Bird & Magic, so I don't think you're crazy at all there. I always seem to end up siding with Bird & Magic, but Oscar & West were incredible.

I'm lower on Wade at this point that I used to be, and maybe I'm too low. When he was on, I used to call him a mutant 3-year-old because of his outlier (young Jordan-esque motor), and I think that's a big deal. But...if Wade can shoot well, the Heat probably become something more like the "not 2, not 3, not X" thing they were actually hoping to be. As it was, I think you can argue LeBron's later Cavs had the more impressive despite LeBron having less talent.



Ehh, the 2011 ring is more on lebron, and the falloff after the 2013 regular season is arguably more on wade injuries

i dont think wade jumpshot per se is what stopped heat from winning more rings when wade b
Was the best player on the floor in 2011 finals and was past his prime by 2014 regardless, wade lack of longevity (and lebron wanting to go back to win at cleveland probably) was what stopped heat from competing for more rings

And since this is a peak project and not a career one i dont think it holds much bearing


Exactly this, unfortunately Wade's knees gave out right in the middle of when the Heat should have been racking up titles. Considering how they looked in the 2013 RS if Wade follows a normal aging curve they could've easily contended for another 3-4 years.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,264
And1: 6,851
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#55 » by falcolombardi » Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:30 am

capfan33 wrote:
70sFan wrote:
capfan33 wrote:The portability edge is decent here

Care to elaborate?

and I really don't like Magic defensively in the modern era as I think even back then he was getting covered a lot by his team. I think there's a good chance on a different team, and definitely today, that he would be a defensive liability while Steph, contrary to the popular narrative, hasn't been.

I have to say that it sounds quite strange to be honest. Magic never played with elite defensive team from top to bottom like Curry did for majority of his prime. It was Curry who was covered a lot, surrounded by all-defensive members all over the place.

Magic wouldn't defend guards in modern game, as he rarely did during his best seasons. I don't see Magic as bad defender and he could be a very positive piece if motivated. I don't have enough time recently to make a long video breakdowns, but I will post old Blackmill's post about Magic's defense in game 4 of 1987 finals (I changed video to available one, as well as time to suit the action):

Blackmill wrote:Rewatched 1987 finals G4. Most people remember Magic's game wining hook shot from this game, but what stood out to me was his defense.



The 4th begins with the score 85-78 in favor of the Celtics. Magic had been resting for the last few minutes of the 3rd, but interestingly, Pat Riley put Magic back into the game for the last possession... to play defense? It seems so since the Lakers likely wouldn't get another shot. Anyways, let's look at the 4th quarter.

1:00:18 Magic does gamble here and leaves his man open. Possibly his only bad play of the quarter.

1:01:42 Magic switches onto Bird to deny him the ball, drains much of the shot clock doing this, then does a solid job at contesting after being bumped.

1:03:11 Magic helps on Birds cut and strips the ball, stopping a likely layup, but he bangs his knee and goes out of the game. He re-enters the game, limping noticeably at 1:05:33.

1:06:00 Magic races back in transition and stops what would have been a 2-on-1 fast break by deflecting the ball.

1:07:21 At first glance I thought Magic over helped on Dennis. But then I realized he was playing the pass to Parish, which I think was arguably the correct decision, especially since he's able to run Ainge off the 3-point line on the kick out. If Thompson is a little sharper with his rotation responsibility, this would have been a contested shot.

1:08:40 Magic is guarding two since the Lakers have doubled McHale. He does a good job closing out, forcing both Dennis and then Ainge to give up their shots, and the Celtics must take a less than ideal shot.

1:09:45 Magic covers McHale who was left open underneath the basket during Lakers rotations. He does an excellent job denying McHale the shot before rotating onto Parish and helping force a 24 second violation.

1:11:52 Magic helps on Bird and Cooper gets the block. If you watch the different angle replay at 1:12:40, you see Cooper got the block in part because Bird exposed the ball to Cooper in order to avoid Magic's block attempt.

1:12:10 Magic helps on Dennis's drive and forces a tough shot.

1:13:17 Magic does a good job fighting over Kite's screen to pressure Ainge's shot. Today the game plan would likely be to ice the screen, but I don't remember the Lakers doing that much if at all. Otherwise Magic made a high effort play fighting past Kite.

1:16:20 Magic shows good instincts by moving onto McHale, anticipating that Thompson will be the help, and he'll have help-the-helper responsibility. Bird actually misses the open pass to Dennis and instead goes for a pass to Ainge. If you watch closely, you'll see Magic's quick close out forces Bird to pull back his pass, and proceed with a handoff. Because of this, Ainge is forced into a long, not-perfectly-squared-up three rather than a cleaner spot up.

