RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #6 (Hakeem Olajuwon)

70sFan · Post #21 » by **70sFan** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:49 pm

One_and_Done wrote:Perhaps rag doll is overstating it, but Shaq played with a combination of force and dexterity that would have been far too much for Wilt to handle. Wilt didn't play with anything like the power Shaq did.

Yeah and vice versa...

Dr Positivity · Post #22 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:50 pm

AEnigma wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:So let's dig into 80s Hakeem. On paper, it looks a lot like prime Duncan. Top 3 all time D, and skilled mid 20s volume scoring, post play on decent efficiency isn't the best offense, but for a 2 way big it's fine, there are lots of offensive players I like more than Duncan too. However, to note, offensive Win Shares is more friendly to Duncan than Hakeem. Duncan is 23rd all time in NBA career OWS, Hakeem is 66th. Hakeem is below some dudes like Melo and LMA and soon to be Derozan in career OWS who's midrange volume scoring games are supposed to not translate to that stat at all. The main reason is that OWS really doesn't like 80s and early 90s Hakeem. 89 and 90 Hakeem is putting up 24-25ppg on .54-.55 TS% and playing 82 games, seems credible offensively even if not 93/94 level. He finishes 40th and 93rd in OWS despite this. In comparison Duncan in 00 and 01, kind of similarly below 02 and 03 (he leads the league in OWS in 02), is 12th in OWS (74 games) in 00 and 23rd in 01. Duncan also makes top 20 OWS in 99, 07 and 10, while Hakeem doesn't outside of 93 and 94.

…

It's at least believable to me he is flawed enough on offense before 93 to make him a secondary superstar player or that people weren't crazy at the time to not be sure he's better than a player like late 80s Barkley who is by far better on offense to make up for canyon gap on defense.

Okay, this keeps popping up, so it is probably time to ask: why do we keep using these metrics to make our points.

I am serious, what is the justification apart from a vague “well it seems to identify good players” that applies to approaches as basic as Bill Simmons’s “add together points + rebounds + assists”. Win shares in particular stuns me because its backbone is tied to Dean Oliver’s nearly twenty-year-old “individual offensive / defensive rating,” but it is not like most modern raw box composites tell us that much more. Hakeem’s PIPM wins added is 240, compared to Shaq’s 228 and Barkley’s 182; does that assuage your concerns?

To your more specific point: Tim Duncan is in now, so even if he had better offence, what does that matter? Hakeem’s career ratio of points to assists is 8.7 to 1; Wilt’s is 6.84 to 1, and Shaq’s is 9.5 to 1, so is Shaq a hard out now?

You can say you think players would do better in place of others without needing to point to some artificial catch-all number as reasoning. No one here is singing the praises of young Hakeem’s passing. If you think that hurt his teams more than whatever defensive advantage he has over everyone, both in this comparison and at the time of his own league, then we can have that discussion, but I do not see what is advanced by citing win shares (or whatever). They are just disconnected formulas — some of which are now two decades old.

Personally I do not think WS is perfect, but I prefer it to WOWY (which has SUBJECTIVE inputs by ElGee), incredibly small sample size injury missed games or judging individual players by team results, or one half of the floor of team results in a free flowing game. Likewise I don't think MVP voting is perfect, but I do put some stock into it because the alternative routes also have thier flaws, and therefore I do take it seriously that Hakeem didn't realize separate himself from players like Malone/Barkley/Ewing in the late 80s as at least a starting point to ask why and whether it can really be explained by not winning enough (for eg. Barkley was also playing with crap).

I do not think WS should be automatically trusted, I have doubts about how much WS dislikes Nash for example, but it does value some generally positive things like efficiency and passing, and it can be used as a starting point when something jumps out why Hakeem's is worse than Duncan despite similar PPG/TS, and then finding out it's because his assist rates are lower, something that was harder to see on surface.

DraymondGold · Post #23 » by **DraymondGold** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:51 pm

~An Analysis of Team Results~

I've been seeing a lot of team results based arguments for Hakeem over Wilt/Magic/Bird/Shaq/Garnett/Curry, which I find surprising because that's one of my main concerns for Hakeem.

The main arguments I've seen are:
1) Rocket's over performed in the playoffs relative to regular season SRS (particularly title run 86, titles in 94–95)
2) Hakeem's playoff record as an SRS underdog more generally
3) Hakeem's box elevation suggesting Hakeem's the reason for this team over performance

Part 1: Overall Team Performance
We have two major stats to evaluate in-era dominance by a team in the regular season and playoffs combined: overall SRS (by Sansterre) and ELO (by fivethirtyeight). Stating the obvious, these are team metrics, not player metrics. Teammates matter. But team playoff (over-)performance is one of the primary arguments for Hakeem, and team performance does still give us a handle on how good these players are at ceiling raising, so let's dive in...

Overall SRS team performance:

Spoiler:

So Hakeem’s teams are 2/3 of the very worst by overall SRS: Wilt has 3 teams better, Bird has 6, Magic has 6–8 (depending if you credit Kareem in 80/82), Shaq has 3, Garnett has 1, Curry has 5 so far. By standard deviations, Hakeem’s 95 Rockets improve to 4th to last (sneaking above Magic’s 91 Lakers and Wilt’s 73 Lakers, falling behind Shaq/Wade’s 06 Heat).

What about these teams' rankings in ELO? Team Rankings by ELO:

Spoiler:

By ELO, Wilt has 3 teams better, Bird has 6, Magic has 7-9 (depending if you credit Kareem in 80/82), Shaq has 6, Garnett has 4, Curry has 6 so far. So this measure is even more favorable for the other players.

What if we look at playoffs-only SRS? Well the 95 Rockets certainly improve: from 93rd in overall SRS to 55th in playoff SRS pre-2021 (note: the 95 Rockets are currently 100th in overall SRS through 2023). But Wilt still has 2 teams better in playoff SRS only, Bird has 2, Magic has 4, Shaq has 1, Curry has 5.

This does help Hakeem catch up to Bird, Magic, and Garnett! But does it put him over Wilt, Shaq, or Curry? Take Wilt: is the difference in Hakeem's best team playoff SRS (55th all time pre-2021) and Wilt's 76ers (21st all time) really all supporting cast? You could argue Wilt had the better supporting cast, but I have a hard time not crediting Wilt as the better ceiling raiser too.

Playoff-only SRS is also blind to opponent injuries. In 94 and 95, Hakeem's two biggest team over performances, Hakeem benefited from a number of injuries that have gone pretty unnoticed so far. In 1994 and 1995, Hakeem's championship teams got taken to the final game four times. They benefited from injured opponents all four times. We can certainly credit Hakeem for being clutch -- but when a team over performs by that much, does it not seem likely that a bit of luck was also involved?
-1994 2nd Round vs Phoenix Suns: Charles Barkley struggled with a back injury for much of the season and got a groin injury in game 6. The Rockets won in game 7. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-22-sp-60780-story.html%3f_amp=true, https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1994/05/21/maxwell-promises-suns-will-set-today/).
-1994 4th Round vs New York Knicks: Power Forward Charles Oakley (4th in minutes) played through a sprained left ankle and a bruised right foot. Point Guard Doc Rivers (5th in minutes) missed the 2nd half of the season and the playoffs. The Rockets won in game 7 by 6 points, and the Rockets were outscored in the series.
-1994 1st Round vs Utah Jazz: Center Felton Spencer (4th in minutes, 1st in rebounds) missed the 2nd half of the season and the playoffs. The Rockets won in game 5 (first round went to 5 games) by 4 points.
-1995 2nd Round vs Phoenix Suns: Power Forward Danny Manning (3rd in Minutes, 2nd in points, 3rd in rebounds, 1st in blocks) missed the end of the season. The Rockets won in game 7 by 1 point.

I don't think it's crazy to imagine a world where a healthy Phoenix Suns knock the Rockets out in the 2nd round both years. Of course, injuries are part of the game. Other players benefited from (and were hurt by) injuries. I personally don't believe in championship asterisks or anything like that. But injuries are also important to factor in when calculating true team dominance or true performance as an SRS underdog (a team may not be a true underdog if their opponents are injured).

Part 2: Team Playoff Record as an SRS underdog

This is a new metric calculated by f4p. It's quite the interesting metric, and there may be some true information inside these numbers. Still, I fear it's quite a noisy metric, that's dominated by team performance, that doesn't actually rank player goodness.

Let's look at how players' teams over performed in the playoffs by number of years. This should help avoid double-counting if it's a player's teammates that are over performing or getting worse in the playoffs:
-Wilt's team over performed in 2 years, underperformed in 3 (2-1 discounting injuries)
-Bird's team over performed in 1 years, underperformed in 5 (1-2 discounting injuries)
-Magic's team over performed in 3 years, underperformed in 3 (3-1 if discounting non-prime (81/96 Magic)
-Hakeem's team over performed in 6 years, underperformed in 1 (4-1 discounting injuries)
-Shaq's team over performed in 4 years, underperformed in 6 (4-4 if discounting non-prime 08/10 Shaq)
-Garnett's teams over performed in 3 years, underperformed in 2 (1-1 if discounting injuries and non-prime 12/14 KG)
-Curry's team over performed in 4 years, underperformed in 2 (3-0 discounting injuries)

Data:

Spoiler:

So Hakeem is definitely ahead. But if we account for injuries/primes, Hakeem's not clearly better than Curry, barely ahead of Magic, he doesn't have more over-performing years than Shaq. Neither Wilt and Garnett look bad by this metric, though they don't look as good.

It's also worth considering: Team playoff over performance rewards someone for being a worse player in the regular season.

Let's consider a thought experiment: Let's say we change Shaq's career, so that he performs exactly the same in the playoffs, but coasts significantly more in the regular season. By every logical measure, we should consider this new Shaq as the worse player. But in this metric (team playoff performance as an SRS underdog), Shaq would *improve*. This seems backwards to me. Hakeem is pretty clearly the worse regular season performer of the bunch: are we sure this metric isn't just rewarding him for being worse for most of the season?

Overall, I'm not sure team stats are a good argument for Hakeem. But can we argue improved playoff performance? See Part 3 in the next post...

DraymondGold · Post #24 » by **DraymondGold** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 8:53 pm

Part 3: How much can we credit Team Over performance to Hakeem?

Hakeem is definitely a playoff riser. But I've argued before he's not enough of a riser to make up for the regular season deficit. Let's check Augmented Plus Minus (an approximation of RAPM in small sample sizes)...

Playoff Improvements in Augmented Plus Minus (1997-2021):

Spoiler:

Based on how much other players improve, how realistic is it to expect Hakeem improves by more than 10, 15, 20%? Is that improvement enough to catch up to other players' career value, particularly if he needs to make up for the (rather large) regular season deficit?

Let's see if Hakeem is close enough to the competing players such that a ~10–20% playoff improvement makes him a better playoff performer by enough that he makes up the regular season gap. The career stats:
-Approximate Career raw WOWY (measures true impact, but doesn't correct for teammates and has high uncertainty)
-Approximate Career adjusted WOWY (measure true impact, corrects for teammates, but has high uncertainty)
-Career Win Shares (less uncertainty, but may not accurately measure defense or certain aspects of creation)
-VORP, i.e. Career Basketball Reference BPM (less uncertainty, but may not accurately measure defense or certain aspects of creation)

Approximate Career raw WOWY (prime WOWY per game x total games):
-Curry: +10.2 per game * 882 games= +8996.4 in his career (40% ahead of Hakeem)
-Oscar: +8.4 per game * 1040 games= +8736.0 in his career (36% ahead of Hakeem)
-Garnett: +5.7 per game * 1462 games = +8333.4 in his career (29% ahead of Hakeem)
-West: +7.8 per game * 932 games = +7269.6 in his career (13% ahead of Hakeem)
-Shaq: +5.5 per game * 1207 games = +6638.5 in his career (3% ahead of Hakeem)
-Hakeem: +5.2 per game * 1238 games= +6437.6. in his career
-Bird: +5.3 per game * 897 games = 4754.1 in his career
-Magic: +4.7 per game * 906 games = 4258.2 in his career
-Wilt: +1.2 per game * 1045 games = 1254 in his career *[note Wilt's prime WOWY is dominated by 1965, when he was apparently playing injured!]

Approximate Career Adjusted WOWY (average between prime WOWYR/alt-WOWYR/GPM per game * total games):
[Curry's stats unavailable]
-Garnett: +6.3 per game * 1462 games = +9210.6 in his career (35% ahead of Hakeem)
-Oscar: +8.0 per game * 1040 games= +8320.0 in his career (22% ahead of Hakeem)
-Magic: +9.0 per game * 906 games = +8154 in his career (19% ahead of Hakeem
-Shaq: +6.4 per game * 1207 games = +7724.8 in his career (13% ahead of Hakeem)
-Hakeem: +5.5 per game * 1238 games= +6809. in his career
-West: +7.3 per game * 932 games = +6803.6 in his career (equal to Hakeem)
-Wilt: +5.2 per game * 1045 games = 5434 in his career *[note Wilt's prime WOWY is dominated by 1965, when he was apparently playing injured! This likely biases WOWYR too.]
-Bird: +5.3 per game * 897 games = 4754.1 in his career *[note Bird has highest adjusted WOWYR uncertainty, likely due to WOWYR over-crediting small-sample Reggie Lewis for the Celtics success in 88-91. Bird is +7.9 WOWYR from 80-83, which is on pace for +7086.3 for his career, above Hakeem).

