Updating my top 50

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

User avatar
WestGOAT
Veteran
Posts: 2,603
And1: 3,534
Joined: Dec 20, 2015

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#61 » by WestGOAT » Fri Jun 16, 2023 10:24 am

70sFan wrote:
WestGOAT wrote:Great attempt to take a more quantitative approach to make a all-time list!

Can I ask how you did this for every single player so fast? I imagine it's a lot of work if you are starting from scratch.

Also, for example, how would you have rated Danny Green vs DeMar DeRozan in 2014? Do you think it makes sense to say despite Danny Green being a strong "role player" while DD could be considered "all star", Danny Green provides you better title-odds?


2. I am not sure how good this method is for much lower level players like DeMar and Green. To compare such players, I think that more tiers should be added at the bottom. I would say that 2014 Green has a decent case for "sub all-star" season in my opinion.


That's fair, so what about higher level players like Ray Alleen and Vince Carter? I think you got Ray Allen pretty high in your extended list, how far off would Vince be?

I'm asking because, VORP is a pretty okay cumulative stat to evaluate offensive players, and they are very close to each other from what I remember.
Image
spotted in Bologna
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,228
And1: 25,499
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#62 » by 70sFan » Fri Jun 16, 2023 10:47 am

WestGOAT wrote:
70sFan wrote:
WestGOAT wrote:Great attempt to take a more quantitative approach to make a all-time list!

Can I ask how you did this for every single player so fast? I imagine it's a lot of work if you are starting from scratch.

Also, for example, how would you have rated Danny Green vs DeMar DeRozan in 2014? Do you think it makes sense to say despite Danny Green being a strong "role player" while DD could be considered "all star", Danny Green provides you better title-odds?


2. I am not sure how good this method is for much lower level players like DeMar and Green. To compare such players, I think that more tiers should be added at the bottom. I would say that 2014 Green has a decent case for "sub all-star" season in my opinion.


That's fair, so what about higher level players like Ray Alleen and Vince Carter? I think you got Ray Allen pretty high in your extended list, how far off would Vince be?

I'm asking because, VORP is a pretty okay cumulative stat to evaluate offensive players, and they are very close to each other from what I remember.

I will include Carter when I find free time, though I wouldn't expect him to be close to Allen to be honest.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,710
And1: 8,349
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#63 » by trex_8063 » Fri Jun 16, 2023 11:32 am

70sFan wrote:
Since Kawhi was maybe your most controversial omission before and he's still out of the top 50, I'd be very curious how you're scoring the seasons where he gets injured in the playoffs. Is he getting no credit? Very little credit? 2017 for instance, I would probably score as at least a weak MVP level season since he was a strong MVP candidate in the regular season and was clearly the best player in the playoffs and maybe even having one of the best playoffs of all-time before a dirty play took him out. I feel like since he hadn't been injury prone up to that point and he carried the team as far as anyone possibly could, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt a little more on that one.

Kawhi Leonard:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 1 (2017)
Weak MVP: 3 (2016, 2019, 2020)
All-nba: 2 (2015, 2021)
All-star: 2 (2014, 2022)
Sub all-star: 1 (2013)
Role player: 1 (2012)

Please let me know what you think about it. I don't think I underrated Kawhi's actual ability, in fact some may argue I overrated him compared to other wings, but he just isn't healthy enough.


I assume the "2022" refers to 2023 (didn't play in '22).
Personally, I'd probably put '23 as "All-NBA" level, even with the 30 missed rs games and 3 ps games. The level he closed the season at---and even looking at his WHOLE season numbers: BPM north of +6, WS/48 of nearly .200, PER nearly 24, on/off north of +9.......and in nearly 34 mpg [which is pretty substantial by today's standards]. And then he was absolutely bonkers (easily MVP tier) for the [admittedly tiny] 2-game ps sample.

Or if you allow half-measures [i.e. halfway between the CORP-value of each level], I'd at least give credit for that.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,710
And1: 8,349
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#64 » by trex_8063 » Fri Jun 16, 2023 11:40 am

70sFan wrote:Kawhi Leonard:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 1 (2017)
Weak MVP: 3 (2016, 2019, 2020)
All-nba: 2 (2015, 2021)
All-star: 2 (2014, 2022)
Sub all-star: 1 (2013)
Role player: 1 (2012)


Am I misunderstanding how you're adding up the CORP % points?

Based on what you posted on page 2 (where MVP season is worth 20, Weak MVP 15, etc), wouldn't the above add up to 105?

20 x 1 = 20
15 x 3 = 45
10 x 2 = 20
7 x 2 = 14
4 x 1 = 4
2 x 1 = 2

20 + 45 + 20 + 14 + 4 + 2 = 105


Yet your updated list shows score of 88. Did I miss a step (also what is meant by the number after the commas?)?
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
WestGOAT
Veteran
Posts: 2,603
And1: 3,534
Joined: Dec 20, 2015

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#65 » by WestGOAT » Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:56 pm

70sFan wrote:
WestGOAT wrote:
70sFan wrote:
2. I am not sure how good this method is for much lower level players like DeMar and Green. To compare such players, I think that more tiers should be added at the bottom. I would say that 2014 Green has a decent case for "sub all-star" season in my opinion.


That's fair, so what about higher level players like Ray Alleen and Vince Carter? I think you got Ray Allen pretty high in your extended list, how far off would Vince be?

I'm asking because, VORP is a pretty okay cumulative stat to evaluate offensive players, and they are very close to each other from what I remember.

I will include Carter when I find free time, though I wouldn't expect him to be close to Allen to be honest.


I actually found a pretty compelling case that Carter should not be ranked too far behind from Allen when I did a quick search on this forum (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1736507&start=20):
Spoiler:
trex_8063 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.
Missing Rings wrote:.


Joining the discussion late, and just quoting a few people who had commented some things I’ll be replying to below.

Doc - you’d mentioned that by “any metric you can think of” that Ray has the edge. But I find that’s actually not the case (shown below).

For the purpose of this comparison, I’m disregarding Carter’s last two seasons. No one is more TOTAL career value than me, but realistically his last two seasons don’t really add any relevant career value (arguably slightly above replacement level in ‘17, so that perhaps does add a pinch for me, but it’s so negligible…); but they’ll drag his career metrics down, and I don’t want to “penalize” him in that way in a comparison to Allen. So I’m using just his first 18 seasons (to compare to Allen, whose career was 18 seasons)......


Allen’s prime was marginally longer, imo (I’d call ‘00-’09 prime Allen, whereas Vince’s really only goes ‘00-’07). But nonetheless I’ll compare those 10 years of Allen to Carter’s 10 best years (which are also ‘00-’09).....

Allen (‘00-’09 rs): 20.7 PER, .167 WS/48, +3.8 BPM, +7 efficiency differential in 37.9 mpg (728 games).
Carter (‘00-’09 rs): 21.5 PER, .151 WS/48, +4.1 BPM, +3 efficiency differential in 37.8 mpg (727 games).

That’s pretty well a dead heat as far as box-based rate metrics are concerned.
Ray Ray’s non-prime years were often at a higher level than many of Carter’s, and thus his career looks slightly better than Carter’s first 18 seasons collectively:

Allen (career rs): 18.6 PER, .150 WS/48, +3.0 BPM, +6 efficiency differential in 35.6 mpg (1300 games).
Carter (‘99-’16 rs): 19.6 PER, .137 WS/48, +3.1 BPM, +3 efficiency differential in 32.4 mpg (1274 games).

Tiny statistical edge to Allen on basis of his numbers (which are basically a wash with Carter’s) coming while playing ~10% more mpg (also missed 26 fewer games).
Comparison of playoff numbers shakes out similarly, overall.

However, if we add in consideration of impact metrics……

Regardless of source, if we look at Carter’s 10 best RAPM’s added, it’s a little better than Ray’s 10 best years. These too are rate metrics, however; and though both players have some of their higher RAPM’s in non-prime (lower minute) years, Ray would have a little advantage in mpg over these years (which might turn this into a wash, more or less???).

Carter often appears to have more impressive on/off numbers from year to year in his prime, fwiw. However, it’s not as consistently reflected in the team offensive results: it’s a little troubling for me that Carter was member to numerous mediocre (or even kinda poor) offenses; that the Raptor’s offense didn’t appear to suffer much for his leaving, and that the Nets offense doesn’t improve when adding him.
With Allen, otoh, we appear to see a more consistent relationship between his presence and the team’s [good] offensive performance. He’s at the helm of multiple elite offenses in his prime; a little too frequent for it to feel like coincidence or riding someone else’s coat-tails (especially when the “someone else’s” were guys like Glenn Robinson [somewhat a chucker], Sam Cassell [very good, but not great], Tim Thomas [OK], Ervin Johnson [defensive role player], etc).


Where does all this leave us? Well, that’s for everyone to decide for himself. But to Carter’s credit, this is hardly a comparison in which “nearly every metric” is in Allen’s favour. Jsia….


Regarding rings, which Bizil had argued for…….
I don’t know if the shouting/rant tone (all caps, multiple exclamation points, etc) got under people’s skin and provoked a bit of a gang-up mentality…...but people were really coming at him over that. Thing is, the rings factor is not an invalid consideration to many people (most of “the masses”, I would say, think it relevant, whether that’s right or wrong). But I’d probably be lying if I said it didn’t mean at least a tiny bit to me.

Bizil was accused of forcing his criteria down the throats of others; but to Missing Rings, HBK, dhsilv2, anyone else who was stating rings are largely circumstantial (luck) and thus shouldn’t be considered, bear in mind: in stating this you are essentially trying to force YOUR criteria on to him (and others). He may have been more emphatic about it, but…...door swings both ways.


A few posters appeared to take issue with giving much credit to Ray’s rings based on Allen’s role with both those teams. I believe it was HBK who even invoked the “lol” in relation to his roles on those teams. I don’t quite get that. He was basically an All-Star in his own right and the 3rd-best player on the title team the first time. 3rd best player on a title team is nothing to sneeze at in an historic sense. That puts him in the company of guys James Worthy, Robert Parish, Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, Draymond Green [except to some], Rasheed Wallace, etc. Unless we’re saying those guys didn’t matter to those teams either…..

For the 2nd one he was still an above average player in 26 mpg; that indicates still a pretty relevant piece of that team, too.
Neither one was like Robert Parish’s ring with the ‘97 Bulls; far from it.


Anyway, my two cents on things. And it all sort of indirectly indicates why I rank Allen ahead of Carter (but not by a huge amount).

though if you weigh portability and outside shooting very heavily I can understand why Allen is way higher on a ranking.
Image
spotted in Bologna
krii
Senior
Posts: 562
And1: 227
Joined: Apr 17, 2014
   

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#66 » by krii » Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:09 pm

Given the volume of threads that are trying to prove that KD should not be considered in a top 30/40 of all time, nor he should be higher than Jokic, It'd be great if you could share your analysis on those two ;-)
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,228
And1: 25,499
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#67 » by 70sFan » Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:53 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
70sFan wrote:Kawhi Leonard:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 1 (2017)
Weak MVP: 3 (2016, 2019, 2020)
All-nba: 2 (2015, 2021)
All-star: 2 (2014, 2022)
Sub all-star: 1 (2013)
Role player: 1 (2012)


Am I misunderstanding how you're adding up the CORP % points?

Based on what you posted on page 2 (where MVP season is worth 20, Weak MVP 15, etc), wouldn't the above add up to 105?

20 x 1 = 20
15 x 3 = 45
10 x 2 = 20
7 x 2 = 14
4 x 1 = 4
2 x 1 = 2

20 + 45 + 20 + 14 + 4 + 2 = 105


Yet your updated list shows score of 88. Did I miss a step (also what is meant by the number after the commas?)?

I copied wrong values - I experimented with weighed averages for these seasons and for some reasons I published them instead of the typical additive values. The order doesn't change at all, but the values do:

0,2 x 1 = 0,2
0,145 x 3 = 0,435
0,1 x 2 = 0,2
0,065 x 2 = 0,13
0,04 x 1 =0,04
0,02 x 1 = 0,02

0,2 + 0,435+ 0,2 + 0,13 + 0,04 + 0,02 = 102,5%

That's the actual value I should post next to Kawhi. I updated the list with new values, but the order remains the same. I added Rodman and realized that I got wrong value for one Jokic season (which changed his ranking down to 37/38 tie with Davis.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,228
And1: 25,499
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#68 » by 70sFan » Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:58 pm

trex_8063 wrote:
70sFan wrote:
Since Kawhi was maybe your most controversial omission before and he's still out of the top 50, I'd be very curious how you're scoring the seasons where he gets injured in the playoffs. Is he getting no credit? Very little credit? 2017 for instance, I would probably score as at least a weak MVP level season since he was a strong MVP candidate in the regular season and was clearly the best player in the playoffs and maybe even having one of the best playoffs of all-time before a dirty play took him out. I feel like since he hadn't been injury prone up to that point and he carried the team as far as anyone possibly could, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt a little more on that one.

Kawhi Leonard:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 1 (2017)
Weak MVP: 3 (2016, 2019, 2020)
All-nba: 2 (2015, 2021)
All-star: 2 (2014, 2022)
Sub all-star: 1 (2013)
Role player: 1 (2012)

Please let me know what you think about it. I don't think I underrated Kawhi's actual ability, in fact some may argue I overrated him compared to other wings, but he just isn't healthy enough.


I assume the "2022" refers to 2023 (didn't play in '22).
Personally, I'd probably put '23 as "All-NBA" level, even with the 30 missed rs games and 3 ps games. The level he closed the season at---and even looking at his WHOLE season numbers: BPM north of +6, WS/48 of nearly .200, PER nearly 24, on/off north of +9.......and in nearly 34 mpg [which is pretty substantial by today's standards]. And then he was absolutely bonkers (easily MVP tier) for the [admittedly tiny] 2-game ps sample.

Or if you allow half-measures [i.e. halfway between the CORP-value of each level], I'd at least give credit for that.

For most seasons with significant number of games missed (over 20 games) I use a simple estimation - I take healthy Kawhi value (all-nba level = 10%) and muplitply it by the percentage of games played in RS. That gives me an all-star season. In case of most recent seasons, I am more liberal for players missing games in RS, but in this case Kawhi also missed most of the playoffs, so I can't see his value anywhere beyond solid all-star level - especially since I don't think he really played at his prime level throughout the RS when he was healthy either.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,228
And1: 25,499
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#69 » by 70sFan » Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:06 pm

krii wrote:Given the volume of threads that are trying to prove that KD should not be considered in a top 30/40 of all time, nor he should be higher than Jokic, It'd be great if you could share your analysis on those two ;-)

Kevin Durant:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 5 (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018)
Weak MVP: 2 (2012, 2019)
All-nba: 4 (2010, 2011, 2021, 2022)
All-star: 2 (2009, 2023)
Sub all-star: 1 (2015)
Role player: 1 (2008)

Nikola Jokic:

GOAT-level: 1 (2023)
All-time: 1 (2022)
MVP: 1 (2021)
Weak MVP: 1 (2020)
All-nba: 2 (2018, 2019)
All-star: 1 (2017)
Sub all-star: 0
Role player: 1 (2016)

I expect Jokic to finish higher all-time at the end of his career, but he has a long way to catch KD in terms of career value.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 17,185
And1: 11,985
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#70 » by eminence » Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:09 pm

Sheed is a guy I'd be interested in seeing - whenever I go with this approach I feel like he winds up higher than I anticipated.
I bought a boat.
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,954
And1: 713
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#71 » by DQuinn1575 » Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:01 pm

70sFan wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
70sFan wrote:

Kawhi Leonard:

GOAT-level: 0
All-time: 0
MVP: 1 (2017)
Weak MVP: 3 (2016, 2019, 2020)
All-nba: 2 (2015, 2021)
All-star: 2 (2014, 2022)
Sub all-star: 1 (2013)
Role player: 1 (2012)

Please let me know what you think about it. I don't think I underrated Kawhi's actual ability, in fact some may argue I overrated him compared to other wings, but he just isn't healthy enough.


I assume the "2022" refers to 2023 (didn't play in '22).
Personally, I'd probably put '23 as "All-NBA" level, even with the 30 missed rs games and 3 ps games. The level he closed the season at---and even looking at his WHOLE season numbers: BPM north of +6, WS/48 of nearly .200, PER nearly 24, on/off north of +9.......and in nearly 34 mpg [which is pretty substantial by today's standards]. And then he was absolutely bonkers (easily MVP tier) for the [admittedly tiny] 2-game ps sample.

Or if you allow half-measures [i.e. halfway between the CORP-value of each level], I'd at least give credit for that.

For most seasons with significant number of games missed (over 20 games) I use a simple estimation - I take healthy Kawhi value (all-nba level = 10%) and muplitply it by the percentage of games played in RS. That gives me an all-star season. In case of most recent seasons, I am more liberal for players missing games in RS, but in this case Kawhi also missed most of the playoffs, so I can't see his value anywhere beyond solid all-star level - especially since I don't think he really played at his prime level throughout the RS when he was healthy either.



Real good stuff, a couple of things,
1. I think the methodology overrates role players. You need to be better than role player to be a champion, they are basically probably zero value in that it is a negative to play a lower level player. Having your 5th best guy as a role player doesnt help you win, you have to get someone better to win. Or 10 years of having a role player on your team never really helps you win, just doesnt hurt your chances. When there are 100+ role players, they arent really valuable in the hierarchy. If you are looking long term, the role players are the filler, which by default you will have some, the strategy is really to get the move the needle guys.


2. When I think of old-timer longevity, to me it really is captured by Russell, he retired after 13 years because he proved enough. Giving credit to anyone for playing longer than Russell on all-time list seems unfair, as he was Alexander the Great and had no worlds left to conquer. It's hard as some players do have more than 13 great years, but do you "reward" Karl Malone for playing more years partly because he couldnt do in all those years what Russell did in 13?
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,710
And1: 8,349
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#72 » by trex_8063 » Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:13 pm

I've got a bunch of complex or "busy" numerical gauges I use (factoring in all manner of box-based metrics, wowy data, team success, era assessments [subjective], even accolades [small consideration, and weighted against year-by-year strength of position], etc), which all sort of gauge value above replacement level [or similar].
I'll often amalgamate the player ranks of these several formulas to "ballpark" a player.

Then I'll modify that further based on contextual information, other impact indicators, and some [small] vague considerations of impact on the game itself. That's generally how I arrive at my all-time rankings.

I've been wanting to do a strictly CORP value listing---sort of like you're doing here---to see how it compares. Obviously it's still quite subjective (which tier you stick a player in), but I'll be curious to see where it lands players in my estimation [if I ever get around to doing it].

I'd probably have two versions of it, too: one that just posts their era-relative score, and a second version that takes into consideration my assessment of league strength. That is: places a modifier on each player's score respective to strength of era.

e.g. George Mikan is going to be MVP tier most years of his career [maybe even a couple "All-Time" tier seasons]......but that's relative to the league(s) of the late 40s/early 50s. I simply don't consider him an "All-Time" [or even "MVP"] level talent in a more broad sense (i.e. in relation to more competitive eras). A modifier would nudge his score down in relation to most more recent eras.

I know others may disagree with doing something like ^that, but I'm of the opinion it's necessary. I don't try to play era portability; I'm merely gauging the quality of the league played in.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,954
And1: 713
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#73 » by DQuinn1575 » Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:44 pm

LA Bird wrote:
dygaction wrote:You can say KG underachieved in his career which was not his fault but also should not hypothetically pump up his value. Nobody gave Bird/Magic the benefit of doubt of not getting hurt or ill.

Being injury prone is directly related to a player's value. Being drafted by the worst franchise of all time because of the way some ping pong balls bounced is not related to a player's value. For his career, the Wolves played the equivalent of 18 win rate without Garnett and 52 win rate with him - what more do you want? It's funny because you said it yourself that it "was not his fault" and yet you can't wrap your head around not using something that was not his fault in your player evaluations. It's like blaming a sprinter for his teammate messing up the relay race and equating it to a sprinter himself messing up the race because of injuries.

The fact that you think people hypothetically pump up Garnett's value because he was on a bad team says it all. There is nothing hypothetical about Garnett's value. Just because he was on a garbage team does not mean he had little value. If a sprinter ran a great race but another teammate dropped the baton and the relay team finished last, he still ran a great race regardless. It does not require any hypothetical pumping up of his performance to say he ran a great race. You, on the other hand, are penalizing a sprinter for his teammate's failure and saying he ran a poor race because his team finished poorly, without looking at how he actually performed himself.


The team level without him is too hard for me to accept/wrap my head around. for a 950 game span (~ 12 seasons) EVER is the Clippers 80-91 at .312 or 26 wins, with the Wolves 05-17 second worst at .320,

So in my mind the floor for any on-off long term should probably really be that.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#74 » by AEnigma » Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:26 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
LA Bird wrote:
dygaction wrote:You can say KG underachieved in his career which was not his fault but also should not hypothetically pump up his value. Nobody gave Bird/Magic the benefit of doubt of not getting hurt or ill.

Being injury prone is directly related to a player's value. Being drafted by the worst franchise of all time because of the way some ping pong balls bounced is not related to a player's value. For his career, the Wolves played the equivalent of 18 win rate without Garnett and 52 win rate with him - what more do you want? It's funny because you said it yourself that it "was not his fault" and yet you can't wrap your head around not using something that was not his fault in your player evaluations. It's like blaming a sprinter for his teammate messing up the relay race and equating it to a sprinter himself messing up the race because of injuries.

The fact that you think people hypothetically pump up Garnett's value because he was on a bad team says it all. There is nothing hypothetical about Garnett's value. Just because he was on a garbage team does not mean he had little value. If a sprinter ran a great race but another teammate dropped the baton and the relay team finished last, he still ran a great race regardless. It does not require any hypothetical pumping up of his performance to say he ran a great race. You, on the other hand, are penalizing a sprinter for his teammate's failure and saying he ran a poor race because his team finished poorly, without looking at how he actually performed himself.

The team level without him is too hard for me to accept/wrap my head around. for a 950 game span (~ 12 seasons) EVER is the Clippers 80-91 at .312 or 26 wins, with the Wolves 05-17 second worst at .320,

So in my mind the floor for any on-off long term should probably really be that.

What if you took the best player off those Clippers and Wolves squads every year?

Interesting to note that what I think LA Bird did was literally take the on-court rating and the off-court rating, which you would think would be skewed because Garnett is playing mostly with starters, so it is really “Garnett on-court (with starters)” versus “Garnett off-court (mostly without starters)”. However, if you just do raw WOWY, for the Timberwolves, the team is more at a 43/44-win level when Garnett plays, and something like a 13-win level when he does not! Now, that is skewed by the sample… the Wolves had their best casts when Garnett played every or nearly every game, and their weakest casts when he missed more time. But just looking at 2006/07, they go from -14.7 in games without him (the 2012 Bobcats were -15.2) to -2.1 in games with him… Again, bit silly to compare a team without their maximum salary player, but I think we can all recognise that adding any player to that 2012 Bobcats team is probably not enough to bring them to .500, and we should similarly recognise that there are exceedingly few players in the history of the league who could have brought the 1997-2004 Timberwolves to eight consecutive postseason appearances.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,228
And1: 25,499
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#75 » by 70sFan » Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:51 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:Real good stuff, a couple of things,
1. I think the methodology overrates role players. You need to be better than role player to be a champion, they are basically probably zero value in that it is a negative to play a lower level player. Having your 5th best guy as a role player doesnt help you win, you have to get someone better to win. Or 10 years of having a role player on your team never really helps you win, just doesnt hurt your chances. When there are 100+ role players, they arent really valuable in the hierarchy. If you are looking long term, the role players are the filler, which by default you will have some, the strategy is really to get the move the needle guys.

I don't think I agree, role players are extremely important to get the title. I mean, look at 2022 and 2023 Nuggets teams - the difference between these two seasons aren't strictly because of Murry comeback. The team had significantly stronger starting 5 and bench, that mattered.

2. When I think of old-timer longevity, to me it really is captured by Russell, he retired after 13 years because he proved enough. Giving credit to anyone for playing longer than Russell on all-time list seems unfair, as he was Alexander the Great and had no worlds left to conquer. It's hard as some players do have more than 13 great years, but do you "reward" Karl Malone for playing more years partly because he couldnt do in all those years what Russell did in 13?

I agree, that's why I need to make a longevity curve at some point. One thing to remember - Russell still finished with significantly higher score than Malone. They are not close to each other, despite huge difference in seasons played.
PistolPeteJR
RealGM
Posts: 11,680
And1: 10,462
Joined: Jun 14, 2017
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#76 » by PistolPeteJR » Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:03 pm

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
PistolPeteJR wrote:
There will never be a consensus top-10. Heck, we don’t even have a consensus top-3 (RealGM’s PC board consensus doesn’t count lol, even though to me (a non-casual) it’s definitely much more respected). Heck, you’ve got people trying to put Jokic at top-10 after this year. Come on…

I don’t see any argument for KD at all and think it unreasonable to even consider him there, and I personally don’t see Curry in the top-10 yet with any argument you make. I just can’t see him above:


Well two things, 1. I would say there was close to a consensus top 10 for the last 10-12 years with Kobe only being in it due to a huge fanbase(even espn when they did their biggest top 100 project after he retired had him at 15 then decided to do another after he died and put him at 8). 2. I think its easier to have a consensus top 10 than it was a top 3 because how talented the top 10 group is. I don't see any argument for KD either but just based on what I've been seeing a lot of younger fans have trouble including guys from before the 80's on their lists.


Really? I see it tougher to come to a consensus top-10 agreement even among casuals (minus Kobe diehards).
Cavsfansince84
RealGM
Posts: 15,297
And1: 11,666
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#77 » by Cavsfansince84 » Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:06 pm

PistolPeteJR wrote:
Really? I see it tougher to come to a consensus top-10 agreement even among casuals (minus Kobe diehards).


Now it is. 5-6 years ago I don't think it was. I think it was pretty well established with Jerry/Oscar/Kobe and a few others in the next group. Of course that's not with everyone but I think it was close to being consensus.
dygaction
General Manager
Posts: 7,638
And1: 4,926
Joined: Sep 20, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#78 » by dygaction » Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:08 pm

AEnigma wrote:
DQuinn1575 wrote:
LA Bird wrote:Being injury prone is directly related to a player's value. Being drafted by the worst franchise of all time because of the way some ping pong balls bounced is not related to a player's value. For his career, the Wolves played the equivalent of 18 win rate without Garnett and 52 win rate with him - what more do you want? It's funny because you said it yourself that it "was not his fault" and yet you can't wrap your head around not using something that was not his fault in your player evaluations. It's like blaming a sprinter for his teammate messing up the relay race and equating it to a sprinter himself messing up the race because of injuries.

The fact that you think people hypothetically pump up Garnett's value because he was on a bad team says it all. There is nothing hypothetical about Garnett's value. Just because he was on a garbage team does not mean he had little value. If a sprinter ran a great race but another teammate dropped the baton and the relay team finished last, he still ran a great race regardless. It does not require any hypothetical pumping up of his performance to say he ran a great race. You, on the other hand, are penalizing a sprinter for his teammate's failure and saying he ran a poor race because his team finished poorly, without looking at how he actually performed himself.

The team level without him is too hard for me to accept/wrap my head around. for a 950 game span (~ 12 seasons) EVER is the Clippers 80-91 at .312 or 26 wins, with the Wolves 05-17 second worst at .320,

So in my mind the floor for any on-off long term should probably really be that.

What if you took the best player off those Clippers and Wolves squads every year?

Interesting to note that what I think LA Bird did was literally take the on-court rating and the off-court rating, which you would think would be skewed because Garnett is playing mostly with starters, so it is really “Garnett on-court (with starters)” versus “Garnett off-court (mostly without starters)”. However, if you just do raw WOWY, for the Timberwolves, the team is more at a 43/44-win level when Garnett plays, and something like a 13-win level when he does not! Now, that is skewed by the sample… the Wolves had their best casts when Garnett played every or nearly every game, and their weakest casts when he missed more time. But just looking at 2006/07, they go from -14.7 in games without him (the 2012 Bobcats were -15.2) to -2.1 in games with him… Again, bit silly to compare a team without their maximum salary player, but I think we can all recognise that adding any player to that 2012 Bobcats team is probably not enough to bring them to .500, and we should similarly recognise that there are exceedingly few players in the history of the league who could have brought the 1997-2004 Timberwolves to eight consecutive postseason appearances.


From another perspective, KG was just difficult to build around. First, the franchise was not a good one, with bad operation and stupid mistakes losing their picks. Second, he was not a great teammate and commanded historically high salary making it difficult for the team to have a more competitive roster. Third, and most important, he was not a complete player on the offensive side. His mid range fadeaway jumper, albeit he was good at it, is the least effective spot on the court and causes little damage in terms of efficiency and foul drawing. He was either incapable or not smart enough to develop a 3pt shot, even though lots of his peers were already doing that. They had to go with one dimensional offensive players for offense, hoping he could man the defense. As a result, TWolves were never a good defensive team. Due to the construction limit, what do you expect a bunch of no-D players perform when KG was out?
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,228
And1: 25,499
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#79 » by 70sFan » Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:16 pm

dygaction wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
DQuinn1575 wrote:The team level without him is too hard for me to accept/wrap my head around. for a 950 game span (~ 12 seasons) EVER is the Clippers 80-91 at .312 or 26 wins, with the Wolves 05-17 second worst at .320,

So in my mind the floor for any on-off long term should probably really be that.

What if you took the best player off those Clippers and Wolves squads every year?

Interesting to note that what I think LA Bird did was literally take the on-court rating and the off-court rating, which you would think would be skewed because Garnett is playing mostly with starters, so it is really “Garnett on-court (with starters)” versus “Garnett off-court (mostly without starters)”. However, if you just do raw WOWY, for the Timberwolves, the team is more at a 43/44-win level when Garnett plays, and something like a 13-win level when he does not! Now, that is skewed by the sample… the Wolves had their best casts when Garnett played every or nearly every game, and their weakest casts when he missed more time. But just looking at 2006/07, they go from -14.7 in games without him (the 2012 Bobcats were -15.2) to -2.1 in games with him… Again, bit silly to compare a team without their maximum salary player, but I think we can all recognise that adding any player to that 2012 Bobcats team is probably not enough to bring them to .500, and we should similarly recognise that there are exceedingly few players in the history of the league who could have brought the 1997-2004 Timberwolves to eight consecutive postseason appearances.


From another perspective, KG was just difficult to build around. First, the franchise was not a good one, with bad operation and stupid mistakes losing their picks. Second, he was not a great teammate and commanded historically high salary making it difficult for the team to have a more competitive roster. Third, and most important, he was not a complete player on the offensive side. His mid range fadeaway jumper, albeit he was good at it, is the least effective spot on the court and causes little damage in terms of efficiency and foul drawing. He was either incapable or not smart enough to develop a 3pt shot, even though lots of his peers were already doing that. They had to go with one dimensional offensive players for offense, hoping he could man the defense. As a result, TWolves were never a good defensive team. Due to the construction limit, what do you expect a bunch of no-D players perform when KG was out?

This perspective makes no sense...
dygaction
General Manager
Posts: 7,638
And1: 4,926
Joined: Sep 20, 2015
 

Re: Updating my top 50 

Post#80 » by dygaction » Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:19 pm

70sFan wrote:
dygaction wrote:
AEnigma wrote:What if you took the best player off those Clippers and Wolves squads every year?

Interesting to note that what I think LA Bird did was literally take the on-court rating and the off-court rating, which you would think would be skewed because Garnett is playing mostly with starters, so it is really “Garnett on-court (with starters)” versus “Garnett off-court (mostly without starters)”. However, if you just do raw WOWY, for the Timberwolves, the team is more at a 43/44-win level when Garnett plays, and something like a 13-win level when he does not! Now, that is skewed by the sample… the Wolves had their best casts when Garnett played every or nearly every game, and their weakest casts when he missed more time. But just looking at 2006/07, they go from -14.7 in games without him (the 2012 Bobcats were -15.2) to -2.1 in games with him… Again, bit silly to compare a team without their maximum salary player, but I think we can all recognise that adding any player to that 2012 Bobcats team is probably not enough to bring them to .500, and we should similarly recognise that there are exceedingly few players in the history of the league who could have brought the 1997-2004 Timberwolves to eight consecutive postseason appearances.


From another perspective, KG was just difficult to build around. First, the franchise was not a good one, with bad operation and stupid mistakes losing their picks. Second, he was not a great teammate and commanded historically high salary making it difficult for the team to have a more competitive roster. Third, and most important, he was not a complete player on the offensive side. His mid range fadeaway jumper, albeit he was good at it, is the least effective spot on the court and causes little damage in terms of efficiency and foul drawing. He was either incapable or not smart enough to develop a 3pt shot, even though lots of his peers were already doing that. They had to go with one dimensional offensive players for offense, hoping he could man the defense. As a result, TWolves were never a good defensive team. Due to the construction limit, what do you expect a bunch of no-D players perform when KG was out?

This perspective makes no sense...


Ok, i am also open to constructive criticism.

Return to Player Comparisons