RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #4 (Bill Russell)

[Ambrose]

#1 Tim Duncan
Gun to my head I decided to lean Duncan. Both of these guys were blessed to play in very fortunate situations for the majority of their careers, and they did incredible jobs making the most of them. These are probably the two greatest leaders in NBA history. They are the ideal superstars that every organization would want to have.

I personally think Duncan would have even easier time replicating what Russell did than the reverse. I view him as considerably better offensive player, and I don't think the gap on defense is large enough to overcome it. I can't get over a guy that physically gifted, with that incredible of a basketball IQ being such a pedestrian scorer for his era. He's not someone you can run your offense through and yield acceptable results with either via his playmaking. I also believe Russell benefited more from the era he was in than Duncan did. Throw in the edge in longevity it's just enough for me to side with him even though I don't feel confident about it either way.

#2 Bill Russell

Coin flip with Duncan, and it didn't go his way.

Nomination: Magic Johnson

[AEnigma]

WOWY-related stuff is most useful in the sense that it can allow us to, in a way, approximate RAPM-like data in the era before play-by-play data exists.

WOWY is a raw, unadjusted impact metric, just like on/off but using games instead of possessions to measure value. You say WOWY-based stuff should generally be used to approximate RAPM/impact for the earlier guys. In general, that's consistent with how I use it.

Going to push back on this somewhat.

Both RAPM and WOWY can broadly be identified as “impact” indicators, but they are not the same type of impact. Using games instead of lineup possessions is a substantial difference, and the example I always come back to is 2010-12 Garnett.

Garnett’s rank in Engelmann’s prior-informed RAPM databases for those seasons is fourth, fifth, and third, and from 2009-13 he ranks third in Cheema’s database. When Garnett missed games in that period, the Celtics had a +1.2 net rating. When he played, they had a +4.8 net rating. That is significant lift, especially isolated for defence, but that is not quite what I would call a typical signal from a top three or four player, and in this thread we have seen higher lift than that flippantly dismissed as not befitting a top five player.

Which bring us to that distinction between possessions and games. Over this period, Garnett was averaging roughly 30 minutes per game. He was one of the most impactful players in the league in those minutes… but he was only playing ~63% of the game, and most top were averaging more like 75-80%. Plenty of people here have recognised that and subsequently experimented with a sort of rate multiplication for RAPM incorporating possession or minute counts to more holistically capture player “impact” — but the act of doing so goes beyond RAPM itself and starts to incorporate some of that WOWY principle of per game impact. And there I think it is always worth remembering the more minutes you give to your replacements, the more you risk losing whatever advantage you established for your team.

I suppose there could be some reverse application for WOWY where the WOWY evaluation is divided by the player’s minute load. Certainly would paint 1977/78 Walton in an interesting light, and maybe grant strong credence to contemporary commentary on how he seemed to have elevated the game to a never-before-seen level.

[One_and_Done]

I have Bam Russell leading Duncan 12-7 if anyone is curious, though most Russell voters have Duncan 2nd anyway. Maybe we can cut the next vote down a day if it becomes clear Duncan us going to stroll to victory.

[rk2023]

I have Bam Russell leading Duncan 12-7 if anyone is curious, though most Russell voters have Duncan 2nd anyway. Maybe we can cut the next vote down a day if it becomes clear Duncan us going to stroll to victory.

What purpose did this serve?

[One_and_Done]

Freudean slip

[lessthanjake]

Some further food for thought, this time using Real Plus Minus:

Average Real Plus Minus in Prime Years

- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2022-2023): 7.978
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2019-2020): 7.276
- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 6.79
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 6.474
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 6.299
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 5.778

(Note: I included Hakeem in my earlier post with AuPM/g rankings, but that measure had a few extra 1990s years than RPM, so I didn’t include Hakeem here—there’s not really any prime years for Hakeem in the RPM data. Hakeem averaged 2.975 in the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 seasons, but he wasn’t really in his prime anymore at that point IMO. I included those years for MJ above, because those are more fairly construed as part of MJ’s prime, though it’s obviously nowhere near his whole prime).

