RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Wilt Chamberlain)

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

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,188
And1: 22,199
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#201 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:08 am

One_and_Done wrote:Kobe posted big stats in 2001 because alot of series the other teams, including the Spurs, had utter garbage perimeter players who he could torch. He was not close to the best player that year; it was Shaq, who was sucking in so much defensive attention that it was easy for Kobe to get open shots.
.


So, there's no doubt that the Spurs top 2 players were both bigs, and that meant that when they played it was a chance for guards to shine - it's not so much a Shaq-gravity situation so much as a this-is-the-team-we-built situation. And it gave all guards a chance to shine...but the Spurs were mostly beating everybody else handily anyway. So then in 2001, in what was supposed to be a series for the ages, the Lakers gave the Spurs a beatdown that I don't believe any would-be-dynasty has ever experienced before or since. It was so dramatic that people coming in retrospect assume that the Spurs were just weak in between 1999 & 2003, but in 2001 before the series against the Lakers, that's not how anyone actually watching the Spurs game-in-game-out felt.

I think people really need to take to heart that the '00-01 Spurs had a better SRS than any Spurs team up through '05-06 and there was nothing about their dominant wins in their first two series that made anyone second guess that they were the best they'd ever been and at the very least co-favorites with the Lakers.

And then they got beat by 24.7 points per 100 possessions in a sweep.

This is not all about Kobe's greatness of course, and I'm long on record as a Kobe skeptic compared to most, but this WAS them beating the Duncan-Robinson two-headed monster at just about its apex, and so for anyone whose in the group that's high enough on Duncan to see him as worthy of the #5 spot or higher, some respect is in order for the man who was clear cut would have won the Magic Johnson Western Conference Finals MVP that year had they been giving out the award back then.

As I say all of that, of course, I'm not nominating Kobe here, and I really never seriously considered him, so I don't want to get too carried away here. :lol:
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,188
And1: 22,199
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#202 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:13 am

iggymcfrack wrote:
tsherkin wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:Ok, well that's a 10x better highlight reel of Bird passes than whatever I watched before. I didn't know he had that full-court home run ball in his game. That's badass. Maybe I just saw **** highlight reels before, LOL.


That's why I was boggling; it was just so hard to imagine seeing Larry highlights and not recognizing his passing greatness. Sorry if it came off as rude.

But yeah, this is more like the Larry highlights people are thinking of when they are discussing his passing.


No you didn’t come off rude at all. Thanks for finding such a good showcase for me.


Love this attitude.

I'm really juts speaking for myself here so forgive the plural parlance:

Us oldtimers get frustrated when new folks come in like they know everything already when we know that that's basically impossible unless you're secretly someone who has been around in the same waters as us for a long time, but we don't particularly want to beat down the new generation. We want the knowledge to propagate, and for it to be mixed in with new approaches that weren't around when we were cutting our teeth.

Folks trying to come in and show they know so much more than us makes us roll eyes, but folks learning and then surpassing us isn't just plausible, but the sort of progress we hope to see.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#203 » by OhayoKD » Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:17 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:Kobe posted big stats in 2001 because alot of series the other teams, including the Spurs, had utter garbage perimeter players who he could torch. He was not close to the best player that year; it was Shaq, who was sucking in so much defensive attention that it was easy for Kobe to get open shots.
.


So, there's no doubt that the Spurs top 2 players were both bigs, and that meant that when they played it was a chance for guards to shine - it's not so much a Shaq-gravity situation so much as a this-is-the-team-we-built situation. And it gave all guards a chance to shine...but the Spurs were mostly beating everybody else handily anyway. So then in 2001, in what was supposed to be a series for the ages, the Lakers gave the Spurs a beatdown that I don't believe any would-be-dynasty has ever experienced before or since. It was so dramatic that people coming in retrospect assume that the Spurs were just weak in between 1999 & 2003, but in 2001 before the series against the Lakers, that's not how anyone actually watching the Spurs game-in-game-out felt.

I think people really need to take to heart that the '00-01 Spurs had a better SRS than any Spurs team up through '05-06 and there was nothing about their dominant wins in their first two series that made anyone second guess that they were the best they'd ever been and at the very least co-favorites with the Lakers.