In available impact metrics we have for everyone, Curry, Garnett, Oscar are far above any reasonable playoff improvement from Hakeem. Shaq is also above Hakeem in both stats, 13% above in adjusted WOWY metrics. West is equal to Hakeem in adjusted WOWY metrics, 13% ahead in raw WOWY metrics. Magic's far below in raw WOWY but far ahead in adjusted WOWY metrics. The only two players clearly below Hakeem (Bird and Wilt) in both stats both have contextual reasons to distrust their numbers.

What about box stats?
Total Career VORP (Basketball Reference's Box Plus Minus over total career):
[Wilt/West/Ocar unavailable]
-Garnett: 96.86 (31% ahead of Hakeem)
-Magic: 79.97 (1% ahead of Hakeem)
-Bird: 77.24 (equal to Hakeem)
-Shaq: 75.51 (equal to Hakeem)
-Hakeem: 74.22 (equal to Hakeem)
-Curry: 65.61

Total Career Backpicks VORP N/A

Total Career Win Shares:
-Wilt: 247.26 (52% ahead of Hakeem)
-Garnett: 191.42 (18% ahead of Hakeem)
-Oscar: 189.21 (16% ahead of Hakeem)
-Shaq: 181.71 (12% ahead of Hakeem)
-Hakeem: 162.77
-West: 162.58 (equal to Hakeem)
-Magic: 155.79
-Bird: 145.83
-Curry: 128.00

While the reputation is box stats will undervalue Hakeem's defense, they're actually more favorable for him over perimeter players relative to actual impact metrics. I wonder if the box stats are missing some of the subtler forms of creation for the perimeter players or overrating the creation of Hakeem. Regardless, in box stats Wilt, Garnett (again), and Oscar (again) far above any reasonable playoff improvement from Hakeem. Shaq's (again) ahead of Hakeem in both stats by a small amount. Magic's again ahead in one stat and behind in the other, as is Bird (both by small margin). Curry's now behind in both (perhaps because box stats miss off-ball value).

Note that these career stats don't curve older players up for their era having worse longevity (college, worse medicine, worse training, worse tools, etc.), which would give a boost to Wilt/West/Oscar.

In sum:
1) Team success: Wilt, Magic, Curry, ~Bird all have years clearly ahead of Hakeem in playoff-only team stats even in years without their best co stars (West, Kareem, KD, Walton / prime McHale). Garnett and Shaq (and Bird by a less uncertain margin) do too you value the regular season at all. I argue some of this gap for some of these players cannot be entirely explained by supporting cast
2) Team over performing in the playoffs: Adjusting for prime and injuries, Hakeem does not look clearly better than Curry, and is not that much ahead of Magic or Shaq (in that order). Neither Wilt or Garnett look bad here. Note that this stat may not be a good player ranker, as it can reward playing worse in the regular sesason.
3) It's not reasonable to assume Hakeem improves in the playoffs enough to make up the gap in Career Value. Garnett or Oscar are clearly ahead of Hakeem in every one of these career stat, Shaq is slightly ahead in every one of these career stats, Curry is clearly ahead if you value impact metrics at all, Wilt is clearly ahead if you value box metrics at all or note the contextual factors limiting the accuracy of Wilt's WOWY. West looks slightly of Hakeem (in raw WOWY, otherwise similar), Magic looks similar, Bird looks worse (but has contextual factors limiting WOWYR accuracy).

All in all, I'm just not sure the team performance favors Hakeem. If we look at current career value in a variety of stats, there's also plenty of players who seem far enough ahead of Hakeem that any reasonable playoff improvement by Hakeem wouldn't make up the gap.

rk2023 · Post #25 » by **rk2023** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:08 pm

Am out of town. Haven’t changed too much of my view, where Hakeem will be my premier pick when I get to vote. Deciding between the two basketball goliaths or Magic for my secondary vote, and plan to nominate Kobe.

70sFan · Post #26 » by **70sFan** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:24 pm

I finally created Shaq offensive possessions video(s) vs Duncan from 2002 WCSF. I had to split it into two videos, my old laptop sucks recently:

G1:

Watch on YouTube

ISO Plays: 2/8 FGA, 2 fouls drawn
Overall: 4/13 FGA, 3 fouls drawn

G2-G5:

Watch on YouTube

G2:

ISO Plays: 2/4 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge
Overall: 2/4 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge

G3:

ISO Plays: 4/7 FGA, 1 fouls drawn
Overall: 5/9 FGA, 1 fouls drawn, 1 charge

G4:

ISO Plays: 1/1 FGA, 0 fouls drawn
Overall: 2/6 FGA, 1 fouls drawn,

G5:

ISO Plays: 2/7 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge
Overall: 3/8 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge

Total:

ISO Plays: 11/27 FGA, 9 fouls drawn, 2 charges
Overall: 16/40 FGA, 11 fouls drawn, 3 charges

Duncan defended Shaq on 43% of his total shots and 29% of his total shots came against Shaq in isolation. That's 8 shots per game (5.4 attempts from isolation).

If we exclude game 4 (the only game when Robinson played more than 30 minutes), then Shaq took 34 out of 76 shots against Duncan (45%) and converted them at 41% from the field.

All in all, I think we can conclude that Duncan indeed played significant periods on Shaq and slowed him down considerably (he shot 40% vs Duncan and 48% against the rest of the team, 41% if you want to include only isolation scoring).

Would you like me to do similar analysis for 1995 finals?

One_and_Done · Post #27 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 9:58 pm

70sFan wrote:I finally created Shaq offensive possessions video(s) vs Duncan from 2002 WCSF. I had to split it into two videos, my old laptop sucks recently:

G1:

Watch on YouTube

ISO Plays: 2/8 FGA, 2 fouls drawn
Overall: 4/13 FGA, 3 fouls drawn

G2-G5:

Watch on YouTube

G2:

ISO Plays: 2/4 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge
Overall: 2/4 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge

G3:

ISO Plays: 4/7 FGA, 1 fouls drawn
Overall: 5/9 FGA, 1 fouls drawn, 1 charge

G4:

ISO Plays: 1/1 FGA, 0 fouls drawn
Overall: 2/6 FGA, 1 fouls drawn,

G5:

ISO Plays: 2/7 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge
Overall: 3/8 FGA, 3 fouls drawn, 1 charge

Total:

ISO Plays: 11/27 FGA, 9 fouls drawn, 2 charges
Overall: 16/40 FGA, 11 fouls drawn, 3 charges

Duncan defended Shaq on 43% of his total shots and 29% of his total shots came against Shaq in isolation. That's 8 shots per game (5.4 attempts from isolation).

If we exclude game 4 (the only game when Robinson played more than 30 minutes), then Shaq took 34 out of 76 shots against Duncan (45%) and converted them at 41% from the field.

All in all, I think we can conclude that Duncan indeed played significant periods on Shaq and slowed him down considerably (he shot 40% vs Duncan and 48% against the rest of the team, 41% if you want to include only isolation scoring).

Would you like me to do similar analysis for 1995 finals?

The only thing I'd add to this excellent post is:
1) Let's not forget the possessions vs Duncan where Shaq can't get a shot, because Duncan is doing too good of a job denying him space; those were very valuable too, and
2) Let's remember that on alot of possessions Duncan was keeping Shaq from getting the ball at all, due to blocking him out, preventing him establishing post position to begin with, or cutting off his passing angles.

You can see in some possessions Shaq is too tired from his battle with Timmy to run up the floor promptly, or to get back on D.

OhayoKD · Post #28 » by **OhayoKD** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:10 pm

This will be my Voting post
1. Hakeem

There have been many statistical cases in the last two threads and both enigma and f4p have made excellent arguments for Hakeem as history's biggest playoff-riser. But before I get to that I'll address what is probably the biggest deterrent for Hakeem's case at this point, accomplishment. He does not have so many top 2 poy finishes(though I wonder if that would that remain true if the current board redid those votes). He was not respected by MVP voters(though I would ponder if jordan being voted higher on worse teams in 85 and 87 was really a reflection of goodness), and he only was recognized as the league's most valuable regular seaosn player once(though I'd argue he should have won it twice). Indeed, one might be tempted to view him as they view Garnett:

Doctor MJ wrote:I realized though as I was going through that last pass year-by-year and considering something like where he belonged in my DPOY ballot that I'd been tying myself in some logical knots putting him above a guy like Duncan. While I can intellectually justify why KG's team defenses weren't stronger based on things that were unfair to him about his context (teammates, scheme, etc), the reality is that in doing so I was effectively projecting what I "knew" about KG back into those earlier years when I did that rather than judging his achievement based on what actually happened - and that gets me back to the question I kept circling back to:

Do I want to do this project by imagining how things would go if...?, or, Do I want to talk about what guys actually did?

There is one difference. Actually, two. Two championships to go with two finals MVPs in the playing his best(or near-best) basketball. Garnett won one as he massively scaled down his minutes in a role closer to what Draymond offers than what we would want from one of the best at their best. But Hakeem did not win two scaling down, he won two as his team's best scorer, defender, and creator to crown an impressive apex where, at least at the end of two consecutive seasons, he was the consensus best player in the league. Impact suggests he should have entered that conversation much sooner. By my guess, he was already the league's best player by 93, but set that aside.

While 2 is not >4 or 5. It is = to 2. Wilt may have more MVP's and POY votes, but for the accomplishment that matters most, he is dead equal with Hakeem. And I think it's worth asking if that can be put down to context. Did Goliath win as much because of lesser oppurtunity?

I don't think so. I do not think Hakeem had chances like 68 and 69. Nor do I think he had a chance like Wilt did when he won in 72 or 67. In fact, I think one could argue both his championships were more akin to what Wilt had in 62 and 65, the difference being Hakeem made it happen, while Wilt did not.

While Wilt is often presented as someone who never had a fair-shake, truly I think that's far more fitting for Hakeem. All the more impressive then that when it mattered most, Hakeem accomplished just as much. Maybe more. After all, Wilt, like Garnett, had scaled down by 72. And I do not think him defeating an undermanned Kareem clarified he was the better player. Hakeem's defeat of Robinson, to most, left no doubt.

And then there are the statistics

So let's dig into 80s Hakeem. On paper, it looks a lot like prime Duncan. Top 3 all time D, and skilled mid 20s volume scoring, post play on decent efficiency isn't the best offense, but for a 2 way big it's fine, there are lots of offensive players I like more than Duncan too. However, to note, offensive Win Shares is more friendly to Duncan than Hakeem. Duncan is 23rd all time in NBA career OWS, Hakeem is 66th. Hakeem is below some dudes like Melo and LMA and soon to be Derozan in career OWS who's midrange volume scoring games are supposed to not translate to that stat at all. The main reason is that OWS really doesn't like 80s and early 90s Hakeem. 89 and 90 Hakeem is putting up 24-25ppg on .54-.55 TS% and playing 82 games, seems credible offensively even if not 93/94 level. He finishes 40th and 93rd in OWS despite this. In comparison Duncan in 00 and 01, kind of similarly below 02 and 03 (he leads the league in OWS in 02), is 12th in OWS (74 games) in 00 and 23rd in 01. Duncan also makes top 20 OWS in 99, 07 and 10, while Hakeem doesn't outside of 93 and 94.
Why does Duncan have OWS advantage over Hakeem? The difference is subtle and I believe has to do with passing. Hakeem from 85-96 put up these assists per 100: 1.8, 2.6, 3.8, 2.7, 2.3, 3.6, 3.1, 3.0, 4.6, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7. Duncan from 98-09 put up 3.8, 3.3, 4.3, 4.1, 4.9, 5.3, 4.5, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4, 4.4, 5.7. Hakeem gets it together to Duncan ish level from 93-96 as a passer, however the numbers suggest on paper earlier Hakeem was plausibly a bit of a black hole. In 89 Hakeem was 9th for players on his team with 500 mp+ in Ast%, in 90 7th. In 00 Duncan was 4th using same exercise, in 01 5th.

Well, Hakeem's theoretical advantage would be defensive which even moonbeam's teammate analysis seems to suggest does not properly capture the defensive value of bigs. With Hakeem largely considered the best defender post-russell, that may undersell him(actually, if we value actual winning, it probably does). That aside, Duncan has already been voted in. And whatever his ws/48 may suggest, his impact portfolio probably clears everyone on the board(imo it actually suggests he should have actually been voted higher).

There is a box-derived formula that puts Hakeem #1 all-time called goat-points. As there are equivalents that see drob and dennis rodman competing for bitw. Hakeem falling short on winshares is a bit like Jordan falling short of david robinson in height. It may lead to an unimpressive output, but so what?