[lessthanjake]

Following on with some more information, this time from the GitHub RAPM data (which ends at 2018-2019, which is why I don’t include years beyond that in the timeframes):

Average Regular Season GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 5.482
- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 4.335
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 4.096
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2018-2019): 3.881
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 3.530
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 2.365

There’s also playoff RAPM data. The playoff RAPM appears to be on a different scale for whatever reason, so the numbers are all lower:

Average Playoff GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 2.527
- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 2.132
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2017-2018): 1.713
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 0.925
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 0.621
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 0.612

This version of RAPM is a bit wonky and I know some don’t like it, but it’s one of the RAPM measures we have and it seems worth posting how the above players come out in their primes. As with the AuPM/g and RPM measures I posted earlier, Steph Curry comes off looking extremely good.

(Note: Again, I didn’t include Hakeem here, since he wasn’t really in his prime by the 1996-1997 season, which is when the data starts. But in case there’s any curiosity, Hakeem had a regular season average of 2.395 in 1996-1997 to 1997-1998, and an average playoff RAPM of 0.170 in that timeframe).

[OhayoKD]

Okay, uh...

Welcome back!

Cheers! Big Hakeem post incoming...
Qualifier: We do only have a limited sample size for Hakeem, but 1994 and 1995 are often considered his playoff peak (though personally I prefer 1993-1994 as overall years).

We do not have playoff AUPM for 1994/1995
https://youtu.be/a1cp6_ucC9M?t=1183
-> The regular-season excludes 1993 which per Ben would likely be higher(very possible 1992 also boosts it)[/b]
-> The playoff-stuff is specifically based on box with "limited data" thus not capturing Hakeem's defensive value(per ben himself)
-> Actual AUPM only exists for 1997-1999
-> Unless I'm missing something, BPM(like RAPM) are on a different artificial scale so you can't just assume the gaps work that way

What we do have
->Rockets go from 50-win team to 62-win team between 93-95
->Record as srs underdog only really challenged by Lebron
->1986 upset of Magic is arguably the biggest of the era(scoring jumps)
->Strong box-elevation

As for rs/playoff weightings, Ben does say the rs has limited effect on "corp" per his srs-studies. Important for sample-size though.

The regular-season stuff is mostly fine. Will note that Hakeem's prime was longer than Duncan's, he carries an advantage as a help-defender which is not really captured in box and, perhaps as a byproduct of the era he played in, ben's "creation metrics' do not really see him that far off of duncan(for 3-year playoffs actually he looks shockingly good). I do have Duncan higher though, so you don't really need to convince me there. Before, we get to the rest, I'm going to take a detour...

My General Philosophy: You say WOWY-based stuff should generally be used to approximate RAPM/impact for the earlier guys. In general, that's consistent with how I use it.

Okay, but WOWY is not(and shot not be) an approximation of RAPM. Adjustments and all, the premise of APM is ultimately still that “winning on the court is good, as is seeing your team become worse without you on the court”

The main advantage of WOWY is that you can see what truly happens when a player is removed from a team. RAPM is "stable", but it is also artificial. Outliers are curved down and it is still susceptible to wonky-lineups and rotations. It's a potentially great tool, but it is not a substitute for what actually happens. Using RAPM in-place of actual signals is missing the point.

The point of WOWYR is to approximate RAPM but how well it achieves that...

Spoiler:

Prime WOWYR can match a 17-year adjusted plus-minus (RAPM) study for predicting lineup results at the game level. WOWYR correlates well with players from that 17-year RAPM set (from 1997-2014, by Jerry Engelmann), with a correlation coefficient of 0.67 (for scaled results) and an average error (MAE) of 1.1 points.

In order to accurately solve for “what’s the most likely impact for Larry Bird on all of his lineups?” we need to know about the value of his teammates, like Reggie Lewis. And since Lewis only played a few years, his estimate is a bit fuzzy, and that in turn effects Bird’s estimate

A regression is only as good as its data inputs.

WOWYR regresses RAPM using score differential by game, which is... at least 200 times worse than per-possession data in terms of granularity? (much worse than that actually)

It's an extremely ambitious and fun concept but its value is very limited, as shown by Ben himself... well, not really using it that much. I would just not use WOWYR unless it's for extremely rough classifications (i.e. "good" vs "bad").