And then they got beat by 24.7 points per 100 possessions in a sweep.

This is not all about Kobe's greatness of course, and I'm long on record as a Kobe skeptic compared to most, but this WAS them beating the Duncan-Robinson two-headed monster at just about its apex, and so for anyone whose in the group that's high enough on Duncan to see him as worthy of the #5 spot or higher, some respect is in order for the man who was clear cut would have won the Magic Johnson Western Conference Finals MVP that year had they been giving out the award back then.

As I say all of that, of course, I'm not nominating Kobe here, and I really never seriously considered him, so I don't want to get too carried away here. :lol:

I would say by the standards used for Durant's first FMVP win, Kobe would have also won the "mvp" for the first two rounds
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 8,938
And1: 5,525
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#204 » by One_and_Done » Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:22 am

D.Rob fell off alot between 99 and 01, as did the rest of the support cast. Even in 99 I'd say Duncan was the best player and it wasn't really close. Lastly in 01 their regular season was helped by Derek Anderson, who was hurt vs the Lakers. I doubt it would have made difference, DA was a tremedously overrated player, but certainly not an irrelevant factor.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,906
And1: 11,719
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#205 » by eminence » Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:26 am

It kinda hurt me to see the words "Magic Johnson Western Conference Finals MVP" typed out. They really went a bit overboard with the naming/awarding everything.
I bought a boat.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 91,884
And1: 31,515
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#206 » by tsherkin » Sat Jul 22, 2023 2:55 am

Doctor MJ wrote:Love this attitude.

I'm really juts speaking for myself here so forgive the plural parlance:

Us oldtimers get frustrated when new folks come in like they know everything already when we know that that's basically impossible unless you're secretly someone who has been around in the same waters as us for a long time, but we don't particularly want to beat down the new generation. We want the knowledge to propagate, and for it to be mixed in with new approaches that weren't around when we were cutting our teeth.

Folks trying to come in and show they know so much more than us makes us roll eyes, but folks learning and then surpassing us isn't just plausible, but the sort of progress we hope to see.


Second this to note that iggy's response was fantastic and I'm glad to have shared something which helped show him something cool and new. :) Sharing the joy of Bird, in this case.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#207 » by OhayoKD » Sat Jul 22, 2023 3:33 am

You know, If you don't want this to be about Lebron(even though you brought him up), talking repeatedly about how Lebron objectively cannibalised his teammates unlike Steph is counter-productive.

Especially when you just flip between standards...


OhayoKD wrote:
And, in a CORP-style analysis, I have more confidence in a guy’s value when he has shown he can fit well with lots of players and raise a team to historic heights where their chances of winning a title would be really high.

And that description does not fit Steph. Lebron has won and retained outstanding impact in a variety of settings. It's Lebron who destroys the curve on rosters without 3-point specialists or decent spacing(2006, 2020, 2023, ect)


That description “does not fit Steph”? Huh? Steph absolutely fit great with other great players and absolutely raised a team to historic heights. We’re talking about a team that won at a 68-win, 10+ SRS pace in games Steph played over a 5-year span, and a team that at their very best is generally considered the best team ever. Being able to lift a team to that kind of level matters *a lot* in a CORP-style analysis.

Well no, Steph has not shown he can fit well with "lots" of players.

Is it though? Just how many "random teams" do you think a player gets to be grouped with 1 and then 2 superstars who are extremely limited as scorers and passers/ball-handlers respectively. “Steph overlaps less with different players than others do with similar players. Portability god!” is not all that persuasive. Especially when Steph didn't always fit so well with superstar 2...
How did it “come to a head with Durant in 2018 and 2019”? Durant may have eventually been a bit unhappy personally and wanting a bit more iso-play, but the results on the court were incredible regardless, so I don’t see the point. The team still doing really well when it is having interpersonal strife actually makes Steph’s case stronger!

Well, setting aside you didn't seem to think it was note-worthy then Pippen's Bulls "did so well" with their own "interpersonal-strife"...

No. I don't think being 3-2 down in what, excepting for garbage time, was a dead-heat to the Houston Rockets, a significantly less talented team led by two "floor-raisers" counts as "doing so well". Nor when you find yourself in a another dead-heat with an even weaker version of that side with Kevin Durant on the floor.

And, yes. Steph has indeed, by your first standard, "vultured" very good teammates:
Image
Image
If we go by your second (incorrect)process with APM, draymond has found themselves "cannabalized"

How curious...
Steph being maximized does require a certain system, but it’s a pretty general system that is not difficult at all for players to fit into unless their basketball IQ is just very low (which would generally preclude them from being a great player).

Jr Smith is squinting right now

As for needing guys with high basketball IQ, being able to play in a motion offense is not a very high basketball IQ bar. If someone doesn’t meet that bar, then they really just almost certainly are not a great player, in which case we don’t really need to care all that much about whether they’re being maximized. The Warriors have genuinely never had a solid basketball player on their team that didn’t work in that system, unless you’re going to want to argue that it’s super meaningful that Kelly Oubre was not able to be maximized around Steph

Westbrook, Harden, CP3, Kawhi, 18 and 19 Durant. Not great players. Low IQ. got it. JR Smith is throwing soup.
The fact is that if you don’t need the ball to maximize your impact, then the number of great players that will be able to maximize their impact alongside you will be dramatically increased. This should not be a controversial statement, as it’s just logically obvious.

But he does need the ball. He needs opportunities to handle and to playmaker but also not too many of them. And he needs extra-passes and well-set screens, and teamamtes who know where to move and when to run to use his gravity properly. He also needs strong versatile defenders who Steph can funnel attackers to when he's hunted on matchups. He also needs scorers who utilize his "gravity" without also spending alot of possessions per touch with the ball. It's not as simple as Steph walks on -> ts goes up. And most teams do not have the personell Steph would need to run that, even assuming the coach he was paired with knew how to do it. And then you need willingness. Otherwise even theoretical fits like Durant are suddenly "holding Steph back".

It is controversial to everyone who gets how that system works. It is logically obvious to those who don't. Don't explain things you don't understand.

Speaking of, no. When low-minute role-players score super-high in an artificial approximation while actually not having a big effect on the team. High 1-year APM is not an indication of excellent support, it is an indication that an outlier is being curved down and seeing value misattributed to their teammates. And that outlier, in 2003, was Tim Duncan.
ShaqAttac
Rookie
Posts: 1,189
And1: 370
Joined: Oct 18, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#208 » by ShaqAttac » Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:07 am

VOTE

7. KG
so he kills all the rapm stuff and apparently got the best longetvity so ig i'll just go with him. cant take him over hakeem coz hakeem had no help and won anyway. Magic prob was better but hiv hurt him.

8. WILT

i would go maagic but apparently wilt n shaq are the ones gettin the votes. Wilt got cooked by russ but Ig he still won a couple. He's also really good on d and o which i dont think i can say for shaq. Shaq also looks bad in rapm and he was kind of lazy outside of 2000 so. Ig i'll vote WILT. Hopefully magic can win next thread.

NOM:
KOBE

No one really pickin Mikan so I guess i'll be a laker fan and nom Kobe. KD make an arg so ill c and p his:
OhayoKD wrote:[

But cast that all aside. Let's say Bird really was much better than Kobe. Kobe's longetvity, at least in terms of career value, almost certainly puts him ahead:
Spoiler:
quote="eminence"]
Career list - you'll see ElGee's rankings don't exactly follow his CORP numbers

2. MJ 2.81
3. LeBron 2.79
4. Russell 2.63
5. Shaq 2.59
6. Hakeem 2.56
7. Duncan 2.47
8. KG 2.43
9. Wilt 2.33
10. Magic 2.00
11. Bird 1.90
12. Oscar 1.91
13. Karl 1.98
14. Kobe 2.06
15. Robinson 1.94
16. Dr.J 1.84
17. West 1.75
18. Dirk 1.93
19. Nash 1.57
20. Barkley 1.38
21. CP3 1.36
22. Wade 1.25
23. Pippen 1.26
24. Moses 1.20
25. Stockton 1.33
26. Durant 1.23
27. Ewing 1.20
28. Barry 1.16
29. Miller 1.24
30. Pettit 1.03
31. Hondo 1.11
32. Curry 1.05
33. Frazier 1.01
34. Kidd 1.09
35. Pierce 1.10
36. Gilmore 1.04
37. Baylor 0.96
38. McHale 0.93
39. Drexler 0.97
40. Allen 1.11

Don't have all the offensive peak numbers, but ElGee has MJ essentially even with Curry/Magic, well clear of the next group led by Nash/LeBron.[/quote]

What I want you to look at is the number that goes after the names. That is an output. Based on a formula based on srs-championship studies, longetvity, peak/prime and all are weighed and then output an estimation of championshp likelihood. For this list Ben put his own inputs(including considerations like PORT) for each and every season of Kobe and Bird's career. Not only did Kobe come out ahead(10th, 2.06), he came out well ahead, with Larry scoring at 1.9(14th). The gap here is bigger than the gap between Bird and 17th placed West. Bird is closer to being on the fringes of the top 20 than he is to being as valuable(over his career) than Kobe Bryant. And that is with ben's inputs

Ben has Bird as the 5th best peak ever. He has Kobe at the fringes of the top 20. By ben's estimation Bird is miles ahead of Kobe, and yet, with all his inputs, the one objective component of his top 40 still churns out Kobe's career as comfortably more valuable.

If you don't care about longevity, I feel you. But for those who do(and as far as I understand various voters do follow this sort of methodology), Kobe should probably be your nomineee.

On a closing note, peep Garnett's score. The gap between him and 10th Kobe(8th, +2.40) is bigger than the gap between Bryant and 17th placed Jerry West. Kobe is closer to the fringes of the top 20 than he is to KG.

The gap between KG and Bird? Bigger than the gap between Bird and 19th place nash. Personally I think KG is a much better player than either, but uh even if he wasn't...for those operating on a similar methodology, KG should probably rank ahead of both.

Honestly would go Mikan or Oscar but this seems like a 2-way race so[/quote]

made other good points too ig but Kobe played really long and he went crazy in 2009 and has won 5 and a bunch of finals so if his corp is really high i think its okay to nom him.
ceoofkobefans
Senior
Posts: 540
And1: 305
Joined: Jun 27, 2021
Contact:
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#209 » by ceoofkobefans » Sat Jul 22, 2023 5:24 am

Vote: Shaquille O’Neal

Like the third time I’m voting for him so wont go too in depth but goat tier peak (thanks to his combo of strength size athleticism making it really easy to do whatever he wanted). Other than maybe Kobe and curry he has without a doubt the most gravity in league history which helped him create a good amount of shots for teammates as a center. He’s also a pretty good defender and is playing at clear all time levels for near a decade

Nominate: Kobe Bryant

Eventually I will stop slacking and will do a better job defending my sweet bean but rn I just wanna talk about two main things about Kobe

1. He was not inefficient relative to his era especially and even for an elite scorer

Kobe was at or above league average ts% his entire career outside of his last two years and is peaking in the RS at near +4 rTS with goat tier scoring volume and gravity which is very impressive (that efficiency is good in general but when you account for the difficulty of his scoring his efficiency becomes that more impressive). He’s also a playoff riser and has multiple playoff runs where he’s pushing +5 rTS

2. Kobe was not some shot chucker that just held the ball and ball stopped in ISOs. He was very active off the ball as a cutter rebounder and even off screens on the perimeter (and a pretty good off ball mover too) and also was a more than willing passer (you don’t average 4.5 APG in a 20 year career if you aren’t)
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,974
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#210 » by AEnigma » Sat Jul 22, 2023 6:19 am

Not overly invested in this vote… ordering of Wilt/Magic/Shaq can go any way for me, with all having valid (and some invalid) arguments and criticisms but all being comfortable top nine names for me in playoff value provided.

Magic has no shot here regardless, so I suppose that simplifies the decision. Next round I will pick between him and the Shaq/Wilt remainder. I think the Magic arguments have been stronger than the Shaq arguments thus far, but that is more a matter of effort (how fitting); Shaq has his case, and if nothing else, I will start making it at least at #9 to defend my tier separations.

Ultimately I am more swayed by Wilt here than by Shaq. To start, I am confident he provided more raw value to his teams than 1993-2006 Shaq did… but again, I am not just treating this as some cold CORP approach. Despite what has become his reputation, Wilt disappointed me less.

1960: team outperforms playoff expectations
1961: team underperforms playoff expectations, although would place low responsibility for that on Wilt
1962: team outperforms playoff expectations
1963: admittedly a bad look for the state of the league but I do not know what more he realistically could have done here. Think the San Francisco move was a challenging one for the team, and even then, they probably could have made the playoffs and maybe even pulled off some shocking upsets if a few unlucky games go their way (Pistons had three more wins but a significantly worse point differential, and I think Wilt in a playoff situation could have a reasonable shot against the Hawks).
1964: team plays to postseason expectations, but this team also should not have been that good
1965: team outperforms playoff expectations
1966: team underperforms playoff expectations; Wilt bears some responsibility, but his team hardly inspired
1967: team on balance meets playoff expectations (better than expected against Celtics, slightly less impressive than expected against the Warriors)
1968: team underperforms playoff expectations; fair amount of injury context here
1969: team technically outperforms playoff expectations but falls short of expectations based on talent
1970: team outperforms playoff expectations; with both starting centres injured, could say the series is decided by Frazier outplaying West
1971: team on balance outperforms playoff expectations without West
1972: team meets playoff expectations
1973: team on balance meets playoff expectations but underperforms in the Finals; everyone shares in the blame

With Shaq, I thought he frequently had letdowns in the postseason (more on the defensive end) until Phil Jackson, and with Phil Jackson, Kobe came across as the more consistent conference elevator while Shaq would clean up in the Finals. And that is important, but I think its optics are overstated. Same story carried over to Wade. So then I find myself asking, could Wilt similarly find success in a partnership with a superstar shooting guard?
:thinking:

The best teams Shaq beat, in my opinion, were the 2000 Blazers and Pacers and the 2001/02/04 Spurs. I tend to place… basically all of Wilt’s losses ahead of those (plus the 1967 Celtics and 1972 Bucks in a win). When Shaq encountered an approximate equivalent to the average Wilt opponent via the 2004 Pistons, he lost soundly. Valiantly, but soundly all the same. Suddenly the perimetre help dried up and he could not pile on the points against the Wallaces (despite high efficiency) nor do much to stand in the way of Billups.

Again, this is not some strong conviction, so if the line of thought seems unconvincing, perhaps my lack of conviction shines through. What I want to convey is that I have a slightly easier time thinking that Wilt could have done better in Shaq’s place than I do in thinking Shaq could have done better in Wilt’s place. Not literally, because I can see a hypothetical where Shaq has a real physical advantage over Wilt, but principally: “I give you this amount of support against this calibre of opponent and will see what happens.” If someone holds Kobe in no regard because of middling BPM or whatever, their conclusion will likely be different. However, as someone who holds Kobe, and Wade, and Penny in some regard, I tend to see both Wilt and Shaq more as circumstantially meeting expectations, and at that point, I would rather take the guy who offered more in totality to his teams and did not come with latent defensive weaknesses against competent offensive systems.

VOTE: Wilt Chamberlain
(I nominated Kobe on page one, but I doubt that will be enough to unseat Bird’s lead.)
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 8,938
And1: 5,525
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#211 » by One_and_Done » Sat Jul 22, 2023 7:48 am

I have Wilt winning, and Bird getting up as the nominee, now that the deadline has passed.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,616
And1: 3,133
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#212 » by Owly » Sat Jul 22, 2023 11:11 am

One_and_Done wrote:D.Rob fell off alot between 99 and 01, as did the rest of the support cast. Even in 99 I'd say Duncan was the best player and it wasn't really close. Lastly in 01 their regular season was helped by Derek Anderson, who was hurt vs the Lakers. I doubt it would have made difference, DA was a tremedously overrated player, but certainly not an irrelevant factor.

So with the caveat that Duncan played more minutes ... and maybe one could consider that as part of better player as well as more valuable player ...

Duncan scored more.
Robinson has higher scores in each of the three Reference RS rate box-composites. On average I'd say by fairly significant margins.
He seems to be higher RS impactful (e.g. https://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2014/03/1999-rapm-non-prior-and-prior-informed.html) though raw-on off is much closer.

In the playoffs the minutes gap shrinks a lot, though Duncan still has an advantage here.
The rate composites are at a rough eyeballing now circa even, though how one trusts/weights such metrics will be at play here.
In so far as playoff winning is what matters, (and this measure, like playoff winning as a measure of individuals is very noisy) Robinson crushes Duncan with a +35.0 (to Duncan's -3.6 - and DR's oncourt is +20.3 ... i.e. the minutes where he was on they were dominant and when he's off they're awful) ... pretty extreme numbers.

Value is contextual, the isn't one perfect measure etc. I don't, though, get how one gets to the point where '99 "it wasn't really close".
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 8,938
And1: 5,525
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#213 » by One_and_Done » Sat Jul 22, 2023 11:15 am

And this sort of thing is why I don't like overeliance on advanced stats. Any stat that thinks Robinson was as good or better than Duncan in 99 is clearly flawed. Duncan was universally seen as the best player on that team (and frankly was the best player in the whole league).
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,906
And1: 11,719
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#214 » by eminence » Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:11 pm

AEnigma wrote:1961: team underperforms playoff expectations, although would place low responsibility for that on Wilt


This is more Nationals trivia (I like Schayes), but in terms of underperformance for the Warriors that series I do think a decent amount of it was on Wilt (obviously still clearly their best player), Halbrook was beating him on the boards in his limited 24 mpg (and thus the Nationals were dominating the boards in those minutes), which appears to be the swing point of the series to me.

Basically the only time in his brief career Halbrook made a significant difference. He certainly didn't find the same success on the boards next round vs Russell.
I bought a boat.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,974
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#215 » by AEnigma » Sat Jul 22, 2023 12:44 pm

eminence wrote:
AEnigma wrote:1961: team underperforms playoff expectations, although would place low responsibility for that on Wilt

This is more Nationals trivia (I like Schayes), but in terms of underperformance for the Warriors that series I do think a decent amount of it was on Wilt (obviously still clearly their best player), Halbrook was beating him on the boards in his limited 24 mpg (and thus the Nationals were dominating the boards in those minutes), which appears to be the swing point of the series to me.

Basically the only time in his brief career Halbrook made a significant difference. He certainly didn't find the same success on the boards next round vs Russell.

Fair, you can definitely place that Game 2 loss on him. But perhaps speaking to that Schayes appreciation, by SRS the Warriors would have been expected to lose that series anyway. Maybe comparable to the 1997 Jazz series in that sense.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,616
And1: 3,133
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#216 » by Owly » Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:26 pm

One_and_Done wrote:And this sort of thing is why I don't like overeliance on advanced stats. Any stat that thinks Robinson was as good or better than Duncan in 99 is clearly flawed. Duncan was universally seen as the best player on that team (and frankly was the best player in the whole league).

The thing is if it's "overeliance" on one measure, sure that's a problem ... but my case is that there's very little evidence across the metrics for Duncan as better. If one is all in on PER and the playoffs, maybe (but that would be doing what you object to in a more extreme manner). If one not rings/title focused then it becomes easier to ignore the playoff impact metric gap and push the minute gap. But one is already threading a needle.

Per the above all stats have flaws ... but to say it's flawed because of a single instance, one where the clear preponderance of metrics agree typically by not insignificant margins ... I'd worry that one is writing off all metrics or putting yourself into a position where one is liable to do so if they don't align with your prior position. (I'll leave "universal" though the implicit "all" is rarely ever fully true).
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,188
And1: 22,199
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#217 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:18 pm

The tallies:

Induction Vote:

Wilt - 12 (AEnigma, Samurai, ZPage, beast, trex, cupcake, rk, DGold, ty, Ohayo, Narigo, Moonbeam)
Shaq - 6 (OaD, trelos, iggy, Dr P, Dooley, ceoofk)
KG - 3 (eminence, speel, ShaqA)
Magic - 2 (f4p, Doc)
Curry - 1 (ltj)

No majority. Going to 2nd vote:

Wilt - (ShaqA)
Shaq - (ltj, f4p, eminence)
Curry - (Doc)
No 2nd - (speel)

Wilt wins with plurality 13-9 over Shaq.