1:24:20 Magic does a good job denying the pass from Bird to Dennis, and then shading the play so that Bird can't pass to Parish who was otherwise available.

1:26:05 Magic is defending the Dennis-Parish PnR. Magic switches with Kareem and does a really good job at keeping Parish from getting deep position until Kareem can re-switch. Magic signals for Cooper to stick to Ainge, but Cooper doesn't notice initially, and both close out to Dennis. As a result the Lakers are scrambling and Bird gets an open corner three. Nonetheless good defense by Magic. If you watched just this quarter you'd think Magic was the better defender than Cooper.

1:27:37 The hook shot.

That's 12 meaningful (5-7 I'd consider very meaningful) defensive plays in the 4th quarter with some being the difference between a stop and a sure make. Magic was legitimately quick, had size and strength, plus a better motor than people give him credit for, and possessed generally great instincts. The Lakers defense this season was rotation heavy and very much a team effort, but Magic was probably the most important Laker defender in the final minutes of this game. The last game I watched of Magic was from the 1991 finals, when he looked a lot like a liability. This was a nice reminder that during his peak he could be a very positive defender.



And he did have resiliency and led great offenses, but I'm not particularly impressed by the competition he faced, specifically in 87 his run to the finals was a complete joke. 2 negative SRS teams with the best defense being 15th out of 23 teams in DRTG.

The thing is that competition didn't change anything in Magic-led teams offensive results:

1987 Lakers: +0.9 defense faced, +10.7 rORtg
1988 Lakers: -2.2 defense faced, +8.3 rORtg
1990 Lakers: -3.8 defense faced, +8.4 rORtg
1991 Lakers: -2.1 defense faced, +5.9 rORtg

Curry didn't face siginifcantly better defensive competition in any of his title seasons:

2015 Warriors: -1.0 defense faced, +4.1 rORtg
2016 Warriors: -0.1 defense faced, +4.2 rORtg
2017 Warriors: -1.2 defense faced, +11.4 rORtg
2018 Warriors: -1.2 defense faced, +6.5 rORtg

Magic faced significantly stronger defensive competition in 1988-91 period than Curry did and Lakers offense was still better than Warriors (outside of massive outlier in 2017).


Great post, and I honestly forgot how ridiculous Magic's teams were on offense. Looking at those numbers, it is hard to see Curry over Magic but I do think DoctorMJ has a point in how Curry's shooting ability is such an outlier even compared to the 2nd greatest shooter ever (whoever that is) and how he's basically mastered something that even in the highly evolved/competitive state basketball is in right now no one really has an answer to.

With that being said, I'm reconsidering my vote now, as I said I could put Bird, Magic, Curry and KG in virtually any order.


If magic outlier creation/scoring combo created morr separation from its league than curry shooting/off ball gravity combo did from his does it really matter that one is rarer than the other?
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 587
And1: 748
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#56 » by DraymondGold » Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:41 am

More Magic vs Curry

1. Portability: Curry > Magic
falcolombardi wrote:
70sFan wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:Curry has the portability edge but magic led the greatest offensive dinasty ever (him or nash) so is not like he had a issue maximizing offensive talent

I'd like to hear the explaination for that as well. It's conventional knowledge that Curry is more portable than Magic, but do we have any evidences of that? We've seen Magic playing next to ball-dominant guard (Nixon), all-time great post player (Kareem) and non-shooter scoring forward (Worthy). I wouldn't say that any of them were a perfect fit to Magic, yet he worked next to them beautifully. You may argue that Worthy was a good fit due to his transition finishing, but the other two - not so much.

It's not like Magic had to play fast either - he made it work in the early 1990s with slow, methodical offenses as well.

Is there anything else, other than "Curry is a better shooter" that could tell us that Magic isn't as portable as Steph?


That is also a valid point tbh, curry perfect portability sometimes gets taken for granted when we have seen him in teams without enough passing to maximize his off ball game (2021) and the result got kind of handwaved away

Other forms of portability not as related to shooting or offball movements sometimes get ignored

Such as magic fastbreak game, his rebounding as a point guard, his ability to play full time point guars allowing teams to go big as hell, etc
Hi y'all! I think "Curry is a better shooter" is underselling it by a bit haha. Curry's the GOAT shooter, and one of the greatest outliers in any NBA skills ever, and it just happens to be one of the most valuable offensive skills ever, and one of the most portable skills ever.

And this advantage isn't small either. Magic's 3P% is 20.5% in 1987 (and 21% from 86-88). To be clear, Magic did show that he could improve as a 3 point shooter in 89-91, but he didn't yet have that improvement for the peak year we're arguing, or even the surrounding years.