Not responding to the other things atm but while yes WOWYR and GPM Tries to adjust for other teammates missing iirc the bulk of the calculation is based on that players WOWY sample so still the WOWY sample being small still matters (there’s a reason why John Stockton is 2nd all time in WOWYR and it’s not because he has a goat argument)

Second, like any RAPM study that’s too long, it smoothes over differences between peak years, ignoring aging and injury. There are some ways around this — one of which is to use smaller time periods

...is up for discussion.

There are also some assumptions here...

EDIT: The coaching thing does lead me to a point that relates back to Steph Curry, who I’ve been talking about a lot. The Warriors have not done well in games Steph hasn’t played. But they actually *do* have a coach that I think we’d all consider quite good. One interpretation of that is that WOWY therefore *underrates* Steph Curry, even though it still has him being essentially GOAT-level. That actually seems like a reasonable inference to me, but it’s also possible that Steve Kerr is a good coach overall who isn’t great at adjustments like this.

I've pointed this out before, but the whole "good coaches suppress impact" has not been justified empirically to my knowledge. Steph in particular is a very odd player to bring up since his impact went up after he swapped a bad coach for a good one.

Coaches may be able to get more out of benches, but they also theoretically can get more out of the player or out of the teammates a player shares the floor with. There's really no reason to assume good coaching is a detriment to impact(In fact I'd say history would suggest the opposite...).

Much like with "ball-dominance makes bench units worse", I think we're leaping before we're looking. Very skeptical "impact goes up when coach is bad" actually tracks and I'm not sure I understand how WOWYR can "see" the effects coaching quality. If nothing else, I would strongly recommend checking if there's evidence before you run with this.

Getting back to the players...

-Are you sure Shaq’s teams have a playoff fall-off? I seem to recall his team offensive results not dropping off at least, but I may be misremembering. I’m open to seeing something I've missed.

"Mantain" might be more accurate. they do fall in 2000(defense collapses arguably thanks to Shaq's lack of mobility being exploited), but when I checked what I expected to be falls in 94 and 95 were not by sans(though I am starting to suspect psrs as designed generally places teams higher so ehh), no clue what their psrs is in 96-99, but 98 has them getting swept by a team with worse srs and 96 sees them lose to a team with way worse srs(led by Hakeem naturally). That is counter-balanced by rises in 2001, 2002, and 2006. If I wanted to be mean the Cavs also fall in 2010 but eh.

Some Caveats.

Falls
-> Team is injured in 1996
-> Possibly worst matchup in 1998

as for the rises:

well, there's just the fact that shaq ripped everybody apart for 3 years and won 3 titles doing it and garnett, as much as people might want to point to his impact or his defensive RAPM and such, felt like he really could be limited in the playoffs in a way that was problematic and not easily cancelled out by great defense or explained by having a bad supporting cast. shaq also got to a finals by beating michael jordan and then gave prime hakeem everything he wanted as a 22 year old. i'm also not sure shaq isn't resilient. by age 22-31 normalized box composite, i have shaq going from 0.711 in the regular season to 0.730 in the postseason. so he's increasing compared to others.

he also shows strong actual vs expected championship. his +136% number is higher than everybody in the last Top 25 except hakeem, kobe, and wade (i don't know if kobe and wade are there because of shaq or vice versa). his absolute +2.3 titles is better than all but 5 of the top 30. garnett, for all his terrible teams, ended up with 0.77 expected championships, so his 1 that he won isn't that far out of line with what was expected (and this only counts playoffs played, so 2009 is not bumping up his expected number).

Some notes:
-> Shaq "rising" from the regular season(even in a metric that deals in absolutes like yours) is arguably a result of rs health:

-> 2002 Lakers are better than the Spurs with Duncan(who played all 82 games!) in games with Shaq(62-win)
-> Wade becomes MJ in 2006
-> Kobe becomes MJ in 2001, addition of a certain Horace Grant is probably a significant defensive boost come playoff-time

(Not) a Haiku:

Offensive ratings are great
box-composites are cool
the least "resilient" part of his game is arguably defense so what do they prove!

Anyway...

-Bird and Curry are both off-ball heavy players with a greater injury risk than Hakeem. I think it’s worth distinguishing between the drop off in box stats when they’re injured (which I’d argue is real) vs any drop off in box stats when healthy. If there is a drop off in their healthy playoff runs (which isn’t always true), this may be because box stats miss their off-ball value.

