Worst floor raiser in ATG list

[OhayoKD]

Maybe Kawhi? When his perimeter D was DPOY level his offence wasn't even All-NBA level, and when he became an All NBA level scoring threat his defence went from DPOY level to being weak All-D caliber.

That and his playmaking went from non-existent to mediocre, where he's weaker than someone like Durant on that front. A composite Kawhi with all his best traits put into one season would probably be a decent floor raiser, but as he is not really.

This is without even mentioning him missing a minimum of 22-30 games a year for the past six years straight.

don't know if "weaker than durant" playmaking is true anymore. 2020 Kawhi was probably a more reliable playmaker/ball handler than vintage durant, and also paired good strong defense with that same resilient scoring profile. All considered 20-21 kawhi was probably a strong floor-raiser on the court. Sadly they weren't a healthy one

I too think that Kawhi became a better ball handler then KD (who is wildly overrated in that regard on account of crossover highlights) but I still feel like his decision making with the ball was lacking.

And for some reason I assumed we were talking about regular season only. Kawhi was pretty good in the post season.

didn't the playmaking improvement occur during the regular season? It's possible nets KD also matched that improvement, but I feel like I would trust 2020 Kawhi over pre-nets durant to make the right passing reads. Going off the 2019 playoffs, there were multiple instances where KD had to start facilitating with Curry absent and it went badly each time.

[Ambrose]

Melo
Dray
Rodman

Those all come to mind.

[SNPA]

32 win difference

If you’re referring to his rookie year, he was the main piece behind that but far from the only one. This is coming from one who has him as a top 5 rookie in history.

The great M.L. Carr?

It’s always puzzled me how a team sucks, adds a top ten player all time at 23yrs old, and jumps 30+ games but…?

There is a constant but with Bird’s impact. But his playoff number don’t jump. But he can’t jump. But his defense wasn’t that good.

The guy was just that great. There is no but except but what might have happened without injuries. That’s the only legit one IMO.

[AEnigma]

How about, “But that 1980 team was somehow the second best regular season of Bird’s career.”

[Proxy]

To begin, my definition of all-time great is far more exclusive than a t-100, as I’d like to see some impact and production signals one gets to a certain threshold. My ATG pantheon would be:

Magic Oscar Curry
Jordan West Kobe
James Bird
Duncan Garnett
Russell Kareem Wilt Shaq Hakeem

I’d be intrigued to see if Giannis or a Jokic could perhaps knock out two of these players (maybe even Luka) as they add career value.

Back to the OP question, out of that AT group of players - I would guess that Bird is the worst floor raiser with no knack at him. As talented as Bird was, I think the handle problems he had make it harder for him to sustain an immense offensive load playoff series in and out and while facing several elite defenses. On top of that, while his offensive responsibilities increased - he was a stellar defender around all-defense value but never that much a needle mover

FWIW, I he’s the best offensive ceiling raiser and still a sure fire top 10 offensive talent at his apex (86-88 on that end), while being a better floor raiser than most players not in my ATG+ tier, but that is my answer.

Why do you see Oscar or Kobe specifically as better floor raisers than Bird, how much does their defense really move the needle enough for you when you've noted how you believe Bird would have comparable per game impact to them on offense in a vacuum in the past?

[70sFan]

How about, “But that 1980 team was somehow the second best regular season of Bird’s career.”

That's a very good point. People recently take such leaps as the representation for one player impact, but it's never that easy. Bird was a fantastic rookie, but I have no doubt he became a better player in 1984 or 1985, yet Celtics had weaker RS with comparable (maybe better?) rosters.

[SpreeS]

Klay Thompson maybe?

Not top 100 IMO, I have him behind quite a few wings like, IDK, Westphal, Eddie Jones or Bernard King and they are not top 100 for me either.

I am waiting for new RealGM TOP100 this summer. Looks like we will see new names on this list:

Tatum
Embiid
Butler
Doncic
George

It would be hard to get into top100 for others, but these name will be mentioned

Holiday
Lowry
Middleton
DeRozan
Klay
Booker
Gobert

[OhayoKD]

How about, “But that 1980 team was somehow the second best regular season of Bird’s career.”

That's a very good point. People recently take such leaps as the representation for one player impact, but it's never that easy. Bird was a fantastic rookie, but I have no doubt he became a better player in 1984 or 1985, yet Celtics had weaker RS with comparable (maybe better?) rosters.

Well this is why looking for replication is important. If a player only does it once, it might just be noise. If a player does it several times over a variety of contexts, it probably isn't

[70sFan]

How about, “But that 1980 team was somehow the second best regular season of Bird’s career.”

That's a very good point. People recently take such leaps as the representation for one player impact, but it's never that easy. Bird was a fantastic rookie, but I have no doubt he became a better player in 1984 or 1985, yet Celtics had weaker RS with comparable (maybe better?) rosters.

Well this is why looking for replication is important. If a player only does it once, it might just be noise. If a player does it several times over a variety of contexts, it probably isn't

Sure, the bigger sample is, the more likely it is to be the signal. Even then, it is important to keep in mind that such reductionism has limitations, although it can be very valuable.

In this case, I think we can say quite clearly that Bird had a massive impact on Celtics team, but raw number of wins added overstate it.

[OhayoKD]

That's a very good point. People recently take such leaps as the representation for one player impact, but it's never that easy. Bird was a fantastic rookie, but I have no doubt he became a better player in 1984 or 1985, yet Celtics had weaker RS with comparable (maybe better?) rosters.

Well this is why looking for replication is important. If a player only does it once, it might just be noise. If a player does it several times over a variety of contexts, it probably isn't

Sure, the bigger sample is, the more likely it is to be the signal. Even then, it is important to keep in mind that such reductionism has limitations, although it can be very valuable.

In this case, I think we can say quite clearly that Bird had a massive impact on Celtics team, but raw number of wins added overstate it.

Re: Reductionism
Don't disagree there, applying context is important, as is tracking the real-world effects of theoretical suppressors or amplifiers(port, colinearity, player archetypes, postional scarcity, ect.)

Re: Bird
Probably, though this gets us back to what we were talking about with Kareem where Kareem was probably a better player in absolute terms in 77 but his "impact" conceivably may have peaked in his first couple of years with the league not yet ready to face him. Not sure this applies to Bird(was bird, like kareem, a top basketball player before he entered the league?), but I think there are instances where a player can be less polished(or worse in a vacuum) but actually pose a larger threat when other teams haven't figured out the best way to counter them.

For example, in an absolute sense, Giannis is probably a better player now than he was in 2019, but if I was to apply a strict "corp" lense, I'd guess that 2019 Giannis would actually give you the best chance of winning a championship, since the league hadn't figured out how to defend him. It's easy to dismiss them now, but the 2019 Bucks were very much looking like one of the best teams ever till the Raptors figured out the optimal counter, just in the nick of time(an over-time away from being 0-3 down). Maybe Bird's lift is just noise, but it could also be a matter of the league not yet knowing how to stop him/the Celtics.

Bird was a rookie, but he was only one year younger than Giannis was in 2019 and he probably was a more polished product, at least in an era-relative sense.

[70sFan]

Well this is why looking for replication is important. If a player only does it once, it might just be noise. If a player does it several times over a variety of contexts, it probably isn't

Sure, the bigger sample is, the more likely it is to be the signal. Even then, it is important to keep in mind that such reductionism has limitations, although it can be very valuable.

In this case, I think we can say quite clearly that Bird had a massive impact on Celtics team, but raw number of wins added overstate it.

Re: Reductionism
Don't disagree there, applying context is important, as is tracking the real-world effects of theoretical suppressors or amplifiers(port, colinearity, player archetypes, postional scarcity, ect.)

Re: Bird
Probably, though this gets us back to what we were talking about with Kareem where Kareem was probably a better player in absolute terms in 77 but his "impact" conceivably may have peaked in his first couple of years with the league not yet ready to face him. Not sure this applies to Bird(was bird, like kareem, a top basketball player before he entered the league?), but I think there are instances where a player can be less polished(or worse in a vacuum) but actually pose a larger threat when other teams haven't figured out the best way to counter them.

For example, in an absolute sense, Giannis is probably a better player now than he was in 2019, but if I was to apply a strict "corp" lense, I'd guess that 2019 Giannis would actually give you the best chance of winning a championship, since the league hadn't figured out how to defend him. It's easy to dismiss them now, but the 2019 Bucks were very much looking like one of the best teams ever till the Raptors figured out the optimal counter, just in the nick of time(an over-time away from being 0-3 down). Maybe Bird's lift is just noise, but it could also be a matter of the league not yet knowing how to stop him/the Celtics.

Bird was a rookie, but he was only one year younger than Giannis was in 2019 and he probably was a more polished product, at least in an era-relative sense.

That's fair point to consider, I think that teams "figuring out" players is a real thing.

That's why I want and need big postseason samples for players to reach GOAT conversation. You just can't test yourself in one deep run. Giannis making adjustments after 2019 is something I need to see from the best players ever.

[DatAsh]

Depends on what we mean by ATG.