It's true that Magic does have the passing advantage, like y'all suggest. But Curry's more of an outlier with shooting than Magic is with passing. Curry's still an all-star level passer in his own right -- I'd argue he's a better passer than 87 Magic's 21% 3 point shooting (though to be clear this comparison doesn't apply era context). I'd also argue shooting is slightly more scalable than ball-dominant passing if we're placing them next to other stars, since shooting can fit next to other creators and finishers, while passing really benefits more from finishers.

Speaking of finishing, Curry's also the GOAT off-ball player and a better finisher. This is important for scalability, since we're discussing how Curry fits next to star teammates. Compare this to Magic, who's far more ball-dominant with his actions. falcolombardi mentions that Curry benefits from playing with passers, which is absolutely true! But I'd argue Magic equally benefits from playing with finishers instead of competing on-ball scorers or creators. This offball skill also helps Curry close the creation gap. Curry's the GOAT off-ball movement creator, the GOAT perimeter gravity player, an all-time playmaker with hockey assists, an all-time screen setter among guards.

To be clear, Magic's not terrible from a scalability perspective. Thinking Basketball rates him a 1 in his early years and a 0 in his peak years (compared to Curry's 2). I personally don't have nearly the same offensive scalability concerns with Magic that I did with Hakeem or Duncan. Still, he's a far cry from Curry's near-consensus GOAT status as a scalable offensive player.

2. Playoff Opponents:
falcolombardi wrote:
70sFan wrote:
eminence wrote:
If '15/'18 are included for Curry I'd say his '19/'22 ('21 too, but playoffs...) are on that level.

I'd need to go back to look at Magic again to see if I like '87 as his starting point, but conservatively it's very tough to argue '89 as not worth being included for analysis (MVP, 1st seed, long playoff run).

To be honest, I excluded 1989 because Magic missed games in the finals, but it was inconsistent from my part - as I included 2016 for Curry. It wasn't caused by me trying to prove a point, I just forgot excluding 2016 after I excluded 1989.

Anyway, here are the years you included to see:

1987 Lakers: +0.9 defense faced, +10.7 rORtg
1988 Lakers: -2.2 defense faced, +8.3 rORtg
1989 Lakers: -1.3 defense faced, +9.3 rORtg
1990 Lakers: -3.8 defense faced, +8.4 rORtg
1991 Lakers: -2.1 defense faced, +5.9 rORtg

2015 Warriors: -1.0 defense faced, +4.1 rORtg
2016 Warriors: -0.1 defense faced, +4.2 rORtg
2017 Warriors: -1.2 defense faced, +11.4 rORtg
2018 Warriors: -1.2 defense faced, +6.5 rORtg
2019 Warriors: -0.5 defense faced, +5.4 rORtg
2022 Warriors: -2.8 defense faced, +6.0 rORtg

I don't think it changed my point overall.


Magic offense numbers are just mindblowing

70sFan wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:Is there anything that makes people less concerned about Magic's easier playoff opposition?
That's when we should take into account larger samples. It would be fair if Magic didn't face a strong competition at any point of his career, or if he struggled against elite teams in other years but that's not the case with him. Magic was remarkably consistent postseason performer in 1985-91 period, no matter who he played against. I think we shouldn't focus too much on one season, even if we acknowledge that we have to pick only one.
Thanks for posting these! It's true that Magic on average faced higher defensive opposition than Curry over the course of his prime. And Prime Magic's teams' offensive numbers look great! But I think there's a few things that limit the effectiveness of this argument, at least to me.

A) Curry faced harder defenses at his peak: If we just look at the peak year we're discussing (87 vs 17), Curry's team offense was far more successful against far more difficult average defenses (and remember: Curry's team's offenses were only world-building when Curry was on the court).

B) Kerr was defense-first: he consistently followed the Popovitch approach of preferring defense-first players over offense-first players. Once Draymond's shot fell off after the 17 Playoffs, the Warriors' best lineup contained 2 non-shooting and non-major scoring threats. Iguodala and Draymond were clearly defensive first guys, whose best offensive skills were their intelligence and their creation. This was going into 2018, when opposing teams (e.g. 18 Rockets) put a priority on having 4+ shooters at once.

So how did these lineups remain so offensively potent? It's pretty clear that Curry's shooting, gravity, and off-ball movement enables Draymond and Iguodala to remain as offensively passable as they were. The film study supports this (e.g. all of Draymond's short-roll passing would be null without the doubles demanded only by Curry and not Klay/KD) and the data supports this (again, the Warriors are only world-beaters with Curry on). This is more of the scalability I mentioned earlier.