Fair points, but worth considering:

Motion offense in the postseason

Spoiler:

The problem was that the Warriors weren’t likely to get better. They had fielded two of the best regular seasons ever (and 2016 has an argument for being #1, though not a strong one). But the team’s offense, a high-octane engine of ball-movement and swished threes, slowed in the playoffs both years. In 2015 it had been enough (when Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving had been injured). In 2016 it had not been. It wasn’t clear if the Warriors’ title window was closing or not. How could such great regular season offenses struggle in the playoffs?

Let’s talk about passing. Or more specifically, about assist-dependency. By which I mean, teams where a disproportionate amount of their made shots were assisted.

You may be picturing the Steve Nash Suns or the Showtime Lakers here. But neither franchise shows up particularly high in this metric. The teams that show up super-high (+7.0% above league average is what I checked) tend to be dependent on an extremely specific kind of ball-movement. And, since ‘1991, teams that show up high in this metric and show strong offenses in the regular season (+3 or better) see their offenses regress pretty hard in the playoffs. I found fifteen teams between ‘91 and ‘16 that met those criteria (AST/FGM at 7% above league average or higher, Offense at +3 or higher, and at least two playoff series):

The 1993 Cavs. They showed a +4.7 offense in the regular season, but dropped by 5 points in the playoffs (adjusted for opposition)

The Utah Jazz (‘96 - ‘00): They led the league in Assist Dependency each year until 2000. They averaged a +5.42 regular season offense but saw their offense drop by an average of 2.94 points in the playoffs (in ‘96 and ‘97 their offense held up fine, the decline was ‘98-00).

The 2004 Sacramento Kings led the league and had an insane +7.4 Offensive Rating in the regular season, but it plummeted in the playoffs, dropping by 9.5 points.

The 2006 Detroit Pistons were 2nd, had a +4.6 Offensive Rating in the regular season but saw it drop by 2.4 points in the playoffs.

The Utah Jazz (‘07, ‘08 and ‘10) were second two years and first in the other, averaged about a +4.3 in the regular season. Unlike others in this group the Jazz got *better* in the playoffs each year, on average by about 2 points.

The 2015 Atlanta Hawks led the league in Assist/FGM and posted a strong regular season offensive rating of +3.3. But in the playoffs they struggled, dropping by 5.4 points per 100.

The 2015 and 2016 Golden State Warriors were 2nd and 1st in AST/FGM and posted outstanding regular season offenses (+6.0 and +8.1) but saw them drop off both years, but 1.9 and 3.9 points respectively.

Both Bird and Curry face massive defensive attention in the playoffs, and their counter (unlike Hakeem!) is often to go off-ball and create opportunities for teammates with their spacing, gravity, by drawing double teams and opening up passing lanes for teammates, etc.

Will clarify that I think West is probably a riser, but I'm not sure that's actually reflected in holistic team-level results.

If you’ll allow me one push-back: Even if you weigh longevity heavily, there’s still a WOWY-based case for the outlier WOWY guards (Oscar, West, Curry) and even some of the bigs with greater longevity (KG, Shaq). To quote your (sage) advice, WOWY "is a rate stat!"

I don’t have the full career lift numbers on me, so this is more of a rough estimate (but I’d encourage others to check this calculation with the better numbers!). It’s more to illustrate the point. What if we multiply each player’s Prime WOWY (which is in units of per game, right?) with their total number of games...

Curry: +10.2 per game * 882 games= +8996.4 in his career
Oscar: +8.4 per game * 1040 games= +8736.0 in his career
Garnett: +5.7 per game * 1462 games = +8333.4 in his career
West: +7.8 per game * 932 games = +7269.6 in his career
Shaq: +5.5 per game * 1207 games = +6638.5 in his career
Hakeem: +5.2 per game * 1238 games= +6437.6. in his career

Fair, though mpg may swing things back against some here(cough Steph cough).

Part C: Multi-year Lineup changes

-Multi-season lineup changes (the OhayoKD special): Russell looks GOAT-level and definitely gets above Hakeem. Others may look better as well, but there's less of a single database to check for these full-season trade/injury/rookie/retirement-based WOWY data.

I'm honored to have a special

but context is important using said extraps(the trade-off for larger samples is noise), and specifically what you're comparing. And while clearly not a match for Russell(no one really is with a truly era-relative, rather than srs-relative approach). In this case Hakeem's "extraps" come on a team which did shockingly well in his first-three years in the league but started coking-up as early as 1986. With this in mind I think the "extrap" looks decent:

Ben has his own(presumably more sophisticated) approach which likes Hakeem even better; "Prime WOWY" ranks Olajuwon 10th. Magic and Jordan rank 12th and 20th, respectively. Keep in mind the samples here are much, much smaller, but at least there aren't extraneous distortions to worry about as we may with something like WOWYR

Getting back to larger samples(or in this case, the largest possible sample), Drafting Hakeem produces a +5 SRS improvement for the Rockets without significant roster additions(this is top-ten worthys, and better than what Magic or Jordan managed), and they've reached the final(interrupting a dynasty on the way) by year two. That start looks GOAT-worthy. Then, when various catastrophes take place starting in 1987, Hakeem still does an admiral job keeping a shipwreck afloat before capitalizing spectacularly with limited help.

In retrospect "goat-worthy" was hyperbolic(Kareem and Lebron win-out rather clearly), but I think it is a positive addition to his case in a comparison with most of the players you list.

We can also look at teammate-signals where notable "co-stars" like sampson(half-a-season) and thorpe(16-games) leave for substantial stretches and the Rockets are basically unaffected(you might note this is basically a a much cleaner version of what WOWYR does with a much larger per/szn sample of 'off").

Cannot say the same for the celtics without mchale or the warriors without draymond. Comparable to Duncan without 03 Ginobli though. Overall, would say this strengthens his case a bit further.

Indeed, you do have a special

And thanks for the extra info — Interesting stuff. One issue I have with this (purely on a practical level) is that there’s no single database to check the multi-year lineup change WOWY, like the kind you get from rookie year, trades, near season-long injuries, and retirements. While we have a single place we can look for 10 year Prime WOWY, 10 year Prime WOWYR, even individual raw WOWY stretches (within a single season), there’s no single spot to look for these multi-year lineup changes.

It might be worth having someone create an organized database for this, at least for the usual suspects (say the standard top 15-20 players). I’m thinking of having a marker for what happened in the player’s career (Rookie year / trade leaving team A / trade joining team B / ~season-long injury / retirement), a marker for how many games the “on” sample is, how many games the “off” sample is, the raw WOWY (ideally based on change in SRS but MoV would do).

Optional improvements to this database might include a correction factor for diminishing returns on good teams & associated WOWY uncertainty based on sample size (like Thinking Basketball provides for their within-one-season WOWY data), and major changes in the team roster/coaching staff from the two seasons (as this is one of the major blindspots of this kind of raw data).

Obviously it would take a lot of work to put together systematically, but it would be a fantastic resource to have in one spot. And make it a lot easier to compare e.g. Hakeem vs Duncan vs West vs Curry, etc. with this kind of data.

An interesting idea!

Theoretically, a separate "database" where starting teammates miss time(maybe with a filter like the 10 gms/szn I use) are listed wouldn't be a bad compliment.

But isn’t it a per 100 possessions stat, not a per minute stat? I believe you’ve circled their minutes per game? Let me know if I’m misreading these images.

Yes, but I'm lazy. And yes, it would be a point in KG/Duncan's favor though, as Anenigma points out, one should be careful about the calculation process...

Spoiler:

WOWY-related stuff is most useful in the sense that it can allow us to, in a way, approximate RAPM-like data in the era before play-by-play data exists.

WOWY is a raw, unadjusted impact metric, just like on/off but using games instead of possessions to measure value. You say WOWY-based stuff should generally be used to approximate RAPM/impact for the earlier guys. In general, that's consistent with how I use it.

Going to push back on this somewhat.

Both RAPM and WOWY can broadly be identified as “impact” indicators, but they are not the same type of impact. Using games instead of lineup possessions is a substantial difference, and the example I always come back to is 2010-12 Garnett.

Garnett’s rank in Engelmann’s prior-informed RAPM databases for those seasons is fourth, fifth, and third, and from 2009-13 he ranks third in Cheema’s database. When Garnett missed games in that period, the Celtics had a +1.2 net rating. When he played, they had a +4.8 net rating. That is significant lift, especially isolated for defence, but that is not quite what I would call a typical signal from a top three or four player, and in this thread we have seen higher lift than that flippantly dismissed as not befitting a top five player.

Which bring us to that distinction between possessions and games. Over this period, Garnett was averaging roughly 30 minutes per game. He was one of the most impactful players in the league in those minutes… but he was only playing ~63% of the game, and most top were averaging more like 75-80%. Plenty of people here have recognised that and subsequently experimented with a sort of rate multiplication for RAPM incorporating possession or minute counts to more holistically capture player “impact” — but the act of doing so goes beyond RAPM itself and starts to incorporate some of that WOWY principle of per game impact. And there I think it is always worth remembering the more minutes you give to your replacements, the more you risk losing whatever advantage you established for your team.

I suppose there could be some reverse application for WOWY where the WOWY evaluation is divided by the player’s minute load. Certainly would paint 1977/78 Walton in an interesting light, and maybe grant strong credence to contemporary commentary on how he seemed to have elevated the game to a never-before-seen level.

Returning to Hakeem

Hakeem’s number still don’t look all that good there, particularly as it is going to be more difficult to lift a team in raw terms the better they are.

Which is why I specifically have used terms like "is competitive with", "on the level of" than "better than". Hakeem sees more raw lift on worse teams(concentrated, ben's wowy, career wide, 10-year) placing them as peers. Hakeem does potentially gain separation in the playoffs. He also [b[potentially[/b] gains value from all the extra minutes he played. Regardless, he does look very good relative to how he was voted for MVP..

[SpreeS]

Following on with some more information, this time from the GitHub RAPM data (which ends at 2018-2019, which is why I don’t include years beyond that in the timeframes):

Average Regular Season GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 5.482
- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 4.335
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 4.096
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2018-2019): 3.881
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 3.530
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 2.365

There’s also playoff RAPM data. The playoff RAPM appears to be on a different scale for whatever reason, so the numbers are all lower:

Average Playoff GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 2.527
- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 2.132
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2017-2018): 1.713
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 0.925
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 0.621
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 0.612

This version of RAPM is a bit wonky and I know some don’t like it, but it’s one of the RAPM measures we have and it seems worth posting how the above players come out in their primes. As with the AuPM/g and RPM measures I posted earlier, Steph Curry comes off looking extremely good.

(Note: Again, I didn’t include Hakeem here, since he wasn’t really in his prime by the 1996-1997 season, which is when the data starts. But in case there’s any curiosity, Hakeem had a regular season average of 2.395 in 1996-1997 to 1997-1998, and an average playoff RAPM of 0.170 in that timeframe).

Why are you so pushing Curry at this stage of voting? The best case scenario for Curry is 10-11th. More likely will be around 12th-14th.

[One_and_Done]

Is it? I'll be voting for Curry pretty soon, probably round 8th or so?

[iggymcfrack]

Following on with some more information, this time from the GitHub RAPM data (which ends at 2018-2019, which is why I don’t include years beyond that in the timeframes):

Average Regular Season GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 5.482
- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 4.335
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 4.096
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2018-2019): 3.881
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 3.530
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 2.365

There’s also playoff RAPM data. The playoff RAPM appears to be on a different scale for whatever reason, so the numbers are all lower:

Average Playoff GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 2.527
- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 2.132
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2017-2018): 1.713
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 0.925
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 0.621
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 0.612

This version of RAPM is a bit wonky and I know some don’t like it, but it’s one of the RAPM measures we have and it seems worth posting how the above players come out in their primes. As with the AuPM/g and RPM measures I posted earlier, Steph Curry comes off looking extremely good.

(Note: Again, I didn’t include Hakeem here, since he wasn’t really in his prime by the 1996-1997 season, which is when the data starts. But in case there’s any curiosity, Hakeem had a regular season average of 2.395 in 1996-1997 to 1997-1998, and an average playoff RAPM of 0.170 in that timeframe).

Why are you so pushing Curry at this stage of voting? The best case scenario for Curry is 10-11th. More likely will be around 12th-14th.

He’s not going any time soon obviously, but there’s no way he finishes worse than 12th, come on. He’s probably consensus top 10 on this board.

[SpreeS]

Following on with some more information, this time from the GitHub RAPM data (which ends at 2018-2019, which is why I don’t include years beyond that in the timeframes):

Average Regular Season GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 5.482
- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 4.335
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 4.096
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2018-2019): 3.881
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 3.530
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 2.365

There’s also playoff RAPM data. The playoff RAPM appears to be on a different scale for whatever reason, so the numbers are all lower:

Average Playoff GitHub RAPM in Prime Years

- Michael Jordan (1996-1997 to 1997-1998): 2.527
- Stephen Curry (2013-2014 to 2018-2019): 2.132
- LeBron James (2008-2009 to 2017-2018): 1.713
- Tim Duncan (1998-1999 to 2006-2007): 0.925
- Shaquille O’Neal (1997-1998 to 2004-2005): 0.621
- Kevin Garnett (1999-2000 to 2007-2008): 0.612

This version of RAPM is a bit wonky and I know some don’t like it, but it’s one of the RAPM measures we have and it seems worth posting how the above players come out in their primes. As with the AuPM/g and RPM measures I posted earlier, Steph Curry comes off looking extremely good.

(Note: Again, I didn’t include Hakeem here, since he wasn’t really in his prime by the 1996-1997 season, which is when the data starts. But in case there’s any curiosity, Hakeem had a regular season average of 2.395 in 1996-1997 to 1997-1998, and an average playoff RAPM of 0.170 in that timeframe).

Why are you so pushing Curry at this stage of voting? The best case scenario for Curry is 10-11th. More likely will be around 12th-14th.

He’s not going any time soon obviously, but there’s no way he finishes worse than 12th, come on. He’s probably consensus top 10 on this board.

He is a bit higher than 12th on my list, but I don't believe he will go higher than 13th in this voting.

[iggymcfrack]

Why are you so pushing Curry at this stage of voting? The best case scenario for Curry is 10-11th. More likely will be around 12th-14th.

He’s not going any time soon obviously, but there’s no way he finishes worse than 12th, come on. He’s probably consensus top 10 on this board.

He is a bit higher than 12th on my list, but I don't believe he will go higher than 13th in this voting.

If we assume he goes behind all the current nominees + Magic, that puts him 10th. Bird and KG are probably coin flips to be higher than him. Zero chance the voting body that put Kareem ahead of Jordan is going to put Kobe above Steph. You think West or Oscar are going before Steph Curry?

[SpreeS]

He’s not going any time soon obviously, but there’s no way he finishes worse than 12th, come on. He’s probably consensus top 10 on this board.

He is a bit higher than 12th on my list, but I don't believe he will go higher than 13th in this voting.

If we assume he goes behind all the current nominees + Magic, that puts him 10th. Bird and KG are probably coin flips to be higher than him. Zero chance the voting body that put Kareem ahead of Jordan is going to put Kobe above Steph. You think West or Oscar are going before Steph Curry?

This voting group are very based on impact numbers, so would be crazy to see Kobe > Curry. But there are some Curry haters here too, who could impact voting.

[70sFan]

He is a bit higher than 12th on my list, but I don't believe he will go higher than 13th in this voting.

If we assume he goes behind all the current nominees + Magic, that puts him 10th. Bird and KG are probably coin flips to be higher than him. Zero chance the voting body that put Kareem ahead of Jordan is going to put Kobe above Steph. You think West or Oscar are going before Steph Curry?

This voting group are very based on impact numbers, so would be crazy to see Kobe > Curry. But there are some Curry haters here too, who could impact voting.

You can think that Curry was clearly a better basketball player and still have Kobe ahead if you go by CORP methodology, because Kobe still has a significant longevity advantage.

[SpreeS]

If we assume he goes behind all the current nominees + Magic, that puts him 10th. Bird and KG are probably coin flips to be higher than him. Zero chance the voting body that put Kareem ahead of Jordan is going to put Kobe above Steph. You think West or Oscar are going before Steph Curry?

This voting group are very based on impact numbers, so would be crazy to see Kobe > Curry. But there are some Curry haters here too, who could impact voting.

You can think that Curry was clearly a better basketball player and still have Kobe ahead if you go by CORP methodology, because Kobe still has a significant longevity advantage.

Kobe will be catched in couple years by this methodology and I would see TOP10 for Curry after 3y if aging curve would be standardly decreasing. The gap between Kobe and Curry is too small to give a higher place to Kobe according by one methodology.

Player Title odds
1 LeBron James 381,0
2 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 354,0
3 Bill Russell 310,5
4 Michael Jordan 288,0
5 Tim Duncan 283,0
6 Hakeem Olajuwon 278,5
7 Wilt Chamberlain 266,5
8 Shaquille O'Neal 266,0
9 Kevin Garnett 247,5
10 Magic Johnson 213,0
11 Kobe Bryant 211,5
12 Oscar Robertson 208,0
13 Karl Malone 200,0
14 Stephen Curry 199,0

or

Player Title odds
1 LeBron James 408,0
2 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 379,0
3 Bill Russell 336,0
4 Michael Jordan 310,5
5 Tim Duncan 302,0
6 Hakeem Olajuwon 299,5
7 Wilt Chamberlain 286,0
8 Shaquille O'Neal 281,5
9 Kevin Garnett 258,0
10 Magic Johnson 227,5
11 Oscar Robertson 222,0
12 Kobe Bryant 219,0
13 Stephen Curry 212,5

[70sFan]

This voting group are very based on impact numbers, so would be crazy to see Kobe > Curry. But there are some Curry haters here too, who could impact voting.

You can think that Curry was clearly a better basketball player and still have Kobe ahead if you go by CORP methodology, because Kobe still has a significant longevity advantage.

Kobe will be catched in couple years by this methodology and I would see TOP10 for Curry after 3y if aging curve would be standardly decreasing. The gap between Kobe and Curry is too small to give a higher place to Kobe according by one methodology.

Player Title odds
1 LeBron James 381,0
2 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 354,0
3 Bill Russell 310,5
4 Michael Jordan 288,0
5 Tim Duncan 283,0
6 Hakeem Olajuwon 278,5
7 Wilt Chamberlain 266,5
8 Shaquille O'Neal 266,0
9 Kevin Garnett 247,5
10 Magic Johnson 213,0
11 Kobe Bryant 211,5
12 Oscar Robertson 208,0
13 Karl Malone 200,0
14 Stephen Curry 199,0

or

Player Title odds
1 LeBron James 408,0
2 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 379,0
3 Bill Russell 336,0
4 Michael Jordan 310,5
5 Tim Duncan 302,0
6 Hakeem Olajuwon 299,5
7 Wilt Chamberlain 286,0
8 Shaquille O'Neal 281,5
9 Kevin Garnett 258,0
10 Magic Johnson 227,5
11 Oscar Robertson 222,0
12 Kobe Bryant 219,0
13 Stephen Curry 212,5

Yeah, I expect Curry to surpass clearly Kobe at the end of his career but he still doesn't have these years. My list you shared basically show that Kobe can be still ranked ahead of him, though the gap is small at this point.

[iggymcfrack]

If we assume he goes behind all the current nominees + Magic, that puts him 10th. Bird and KG are probably coin flips to be higher than him. Zero chance the voting body that put Kareem ahead of Jordan is going to put Kobe above Steph. You think West or Oscar are going before Steph Curry?

This voting group are very based on impact numbers, so would be crazy to see Kobe > Curry. But there are some Curry haters here too, who could impact voting.

You can think that Curry was clearly a better basketball player and still have Kobe ahead if you go by CORP methodology, because Kobe still has a significant longevity advantage.

Yeah, that's true. It will be interesting to see if the new focus on longevity holds going down the list or if it's just a thing at the top of the list with MJ and Kareem. Like is Bird gonna fall now? He has similar longevity to Steph.

[One_and_Done]

Curry is better than Kobe ever was, and has sufficient longevity that it's meaningless to point to that when he's being compared to a blatantly inferior player.

[70sFan]

This voting group are very based on impact numbers, so would be crazy to see Kobe > Curry. But there are some Curry haters here too, who could impact voting.

You can think that Curry was clearly a better basketball player and still have Kobe ahead if you go by CORP methodology, because Kobe still has a significant longevity advantage.

Yeah, that's true. It will be interesting to see if the new focus on longevity holds going down the list or if it's just a thing at the top of the list with MJ and Kareem. Like is Bird gonna fall now? He has similar longevity to Steph.

I am not a voter, but I would definitely have Bird outside of top 10 and in the same range with Curry.