As is, more sophisticated "box" does not see such a big gulf:

Hakeem 1986 - 1995:
24.1 Adj. Points / 75 -> 27.7
2.1% rTS -> 4.4
3.4 Box Creation -> 5.2
3.4 Passer Rating -> 4.3
5.9 PIPM
5.0 BPM -> 6.9

Duncan 1998 - 2007:
24.7 Adj. Points / 75 -> 25.8
+3.0% rTS -> 4.3
3.8 Box Creation -> 4.5
4.8 Passer Rating -> 5.0
5.9 PIPM
5.2 BPM -> 6.3
4.8 AuPM/G -> 4.9

And then we get into the winning(samples large and small):

Spoiler:

Notably, Lebron's 2009(and 2010), two-years which very possibly(I'd say likely) were more valuable than any regular season Steph has mattered, are ommited by the one and only set of sourced RAPM data where Steph looks like a viable #1. Indeed, when we look at sets(JE, Cheema) which includes everyone else(duncan, kg, ect), Steph looks dramatically worse and we are not even getting into the playoffs. Those sets happen to include a bunch of stretches with those two-historical high-points in terms of empirical value. And however you interpret shot-charts rs-only model(i do not think 15-17 lebron and 15-17 grading as peers is great for steph's case), that all goes away in the postseason.

Because we are not comparing him to Lebron I am not going to say this prohibits Steph from nomination or a spot in the top 10. But presenting him as the "impact king" to me feels off. He may well be the rs-impact king of the last 12 years(more like 10 if you are using 3 or 5-year), that's not so much of an advantage this high as I think it's being presented.

I am also open to Kobe who, even by ben's model(very low on his peak I feel), grades out as the 10th most valuable career(he adjusts after the fact for reasons unclairfied). That may not be true with what Steph's recently done, but it does advantage him over say...Larry Bird. And here I am curious what the reasoning for those nominating him are. He has the same injury concerns as Steph. Perhaps an even more dramatic track-record of production/team-level drop-offs...

Spoiler:

90sAllDecade wrote:Also if you value Colt's opinon, he also lists Birds many playoff failures.

Larry Bird's Long List of Playoff Failures

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.

So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

For those who care about career value, even with Ben's inputs(sees Bird as a top 5 peak!), the formula he constructed on the basis of srs-championship studies saw Bird fall behind the likes of Kobe, David Robinson, Malone, and Dirk.

I'm not really sure I see much of a case for Bird here beyond going gaga for his unreplicated rookie rs signal. On the front of team-success he is less accomplished than Steph(rs and postseason), he is not clearly advantaged in terms of impact vs anyone left, he is has significant weaknesses in his game on both ends of the floor, and he has the profile of a guy I would expect to translate poorly across eras(can't really gain separation from defenders athletically, slow-footed yet not notably big or strong, was an era-best shooter on very low volume, not a great ball-handler, ect).

He is for my money, relative to to nomination candidates, not playoff-resilient, not era-portable, not exceptionally accomplished, and has poor longetvity. Last project, longetvity was a fair consideration against Steph, but now I don't really see it. Perhaps if you put alot of value in "3-straight mvps" but frankly I think Steph had an equally strong basketball case for 3 in a row.

While he is hyped as a top-5 candidate, I do not know it's really justified and am curious how people who are voting for bird as their nominee have decided he is the strongest candidate.

nominate
Kobe Bryant

Post #29 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:18 pm

cupcakesnake wrote:I have questions related to the Jokic comp.
They're a pretty harmonious comparison. They both use the scoring threat provided by their physical advantage (size and strength) to compromise the defense and then punish with all-time great passing, putting the ball wherever the defense is the most in trouble. It really is the GOAT level offensive formula and unsolvable for defenses. These 2 also get compared for deriving almost all their value on the offensive side of the ball, while their defense is most generously described as: their team still found a way to build a good enough defense to win a championship with them. But we just watched Jokic be pretty...good? At defense? For a whole playoff run. Not elite defense worth mentioning amongst the greats, but Jokic was playing a very large role in a good playoff defense. The scheme wasn't built to hide him, and no secondary rim protector was saving him. You could argue that Denver compensated with elite POA defense, but it's hard to watch those games and not see that Jokic was being asked to do normal rim protector stuff (snuffing out plays and protecting the paint) and doing just fine at it. I've watched lots and lots of Magic games, but I didn't experience him in real time, nor have I watched a whole playoff run. So my question is: did Magic have stretches like Jokic just had where his defense was a little more on point? I know Jokic is slow and has very little vertical rim protection, but he still looked capable of routinely disrupting plays and holding down the back line. Magic (aside from some nifty anticipation steals) to me has never looked as confident or disruptive on defense as Jokic did.

I'm not arguing Magic's defense should put him lower. I am very comfortable with Magic in the 6-10 range. His control over offense is an outlier to me compared to most of the top 20. But is Magic's defense the biggest weakness amongst the elite? We just voted in Bill Russell, who someone (not me!) might make a similar argument about in terms of his scoring/offense. I know there's plenty of weaknesses to pick a part in the top 20 (Hakeem's passing, Shaq and Wilt's FTs, Bird's rim pressure, Kobe shot selection). Am I indexing too hard on Magic's defense and am I too low on it right now?

Wanted to hit this point specifically from the previous thread.

I'll say flat out that I really have no issues with folks ranking Peak Jokic over Peak Magic - I frankly think we need to be careful about assuming that we've ever seen a player as good as Jokic is now...though we also need to be careful assuming that there will never be any answers to him simply because 4 teams didn't.

Re: "the scheme wasn't built to hide him". I suppose it depends on what you mean by "hide". He can't be literally hid, but so much of the playoff skepticism toward him came after seeing defenses with him on them were getting destroyed with ease.

Now, I was right with others saying that it was a mistake to expect that any team with a backcourt of Facundo Campazzo and Austin Rivers would ever be able to stop an opponent with an excellent backcourt, but just as I think Jokic got too much criticism for that moment, I also think it was essential that Denver surround Jokic with more quality defensive players as well as being very thoughtful to how they could best avoid being burnt by the fact that Jokic just can't ever be quick enough to be un-burnable.

I also think it's important to give Aaron Gordon his due specifically. No Gordon isn't a full on defensive anchor...but I don't really think getting such an anchor is an option if you're playing Jokic. Instead in Gordon you get an exceptionally athletic 4 who can guard guys from the 2 to the 5 quite well.

Now, coming back to Magic, do I think Magic could have played Jokic's defensive role as well as Jokic? No...but of course, Magic is small enough you can play him with an actual defensive anchor. Whatever shortcoming Gordon has relative to DPOY level guys, building around Magic doesn't have those same constraints the way Jokic does.

Of course this does raise a question of where you want to use Magic defensively. You can play him with an anchor, which is nice, but in today's game that means Magic is going to have to guard guys out to the arc, and if those concerns are what anyone is really focusing on, I get it.

As I've said, this time I'm really trying to focus on what guys actually did in their own era, and in that era Magic wasn't going to be stretched that way. The Lakers had the success they did primarily on offense of course...but they were also playing with a "defensive anchor" in Kareem that was super-old and far past his defensive prime. Imagine what the Lakers could have done defensively if they're goal for the 5 position was to get someone who could really move like a defensive anchor.

ShaqAttac · Post #30 » by **ShaqAttac** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:28 pm

OhayoKD wrote:This will be my Voting post
1. Hakeem

There have been many statistical cases in the last two threads and both enigma and f4p have made excellent arguments for Hakeem as history's biggest playoff-riser. But before I get to that I'll address what is probably the biggest deterrent for Hakeem's case at this point, accomplishment. He does not have so many top 2 poy finishes(though I wonder if that would that remain true if the current board redid those votes). He was not respected by MVP voters(though I would ponder if jordan being voted higher on worse teams in 85 and 87 was really a reflection of goodness), and he only was recognized as the league's most valuable regular seaosn player once(though I'd argue he should have won it twice). Indeed, one might be tempted to view him as they view Garnett:
Doctor MJ wrote:I realized though as I was going through that last pass year-by-year and considering something like where he belonged in my DPOY ballot that I'd been tying myself in some logical knots putting him above a guy like Duncan. While I can intellectually justify why KG's team defenses weren't stronger based on things that were unfair to him about his context (teammates, scheme, etc), the reality is that in doing so I was effectively projecting what I "knew" about KG back into those earlier years when I did that rather than judging his achievement based on what actually happened - and that gets me back to the question I kept circling back to:

Do I want to do this project by imagining how things would go if...?, or, Do I want to talk about what guys actually did?

There is one difference. Actually, two. Two championships to go with two finals MVPs in the playing his best(or near-best) basketball. Garnett won one as he massively scaled down his minutes in a role closer to what Draymond offers than what we would want from one of the best at their best. But Hakeem did not win two scaling down, he won two as his team's best scorer, defender, and creator to crown an impressive apex where, at least at the end of two consecutive seasons, he was the consensus best player in the league. Impact suggests he should have entered that conversation much sooner. By my guess, he was already the league's best player by 93, but set that aside.

While 2 is not >4 or 5. It is = to 2. Wilt may have more MVP's and POY votes, but for the accomplishment that matters most, he is dead equal with Hakeem. And I think it's worth asking if that can be put down to context. Did Goliath win as much because of lesser oppurtunity?

I don't think so. I do not think Hakeem had chances like 68 and 69. Nor do I think he had a chance like Wilt did when he won in 72 or 67. In fact, I think one could argue both his championships were more akin to what Wilt had in 62 and 65, the difference being Hakeem made it happen, while Wilt did not.

While Wilt is often presented as someone who never had a fair-shake, truly I think that's far more fitting for Hakeem. All the more impressive then that when it mattered most, Hakeem accomplished just as much. Maybe more. After all, Wilt, like Garnett, had scaled down by 72. And I do not think him defeating an undermanned Kareem clarified he was the better player. Hakeem's defeat of Robinson, to most, left no doubt.

And then there are the statistics
So let's dig into 80s Hakeem. On paper, it looks a lot like prime Duncan. Top 3 all time D, and skilled mid 20s volume scoring, post play on decent efficiency isn't the best offense, but for a 2 way big it's fine, there are lots of offensive players I like more than Duncan too. However, to note, offensive Win Shares is more friendly to Duncan than Hakeem. Duncan is 23rd all time in NBA career OWS, Hakeem is 66th. Hakeem is below some dudes like Melo and LMA and soon to be Derozan in career OWS who's midrange volume scoring games are supposed to not translate to that stat at all. The main reason is that OWS really doesn't like 80s and early 90s Hakeem. 89 and 90 Hakeem is putting up 24-25ppg on .54-.55 TS% and playing 82 games, seems credible offensively even if not 93/94 level. He finishes 40th and 93rd in OWS despite this. In comparison Duncan in 00 and 01, kind of similarly below 02 and 03 (he leads the league in OWS in 02), is 12th in OWS (74 games) in 00 and 23rd in 01. Duncan also makes top 20 OWS in 99, 07 and 10, while Hakeem doesn't outside of 93 and 94.
Why does Duncan have OWS advantage over Hakeem? The difference is subtle and I believe has to do with passing. Hakeem from 85-96 put up these assists per 100: 1.8, 2.6, 3.8, 2.7, 2.3, 3.6, 3.1, 3.0, 4.6, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7. Duncan from 98-09 put up 3.8, 3.3, 4.3, 4.1, 4.9, 5.3, 4.5, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4, 4.4, 5.7. Hakeem gets it together to Duncan ish level from 93-96 as a passer, however the numbers suggest on paper earlier Hakeem was plausibly a bit of a black hole. In 89 Hakeem was 9th for players on his team with 500 mp+ in Ast%, in 90 7th. In 00 Duncan was 4th using same exercise, in 01 5th.

Well, Hakeem's theoretical advantage would be defensive which even moonbeam's teammate analysis seems to suggest does not properly capture the defensive value of bigs. With Hakeem largely considered the best defender post-russell, that may undersell him(actually, if we value actual winning, it probably does). That aside, Duncan has already been voted in. And whatever his ws/48 may suggest, his impact portfolio probably clears everyone on the board(imo it actually suggests he should have actually been voted higher).

There is a box-derived formula that puts Hakeem #1 all-time called goat-points. As there are equivalents that see drob and dennis rodman competing for bitw. Hakeem falling short on winshares is a bit like Jordan falling short of david robinson in height. It may lead to an unimpressive output, but so what?

As is, more sophisticated "box" does not see such a big gulf:
Hakeem 1986 - 1995:
24.1 Adj. Points / 75 -> 27.7
2.1% rTS -> 4.4
3.4 Box Creation -> 5.2
3.4 Passer Rating -> 4.3
5.9 PIPM
5.0 BPM -> 6.9

Duncan 1998 - 2007:
24.7 Adj. Points / 75 -> 25.8
+3.0% rTS -> 4.3
3.8 Box Creation -> 4.5
4.8 Passer Rating -> 5.0
5.9 PIPM
5.2 BPM -> 6.3
4.8 AuPM/G -> 4.9

And then we get into the winning(samples large and small):
Spoiler:
Yeah, I don't think that sort of analysis leads to where you think it does...

Magic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991
Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 with

Micheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998
Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 with

Hakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999
Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 with

[spoiler]
ElGee wrote:While we're here, I want to echo something Doc MJ said. It's plausible to me Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest player in NBA history (depending on criteria). He also may very well be outside the top-10. Why the uncertainty?

First of all, he was a foreign Muslim dude playing in Houston. Not exactly Air Jordan in Chi-Town or Magic in the Wood. And I wonder, as we are wont to do, if much of his impact was muted early on because of this. There's only so much re-examining one can do here without firing up every Rockets game from the 80s and hand-tracking on/off and everything else.

Then again, some of the other evidence suggests Hakeem wasn't as valuable as the eye test would indicate. That Houston wasn't as lost without him and that distributing what he did across the team wasn't impossible. (Same can be said of Duncan.) We have such a tendency to de-emphasize teammates and coaching as years go on and only remember co-stars...of which, Hakeem basically had none.

