RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Shaquille O'Neal)

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

DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 687
And1: 884
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#161 » by DraymondGold » Mon Jul 24, 2023 7:30 pm

Voting Post :D

Vote: Kevin Garnett
Alternate: Magic Johnson

...

Garnett has some of the best career total stats, with a fantastic top-10 level peak and arguably the best longevity of the remaining players. His prime WOWY looks like better than everyone but Curry, his adjusted WOWY metrics look better than everyone (no data for Curry). His career PIPM is the best of everyone available. He's below Wilt in box stats, but ahead of everyone in Basketball Reference VORP and in WS. In Backpicks VORP (which I trust more), he's just behind Magic.

Context wise, I think peak Garnett had just about the worst situation of any Top 15 player ever. I just have a hard time blaming him for his lack of postseason success early on, even more so when Sam Cassell's injury before the 2004 Western Conference Finals potentially prevented him from making it to the finals over the Lakers in his best year. Even so, he still floor-raised the 04 Timberwolves to a better ELO ratings than any Hakeem team ever (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107696166#p107696166).

And of course when he gets to Boston, he immediately leads them to contention. The 2008 Celtics were one of the best regular season teams ever. They underperformed (for their Top 15 regular season ever) in the playoffs... but the underperformance was primarily against weaker competition on the road. They were just as expected against better opponents. And when Garnett was healthy, the Celtics continued to be dominant. He was just 5 points short of a second championship in 2010. The RAPM and WOWY based metrics make it abundantly obvious that it was Garnett driving the success of those Celtics -- they fell apart completely without him.

Playstyle wise, I'm generally a fan of Garnett (and Curry and Bird for that matter). Garnet is the picture of scalability. You don't want him floor raising offenses as the sole volume scorer deep in the playoffs, but add some good teammates around him... and you get possibly a Top 5 defender ever (certainly top 10), a brilliant basketball mind to orchestrate your offense and defense, a stretch big who can pull opponents out of the paint, a big with off-ball value, complementary passing, and a scoring package that's still great as a secondary scorer.

Longevity wise, he looks great. His late-career RAPM for example shows he was having a greater impact than late-career Shaq. The arguments for Shaq are rarely just longevity based of course, usually they're peak and prime based with the thought that he has enough longevity for his peak and prime to get him over his competition -- I'm just saying longevity is another point in KG's favor.



Magic was the leader of one of the greatest dynasties of all time. He had help, and certainly Kareem deserves much of the credit in the early 80s, but Magic had a year to year consistency that is very commendable. His / his team’s dips in 81, 86 playoffs, and 89 playoffs from injury seem like a lesser dip than Shaq’s inconsistency (e.g. 2001 regular season, and 2002 onward), Curry’s injuries, Bird’s injuries, or perhaps even Garnett’s dips in 2005–07.

Put another way, I’d describe Magic has having quite a long peak, and a very consistent prime. So when the impact metrics and team results portray this peak and prime so well (which they do), Magic starts to rise the ranks.

Impact Metrics: His career raw WOWY score is below everyone (Curry, Garnett, Shaq, Bird, in that order). And his multi-year WOWY sample are also lower than Curry or Bird particularly. But! I tend to weigh adjusted WOWY stats like WOWYR more (it has a larger sample than raw WOWY and adjusts for teammates… why wouldn’t I like it more?). And Adjusted WOWY puts Magic above Bird or Shaq for his career value, just below Garnett (no Curry numbers).

His available RAPM numbers are also quite compelling. Magic was +8.92 in 1985 (1st in league in 41 games!), +6.62 in 1988 (2nd in league behind Jordan in 54 games!), +4.0 in 1991 (9th in league in 51 games where the Lakers underperform, ~4.55 or 5th in the league if we curve up based on the expected full-season team performance).

Box metrics are also positive on him. In my most trusted box metrics, he looks better than Garnett, Shaq, Bird(?), and Curry in Backpicks VORP. He looks better than everyone save Garnett in Career RAPTOR. Only career PIPM is lower on him, putting him at the bottom of this group. If we add on playoff minutes into Backpicks VORP or weigh peak more heavily in career RAPTOR, his box stat advantage still remains

Team Results: Magic certainly has the team results to be up here. Arguably not as good as peak Curry, and Shaq/Bird both have single years that top anything Magic ever did, but prime Magic’s teams were more consistent than any of those players. His down years weren’t as bad. And his good years, particularly those late 80s runs when less of the credit can go to Kareem (though more goes to his other teammates), really emphasize Magic’s ability to lead championship level teams.

Compared to other players: I’m not as convinced of his peak as some of the other players here. I have Curry, Shaq, and Bird over Magic for peaks (in that order). But I’m not sure Shaq has the longevity to quite get over Magic, particularly if I’m downgrading Shaq’s peak from Tier 1 (with Jordan and LeBron) to Tier 2 (with some of the other Top 10 players). Bird’s injuries are what do him in — the injuries in 1985 and 1988 playoffs dent what could have been some of Bird’s best seasons. I certainly have Bird as the better player early on in the 80s, but I also certainly have him as worse at the end of the 80s and early 90s, when Bird’s injuries began to accumulate while Magic’s IQ and shooting touch continued to flourish. Curry doesn’t quite yet have the longevity. If he continues to age gracefully and remain healthy for the playoffs (further cementing that his wrongfully perceived playoff decline are simply a function of injuries), it’s quite possible he could end up overtaking Magic. But I’m not quite ready yet, particularly if I curve for longevity relative to era. The average player played 4.66 years in the 1980s compared to 6.66 years in the 2010s (43% more), and while I suspect the difference for stars is lesser, it’s still an era advantage that Curry had. I suppose Curry also played in a more competitive era with all the international talent and rule optimization, as did Shaq/KG to a lesser extent. But I’m still not quite yet ready to put Curry over Magic for career (peak is a different story).

My biggest concern with Magic are threefold.
-First, longevity (but I’ve discussed above and will do more below).
-Second, defense. I have his prime defense as the weakest of any Top 15 player, and here’s where I think popular opinion overrates him. He has size, but he doesn’t provide any rim protection, and he lacks any horizontal mobility to defend guards either. He does provide defensive rebounding at the guard position, and occasionally gets good steals (although he misses on plenty too). But for someone with such revolutionary basketball IQ on the offensive end, his defensive IQ (or perhaps his defensive effort and habits) are really lagging behind other all-time smart players like Bird or KG.
-Third, and this is a smaller point, but I don’t love his lack of an off-ball game offensively. Having scalable stars does trend with producing better teams (e.g. scalability trends positively with Sansterre’s overall SRS). I wouldn’t characterize him as having negative portability: he has strong shooting, GOAT-level passing, he isn’t unreasonably selfish, and he has great offensive IQ. But he is a bit ball-dominant (and so doesn’t fit as well with other papers or ball-dominant players) and isn’t much of an off-ball scoring threat aside from his floor spacing. It’s nothing major, it doesn’t limit his team performance *that* much, I’m merely pointing out this as an area where Magic isn’t as good as Bird or Curry.

An Aside on Magic’s Longevity:
When Magic was forced into retirement in 1991, he was Top 10 in league RAPM at the age of 31. He had just led his team to the finals. Then he retired. He was just 32. Without him, his team dropped from 6.73 SRS to -0.95, a raw WOWY score of +7.68. After missing 4 straight seasons, he returned for part of the 1996 season. Out of shape and out of practice, he still managed to have a +1.14 RAPM (only 96th in a 24 game sample, but still better than small samples of Berkeley, Malone, Miller) with a raw WOWY of +2.23.

As Doctor MJ pointed out, we’ve seen offensive with a strong handle, all-time passing, and great basketball IQ age quite well. Nash is the most clearest example (actually peaking after turning 30), but LeBron is another great one. Oscar performed great at the age of 32 (which was much later in people’s careers back in the day) on the 1971 Bucks, and 34–35 year old Chris Paul was a strong contributor on the 2020 Thunder and 2021 Suns, before injuries and age started catching up with both of them.

Given how well Magic was playing when he retired, given his strong performance when he came back at 36 years old (and a positive performance with the Dream Team), and given his archetype doesn’t tend to age that poorly, it’s hard to imagine healthy Magic having poor longevity. Instead, we lost 4 seasons of healthy Magic. This is a pretty unique circumstance to force a player into retirement. It required a combination of having an epidemic develop at the time Magic was aging (which wouldn’t have happened if Magic was born earlier) and not having the tools or cultural awareness to deal with a player catching the epidemic disease (which wouldn’t have happened if Magic was born later). You may not want to award Magic for years that he didn’t play. But qualitatively, I’m more forgiving of a lack of longevity for a situation like this vs a player who loses their athleticism and fails to remain valuable. Put another way, this lack of longevity doesn’t really limit Magic’s *goodness*, even if it doesn’t help his career value in the 80s. And this could boost Magic’s career longevity if you consider the time machine argument to basically any other era. I don’t weigh the time machine argument that heavily, but it’s a nice tiebreaker-style point in his favor, which certainly doesn’t hurt.

...

Appendix A: Career Stats:
LukaTheGOAT wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:A few Career Totals so people have them in one place :D

Obviously these miss many of the subtleties of ranking different players (how to we weight longevity vs peak? How did their situation affect their performance? How do we see them fitting on a championship team? Do we consider curving for the strength of their era or consider any time machine arguments?), but career stats can do a better job at summing the total contributions of a player (measured in a certain way) than just qualitatively describing the players alone.

To me, the ideal analysis incorporates many sides -- impact stats, qualitative descriptions, historical context, film analysis, team performance, etc. Many of these I can't provide for you, but I can gather a lot of impact stats in one place for ease of access and to help guide future discussion. I've included some leftover players in brackets from when I first gathered these stats to provide some comparative context...

Impact Metrics : These are based off actual impact, and so are less likely to underrate stuff like defense or off-ball creation or BBIQ. But they can be a bit noisier, more uncertain, and context-dependent, especially the WOWY based stuff.

Career PIPM (in units of "wins added", box estimate is used for the pre-97 seasons):
[no Wilt available]
[Duncan: 284 wins added]
Garnett: 261.4
Shaq: + 232 (with box estimates for early years)
Curry: ~202 (if we consider 2021-2023 to be 3 average prime years. ~181 if we add 3 average career years. +142 pre 2021).
Magic: + 188 (box estimate)

Career RAPM: tbd, haven't calculated, would also depend on RAPM source.

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

Approximate Career Adjusted WOWY (average between prime WOWYR/alt-WOWYR/GPM per game * total games):
[no Curry available]
-Garnett: +6.3 per game * 1462 games = +9210.6 in his career (35% ahead of Hakeem)
-Magic: +9.0 per game * 906 games = +8154 in his career (19% ahead of Hakeem
-Shaq: +6.4 per game * 1207 games = +7724.8 in his career (13% ahead of Hakeem)
[-Hakeem: +5.5 per game * 1238 games= +6809. in his caree]r
[-West: +7.3 per game * 932 games = +6803.6 in his career (equal to Hakeem)]
-Wilt: +5.2 per game * 1045 games = 5434 in his career *[note Wilt's prime WOWY is dominated by 1965, when he was apparently playing injured! This likely biases WOWYR too.]
[-Bird: +5.3 per game * 897 games = 4754.1 in his career *[note Bird has highest adjusted WOWYR uncertainty, likely due to WOWYR over-crediting small-sample Reggie Lewis for the Celtics success in 88-91. Bird is +7.9 WOWYR from 80-83, which is on pace for +7086.3 for his career, above Hakeem). ]

Now for the box stats. These are less noisy, more stable, but can miss some of the subtler ways of impacting the game (rim deterrence, off-ball creation, BBIQ, etc.).

Backpicks VORP (Thinking Basektball's Box Plus Minus per 100 possessions over total career possessions. This is generally considered more accurate than Basketball Reference BPM or WS, and it goes back to the 50s. However, it's missing seasons below a certain minute/game/etc. threshold):
Wilt: 6472.7
[Russell: 5250.6 ]
Magic: 4425.5
Garnett: 3984.2 (missing 2014–2016)
[Hakeem: 3731.8 (missing 2000–2002)]
Shaq: 3720.5 (missing part of 2008, 2010, 2011)
Curry: 3210.5 (missing 2012, 2020)

Career RAPTOR (WAR, in units of wins added. This is the historical box component, which goes back until the 70s).
[No Wilt available]
[Duncan: 230.0]
Garnett: 216.9
Magic: 216.5
Curry: ~191.7 (if 2023 was like 2022. 176.8 pre-2023!).
[Hakeem: 190.8]
Shaq: 178.3

Basketball Reference VORP (Basketball Reference's Box Plus Minus over total career, in units of wins added I believe):
[Wilt/West/Ocar unavailable]
-Garnett: 96.86 (31% ahead of Hakeem)
-Magic: 79.97 (1% ahead of Hakeem)
[-Bird: 77.24 (equal to Hakeem)]
-Shaq: 75.51 (equal to Hakeem)
-Hakeem: 74.22 (equal to Hakeem)
-Curry: 65.61

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

General Trends:
-Garnett's combination of great impact and longevity basically always has him near the top.
-Wilt is the top of every box stat we have, but is lower in WOWY based stuff (perhaps because he was injured during his largest off sample in 1965).
-Curry's the top of the WOWY stuff by a large margin, and sneaks ahead of Magic in PIPM, and also looks near the top of available players in RAPM samples. Box stats are much lower on him, likely missing the subtler off-ball stuff he does on offense.
-Magic's ahead of Shaq in more of our box stats (Backpicks VORP, Raptor, Basketball Reference VORP); Shaq closes the gap in impact metrics like PIPM, raw WOWY, although Magic is ahead in adjusted WOWY)

Brief aside on playoffs: ceoofkobefans suggested I bring in postseason into these career stats. I fear that may be a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison for players that made it to the postseason a bunch and had four-series postseasons in a larger league (e.g. Magic, Curry) compared to players that weren't on postseason teams or had two-series postseasons in a smaller league (e.g. Garnett, Wilt). Definitely still worth looking at postseason numbers... e.g. how much do players improve or fall by? If they improve by 10%, are the close enough in the regular season stats to bump their ranking up?... but from a "career volume" perspective, I might have postseason volume as a separate category.


Also adding on

Read on Twitter


Appendix B: Team Results:
DraymondGold wrote:~An Analysis of Team Results~

...

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

Overall SRS team performance:
Spoiler:
Curry’s 17 Warriors (+16.15, +3.27 standard deviations)
Curry’s 18 Warriors (+12.9, +2.69 standard deviations)
Bird’s 86 Celtics (+12.55, +2.53 standard deviations)
Shaq’s 01 Lakers (+12.2, +2.47 standard deviations)
Curry’s 15 Warriors (+12.9, +2.34 standard deviations)
Wilt’s 72 Lakers (+11.77, +1.75 standard deviations)
Magic’s 85 Lakers (+11.36, +2.52 standard deviations)
Magic’s 87 Lakers (+11.26, +2.24 standard deviations)
Wilt’s 67 76ers (+11.25, +2.06 standard deviations)
Curry’s 16 Warriors (+10.98, +1.90 standard deviations)
Curry’s 22 Warriors (+9.4, +1.85 standard deviations)
Shaq’s 02 Lakers (+9.06, +2.11 standard deviations)
Bird’s 82 Celtics (+8.98, +2.06 standard deviations)
Garnett’s 08 Celtics (+8.91, +1.66 standard deviations)
Wilt’s 73 Lakers (+8.86, +1.48 standard deviations)
Magic’s 89 Lakers (+8.76, +1.54 standard deviations)
Bird’s 81 Celtics (+8.45, +1.92 standard deviations)
Bird’s 80 Celtics (+8.43, +1.96 standard deviations)
Shaq’s 00 Lakers (+8.0, +1.70 standard deviations)
[Kareem/Magic’s 80 Lakers (+7.79, +1.81 standard deviations)]
[Kareem/Magic’s 82 Lakers (+7.62, +1.74 standard deviations)
Bird’s 85 Celtics (+7.72, +1.72 standard deviations)
Magic’s 86 Lakers (+8.54, +1.72 standard deviations)
Magic’s 91 Lakers (+7.67, +1.47 standard deviations)
Magic’s 84 Lakers (+7.65, +2.20 standard deviations)
Bird’s 84 Celtics (+7.48, +2.15 standard deviations)
Hakeem's 95 Rockets (+7.47, +1.50 standard deviations)
[Shaq/Wade’s 06 Heat (+7.05, +1.71 standard deviations]
Hakeem's 94 Rockets (+7.0, +1.34 standard deviations)


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

What about these teams' rankings in ELO? Team Rankings by ELO:
Spoiler:
Curry’s 17 Warriors (~1831)
Curry’s 15 Warriors (1796)
Curry’s 16 Warriors (~1795)
Bird’s 86 Celtics (1784)
Curry’s 18 Warriors (1737)
Magic’s 85 Lakers (1736)
Chamberlain’s 67 76ers (1734)
Chamberlain’s 72 Lakers (1732)
Shaq’s 01 Lakers (1731)
Magic’s 87 Lakers (1730)
Shaq’s 00 Lakers (1724)
Shaq’s 02 Lakers (1720)
Garnett’s 08 Celtics (1710)
[Kareem/Magic’s 80 Lakers (1706)]
Garnett’s 09 Celtics (1704)
Shaq’s 98 Lakers (1702)
Bird’s 81 Celtics (1702)
Bird’s 82 Celtics (1701)
Bird’s 87 Celtics (17000)
Magic’s 88 Lakers (1701)
Magic’s 86 Lakers (1699)
Bird’s 85 Celtics (1698)
Bird’s 84 Celtics (1688)
Curry’s 19 Warriors (~1686)
Curry’s 22 Warriors (~1683)
Magic’s 90 Lakers (1680)
Magic’s 91 Lakers (1676)
[Kareem/Magic’s 82 Lakers (1676)]
Magic’s 89 Lakers (1676)
Garnett’s 04 Timberwolves (1673)
Garnett’s 11 Boston (1671)
Shaq’s 05 Heat (1673)
Bird’s 80 Celtics (1665)
Chamberlain’s 73 Lakers (1665)
Shaq’s 04 Lakers (1664)
Hakeem’s 94 Rockets (1661)
Garnett’s 10 Boston (1659)
Magic’s 83 Lakers (1657)
Chamberlain’s 68 76ers (1653)
Shaq’s 96 Magic (1649)
Bird’s 88 Celtics (1648)
[Wade/Shaq’s 06 Heat (1647)]
Shaq’s 03 Lakers (1645)
Shaq’s 95 Magic (1644)
Hakeem’s 95 Rockets (1640)
Bird’s 83 Celtics (1638)
Hakeem’s 97 Rockets (1636)
Magic’s 84 Lakers (1634)
Hakeem’s 93 Rockets (1631)

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

What if we look at playoffs-only SRS? Well the 95 Rockets certainly improve: from 93rd in overall SRS to 55th in playoff SRS pre-2021 (note: the 95 Rockets are currently 100th in overall SRS through 2023). But Wilt still has 2 teams better in playoff SRS only, Bird has 2, Magic has 4, Shaq has 1, Curry has 5.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,356
And1: 5,638
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#162 » by One_and_Done » Mon Jul 24, 2023 8:11 pm

lessthanjake wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:If KD wins the title next year alot of people here are going to be backtracking like crazy.


If KD wins a title next year, then that would increase his standing. But that increase wouldn’t really indicate that prior rankings were too low. You can only rank a player on what they’ve actually done, and so if he does something really significant in the future then naturally his ranking would go up! It would make his career notably better than it is right now!

It would add an extra year of value sure, but I don't think 35 year old KD will have become a better player, it'll just force all the anti-KD voters to see him in a new light... which is dumb. He's already this good.

I can't guarantee he'll win, because maybe he does his ankle like Booker did last playoffs. Maybe Lebron turns back the hands of time and goes even more nuclear than he managed last year. Maybe Giannis and Middleton are healthy. But the Suns IMO would have won last season with either a healthy Booker or a smidge of depth; and now they're better and Denver is worse. Of course maybe this year one of those other superior players gets it together.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,520
And1: 22,528
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#163 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Jul 24, 2023 8:56 pm

lessthanjake wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Spoiler:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I'm going to be honest, Doc, we all have biases, and you don't seem to like Shaq much, so I feel like continuing to argue in his favor to you may be futile,


Honestly that's quite understandable on your part. I do have emotions attached to Shaq & Kobe that could be called bias. I'd emphasize that trying to use "bias" as a reason to dismiss someone's points is wrongheaded - I have these emotions because of massive exposure to the details of the Lakers in those years in a way you wouldn't unless you were living in LA at the time, while also being a Laker fan who'd be following them for 15 years prior to that point - but that doesn't mean I'm a fun conversation partner.

I think I'll back off and only address a particular question you asked:

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:LeBron got swept in both the 2007 and 2018 Finals, Duncan got swept by Shaq in 2001, do you hold those series against those players?


First thing I think I should say is that I've said numerous times in this project alone how big of a deal it was for Duncan-Robinson to get beaten in such a humiliating fashion against the Lakers in 2001. I don't think people who started paying attention to the NBA after that fact really get it to be honest.

So yes, I certainly notice devastating sweeps like this in general.

And I can say as someone who was following the Lakers: No champion had a tendency toward either a) getting swept or b) not seeming to show up in the final game, like the Lakers of that Shaq & Kobe eras, at least that I'm aware of. I found it to be impossible not to notice. What to conclude about those trends is another matter, but when something happens over and over again like that, I think you have to start thinking about what caused this to happen.

The wording I used with Shaq is what I think is most appropriate there: I think that when an opponent had the advantage of Shaq's teams, there probably wasn't a lot the coach could do in terms of adjustments. The classic case is the pick & roll attack of the Jazz. When you have a gigantic big man, he's someone who can get exploited by pick & roll even if he's extremely intelligent as a defender...which Shaq was not. The best way to adjust to this is to take the gigantic big man out of the game...but you can't do that when said big man is your star.

Re: LeBron. This is a little different. I don't think it makes any sense at all to look at the 2007 finals sweep as anything other than a vastly superior team beating down a vastly inferior team. As with a number of Eastern teams from the era, it's best to look at those Cavs as a non-finals level team who would have gotten beaten down by a number of Western teams. And none of that is a knock on LeBron, because he was a leading a plucky little team that punched above their weight to even get to the point where they represent the lEast in the finals.

2018 finals I actually do hold against LeBron in a way. The sweep isn't the problem. Him breaking his own hand because of his inability to hold his temper after a teammates' mistake, and then trying to use that as an impressive excuse at series' end is. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things because I think those Cavs were also punching above their weight to even get there, but I don't think it makes LeBron look great.


Can we really put that much blame for the sweeps on Shaq though? In those various sweeps from 1994 to 1999, Shaq actually averaged 27/12/3 on 56% TS% (which was a good TS% at the time). Of course, you can’t have played *great* if your team got swept, and obviously those stats don’t account for defense, but I find it hard to blame Shaq *too* much for those sweeps, given his production in those series.

Well, let’s focus in on the implication of the word “blame”.

If by this we just mean something problematic pertaining to Shaq, that’s one thing.

If we mean that the team would have won without Shaq, that’s a very different thing.

I’m not suggesting the team had a shot without Shaq, I’m just looking for an explanation for why when Shaq’s teams lost, they tended to get beat so comfortably in series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,338
And1: 3,006
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#164 » by lessthanjake » Mon Jul 24, 2023 9:10 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Spoiler:
Honestly that's quite understandable on your part. I do have emotions attached to Shaq & Kobe that could be called bias. I'd emphasize that trying to use "bias" as a reason to dismiss someone's points is wrongheaded - I have these emotions because of massive exposure to the details of the Lakers in those years in a way you wouldn't unless you were living in LA at the time, while also being a Laker fan who'd be following them for 15 years prior to that point - but that doesn't mean I'm a fun conversation partner.

I think I'll back off and only address a particular question you asked:



First thing I think I should say is that I've said numerous times in this project alone how big of a deal it was for Duncan-Robinson to get beaten in such a humiliating fashion against the Lakers in 2001. I don't think people who started paying attention to the NBA after that fact really get it to be honest.

So yes, I certainly notice devastating sweeps like this in general.

And I can say as someone who was following the Lakers: No champion had a tendency toward either a) getting swept or b) not seeming to show up in the final game, like the Lakers of that Shaq & Kobe eras, at least that I'm aware of. I found it to be impossible not to notice. What to conclude about those trends is another matter, but when something happens over and over again like that, I think you have to start thinking about what caused this to happen.

The wording I used with Shaq is what I think is most appropriate there: I think that when an opponent had the advantage of Shaq's teams, there probably wasn't a lot the coach could do in terms of adjustments. The classic case is the pick & roll attack of the Jazz. When you have a gigantic big man, he's someone who can get exploited by pick & roll even if he's extremely intelligent as a defender...which Shaq was not. The best way to adjust to this is to take the gigantic big man out of the game...but you can't do that when said big man is your star.

Re: LeBron. This is a little different. I don't think it makes any sense at all to look at the 2007 finals sweep as anything other than a vastly superior team beating down a vastly inferior team. As with a number of Eastern teams from the era, it's best to look at those Cavs as a non-finals level team who would have gotten beaten down by a number of Western teams. And none of that is a knock on LeBron, because he was a leading a plucky little team that punched above their weight to even get to the point where they represent the lEast in the finals.

2018 finals I actually do hold against LeBron in a way. The sweep isn't the problem. Him breaking his own hand because of his inability to hold his temper after a teammates' mistake, and then trying to use that as an impressive excuse at series' end is. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things because I think those Cavs were also punching above their weight to even get there, but I don't think it makes LeBron look great.


Can we really put that much blame for the sweeps on Shaq though? In those various sweeps from 1994 to 1999, Shaq actually averaged 27/12/3 on 56% TS% (which was a good TS% at the time). Of course, you can’t have played *great* if your team got swept, and obviously those stats don’t account for defense, but I find it hard to blame Shaq *too* much for those sweeps, given his production in those series.

Well, let’s focus in on the implication of the word “blame”.

If by this we just mean something problematic pertaining to Shaq, that’s one thing.

If we mean that the team would have won without Shaq, that’s a very different thing.

I’m not suggesting the team had a shot without Shaq, I’m just looking for an explanation for why when Shaq’s teams lost, they tended to get beat so comfortably in series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, I think we’re on the same page about what we’re talking about. I guess my question is whether we think it’s fair to say that Shaq underperforming is the reason that his teams got beaten so comfortably a bunch of times, or whether we think it was more just random. The stats he put up in those series were pretty good. I’d have to really go back through them to determine whether I thought maybe him underperforming defensively was a major factor, but I do wonder whether maybe it’s just random that his teams got swept a bunch.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,933
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#165 » by OhayoKD » Mon Jul 24, 2023 9:25 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Spoiler:
Honestly that's quite understandable on your part. I do have emotions attached to Shaq & Kobe that could be called bias. I'd emphasize that trying to use "bias" as a reason to dismiss someone's points is wrongheaded - I have these emotions because of massive exposure to the details of the Lakers in those years in a way you wouldn't unless you were living in LA at the time, while also being a Laker fan who'd be following them for 15 years prior to that point - but that doesn't mean I'm a fun conversation partner.

I think I'll back off and only address a particular question you asked:



First thing I think I should say is that I've said numerous times in this project alone how big of a deal it was for Duncan-Robinson to get beaten in such a humiliating fashion against the Lakers in 2001. I don't think people who started paying attention to the NBA after that fact really get it to be honest.

So yes, I certainly notice devastating sweeps like this in general.

And I can say as someone who was following the Lakers: No champion had a tendency toward either a) getting swept or b) not seeming to show up in the final game, like the Lakers of that Shaq & Kobe eras, at least that I'm aware of. I found it to be impossible not to notice. What to conclude about those trends is another matter, but when something happens over and over again like that, I think you have to start thinking about what caused this to happen.

The wording I used with Shaq is what I think is most appropriate there: I think that when an opponent had the advantage of Shaq's teams, there probably wasn't a lot the coach could do in terms of adjustments. The classic case is the pick & roll attack of the Jazz. When you have a gigantic big man, he's someone who can get exploited by pick & roll even if he's extremely intelligent as a defender...which Shaq was not. The best way to adjust to this is to take the gigantic big man out of the game...but you can't do that when said big man is your star.

Re: LeBron. This is a little different. I don't think it makes any sense at all to look at the 2007 finals sweep as anything other than a vastly superior team beating down a vastly inferior team. As with a number of Eastern teams from the era, it's best to look at those Cavs as a non-finals level team who would have gotten beaten down by a number of Western teams. And none of that is a knock on LeBron, because he was a leading a plucky little team that punched above their weight to even get to the point where they represent the lEast in the finals.

2018 finals I actually do hold against LeBron in a way. The sweep isn't the problem. Him breaking his own hand because of his inability to hold his temper after a teammates' mistake, and then trying to use that as an impressive excuse at series' end is. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things because I think those Cavs were also punching above their weight to even get there, but I don't think it makes LeBron look great.


Can we really put that much blame for the sweeps on Shaq though? In those various sweeps from 1994 to 1999, Shaq actually averaged 27/12/3 on 56% TS% (which was a good TS% at the time). Of course, you can’t have played *great* if your team got swept, and obviously those stats don’t account for defense, but I find it hard to blame Shaq *too* much for those sweeps, given his production in those series.

Well, let’s focus in on the implication of the word “blame”.

If by this we just mean something problematic pertaining to Shaq, that’s one thing.

If we mean that the team would have won without Shaq, that’s a very different thing.

I’m not suggesting the team had a shot without Shaq, I’m just looking for an explanation for why when Shaq’s teams lost, they tended to get beat so comfortably in series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well Shaq's defense was a factor to some degree I think. So was what he doesn't do that other atg offensive players do(ball-handling, on-ball playmaking, team-wide decision-making, ect). Not sure that a sgood looking slashline really justifies treating Shaq like he is "blameless" which I think can be more precisely defined in this context: "did not have comparative individual defecits play a factor in his losses(or at the least how emphatic those losses were).

Shaq can and has been exploited defensively and he has been disconnected as a creator for his teammates(probably a big factor int he magic's offense collapsing in 1995 despite pretty decent support imo). If other players can be blamed when their free-throw rate drops(cough kg cough), shaq can certainly get some blame when his team dissapoints.

And fwiw, even playoff-weighted impact stuff, doesn't really see him as some sort of monster elevator
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 687
And1: 884
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#166 » by DraymondGold » Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:09 pm

One_and_Done wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:If KD wins the title next year alot of people here are going to be backtracking like crazy.


If KD wins a title next year, then that would increase his standing. But that increase wouldn’t really indicate that prior rankings were too low. You can only rank a player on what they’ve actually done, and so if he does something really significant in the future then naturally his ranking would go up! It would make his career notably better than it is right now!

It would add an extra year of value sure, but I don't think 35 year old KD will have become a better player, it'll just force all the anti-KD voters to see him in a new light... which is dumb. He's already this good.
I'm mostly reiterating the excellent post by Owly on the last page, but I'm reminded of this quote: "When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?", which is generally attributed to the economist John Keynes.

I'm also reminded of this similar quote, by author Adam Grant: "A sign of intellect is the ability to change your mind in the face of new facts."

If 35 year old Kevin Durant were to win a championship against good competition as the clear best player, while performing in such a way that it helped address many of people's concerns about Durant (his lack of resilient playmaking or handle, his inconsistent defensive value for a player of his size, etc.)... then people *should* change their mind.

What would you prefer, that people see new facts that are more complimentary on Durant, then continue to insist that their rankings of Durant haven't changed?? That's not dumb. That's new data being added to the equation.

The goal of a Durant fan, of you, should be to *convince people that Durant is already at this level*. Failing to do so should mean some combination of either 1) people aren't convinced by compelling evidence, which would be as you put it "dumb", 2) you aren't providing compelling enough evidence, or 3) you're providing compelling evidence given your criteria, but people are using different criteria than you. I have no interest in accusing anyone of being "dumb" (I don't find it very kind or productive). In lieu of that, I might suggest you shift the discussion if you're still interested in nominating Durant.

Specifically, I'd encourage you to consider:
1. *Why* are the majority people not yet convinced that Durant should be nominated? To my eye, the majority of the non-Durant voters are unconvinced by "ringz" arguments. This suggests that a supposed hypothetical where Durant wins next year (particularly one where he is assumed to win and given premature credit for such a feat, while paradoxically not being punished in the case where he doesn't win)... is not very compelling to the people you're trying to convince.
So what would convince them? Is it film analysis, which has been sadly somewhat limited so far in this project? Advanced statistics like EPM or WOWY, which have been discussed over the past few pages? Team results, which were used to argue for Hakeem? Contextual analysis of a player and his teammates, which were used to argue for Wilt?

2. What arguments could you offer instead that might address those actual concerns? If people are more convinced by film analysis for example, what film analysis could you provide in favor of Durant over Kobe or Oscar or others?

I've seen voters like f4p be quite interested in Team Results (rings vs expected rings) and Contextual Analysis (how "difficult" were the championship runs?). I've seen voters like OhayoKD focus on statistical analysis (specifically WOWY). I've seen other like lessthanjake focus on other statistical analysis (e.g. RAPM or EPM). I've seen voters like Doctor MJ highlight historical context and team results. In the greatest peaks project, I saw 70sFan focus on compelling film analysis. I haven't seen really any arguments in favor of Durant address some of the criteria like the ones I've mentioned, though I certainly may have missed some arguments. Why not try to shift your arguments to focus on the criteria people care more about? Or, if you think the criteria you're using to rank Durant so highly is a better set of criteria, why not offer some sort of philosophical argument for why your criteria is better or at least why other criteria might miss the value Durant provides?

I can't guarantee he'll win, because maybe he does his ankle like Booker did last playoffs. Maybe Lebron turns back the hands of time and goes even more nuclear than he managed last year. Maybe Giannis and Middleton are healthy. But the Suns IMO would have won last season with either a healthy Booker or a smidge of depth; and now they're better and Denver is worse. Of course maybe this year one of those other superior players gets it together.
Just curious, remind me when Devin Booker was injured again? It looks like the Nuggets beat the Suns with a margin of victory of almost 10 points per game. That's pretty convincing. They also won the first two games (before Chris Paul went out) and had a positive margin of victory in the first four games.

I definitely agree the Suns didn't have the best depth. But how much more depth did they require to beat the Nuggets? It might take quite a bit more depth for them to have come out on top. Jokic looked like the best player of the series (and the world) to my eye, though I'd argue Durant had better costars (at least when healthy.... blazing hot Booker, Chris Paul, and Ayton > Jamal Murray and Aaron Gordon). So while the series was certainly not a negative for Durant (he was very good! Certainly top 10 in the NBA, arguably top 5), I'm not sure it's quite as good as you might see from the primes of the other players being voted in currently.
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,338
And1: 3,006
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#167 » by lessthanjake » Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:10 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
Can we really put that much blame for the sweeps on Shaq though? In those various sweeps from 1994 to 1999, Shaq actually averaged 27/12/3 on 56% TS% (which was a good TS% at the time). Of course, you can’t have played *great* if your team got swept, and obviously those stats don’t account for defense, but I find it hard to blame Shaq *too* much for those sweeps, given his production in those series.

Well, let’s focus in on the implication of the word “blame”.

If by this we just mean something problematic pertaining to Shaq, that’s one thing.

If we mean that the team would have won without Shaq, that’s a very different thing.

I’m not suggesting the team had a shot without Shaq, I’m just looking for an explanation for why when Shaq’s teams lost, they tended to get beat so comfortably in series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well Shaq's defense was a factor to some degree I think. So was what he doesn't do that other atg offensive players do(ball-handling, on-ball playmaking, team-wide decision-making, ect). Not sure that a sgood looking slashline really justifies treating Shaq like he is "blameless" which I think can be more precisely defined in this context: "did not have comparative individual defecits play a factor in his losses(or at the least how emphatic those losses were).

Shaq can and has been exploited defensively and he has been disconnected as a creator for his teammates(probably a big factor int he magic's offense collapsing in 1995 despite pretty decent support imo). If other players can be blamed when their free-throw rate drops(cough kg cough), shaq can certainly get some blame when his team dissapoints.

And fwiw, even playoff-weighted impact stuff, doesn't really see him as some sort of monster elevator


All this is valid to some degree, but for instance in the two sweeps that we have play-by-play data for (i.e. 1998 and 1999), Shaq’s team actually outscored the opponent with Shaq on the floor in 3 out of the 8 losses. I’m not saying Shaq was playing incredibly well and should get no blame at all for things—it’d be pretty hard for a star to completely blameless in a sweep—but I do think we should consider whether luck is a significant factor in the fact that Shaq got swept a bunch of times, as opposed to simply losing series’s in less lopsided fashion. It’s true that other stars haven’t been swept as much as Shaq. But does this reflect that Shaq laid bigger eggs in a bunch of series’s than other stars have? I genuinely don’t think so. And if it doesn’t reflect that, then I don’t know how meaningful him getting swept a bunch is. Obviously he didn’t play perfectly, but I’m not really sure Shaq played worse in those sweeps than other great players have in the many playoff series’s that they’ve all lost.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
OhayoKD
Head Coach
Posts: 6,042
And1: 3,933
Joined: Jun 22, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#168 » by OhayoKD » Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:16 pm

lessthanjake wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Well, let’s focus in on the implication of the word “blame”.

If by this we just mean something problematic pertaining to Shaq, that’s one thing.

If we mean that the team would have won without Shaq, that’s a very different thing.

I’m not suggesting the team had a shot without Shaq, I’m just looking for an explanation for why when Shaq’s teams lost, they tended to get beat so comfortably in series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well Shaq's defense was a factor to some degree I think. So was what he doesn't do that other atg offensive players do(ball-handling, on-ball playmaking, team-wide decision-making, ect). Not sure that a sgood looking slashline really justifies treating Shaq like he is "blameless" which I think can be more precisely defined in this context: "did not have comparative individual defecits play a factor in his losses(or at the least how emphatic those losses were).

Shaq can and has been exploited defensively and he has been disconnected as a creator for his teammates(probably a big factor int he magic's offense collapsing in 1995 despite pretty decent support imo). If other players can be blamed when their free-throw rate drops(cough kg cough), shaq can certainly get some blame when his team dissapoints.

And fwiw, even playoff-weighted impact stuff, doesn't really see him as some sort of monster elevator


All this is valid to some degree, but for instance in the two sweeps that we have play-by-play data for (i.e. 1998 and 1999), Shaq’s team actually outscored the opponent with Shaq on the floor in 3 out of the 8 losses. I’m not saying Shaq was playing incredibly well and should get no blame at all for things—it’d be pretty hard for a star to completely blameless in a sweep—but I do think we should consider whether luck is a significant factor in the fact that Shaq got swept a bunch of times, as opposed to simply losing series’s in less lopsided fashion. It’s true that other stars haven’t been swept as much as Shaq. But does this reflect that Shaq laid bigger eggs in a bunch of series’s than other stars have? I genuinely don’t think so. And if it doesn’t reflect that, then I don’t know how meaningful him getting swept a bunch is. Obviously he didn’t play perfectly, but I’m not really sure Shaq played worse in those sweeps than other great players have in the many playoff series’s that they’ve all lost.

Well I think the burden would be on shaq to show that he is advantaged as a playoff performer relative to the Garnett's, Curry's and the Magic Johnson's given the apparent(at least empirically) regular-season disparity. Not merely being comparable. Shaq is not a stand-out rs player among this crop. Nor is he a stand-out in team-success or resume. If being harder to stop is not something Shaq can bank on, then what exactly is Shaq's case here?
User avatar
homecourtloss
RealGM
Posts: 11,476
And1: 18,873
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#169 » by homecourtloss » Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:31 pm

DraymondGold wrote:
Read on Twitter


Anybody know what his updated CORP numbers look like if he has posted them? It seems with the addition of 2019 and 2022 that Curry might be in this top 16.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.

lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,356
And1: 5,638
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#170 » by One_and_Done » Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:50 pm

The facts don't need to change. There's ample evidence KD is already worthy of being nominated. Some posters have the candor to even admit it, but then say they won't vote for him because he's 'toxic', or 'didn't lead a team to rings as the man', exactly the sorts of reasons I least vibe with, right after 'what he meant to the history of the league'.

If you're going to dock a guy for being a cancer, then it's got to be about how the attitude hurt the on court product, not how it hurt his franchise (because we are rating guys abilities as ball players, not asking who we would draft to a small market team). KD always played hard on the court and his team mates mostly seemed to like him well enough, so I don't see it as an issue. I can't say the same for Kobe. I'll also be voting for child rapist Karl Malone soon, because it had no impact on the court.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 687
And1: 884
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#171 » by DraymondGold » Mon Jul 24, 2023 11:01 pm

Based on all the WOWY discussion over the past threads, I thought it might be helpful to get a single database for all of the multi-year or large-sample WOWY data for the Top ~15 players. That way it's easily perusable in one spot! This is the 'OhayoKD special' data... it asks e.g. "how does a team's SRS change from one season with a player vs the next after the player retired or left", or "how did a team's MoV change before a mid-season trade vs after", etc.?

I've put the data in this thread here: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2310915. Hopefully it's helpful! :D

homecourtloss wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:
Read on Twitter


Anybody know what his updated CORP numbers look like if he has posted them? It seems with the addition of 2019 and 2022 that Curry might be in this top 16.
I'm not sure about the exact CORP values, but he gave his Top 40 players (which is based on his CORP evaluations, blending longevity and peak) as of Fall 2022. You can see the list and links to the podcast at the bottom of Top 40 page here: https://thinkingbasketball.net/2017/12/11/the-backpicks-goat-the-40-best-careers-in-nba-history/.

For the current pool of players, it goes: 5th) Shaq, 9th) KG, 10th) Bird, 11th) Magic, 16th) Curry. As for players being discussed for nomination, it goes 12) Kobe, 14) Oscar Robertson, 18) Jerry West, 21) Durant. He tends to be more longevity-focused than the average fan, which is the biggest source of discrepancy between the average basketball fan's list and his list. He still ranks having a good peak slightly more (i.e. it's not linear... it's not just like cumulative career CORP, having good peak seasons counts a bit extra)... it's just not as peak/prime focused as many fans.

In the final podcast, he gives a rank of the best 8-year primes by players, which is a lot closer to a more common list:
Thinking Basketball's Best 8-year stretches:
starting at 23:45, Episode #151 of Thinking Basketball Podcast.
1. Jordan
2. LeBron
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5/6. Hakeem / Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Bird
9. Wilt
10. Curry
(Incomplete) Honorable mention:
West: might be as high as 7/8th if healthy and view him favorably
Kobe: might be 10/11th if boosting his worse years
Not mentioned, so not sure of their rank: Garnett, Oscar, Robinson, Durant, others.
Magic with a natural aging curve might be competing with Jordan or the other top players (this might be a slight hyperbole, it seemed off-the-cuff, as Magic has not nearly as may all-time seasons as peak Jordan/LeBron/etc. based on Thinking Basketball's own CORP ratings, but it still suggests Magic could move up if he continued playing in 1992 on.).
Russell/ Wilt with more longevity or other contextual changes could also move up (note this is prior to the new Wilt video, where Ben seems slightly higher on Wilt than previous analyses? Although he may have had the new film already, not sure)
43. Jokic (thus far, pre 2023 playoffs).

This was fall 2022, so it doesn't include 2023 Curry or KD. It's absolutely not crazy to think either would rise after another prime year, though I'm not sure if it would be enough for Curry to catch Magic or Durant to catch Kobe/Oscar/West.
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,338
And1: 3,006
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#172 » by lessthanjake » Mon Jul 24, 2023 11:13 pm

One_and_Done wrote:The facts don't need to change. There's ample evidence KD is already worthy of being nominated. Some posters have the candor to even admit it, but then say they won't vote for him because he's 'toxic', or 'didn't lead a team to rings as the man', exactly the sorts of reasons I least vibe with, right after 'what he meant to the history of the league'.

If you're going to dock a guy for being a cancer, then it's got to be about how the attitude hurt the on court product, not how it hurt his franchise (because we are rating guys abilities as ball players, not asking who we would draft to a small market team). KD always played hard on the court and his team mates mostly seemed to like him well enough, so I don't see it as an issue. I can't say the same for Kobe. I'll also be voting for child rapist Karl Malone soon, because it had no impact on the court.


I think the bottom line is that you’re looking at this based on how good you think players are in a vacuum, rather than how well they actually played and what they achieved in reality. You think Durant has the skill set to be capable of achieving a lot and therefore you’re essentially giving him credit for that, while I think most other people are only giving him credit for what he’s done in reality rather than what they might think he could hypothetically do. So, for instance, I don’t think NBA greatness is defined by looking at a player’s skill set in a vacuum, but rather by looking at how well they played in reality and what they achieved in reality. Reasonable minds can differ on this, so I don’t think your approach is inherently wrong, but it’s just different and I think that’s where you’re finding disagreement with regards to Durant.

[Of course, one could also potentially disagree with you about Durant even using your approach. And that’s for instance what you’ve seen with people talking about Durant’s playmaking and whatnot. But I do think that the main disagreement with you on Durant is a result of a difference in approach]
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,356
And1: 5,638
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#173 » by One_and_Done » Mon Jul 24, 2023 11:20 pm

I disagree. I 100% think we should only vote for guys based on what actually happened... but failing to win a ring because of tough circumstances doesn't make you a worse player. When we talk about a player only getting credit for what actually happened we should be alluding to stuff like KG not actually having a 3pt shot, or Mikan not actually being able to play modern ball, or a guy who didn't exert much effort on the court most years getting credit for how good he would have been if he had tried hard every year. KD always did try hard though, and he had all the skills needed, and he used them. It's not his fault that (Brooks sucks/GSW too good/he got hurt in the finals/whatever).
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
User avatar
zimpy27
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 45,599
And1: 43,850
Joined: Jul 13, 2014

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#174 » by zimpy27 » Mon Jul 24, 2023 11:25 pm

homecourtloss wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:
Read on Twitter


Anybody know what his updated CORP numbers look like if he has posted them? It seems with the addition of 2019 and 2022 that Curry might be in this top 16.


Curry is not as good in the playoffs as he is in the regular season, we all know that.
Should that hurt his value though?
"Let's play some basketball!" - Fergie
LukaTheGOAT
Analyst
Posts: 3,271
And1: 2,983
Joined: Dec 25, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#175 » by LukaTheGOAT » Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:05 am

OhayoKD wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
Can we really put that much blame for the sweeps on Shaq though? In those various sweeps from 1994 to 1999, Shaq actually averaged 27/12/3 on 56% TS% (which was a good TS% at the time). Of course, you can’t have played *great* if your team got swept, and obviously those stats don’t account for defense, but I find it hard to blame Shaq *too* much for those sweeps, given his production in those series.

Well, let’s focus in on the implication of the word “blame”.

If by this we just mean something problematic pertaining to Shaq, that’s one thing.

If we mean that the team would have won without Shaq, that’s a very different thing.

I’m not suggesting the team had a shot without Shaq, I’m just looking for an explanation for why when Shaq’s teams lost, they tended to get beat so comfortably in series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well Shaq's defense was a factor to some degree I think. So was what he doesn't do that other atg offensive players do(ball-handling, on-ball playmaking, team-wide decision-making, ect). Not sure that a sgood looking slashline really justifies treating Shaq like he is "blameless" which I think can be more precisely defined in this context: "did not have comparative individual defecits play a factor in his losses(or at the least how emphatic those losses were).

Shaq can and has been exploited defensively and he has been disconnected as a creator for his teammates(probably a big factor int he magic's offense collapsing in 1995 despite pretty decent support imo). If other players can be blamed when their free-throw rate drops(cough kg cough), shaq can certainly get some blame when his team dissapoints.

And fwiw, even playoff-weighted impact stuff, doesn't really see him as some sort of monster elevator


Could you elaborate on the Magic's offense collapsing in 95?
f4p
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,841
And1: 1,846
Joined: Sep 19, 2021
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#176 » by f4p » Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:12 am

2015 finals
lessthanjake wrote:Steph averaged 26/6/5 on 59% TS% in the 2015 finals. And that’s as a player who has huge impact that doesn’t make the stat sheet. That’s extremely good!


2016 finals
still averaged 23/5/4 on 58% TS%. Which really would be far from the low point in essentially any other player’s playoff career


2018 WCF
What were his stats the whole series? It was 25/7/6 on 58% TS%. And, again, that’s as a player who has huge impact that doesn’t get captured in the stat sheet.


2019 2nd round Rockets
What was his stat line against the 2019 Rockets overall? It was 24/5/5 on 54% TS%, and again, with massive outside-the-stat-sheet influence.


2022 Western playoffs
Steph averaged 26/6/5 on 60% TS% in the first three rounds of the playoffs on 2022.


okay, but these really aren't that great of numbers. every single one is scoring in the mid-20's with a dip to the low 20's in the 2016 finals, with nice but hardly amazing 4-6 rebounds and assists. if this was the 1998 finals and the game was being played at a pace of 76, these would be really good, but much less so in the modern era. and the TS% for almost all of these is in the mid-to-high 50's.

you seem to want to say that the TS% still looks good compared to a normal player (certainly not in some of the ones i quoted), but part of the steph curry story is that he is a TS% god and he has amazing off-ball gravity. when we compare him to other players, we're working from that baseline. same as we assume hakeem is a great defender and iso scorer or lebron is a great scorer and passer. if one of curry's main things goes away, and not only falls off from "singular greatness" to elite, but starts falling into the territory of barely above average, then we're taking away one of the big things that makes steph so great.

just saying "he has impact beyond the box score" isn't a get out of jail free card. for one thing, these other players at this level also have impact beyond the box score. magic and bird and garnett (and guys voted in before like hakeem and duncan) all have things that don't show up. and another, his impact beyond the box score isn't infinite, able to swallow up any decreases in his play. or at the very least, if you're telling me that curry with "meh" box score stats compared to other all-time greats is still just as good as them, then what is he like when he's actually shooting well and putting up big numbers? is he the best ever on the days he's putting up 33/8/7 like against OKC? people are already nominating him as high as 8th, presumably with a longevity penalty, so let's bump that up to 5th or 6th with more longevity. and that's with subpar box scores. when he plays well does that bump him up to the best ever? because that's essentially what's being implied if he's ranked this high with those box score numbers. it seems much more likely that when his box numbers take a big hit, we shouldn't just assume that his non-box impact somehow increases to offset it and that, much more likely, he just isn't as good in those situations.

and you say if this is his worst, then he must be great. but it also seems to be about his best. it's not like i've cherry-picked random series from steph's career. these are the most important ones. from his peak. i didn't just go find some 1st round series against an 8th seed where he was bored and didn't put up big numbers. i didn't include series from 2013 or 2014. i didn't include the 2018 finals, which were weirdly inefficient, because it was a cakewalk and i doubt he felt threatened enough to do any more than he did. i picked most of his most important series from his peak years. and none of them are standout. 23/5/4 on 54 TS% in the year 2019 is just bad. chris paul almost had the same game score and he looked so washed that that offseason they had to add 4 picks just to trade him for russell westbrook. 26/6/5 on 60% TS% in the west playoffs in 2022 is nothing to write home about. steph put up 30/6/5 on 59 TS% this year in the playoffs, and his PER was only 20.4! WS48 of 0.131. not even remotely impressive compared to some of the guys we're talking about. that's how much the stats have changed and why a nice 25/5/5 line isn't what it used to be, especially for someone whose case is built almost entirely on offense.

This is a second instance of “Here’s an example of something that definitely disproves my point, but I’ll mostly ignore it.”


i didn't ignore either. without these, steph's playoff career would arguably be almost entirely devoid of big moments in high leverage situations. as it is, the last 3 games against OKC and game 4 against boston lifted him up a decent number of spots in my rankings, as i think it showed separation from some of the guys i didn't see do that. i wouldn't have him in my top 15 without those moments, much less arguing maybe 12th or 13th in this project.



he can play his worst series ever in the 2016 finals, bad by any great player standard, and still be one minute away from a title.


I’ve been over this before, but it really is not a valid point. The Warriors did not win the series. They won 3 games. Steph played well in 2 of those wins. Your whole point here basically revolves around the Warriors winning *one game* that Steph didn’t play well in (and of course they lost all the others). And that was a home game in which LeBron, Kyrie, and Love all played badly. Steph didn’t get bailed out at all that series. They won when he played very well, and lost all but one game he didn’t, and that was just because it was a home game where all the other team’s stars were bad too. The series was actually a pretty good demonstration of the Warriors needing Steph to play really well in order to have much hope of winning.


in order to have much hope? if 2 plays go differently at the end of game 7, his team wins the title. that's a lot of hope. playing well twice and almost winning a title is incredibly fortunate. plenty of guys not only have to play great to get a win, but even have some great performances thrown away on losses. not just 4 good games that are wins and 3 bad games that are losses.
LukaTheGOAT
Analyst
Posts: 3,271
And1: 2,983
Joined: Dec 25, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#177 » by LukaTheGOAT » Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:19 am

f4p wrote:2015 finals
lessthanjake wrote:Steph averaged 26/6/5 on 59% TS% in the 2015 finals. And that’s as a player who has huge impact that doesn’t make the stat sheet. That’s extremely good!


2016 finals
still averaged 23/5/4 on 58% TS%. Which really would be far from the low point in essentially any other player’s playoff career


2018 WCF
What were his stats the whole series? It was 25/7/6 on 58% TS%. And, again, that’s as a player who has huge impact that doesn’t get captured in the stat sheet.


2019 2nd round Rockets
What was his stat line against the 2019 Rockets overall? It was 24/5/5 on 54% TS%, and again, with massive outside-the-stat-sheet influence.


2022 Western playoffs
Steph averaged 26/6/5 on 60% TS% in the first three rounds of the playoffs on 2022.


okay, but these really aren't that great of numbers. every single one is scoring in the mid-20's with a dip to the low 20's in the 2016 finals, with nice but hardly amazing 4-6 rebounds and assists. if this was the 1998 finals and the game was being played at a pace of 76, these would be really good, but much less so in the modern era. and the TS% for almost all of these is in the mid-to-high 50's.

you seem to want to say that the TS% still looks good compared to a normal player (certainly not in some of the ones i quoted), but part of the steph curry story is that he is a TS% god and he has amazing off-ball gravity. when we compare him to other players, we're working from that baseline. same as we assume hakeem is a great defender and iso scorer or lebron is a great scorer and passer. if one of curry's main things goes away, and not only falls off from "singular greatness" to elite, but starts falling into the territory of barely above average, then we're taking away one of the big things that makes steph so great.

just saying "he has impact beyond the box score" isn't a get out of jail free card. for one thing, these other players at this level also have impact beyond the box score. magic and bird and garnett (and guys voted in before like hakeem and duncan) all have things that don't show up. and another, his impact beyond the box score isn't infinite, able to swallow up any decreases in his play. or at the very least, if you're telling me that curry with "meh" box score stats compared to other all-time greats is still just as good as them, then what is he like when he's actually shooting well and putting up big numbers? is he the best ever on the days he's putting up 33/8/7 like against OKC? people are already nominating him as high as 8th, presumably with a longevity penalty, so let's bump that up to 5th or 6th with more longevity. and that's with subpar box scores. when he plays well does that bump him up to the best ever? because that's essentially what's being implied if he's ranked this high with those box score numbers. it seems much more likely that when his box numbers take a big hit, we shouldn't just assume that his non-box impact somehow increases to offset it and that, much more likely, he just isn't as good in those situations.

and you say if this is his worst, then he must be great. but it also seems to be about his best. it's not like i've cherry-picked random series from steph's career. these are the most important ones. from his peak. i didn't just go find some 1st round series against an 8th seed where he was bored and didn't put up big numbers. i didn't include series from 2013 or 2014. i didn't include the 2018 finals, which were weirdly inefficient, because it was a cakewalk and i doubt he felt threatened enough to do any more than he did. i picked most of his most important series from his peak years. and none of them are standout. 23/5/4 on 54 TS% in the year 2019 is just bad. chris paul almost had the same game score and he looked so washed that that offseason they had to add 4 picks just to trade him for russell westbrook. 26/6/5 on 60% TS% in the west playoffs in 2022 is nothing to write home about. steph put up 30/6/5 on 59 TS% this year in the playoffs, and his PER was only 20.4! WS48 of 0.131. not even remotely impressive compared to some of the guys we're talking about. that's how much the stats have changed and why a nice 25/5/5 line isn't what it used to be, especially for someone whose case is built almost entirely on offense.

This is a second instance of “Here’s an example of something that definitely disproves my point, but I’ll mostly ignore it.”


i didn't ignore either. without these, steph's playoff career would arguably be almost entirely devoid of big moments in high leverage situations. as it is, the last 3 games against OKC and game 4 against boston lifted him up a decent number of spots in my rankings, as i think it showed separation from some of the guys i didn't see do that. i wouldn't have him in my top 15 without those moments, much less arguing maybe 12th or 13th in this project.



he can play his worst series ever in the 2016 finals, bad by any great player standard, and still be one minute away from a title.


I’ve been over this before, but it really is not a valid point. The Warriors did not win the series. They won 3 games. Steph played well in 2 of those wins. Your whole point here basically revolves around the Warriors winning *one game* that Steph didn’t play well in (and of course they lost all the others). And that was a home game in which LeBron, Kyrie, and Love all played badly. Steph didn’t get bailed out at all that series. They won when he played very well, and lost all but one game he didn’t, and that was just because it was a home game where all the other team’s stars were bad too. The series was actually a pretty good demonstration of the Warriors needing Steph to play really well in order to have much hope of winning.


in order to have much hope? if 2 plays go differently at the end of game 7, his team wins the title. that's a lot of hope. playing well twice and almost winning a title is incredibly fortunate. plenty of guys not only have to play great to get a win, but even have some great performances thrown away on losses. not just 4 good games that are wins and 3 bad games that are losses.


Curry's relative true shooting is still elite even if not singularly outlier.

During his 3-year peak from 15-17, he has a rTS% of 8.6% on Adjusted 28.9 pts per 75.

If you want to look at his 5-year Peak from 15-19, he is at rTS% of 7.3% on Adjusted 28 pts per 75.

That's elite.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,520
And1: 22,528
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#178 » by Doctor MJ » Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:21 am

One_and_Done wrote:I disagree. I 100% think we should only vote for guys based on what actually happened... but failing to win a ring because of tough circumstances doesn't make you a worse player. When we talk about a player only getting credit for what actually happened we should be alluding to stuff like KG not actually having a 3pt shot, or Mikan not actually being able to play modern ball, or a guy who didn't exert much effort on the court most years getting credit for how good he would have been if he had tried hard every year. KD always did try hard though, and he had all the skills needed, and he used them. It's not his fault that (Brooks sucks/GSW too good/he got hurt in the finals/whatever).

So I’ve been staying out of your debate here because I don’t want to be a micromanager, but a question arises in my mind reading this post:

Let’s say KD plays the same in ‘20-21 as he did but missed no time and wins all the awards on his way to a title. Does that help him on your list compared to how you have him now?

What about if the Nets beat the Bucks in the playoffs but KD looks worn out and the Nets lose in the next round, would that hurt him on your list? (Noting that KD himself has talked about his exhaustion and his doubts about being able to sustain his play through the rest of the playoffs.)

I ask these questions looking to get a sense of how you see “what actually happened”. If a guy missing a lot of time in the regular season and then only playing two rounds of the playoffs is no different from a guy playing all games all the way through the finals in your assessment, then you’ve got to understand why others take issue with a notion of “what actually happened” and paint your perspective as “goodness in a vacuum”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
f4p
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,841
And1: 1,846
Joined: Sep 19, 2021
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#179 » by f4p » Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:44 am

LukaTheGOAT wrote:
Spoiler:
f4p wrote:2015 finals
lessthanjake wrote:Steph averaged 26/6/5 on 59% TS% in the 2015 finals. And that’s as a player who has huge impact that doesn’t make the stat sheet. That’s extremely good!


2016 finals
still averaged 23/5/4 on 58% TS%. Which really would be far from the low point in essentially any other player’s playoff career


2018 WCF
What were his stats the whole series? It was 25/7/6 on 58% TS%. And, again, that’s as a player who has huge impact that doesn’t get captured in the stat sheet.


2019 2nd round Rockets
What was his stat line against the 2019 Rockets overall? It was 24/5/5 on 54% TS%, and again, with massive outside-the-stat-sheet influence.


2022 Western playoffs
Steph averaged 26/6/5 on 60% TS% in the first three rounds of the playoffs on 2022.


okay, but these really aren't that great of numbers. every single one is scoring in the mid-20's with a dip to the low 20's in the 2016 finals, with nice but hardly amazing 4-6 rebounds and assists. if this was the 1998 finals and the game was being played at a pace of 76, these would be really good, but much less so in the modern era. and the TS% for almost all of these is in the mid-to-high 50's.

you seem to want to say that the TS% still looks good compared to a normal player (certainly not in some of the ones i quoted), but part of the steph curry story is that he is a TS% god and he has amazing off-ball gravity. when we compare him to other players, we're working from that baseline. same as we assume hakeem is a great defender and iso scorer or lebron is a great scorer and passer. if one of curry's main things goes away, and not only falls off from "singular greatness" to elite, but starts falling into the territory of barely above average, then we're taking away one of the big things that makes steph so great.

just saying "he has impact beyond the box score" isn't a get out of jail free card. for one thing, these other players at this level also have impact beyond the box score. magic and bird and garnett (and guys voted in before like hakeem and duncan) all have things that don't show up. and another, his impact beyond the box score isn't infinite, able to swallow up any decreases in his play. or at the very least, if you're telling me that curry with "meh" box score stats compared to other all-time greats is still just as good as them, then what is he like when he's actually shooting well and putting up big numbers? is he the best ever on the days he's putting up 33/8/7 like against OKC? people are already nominating him as high as 8th, presumably with a longevity penalty, so let's bump that up to 5th or 6th with more longevity. and that's with subpar box scores. when he plays well does that bump him up to the best ever? because that's essentially what's being implied if he's ranked this high with those box score numbers. it seems much more likely that when his box numbers take a big hit, we shouldn't just assume that his non-box impact somehow increases to offset it and that, much more likely, he just isn't as good in those situations.

and you say if this is his worst, then he must be great. but it also seems to be about his best. it's not like i've cherry-picked random series from steph's career. these are the most important ones. from his peak. i didn't just go find some 1st round series against an 8th seed where he was bored and didn't put up big numbers. i didn't include series from 2013 or 2014. i didn't include the 2018 finals, which were weirdly inefficient, because it was a cakewalk and i doubt he felt threatened enough to do any more than he did. i picked most of his most important series from his peak years. and none of them are standout. 23/5/4 on 54 TS% in the year 2019 is just bad. chris paul almost had the same game score and he looked so washed that that offseason they had to add 4 picks just to trade him for russell westbrook. 26/6/5 on 60% TS% in the west playoffs in 2022 is nothing to write home about. steph put up 30/6/5 on 59 TS% this year in the playoffs, and his PER was only 20.4! WS48 of 0.131. not even remotely impressive compared to some of the guys we're talking about. that's how much the stats have changed and why a nice 25/5/5 line isn't what it used to be, especially for someone whose case is built almost entirely on offense.

This is a second instance of “Here’s an example of something that definitely disproves my point, but I’ll mostly ignore it.”


i didn't ignore either. without these, steph's playoff career would arguably be almost entirely devoid of big moments in high leverage situations. as it is, the last 3 games against OKC and game 4 against boston lifted him up a decent number of spots in my rankings, as i think it showed separation from some of the guys i didn't see do that. i wouldn't have him in my top 15 without those moments, much less arguing maybe 12th or 13th in this project.




I’ve been over this before, but it really is not a valid point. The Warriors did not win the series. They won 3 games. Steph played well in 2 of those wins. Your whole point here basically revolves around the Warriors winning *one game* that Steph didn’t play well in (and of course they lost all the others). And that was a home game in which LeBron, Kyrie, and Love all played badly. Steph didn’t get bailed out at all that series. They won when he played very well, and lost all but one game he didn’t, and that was just because it was a home game where all the other team’s stars were bad too. The series was actually a pretty good demonstration of the Warriors needing Steph to play really well in order to have much hope of winning.


in order to have much hope? if 2 plays go differently at the end of game 7, his team wins the title. that's a lot of hope. playing well twice and almost winning a title is incredibly fortunate. plenty of guys not only have to play great to get a win, but even have some great performances thrown away on losses. not just 4 good games that are wins and 3 bad games that are losses.


Curry's relative true shooting is still elite even if not singularly outlier.

During his 3-year peak from 15-17, he has a rTS% of 8.6% on Adjusted 28.9 pts per 75.

If you want to look at his 5-year Peak from 15-19, he is at rTS% of 7.3% on Adjusted 28 pts per 75.

That's elite.


but that's why i'm bringing up his biggest series. and i never said he wasn't efficient in 2017, just that it was easy. he can put up a 72 TS% against the 2017 spurs after kawhi is injured or smack the crap out of 2019 portland, but those aren't really where his team's title chances were up for grabs. these other series were.

and i would be more sympathetic if he was just facing defensive juggernaut's in these series, but he wasn't. the 2022 celtics were the first defense he ever faced below -4.2 rDRtg, and the -4.2 team was all the way back in 2013 against the spurs. so none during his peak (not counting the kawhi-less spurs for obvious reasons). the 2016 cavs have a bad defensive point guard and an exploitable slow-footed big in kevin love. the 2018 rockets had a very good defense but it was still just ranked #6. the 2019 rockets weren't quite as good. the 2022 western opponents weren't amazing i don't believe, with denver being pretty bad. 2015 cavs were really good at defense, but that seems to be the only one in the series i mentioned. if he was going up against 2004 pistons/2008 celtics level teams and struggling then ok, that's understandable. happens to the best of 'em. but he was seemingly given prime opportunities to dominate and time and again ends up in the mid-to-high 50's on TS%.


also, just so i know, is rTS% in the playoffs (i assume your numbers were for the playoffs) based on comparing to the league's TS% in the regular season or the TS% in the playoffs? and does it account for things like being on one of the best defensive teams that plays 4 rounds and hold down everyone else's TS%?
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,266
And1: 2,273
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Deadline 11:59 PM EST on 7/24/28 

Post#180 » by rk2023 » Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:46 am

What's the vote tally looking like so far?
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.

Return to Player Comparisons