1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.
2. There will also be a Nomination vote where whoever gets nominated by the most voters gets added to the Nominee list for subsequent votes. This is again optional.
3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.
4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.
5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.
5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.
Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):
Spoiler:
AEnigma Ambrose ceilng raiser ceoofkobefans Clyde Frazier Colbinii cupcakesnake Doctor MJ Dooley DQuinn1575 Dr Positivity DraymondGold Dutchball97 eminence f4p falcolombardi Fundamentals21 HeartBreakKid homecourtloss iggymcfrack LA Bird JimmyFromNz lessthanjake ljspeelman Lou Fan Moonbeam Narigo OhayoKD One_and_Done penbeast0 rk2023 ShaqAttac Taj FTW Tim Lehrbach trelos6 trex_8063 ty 4191 ZeppelinPage
Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):
Nominate: Dirk (just because KD is not getting traction)
Shaq had the best peak of these guys, with a surprising amount of longevity. Basically had about a 14 year prime. Overrated a little on D by some, and wouldn't have translated as well today, but still a positive on that end with his rim protection. His impact is just too huge for me not to have him here.
I will nominate KD. If he gets no traction I may switch, but to me he's a strong choice here for the reasons I discussed below:
Spoiler:
One_and_Done wrote:Who do you have first? I have mixed feelings about Oscar due to the weak era he played in.
As for Durant vs Kobe I don’t understand the argument for Kobe. Durant was a better scorer, better defender, and a better complementary piece who fit in more easily with others. His longevity is enough that any minor advantage Kobe has is negated.
Let’s just look at a peak to peak comparison to start with. Because KD has the consistency of a metronome (when he’s on the court), a number of different years can be advanced as his “peak”. But 2014 seems to have the strongest case. So let’s look at 2014 KD v.s 2008 Kobe (which is often advanced as Kobe’s best year).
KD: 41.8 pp 100, 9.6 rp 100, 7.2 ap 100, 123 Ortg, 104 Drtg, on an insane 635. TS%
Kobe: 36.5 pp 100, 8.1 rp 100, 6.9 ap 100, 115 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 576. TS%
KD is better in literally every, single category, and not by a small margin. But let’s be fair to them and look at a bigger, more representative sample.
Here’s KD from 2010 to 2023, a 13 year stretch if we exclude 2020.
RS per 100: 38.2, 10, 6.3, 120 Ortg, 106 Drtg, on 631. TS% PS per 100: 36.9, 9.8, 5.3, 115 Ortg, 108 Drtg 598. TS%
So again, KD is basically beating him in every single category except for a trivial defensive rating difference, which could just be noise given how close it is and the sample size. He’s scoring more, and scoring more on insane efficiency. Even his assists are similar, despite Kobe’s supposed passing advantage (which FYI isn’t much of an advantage if you don’t like passing). The difference in Ortg is insane. KD is just cooking him.
On the defensive end KD is almost 7 feet tall with crazy long arms, so he can to a limited extent provide rim protection and switch on to bigger guys, all of which was key to his time on the Warriors. KD fits so much better than Kobe in so many situations, needing a lower usage and complementing other guys. KD was also misused to some degree in OKC, with it now being apparent in hindsight that Westbrook was not an optimal co-star for KD (to put it lightly). He often played with poor spacing in OKC, and thrived anyway.
But let’s turn to the one thing Kobe supporters can maybe argue, which is longevity. I don’t buy this, because KD has had enough longevity to score almost 27K points despite playing through several seasons cut short by COVID and lock outs, so at that point I’d say he has “enough” longevity that unless the person he’s being compared to is a comparably good player longevity isn’t enough to move the needle. But then I’m not even sure we can criticise KD’s longevity too much. Kobe has basically 12-13 healthy-ish, prime type seasons. His last few seasons were negative value add, and the early part of his career is mostly not adding too much. If we took out those years Kobe actually only has 28k+ points, so barely different to KD (who isn’t done yet either).
But what of KD? He was healthy from 2010 to 2014. That’s 5 prime seasons right there. 2016 healthy. That’s 6. 2017 and 2018 he was being rested and was out by design basically, I count those as healthy seasons. KD is up to 8 prime seasons. 2019? He was healthy all the way to the finals, then had an injury. I don’t dock him for that because it’s absurd. It would be rewarding guys like Kobe for getting bounced out in the first round, before they had a chance to injure themselves. That’s 9 prime seasons. In my mind that’s enough to overcome Kobe’s longevity easily. But I also feel KD added good value from 2021 to 2023. In those 3 seasons some of the games he missed were for rest, or due to reasons having nothing to do with injury; if he and the team were keen on him playing more, he could have. He was also healthy for the playoffs in 2021 and 2023 when it mattered (which is what he was being rested for).
I just don’t see what Kobe’s argument over KD would be. KD is just flat out better.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
I voted for Shaq last time, but honestly he was basically in a virtual tie with KG and part of why I focused on Shaq is that he seemed more likely to get traction against Wilt. I’m open to arguments for both players this time.
The case for KG is clearly that he had better impact stats although Shaq’s impact numbers are a lot better than he gets credit for. I’ve seen people describe his RAPM as “bad” citing a sample where he’s got 4 seasons in the top 25 for the last 25 years.
The case for Shaq is that he’s more of a playoff riser. He often “played himself into shape” during the regular season, especially after his first ring which isn’t going to dominate regular season numbers to the same degree as KG who was fighting tooth and nail to make the playoffs a lot of the time, but when the playoffs came around, it seems like he was the more consistent performer. The only problem with that theory is that KG actually had the better playoff on/off at +14.5 even with most of those games in his 30s in Boston.
BTW, it’s interesting how in the other thread there seems to be a consensus that Oscar > Kobe yet when it comes to nominations here Kobe has 7 to Oscar’s 1. I mean I get it, Kobe’s a very polarizing player so it makes sense that there would be a wide range on him and I personally have Oscar > Kobe while still feeling like I’m a long way from nominating Oscar, but I still found it interesting.
iggymcfrack wrote:I voted for Shaq last time, but honestly he was basically in a virtual tie with KG and part of why I focused on Shaq is that he seemed more likely to get traction against Wilt. I’m open to arguments for both players this time.
The case for KG is clearly that he had better impact stats although Shaq’s impact numbers are a lot better than he gets credit for. I’ve seen people describe his RAPM as “bad” citing a sample where he’s got 4 seasons in the top 25 for the last 25 years.
When a guy who hasn't been voted yet has several stretches above any of his, and that set doesn't incluude another guy who hasn't been voted yet that put up the best impact portfolio for his era(and won alot more than shaq did)...yeah it's kind of bad. S
And that is one on the sets. You've seen Cheema's career stuff but the 5-year breakdown doesn't help much(also weighs playoffs extra): The left dot is shaq's only mark(2000-2004) in that area of the graph. the Middle dot is the much maligned Kobe Bryant and the dot to the right is dwayne wade. Steph, KG, Duncan all getitng several stretches above and then lebron has 3 which stand way above those(7 arguably better).
That, again, does not include an arguable era-wide impact king(magic).
That's pretty "bad" considering who he's being compared to.
The case for Shaq is that he’s more of a playoff riser. He often “played himself into shape” during the regular season, especially after his first ring which isn’t going to dominate regular season numbers to the same degree as KG who was fighting tooth and nail to make the playoffs a lot of the time, but when the playoffs came around, it seems like he was the more consistent performer. The only problem with that theory is that KG actually had the better playoff on/off at +14.5 even with most of those games in his 30s in Boston.