I do know that in 1986, in his 2nd year, Olajuwon missed 14 games. Houston was -0.8 per contest in that time, which was 7.3 points per game worse than in the 68 games Hakeem played (+6.5 in those games), improving both on offense and defense.

I know that in 1991 -- a notable down year for Dream -- in the 26 games he missed Houston outscored it's opponents by 2.4 ppg (16-10 record). They were only slightly better with him (+4.0 overall) but while the defense improved about 3 points the offense regressed slightly.

I know that in 1992 -- another "bumpy" season -- in the 12 games he missed Houston was outscored by 10.8 points per. The DRtg was a dubious 117.2. With Dream, they were -0.2 (+10.6 difference).

I know that in 1995 when Hakeem missed 10 games, Houston was -4.3 without Olajuwon and +3.0 with him. Again, the offense was better, but the defense fell apart in his absence. (The DRtg was 116.8 without Hakeem.)

Those are big numbers. For those who didn't follow RPOY, I ran a bunch on older players. For some comparisons (the first number is net difference in lineup, the second is what that brought the team point differential to, or roughly SRS):
Walton 1978 +13.3 to 10.0
Walton 1977 +12.6 to 8.4
LeBron 08+10 +12.5 to 4.1 (average of 08 and 10)
Magic 1988 +10.9 to 7.2
West 1971 +10.9 to 4.5
Hakeem 1992 +10.6 to -0.2
Magic 1989 +10.4 to 7.8
King 1985 + 8.0 to -2.1
Shaq 00-01 +7.7 to 6.5
Kareem 1975 +7.7 to 1.7
Shaq 03 +7.6 to 3.7
Hakeem 1986 +7.3 to 6.5
Hakeem 1995 +7.3 to 3.0
West 1968 +6.4 to 7.8
Nash 2009 +6.3 to 2.5
Kareem 1978 +5.8 to
Garnett 2009 +5.4 to 9.2
Shaq 02 +5.1 to 8.1
West 1969 +4.9 to 5.4
Shaq 1996 +4.4 to 7.1
Pippen 1994 +4.2 to 3.6
Shaq 1998 +3.5 to 8.7
Pippen 1998 +3.1 to 8.6
Shaq 1997 +2.9 to 5.4
Hakeem 1991 +1.7 to 4.0
Shaq 04 +1.4 to 4.2

So in 1992, Hakeem's team was really not good, despite not many notable changes. Well, other than team turmoil and a coaching change, which is often brought back to Hakeem.

The next two bits of evidence offer equal confusion on Olajuwon, suggesting he could be GOAT-level or he could be a tier off the all-timers we're discussing.

Team Quality/Role

When Olajuwon shot well in the playoffs, his team actually fared worse. That suggests a team not reliant on his efficient scoring to win, often the mark of a good or balanced team. When he shot poorly, their record barely changed (.500).

Then again, when he shot the ball a lot (25+ FGAs), something he did frequently in the 90s, Houston fared very well (.727%). This suggests Iverson's Law of unipolar offense, where a player carrying massive offensive load is helping an otherwise flawed team, regardless of his shooting percentage. Interesting to note, then, that in Hakeem's legendary 95 run (only +0.9 TS%) the Rockets exploded for 115.2 points/100. They didn't win that title with defense, they won it with offense around Hakeem.

So, how "good" is Hakeem in a vacuum if we simply surround him with good shooters? (Drexler played very well in that run, I don't want to undersell his role as a slasher who could create his own.) Personally, I find that to be a difficult question to answer. History shows us two things:

(1) The best offenses are run by fairly ball-dominant guards/great creators for others
(2) The best post offenses are run from the high-post, again to create for others

It gets back to Wilt, where scoring 40 or 45 points in a game isn't really something lifting a team much if the wealth can fairly easily be redistributed with him out of the game. There's some of that in theory with Olajuwon over his career -- he can't just build great offenses even with good shooting pieces like Smith, Maxwell and Floyd -- but in 1995 what he was doing seems fairly awesome (on top of the obvious eye-candy). Although Houston did shoot 39.1% from 3, so some luck might be involved there. Even so, reverting to RS averages only lops off about 1.5 pts of efficiency per 100.

Raising his Offensive Game

Rightfully, this is what Hakeem is known for, and stands out fairly well among peers. First of all, by game score, he had a bad playoff game in the BR available data (91-97) about as infrequently as Michael Jordan (Shaq, btw, almost never). He had good games second only to Jordan (although well behind -- volume scoring for the Hollinger win).

In 15 elimination games from 1991 to 1997 Olajuwon averaged 27/12/4 3 blocks 3 TOV on 57% TS. Outside the box score, I'd say he was one of the better elimination game players ever.

Now, he was in the Western Conference in the late 80s/early 90s, so the defensive quality he faced wasn't that good, at least by DRtg. It's almost 4 points worse than Shaq, for comparison in prime years. But then again, Olajuwon totally cranks his game up in the playoffs in his best seasons.

Of the other modern all-timers, he increases his scoring, shooting, ORtg and WS/48 the most of anyone come playoff time. His numbers in those years are 27.6 ppg/57.7 TS% (Shaq's, btw, are 26.6/56.7 TS% -- although if we normalize by DRtg Shaq has the better efficiency at the same volume).

So where does that leave us? Well, with a guy who could be Iversoning (in the good way) an offense and is an amazing defender. Or, it could leave us with a guy who's offensive contributions can be replaced to a certain degree. I have to say, I find Houston's 1995 ORtg in the 22 game sample fascinating, since Hakeem's efficiency was barely above average.

Personally, I settle in the middle on Olajuwon, with his career ups and downs. But I do question if that's wrong. My instincts tell me if he had a better situation (eg San Antonio, 1998!!!) that we might regard Dream as a serious, serious GOAT candidate. Yes, even challenging Jordan.

OhayoKD wrote:
ShaqAttac wrote:

Sure!
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104511802#p104511802
(some methodological discussion here if you're interested)
[spoiler]
Regular Season parity with MJ/Magic:
OhayoKD wrote:

Playoff riser:
As he was also arguably the nba's greatest playoff-riser(94-95 Rox played 62-win basketball vs playoff opponents, and 86 victory against the Magic is probably the best "david beats goliath" moment of the period), and a longevity giant, I feel pretty confident considering him among the best of the best, even if his resume looks a little lean.

OhayoKD wrote:

Mostly covered the playoff-stuff in the first post but he's also 1 of 3 MVP-winners to come back from 3-1 down(Lebron and Russell being the others), and like already covered, 2nd best winning% among MVP's as a playoff-underdog, 2nd most wins, needed much less help than Magic to beat a +10psrs opponent(Jordan has never). You can check the box-numbers yourself on BBR if you want.

...I would argue that Hakeem is already "edging on jordan-level" as he enters in the league. Actually probably clearing it through his first 3-years. Now account for the postseason where his teams and individual production jumps more than anyone, and maybe it's jordan edging on Hakeem/
You say, you don't like WOWY, but there is also RAPM where with full data Hakeem looks more valuable per-possession relative to shaq and kobe at the same age while playing more and as much respectively.

however you look at things(wowy, indirect, rapm, pollock), what I do not see is where Barkley grades out as similarly valuable. Hakeem's "production" and player profile is similar to(at least empirically) potential league-best forces that stack ups or beat the likes of Jordan and Shaq by "winning"(with a case for the best team-success since russell). If winshares and mvp-votes suggest Hakeem is a barkley tier player than I would wonder how meaningful such approaches are.

Regardless, I think I'm voting Hakeem at #1

Not sure who to vote for alternate but I am leaning Garnett for longevity. Could be moved on Wilt or Magic(i even see a case for Magic at 6 depending on how you view the hiv thing). I will abstain for now.

For nomination?

I am considering Mikan and Steph. I may end up deciding that based on whose more viable(early tidings say Steph). However, while I may nominate Steph, I do want to reiterate something I've said before about RAPM(and its derivatives):
I think people need to remember that RAPM(and it's derivatives) are artificial. They are also(like on/off) prone to issues with colinearity. While they make adjustments they are still susceptible to wonky rotations. Beyond that, they also curve down outliers. What you should be looking for in something like LEBRON, EPM or RAPM(ideally over extended samples) is how often a player hits at or near the top historically. It is there to establish a baseline. Not to establish how the best year of Draymond compares to the best year of Steph or CP3.

Per LEBRON, a "state of the art" apm derivative, here are the most valuable seasons(overall) since 2010:

Here are the most valuable seasons(per-possession) since 2010:

notice how best single-scoring years look around the same? That is not real. RAPM is not a substitute for real-world signals. The main benefit of something like WOWY(especially if you are looking at seasons without a player), is that you can truly see what happens to a team when a player leaves.

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”. RAPM can approximate that in most cases(given enough time), and it is advantaged in terms of stability(and probably even accuracy looking at hundreds of players), but it is not a replacement for the real thing.

RAPM is also a rate stat. KG may have scored the highest in 2008, but he averaged substantially less minutes than his peers(. Something to keep in mind for those who think Kobe was undeserving of his MVP(he was not).

I say all this, because, largely based on those artificially capped scores, I think people assume a season scaring at or near the top(cough 2016 Steph cough) is actually at the upper-limit of player-value. However, when we use RAPM as a tool with it's limitations in mind, I think it's pretty hard to argue it has a solid case as the most valuable regular season of the last 20-years:
[spoiler]
OhayoKD wrote:I think there are arguments to be had for Russell, Kareem(and by extension 77 Walton) on a "corp" or "era-relative impact" lens, but with what you seem to be looking at(box-score playing a factor, post-merger years), yeah. Do not think there is much of a "statistical" counter-case. If we look at the seasons you've picked:
1993playoffs wrote:Other’s candidates include 88-91 MJ . 67 Wilt , Curry 16 etc

2016 Curry? No, not really. For those tempted to toss 1-year rapm or rapm derivatives as positive evidence they're similar...
HeartBreakKid wrote:

As far as baseline goes(cheema's been used a bunch, so why don't we use the scaled-apm set Ben likes)
James is, arguably, the king of overall plus-minus stats. 2018 is the 25th season of league-wide plus-minus data, which covers nearly 40 percent of the shot-clock era and touches 12 of the top-20 players on this list. None have achieved LeBron’s heights: He holds four of the top-five scaled APM seasons on record, and six of the top eight. Since 2007, 10 of his 11 years land in the 99th percentile.

Even 15-17 regular-season Lebron grades out as a direct rival for 15-17 Steph by raw or adjusted data(1-year is directly comparable to), even with something relatively bearish on Lebron like shotcharts:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=106319069#p106319069

Getting into the "weeds" of 2009...
Like Nash, LeBron was supercharging dependent talent — finishers who disproportionately benefited from shots served to them on a silver platter. So with his talents in South Beach, Cleveland crumbled in 2011. While most teams fall off after losing a superstar, none imploded like the Lebron-less Cavs; in 21 games with a similar group of players, they played at an anemic 18-win pace (-8.9 SRS) before injuries ravaged their lineup. LeBron’s not worth 40 wins on a typical club, but no player in history has correlated more strongly with such massive, worst-to-first impact.

FWIW over a small sample(7 gms/szn) the 08-10 cavs played like a 19-win team) in games without Lebron. Perhaps more impressively, during 09/10, in 1785 minutes without Mo-Willams(best offensive teammate) and Ben Wallace(best defensive teammate), the cavs were +14. For a smaller-sample, in 630 minutes without either in 09, they were +10.

Over a much smaller sample(a bit under 700 minuites) 15/16 Steph holds up surprisingly well but not that well with his lineups scoring at +8.55 without Dray and +9 in 389 minutes without dray or klay. Note that these are much shorter stretches. Curry's minutes are significantly more tied to his best teammates than LeBron's are. Very small sample, but for comphrensiveness, in less than 300 minutes in 2016, Steph lineups score at +3.38 without Dray and(tiny 169 minute sample) -0.69 without Draymond or Klay.

And then we get into volume

(Lebron)

(Steph)

All considered I'd say there's an the evidence consistently supports 2009 Lebron being more valuable per-possession in the regular season. He's probably more valuable in 2010 too. And probably a peer in in his second Cleveland stint while coasting. And we know the postseason is not a winning case for Steph:

(Check where Steph's best teammate is)

Jordan's argument is probably weaker(though he benefits from uncertainty). He's drafted onto a better team(27-win without) and does not lead a better regular-season team until 1992 despite great fit by the back-half of 90.

Frankly, while one could point to conventional box-score as a marginal rs advantage, I think we should apply some context here.

Steph(and Jordan) created(volume) and scored at a nigh unprecedented level. Lebron also did that, but was also a strong secondary paint-protector, a mj-esque man defender(refer to the colts quote before), who was communicating and orchestrating on both-ends, was a more effecient creator(feel free to reference ben's passer-rating), handled the ball significantly more(making the turnover economy very impressive), and was facing substantially more defensive attention.

Then by box he(2009) blows right by both in the postseason(bpm/aupm/pipm/raptor). All considered, I think the "stats" are very clearly in Lebron's favor. And who knows how in his favor they'd be with a more reasonable(imo) set of weightings(BBR BPM puts jordan and steph within range of hakeem and dikembe respectively).