Wilt Chamberlain is Inducted at spot 7.

Image

Nomination Vote:

Bird - 9 (ltj, OaD, cupcake, DGold, f4p, ty, speel, Dr P, Doc)
Kobe - 7 (AEnigma, trex, trelos, rk, Ohayo, ShaqA, ceoofk)
Mikan - 3 (beast, eminence, Moonbeam)
West - 1 (ZPage)
Robinson - 1 (iggy)
Oscar - 1 (Narigo)

Larry Bird is our next Nominee.

Image
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,265
And1: 2,270
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#218 » by rk2023 » Sat Jul 22, 2023 4:44 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:The tallies:

Induction Vote:

Wilt - 12 (AEnigma, Samurai, ZPage, beast, trex, cupcake, rk, DGold, ty, Ohayo, Narigo, Moonbeam)
Shaq - 6 (OaD, trelos, iggy, Dr P, Dooley, ceoofk)
KG - 3 (eminence, speel, ShaqA)
Magic - 2 (f4p, Doc)
Curry - 1 (ltj)

No majority. Going to 2nd vote:

Wilt - (ShaqA)
Shaq - (ltj, f4p, eminence)
Curry - (Doc)
No 2nd - (speel)

Wilt wins with plurality 13-9 over Shaq.

Wilt Chamberlain is Inducted at spot 7.

Nomination Vote:

Bird - 9 (ltj, OaD, cupcake, DGold, f4p, ty, speel, Dr P, Doc)
Kobe - 7 (AEnigma, trex, trelos, rk, Ohayo, ShaqA, ceoofk)
Mikan - 3 (beast, eminence, Moonbeam)
West - 1 (ZPage)
Robinson - 1 (iggy)
Oscar - 1 (Narigo)

Larry Bird is our next Nominee.

Will pretty up later. Creating next thread.


While Shaq at first glance looks to have the edge for selection #8, I wonder how the Wilt voters intel for the next round would be distributed - to the point where I'm curious if KG/Magic will make the voting a tight one.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,932
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#219 » by OhayoKD » Sat Jul 22, 2023 5:02 pm

Owly wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:And this sort of thing is why I don't like overeliance on advanced stats. Any stat that thinks Robinson was as good or better than Duncan in 99 is clearly flawed. Duncan was universally seen as the best player on that team (and frankly was the best player in the whole league).

The thing is if it's "overeliance" on one measure, sure that's a problem ... but my case is that there's very little evidence across the metrics for Duncan as better. If one is all in on PER and the playoffs, maybe (but that would be doing what you object to in a more extreme manner). If one not rings/title focused then it becomes easier to ignore the playoff impact metric gap and push the minute gap. But one is already threading a needle.

Per the above all stats have flaws ... but to say it's flawed because of a single instance, one where the clear preponderance of metrics agree typically by not insignificant margins ... I'd worry that one is writing off all metrics or putting yourself into a position where one is liable to do so if they don't align with your prior position. (I'll leave "universal" though the implicit "all" is rarely ever fully true).

Well all stats have flaws but those flaws are not necessarily the same which is why stacking a bunch of similar metrics and counting them up doesn't tell us that much. There is an endless amount of theoretical metrics that could be constructed with differing priors and thus differing results. All that said...

In 1999 Duncan did average 8 more minutes in the regular-season and 8 more minutes in the playoffs. In 1998 Duncan averaged 6 more minutes in the regular season and 5 more minutes in the playoffs(posting a much higher on/off in the rs despite metrics favoting drob). And then there's the matter of pre-injury Drob's best teams not being nearly as good the 1999 Spurs. So all considered, I'm pretty strongly in the duncan side of the camp.

That said, if Drob was better, this gets us back to...
OhayoKD wrote:Also, no, "being the best player" doesn't really preclude that.

If player a is worth +8 and player b is worth +7 on a +20 team, both can be better than a +6 guy on a +15 team.

Given that the Spurs went from contention to all-time dominance with a weaker version of d-rob...
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,616
And1: 3,133
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #7 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/21/23) 

Post#220 » by Owly » Sat Jul 22, 2023 7:14 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
Owly wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:And this sort of thing is why I don't like overeliance on advanced stats. Any stat that thinks Robinson was as good or better than Duncan in 99 is clearly flawed. Duncan was universally seen as the best player on that team (and frankly was the best player in the whole league).

The thing is if it's "overeliance" on one measure, sure that's a problem ... but my case is that there's very little evidence across the metrics for Duncan as better. If one is all in on PER and the playoffs, maybe (but that would be doing what you object to in a more extreme manner). If one not rings/title focused then it becomes easier to ignore the playoff impact metric gap and push the minute gap. But one is already threading a needle.

Per the above all stats have flaws ... but to say it's flawed because of a single instance, one where the clear preponderance of metrics agree typically by not insignificant margins ... I'd worry that one is writing off all metrics or putting yourself into a position where one is liable to do so if they don't align with your prior position. (I'll leave "universal" though the implicit "all" is rarely ever fully true).

Well all stats have flaws but those flaws are not necessarily the same which is why stacking a bunch of similar metrics and counting them up doesn't tell us that much. There is an endless amount of theoretical metrics that could be constructed with differing priors and thus differing results. All that said...

In 1999 Duncan did average 8 more minutes in the regular-season and 8 more minutes in the playoffs. In 1998 Duncan averaged 6 more minutes in the regular season and 5 more minutes in the playoffs(posting a much higher on/off in the rs despite metrics favoting drob). And then there's the matter of pre-injury Drob's best teams not being nearly as good the 1999 Spurs. So all considered, I'm pretty strongly in the duncan side of the camp.

That said, if Drob was better, this gets us back to...
OhayoKD wrote:Also, no, "being the best player" doesn't really preclude that.

If player a is worth +8 and player b is worth +7 on a +20 team, both can be better than a +6 guy on a +15 team.

Given that the Spurs went from contention to all-time dominance with a weaker version of d-rob...

Not sure what's happening here.

Re minutes: This has already been covered, acknowledged (repeatedly so).
Fwiw those net extra 133 playoff minutes in '99 playoffs did allow his team to accrue an extra -83 onto his team's points dif versus Robinson lineups. Noise, samples etc this isn't some precise player rating tool... still when advocating for the value of those extra minutes ...


Re "stacking ,.. similar metrics: the case for Robinson has been based on some significantly different box-composites and impact stuff.

Re '98: Not entirely sure where this is going. His '98 advantage would be included in the priors for the PI version of the '99 RAPM cited. Still a clear advantage to Robinson.

And then there's the matter of pre-injury Drob's best teams not being nearly as good the 1999 Spurs.

Again not sure where this is going. Obviously mileage will vary on "not ... nearly as good" ... and if this is based on playoff outcomes then this heavily plays into Robinson's monster '99 on-off stuff being what's important) but that's not the focus here ... of course they're better they've got two great players rather than 1 (he had Rodman a couple of years who was great at times, but a destructive force at others and if - as I suspect given the "not nearly as good"- one is playoff tilted then that he underperformed and was disruptive and sometimes suspended in the playoffs get more significant). They also have more competent role players like Jackson and Elie as 3 and D guys. Daniels as a reserve is luxury (he's far better than a sometimes starter like Knight), ditto Rose. Kerr didn't play well but adds spacing. There's a better coach. So other stuff too. But yes, of course having Duncan makes the team better. But I don't see where that fits against anything I was saying.

Re Self quote and followup ... not sure where this is going, how this pertains to my quoted post.

Finally regarding "a weaker version of D-Rob" ... I don't necessarily disagree, but it would depend on what tools one prefers and playoff weighting. '94-'96 has monster box scores and on-off for the regular season who weight that more heavily, as I think I would be inclined to. But if the playoffs is very heavily weighted his '99 Reference box-composites are comparable to and I think on aggregate a little better than his playoff numbers from his RS box-peak years and whilst his playoff impact numbers are unknown [and I suspect some are cycnical on them] for the earlier spell they are just crazy for '99. Minutes could be a factor here in calling him lesser. Still, weaker depends somewhat on the lens.

Return to Player Comparisons