Situation though. KG will naturally seem less consistent over a smaller sample with limited teams. That KG looks better ina good situation with Boston when he was obviously worse suggests good things about what he would do in his prime(and in his one run, 2004, he was awesome).
Regardless, if you want to go with a candidate who had team success, Magic(gap) and Steph were both more successful and both look better impact wise. Not really sure what in terms of skillset would make one think that's noise.
Coming into this discussion with Shaq at the top of my list of remaining players. But I feel pretty tangled up in Shaq's prime vs. Magic's offensive GOAT argument vs. KG's career overall impact. So I'm here to read and participate in discussion until closer to the deadline. There's a glut here and I'm also wondering if it's time to stick Curry in this glut.
Nomination wise, I'm leaning West or Mikan. I have those 2 and Oscar higher on my personal rankings than any remaining modern players.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
I, quite frankly, don't think Durant holds a candle to the likes of West, Oscar, and Kobe. Aside from the Golden State years, the two of Durant and Kobe are comparable as scorers - as seen below.
70sFan wrote:Just to be clear, here is the efficiency in the postseason:
That's unadjusted to opponent and league environment. So yeah, you can try to pretend that playing with the best team of all-time didn't help Durant sustaining his RS efficiency, but numbers suggest that in reality, Durant without it was basically Kobe-level scorer.
From 2001-2005, Kobe's Playoff TS is 52.4% - but the defense quality faced back then is vastly better than afterwards. While I might take Durant as a scorer (though I could lean Kobe with context considered - as a devils' advocate), Kobe blows Durant out of the water as an offensive centerpiece because of the playmaking gap between the two.
From 2001-10, Kobe averaged 6.7 AST : 4.0 TOV per 100 possessions whereas Durant (2010-23) averaged 5.3 : 4.1 - not to mention being more proficient and more consistent in more granular metrics such as passer rating and box creation. This is also the matter-of-fact with Kobe being more of a primary ball-handler and vastly being the best perimeter creator for his team - while Durant has played with the likes of Booker, Kyrie, Harden (X2), Westbrook, Curry to relieve a decent portion of that responsibility from him.
Robertson and West are much easier to compare to one another rather than to Durant due to the 50+ year gap in when they played, of course leading to a much different slate of resources to assess both. When looking at some heliocentric value analysis from WS (albeit flawed approach as a whole) and impact add, there's evidence West and Oscar come out as some of the most valuable offensive centerpieces of all time - which Sansterre has gone over before.
West:
Spoiler:
Let’s talk about Jerry West. West is probably the best retired short player *ever* (I say retired, because there’s a very respectable chance that Curry unseats him before the end). There isn’t huge competition here, but the best point guard ever was 6’9”, and the ATGs are all bigs, wings or shooting guards at 6’6” or taller. West was short (6'3"), but had very long arms (reputedly a 6’7” wingspan). He would grow into one of the best scorers in the league, with a blend of great shooting and excellent drives to the rim. Any way you slice it, he was one of the top 4 players of the shot clock era before, say, 1972. But he doesn’t have any teams on this list until ‘72 and ‘73. Why is that? Let’s talk about it.
You may remember the following chart of WS Helio scores from my writeup on the ‘72 Bucks:
38.1% WS for ‘72 Kareem 29.9% WS for ‘09 LeBron 29.5% WS for ‘93 Jordan 28.9% WS for ‘03 Duncan
I’m going to go through West’s years leading up to ‘72 with the team results, his WS share, and his WS rank in that season:
1961: 36-43, +1.42 OSRS, Conf Finals, 17.1%, 20th 1962: 54-26, +3.55 OSRS, NBA Finals, 28.9%, 5th 1963: 53-27, +5.03 OSRS, NBA Finals, 17.4%, 11th (missed 25 games) 1964: 42-38, -0.74 OSRS, Semis, 34.1%, 6th (Baylor started to have knee problems) 1965: 49-31, +0.04 OSRS, NBA Finals, 39.0%, 3rd 1966: 45-35, +3.48 OSRS, NBA Finals, 37.5%, 2nd 1967: 36-45, -1.57 OSRS, Semis, 28.7%, 6th (missed 15 games) 1968: 52-30, +5.26 OSRS, NBA Finals, 18.6%, 11th (missed 31 games)
Spoiler:
In fact, let’s talk about West in the postseason. Here’s his regular season average through 1971:
22.7 shooting possessions per 36, 27.8 points per game, +6.4% TS (sorry, we don’t have usage, so shooting possessions per 36 is as good as I could use to estimate)
In the playoffs he went to:
23.7 SPp36, 30.9 ppg, +6.7% TS
So moving into the playoffs bumped shooting by 1 shot per 36, points by 3.1 and efficiency by +0.3%.
Let’s compare that to . . . Jordan’s postseason change through age 31.
+0.1 SPp36, +2.2 ppg, -0.9% TS
So Jordan increased his shot-taking some, bumped his ppg and his efficiency dropped slightly. I’m not saying that West was the better postseason player (he wasn’t) but it seems clear that West’s ability to get better in the playoffs was historically quite unusual. I looked for other comps and the two of the best I could find were:
Hakeem Olajuwon (through age 31):
+0.4 SPp36, +3.3 ppg, +1.8% TS
Reggie Miller (through age 31):
+2.0 SPp36, +4.9 ppg, +0.5% TS
Here are West’s numbers again:
+1.0 SPp36, +3.1 ppg, +0.3% TS
I’m not saying that West saw his game get the biggest bump in the postseason ever . . . but it was a pretty remarkable amount. He came by the moniker “Mister Clutch” quite rightly. Anyhow
Oscar:
Spoiler:
Oscar Robertson? Let’s talk about him.
He was taken first overall by the Cincinnati Royals in the 1960 NBA draft. At the time the Royals had gone 19-56, their roster pretty much Jack Twyman and some of those lucky waving cat figurines you see at Japanese restaurants. Oscar coming on board transformed them into . . . a 33-win team, that was him, Twyman and the waving cats. Oscar would go on to become the best point guard in the league, taking the mantle from Bob Cousy and improving upon it. He would lead the league in assists six times in the decade. He would also finish in the top three of points scored seven times in that stretch, while finishing in the top 20 of rebounds five times. His having averaged a triple-double is a testament to how capable he was in all three areas (even if the actual achievement was considerably influenced by how fast teams played). With the understanding that Win Shares aren’t a great stat, he led the league in offensive win shares four different times in the decade (and that’s in a league with Wilt Chamberlain). He put up efficiencies that were insane for the era, shooting mostly in the +8% and +9% range; only Jerry West could challenge those numbers. And he wasn’t a low-usage specialist either, he was routinely taking 25-26% of his team’s shots.