Notably, Lebron's 2009(and 2010), two-years which very possibly(I'd say likely) were more valuable than any regular season Steph has mattered, are ommited by the one and only set of sourced RAPM data where Steph looks like a viable #1. Indeed, when we look at sets(JE, Cheema) which includes everyone else(duncan, kg, ect), Steph looks dramatically worse and we are not even getting into the playoffs. Those sets happen to include a bunch of stretches with those two-historical high-points in terms of empirical value. And however you interpret shot-charts rs-only model(i do not think 15-17 lebron and 15-17 grading as peers is great for steph's case), that all goes away in the postseason.

Because we are not comparing him to Lebron I am not going to say this prohibits Steph from nomination or a spot in the top 10. But presenting him as the "impact king" to me feels off. He may well be the rs-impact king of the last 12 years(more like 10 if you are using 3 or 5-year), that's not so much of an advantage this high as I think it's being presented.

I am also open to Kobe who, even by ben's model(very low on his peak I feel), grades out as the 10th most valuable career(he adjusts after the fact for reasons unclairfied). That may not be true with what Steph's recently done, but it does advantage him over say...Larry Bird. And here I am curious what the reasoning for those nominating him are. He has the same injury concerns as Steph. Perhaps an even more dramatic track-record of production/team-level drop-offs...
Spoiler:
90sAllDecade wrote:Also if you value Colt's opinon, he also lists Birds many playoff failures.

Larry Bird's Long List of Playoff Failures

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.

So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

For those who care about career value, even with Ben's inputs(sees Bird as a top 5 peak!), the formula he constructed on the basis of srs-championship studies saw Bird fall behind the likes of Kobe, David Robinson, Malone, and Dirk.

I'm not really sure I see much of a case for Bird here beyond going gaga for his unreplicated rookie rs signal. On the front of team-success he is less accomplished than Steph(rs and postseason), he is not clearly advantaged in terms of impact vs anyone left, he is has significant weaknesses in his game on both ends of the floor, and he has the profile of a guy I would expect to translate poorly across eras(can't really gain separation from defenders athletically, slow-footed yet not notably big or strong, was an era-best shooter on very low volume, not a great ball-handler, ect).

He is for my money, relative to to nomination candidates, not playoff-resilient, not era-portable, not exceptionally accomplished, and has poor longetvity. Last project, longetvity was a fair consideration against Steph, but now I don't really see it. Perhaps if you put alot of value in "3-straight mvps" but frankly I think Steph had an equally strong basketball case for 3 in a row.

While he is hyped as a top-5 candidate, I do not know it's really justified and am curious how people who are voting for bird as their nominee have decided he is the strongest candidate.

how does stephs impact comp to shaq?

not sure who to vote 7

Post #31 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:36 pm

A quick hit on the part I'm still really thinking about for this vote:

Aside from Magic, the other 4 Nominees now are Wilt, Hakeem, KG & Shaq. I have Shaq as definitely the lowest of the 4.

I think I'm settled to have Hakeem ahead of KG for reasons that have a lot to do with how much of a crescendo Hakeem's peak was. I'm not actually sure who I'd draft higher for today's game, and I think Garnett certainly has a career argument considering how long he stayed great, but I think Hakeem has an excellent argument for having the 2nd best defensive career in NBA history, and offensively, the things he did with his footwork are just something else.

What about Wilt? I'm going to chew on this longer. For a number of years now I've had Wilt below the other two guys, but while I'm still quite critical of Wilt on the same points I was before, I have to acknowledge that from a POY perspective, he still comes out well ahead of the other two guys and would be much further ahead if not for Russell. While I think you can argue that KG & Hakeem are actually the all-around versions of Russell due to their offensive skills, obvious as a guy who voted Russell #1, it's hard for me to hold Russell against Wilt at this stage in the list.

Voting Duncan ahead of Wilt here for me certainly related to the extended influence he had on the Spurs franchise, which I would say Wilt was fundamentally incapable of having with his mindset at the time. I'm not comfortable at all saying Hakeem & KG couldn't have had a similar effect to Duncan, but obviously, they didn't in actuality have a career staying in one franchise for the better part of two decades allowing a coach to turn one franchise into the place not just for constant contention and great player development, but also the place to go as an owner when you know your organization is crap and you want to hire competent basketball people without being able to evaluate basketball people yourselves.

Easy enough to give Duncan the nod to all of these guys, but should I also have Hakeem & KG over Wilt for similar reasons? No they didn't do it...but they did stick around in one place longer than Wilt, did so with less coaching turnover, and at least in the case of KG, led a team to a title with a very limited head coach who as a result got named would of the greatest coaches in history. I think there's a very good chance that if Doc coached Wilt, Doc would just be another guy bounced quickly.

OhayoKD · Post #32 » by **OhayoKD** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:41 pm

ShaqAttac wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:This will be my Voting post
1. Hakeem

There have been many statistical cases in the last two threads and both enigma and f4p have made excellent arguments for Hakeem as history's biggest playoff-riser. But before I get to that I'll address what is probably the biggest deterrent for Hakeem's case at this point, accomplishment. He does not have so many top 2 poy finishes(though I wonder if that would that remain true if the current board redid those votes). He was not respected by MVP voters(though I would ponder if jordan being voted higher on worse teams in 85 and 87 was really a reflection of goodness), and he only was recognized as the league's most valuable regular seaosn player once(though I'd argue he should have won it twice). Indeed, one might be tempted to view him as they view Garnett:
Doctor MJ wrote:I realized though as I was going through that last pass year-by-year and considering something like where he belonged in my DPOY ballot that I'd been tying myself in some logical knots putting him above a guy like Duncan. While I can intellectually justify why KG's team defenses weren't stronger based on things that were unfair to him about his context (teammates, scheme, etc), the reality is that in doing so I was effectively projecting what I "knew" about KG back into those earlier years when I did that rather than judging his achievement based on what actually happened - and that gets me back to the question I kept circling back to:

Do I want to do this project by imagining how things would go if...?, or, Do I want to talk about what guys actually did?

There is one difference. Actually, two. Two championships to go with two finals MVPs in the playing his best(or near-best) basketball. Garnett won one as he massively scaled down his minutes in a role closer to what Draymond offers than what we would want from one of the best at their best. But Hakeem did not win two scaling down, he won two as his team's best scorer, defender, and creator to crown an impressive apex where, at least at the end of two consecutive seasons, he was the consensus best player in the league. Impact suggests he should have entered that conversation much sooner. By my guess, he was already the league's best player by 93, but set that aside.

While 2 is not >4 or 5. It is = to 2. Wilt may have more MVP's and POY votes, but for the accomplishment that matters most, he is dead equal with Hakeem. And I think it's worth asking if that can be put down to context. Did Goliath win as much because of lesser oppurtunity?

I don't think so. I do not think Hakeem had chances like 68 and 69. Nor do I think he had a chance like Wilt did when he won in 72 or 67. In fact, I think one could argue both his championships were more akin to what Wilt had in 62 and 65, the difference being Hakeem made it happen, while Wilt did not.

While Wilt is often presented as someone who never had a fair-shake, truly I think that's far more fitting for Hakeem. All the more impressive then that when it mattered most, Hakeem accomplished just as much. Maybe more. After all, Wilt, like Garnett, had scaled down by 72. And I do not think him defeating an undermanned Kareem clarified he was the better player. Hakeem's defeat of Robinson, to most, left no doubt.

And then there are the statistics
So let's dig into 80s Hakeem. On paper, it looks a lot like prime Duncan. Top 3 all time D, and skilled mid 20s volume scoring, post play on decent efficiency isn't the best offense, but for a 2 way big it's fine, there are lots of offensive players I like more than Duncan too. However, to note, offensive Win Shares is more friendly to Duncan than Hakeem. Duncan is 23rd all time in NBA career OWS, Hakeem is 66th. Hakeem is below some dudes like Melo and LMA and soon to be Derozan in career OWS who's midrange volume scoring games are supposed to not translate to that stat at all. The main reason is that OWS really doesn't like 80s and early 90s Hakeem. 89 and 90 Hakeem is putting up 24-25ppg on .54-.55 TS% and playing 82 games, seems credible offensively even if not 93/94 level. He finishes 40th and 93rd in OWS despite this. In comparison Duncan in 00 and 01, kind of similarly below 02 and 03 (he leads the league in OWS in 02), is 12th in OWS (74 games) in 00 and 23rd in 01. Duncan also makes top 20 OWS in 99, 07 and 10, while Hakeem doesn't outside of 93 and 94.
Why does Duncan have OWS advantage over Hakeem? The difference is subtle and I believe has to do with passing. Hakeem from 85-96 put up these assists per 100: 1.8, 2.6, 3.8, 2.7, 2.3, 3.6, 3.1, 3.0, 4.6, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7. Duncan from 98-09 put up 3.8, 3.3, 4.3, 4.1, 4.9, 5.3, 4.5, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4, 4.4, 5.7. Hakeem gets it together to Duncan ish level from 93-96 as a passer, however the numbers suggest on paper earlier Hakeem was plausibly a bit of a black hole. In 89 Hakeem was 9th for players on his team with 500 mp+ in Ast%, in 90 7th. In 00 Duncan was 4th using same exercise, in 01 5th.

Well, Hakeem's theoretical advantage would be defensive which even moonbeam's teammate analysis seems to suggest does not properly capture the defensive value of bigs. With Hakeem largely considered the best defender post-russell, that may undersell him(actually, if we value actual winning, it probably does). That aside, Duncan has already been voted in. And whatever his ws/48 may suggest, his impact portfolio probably clears everyone on the board(imo it actually suggests he should have actually been voted higher).

There is a box-derived formula that puts Hakeem #1 all-time called goat-points. As there are equivalents that see drob and dennis rodman competing for bitw. Hakeem falling short on winshares is a bit like Jordan falling short of david robinson in height. It may lead to an unimpressive output, but so what?

As is, more sophisticated "box" does not see such a big gulf:
Hakeem 1986 - 1995:
24.1 Adj. Points / 75 -> 27.7
2.1% rTS -> 4.4
3.4 Box Creation -> 5.2
3.4 Passer Rating -> 4.3
5.9 PIPM
5.0 BPM -> 6.9

Duncan 1998 - 2007:
24.7 Adj. Points / 75 -> 25.8
+3.0% rTS -> 4.3
3.8 Box Creation -> 4.5
4.8 Passer Rating -> 5.0
5.9 PIPM
5.2 BPM -> 6.3
4.8 AuPM/G -> 4.9

And then we get into the winning(samples large and small):
Spoiler:
Yeah, I don't think that sort of analysis leads to where you think it does...

Magic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991
Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 with

Micheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998
Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 with

Hakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999
Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 with

[spoiler]
ElGee wrote:While we're here, I want to echo something Doc MJ said. It's plausible to me Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest player in NBA history (depending on criteria). He also may very well be outside the top-10. Why the uncertainty?

First of all, he was a foreign Muslim dude playing in Houston. Not exactly Air Jordan in Chi-Town or Magic in the Wood. And I wonder, as we are wont to do, if much of his impact was muted early on because of this. There's only so much re-examining one can do here without firing up every Rockets game from the 80s and hand-tracking on/off and everything else.

Then again, some of the other evidence suggests Hakeem wasn't as valuable as the eye test would indicate. That Houston wasn't as lost without him and that distributing what he did across the team wasn't impossible. (Same can be said of Duncan.) We have such a tendency to de-emphasize teammates and coaching as years go on and only remember co-stars...of which, Hakeem basically had none.

I do know that in 1986, in his 2nd year, Olajuwon missed 14 games. Houston was -0.8 per contest in that time, which was 7.3 points per game worse than in the 68 games Hakeem played (+6.5 in those games), improving both on offense and defense.

I know that in 1991 -- a notable down year for Dream -- in the 26 games he missed Houston outscored it's opponents by 2.4 ppg (16-10 record). They were only slightly better with him (+4.0 overall) but while the defense improved about 3 points the offense regressed slightly.

I know that in 1992 -- another "bumpy" season -- in the 12 games he missed Houston was outscored by 10.8 points per. The DRtg was a dubious 117.2. With Dream, they were -0.2 (+10.6 difference).

I know that in 1995 when Hakeem missed 10 games, Houston was -4.3 without Olajuwon and +3.0 with him. Again, the offense was better, but the defense fell apart in his absence. (The DRtg was 116.8 without Hakeem.)

Those are big numbers. For those who didn't follow RPOY, I ran a bunch on older players. For some comparisons (the first number is net difference in lineup, the second is what that brought the team point differential to, or roughly SRS):
Walton 1978 +13.3 to 10.0
Walton 1977 +12.6 to 8.4
LeBron 08+10 +12.5 to 4.1 (average of 08 and 10)
Magic 1988 +10.9 to 7.2
West 1971 +10.9 to 4.5
Hakeem 1992 +10.6 to -0.2
Magic 1989 +10.4 to 7.8
King 1985 + 8.0 to -2.1
Shaq 00-01 +7.7 to 6.5
Kareem 1975 +7.7 to 1.7
Shaq 03 +7.6 to 3.7
Hakeem 1986 +7.3 to 6.5
Hakeem 1995 +7.3 to 3.0
West 1968 +6.4 to 7.8
Nash 2009 +6.3 to 2.5
Kareem 1978 +5.8 to
Garnett 2009 +5.4 to 9.2
Shaq 02 +5.1 to 8.1
West 1969 +4.9 to 5.4
Shaq 1996 +4.4 to 7.1
Pippen 1994 +4.2 to 3.6
Shaq 1998 +3.5 to 8.7
Pippen 1998 +3.1 to 8.6
Shaq 1997 +2.9 to 5.4
Hakeem 1991 +1.7 to 4.0
Shaq 04 +1.4 to 4.2

So in 1992, Hakeem's team was really not good, despite not many notable changes. Well, other than team turmoil and a coaching change, which is often brought back to Hakeem.