C) Peak Curry' still faced far better teams than Peak Magic did. I appreciate the numbers you gave 70sFan! Let me update them to include both the regular season and the playoffs:
Spoiler:
Ordered by average playoff opponent:
1991 Magic’s average playoff opponent: +6.13 (Magic lost)
1990 Magic’s average playoff opponent: +4.70 (Magic lost)
1989 Magic’s average playoff opponent: +4.65 (Magic lost; not adjusted to playoffs)
2017 Curry's average playoff opponent: +4.59 (Curry won)
2022 Curry's average playoff opponent: +4.57 (not adjusted to playoffs)
2016 Curry’s average playoff opponent: 4.26
2018 Curry’s average playoff opponent: 4.1
2019 Curry’s average playoff opponent: +3.95
2015 Curry’s average playoff opponent: +3.4
1985 Magic’s average playoff opponent: +3.17
1988 Magic’s average playoff opponent: +2.88 (not adjusted to playoffs)
1987 Magic's average playoff opponent: +1.53
1986 Magic’s average playoff opponent: +1

Ordered by average playoff defense faced:
1990 Magic’s average opponent defense: -3.80 (Magic lost; not adjusted to playoffs)
2022 Curry's average opponent defense: -2.80 (Curry won; not adjusted to playoffs)
1988 Magic’s average opponent defense: -2.20 (Magic won; not adjusted to playoffs
1991 Magic’s average opponent defense: -1.85 (Magic lost)
2018 Curry’s average opponent defense: -1.18
1989 Magic’s average opponent defense: -1.13
2017 Curry's average opponent defense: -1.04
2015 Curry’s average playoff opponent: -0.97
1985 Magic’s average opponent defense: -0.73
2019 Curry’s average opponent defense: -0.50
2016 Curry’s average opponent defense: -0.10
1987 Magic's average opponent defense: +1.07
1986 Magic’s average opponent defense: +1.99
In literally every single one of Curry's prime playoff years, he faced better average opponents than peak 1987 Magic. The same is true if we take a 3 year peak for Magic from 1986-1988. If we just look at defensive rating, every year Curry won he was facing a harder defense than 1985-1987 Magic.

It's true that Magic's average opponent and opposing defenses got tougher from around 88/89-91. But you'll notice that's when Magic's team started losing... Magic never won in the years he faced harder defenses or harder average opponents than Curry. And remember: Magic's average opponent numbers are slightly overrated vs Curry's, because Magic only played 3-game series in the first round. If we just look at hardest opponent, the 2017 Cavs were a harder opponent than any team Magic ever beat from 1985-1991.

And to reiterate, Curry was playing at a time of more complex and optimized offensive/defensive schemes (per Doctor MJ) and a massive increase in the talent pool (almost 10x as many international players per Ty 4191).
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 587
And1: 748
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#57 » by DraymondGold » Thu Jul 14, 2022 3:13 am

Magic's Defense (vs Curry's):
70sFan wrote:
Blackmill wrote:Rewatched 1987 finals G4. Most people remember Magic's game wining hook shot from this game, but what stood out to me was his defense.



The 4th begins with the score 85-78 in favor of the Celtics. Magic had been resting for the last few minutes of the 3rd, but interestingly, Pat Riley put Magic back into the game for the last possession... to play defense? It seems so since the Lakers likely wouldn't get another shot. Anyways, let's look at the 4th quarter.

1:00:18 Magic does gamble here and leaves his man open. Possibly his only bad play of the quarter.

1:01:42 Magic switches onto Bird to deny him the ball, drains much of the shot clock doing this, then does a solid job at contesting after being bumped.

1:03:11 Magic helps on Birds cut and strips the ball, stopping a likely layup, but he bangs his knee and goes out of the game. He re-enters the game, limping noticeably at 1:05:33.

1:06:00 Magic races back in transition and stops what would have been a 2-on-1 fast break by deflecting the ball.

1:07:21 At first glance I thought Magic over helped on Dennis. But then I realized he was playing the pass to Parish, which I think was arguably the correct decision, especially since he's able to run Ainge off the 3-point line on the kick out. If Thompson is a little sharper with his rotation responsibility, this would have been a contested shot.

1:08:40 Magic is guarding two since the Lakers have doubled McHale. He does a good job closing out, forcing both Dennis and then Ainge to give up their shots, and the Celtics must take a less than ideal shot.

1:09:45 Magic covers McHale who was left open underneath the basket during Lakers rotations. He does an excellent job denying McHale the shot before rotating onto Parish and helping force a 24 second violation.

1:11:52 Magic helps on Bird and Cooper gets the block. If you watch the different angle replay at 1:12:40, you see Cooper got the block in part because Bird exposed the ball to Cooper in order to avoid Magic's block attempt.

1:12:10 Magic helps on Dennis's drive and forces a tough shot.

1:13:17 Magic does a good job fighting over Kite's screen to pressure Ainge's shot. Today the game plan would likely be to ice the screen, but I don't remember the Lakers doing that much if at all. Otherwise Magic made a high effort play fighting past Kite.

1:16:20 Magic shows good instincts by moving onto McHale, anticipating that Thompson will be the help, and he'll have help-the-helper responsibility. Bird actually misses the open pass to Dennis and instead goes for a pass to Ainge. If you watch closely, you'll see Magic's quick close out forces Bird to pull back his pass, and proceed with a handoff. Because of this, Ainge is forced into a long, not-perfectly-squared-up three rather than a cleaner spot up.

1:24:20 Magic does a good job denying the pass from Bird to Dennis, and then shading the play so that Bird can't pass to Parish who was otherwise available.

1:26:05 Magic is defending the Dennis-Parish PnR. Magic switches with Kareem and does a really good job at keeping Parish from getting deep position until Kareem can re-switch. Magic signals for Cooper to stick to Ainge, but Cooper doesn't notice initially, and both close out to Dennis. As a result the Lakers are scrambling and Bird gets an open corner three. Nonetheless good defense by Magic. If you watched just this quarter you'd think Magic was the better defender than Cooper.

1:27:37 The hook shot.

That's 12 meaningful (5-7 I'd consider very meaningful) defensive plays in the 4th quarter with some being the difference between a stop and a sure make. Magic was legitimately quick, had size and strength, plus a better motor than people give him credit for, and possessed generally great instincts. The Lakers defense this season was rotation heavy and very much a team effort, but Magic was probably the most important Laker defender in the final minutes of this game. The last game I watched of Magic was from the 1991 finals, when he looked a lot like a liability. This was a nice reminder that during his peak he could be a very positive defender.


Thanks for sharing the film analysis 70sFan! :D Magic did have a good defensive quarter. I wanted to go quickly go through the rest of that same game. I didn't have time to go through the offense or every defensive possession, but I do have overall thoughts at the bottom:

Magic's Defensive Mistakes /Ineffective / Interesting Plays:
1st Quarter

10:40 Bad job keeping up with off-ball screen, ends up switching but doesn’t communicate, leads to open long 2. Mistake #1.

13:50 Not a great contest against their best (non Bird) shooter, Celtics make long 2. Not great. Ineffective defense #1.

14:33 Great speed to get back, but there’s that lack of rim protection I’m concerned about for his size. Ineffective defense 2.

16:25 While struggling to get around the off-ball screen, he doesn’t notice the drive until it’s too late to help. There's the lack of off-ball awareness I mentioned. Mistake 2.

19:36 Great effort on the rebound, but couldn’t save it and didn’t aim it quite right when trying to have the ball go out of the Celtics player, which leads to a Celtics layup. Still, hard to blame him though — it was a good rebound attempt and it’s hard to aim while falling out of bounds)

… 2nd Quarter

28:37 Two lakers end up boxing out the same player which gets the Celtics an open offensive rebound and layup. Mistake, but I’d blame the other Laker, not magic.

29:54 Just like 14:33, good speed to get back but almost non-existent rim protection for his size, just a weak swipe at the ball. Ineffective defense 3.

32:43 This one’s interesting. They double ball, and the other defenders are almost zoning up (so much for illegal defense rules). Ball rotates around, Magic’s original man gets the shot, Magic’s behind the rotation and tries to recover (but the other man helps first), which takes Magic out positioning for the rebound. Still, good near-block on the next shot and positioning for the next rebound.

37:15 Rotates in to help the drive. Doesn’t get close enough to swipe at the dribbler, and has his hands too low to intercept the pass, but good rotation back to the 3 point shooter. Doesn’t jump to contest.

37:45
Another 3 point attempt from Magic’s man. Notice how Magic rarely jumps for any of these contest (for this one, last one, one before that).

… 3rd Quarter

39:05 
Magic leaves his man to prevent Bird drive at first then to triple-teams McHale, who passes out and gets the Lakers in rotation. Kareem is first to recover to ball, but it’s 40 year old kareem moving in one direction… the offensive player rotates, Magic does an okay job going under on the screen to contest (higher jump this time!) but it’s a made shot. Was the triple team necessary? I can’t help but wonder if the Celtics would have gotten that good a shot without the triple team… Mistake 3.

42:45 Magic’s teammate calls for him to stop ball, but he’s too slow to rotate and the teammate has to stop. Celtics get an open shot. Magic does an okay job boxing out for Kareem’s rebound, but he still failed to rotate and gave up the open shot. Mistake 4.

… 4th Quarter
[discussed in 70sFan’s post above, with 5th Mistake at 1:00:18].

Comments: Compared to Curry's defense in my film review (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=100386706#p100386706), they both committed the same number of Mistakes. Magic had more moments of ineffective defense, though from memory he also had more moments of effective defense. Curry for his part still had 10 effective defensive plays where he directly contributed to the ending the Cavs' possession. Of course, sample size of 1 game, so lots of uncertainty. Here's my fear with Magic's defensive reputation (among media/general public): I'm worried people are biased by the memorable moments where his size helped, while forgetting the mistakes and the ineffective defense (compared to Curry whose mistakes are a lot fresher).

Overall, Magic liked to sag off quite a bit when his man had the ball at the perimeter. He liked to roam on defense, which could create good help opportunities or get him in early rebounding position, while covering for his slow lateral foot speed (which was visible on film). However, these positioning gambles would also come at the cost of leaving Magic slow to recover to his original man. Magic would also have moments of surprisingly ineffective rim protection or low-effort perimeter contests, despite his size.

Time Machine: Some of this worked in that era (which played far closer to the rim), but would change in today’s era. It would be impossible to sag off so much and be so slow to rotate back to the perimeter now, and Magic's slower lateral foot speed would be more of a liability as a result. The Celtics abused this occasionally, but it would clearly get abused more with better shooting and more intentional mismatch-hunting in the playoffs. Compare to Curry, on the other hand, who had fewer foot-speed issues in my tracking while playing in a much harder era for perimeter defense.

Magic’s roaming tendencies might be helped by more active zone defenses today. But he’d need to be better at getting around screens -- his lack of mobility /mobility-mistakes even when going under every screen is worrying, as is his lack of ball-awareness when following off-ball players. Curry certainly had better mobility getting around screens, and he had better awareness when tracking his man off-ball, at least to my eye. I'm also concerned by Magic's switching communication mistakes; defensive communication (e.g. on switches) is another strength of Curry's, and this is yet another case where Curry performs better on a defensive facet, despite playing in the harder era.

To me at least, the film analysis supports the qualitative argument I made earlier: Magic would struggle more defensively in this era. Relative to era, they have similar value on defense.
LukaTheGOAT
Analyst
Posts: 3,246
And1: 2,954
Joined: Dec 25, 2019
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#58 » by LukaTheGOAT » Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:18 am

SickMother wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:This may be a hot take that nobody will agree with.....

But if curry and magic are being so heavily considered, why not nash too?

His offense impact is up there with them (his offense team results may be more impressive than curry and even magic) and while he may be a worse defender i am not sure is a huge gap as last i checked there is no clear +/- evidence of him being a big defensive handicap


Nash's production is a pretty clear step below both Magic/Steph for me. Not as strong in the regular season & not as resilient in the playoffs...

Magic 86-87: 27.0 PER | .602 TS% | 112 TS+ | 15.9 WS | .263 WS/48 | 8.8 BPM | 124 ORtg | 106 DRtg
Magic 86-87 Playoffs?!?: 26.2 PER | .607 TS% | 3.7 WS | .265 WS/48 | 9.3 BPM | 129 ORtg | 107 DRtg

Curry 14-15: 28.0 PER | .638 TS% | 119 TS+ | 15.7 WS | .288 WS/48 | 9.9 BPM | 122 ORtg | 101 DRtg
Curry 14-15 Playoffs?!?: 24.5 PER | .607 TS% | 3.9 WS | .228 WS/48 | 8.8 BPM | 114 ORtg | 102 DRtg

Nash 05-06: 23.3 PER | .632 TS% | 118 TS+ | 12.4 WS | .212 WS/48 | 5.0 BPM | 121 ORtg | 109 DRtg
Nash 05-06 Playoffs?!?: 21.3 PER | .615 TS% | 2.6 WS | .153 WS/48 | 3.7 BPM | 120 ORtg | 116 DRtg


From 2005-10, the Suns with Steve Nash on the court without Marion and Stoudemire put up a 117.5 ORtg (a +10.5 rORtg) with a +3.6 NRtg.

With both Marion and Stoudemire on the court, and Nash off, the team had a +1.8 rORtg with a -2.7 NRtg.

In terms of offense only evaluation, few have been as exceptional as Nash.

His box-score metrics but impact data that does not utilize the box-score are handily in Nash's favor. I believe Nash did a lot on O that the box-score does not necessarily capture, like being a more aggressive and exploitative passer, as well as navigating in traffic for transitions, that ultimately led to Nash having the better offenses than just about anyone. If we are to assume that a PG's main duty is to produce the best possible offense, Nash did just that.

15 Yr Adjusted RAPM has Nash second only to Lebron- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-R9RXLp6eYuRcptQIQVTBIkLrxvrTCfLh_WB2P-DBwE/edit#gid=0

Scaled 2 Yr APM has Nash with the highest offensive peak of everyone in the data ball era at 6.3 (CP3 is not in the top 8).

Nash also has the highest offensive peak according to Multi-Year PI RAPM and Single Year NPI RAPM
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/11181n4avq5wefk/AAAZ4muMkVh3aNDYIzq_NNHEa?dl=0

NPI: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/11181n4avq5wefk/AAAZ4muMkVh3aNDYIzq_NNHEa?dl=0
Multi-Year: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/teutg7zvxudqnlw/AAAUkNkDUG0KWeewPZbnwS2ja?dl=0

Nash also leads in 19-year RAPM (which catches the downside of his career)
Read on Twitter


Unless you believe that multiple different versions of RAPM created by different people are missing something, I think Nash in terms of pure offensive production could be placed among the greats.That combined with Nash leading better regular season and playoff offenses makes me feel as if Nash.

In terms of PS resilience:

Per an estimate done by a member of the Thinking Basketball Discord:

The Suns with Steve Nash on the court in the PS had a rORTG from 05-07 of +17.6, +11.48, and +9.6 respectively.

The 05-07 Suns have the greatest 3 year stretch of PS offense ever.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,915
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#59 » by 70sFan » Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:17 am

Doctor MJ wrote:Let me first do an analysis and see if I can spot the outlier using a seemingly unrelated number.

Shaq 0
Kareem 0
Wilt 0
Duncan 0
Hakeem 0
Russell 2
Jokic 40

I think we can all spot the outlier here, and can probably tell right away this has something to do with the draft.

The number represents the number of draft choices teams made where they picked someone other than the player in question before that player got picked.

It's interesting that Russell shows up here as the only other big man that an NBA team dared to pass up, given that he certainly represents a considerably greater innovation in the game than any of the 0's in the gang. It's a bit of a fluke , because the Celtics famously arranged for this to happen, and Russell just led his college team to back to back titles in college - aka, the only thing that mattered back then - and that much of the conversation as to why teams wouldn't pick him involved race.

Now, with Jokic, clearly there's an argument here that something huge that has to be considered in Jokic being an international player who didn't come to play college in the US. But I think we all have to honest with ourselves when we answer the following question:

Would we have seen Jokic as an all-time great level NBA prospect if he spent a year in college? 2? 4? What would he have had to do at the college level to convince you that he'd be able to thrive to astonishing scale he has today?

I think you underestimate how big of an impact Jokic not playing in college had for the draft choice. Most scouts didn't have a good knowledge about his game when he came in and it's visible when you read their scouting reports after all these years. I don't understand why, but Americans always thought that somehow watching young player in college can give you a better graps at his potential than looking at his development in Europe. I think had Jokic been an American and play in the US high school and college would improve his final finish in draft significantly.

Another thing regarding Jokic is that his physical profile isn't very promising. Let's be honest, most scouts ignore actual basketball skills, looking for the highest physical potential available. I don't say it's fair, I have a lot of concerns about scouting system (especially almost a decade ago), but that's the fact. I wouldn't say that race has anything to do with it, but Jokic being relatively unathletic and not in great shape certainly didn't help him.

I am skeptical there's anything he could have done that would have convinced NBA GM's that he could scale whatever success he had in college to the pros like he has. And yeah, race is a thing here, but it ain't the only thing, not by a long shot. What NBA team sets out and says "Y'know, let draft a guy who kinda plays like Walton so we can play one of those beautiful old-timey pivot-passer offenses!"? None of them, and not because no one ever thought of it before, but because it died a long time ago. Yet Jokic is such a colossal outlier of a talent, that he essentially forced it's re-birth (though credit to Malone and the Nuggets for running with it).

I don't think it changes anything I said though. Jokic basically plays 1970s center role on offense, previously representated by Walton, Cowens, Unseld, Lacey and other all-stars from that era. He took it to another level with his scoring repertoire and shooting, but it's not something he invented out of nowhere.



All this to say, I think it's pretty clear that Jokic is more unusual than these other cases, and attempts to say "but they are all unique in their own way!" just get in the way of doing some analysis that's really worth doing. Jokic's emergence is the most out-of-left-field rise of an all-time great the NBA has probably ever seen, and that's precisely why understanding the ingredients of that rise in particular are so fundamentally interesting.

I didn't want to imply that Jokic isn't unique. In fact, I wouldn't argue when you say he's more unique than other players already voted in, but that's not my point. My point is that you can have a pretty good view on what works in contemporary era, until some amazing talent arrives and destroys everything you believed was true. I'm quite positive that you wouldn't say that role can work in modern era before Jokic came in. I'm quite sure that Walton wouldn't be a top tier prospect in the 2010s, like he was in reality. So isn't that proving my point - that we don't really know which elite player would work today and which not?

By the way, just because people recognise Shaq's talent more than Jokic's, it doesn't mean that Jokic is more unique. As I mentioned, quite a few center played similar role to Jokic throughout the history, mostly in 1970s. We have seen successful bigs playing similar role in the 2000s as well - Gasol bros and Divac are the best examples. Jokic took it to another level with his shooting and scoring repertoire, but it's not something that has never been seen before. In comparison, we've never seen anyone playing like Shaq before or since. We haven't seen even a poor man's Shaq versions before or after his retirement. He was easier to appreciate because of his physical profile, but he wasn't easier to replicate.

Nobody could ever imagine a player becoming the best offensive force in the league strictly by being big, strong and using it to a full advantage. Shaq didn't have a shooting touch, couldn't score outside of 10 feet consistently and wasn't a strong defender. It sounds like a disaster in any era, but he made it work.

The "just fine" conclusion, to me, blocks further analysis.

I'll go out on a limb and say you're not trying to say that you whole-heartedly believe that a player's ability to add value across different eras stays precisely the same. (2.5 sigma then, 2.5 sigma now!) or that it can be properly estimated just by some scaling value based on some kind of talent skill/factor. Probably rather more like you'd expect something within a certain range of variance to be very likely.

But how are you thinking through the game when you say, "Eh, they'll probably do just fine"? You're not.

By contrast, if you actually try to project a player into a different context where you know specific things are different, you're actively thinking about basketball and developing the models in your brain...which is to me the goal of the analyses we do here.

I'm not looking to suggest that you, 70sFan, don't think through the game. I know you do because I've seen your video work, and your descriptions of what you've gleaned from it. You're an active student of the game...but I would suggest that here you're missing an additional opportunity to study the game if you don't try to model and project as you do your rankings.

I think you focused way too much on my last sentence here. I didn't say that we should just decide that all great players would be great, no matter what. My point is that you focus on why certain players (mostly bigs) wouldn't be so good today, but being too narrow minded in this approach can lead you to wrong conclusions. Some of these players could bring skills or abilities on the court that would be amplified by modern game in a way that wasn't possible back when they played.

I don't say that all of them would translate effortlessly to 2022 NBA. I have quite a lot of concerns about Shaq for example. At the same time though, we shouldn't ignore that Shaq was just outlier among outliers and he might not only overcome obstacles created in a new environment, but even thrive in it after adjustments. I wouldn't bet on it, but we shouldn't be too strong about our completely hypothetical approach. I also disagree that all of them would see a rapid decrease of impact in modern game, but that's not my actual point here.

As a reminder, I don't think anyone would say that Jokic or Giannis would be hyper successful in modern era, but they are :wink:

Can you be wrong when you model? Of course, because you're always going to be wrong no matter what you do. You're going to have stuff you think you know that is not so. The question is only whether you can work to paint a more accurate picture over time, by whatever means you can gain traction with.
[/quote]
I agree and that's why we shouldn't stop at our models and we also should take into account what actually happened. Maybe Shaq would be a scrub today, who knows? Is it fair to judge him that way though, when we have no evidences of this being true?

I think we need to find balance, time machine argument is always interesting but in the end, it's only a projection of our philosophical view on the game. I find it often useful, but it shouldn't be the deciding point of our analysis.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,599
And1: 24,915
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #9 

Post#60 » by 70sFan » Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:21 am

Doctor MJ wrote:I'm lower on Wade at this point that I used to be, and maybe I'm too low. When he was on, I used to call him a mutant 3-year-old because of his outlier (young Jordan-esque motor), and I think that's a big deal. But...if Wade can shoot well, the Heat probably become something more like the "not 2, not 3, not X" thing they were actually hoping to be. As it was, I think you can argue LeBron's later Cavs had the more impressive despite LeBron having less talent.

I think that if Wade didn't have injury problems, they might have won a lot even without him shooting well. We're not judging his overall career in this project, so anything past 2011 has very little value in his case, because he got significantly worse in all aspects of the game after his athleticism declined.

Return to Player Comparisons