You may be assembling these numbers in your head (35% AST, 25.5% Usage estimated, +8.5% shooting) and going “Holy balls, Oscar Robertson was stupid good!” Yes, yes he was. I’d love to say that I have comps for him, but I don’t. Charles Barkley when he was 28 put together 25.1% usage at +8.1%. In terms of shooting we’ve got ‘87 Magic Johnson, Barkley, ‘82 Alex English, ‘14 Goran Dragic, ‘02 Ray Allen, ‘92 and ‘93 Mark Price . . . Basically, guys that took a lot of shots (but never broke the 30% volume mark) and shot at crazy efficiency. Except combine those with being the best passer in the league and playing 3400 minutes a season and rebounding a ton for a guard. Magic is an interesting comp for him; once Magic hit his stride in the mid-80s he was hitting Oscar-level efficiency, but only in ‘87 did he shoot at Oscareque volume. Oscar was a better scorer than Magic by a respectable amount. But Magic was in another league with his passing, while Oscar was merely a very good distributor (his era didn’t help; being the best distributor from before 1980 was like being the best mainstream martial-arts film before the Matrix; the environment just wasn’t conducive to that sort of thing).
“So, wait,” you may say, “Oscar Robertson was basically one of the better scorers ever, maybe the best scorer in his era, and he also passed and rebounded a ton. How the heck did he end up in a trade for Flynn Robinson who, while decent in his own right, would only have the right to carry Oscar’s jockstrap if he made low-key heavenly choir sounds while he did it?”
Great question. Here were how the Royals did from 1958 to 1970:
1959: 22 wins, -7.89 SRS, No Playoffs 1960: 21 wins, -5.92 SRS, No Playoffs ** Oscar is drafted ** 1961: 34 wins, -3.04 SRS, No Playoffs 1962: 44 wins, +1.28 SRS, Lost Semis 1963: 43 wins, +1.24 SRS, Lost Conf Finals 1964: 56 wins, +4.43 SRS, Lost Conf Finals 1965: 49 wins, +2.04 SRS, Lost Semis 1966: 46 wins, +1.03 SRS, Lost Semis 1967: 39 wins, -0.23 SRS, Lost Semis 1968: 39 wins, -0.64 SRS, No Playoffs 1969: 41 wins, -0.83 SRS, No Playoffs 1970: 36 wins, -2.55 SRS, No Playoffs
Well, if we’re just going by team success (who would do that, right?) it doesn’t look particularly impressive. Sure, they were a 20-win bottom-feeder, and he lifted them up to respectability for several years. But I can’t help but notice not a single Finals appearance, and that’s with 8 and 9 team leagues. There’s a pretty obvious explanation: Oscar wasn’t a winner. Just didn’t have that killer instinct. Didn’t have that Serpent Certainty (err, Mamba Mentality). Didn’t have that swagger. I’m sure he was good and all, but there’s more to the game than counting stats. It’s called counting wins, and by that stat he clearly was good but not thaaaaaat good.
And yet there are weird signs to the contrary.
In Ben Taylor’s WOWYR (of which there are many formulations) Oscar Robertson shows up in the Top Ten of players . . . ever. Those numbers are never perfect, but they suggest an alarming dependence on Oscar. Here are three different instances where he missed times and their effects (courtesy of BackPicks):
1961: Missed 9 games, went from 36 win pace to 9 win pace (-27) 1968: Missed 10 games, went from 46 win pace to 17 win pace (-29) 1970: Missed 12 games, went from 42 win pace to 18 win pace (-24)
So Oscar may have been a Grade A choker/loser . . . and yet whenever he missed time his teams went from being average to being Chernobyl. Is it possible that his teammates were bad? Like, really bad? Like, really, really, really bad? It strains credulity that anyone that good could have teammates that bad . . . right? I mean, any remotely competent organization would realize that they had one of the best players of all-time and try and build around them, wouldn’t they?
I normally use a stat called Heliocentrism for this sort of thing, which is basically what share of their team’s VORP comes from that player. You have to take it with a grain of salt, because lower numbers don’t necessarily mean worse, just less dependent. Stephen Curry on the 2017 Warriors has a relatively low Helio score for a stud, but it’s less because he wasn’t that good and more because his teammates were historically great.
Now we don’t have VORP in Oscar’s day, so we’re using Win Shares to calculate it (which tends to generate smaller percentages, so Win Share Helio and VORP Helio are not comparable). Here are Oscar’s Helio scores with Cincinnati:
Yr 1: 43.7% (34 wins) Yr 2: 37.6% (44 wins) Yr 3: 40.8% (43 wins) Yr 4: 40.9% (56 wins) Yr 5: 39.1% (49 wins) Yr 6: 40.4% (46 wins) Yr 7: 44.4% (39 wins) Yr 8: 33.1% (39 wins) Yr 9: 35.5% (41 wins) Yr 10: 32.9% (36 wins)
Well, it’s been a while since I did any Win Shares Helio, but 40% is really high from what I remember. Let’s compare Oscar’s numbers to those of another historically under-supported stud:
Yr 2: 31.4% (35 wins) Yr 3: 33.7% (42 wins) Yr 4: 26.1% (50 wins) Yr 5: 35.4% (50 wins) Yr 6: 29.9% (45 wins)
Huh. LeBron James has fairly high scores, and yet his highest Helio scores are comparable to Oscar’s worst. Of course, James had a tendency to make his teammates look better (Oscar was a distributor as well, but in that era it was less effective). What about another stud with bad support?
Yr 1: 35.4% (38 wins) Yr 2: Out with Injury Yr 3: 37.9% (40 wins) Yr 4: 40.9% (50 wins) Yr 5: 43.3% (47 wins) Yr 6: 37.2% (55 wins)
Ahhh. That’s what we’re looking for. If you didn’t guess, those are Michael Jordan’s first six years with the Bulls. And, let’s be honest, they look *really* similar to Oscar’s peak seasons in terms of how good his team was and what share of his team’s success he was credited for. Am I saying that Oscar Robertson at his peak was as good as Jordan? It’s an argument, but not the one I’m trying to make. And I’ll be the first to admit that Win Shares is a very imperfect stat, and that in Oscar’s era they didn’t have defensive stats (not that blocks and steals are great, but they’re better than literally nothing). So take this with a grain of salt. But that Oscar’s WS Helio scores look so comparable to early Jordan scores at comparable win levels basically suggests that, as far as Win Shares is concerned, attacking Oscar for the Royals losing would have been about as fair as attacking Jordan for the Bulls losing. Except that we got to see Jordan eventually get good teammates and win. We never got to see that for Oscar . . . in Cincinnati.
In ElGee's model for WOWYR, West (7.4 - 11th) and Oscar (8.4 - 9th) both blow away Durant (5.6 - 53rd). This could be attributed to many moving parts around the roster. I will say, I haven't explored the three in a granular basis - but perhaps some of these face value results could be driven from team construction having West and Oscar deployed to do much more for their given offenses. This is more applicable to Oscar than West due to the volume creation aspect of his game, but I would consider West a better playmaker than Durant (hard to say given lack of film) and he has proven to be a much more resilient scorer (data listed below). So I am finding a hard time looking for an argument as to what makes Durant a better player than any of the three.
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.
Vote: Shaq: In his era, he was unstoppable. Yes, the refs let him put his shoulder down and plow over people. Yes, he could be hurt when pulled away from the basket on pick and rolls. And, yes, most importantly, he was a terrible free throw shooter. On the other side of the equation, he was a scoring force with some of the strongest gravity I've ever seen as opponents would have two or three men collapse on him when he got the ball inside. And, he was a pretty good passer out of the post; not Jokic (but who is) but well above average. Two sets of numbers that I don't have access too but that have been posted here at some point stick in my head. The first is that Shaq's teammates consistently had higher efficiency rates compared to the other top players of the 90s/early 00s (Iverson, Kobe, etc.). The second is that Shaq was in a league of his own when it came to not giving up the foul and the basket with a wide separation from the next player. When he fouled you, you felt it and you couldn't just power through it and score anyway very often. I couldn't care less how he would translate today any more than I care how Curry would translate to the pre-3 ball era. Shaq was the closest thing to an unstoppable force we have had since Wilt and that excuses a lot of things.
Runner-up Curry: The flip side of Shaq in terms of gravity (only without numbers to back me up this time). The pace and space revolution that has combined with rule changes/referee interpretations that strongly favor offense to make more efficient offenses than any time in NBA history is all about hitting the 3 to draw out the defense. Curry hits more of them, from further away, better than anyone else in history. And, he's a fine distributor as well as versatile enough to play on or off ball. I am not a big fan of spamming the 3, I think it takes away from a lot of playstyle types, but Curry does it the best.
I am far from convinced by my own reasoning. I know Magic has the greatest sustained team offense in history, but those Lakers were among the most talented superteams ever built so while I'm convinced his impact was great, I'm not as convinced that it was more than Curry's and Curry plays in a more competitive era with international stars and less frequent expansion. I know Garnett is a defensive force and analytics darling but not sure how his game would translate to the playoffs in his prime, he didn't play in them enough to have a really strong baseline thanks to incompetent management in Minnesota.
Nominate Mikan: He dominated his era like no one else before or since, probably even more than Russell though Russell won more titles. His era was the weakest in NBA history, but he deserves to be in the conversation.
Considered West (I have him above Oscar and Kobe) and Durant (who wasn't at this level in the last GOAT list so I haven't considered him at this length before), and always open to arguments though the serious statheads arguing at great length about how different stats answer every question have a tendency to make my eyes glaze over and I probably miss a lot of the meat of their discussions. Please continue to bring the evidence; it will eventually trickle down to the rest of us.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
cupcakesnake wrote:Coming into this discussion with Shaq at the top of my list of remaining players. But I feel pretty tangled up in Shaq's prime vs. Magic's offensive GOAT argument vs. KG's career overall impact. So I'm here to read and participate in discussion until closer to the deadline. There's a glut here and I'm also wondering if it's time to stick Curry in this glut.
Nomination wise, I'm leaning West or Mikan. I have those 2 and Oscar higher on my personal rankings than any remaining modern players.
I mean limited data, but there's no reason to assume magic's "overall impact" trails I think. He's probably got the best impact portfolio of anyone form the 80's/90's and he's the best winner left by a margin.
KG is advantaged pretty clearly over shaq in terms of "overall impact" empirically, largely because of the defense where:
That was just the beginning. In 1998, the Lakers offense improved from +4.5 relative efficiency in 26 games without O’Neal to +7.3 with him. From 2000-03, LA played 32 full-strength games without Shaq and posted a +0.4 rORtg. With him, they were an exceptional +7.3 (although the defense was slightly worse).
People like to take the 2000 regular-season and then package it with the 2001 playoffs to say that Shaq was also a great defender(ignore the addition of Grant, kobe going wild), but you want to take the 2001 playoffs, you need to look at their bad regular season defense, and if you want to take the 2000 regular season you need to look at their bad postseason defense. The sub-goat offensive splits come packaged with the nuetral/negative defensive ones. And with that in mind...
penbeast0 wrote:The second is that Shaq was in a league of his own when it came to not giving up the foul and the basket with a wide separation from the next player. When he fouled you, you felt it and you couldn't just power through it and score anyway very often. I couldn't care less how he would translate today any more than I care how Curry would translate to the pre-3 ball era. Shaq was the closest thing to an unstoppable force we have had since Wilt and that excuses a lot of things.
...
I'm not as convinced that it was more than Curry's and Curry plays in a more competitive era with international stars and less frequent expansion. I know Garnett is a defensive force and analytics darling but not sure how his game would translate to the playoffs in his prime, he didn't play in them enough to have a really strong baseline thanks to incompetent management in Minnesota.
There are a couple questions I'd be interested in seeing your answer to(please don't feel obligated)
1. Why did the Lakers get worse defensively with Shaq on the floor
2. Why weren't the lakers never good defensively for an rs and a playoffs
and
3. If Magic playing in the 90's rather than the more competitive 2000's concerns you, shouldn't the same thing apply when we consider Shaq playing in the 2000's. The league didn't stop growing there:
Shouldn't this same reasoning be applied to players from the 2000's?
I’ll add my thoughts on Larry Bird later. I think his peak is certainly up there, but doesn’t have the longevity. Onto the rest.
All put up seasons where they were the best player in the NBA. By my estimations, Shaq and KG did it twice, Steph, and Magic once.
Looking at all the years where the players were arguably a top 3 player in the NBA, Shaq had 12 seasons, KG and Magic 9, Steph 8.
All the All-NBA seasons, Shaq had 14, Hakeem 12, Magic 10, KG and Steph 9.
All star value seasons, Shaq and KG 15, Hakeem and Magic 12, Steph 9.
All D level seasons, KG 12, Shaq 3, Magic and Steph 0.
While I can respect Magic's playmaking and Steph's gravity, I think they both miss out compared to the big men on longevity.
Shaq was mostly an offensive force, peaking at 29.7 pp75 on + 7.3 rTS%, and his 3 year championship run was at 30.3 pp75 on +6.6 rTS%.
KG who I rate the best passer of this group by far, as well as the best shooter, was more offensively focused early career, and then skewed heavily as a defensive player after his 2009 injury. He peaked at 24.9 pp75 on +3.1 rTS%, and due to the horrible Timberwolves teams, and him missing the playoffs for a few seasons, the best 3 yr PS strech is 24 pp75 on +0.4 rTS%
As we can see, when comparing big men to big men, they all should be fairly efficient. Shaq comes out on top as the best offensive force here, while KG is on top defensively.
Ultimately, it's a toss up between Shaq and KG. Shaq probably had the best peak in 99-00 from a statistical standpoint, however, I don't find his defense that compelling, and his poor FT% hurts him also. KG was the most versatile, both defensively, and offensively with his passing and mid range shooting.
Looking at PIPM, KG had seasons of 3.1, 3.0. 4.0, 3.6, 5.6, 7.9, 8.1, 3.5, 5.1, 4.8, 6.9, 4.8, 2.3, 5.6, 4.8, 3.2
If you ask me to be a GM in a fantasy world, and I can draft either of these 2 for their careers, I'm taking KG. I think he is more versatile, and has a better fit with other players due to his skillset, plus the ability to play the 4 or 5.
However, I think at this stage, I'm going to say that Shaquille O'Neal is my #8, and Kevin Garnett is my #9.
Vote for #8: Stephen Curry Alternate Vote: Shaquille O’Neal Nomination: Kobe Bryant
On Steph, I’ve made a very long post a couple threads ago while nominating him, which I think encompasses my views on him: viewtopic.php?p=107697936#p107697936. Basically, I’m incredibly impressed by Steph’s combination of (1) raising a team to best-team-ever status, and more generally winning at a 68-win pace and 10+ SRS over 5 years, (2) winning a title with a fairly subpar supporting cast (by title-winning standards), all while (3) having incredible impact numbers along the way, and (4) being the undisputed greatest ever at the game’s most fundamental skill.
Shaquille O’Neal is my alternate vote, and the reasoning for that is essentially set forth in my vote for him a couple threads ago: viewtopic.php?p=107697927#p107697927.