The next two bits of evidence offer equal confusion on Olajuwon, suggesting he could be GOAT-level or he could be a tier off the all-timers we're discussing.

Team Quality/Role

When Olajuwon shot well in the playoffs, his team actually fared worse. That suggests a team not reliant on his efficient scoring to win, often the mark of a good or balanced team. When he shot poorly, their record barely changed (.500).

Then again, when he shot the ball a lot (25+ FGAs), something he did frequently in the 90s, Houston fared very well (.727%). This suggests Iverson's Law of unipolar offense, where a player carrying massive offensive load is helping an otherwise flawed team, regardless of his shooting percentage. Interesting to note, then, that in Hakeem's legendary 95 run (only +0.9 TS%) the Rockets exploded for 115.2 points/100. They didn't win that title with defense, they won it with offense around Hakeem.

So, how "good" is Hakeem in a vacuum if we simply surround him with good shooters? (Drexler played very well in that run, I don't want to undersell his role as a slasher who could create his own.) Personally, I find that to be a difficult question to answer. History shows us two things:

(1) The best offenses are run by fairly ball-dominant guards/great creators for others
(2) The best post offenses are run from the high-post, again to create for others

It gets back to Wilt, where scoring 40 or 45 points in a game isn't really something lifting a team much if the wealth can fairly easily be redistributed with him out of the game. There's some of that in theory with Olajuwon over his career -- he can't just build great offenses even with good shooting pieces like Smith, Maxwell and Floyd -- but in 1995 what he was doing seems fairly awesome (on top of the obvious eye-candy). Although Houston did shoot 39.1% from 3, so some luck might be involved there. Even so, reverting to RS averages only lops off about 1.5 pts of efficiency per 100.

Raising his Offensive Game

Rightfully, this is what Hakeem is known for, and stands out fairly well among peers. First of all, by game score, he had a bad playoff game in the BR available data (91-97) about as infrequently as Michael Jordan (Shaq, btw, almost never). He had good games second only to Jordan (although well behind -- volume scoring for the Hollinger win).

In 15 elimination games from 1991 to 1997 Olajuwon averaged 27/12/4 3 blocks 3 TOV on 57% TS. Outside the box score, I'd say he was one of the better elimination game players ever.

Now, he was in the Western Conference in the late 80s/early 90s, so the defensive quality he faced wasn't that good, at least by DRtg. It's almost 4 points worse than Shaq, for comparison in prime years. But then again, Olajuwon totally cranks his game up in the playoffs in his best seasons.

Of the other modern all-timers, he increases his scoring, shooting, ORtg and WS/48 the most of anyone come playoff time. His numbers in those years are 27.6 ppg/57.7 TS% (Shaq's, btw, are 26.6/56.7 TS% -- although if we normalize by DRtg Shaq has the better efficiency at the same volume).

So where does that leave us? Well, with a guy who could be Iversoning (in the good way) an offense and is an amazing defender. Or, it could leave us with a guy who's offensive contributions can be replaced to a certain degree. I have to say, I find Houston's 1995 ORtg in the 22 game sample fascinating, since Hakeem's efficiency was barely above average.

Personally, I settle in the middle on Olajuwon, with his career ups and downs. But I do question if that's wrong. My instincts tell me if he had a better situation (eg San Antonio, 1998!!!) that we might regard Dream as a serious, serious GOAT candidate. Yes, even challenging Jordan.

OhayoKD wrote:Sure!
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104511802#p104511802
(some methodological discussion here if you're interested)
[spoiler]
Regular Season parity with MJ/Magic:

Playoff riser:

Mostly covered the playoff-stuff in the first post but he's also 1 of 3 MVP-winners to come back from 3-1 down(Lebron and Russell being the others), and like already covered, 2nd best winning% among MVP's as a playoff-underdog, 2nd most wins, needed much less help than Magic to beat a +10psrs opponent(Jordan has never). You can check the box-numbers yourself on BBR if you want.

...I would argue that Hakeem is already "edging on jordan-level" as he enters in the league. Actually probably clearing it through his first 3-years. Now account for the postseason where his teams and individual production jumps more than anyone, and maybe it's jordan edging on Hakeem/
You say, you don't like WOWY, but there is also RAPM where with full data Hakeem looks more valuable per-possession relative to shaq and kobe at the same age while playing more and as much respectively.

however you look at things(wowy, indirect, rapm, pollock), what I do not see is where Barkley grades out as similarly valuable. Hakeem's "production" and player profile is similar to(at least empirically) potential league-best forces that stack ups or beat the likes of Jordan and Shaq by "winning"(with a case for the best team-success since russell). If winshares and mvp-votes suggest Hakeem is a barkley tier player than I would wonder how meaningful such approaches are.

Regardless, I think I'm voting Hakeem at #1

Not sure who to vote for alternate but I am leaning Garnett for longevity. Could be moved on Wilt or Magic(i even see a case for Magic at 6 depending on how you view the hiv thing). I will abstain for now.

For nomination?

I am considering Mikan and Steph. I may end up deciding that based on whose more viable(early tidings say Steph). However, while I may nominate Steph, I do want to reiterate something I've said before about RAPM(and its derivatives):
I think people need to remember that RAPM(and it's derivatives) are artificial. They are also(like on/off) prone to issues with colinearity. While they make adjustments they are still susceptible to wonky rotations. Beyond that, they also curve down outliers. What you should be looking for in something like LEBRON, EPM or RAPM(ideally over extended samples) is how often a player hits at or near the top historically. It is there to establish a baseline. Not to establish how the best year of Draymond compares to the best year of Steph or CP3.

Per LEBRON, a "state of the art" apm derivative, here are the most valuable seasons(overall) since 2010:

Here are the most valuable seasons(per-possession) since 2010:

notice how best single-scoring years look around the same? That is not real. RAPM is not a substitute for real-world signals. The main benefit of something like WOWY(especially if you are looking at seasons without a player), is that you can truly see what happens to a team when a player leaves.

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”. RAPM can approximate that in most cases(given enough time), and it is advantaged in terms of stability(and probably even accuracy looking at hundreds of players), but it is not a replacement for the real thing.

RAPM is also a rate stat. KG may have scored the highest in 2008, but he averaged substantially less minutes than his peers(. Something to keep in mind for those who think Kobe was undeserving of his MVP(he was not).

I say all this, because, largely based on those artificially capped scores, I think people assume a season scaring at or near the top(cough 2016 Steph cough) is actually at the upper-limit of player-value. However, when we use RAPM as a tool with it's limitations in mind, I think it's pretty hard to argue it has a solid case as the most valuable regular season of the last 20-years:
[spoiler]
OhayoKD wrote:I think there are arguments to be had for Russell, Kareem(and by extension 77 Walton) on a "corp" or "era-relative impact" lens, but with what you seem to be looking at(box-score playing a factor, post-merger years), yeah. Do not think there is much of a "statistical" counter-case. If we look at the seasons you've picked:

2016 Curry? No, not really. For those tempted to toss 1-year rapm or rapm derivatives as positive evidence they're similar...

As far as baseline goes(cheema's been used a bunch, so why don't we use the scaled-apm set Ben likes)

Even 15-17 regular-season Lebron grades out as a direct rival for 15-17 Steph by raw or adjusted data(1-year is directly comparable to), even with something relatively bearish on Lebron like shotcharts:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=106319069#p106319069

Getting into the "weeds" of 2009...

FWIW over a small sample(7 gms/szn) the 08-10 cavs played like a 19-win team) in games without Lebron. Perhaps more impressively, during 09/10, in 1785 minutes without Mo-Willams(best offensive teammate) and Ben Wallace(best defensive teammate), the cavs were +14. For a smaller-sample, in 630 minutes without either in 09, they were +10.

Over a much smaller sample(a bit under 700 minuites) 15/16 Steph holds up surprisingly well but not that well with his lineups scoring at +8.55 without Dray and +9 in 389 minutes without dray or klay. Note that these are much shorter stretches. Curry's minutes are significantly more tied to his best teammates than LeBron's are. Very small sample, but for comphrensiveness, in less than 300 minutes in 2016, Steph lineups score at +3.38 without Dray and(tiny 169 minute sample) -0.69 without Draymond or Klay.

And then we get into volume

(Lebron)

(Steph)

All considered I'd say there's an the evidence consistently supports 2009 Lebron being more valuable per-possession in the regular season. He's probably more valuable in 2010 too. And probably a peer in in his second Cleveland stint while coasting. And we know the postseason is not a winning case for Steph:

(Check where Steph's best teammate is)

Jordan's argument is probably weaker(though he benefits from uncertainty). He's drafted onto a better team(27-win without) and does not lead a better regular-season team until 1992 despite great fit by the back-half of 90.

Frankly, while one could point to conventional box-score as a marginal rs advantage, I think we should apply some context here.

Steph(and Jordan) created(volume) and scored at a nigh unprecedented level. Lebron also did that, but was also a strong secondary paint-protector, a mj-esque man defender(refer to the colts quote before), who was communicating and orchestrating on both-ends, was a more effecient creator(feel free to reference ben's passer-rating), handled the ball significantly more(making the turnover economy very impressive), and was facing substantially more defensive attention.

Then by box he(2009) blows right by both in the postseason(bpm/aupm/pipm/raptor). All considered, I think the "stats" are very clearly in Lebron's favor. And who knows how in his favor they'd be with a more reasonable(imo) set of weightings(BBR BPM puts jordan and steph within range of hakeem and dikembe respectively).

Notably, Lebron's 2009(and 2010), two-years which very possibly(I'd say likely) were more valuable than any regular season Steph has mattered, are ommited by the one and only set of sourced RAPM data where Steph looks like a viable #1. Indeed, when we look at sets(JE, Cheema) which includes everyone else(duncan, kg, ect), Steph looks dramatically worse and we are not even getting into the playoffs. Those sets happen to include a bunch of stretches with those two-historical high-points in terms of empirical value. And however you interpret shot-charts rs-only model(i do not think 15-17 lebron and 15-17 grading as peers is great for steph's case), that all goes away in the postseason.

Because we are not comparing him to Lebron I am not going to say this prohibits Steph from nomination or a spot in the top 10. But presenting him as the "impact king" to me feels off. He may well be the rs-impact king of the last 12 years(more like 10 if you are using 3 or 5-year), that's not so much of an advantage this high as I think it's being presented.

I am also open to Kobe who, even by ben's model(very low on his peak I feel), grades out as the 10th most valuable career(he adjusts after the fact for reasons unclairfied). That may not be true with what Steph's recently done, but it does advantage him over say...Larry Bird. And here I am curious what the reasoning for those nominating him are. He has the same injury concerns as Steph. Perhaps an even more dramatic track-record of production/team-level drop-offs...
Spoiler:
90sAllDecade wrote:Also if you value Colt's opinon, he also lists Birds many playoff failures.

For those who care about career value, even with Ben's inputs(sees Bird as a top 5 peak!), the formula he constructed on the basis of srs-championship studies saw Bird fall behind the likes of Kobe, David Robinson, Malone, and Dirk.

I'm not really sure I see much of a case for Bird here beyond going gaga for his unreplicated rookie rs signal. On the front of team-success he is less accomplished than Steph(rs and postseason), he is not clearly advantaged in terms of impact vs anyone left, he is has significant weaknesses in his game on both ends of the floor, and he has the profile of a guy I would expect to translate poorly across eras(can't really gain separation from defenders athletically, slow-footed yet not notably big or strong, was an era-best shooter on very low volume, not a great ball-handler, ect).

He is for my money, relative to to nomination candidates, not playoff-resilient, not era-portable, not exceptionally accomplished, and has poor longetvity. Last project, longetvity was a fair consideration against Steph, but now I don't really see it. Perhaps if you put alot of value in "3-straight mvps" but frankly I think Steph had an equally strong basketball case for 3 in a row.

While he is hyped as a top-5 candidate, I do not know it's really justified and am curious how people who are voting for bird as their nominee have decided he is the strongest candidate.

how does stephs impact comp to shaq?

not sure who to vote 7

Unsure. probably better in the rs but he might fall off in the playoffs more and I think shaq has better longetvity. Then again, maybe the playoff-gap isn't there if you factor in defense where Shaq falls off significantly and Steph is actually surprisingly difficult to hunt(rockets and cavs both tried with not great results). Honestly their wins are kind of similar. 2015 ~ 2000 as an impressive regular season followed by a dissapointing playoffs. 2001->2017 they dominate with unfair help(steph is probably better in the rs though the lakers post a higher-rating than the warriors in the playoffs with kobe going nova and the dubs kind of coasting). 2002->2018 where they're injured in the regular season creating a "fake" sort of overperformance when they scrap to a title(lakers struggle more, warriors have better help and convenient opposing injuries). 2022 -> 2006 as a suprising championship after a not best in the league rs campaign(warriors were actually league-best with steph and steph's rs and playoffs were probably alot more impressive).