Of my all time best players, I think Bill Russell was probably the worst floor raiser, but the best ceiling raiser.

[Chronz]

Title is a more interesting but harder to define question; especially when it's almost purely theoretical like Stockton not being able to do much without a Karl Malone. I was trying to create a more quantifiable version of the question. Lanier came to mind because we've had discussions on how weak most of his Detroit teams were and how much impact he created so I thought he would generate more discussion. FWIW, I would guess that anyone in the top 100 of all time would be a strong positive floor raiser compared to an average NBA starter.

Would you expect the least impact from players whose focus was mainly defense (Rodman, Bobby Jones -- though 1975), mainly playmakers (Stockton, Nash), or the sort of low efficiency scorers who many people like for their top 100 (Maravich, Iverson -- he exceeded my expectations in Philly during the regular season for example)? Who with a max contract rep today would be the worst floor raiser (Brad Beal? Ben Simmons?)?

Tiny samples but versus 76ers +/- had Stockton as hugely impactful (the best on-off) whilst Malone was positive but ordinary. Tiny sample so a huge dose of salt required but some suggestion of him providing early lift independent of Malone. Latterly too, RAPM being more bullish on him than Malone ... there's a lot time together but that perhaps helps at the margins (to suggest impact separate from Malone).

I'm assuming you singled out the sixers because of the unique work done by their stat guy. Pollack iirc..

Anyways, if so, can u send me his work.

[xinxin]

To begin, my definition of all-time great is far more exclusive than a t-100, as I’d like to see some impact and production signals one gets to a certain threshold. My ATG pantheon would be:

Magic Oscar Curry
Jordan West Kobe
James Bird
Duncan Garnett
Russell Kareem Wilt Shaq Hakeem

I’d be intrigued to see if Giannis or a Jokic could perhaps knock out two of these players (maybe even Luka) as they add career value.

Back to the OP question, out of that AT group of players - I would guess that Bird is the worst floor raiser with no knack at him. As talented as Bird was, I think the handle problems he had make it harder for him to sustain an immense offensive load playoff series in and out and while facing several elite defenses. On top of that, while his offensive responsibilities increased - he was a stellar defender around all-defense value but never that much a needle mover

FWIW, I he’s the best offensive ceiling raiser and still a sure fire top 10 offensive talent at his apex (86-88 on that end), while being a better floor raiser than most players not in my ATG+ tier, but that is my answer.

Why do you see Oscar or Kobe specifically as better floor raisers than Bird, how much does their defense really move the needle enough for you when you've noted how you believe Bird would have comparable per game impact to them on offense in a vacuum in the past?

Could be because Kobe led a lakers team with a starting five of Smush Parker & Kwame brown to the playoffs 2 straight years…

Clearly wasting Kobe’s prime in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OhayoKD]

Depends on what we mean by ATG.

Of my all time best players, I think Bill Russell was probably the worst floor raiser, but the best ceiling raiser.

The guy who won a ring against two of the best teams of the era with 35-win help?(as a player-coach who was about to retire, i might add)

[Owly]

Title is a more interesting but harder to define question; especially when it's almost purely theoretical like Stockton not being able to do much without a Karl Malone. I was trying to create a more quantifiable version of the question. Lanier came to mind because we've had discussions on how weak most of his Detroit teams were and how much impact he created so I thought he would generate more discussion. FWIW, I would guess that anyone in the top 100 of all time would be a strong positive floor raiser compared to an average NBA starter.

Would you expect the least impact from players whose focus was mainly defense (Rodman, Bobby Jones -- though 1975), mainly playmakers (Stockton, Nash), or the sort of low efficiency scorers who many people like for their top 100 (Maravich, Iverson -- he exceeded my expectations in Philly during the regular season for example)? Who with a max contract rep today would be the worst floor raiser (Brad Beal? Ben Simmons?)?

Tiny samples but versus 76ers +/- had Stockton as hugely impactful (the best on-off) whilst Malone was positive but ordinary. Tiny sample so a huge dose of salt required but some suggestion of him providing early lift independent of Malone. Latterly too, RAPM being more bullish on him than Malone ... there's a lot time together but that perhaps helps at the margins (to suggest impact separate from Malone).

I'm assuming you singled out the sixers because of the unique work done by their stat guy. Pollack iirc..

Anyways, if so, can u send me his work.

It is because of Pollack, so there's raw on-off for 76ers and 76er opponents for mid 70s to 93 (whole league 94-96).
via the poster now known as ceiling raiser (then fpliii).
Think most/all data, work done with that would be from this thread ... viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1343246.
It can't give precise per/100 type on off because requiring assumptions about pace but should give very good approximates I would think.