In terms of nomination, I’m going with Kobe. I have reservations about Kobe, but ultimately I think what he did in that span from 2008-2010 was probably more impressive than anything anyone else I could nominate has done. Those Lakers teams were definitely good teams, but they weren’t historically talented, and he got them to the finals 3 years in a row and they won twice. Of course, he also has the Shaq era too, which I value a lot less, but he was a major contributor. And Kobe was arguably a top 5 guy in the league for probably just over a decade.
There’s some other ones I considered for the nomination, such that I’m really not sure who I’ll nominate next time (assuming it’s Kobe that gets the nomination this time). One person I want to flag for discussion coming up is Moses Malone—who I think gets forgotten about for some reason, but actually is a player who had a pretty good case for best in the world in a five-year span (from 1978-1979 to 1982-1983), along with having a lot of longevity.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote:One person I want to flag for discussion coming up is Moses Malone—who I think gets forgotten about for some reason, but actually is a player who had a pretty good case for best in the world in a five-year span (from 1978-1979 to 1982-1983), along with having a lot of longevity.
Just curious how you would frame a Moses > Oscar or West argument? Same logic for someone like Nowitzki who comes out as more valuable through most approaches.
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 wrote:There are a couple questions I'd be interested in seeing your answer to(please don't feel obligated) 1. Why did the Lakers get worse defensively with Shaq on the floor 2. Why weren't the lakers never good defensively for an rs and a playoffs and 3. If Magic playing in the 90's rather than the more competitive 2000's concerns you, shouldn't the same thing apply when we consider Shaq playing in the 2000's. The league didn't stop growing there: ... Shouldn't this same reasoning be applied to players from the 2000's?
AS I said, I am not using statistical analysis much for my votes at the moment. Too many people with more knowledge, access, and understanding for me to provide much extra in that area. What I can do, having watched basketball since before Wes Unseld was a rookie, is give my holistic memory of the most dominant and the most incredible players. I do flavor it with analysis but overall, that's not the heart of my posts. And yes, I do think the 10s, particularly the time after 2015, have made the NBA stronger as well. That's one reason I'm considering guys like Curry and Durant, particularly Curry. Shaq actually played in a weak era for centers once the 90s stars like Hakeem, Drob, and Ewing declined or retired and that did play into the thinking for me having him behind the likes of Wilt.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
An argument for peak durant would have to revolve around thinking that 2017-2019 represented an evolution in his game, that was supplemented by his situation.
lessthanjake wrote:One person I want to flag for discussion coming up is Moses Malone—who I think gets forgotten about for some reason, but actually is a player who had a pretty good case for best in the world in a five-year span (from 1978-1979 to 1982-1983), along with having a lot of longevity.
Just curious how you would frame a Moses > Oscar or West argument? Same logic for someone like Nowitzki who comes out as more valuable through most approaches.
I think the argument would be that Moses was very arguably the best player in the world for a significant time period (despite a top 3 guy being in his prime at the time), and that is not true of any of those other guys. And meanwhile he has plenty of longevity. I don’t really think team success goes in these other guys’ favor either. All those guys have 1 title. Dirk’s was probably most impressive, but Moses was the best player on one of the best teams ever—which is quite significant (West can say the same IMO while Oscar was merely 2nd best on a best-team-ever candidate). And he also took a mediocre team to the finals, running through the 1980s Lakers to get there. West of course went to the finals a lot more but in a small league with lots of talent on his team and a lot of finals losses so I don’t really see it as a huge positive.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote:One person I want to flag for discussion coming up is Moses Malone—who I think gets forgotten about for some reason, but actually is a player who had a pretty good case for best in the world in a five-year span (from 1978-1979 to 1982-1983), along with having a lot of longevity.
Just curious how you would frame a Moses > Oscar or West argument? Same logic for someone like Nowitzki who comes out as more valuable through most approaches.
I think the argument would be that Moses was very arguably the best player in the world for a significant time period (despite a top 3 guy being in his prime at the time), and that is not true of any of those other guys. And meanwhile he has plenty of longevity. I don’t really think team success goes in these other guys’ favor either. All those guys have 1 title. Dirk’s was probably most impressive, but Moses was the best player on one of the best teams ever—which is quite significant (West can say the same IMO while Oscar was merely 2nd best on a best-team-ever candidate). And he also took a mediocre team to the finals, running through the 1980s Lakers to get there. West of course went to the finals a lot more but in a small league with lots of talent on his team and a lot of finals losses so I don’t really see it as a huge positive.
I think Moses was a top 3 player, for 3 seasons. I wouldn’t say he was the unanimous best player in the league in any of those years, including the FO FO FO run.
I, quite frankly, don't think Durant holds a candle to the likes of West, Oscar, and Kobe. Aside from the Golden State years, the two of Durant and Kobe are comparable as scorers - as seen below.
This is why I have come to the conclusion that people have such a visceral reaction to KD, they are not giving him a fair shake. This is like the 10th time I've had to post stats to correct the incorrect 'facts' about KD.
Kobe's per 100 assists between 00-10 (which are the same as his 01-10 numbers FYI) are 6.9 assists/4.1 TOs. KDs per 100 assists between 10-23 are 6.3 apg/4.3 TOs.
It's like people's eyes are seeing what they want to when they look at the stats. So yes, Kobe has a small advantage, but it's pretty minor.
You've quoted 70s fan, but he is engaged in some cherry picking that Tserkin was querying too. He's taken Kobe's literal best years, and he's comparing them to KDs worst years, then he's limiting the comparison to the playoffs only. It's clearly not a holistic analysis. We call them averages for a reason. But it's also not appropriate because RS impact has alot of weight also. We don't just toss it in the bin.
The stats say it's KD, and with almost everything else is telling me it's KD (scoring, efficiency, rebounding, defensive versatility, offball ability, ability to lift a bad team, eye test, etc) I'm going to need alot more than a very minor assist to TO advantage to think this is Kobe.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:An argument for peak durant would have to revolve around thinking that 2017-2019 represented an evolution in his game, that was supplemented by his situation.
Or you might just think playing in a low spacing environment in OKC is relvant, and post OKC he is only played in spacing friendly environs.
Dude, he was starting next to Westbrick, Roberson and Adams/Perk.
Lastly his non-GSW stats are still clearly better than Kobe from 00-10. It's only when 70s fan limits it to OKC only, playoffs only, that it's close.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Vote for #8 - Shaquille O'Neal Alternate vote - Magic Johnson Nomination - Kobe Bryant
Shaq: I see Shaq as having a very solid case towards being the most talented to step foot on a basketball court. His functional athleticism and skill for someone over 300 pounds and 7 feet is an outlier amongst outliers. I certainly think he "left some food on the table" [pun not intended] in the grand scheme of his career considering the time missed in prime years - as well as his poor aging compared to some other recent selections and even nominees. However, the level of goodness / impact Shaq reached at his apex (and his overall track record as an offensive centerpiece in his true prime [1994-2002]) is just ridiculous - where the latter is undermentioned due to winning bias. I'm not that impressed by his defense aside from a few Laker years, as there were great rebounding and man:man defensive tools undermined by an inconsistent motor and unwillingness to guard outside of the general painted area. Some of the gripes I mentioned are why I may not be *as* high as others on him [as I rank him 7th? all time], but in spite of them - he still comes out with a solid body of work.
Some offensive and impact tidbits [mostly from BackPicks] regarding Shaq:
From PBPStats and BBR, Shaq Laker Data: 2001-04 RS on/off: +12.6 net swing, +8.6/100 (111.3-102.7) on 2001-04 PS on/off: +16.23 net swing, +7.1/100 (108.2-101.1) on 1997-2004 RS on/off: +11.6 net swing, +9.3/100 on 1997-2004 PS on/off: +17.2 net swing, +6.3/100 on
Spoiler:
While O’Neal’s creation doesn’t compare to the elite perimeter engines like MJ, it was strong for a post player, and, coupled with his offensive rebounding and ability to foul out entire front lines, made him a playoff nightmare. As a result, Shaq’s playoff offenses were nearly unrivaled. From 1995-2002, he had the second-best eight-year run of any lead player in NBA history (+8.8 rORtg) and his 1997-2001 Lakers had the best five-year postseason offense in history.
Spoiler:
There’s strong evidence that Shaq was the driving force behind these offensive heights. From 1996 to 2004, he missed at least 15 games in six separate seasons, leaving a large WOWY trail in four of them. In ’96, with the Magic returning the same core rotation, Orlando played at a 65-win pace at full-strength and a 50-win pace without O’Neal. Without Shaq, the Magic were an excellent offense, generating a +5 rORtg. But with him, they were one of the best healthy offenses ever, posting an astounding 117 offensive rating (+10.8 rORtg). That was just the beginning. In 1998, the Lakers offense improved from +4.5 relative efficiency in 26 games without O’Neal to +7.3 with him. From 2000-03, LA played 32 full-strength games without Shaq and posted a +0.4 rORtg. With him, they were an exceptional +7.3 (although the defense was slightly worse). Even his floor-raising was colossal: In 29 games without Kobe Bryant, Shaq’s 2000 and 2001 Lakers posted a +2.8 relative offense at a 54-win pace flanked by role players (and Glen Rice for half of those games). O’Neal’s game-to-game impact across his career was consistently huge
Spoiler:
His statistical portfolio is rivaled by few: He has the third most valuable five-year plus-minus stretch in the 24-years of data we have, trailing only LeBron James and Kevin Garnett. His WOWYR is strong (11th among players on this list), and his scoring profile, coupled with his team’s postseason offenses, are unprecedented for a post player. All signs point to Shaq’s scoring/creation/rebounding/gravity package generating outlying impact on offense for a big man, and I consider him peerless in this area among centers.12 To boot, he fit with perimeter stars and spot-up shooters alike.
Various box/plus-minus hybrids across various durations regard Shaq highly: - 2nd highest 5-year Scaled APM in BP database - 8 single seasons of scaled APM in the 98th or higher %ile - Five 3-year increments of playoff AuPM/G over 6 [Duncan has 3, Garnett 1, James 5 (3 more very close to 6), Curry none]
Magic: When prepping and going through analyses of all of the pantheon before this project, I was not only shocked to see Magic comfortably land the 9 spot on my list (compared to the perimeter players one would expect - as well as Garnett) but also punch above his longevity to the point where he stacked up well side-by-side to Duncan, Shaq, and Wilt. I came to such a conclusion based on the prime consistency and unparalleled [in some essence] offensive acumen brought to the table by Magic - where I'm not surprised and can certainly commend those whom have pushed for Magic at a higher spot than this (eg. Doc, OldSchoolNoBull, f4p). I'll link a few posts that struck me as insightful in these regards and that I felt did very well providing a holistic analysis of Johnson:
Spoiler:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: Magic is arguably the greatest combination of scoring and playmaking the game has ever seen. For his career in the regular season, Magic averaged:
19.5ppg and 11.2apg on +7.2 rTS in 13 seasons(this includes 1996) 25.4pp100 and 14.5ap100
(At this point I want to say that I fully realize that there's more to playmaking impact than just looking at assists; it's just that it usually involves metrics that don't exist for Magic(or Oscar or the first two-thirds of Stockton's career, two players I'm going to be looking at, for that matter), so I'm just using assists as quick point of comparison).
Compare that to some others in the scoring+playmaking conversation...
LeBron: 27.2ppg and 7.3apg on +4.6 rTS in 20 seasons LeBron: 36.8pp100 and 10.1ap100
Oscar: 25.7ppg and 9.5apg on +6.8 rTS in 14 seasons (no Per 100 numbers available)
Oscar(adjusted for pace): 21.9ppg and 8.1apg on +6.8 rTS in 14 seasons
So, Magic and Oscar are pretty close as scorers, in both volume and efficiency, but Magic still has a big playmaking advantage.
Harden: 24.7ppg and 7apg on +5.7 rTS in 14 seasons 35.1pp100 and 10ap100
Steph: 24.6ppg on 6.5apg on +7 rTS in 14 seasons 34.9pp100 and 9.2ap100
As you'd expect, Steph has the best overall volume+efficiency combination as a scorer, but his assists numbers fall way short.
Nash: 14.3ppg and 8.5apg on +6 rTS(though he had two dramatic outlier years - the 99 lockout season and his final season, and if you removes those, it's +7.3 rTS) in 18 seasons 23.3pp100 and 13.8ap100
Nash falls short on the per game numbers, though it's certainly closer by Per 100...in fact there, Nash gets closer than just about anyone to Magic.
Stockton: 13.1ppg and 10.5apg on 7.3 rTS in 19 seasons. 21pp100 and 16.8ap100
Very similar to Nash, and again, by straight per-game numbers, his points are below, but like Nash, his Per 100 is comparable with Stockton in fact being the only one top Magic in ap100.
Paul: 17.9ppg and 9.5apg on +3.2 rTS 26.7p100 and 14.1ap00
CP3's per-game numbers are fairly comparable, and his Per 100 numbers even moreso, much like Nash and Stockton, but his rTS is well below anyone else I've looked at here, and his constant injury issues don't help his case either.
The broad point is that among these types of players, Magic ranks near the top as a scorer(with only Oscar and Steph clearly ahead by TS Add) and pretty much at the top as an assist-maker on a per-game basis(though Stockton and Nash have a strong Per 100 case there). His offensive impact, when looking at the volume and efficiency of his scoring combined with the volume and consistency of his playmaking, is GOAT tier. To the point where I'm not sure how much his defensive deficiencies matter.
In terms of actual impact signals, I look at two.
One, in his second season, 1980-81, he played only 37 games. The Lakers' overall SRS that year was 3.27. By my calculations, their SRS in the 37 games Magic played was 6.30.
Two, in 1990-91, the Lakers had a 6.73 SRS and +7.1 Net Rtg. Following Magic's retirement, in 1991-92, they had a -0.95 SRS and -1.2 Net Rtg. Now, I acknowledge that James Worthy also missed 28 games and that Vlade Divac also missed 46 games that season, and I'm sure that contributed to the team's precipitous fall, but I have to think Magic's absence was the biggest factor. Frankly, the following season, 1992-93, when Worthy and Divac were healthy, the numbers were even worse - -1.2 SRS and -1.3 Net Rtg.
(And FWIW, they fell from #5 in Def Rtg in 91 to #17 in 92 and #16 in 93, make of that what you will).
I said two, but I thought of a couple more that are less definitive imo but still worth mentioning. The 1989 Lakers swept through the playoffs, didn't lose a single game, and then got swept in the Finals after Magic went down. I know, Byron Scott was also out, and Magic in fact played the first game and most of the second game they lost. Still something to consider.
The 1996 Lakers' SRS was 4.21 but, by my calculations, their SRS in the 32 games Magic played was 5.81(and none of the other major pieces of that team missed any significant amount of time). Maybe it doesn't mean much, but again, worth mentioning.
Finally, with regards to his (lack of) longevity:
Look, I'm not a big longevity guy to begin with. But to hold it against a guy who was literally forced into his retirement seems particularly wrong-headed to me.
First off, compare his numbers from 1986-87 - usually held as his peak year - and 1990-91 - his last year:
1986-87: 23.9ppg, 12.2apg, 6.3rpg on +6.4 rTS, 9.4 BPM, .263 WS/48 in 36.3mpg over 80 games 1990-91: 19.4ppg, 12.5apg, 7.0rpg on +8.9 rTS, 9.0 BPM, .251 WS/48 in 37.1mpg over 79 games
Not a whole heck of a lot of drop there. You commonly hear this argument(usually from people trying to discredit MJ) that Magic was old or washed-up or done in 1991, and it's just nonsense. Magic was All-NBA 1st Team and #2 in MVP voting that year behind MJ, and I showed above what happened to that Lakers team the following two seasons after he retired.
He never wanted to retire, he had to. Then he came back, won the 1992 ASG MVP, played well for the Dream Team that summer, thought people were ready to accept him, launched a comeback in the preseason that fall, and was forced out AGAIN.
When he made an ill-advised attempt at coaching in 1994, it was quite obviously the decision of a man who desperately wanted to still be in the league.
And when he finally did come back in 1996, guys like Ceballos and Van Exel were acting like punks, giving him attitude, and just generally disrespecting him(while he was putting up pretty damn decent numbers for a 36 year old who hadn't played in 3.5 years[14.6ppg, 6.9apg, 5.7rpg on +7 rTS, 5.2 BPM, .181 WS/48 in 29.9mpg over 32 games], suggesting he would've been productive into the mid-90s if he'd had the chance), so it's no wonder he didn't come back for 96-97.
His body didn't break down. He didn't burn out. He was forced out. To hold it against him is in a maddening injustice to me.
He was the heart and soul of one of the three greatest dynasties in NBA history.
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote: Magic vs Steph
I'll start this off with some excerpts from the skillset analysis me and blackmill did(and I presented chunks of for the Kareem thread). Some of you may have see this before, but for posterity...
"Making teammates better" Tiers [spoiler]
This is an interesting way to break things down though I think we can add some levels here(this is somewhat tangential to this discussion but may as well)
Also think we can add "play-calling"/"running the offense" to shift "Playmaking" to "making teammates better".
I think the bottom-level is when your play-making/ball-handling is an active detriment to your ability to generate scoring oppurtunities for yourself(at the high-end of this is Durant, low-end of this might be Davis).
I think a tier up we get players who aren't really able to create a bunch but have suffecient skill here that they are not that dependent on teammates to generate scoring oppurtunities for themselves(Kawhi)
Tier two we get players who, with the right pieces, can leverage their scoring gravity towards creating for others(Kareem as you allude to may be the best of this archtype since he really just needs "functional" help here)
Tier three guys are players who can function as primary ball-handlers and therefore automatically will generate for their teammates offensively(At the high end you have Jordan/Curry, lower end you get someone like Giannis)
And then I think Tier four are guys who not only generate oppurtunities with their gravity but effectively leaverage their teammates and their own abilities to not only generate potential oppurtunities, but then select/generate the best possible ones(low-end might be CP3, mid might be lebron/jokic, highest end might be magic/nash).
In this framework, Magic grades a tier higher than Steph based on two alleged advantages; -> The ability to leverage/organize his teammates as a floor-general -> The efficiency of his creation
I don't think most readers here will contest the first one as being true. But the second might sound a bit wonky. So let's elaborate a little:
Spoiler:
There is a bit of a fallacy I think where people look at raw assist totals, raw creation counts, or box-oc and pretend volume is everything. But it's not just about what you create. It's also about the quality of what you're creating AND how much you're leaving on the table with suboptimal decisions. Players on this tier have better discernable offensive "lift" than players the tier below, and often this is blamed entirely or pre-dominantly on "this is just because of who their teammates are", but I actually think the real source of this offensive advantage is the "quality" of what they're creating(and some of the backseat coaching stuff has an off-court effect that can't be tracked via impact stuff)
We'll get to "discernible left" after but let's start with some granular analysis. First up, Jordan: Much like we look at scoring volume(creation) and efficiency(passer-rating), I would like you to look at both when interpreting these screencaps. His passer-rating peaks at 8.0 in 88 and 95 but his creation is substantially lower. His volume peaks at 16 in 1989 but his passer-rating falls. And then in the subsequent years(largely considered his "best"), his volume and efficiency falls.
We see a bit of an upgrade with Steph: From 14-16 he puts up volume on par with Jordan's best marks alongside efficiency on par with Jordan's best marks peaking a teensy bit higher in both and putting the two together at the same time. Curiously those numbers decline when KD comes(that may be regular-season specific though).
And then we get to Lebron, one of the best creators ever: Notably his raw voume is not stand-out. Peaking at 16.2 it's barely ahead of Jordan's 89 and a bit behind two Steph marks. But efficiency is a different matter. Jordan is simply not competitive here. Steph competes from 14 to 16 but he's at a significant disadvantage generally and has no answer for Lebron's 2010.
Enter Johnson: Jordan may not be competitive with Lebron, but Lebron is even less competitive with Magic. Magic completely breaks the chart in terms of volume and efficiency, again and again. He has three seasons where he creates more than any of the years we've looked at and all three are more efficient than any of the seasons we've looked at.
Magic leads better offenses than Steph. Players similar to Magic tend to lead better offenses than players similar steph. Magic has proven himself without his best co-star, and players like Magic have shown proof of concept outside of optimal-situations while Steph and players like Steph seem to struggle generating great results until they find the right situation.
Magic on the other hand, by impact, was the king of his era: [spoiler]
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
Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins Magic takes 44-win teams to 59 wins
Keeping in mind that it's harder to lift better teams, Hakeem comes marginally behind Jordan, and slightly more behind Magic, but he's right up there with both.
Ben has his own(presumably more sophisticated) approach which likes Hakeem even better; "Prime WOWY" ranks Olajuwon 10th. Magic and Jordan rank 12th and 20th, respectively.
aenigma wrote:For how most of us approach this exercise, minutes and longevity hold Magic back. Even then, I find myself considering Oscar — the greatest guard before these two arrived. Around ten thousand more minutes played. Second highest minute load throughout his career (by far), behind only notorious exception Wilt. In presence, he offered more to his teams than Magic ever did, or possibly even would have without the stigma of the time. And yet I prefer Magic without a second thought, because that is how much better he played the position. The Lakers for his entire career were a ~7.5 net rating team. 900 games at that level, and then regularly mediocre without him (despite decent enough replacements). Very similar circumstances to Tim Duncan, except with a potentially (likely) even better aging curve.
Elgee wrote:Collectively, the film and data scream that Johnson was one of the very best offensive players in history. His WOWYR numbers are fantastic, finishing first in the 2016 results, and near the top in all regressed game-level studies. His team’s offenses were even better in the postseason, improving by a weighted average of 2.5 efficiency points. However, Magic’s defensive work dings him somewhat among the other greats, as he was likely a neutral-impact defender in the early part of his career before his defense waned in later seasons. But it’s his longevity that costs him most on this list, as HIV stole valuable prime years for him to climb up the top-10. In ’87, Magic authored his magnus opum, leading the same rotation from ’86 to a 66-win pace (9.5 SRS) and a mind-boggling 119.9 offensive rating in the postseason, a record that would stand until Cleveland posted a 120.3 mark in the 2017 playoffs.7 The ’88 and ’89 Lakers regressed slightly and then Kareem retired. With the firepower dwindling, the results still remained — LA maintained a win pace around 60 thanks to its elite offense in ’90 and ’91 — a testament to Magic’s floor-raising skills.
Injuries and aging complicate any analysis of Magic’s first retirement. Vlade Divac missed half of the 1992 season, and when he returned, Worthy — rapidly declining with age — missed the remainder of the year. The Lakers finished around .500, and in their only full-strength stretch (all of 11 games) they played at a 50-win pace (2.9 SRS). The offense finished right around average. Even five years after HIV abruptly ended his career, Johnson’s presence helped the ’96 team on offense (while hurting the defense): LA posted a +2.3 rORtg (51-win pace) in 38 games with Eddie Jones, and then a +7.4 rORtg (59-win pace) in 32 games when Magic suited up next to Jones.
Magic's case is not utterly unassailable. Per Ben's "prime WOWY" Hakeem edges ahead finishing 10th to Magic's 12th. In a partial APM sample from squared for 88, Magic, in what is considered a down year, falls a bit short of Jordan at his empirical apex(the gap between Magic and the highest scoring Jordan year in the set being half as large as the gap between Magic and #3 Kevin Mchale). If we wish to extend "era" past the 80's, David Robinson splits in WOWYR and perhaps has the best looking large-sampled stretch of the time period.
But generally? It is Magic who looks best, scoring at or very close to the top regardless of the frame. Career-wide, his raw splits aren't really matched until Duncan comes along, nearly a decade after Ervin's first retirement. And while Duncan sustains it longer, there's good reason to think that if he hadn't been pressured to leave, Magic could have kept it up too:
Spoiler:
AEnigma wrote:On Magic: gestured at this previously, but his GOAT path was comfortably ahead of Jordan’s pace when he was forced into retirement. Magic was securely better at basically every age until their respective age 23 (per basketball-reference here because both have birthdays after the data cutoff) seasons. And while I am sure many would prefer 1987-90 Jordan to 1983-87 Magic (I am more mixed on the question), by that point Magic had four rings and three Finals MVPs to Jordan’s zero. Jordan makes up ground from 1991-93… but then he retires while Magic has a phenomenal age 31 season. So at the time of Jordan’s first retirement, even if the public prefers his high octane scoring and had already crowned him the greatest guard in league history, he has no real accomplishment advantage over Magic (nor would I say he was as tied to his team’s success). For me, it was not until 1997 where the totality of Jordan’s career probably had surpassed Magic’s career, and then 1998 (plus signs of a higher level aging curve in 2002/03) was what created a full tier of separation between the two.
For how most of us approach this exercise, minutes and longevity hold Magic back. Even then, I find myself considering Oscar — the greatest guard before these two arrived. Around ten thousand more minutes played. Second highest minute load throughout his career (by far), behind only notorious exception Wilt. In presence, he offered more to his teams than Magic ever did, or possibly even would have without the stigma of the time. And yet I prefer Magic without a second thought, because that is how much better he played the position. The Lakers for his entire career were a ~7.5 net rating team. 900 games at that level, and then regularly mediocre without him (despite decent enough replacements). Very similar circumstances to Tim Duncan, except with a potentially (likely) even better aging curve.
I do not know whom I want to pick first between Wilt and Magic, but it does leave a sour taste knowing that if I pick Wilt it will ultimately be because Magic’s league could not tolerate him on the court being all HIV infected and whatnot.
Hakeem jumps ahead on the basis of circumstance and nigh-unmatched playoff elevation(a factor that also helps Micheal to a degree). But can Steph say the same? Given what transpired during that 5-year "68-win +10srs stretch", I would have to say no.
And then there is the ceiling.
Magic is #1 in regular season win% He is also #1 in playoff win%
He has won 5 championships along with 10 2nd-place finishes and his teams managed Duncan-esque consistency:
Doctor MJ wrote:On the longevity front, I've walked it back a bit. While I'm still fine using extended longevity as a tiebreaker, I'm generally more focused in what a player can do in 5-10 years, because for the most part that's when a franchise can expect to build a contender with you. And of course, Magic had that. In Magic's 12 years before the HIV retirement, the Lakers had an amount of success that's just plain staggering for any career.
12 years. 12 years 50+ wins. 32 playoff series wins.
For the record, if my count is correct, LeBron himself only has 12 50+ win years (though he does have 41 playoff series victories).
So yeah, Magic packed in so much success into his career, that it's hard to take seriously longevity as that big of concern to me. Tiebreaker at most really.
Of course he had help and I don't want to just elevate the guy because he had more help...but being the star and leader of the team having the most dominant decade run since Russell is not something to be brushed aside lightly. I think we need to be very careful about assuming other guys have a comparable realistic ceiling.
[/spoiler]
Both are pretty granular (thus longer posts), and provide a very good overview - with the main-takeaway being that the box-score (whether advanced or at face value) and pragmatic team evidence in both statistical ratings and engining a dynasty regard Magic very highly. Some more measures of impact and goodness yield the same approach, for example:
- 9 seasons and PS campaigns in the 100th percentile in Thinking Basketball's Passer Rating - Monster grades in Jacobs' historical RAPM for 1985 & 88 (Am aware this is a very small sample and only a 1 year RAPM sample) - Pretty solid on-court track record (atl at glance) from Jacobs' career tracking of Magic's +/-. Checks out given the Lakers' impressive team data in the Magic era. [https://squared2020.com/2022/07/22/some-magic-johnson-plus-minus-numbers/]. - Furthermore, Lakers PS rORTG(s) in 3 year increments from when Magic "took the reigns" in 1984 (so starting with 1984-86): 8.0, 9.1, 8.3, 9.0, 8.2, 7.2
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.
lessthanjake wrote:One person I want to flag for discussion coming up is Moses Malone—who I think gets forgotten about for some reason, but actually is a player who had a pretty good case for best in the world in a five-year span (from 1978-1979 to 1982-1983), along with having a lot of longevity.
Just curious how you would frame a Moses > Oscar or West argument? Same logic for someone like Nowitzki who comes out as more valuable through most approaches.
I think the argument would be that Moses was very arguably the best player in the world for a significant time period (despite a top 3 guy being in his prime at the time), and that is not true of any of those other guys. And meanwhile he has plenty of longevity. I don’t really think team success goes in these other guys’ favor either. All those guys have 1 title. Dirk’s was probably most impressive, but Moses was the best player on one of the best teams ever—which is quite significant (West can say the same IMO while Oscar was merely 2nd best on a best-team-ever candidate). And he also took a mediocre team to the finals, running through the 1980s Lakers to get there. West of course went to the finals a lot more but in a small league with lots of talent on his team and a lot of finals losses so I don’t really see it as a huge positive.
Thanks for sharing. Am tied up tonight, but will re-visit this tomorrow or Monday
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.
:format(jpeg)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55907029/1_mtPFq5xEKSuSJcO2W2XF9A.0.jpeg)