Both have a title where they were not the best performer for a season(2018, 2006) though Steph was probably closer to that in 2018 than Shaq was in 2006. Both have a title people say is arguable but really shouldn't be argued because of raw-box analysis of the most important series(2017, 2001)

Honestly as I talk it through, Steph vs Shaq seems more arguable than I thought. Probably even more true for Steph vs Wilt if you aren't being strict with CORP. 67 is probably not as dominant as 2017 with wilt also having great help and then wilt loses with unfair help in 69 and is probably from his best self than shaq was in 2022 when he gets that 2nd ring in 72.

One_and_Done · Post #33 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:47 pm

I will note thar Magic and Hakeem played together during their respective primes, and I think most at the time would have been incredulous at the idea that Hakeen was better. Maybe they were all wrong, but I think an extŕaordinary level of proof is required for what would have been seen as an extraordinary claim.

Post #34 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:51 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:I realized though as I was going through that last pass year-by-year and considering something like where he belonged in my DPOY ballot that I'd been tying myself in some logical knots putting him above a guy like Duncan. While I can intellectually justify why KG's team defenses weren't stronger based on things that were unfair to him about his context (teammates, scheme, etc), the reality is that in doing so I was effectively projecting what I "knew" about KG back into those earlier years when I did that rather than judging his achievement based on what actually happened - and that gets me back to the question I kept circling back to:

Do I want to do this project by imagining how things would go if...?, or, Do I want to talk about what guys actually did?

There is one difference. Actually, two. Two championships to go with two finals MVPs in the playing his best(or near-best) basketball. Garnett won one as he massively scaled down his minutes in a role closer to what Draymond offers than what we would want from one of the best at their best. But Hakeem did not win two scaling down, he won two as his team's best scorer, defender, and creator to crown an impressive apex where, at least at the end of two consecutive seasons, he was the consensus best player in the league. Impact suggests he should have entered that conversation much sooner. By my guess, he was already the league's best player by 93, but set that aside.

While 2 is not >4 or 5. It is = to 2. Wilt may have more MVP's and POY votes, but for the accomplishment that matters most, he is dead equal with Hakeem. And I think it's worth asking if that can be put down to context. Did Goliath win as much because of lesser oppurtunity?

I don't think so. I do not think Hakeem had chances like 68 and 69. Nor do I think he had a chance like Wilt did when he won in 72 or 67. In fact, I think one could argue both his championships were more akin to what Wilt had in 62 and 65, the difference being Hakeem made it happen, while Wilt did not.

While Wilt is often presented as someone who never had a fair-shake, truly I think that's far more fitting for Hakeem. All the more impressive then that when it mattered most, Hakeem accomplished just as much. Maybe more. After all, Wilt, like Garnett, had scaled down by 72. And I do not think him defeating an undermanned Kareem clarified he was the better player. Hakeem's defeat of Robinson, to most, left no doubt.

The quoting of me drew my attention here so I'm not really looking to rebut. I agree with you that Hakeem led his team to titles as the fulcrum of everything whereas KG downsized his offensive role, and that gives Hakeem an edge.

With that said: I basically think anyone who voted for any Celtic teammate over KG in '07-08 for anything was about as wrong as you can get.

Other than the coach Doc Rivers, Paul Pierce probably had his reputation boosted the most beyond what it should have simply because he was allowed to continue being the main primacy guy on his team when the new guys were brought in. It's not just that the team won with defense, and Garnett was vastly more important than Pierce for the defense.

It's the fact that the Celtics were literally supposed to be an elite offense when they put the Big 3 together. That was what "the Big 3" meant. Instead, while they improved a good deal and were way more effective than they'd been at any time previously in Pierce's tenure there, the offense was literally worse than what a typical Ray Allen-led offense had been in either Milwaukee or Seattle, and also note as good as Minny's offense had been in the years before it went off the rails.

i don't want to be too negative on Pierce who is absolutely a Top 100 player with room to spare and was rightfully inducted into the Hall...but the often-stated idea that KG needed "a true #1 on offense" to win is something I consider to be pretty silly. Had Boston not acquired KG, I frankly don't think anyone would be talking about Pierce with words like that.

OhayoKD · Post #35 » by **OhayoKD** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 11:05 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:I realized though as I was going through that last pass year-by-year and considering something like where he belonged in my DPOY ballot that I'd been tying myself in some logical knots putting him above a guy like Duncan. While I can intellectually justify why KG's team defenses weren't stronger based on things that were unfair to him about his context (teammates, scheme, etc), the reality is that in doing so I was effectively projecting what I "knew" about KG back into those earlier years when I did that rather than judging his achievement based on what actually happened - and that gets me back to the question I kept circling back to:

Do I want to do this project by imagining how things would go if...?, or, Do I want to talk about what guys actually did?

There is one difference. Actually, two. Two championships to go with two finals MVPs in the playing his best(or near-best) basketball. Garnett won one as he massively scaled down his minutes in a role closer to what Draymond offers than what we would want from one of the best at their best. But Hakeem did not win two scaling down, he won two as his team's best scorer, defender, and creator to crown an impressive apex where, at least at the end of two consecutive seasons, he was the consensus best player in the league. Impact suggests he should have entered that conversation much sooner. By my guess, he was already the league's best player by 93, but set that aside.

While 2 is not >4 or 5. It is = to 2. Wilt may have more MVP's and POY votes, but for the accomplishment that matters most, he is dead equal with Hakeem. And I think it's worth asking if that can be put down to context. Did Goliath win as much because of lesser oppurtunity?

I don't think so. I do not think Hakeem had chances like 68 and 69. Nor do I think he had a chance like Wilt did when he won in 72 or 67. In fact, I think one could argue both his championships were more akin to what Wilt had in 62 and 65, the difference being Hakeem made it happen, while Wilt did not.

While Wilt is often presented as someone who never had a fair-shake, truly I think that's far more fitting for Hakeem. All the more impressive then that when it mattered most, Hakeem accomplished just as much. Maybe more. After all, Wilt, like Garnett, had scaled down by 72. And I do not think him defeating an undermanned Kareem clarified he was the better player. Hakeem's defeat of Robinson, to most, left no doubt.

The quoting of me drew my attention here so I'm not really looking to rebut. I agree with you that Hakeem led his team to titles as the fulcrum of everything whereas KG downsized his offensive role, and that gives Hakeem an edge.

With that said: I basically think anyone who voted for any Celtic teammate over KG in '07-08 for anything was about as wrong as you can get.

Other than the coach Doc Rivers, Paul Pierce probably had his reputation boosted the most beyond what it should have simply because he was allowed to continue being the main primacy guy on his team when the new guys were brought in. It's not just that the team won with defense, and Garnett was vastly more important than Pierce for the defense.

It's the fact that the Celtics were literally supposed to be an elite offense when they put the Big 3 together. That was what "the Big 3" meant. Instead, while they improved a good deal and were way more effective than they'd been at any time previously in Pierce's tenure there, the offense was literally worse than what a typical Ray Allen-led offense had been in either Milwaukee or Seattle, and also note as good as Minny's offense had been in the years before it went off the rails.

i don't want to be too negative on Pierce who is absolutely a Top 100 player with room to spare and was rightfully inducted into the Hall...but the often-stated idea that KG needed "a true #1 on offense" to win is something I consider to be pretty silly. Had Boston not acquired KG, I frankly don't think anyone would be talking about Pierce with words like that.

To be clear, I would easily pick peak Draymond over 2008 pierce or allen and I think 2016 Dray is a great top 5 in the league candidate. It's only in a comparison with Hakeem where I think it falls. KG was certainly the best player on that team in my estimation. Ditto with Wilt in 72. It's just at the standard of best-in-the-world I think both fall short. While Hakeem's two titles came as the finish for a three-year run(imo, consensus maybe two) as the game's clear best player. I take Kobe pretty clearly in 2008(minutes played a big factor there) and Kareem very clearly ahead of Wilt(honestly in my estimation their h2h series hurts wilt's case for bitw given the context).

OhayoKD · Post #36 » by **OhayoKD** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 11:16 pm

One_and_Done wrote:I will note thar Magic and Hakeem played together during their respective primes, and I think most at the time would have been incredulous at the idea that Hakeen was better. Maybe they were all wrong, but I think an extŕaordinary level of proof is required for what would have been seen as an extraordinary claim.

Well that would only apply to the pre-91 years(which I don't think anyone has said Hakeem was an equal for Magic). I don't see how that would apply to 92-95 though. Or 96, 97, ect. Magic was not in the league(or a significant factor).

May as well point to how they were talked about in 96...

ShaqAttac · Post #37 » by **ShaqAttac** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 11:20 pm

yea wilt > hakeem is kinda wierd. Wilt won with a stacked team then had two other stacked teams and choked with both while keem barely had help and won b2b

One_and_Done · Post #38 » by **One_and_Done** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 11:31 pm

Well, the Hakeem crowd seem to think he was just as good in 1991 and before, so it matters. If they think there was only a slight or nil improvement in post 1991 Hakeem's play then that's an issue in a comparison vs Magic.

lessthanjake · Post #39 » by **lessthanjake** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 11:41 pm

Vote for #6: Shaquille O’Neal
Alternate Vote: Wilt Chamberlain (admittedly for strategic-voting purposes)
Nomination: Stephen Curry

Shaquille O’Neal

I was going to vote for Magic Johnson here—indeed I’d voted him as my alternate in the last thread. But in starting to write something up, I realized I was struggling to justify why I’d put Magic ahead of Shaq. And so I changed my mind.

Shaq has a very strong case. His peak was about as good as anyone’s in history—with only Hakeem in this nominee pool having a peak that’s about as good IMO. And he also had a long and really good prime. In the 12-year period from 1993-1994 through 2004-2005, I don’t think it’d be crazy at all to put down Shaq as a top 5 player every year. I know people aren’t so into PER, but his PER in that 12-year was a massive 28.5. And it was 27.5 in the playoffs. These are huge numbers, indicating a very productive player. Meanwhile, in that same time period, Shaq’s teams averaged winning at a 59-win pace when he played. That’s over a 12-year span! Which is actually quite long for a prime.

His impact numbers are also really good in this timeframe. We don’t have on-off stats prior to the 1996-1997 season, but from 1996-1997 to 2004-2005, Shaq had a +11.0 on-off (with a +9.3 net rating when Shaq was on, so this is lifting to high heights). In the playoffs it was an absolutely ridiculous +15.9 on-off. I think RAPM tends to curve this all down a bit such that perhaps Garnett had higher RAPMs, but Shaq’s was generally lifting his team to higher heights than Garnett, and the bottom line is that prime Shaq’s team did really well with him on the court. Meanwhile, his WOWYR puts him only below Magic Johnson among the nominees. I don’t really think any of the candidates have a clear impact case over Shaq, though that may be in part due to lack of data for Magic.

Shaq’s also not lacking longevity beyond that 12-year period. Shaq’s rookie year was already really good. He won a title in 2005-2006 as a second fiddle who was still an all-star level player (which is obscured a bit by him not scoring a lot in the finals, but he was good during the season and the rest of the playoffs). And I have him down as having a couple more productive all-star level seasons after that.

The combination of quality of Shaq’s peak, the length and quality of his prime, and the fact that he did actually register multiple all-star level seasons outside his prime (including one where he won a title—showing he could work well as the #2 player on a team) is not something I think the rest of the nominees match. With Hakeem, I’m simply not as high on his prime in general—where I just don’t think he was the same kind of consistent top-5 kind of player for over a decade like Shaq was. I’m also not as sure that Hakeem could scale down to a second fiddle as well, but it’s perhaps hard to know. With Garnett, my thoughts are more complex than just this, but ultimately he didn’t achieve nearly as much in the NBA as Shaq did—I don’t think I can just look at impact metrics that Garnett had on bad teams and decide to put him above Shaq on that basis, even if it’s possible he might’ve achieved as much in an equally good situation. It’s too hypothetical. I can see an argument for Wilt over Shaq, but ultimately it’s just hard to get over the fact that Wilt really just didn’t win much and didn’t necessarily appear to have a huge effect on his teams’ outcomes for a lot of his career. I know that that may be because coaches didn’t know how to use him properly, but I don’t feel like I can give a guy credit for what he might’ve done with better coaching. Finally, with Magic, I’d initially started writing Magic as my pick here. But when I thought about it, I realized that Magic had a 12-year prime that was incredible and had tons of team success, but Shaq also had a fantastic 12-year prime, he also won a ton of games every season and multiple titles. Meanwhile, Shaq also had IMO a higher peak and had a few additional all-star-level seasons beyond his prime (including winning a title in one of them). I don’t normally weigh mere all-star level seasons that much, but I do appreciate them at least a bit when they actually resulted in a title. Overall, I think Magic is close, and it’s possible that I’d put Magic ahead if we had more impact data for him, but for now I’m going with Shaq.

Will post an explanation about Steph in a separate post.

lessthanjake · Post #40 » by **lessthanjake** » Sun Jul 16, 2023 11:42 pm

Nomination: Stephen Curry

I’ve been talking about Steph a lot. I think he should be in the nominee pool and get voted in very soon.

The bottom line is that Steph has proven himself to have absolutely immense GOAT-level impact—generally outdoing this board’s #1 player in impact and impact-box composite measures even when that player was still in his prime. Steph proved to be up there amongst the greatest ceiling raisers of all time and one of the greatest floor raisers of all time—a combination that is perhaps not matched by anyone in history. And, at a more basic basketball level, he is the undisputed greatest of all time at the game’s most fundamental skill: shooting.

Steph the King of Impact in the Last Decade

As I’ve been talking about, comparing impact data across different time intervals is a flawed enterprise, but we can clearly see Steph’s immense impact when we compare him to LeBron James across the same time intervals. Steph Curry’s prime overlapped a good deal with LeBron James’ prime, and the overall picture in terms of impact metrics is that prime Steph Curry outdid this board’s #1 player, in impact and impact-box-composite measures during that time. A player who played in the most talented era in the sport’s history and against the #1 player ever in his prime, and generally outdid that #1 player ever in impact is a player we must vote in soon.

See spoiler below for listing of 13 different metrics and who was ahead between Steph and LeBron over the different seasons and time intervals of Steph’s prime:

Spoiler:

Steph the All-Time Great Ceiling Raiser

Spoiler:

Steph is possibly the greatest ceiling raiser in NBA history. From 2014-2015 to 2018-2019, when Steph Curry played, the Warriors won at a 68-win pace. Their average regular season margin of victory in games Steph played was an absolutely astounding +10.57. I don’t think there’s anyone in history who has come even particularly close to these numbers. This was on a talented team, but they went just 26-26 in games he did not play in that timeframe, with an average margin of victory of -1.90. If you add the playoff games they played without him in that era (which were mostly home games and against mediocre opponents, so pretty average-difficulty games), the record was 35-29 without Steph, with a +0.30 average margin of victory. Notably, during this five-year timespan, in regular season + playoffs, the Warriors outscored opponents by more with Steph on the court and Durant, Draymond, and Klay ALL off the court than they did with Steph off the court and Durant, Draymond, and Klay ALL on the court. Overall, when Steph did not play, the dynasty Warriors were an average team. And when Steph played, they became a 68-win, 10.57 MOV team. This is arguably the greatest instance of sustained ceiling raising in league history.

Meanwhile, if we drill down to a shorter timespan, we see that Steph led probably the greatest team in history: The 2016-2017 Warriors. I think there’s a tendency to downplay the achievement here far too much. Was that team really talented? Yes. But it was far from the only stacked team in NBA history. We’ve seen plenty of players—including players already voted in, as well as current nominees—be on extremely stacked teams. Indeed, probably ones that were *more* talented, when we really think about where the guys on that Warriors team will end up placing. And other players’ stacked teams simply have not dominated quite like the 2016-2017 Warriors did. Steph was the clear key to this. This is a team with a negative net rating in both regular season and playoffs when Steph wasn’t on the court. Which wasn’t true for anyone else on the team. Steph Curry is what made that team the greatest team of all time.

Steph the All-Time Great Floor Raiser

Spoiler:

By winning a title in 2022, Steph showed that he also is one of the greatest floor raisers of all time. It is very rare in the history of the NBA for a player to win a title with the level of supporting cast that the Warriors had that season. We exalt Hakeem for his title in 1994, Dirk for his title in 2011, and Duncan for his title in 2003. And rightfully so. But Steph should be similarly exalted for his title in 2022.

This team was a far cry from the talent of the prior Warriors’ teams, and a far cry from almost every other championship team ever. Klay Thompson came back from years of injuries, and was simply not the same player and not even really a net positive for the team (indeed, he had negative on-off in regular season and playoffs). Draymond Green was probably their second-best player that season, but this was a substantially diminished Draymond, not the Draymond that was making very significant impact in the earlier years. NBAshotcharts RAPM had Draymond ranked 99th in the league that season in RAPM. He was 137th in the league in RPM, and 36th in the league in EPM. There were serious questions in the playoffs about whether Draymond would need to be benched. The Warriors’ second-best player in the playoffs was actually perhaps Andrew Wiggins—a player who the Warriors only got because his contract was considered perhaps the worst in the NBA. Jordan Poole was their sixth man, but he became more and more unplayable as the playoffs went on—eventually getting less than 20 minutes a game by the very end.

This was a team that was basically just Steph and some deeply flawed and/or diminished players. And they won the title, and indeed did so without even being taken to 7 games in a series.

This kind of floor raising should be considered alongside the other great floor raising titles that we rightfully weigh extremely highly in the legacy of those players. The difference here is that the players who had similar floor-raising titles did not *also* lead probably the greatest team of all time. Steph’s ability to do both is incredibly impressive.

Addressing Critiques of Steph’s Case

- Steph’s Playoffs Performances

Spoiler:

- The Impact of Draymond

Spoiler:

One critique of Steph’s case is that Draymond was really impactful too. And this is true. But I don’t really see that this is a negative for Steph at all.

Draymond’s Impact reflects well on Steph

I think essentially anyone would concede that other great players—including ones already inducted and ones that are nominees—have played with players who are as good or better than Draymond Green. So the critique here isn’t that Draymond Green is so good that we should lower our estimation of Steph. It’s that, despite not really being a better player than players other guys have played with, Draymond Green got a peculiar amount of impact and that that should lower our view of Steph.

The biggest issue with this is that the critique is actually criticizing a positive. It is a *positive* for a star to be someone that other players can be hugely impactful alongside! That’s how you end up being an all-time great ceiling raiser! You play in a way where your presence doesn’t suck the air out of the room and other great players can therefore maximize their impact too. Some great players have been difficult for other great players to get high impact alongside. Steph Curry has repeatedly shown that that is not the case with him, and we can see why with the way he plays and how easy he is to fit well with. Draymond Green getting huge impact with Steph reflects well on Steph! Draymond had very little impact the year he played without Steph. It’s Steph’s gravity that papers over Draymond’s bad shooting, and gives Draymond the opportunity to consistently utilize his passing in short-roll situations. It’s Steph’s offensive ability that makes it so that Draymond can actually be played at PF (which maximizes his defensive impact) despite his lack of shooting. It is a positive for Steph that Draymond could get more impact alongside Steph than plenty of better players have gotten alongside other all-time greats.

Similar impact second fiddles have not been considered negatives for the main star: Particularly regarding Duncan

The type of impact Draymond got is also not some unique thing that some other greats haven’t had. Draymond had 5-year spans in Cheema’s RAPM data where he ranked 7th, 8th, 4th, 7th, and 19th in RAPM in the given timeframes. Manu Ginobili had five-year spans with Duncan where he ranked 12th, 10th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 5th, 8th, 13th, 4th, 5th, and 12th in RAPM in the given timeframes. David Robinson’s timeframes with Duncan ranked 4th and 6th. There’s other examples of similar second fiddles, but I think this example is a great one. Tim Duncan just got voted in at 5th. There was virtually no discussion that Duncan’s achievements and impact should be downplayed because of how much impact Manu Ginobili had. And that’s rightfully so, because, as described above, it’s not a negative! Similarly, with Steph, Draymond Green being able to be a very impactful player alongside Steph should not be discussed as a negative.

Steph has been hugely successful even when Draymond’s impact waned

It’s also worth noting that Steph has been very successful even when Draymond was not being as impactful. As previously noted, Draymond was 99th in NBAshotcharts RAPM and 137th in RPM in 2021-2022, and the Warriors won the title. The team is certainly substantially better off when Draymond is highly impactful, but there’s not much of an argument that Steph *needs* Draymond to be hugely impactful in order to win.

Spoiler:

Draymond’s Playoff Impact

One variant of this argument about Draymond’s impact is to only look at low-sample size playoff impact data and say that it shows Draymond had better impact than Steph. I’ve addressed this with the below, pointing out that the relevant data is caused by advantages in easy early rounds and reverses when you take out easy playoff series against weak opponents.

______

I’m pretty sure that the data is largely caused by Draymond having advantages in easy early rounds—even beyond just the effect of Steph missing some of those games. If we just look at the Finals, WCFs, or a first-round or conference-semifinals that went to at least 6 games from 2015-2023, then, by my count of their minutes and basketball-reference’s reporting of their plus-minus in each game, the Warriors outscored opponents by +6.65 per 48 minutes with Steph on the floor, and by +6.07 per 48 minutes with Draymond on the floor (not sure how to get per 100 possession data for combinations of particular series’s like this, but per 48 mins is comparable/valid way of looking at it).

So, I’m not sure I’d put much credence in an argument that is based on relatively low-sample-size playoff data that are apparently caused by +/- disparities in blowout early-round series’. It’s basically just Draymond being on the court for more running up the score against weak opponents. And, I’ll note that there’s actually one playoff opponent that drops out using this method that actually was pretty decent in the regular season (the 2017 Jazz, which won 51 games and had a 4.0 SRS). And that’s actually a series where the Warriors clearly had a better net rating with Steph than with Draymond—with the Warriors outscoring the Jazz by +23.7 per 48 minutes with Steph on the floor and by +17.12 per 48 minutes with Draymond the floor.

In general, higher sample sizes are better, so we should look at regular season + playoff data, and if we do that then Steph’s on-off stats look clearly superior to Draymond’s. The rationale for preferencing playoff data despite it being much noisier is that it’s higher stakes and more difficult, but when an argument hinges on playoff data that reverses when you take out easy playoff series against weak opponents, then it’s hard to really see why much value should be put on it.

- Steph’s Defense

Spoiler:

Defense is a common criticism of Steph. To begin with, defensive deficiencies affect impact metrics, so whatever you think about his defense, it’s already priced into Steph’s sky-high impact metrics.

Data shows Steph has good defensive impact

But we also have plenty of indicators that his defense isn’t bad at all. We have the fact that in RS+playoffs in the last decade, the Warriors have a 2.92 better defensive rating with Steph on the court than off (it’s 2.23 if you exclude 2019-2020). To a large degree, that’s about Draymond, but their defensive rating with Steph on and Draymond off was also 2.90 better than with them both off. And when you control for teammates on the floor, we still see Steph having a positive defensive impact, with him consistently having a positive DRAPM across every NBAshotcharts 5-year RAPM interval, and even having the 4th highest DRAPM in the NBA in 2021-2022.

And Steph has a major effect on the defense that actually gets purposely eliminated from RAPM calculations: He is the reason his team is able to put two non-shooters on the floor (and sometimes even three). RAPM controls for how good the other defenders on the floor are, but if the only reason you can play such a defensive lineup is that Steph makes it work offensively, then Steph is really having a major effect defensively that gets adjusted out of the data. For example, the Warriors have a monstrous 106.76 defensive rating in RS+PS the last three years when they have Steph, Draymond, and Looney on the court (along with a huge 121.67 offensive rating). That’s much better than the 112.51 defensive rating with Steph + Draymond, and much better than the 111.69 defensive rating with Steph + Looney. That combination of Draymond and Looney is the secret sauce defensively in the last few years, but it’s really just not a lineup you can run without Steph. Indeed, they’ve only even tried to run it without Steph for 554 total minutes over three years, even despite Curry missing over 60 games in those years (and the lineup was bad in those minutes—having a -3.15 net rating). Steph has a *huge* impact defensively by enabling defensive lineups.

Steph being “hunted” is not a negative

I also think a lot of the discourse around Steph’s defense is a bit misguided, because people mistake teams hunting Steph on defense for evidence that Steph is a weak defender—when really what’s going on is that teams want to hunt Steph so that he can’t rest on defense, in an effort to make him too tired to destroy them offensively.

I use as an example the Cavaliers in those finals—which was a team that hunted Steph a lot. They hunted Steph, but the Cavs did not actually produce efficient offense by their standards in those finals. They usually dipped (as did the Rockets—who faced the Warriors multiple times in the playoffs and tried the same tactic and typically had catastrophic drops in offensive efficiency). And there’s reason to believe this was in part because of hunting Steph being very ineffective, not in spite of hunting Steph working. Specifically, we have data that shows us that actually, in those finals, the Cavs shot a worse FG% when defended by Steph than they did when defended by any other Warriors player that got meaningful minutes. Hunting Steph was not actually successful:

The NBA’s website actually has data on how teams shot when defended by specific players. See this link and you can filter down to the 2015-2016 playoffs for the Warriors specifically when facing the Cavaliers: ‪https://www.nba.com/stats/players/defense-dash-overall?Season=2015-16‬. Overall, across all those finals against the Cavs, we can derive from that database that the Cavaliers shot just 36.0% from the field when defended by Steph. For reference, the corresponding number for Iguodala over those finals was 44.4%. The corresponding number for Klay over those finals was 43.1%. The number for Draymond in those finals was 41.7%. For Livingston, it was 39.2% overall. In the two finals Durant was in, the Cavs shot 48.7% when defended by Durant. In the two prior finals, the Cavs shot 46.4% when defended by Harrison Barnes, and 46.9% when defended by Leandro Barbosa. The Cavs shot a total of 39.1% when defended by Bogut in the finals Bogut played in. The Cavs objectively fared *particularly* badly in those finals when defended by Steph. Indeed, in those finals overall, the Cavs shot a worse FG% when defended by Steph than they did when defended by any other Warriors player that got meaningful minutes, and it’s not even close.

- Steph’s Longevity

Spoiler:

- Warriors almost won the finals in 2015-2016 even with Steph not playing well

Spoiler: