RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #11 (Stephen Curry)

[HeartBreakKid]

I’ve talked a lot about the higher quality of modern basketball a lot throughout this project.

To my mind a fair amount changed in the NBA even between 2010 and 2011. By 2015 it had begun the process of turning into an almost different sport. In that sense, Kobe is no more of a modern player than Bird, because his entire prime happens before the changes to the league that warped it into a new sport. He was there for the introduction of the new rules that hyper-charged offenses from 2005 onwards, and he was there for the introduction of the new strong side defensive concepts which came in from 2008 onwards, but it’s notable that his prime appears to end in 2011, the same time that both concepts were adopted by a single team in the Mavericks (albeit to a limited extent).

By 2015 the Hibbert’s and Tony Allen’s of the NBA were finding they had no place, and the playstyles of inefficient Iso-kings like Melo had become untenable. I think Kobe was quite lucky his career ended when it did, as if he had been 5 years younger I think the flaws in his game would have received far more criticism; much like an elderly Kobe got over his final 2 years in the league.

This touches on something not sufficiently discussed, which is that Kobe was a terrible team mate who for a “modern” player had a play-style that was often the antithesis of today’s league. Look at him shooting his team out of the 2004 finals by refusing to pass to Shaq, because he was gunning for finals MVP. Look at his dreadful shot selection in 2008, and even 2010 where he relied on Pau to bail him out. Look at the horrid 2011 series where Dirk completely outplayed him. Kobe was a “my way or the high way” sort of guy, who caused a tonne of on-court and chemistry issues for his teams over the years with an attitude that would have seen him labelled as a cancer in today’s game. His game 7 v.s the 2006 Suns, where he deliberately refused to shoot in the 2nd half as a response to criticism that he should share the ball more, stands out as particularly Kyrie like in it’s childishness.

In order to be a player who could transcend the weaker eras of the NBA, you need to really stand out. Guys like Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, and even Bird or D.Rob, pass this test. You can see the way Bird and D.Rob were the catalyst for the greatest team improvements in NBA history. You can see the floor raising of Duncan in 01-03, or Hakeem in 94, to lift bad teams into contender status. Then there’s Kobe. He starts getting minutes on a stacked Laker team, and in his years with Shaq we see a disturbing discrepancy. The Lakers play like a 60 win team in games Kobe misses, but Shaq plays. Invert that and Kobe is not even leading the Shaqless Lakers to 500 ball. We finally get to see Kobe without Shaq in 05-07, and it’s a disaster for his rep. He shows very limited floor raising compared to the all-time greats in discussion here. Then from 08 onwards he’s got a team so stacked they could win 50 games without him. Then his prime ends and that’s it. I walk away feeling confident that Kobe was not a great floor raiser. He was a complementary piece. Unlike a lot of complementary pieces like KG or Durant, you also need to be extra careful about how he’s deployed so he’s not a bad fit (and doesn’t feud with his team mates).

Kobe isn’t going to be in my top 20. He’s just not enough of an impact player, and that means longevity can only get him so far. Then there’s the question of how much longevity he even has. His fans only give him 10 prime years (00-10 is usually the proposed time frame, with 05 often excluded due to him supposedly being too injured). He adds some value in the other years, but he honestly doesn’t have that much longevity given the superior players he’s being compared to. Some guys like the Malones actually have more longevity than him, and KD is pretty similar.

I don't have Kobe in my top 20 (or 25) either, but to me it's a question of if Bird is top 30, or even top 50. Robinson, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, Dirk, etc, were all all-time greats.

You know, this board was quite ready to rebut against outsiders who claimed it was crazy that MJ wasn't #1, and that should be applauded.

But then, the fact that this take is just made passively, something that doesn't fit with the values of the other voters here, and no one outside of the person running the vote cares to make note of this.
..kind of shows that this board will only fight outlandish takes when it is about some players.

What's there really to say? Bird is not getting in this thread so I don't think it's proper to derail it to debate a rather out landish opinion.

There is already a lot of anti-Bird stuff outside of these threads recently, so I reckon the great Bird war will come soon enough.

[OhayoKD]

TLDR: Bird is 80's Steph?

Yeah, alright I got some (optional)HW for you:
[url]

Watch on YouTube

;t=658s[/url]
See this iconic game from Bird?

Count for me how many times Bird moves one defender who otherwise might have stopped a score/open look(time-stamps would be appreciated) keeping in mind
-> creation typically involves completely taking out multiple defenders during a possession
-> wide-open looks(near 3/4ths of the game(4th quarter, most of 1st half) tracked we've spotted 3? overall) are easier to convert than not wide open looks

I just tracked a game where Bird generated more open shots for teammates 11 times. So I'm skeptical of this.

Thinking Basketball, who's tracked Bird in great detail across far more than just one game, puts bird in the Top 10 playmakers ever (#8 in in Podcasts #23) for his combination of off ball movement and GAOT level passing. The Greatest Peaks video and his top 40 profile go into this more.

Gee, what did Thinking Basketball say about Hakeem?

I also said "wide-open" not "more open" but per usual you read selectively

Will also note, in a lineup where everyone was a capable ball-handler/on-ball playmakers, two of whom were strong isolation scorers, and all of whom were positive to strong defenders(who played at a 45-win pace without in years they were not winning titles(89, 87/88), Bird generated...

-> nowhere near goat-offense(resonably can be argued to be sub or on par with what we've seen from Kobe depending on the lens)

If Bird never led an all time offense in the regular season, then neither did Magic or LeBron.

Crazy how "goat" became "all-time", but sure. Magic and Lebron did not lead goat-lvl regular season offenses. They still led better 5 year rs offenses than Bird, and then went and led much better offenses in the playoffs.

For someone who has supposedly taken an 'era-relative' approach, only Magic has stronger offensive results, and he did so with more offensive help. So being the 2nd best offensive *team* for a decade is very fitting of Bird being all-time great offensively (while also noting he's better than Kobe defensively).

All-time-great =/ GOAT. Kobe's offenses were also as good so...

And no, not really, but I guess I'll get to that later

-> 3 titles(kobe had 5)

You're free to ring count. Everyone has different criteria! I'm disinterested in doing so.

When you make a case based on ceiling-raising("bird let his teammates playmake!"), the ceiling not being as high is a bit of an issue. And on that note...

In the postseason, the 1990 Celtics produced a top 15 rORTG ever higher than any Magic postseason offense or any Kareem team or any non-2001 Kobe team ever.

They had (per basketball-reference’s estimates) an offensive rating 11.3 points higher than their opponent’s defensive rating across five games. The Lakers literally topped that result (with a better percentage increase) that same exact round — the difference being they won their series and consequently diluted it with additional games played.

2008 Kobe also did it in the first round by basketball-reference’s estimates, similarly with a better percentage increase. He did it again in the conference finals two years later, and that one is supported by NBA.com as well.

I would not be surprised if Bird himself has better single round results than this either way, but that is why this is a completely unserious argument to try to advocate. Were the 2003 Blazers an all-time postseason team because they outscored the 8-SRS Mavericks?

And this was at a time when the Celtics depth was completely falling apart.

??? In 1989 they were a +3 offence without Bird. And in 1992 they won five games without Bird in the playoffs (went 1-3 with him).

On that note…

For someone who has supposedly taken an 'era-relative' approach, only Magic has stronger offensive results, and he did so with more offensive help.

That 1989 Celtics result is a better result than the 1979 Lakers, the 1981 Lakers without Magic, and the 1986-1988 Lakers without Magic, as well as a much better result than any post-Magic and pre-Shaq Lakers team.

... on a team whose roster was *defensively focused* (which would limit the offensive rating you're complaining about above)
... on a team whose offenses were far more *passing oriented* than scoring oriented, which is only made possible by off ball movement like Bird's... as I note in my post

Again this is an assumption not based in much of any data. They had good defensive results in 1980-84, but in this period you are trumpeting, their only notable defensive year was the 1986 one-off with a full season of Walton.

Filtering out 5 game first round exits, the 1988 Celtics also produced an offense better than any non-Shaq-led Kobe team.

Well that is wrong, but he did seem to lead better offensive results in 1986 and 1987 than any Shaq-less Kobe team, so maybe you just made a typo.

[/quote]
Yeah, this all seems like a bit of a reach Mon Ami

[eminence]

Would a Robinson supporter please make their case over Karl Malone?

I see comparable RS impact metrics in prime, David looking better in lower minutes in the later years than later career Malone (approximately equaling one another out to my eye, but your mileage may very).

In Karls favor, better longevity and winning the head to head playoff matches pretty emphatically.

Robinson has being the #2 on a dominant title winner and maybe some skillset arguments?

On what basis are their prime RS impact metrics comparable? I'd have Robinson on a different tier from Malone.

Also would argue I would prefer neither one as a #1 option. However, Robinson's lob-threat and defense make it so he can have more impact when he has the ball less. I don't think Malone could have the kind of impact Robinson had as a 2nd guy in 99.

Robinson being a 5 who can floor-space is also a bigger advantage than Malone being a 4 who can floor-space. Robinson could play to next to non-shooting 4s, and allow them to go to work on the block, which is huge. Malone has to be a 4 ideally due to a lack of rim-protection outside of occasionally using his elbows.

Oh he used those elbows more than occassionally.

But numbers for impact stuff:

Robinson
'94: +9.4 On, +19.9 On/Off
'95: +10.7, +19.8
'96: +10.7, +16.6
'97: N/A

+10.3, 18.8 avg

Karl
'94: +7.4 On, +17.4 On/Off
'95: +10.6, +9.6
'96: +10.2, +13.5
'97: +11.7, +21.9
'98: +9.6, +17.4
'99: +10.4, +13.0
'00: +8.2, +14.4

+9.7, +15.3 avg (kind of arbitrary cutting off at '00, but was always going to be)

I see those pretty similarly, and the samples probably lean favorable to Robinson.

Both hang in the low 90 percentiles in Moonbeams new RWOWY through their primes (Robinson rookie year to injury, Malone early 90s to '00).

In Bens WOWYR Karl is way back (I want to say something like +4 vs +8), as it sides pretty strongly with Stockton in the Stockton/Malone split (putting Stockton (+9) above Robinson, and I think above anyone not named Magic in the original sample).

[Owly]

Would a Robinson supporter please make their case over Karl Malone?

I see comparable RS impact metrics in prime, David looking better in lower minutes in the later years than later career Malone (approximately equaling one another out to my eye, but your mileage may very).

In Karls favor, better longevity and winning the head to head playoff matches pretty emphatically.

Robinson has being the #2 on a dominant title winner and maybe some skillset arguments?

Very otoh stuff.

Malone has longevity. Very high level, playing a lot of minutes for a long time.

Head-to-head ... isn't really part of my process at all, fwiw.

Malone has good impact numbers in a platoon-y system but it's not (to me at least) clear that he's the primary driver of that impact (Stockton has better numbers impact numbers on the whole in the databall era, Malone looks a bit better 94-96, verus 76ers, in a small sample tilts heavily for Stockton).

Robinson has (as I perceive/recall it) monstrous impact numbers. Otoh, circa +18.9 RS 94--96 averaging the yearly numbers. Then still huge production numbers in the transition early on whilst ceding offensive primacy (still rate more productive than Duncan for a couple of years). Playoff impact numbers very positive in the databall era, especially so for the '99 title where not only on-off but just the raw plus-minus totals are very much in his favor as the driver for '99, and circa as rate-productive as Duncan, otoh. Absences, particularly his arrival and '97 whilst ... flawed ... as measures of impact with other turnover and focus (i.e. presumed tank in '97) are so large as to provide further support for massive impact.

So I see we differ in that you say comparable impact metrics in prime.
Per above Robinson laps the field 94-96 RS.
Malone's on-off in databall were stronger than I had recalled (if I had ever internalized).
Think I have more internalized RAPM stuff that suggests Malone is especially benefitting from playing with strong lineups (Stockton, less so, sometimes playing with the weak bench units)
At a glance
Malone wins 98 PI and NPI
99 Robinson crushes both
2000 Robinson wins both, more substantially in PI
those all from A Screaming
Robinson wins Googlesites NPI 2001 (no NPI available).

Perhaps could go on but this covers most of the stronger years. I think the trend of Robinson wins continues PI and NPI. I think Malone's "win" might (in these rate terms) be the narrowest at a glance. 97-14 Googlesites RAPM has Robinson clearly ahead by rate and very slightly ahead by points above average (note, this above average ... unlike above replacement or above "0 wins" ... favors Malone).

My impression as stated above are Robinson's looking very strong impact-wise in the playoffs for databall era. Malone too looks good by on-off though in light of RS there could be some colinearity issues where starter units are the strength and he avoids the junky backup units).

For all the dropoff talk and "second guy" 98-2001 Robinson's playoff numbers are 24 PER, .217 WS/48, 6.8 BPM, +27.4 on-off (noisy, of course but still ...). Thats a fair amount of championship equity (those numbers are on 35.3 mpg, not huge but not bad) and may be seen to indicate what he can do even when the scoring isn't great.

Of course how you perceive Robinson will depend what you weight in terms of playoffs vs RS, how much you think box-dropoff may be circumstantial and/or luck versus innate flaws, how sure one is that the box-dropoff indicates a drop in real impact and to what degree (and how much you care about the "player" holistically versus the exact career they happen to have had) and much of that could be said of Malone too.

This is only one non-voters view (in response to the request) and is not intended to be a comprehensive, thorough, balanced overview and done only glancing back the stats.

I've tended to be bullish on both, though greater belief in Stockton might be eating a little into perception of Malone.

[iggymcfrack]

Would a Robinson supporter please make their case over Karl Malone?

I see comparable RS impact metrics in prime, David looking better in lower minutes in the later years than later career Malone (approximately equaling one another out to my eye, but your mileage may very).

In Karls favor, better longevity and winning the head to head playoff matches pretty emphatically.

Robinson has being the #2 on a dominant title winner and maybe some skillset arguments?

Robinson's a much better defender (legit could be as high as #2 all-time on that end) and has much better numbers too. Here are their top 10 seasons by BPM:

Robinson: 11.9, 9.4, 9.2, 8.9, 8.5, 8.3, 6.9, 6.7, 6.4, 6.1
K. Malone: 8.3, 7.5, 7.3, 7.3, 7.0, 6.7, 6.6, 6.4, 5.7, 5.6

This edge holds up for the playoffs as well:

Robinson: 8.5, 8.4, 7.1, 6.7, 6.6, 6.5, 6.2, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1
K Malone: 7.3, 7.1, 6.5, 6.5, 6.0, 4.7, 4.7, 4.5, 4.0, 3.9

Like yeah, Malone had a couple very mediocre seasons at age 22 and 23 when Robinson was in the Navy, and he kept going for some mediocre seasons at age 38-40 when Robinson was retired, but if you were to compare year by year when they were playing together, Robinson was much better. It wasn't particularly close. Even at age 37 in the last games of his career, Robinson was clearly the second most valuable Spur in the Finals finishing behind only Duncan and Kidd in Game Score from either team with a 137 ORtg and a 90 DRtg. He led both teams in TS% and closed out the series with 13 points and 17 rebounds on 6/8 from the field.

[iggymcfrack]

Would a Robinson supporter please make their case over Karl Malone?

I see comparable RS impact metrics in prime, David looking better in lower minutes in the later years than later career Malone (approximately equaling one another out to my eye, but your mileage may very).

In Karls favor, better longevity and winning the head to head playoff matches pretty emphatically.

Robinson has being the #2 on a dominant title winner and maybe some skillset arguments?

On what basis are their prime RS impact metrics comparable? I'd have Robinson on a different tier from Malone.

Also would argue I would prefer neither one as a #1 option. However, Robinson's lob-threat and defense make it so he can have more impact when he has the ball less. I don't think Malone could have the kind of impact Robinson had as a 2nd guy in 99.

Robinson being a 5 who can floor-space is also a bigger advantage than Malone being a 4 who can floor-space. Robinson could play to next to non-shooting 4s, and allow them to go to work on the block, which is huge. Malone has to be a 4 ideally due to a lack of rim-protection outside of occasionally using his elbows.

Oh he used those elbows more than occassionally.

But numbers for impact stuff:

Robinson
'94: +9.4 On, +19.9 On/Off
'95: +10.7, +19.8
'96: +10.7, +16.6
'97: N/A

+10.3, 18.8 avg

Karl
'94: +7.4 On, +17.4 On/Off
'95: +10.6, +9.6
'96: +10.2, +13.5
'97: +11.7, +21.9
'98: +9.6, +17.4
'99: +10.4, +13.0
'00: +8.2, +14.4

+9.7, +15.3 avg (kind of arbitrary cutting off at '00, but was always going to be)

I see those pretty similarly, and the samples probably lean favorable to Robinson.

Both hang in the low 90 percentiles in Moonbeams new RWOWY through their primes (Robinson rookie year to injury, Malone early 90s to '00).

In Bens WOWYR Karl is way back (I want to say something like +4 vs +8), as it sides pretty strongly with Stockton in the Stockton/Malone split (putting Stockton (+9) above Robinson, and I think above anyone not named Magic in the original sample).

Malone's raw on/off numbers are going to be inflated from spending so many minutes with Stockton. I would side with Stockton as being slightly more valuable overall between the two of them, but both of them propped up the other.

[lessthanjake]

so yes, teams do go to amazing lengths to stop curry. sometimes his teammates even get a wide open layup out of it. but his numbers go down in the playoffs. and not just points, but shooting and the warriors offense often goes down at the same time and often looks worse against their best opponents (even if those opponents aren't the best because of defense) and sometimes they only survive thanks to injuries.

Okay, so I think this drills down to the crux of the point here. Decreases in box score numbers don’t really matter if teams are decreasing his box score numbers by gameplanning in a way that enables everyone else and Steph is therefore still having massive offensive impact. Your argument is basically that the additional enabling of others is not enough of a counterweight and that the Warriors offense goes down as a result. You further argue that that happens even more “against their best opponents (even if those opponents aren’t the best because of defense).”

At the outset, I think we can throw away the final point. I’ve provided data that gets at this exact question—how Steph’s offenses did against good opponents. And it turns out that, relative to their opponents’ defensive rating, Steph is actually pretty unique in how rarely his team has a negative rORTG against good teams in the playoffs (it only happened against the 2023 Lakers, while it happened to other top-tier all-time greats more). And it also turns out that the Warriors’ rORTG in the playoffs against good teams is actually quite resilient—barely going down on average compared to their rORTG in the playoffs against teams that wouldn’t be defined as good (and that average against good teams is higher than it is for a player like Magic Johnson). So Steph’s offenses do not struggle more “against their best opponents (even if those opponents aren’t the best because of defense).”

So then we get to the more general point: Does Steph’s offensive impact go down as a result of Steph’s box score stats going down, or does the offensive impact stay similar because what teams are doing to limit Steph enables the rest of the team a lot? Well, at the outset, if we look at playoff games Steph has played in his career, the Warriors have a +11.73 better offensive rating with Steph on the floor as opposed to off the floor. For reference, that number for Steve Nash on the Suns was +7.52. That number for LeBron James in all his years with the Cavaliers was +11.98, while it was +7.43 on the Heat and +8.23 on the Lakers. It was +8.48 for Harden on the Rockets. It has been +4.44 for Jokic. It has been +7.55 for Luka. So that is a really massive effect on the Warriors offense for Steph in the playoffs! Perhaps the highest at least of this generation overall! Is it lower than the same effect in the regular season? Well, yes, but not by a lot. The regular season number is +13.82. And, with shorter rotations, we’d expect these to typically go down a little in the playoffs, since the average quality of the “off” lineup will be better (and, indeed, for instance, Nash’s number in the regular season of those playoff years with the Suns was +11.46). So, what we see is that Steph appears to have massive impact on the Warriors’ offense in the playoffs and that impact doesn’t really seem much changed from the regular season! This is contrary to the notion that his offensive impact is meaningfully different in the playoffs (and is consistent with his impact metrics looking similar in the playoffs).

And, with Steph finishing above Draymond in AuPM/g in 6 out of their 8 playoff runs—including all the other title runs—and by quite a lot on multiple occasions, Steph would seem ahead in a playoff sample size that’s at least a little larger.

well, there seem to be other measures that have draymond ahead, especially in the 2015-19 range. considering draymond will probably be lucky to make the top 50, steph should presumably be way ahead if this is one of steph's biggest selling points.

But he’s not going to be way ahead in a particular playoff year if the Warriors happened to do a lot better in the Draymond on Steph off minutes than in the Steph on Draymond off minutes, because on-off is a huge component of the equation in these things, and can outweigh differences in box production (I gave an example of the 2015 playoffs AuPM/g, where Steph was ahead in the box component in the equation, but had a worse on-off). And the issue is that, as between teammates, the difference between their on-off is going to be determined by an extremely low number of minutes that they weren’t on the court together. Which means that random noise can basically put someone ahead of a teammate, because the sample size of data that is determining things is really low. You’re really just pointing to noise, and we just have much larger sample sizes of data that show that Steph is “way ahead” of Draymond in impact.

And, of course, ultimately we can actually get a very good indication of “their true independent impact” by stepping back and looking at an actually considerable sample size. When we do that, we see that, in the last decade in RS+Playoff games that both players played, the Warriors’ net rating with Steph on and Draymond off was 4.92 better than it was with Draymond on and Steph off. And that goes up to 6.03 if you count all games, rather than just all games both players played. While Draymond is definitely a very impactful player, Steph is clearly the more impactful player. And the arguments otherwise basically must involve muddying the waters with stuff that is based on tiny sample sizes.

except that tiny sample size is the playoffs. it's like your argument that the warriors are secretly a sub-0.500 team without steph because of regular season "off" plus/minus but then the playoffs start and they go 9-3 but somehow we're just supposed to treat that like 12 random games from january. when we all know championship type teams can slack off in the regular season and then ramp up in the playoffs. and we even have things like gambling odds that gave the warriors massive favorite odds against a team like the 2018 spurs even though they knew steph would be out for the series. the kind of odds that only make sense if you think a team is actually really, really good. so much of the argument against steph is based on the playoffs so we can't just treat it all as a small sample if it's the thing that's most important.

But this argument that it is the playoffs falls apart quite a bit when we realize where in the playoffs Draymond is getting these on-off advantages. As I’ve already noted several times before, Draymond’s on-off advantage in the playoffs derives from early-round series against opponents the Warriors easily beat, and the advantage reverses if we leave those series aside. So the argument you’re making basically boils to this: “Yes, Steph is much more impactful than Draymond across the full regular season + playoff sample, and yes Steph is more impactful than Draymond in actually difficult playoff series, but Draymond has a better on-off in easy early-round playoff series and so I question whether Steph is as impactful as Draymond.” I don’t think that’s a very persuasive point.

This seems to be your main objection to looking at Steph’s great playoff impact profile. You seem to be arguing that impact stats must be wrong about Steph because he doesn’t really dip when he doesn’t do as well. But we’ve been over that this is just objectively not true. I previously pointed out that, when his shooting dipped in the 2021-2022 regular season, it absolutely did affect his impact—with his offensive impact being rated easily the lowest of his prime that season by various metrics (this difference was muted at least somewhat overall, since that was also his best season defensively).

in other words, the impact metrics found a way. by all evidence of both stats and just watching him play, steph didn't seem as good in 2022 and yet the defensive component rose up so much (an amazing +4.2 from 2021 in a stat like RPM) that he still managed to finish 3rd. after another first place finish in 2021 on a team that didn't make the playoffs.

They didn’t “find a way.” Steph played the best defense of his career that season. It’s not just impact metrics saying it—it was something that was widely noticed throughout the season by peoples’ eye test. You’re basically saying that if the eye test says Steph’s offense got worse and his defense got better, then you don’t trust impact metrics unless they say his offense got worse (which they did) and *don’t* say his defense got better. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, and is obviously unfair. This argument that impact metrics on Steph can’t be trusted because they aren’t responsive to his actual play on the court is just objectively wrong, and in fact you’re now essentially asserting that they’re wrong because they *were* responsive to his actual play on the court. It seems like you just *want* them to be wrong.

And when his playoff performance dipped in 2015-2016, we find that he had his clearly worst playoffs in terms of impact metrics (for instance, his league ranking of 9th in playoff AuPM/g in those playoffs was easily his worst in the last decade). There’s really not any valid argument that impact metrics fail to catch when Steph doesn’t play as well, so this is very clearly not a reason to discount Steph’s incredible output in the playoffs in impact metrics.

well, every time i say he played worse, i tend to get a response from people (and not just you) that actually he was still just as good and impact tells us so. so is it now that he actually did fall off in impact when he looked worse in the playoffs by other measures as well?

I think you're conflating different arguments (at least as it relates to anything I've said)—one being about performance in specific seasons/playoffs and the other being about performances in the playoffs more generally. No one is asserting that Steph was just as good or impactful in the 2015-2016 playoffs as he was in the regular season. And no one is asserting that Steph was as good or impactful offensively in the 2021-2022 regular season as he typically is. Those are clear low points for him, and impact metrics bear that out. No one denies any of that. What is objected to is the more general assertion that he is much less impactful in the playoffs in general. That statement is not really supported by impact metrics, and there's good reason to think it's not true even despite box-score numbers going down (i.e. the gameplanning stuff I've talked about).

so i would say nba history says that the nba is predictable. "team with lots of talent in their primes, who all fit together" tends to be "team who wins" in most seasons. mikan won 7 of 8. russell won 11 of 13. jordan 6 of 6 or 6 of 7. magic and bird basically traded off 8 out of 9. the warriors got 3 very good players all with completely overlapping primes and then threw iggy on top of it and then threw durant on top of that. to go back to the steph/draymond synergy, not only did the warriors have that going for them, but then the 3rd member of the triumvirate, the 2nd offensive option, also happened to be one of his eras great off-ball players to fit perfectly with another off-ball player. and even iggy basically was just a mini-draymond like klay was a mini-steph, a high IQ point forward who was a generational wing defender. and they were all perfect for the new paradigm. a paradigm shift they helped usher in, but i tend to think of steph as the spark that lit the kindling that 10 years of 3-point analytics had laid on the forest floor. if you want to credit the front office, that's great, but these players could not have gotten luckier to have a better fit around them with perfectly overlapping primes. and again, they still got 3 years of kevin durant to replace their weakest position and with their biggest need in isolation scoring.

they absolutely should have wrecked the league like they did. their biggest consistent competition was lebron. yes, lebron just finished #1 in this project and was epic, but i think we can safely say, years later, that kyrie irving doesn't seem like the best winner ever and kevin love practically became obsolete the day steph launched his first 30 foot three in 2015. and they arguably got lucky to beat that team 2 out of 3 thanks to injuries. and their other big opponent was the 2018 rockets, and well, they were losing to them until chris paul got injured.

This strikes me as some post-hoc reasoning regarding the Warriors being so good. You’re in large part saying they were so good because Iguodala is a “mini-draymond” and Klay is a “mini-Steph.” But is that even a good thing? One can easily imagine that if they did not have success people might’ve said that that was a huge reason for it—that there was too much redundancy in the skill sets of the players. I think we should be careful about basically deciding that a player was destined to win because of really squishy reasons like this.

And, more generally, we should note that it’s just very hard to argue that the Warriors were a *particularly* talented team in the non-Durant years (in which they won 2 titles and went to the finals another year, while also winning 67 and 73 games). The next best player on the Warriors besides Steph was Draymond Green. He’s a very good player but was ranked at the bottom of the top 100 in the last project (though will probably be closer to the middle of it this time). The third best player was Klay Thompson, who is very unlikely to make the top 100. That’s of course just a rough guide, and the team did have some quality depth of course, but I think people here generally intrinsically understand that the talent level on those non-Durant Warriors wasn’t really *that* high. So I just find it very odd for it to be suggested that the Warriors were so talented that they were bound to be so successful (which is used to reduce the credit Steph should get). The non-Durant Warriors really were not high on the list of talent amongst great teams! They’re a team that pretty obviously overachieved their talent!

And you mention “overlapping primes” but that’s really just not a great point, when 2022 happened. The Warriors won a title with Klay being a shell of himself due to injury, and Draymond being nowhere near his prior impact (he was 137th in RPM, 51st in RAPTOR, 99th in NBAshotcharts RAPM, 36th in EPM, etc.). The Warriors winning titles was obviously not just a magic combination of their best players peaking at the same time—they won a title fairly easily even when that was very much *not* the case!

Your other argument you weave in here is this idea of being lucky to have such great fit. But being easy to fit with is a huge part of what makes Steph so great! It’s part of the package with a guy who is such a good off-ball player! He’s been easy for players to fit with his entire career, and it just doesn’t make sense to downplay him for that strength.

and i think if they looked more like the 90's bulls, it would be different. the bulls had one oddball 7 game series in 1992 where they dropped the hammer in game 7 and then a "last stand" 7 game series in 1998 when jordan was 35 (remember, the warriors were basically all in their primes in the 2015-19 period) but otherwise had 4 playoffs with 4 losses or less, including one where they faced 3 straight +6 SRS teams. the bulls didn't seem to escape due to injuries like the 2015 or 2018 warriors in series where steph struggled. jordan never got within 1 minute of a title with a 23/4/4 series where he had more turnovers than assists. to me, that's probably the biggest thing.

Yes, it would be different if they looked more like the 90’s Bulls. Then maybe we’d be saying Steph was up there with Jordan! But no one is saying that! The fact that the Warriors were even close to that such that that’s the comparator you go to is actually a huge compliment to Steph!

I also note that injury luck goes both ways. There’s just more injuries these days, which means that the Warriors have simultaneously benefited more from playoff opponents having injuries than the Bulls did, but also have been harmed by their own injuries more (the Bulls had nothing like the 2019 playoffs, nor of course did they have their third best player injured for almost two years). I think it’d be hard to argue that the Warriors overall benefited from injury luck—which is what this argument would have to be saying for it to hold any weight.

i don't think i said he wasn't important. my pushback tends to be that the response to "steph struggles" has actually been "he really didn't because impact metrics, and also the warriors didn't struggle either". if people want to start from a "steph struggles and it causes his team to struggle" perspective, then we're closer to common ground.

This is a little odd to me, because I’ve actually made this exact argument that you’re asking for, and you’ve been the one arguing against it! I’ve specifically said that the Warriors struggled in the 2016 finals when Steph was not at his best, and that the fact that they lost all but one game he struggled in (which happened to be a game that LeBron, Kyrie, and Love *all* struggled in too) is indicative of them being dependent on Steph being great. And your argument was that actually they did well despite Steph struggling (despite that not actually being true on a game-by-game level) and that this shows that their success was not actually reliant on Steph. It feels like you want to argue both sides here and criticize Steph from inconsistent angles. Somehow, Steph should be blamed for times his struggles caused the team to struggle, but also the team didn’t really struggle and that shows the team was just incredibly good and that Steph wasn’t impactful in the times he didn’t struggle. It’s not consistent.

[Owly]

Like yeah, Malone had a couple very mediocre seasons at age 22 and 23 when Robinson was in the Navy, and he kept going for some mediocre seasons at age 38-40 when Robinson was retired...

I think your do this age-equivalent rather than as I first thought year-by-year.

Even granting dropping production and decidedly weaker impact data calling 38-40 Malone "mediocre" seems very harsh. Perhaps the meaning is that they are not greatly significant in moving the margin at this high a level?

This also misses that Robinson missed virtually the entire '97 campaign (though I do wonder, given original prognostications, whether he might have been able to make it back within season for a better, more win-oriented team - otoh I'm thinking a circa mid February date was indicated by a report giving X many weeks from date of injury but I may be wrong here), the back end of - including the Spurs part of - the playoffs in '92 (though if they were better, perhaps had a better seed, he might have been back circa game 4 of round 2 based on estimated recovery time given at time of injury) and Malone pretty consistently got to circa 3100 minutes, whilst in his latter years as excellent as Robinson was, his load was lower.

[eminence]

Think I have more internalized RAPM stuff that suggests Malone is especially benefitting from playing with strong lineups (Stockton, less so, sometimes playing with the weak bench units)

Strong post and I think strong support for 2nd arc Robinson deserving more credit in my mind (though I disagree with Iggy on '03 in particular, would take Manu as #2 in those Finals), though in my memory this situation is reversed, with Malone playing with the bench units and Stockton largely playing with the starters. Anyone have some '97-'00 data to hand to check that?

[Owly]

On what basis are their prime RS impact metrics comparable? I'd have Robinson on a different tier from Malone.

Also would argue I would prefer neither one as a #1 option. However, Robinson's lob-threat and defense make it so he can have more impact when he has the ball less. I don't think Malone could have the kind of impact Robinson had as a 2nd guy in 99.

Robinson being a 5 who can floor-space is also a bigger advantage than Malone being a 4 who can floor-space. Robinson could play to next to non-shooting 4s, and allow them to go to work on the block, which is huge. Malone has to be a 4 ideally due to a lack of rim-protection outside of occasionally using his elbows.

Oh he used those elbows more than occassionally.

But numbers for impact stuff:

Robinson
'94: +9.4 On, +19.9 On/Off
'95: +10.7, +19.8
'96: +10.7, +16.6
'97: N/A

+10.3, 18.8 avg

Karl
'94: +7.4 On, +17.4 On/Off
'95: +10.6, +9.6
'96: +10.2, +13.5
'97: +11.7, +21.9
'98: +9.6, +17.4
'99: +10.4, +13.0
'00: +8.2, +14.4

+9.7, +15.3 avg (kind of arbitrary cutting off at '00, but was always going to be)

I see those pretty similarly, and the samples probably lean favorable to Robinson.

Both hang in the low 90 percentiles in Moonbeams new RWOWY through their primes (Robinson rookie year to injury, Malone early 90s to '00).

In Bens WOWYR Karl is way back (I want to say something like +4 vs +8), as it sides pretty strongly with Stockton in the Stockton/Malone split (putting Stockton (+9) above Robinson, and I think above anyone not named Magic in the original sample).

Malone's raw on/off numbers are going to be inflated from spending so many minutes with Stockton. I would side with Stockton as being slightly more valuable overall between the two of them, but both of them propped up the other.

A bit this but on-off as much by the more general platoon that Stockton latterly wasn't as strictly in.

Anderson, Carr, Foster and Morris all have the Jazz losing in '97 when they're on the court, are part of some horrible lineups (Morris is worst) and Stockton plays some with these guys, Malone less so. Otoh yearly RAPM curved towards all the Jazz top 3 being good for those final run years, rather than one standout.

So this is one instance where a really ugly off specifically indicates bad bench teammates.

[Owly]

Think I have more internalized RAPM stuff that suggests Malone is especially benefitting from playing with strong lineups (Stockton, less so, sometimes playing with the weak bench units)

Strong post and I think strong support for 2nd arc Robinson deserving more credit in my mind (though I disagree with Iggy on '03 in particular, would take Manu as #2 in those Finals), though in my memory this situation is reversed, with Malone playing with the bench units and Stockton largely playing with the starters. Anyone have some '97-'00 data to hand to check that?

Hinted at in last post.
Incomplete data and only showing one year here but
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1997/lineups/
2nd most common 5 man lineup - starters but Eisley for Stockton.
Most frequent 2 man combos
Malone has only 5 - 4 with starters of which Stockton is least, then Eisley
Eisley then has almost as many minutes with Hornacek and Russell.
Stockton has significantly less minutes than Malone with Hornacek
ditto above with Russell substituted in for Hornacek
Stockton is in more 2 man lineups meeting the threshold (top 20) because he's playing with junk units (has 2-man lineups with aforementioned "losing" players and these units even with Stockton lose: Carr, Anderson, Morris, Foster - plus also a better combo with Keefe)

[eminence]

Think I have more internalized RAPM stuff that suggests Malone is especially benefitting from playing with strong lineups (Stockton, less so, sometimes playing with the weak bench units)

Strong post and I think strong support for 2nd arc Robinson deserving more credit in my mind (though I disagree with Iggy on '03 in particular, would take Manu as #2 in those Finals), though in my memory this situation is reversed, with Malone playing with the bench units and Stockton largely playing with the starters. Anyone have some '97-'00 data to hand to check that?

Hinted at in last post.
Incomplete data and only showing one year here but
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1997/lineups/
2nd most common 5 man lineup - starters but Eisley for Stockton.
Most frequent 2 man combos
Malone has only 5 - 4 with starters of which Stockton is least, then Eisley
Eisley then has almost as many minutes with Hornacek and Russell.
Stockton has significantly less minutes than Malone with Hornacek
ditto above with Russell substituted in for Hornacek
Stockton is in more 2 man lineups meeting the threshold (top 20) because he's playing with junk units (has 2-man lineups with aforementioned "losing" players and these units even with Stockton lose: Carr, Anderson, Morris, Foster - plus also a better combo with Keefe)

Ahh, that's fair, I was thinking more from '98 onwards, when Stocktons minutes in general went down.

[Clyde Frazier]

Prefacing with my earlier post:

Spoiler:

I'm a little surprised Magic fell all the way to 10 (even with Garnett making the top 10 more crowded). Life has gotten in the way so I haven't had a chance to read many arguments, but I still find his offensive impact to be truly elite putting him slightly ahead of some two way all time greats. I'll go back and read the threads when I have a chance.

Magic and Bird were savant level decision makers which is why I think they're still clear cut top 10 players regardless of average at best longevity. So while my gut is to still go with Bird here, I totally get the argument for Curry who's one of my favorite players. He has a relatively full career we can now judge vs these guys.

Then there's kobe, who i've had right outside the top 10 for a while now. Taking a look at his career again, he still has the longevity edge but not quite as significant as I remember. Those last few seasons post achilles were rocky to say the least. Going into the project I had bird/kobe/curry in that order so now I have some thinking to do.

Vote 1 - Larry Bird
Vote 2 - Kobe Bryant

Bird is one of those few players along with Jordan and Magic where longevity isn't as important to me. What they accomplished in their careers stands on its own to propel them to this elite status. Even with bird having some inconsistent post season performances, his first title run in only his second season showed how special he was, and took his play to another level in 84 and 86. His sustained high level play in his later injury plagued years showed how complete he was as a basketball player.

He's in that elite class of great basketball minds and decision makers. Especially on the fly, he could make something out of nothing, and that applied to all aspects of play, not just scoring. He had an innate ability to see the floor in a way most other players couldn't.

On the 84 finals

Though he can be a wily hayseed, he can also exhibit deft, psychological team leadership. After the third game of last year's championship series, the Lakers, despite Bird's scoring 30 points, handed the Celtics a nasty whipping, 137-104. Bird was angry. ''I know the heart and soul of this team,'' he said afterward, ''and today the heart wasn't there. It was embarrassing. I just can't believe that a team like this would let them come out and push us around like they did. When you've got inside position, you can't let a guy come over you for the rebound. We've got to be more intense.''

He accused no individuals, but he spoke of specifics - ''heart'' and ''soul'' and ''inside position.'' His teammates responded, and the Celtics - for a variety of reasons, but Bird's rebuke had to be one of them - went on to take the series in seven games.

http://nyti.ms/UmZNrQ

Bird as a teammate

From himself on the court he seeks only consistency and considers that the true mark of excellence. ''But Larry's so sensitive to what his teammates need that he changes the emphasis of his game to accommodate them,'' says Jim Rodgers, the Celtics' senior assistant. ''It's a unique form of personal consistency, concentrating on the needs of others, isn't it?''

A Celtics teammate, Bill Walton, says: ''So much of it -- playing, in the locker room, away from basketball -- has to do with how much he cares. Larry cares about every element of everything he's involved in. With some people, the sphere of their life is so very small. The sphere of Larry's life is just huge.''

And yet these embers of generosity were kindled by the most incendiary competitive fires. Even now in the Valley there's not much amazement that Larry Bird turned out to be the greatest basketball player ever -- what the hell, somebody had to, so it might as well be a French Lick boy -- but there is some surprise that he could rise above the family temper to reach those heights. In order to win, Bird taught himself not to get angry, rather to gain satisfaction from somebody else's hot blood. ''I've learned it's a lot more fun making a shot with a guy hanging on you,'' he says.

Championships mean even more to Bird -- ''His mission,'' Auerbach calls them. ''That's why I play,'' Bird says. ''I'm just greedy on them things. Winning the championship -- I've never felt that way any other time, no matter how big some other game was. I remember the first time we won, against Houston (in 1981). We were way ahead at the end, and so I came out with three minutes left, and my heart was pounding so on the bench, I thought it would jump out of my chest. You know what you feel? You just want everything to stop and to stay like that forever.''

And that, in his way, is what Larry Bird does for us. He not only slows the world down, but he turns it back. ''I've studied it,'' Woolf says, ''and I think, above all, there's just an innocence with him. I think Larry takes anyone who knows him -- or sees him playing -- back to grammar school. Remember back then? Back then we didn't brag. We dove after the ball. We looked after our friends. I think with Larry we believe he'll save the team. We believe he'll save us somehow. So you follow him.''

http://www.si.com/nba/2007/10/24/flashback032188

Excuse the sensationalist "ULTIMATE Mixtape" title. This is really well done and worth a watch regardless of your vote:

Watch on YouTube

[One_and_Done]

Would a Robinson supporter please make their case over Karl Malone?

I see comparable RS impact metrics in prime, David looking better in lower minutes in the later years than later career Malone (approximately equaling one another out to my eye, but your mileage may very).

In Karls favor, better longevity and winning the head to head playoff matches pretty emphatically.

Robinson has being the #2 on a dominant title winner and maybe some skillset arguments?

K.Malone doesn't have traction. I have a bunch of guys I'd vote for, I'll back whichever gets enough support. Once they're all nominated I might vote differently. If K.Malone gets support after D.Rob is in (and/or we move to multiple noms) I'll vote for him too. It's just a wasted vote rn.

[Owly]

Think I have more internalized RAPM stuff that suggests Malone is especially benefitting from playing with strong lineups (Stockton, less so, sometimes playing with the weak bench units)

Strong post and I think strong support for 2nd arc Robinson deserving more credit in my mind (though I disagree with Iggy on '03 in particular, would take Manu as #2 in those Finals), though in my memory this situation is reversed, with Malone playing with the bench units and Stockton largely playing with the starters. Anyone have some '97-'00 data to hand to check that?

Hinted at in last post.
Incomplete data and only showing one year here but
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1997/lineups/
2nd most common 5 man lineup - starters but Eisley for Stockton.
Most frequent 2 man combos
Malone has only 5 - 4 with starters of which Stockton is least, then Eisley
Eisley then has almost as many minutes with Hornacek and Russell.
Stockton has significantly less minutes than Malone with Hornacek
ditto above with Russell substituted in for Hornacek
Stockton is in more 2 man lineups meeting the threshold (top 20) because he's playing with junk units (has 2-man lineups with aforementioned "losing" players and these units even with Stockton lose: Carr, Anderson, Morris, Foster - plus also a better combo with Keefe)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1998/lineups/
Not going to look even as closely as last time but '98 again 2nd most frequent 5 is new starters (Keefe instead of Russell, Foster for Ostertag) with Eisley, but meaning harder to parse out with Stockton (and Ostertag) injury.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1999/lineups/
'99 Stockton now (not just short-term from injury) reduced minutes but again Eisley with starters 2nd 5 man unit.
Despite being big minutes limited number of 2 man lineups (certainly versus what Stockton did in near even to Malone minutes in '97), starters plus Eisley plus now Anderson (who at first glance seems like the third wing for "starter/starter-adjacent" units).

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2000/lineups/
Center situ messy. Again though Malone's 2 man list limited to starters, Eisley and alternate center GO.


Not looked closely but not seeing anything -given he's high end minutes he's more likely than a Stockton to appear on extra 2 man lineups - to say he was doing a lot of extra minutes with bench guys. Without doing a lot of math seems like he's mainly with the core guys.

[Doctor MJ]

sure. but i also think i would be more sympathetic if steph's assists flew up and his volume went down but his TS% went up, indicating he was foregoing shot attempts in the face of tremendous defensive pressure. then i would just be penalizing him for giving up the ball. but i look at things like the first 3 games of the 2015 finals before the warriors lineup change where both the warriors and steph struggled, look at the struggle for both steph and the warriors against a non-elite defense in the 2016 cavs, look at the rockets switch-everything defense giving the warriors and steph trouble in 2018 (when healthy), look at the same defense giving steph one of his worst series ever in 2019 (with the warriors mostly surviving on KD going off individually). it feels like the warriors biggest struggles are around times when steph himself was limited, indicating to me that the two aren't unrelated and we didn't just see steph putting up lower numbers but his team still cruising.

To me you're saying here that you'd get it if Steph's numbers changed like an on-ball player's numbers would be expected to change if the defensive pressure on him compelled him to pass, but with Steph playing a distinct role where there is no such box score transition you're left feeling like Steph's just getting stopped and thus less valuable.

To which I'd say: The nature of the rover position is that anyone used to traditional box score methods of analysis will likely underrate the player's impact in such circumstances. Because if your job is to get a shot by roving, and the defensive pressure is so extreme this is prevented, it means you're not getting the ball rather than getting it and passing it. To the box score, the player looks as if he's doing nothing...but the box score is wrong. He's constantly running and distorting the defense which allows other players better opportunities, that just don't show up on his personal box score.

okay, but again i don't think we can just treat steph as some sort of non-box score player. he has regular season numbers that make hakeem look like he forgot how to play basketball. yes, teams try different things in the playoffs, but teams aren't just running 2 guys around with steph for 48 straight minutes in the playoffs while kevin durant takes wide open 3's. steph gets the ball, a lot. steph still runs the same PnR-trap-get ball to draymond for 4v3, a lot. steph could theoretically isolate almost any time he wants and i honestly think he should have done it more. maybe it's like the previous project post, and he just couldn't. even for guys who have the ball a lot, the defense isn't just directly forcing more assists and less shots. they are coming up with novel approaches to try to limit those guys, even their assists after they pass.

Oh I'm not suggesting that we should ignore Curry's box score, but consider this:

In the regular season, Curry has a career WS/48 of .203.
In the post-season, Curry has a career WS/48 of .190.

Keep in mind that aside from the fact that this really isn't a big drop, it still puts Curry as 16th in history by WS/48 rate in the playoffs by bkref's list.

In general what I'd say is that a metric like this should never be expected to capture Curry's impact, and if you're talking about playoffs making a dent in those regular season numbers, a drop like this is pretty understandable.

Re: think Curry should isolate more. That's an understandable view. I'd again point to the fact that this is fundamentally about coach Steve Kerr's philosophy. Now, that doesn't mean it can't ding Curry on your GOAT list, it is what it is...my big objection would be in the idea that Kerr's philosophy has held the Warriors back. It may well have held Curry's box score back, but I think the team results speak for themselves.

Now, if you're arguing for a guy from a different era with even more team success, I get it.

But if deep down you have this feeling of skepticism toward Curry and the Warriors having watched them through this era, honestly, I think you need to really examine what you think you know, because you're really missing the greatness of the era before your eyes.

And so we should never expect box score data to effectively evaluate the value of a rover, and we should expect that particularly for this type of player you really can't conclude much at all analytically without impact data.

And of course, if the impact data I saw made Curry look like he really wasn't all that effective in the playoffs, I'd see things differently...but that's really not what the data says.

i just don't think the playoffs are so different for steph curry specifically that we can't look at his reduced box numbers and say that he has the same similarly poor resiliency to other guys whose numbers drop off (especially older guys for whom we'll never have impact numbers).

So, above I got the impression you objected to throwing out Curry's playoff stats entirely, which I thought was quite reasonable.

This part of the post seems to be suggesting that we have to treat Curry as if he's identical to others who played different role with a similar production drop off because others have a similar drop off and we lack the impact data to allow them the "fairness" of being compared apple-to-apples with that metric. I object on a number of levels here:

1. There's absolutely no reason to equate guys simply because their box score drops a similar percentage unless we think they played basketball the same way.

2. Refusing to use all the tools we have for modern players simply because we don't have them for historical players is tying your hands behind your back. It's one thing if you literally don't believe in the value of what we call impact metrics, but if you see the value in the concept, you should use it where you have it.

What to do with historical players? Always, we just do our best to estimate these things. Not saying you should "guess" at a +/- number and use it like it's gospel, but I think we need to realize that that's kind of what we do with missing information all the time. Whatever your holistic assessment of a player is given the data you have, there exist numbers for the data you don't have that if you found them out, it would strike you "that's about what I'd expect", and what that says is that you're already effectively making such a guess whether you realize it or not.

Beyond there's this thing where I just struggle to understand how anyone can think of these Warriors as playoff disappointments if they are taking in the entire picture. We're talking about a team that has won way more championships and playoff series compared to anyone else in the time frame, and who has also upset other teams (by standard measures, SRS, W/L, etc) more than they've been upset.

I feel like people really have run with what happened in a 3-4 loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers and let it define the foundation of their idea of Curry and the team. Oh sure people will also bring up '14-15's statistical struggles, but there we're literally talking about a team that won the championship and won at least 3 games in a row in every series - 3 times to close out the series, 1 time to go up 3-0 and basically clinch the series. If that's a critical part of the argument against them, then to me it shows how hard it is to justify the argument.

so i would say nba history says that the nba is predictable. "team with lots of talent in their primes, who all fit together" tends to be "team who wins" in most seasons. mikan won 7 of 8. russell won 11 of 13. jordan 6 of 6 or 6 of 7. magic and bird basically traded off 8 out of 9. the warriors got 3 very good players all with completely overlapping primes and then threw iggy on top of it and then threw durant on top of that. to go back to the steph/draymond synergy, not only did the warriors have that going for them, but then the 3rd member of the triumvirate, the 2nd offensive option, also happened to be one of his eras great off-ball players to fit perfectly with another off-ball player. and even iggy basically was just a mini-draymond like klay was a mini-steph, a high IQ point forward who was a generational wing defender. and they were all perfect for the new paradigm. a paradigm shift they helped usher in, but i tend to think of steph as the spark that lit the kindling that 10 years of 3-point analytics had laid on the forest floor. if you want to credit the front office, that's great, but these players could not have gotten luckier to have a better fit around them with perfectly overlapping primes. and again, they still got 3 years of kevin durant to replace their weakest position and with their biggest need in isolation scoring.

they absolutely should have wrecked the league like they did. their biggest consistent competition was lebron. yes, lebron just finished #1 in this project and was epic, but i think we can safely say, years later, that kyrie irving doesn't seem like the best winner ever and kevin love practically became obsolete the day steph launched his first 30 foot three in 2015. and they arguably got lucky to beat that team 2 out of 3 thanks to injuries. and their other big opponent was the 2018 rockets, and well, they were losing to them until chris paul got injured.

and i think if they looked more like the 90's bulls, it would be different. the bulls had one oddball 7 game series in 1992 where they dropped the hammer in game 7 and then a "last stand" 7 game series in 1998 when jordan was 35 (remember, the warriors were basically all in their primes in the 2015-19 period) but otherwise had 4 playoffs with 4 losses or less, including one where they faced 3 straight +6 SRS teams. the bulls didn't seem to escape due to injuries like the 2015 or 2018 warriors in series where steph struggled. jordan never got within 1 minute of a title with a 23/4/4 series where he had more turnovers than assists. to me, that's probably the biggest thing. it's not that the warriors didn't win, but in another life where the warriors aren't leaps and bounds ahead of everyone (some would say light years) or not benefitting from injuries, some of steph's biggest regressions (which led to team regression) are viewed as super disappointing finals or conference finals losses and i think we're having a very different conversation. we can all pretend we don't care about ringz, but "guy plays worse and his +10 SRS team loses finals" just plays differently than "guy plays worse and his +10 SRS team hangs on against injured team".

and keep in mind, larry bird won 3 titles and was on a decade-long dynasty and is considered a guy who has talents and impact beyond the box score and yet his playoff regression, which is basically based on the box score, is part of why he's basically gotten no traction to this point in the project. so this isn't just a steph-specific penalty that's being applied.

So I think the biggest thing to point out here is that you're essentially assuming that the top teams should repeat as champions as a matter of course based on dynasties who played in eras decades ago when the NBA played basketball in a very different way with far less variance - both on the court (3's) and off (player empowerment etc).

If you're expecting that we're going to see mega-dynasties as a matter of course going forward, I think you're in for disappointment.
And if you're judging modern players based on that disappointment, this is a problem, because the reason modern teams are applying these high variance strategies is because on average they make the team better.

Re: Irving & Love not actually that impressive. I do think you should look at what their shooting numbers looked like in those playoffs. I'd argue they got pretty lucky, but if we assume there was no luck, the Cavs had some great shooting on the floor far beyond what the Jordan Bulls could muster, just as an example.

Re: losing until Paul got hurt. So this is you continuing to chip away on the Warriors' accomplishment by finding faults with their opponents. It seems to speak to an idea you have that the modern league and the competition it presents for a would-be champion is weak, and I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make much sense to me for the reasons I've already given.

In the last 20 years, we've watched this game transform in a way that's unparalleled unless you go all the way back to the 40s-60s duration, and the result is that all of these teams are better on average than what came before. How can you see that happen and come away so skeptical that the best of the bunch has been doing something amazing?

Also, regarding Bird, I nominated him and he'll likely be my #2 vote this time around.

Re: Warrior struggles tend to come when Steph struggles. So 2 things I'd say here:

1. Shouldn't that tell you how central he is to the success the team has? It would be one thing if the team wasn't very successful, but when this is the team that's been the most successful of the era, if that success ends up depending on Curry, it speaks to how important he is, right?

i don't think i said he wasn't important. my pushback tends to be that the response to "steph struggles" has actually been "he really didn't because impact metrics, and also the warriors didn't struggle either". if people want to start from a "steph struggles and it causes his team to struggle" perspective, then we're closer to common ground.

Okay.

Though, I will draw a distinction between the times when Curry has actually struggled - which do exist - and times when defensive pressure just allowed the Warriors to respond the way Kerr developed his whole scheme to respond.

I mean, I get it if you're using this as an argument for some guy in another era - I literally just voted for Magic over Curry - but I worry when it seems like people literally find Curry and the Warriors to be somehow disappointing, because to be perfectly honest, I don't know when we're going to have a team in the future have as much success as we've seen the Warriors have. While I'm bullish on the Nuggets, we could easily end up seeing the 2020s as the new 1970s where teams just can't reach dynastic levels.

sure, with load management and player empowerment and the seeming increase in important injuries, we may not get it again. but this is mostly just a front office thing, not some curry thing. curry on the hornets isn't doing this. curry with draymond and klay and durant is doing this. and just like the 1970's, it eventually ended and we got concurrent dynasties in the 80's and then the bulls in the 90's. a good draft pick here and a free agent signing there can shift the power in a league to one team, especially if all the other teams are similarly mediocre and can't rise up to challenge the new power.

Big thing: It ain't mediocrity. All these teams would win most games against any of those other eras.

Re: Curry on the Hornets isn't doing this. Leading a dynasty? No. Having comparable impact? Quite possibly. I don't see how anyone can look at '13-14 and think that Curry's impact required Klay, Dray, or even much of a coach beyond a guy being able to recognize that Curry was the team's best player.

2. I think this ends up going back to the fact that Kerr's offense just plain works differently from other offenses. It's a complicated machine that kicks ass once it gets into a groove, but before that happens it affects the box score of all the players in a way that you don't get with a more typical offense.

I've always maintained that stuff people tend to think is a function of Curry is really more about Kerr. We know Curry can play point guard. We know he can run the pick & roll. In an offense that just focused on that, his production would look more resilient. But Kerr wants a scheme that activates his "strength in numbers" philosophy, and the Warrior front office recognized value in that prior to his hiring specifically relating to getting more out of Klay Thompson. It then ended up paying off even more with how it allowed the emergence of Draymond Green as a playmaker.

There are downsides to this of course that go just beyond the complication that people rightly point out. It means that certain types of basketball players who are in the league really just for their bodies can't seem to fit in. On the other hand though, because NBA scouting is so focused on particular forms of body talent, the Warriors have been able to slot in guys who have something missing as a prospect into great success, and it's not even necessarily the case that they are super BBIQ guys. Gary Payton II I think really exemplifies this. This is a guy who if he had an obvious outlier BBIQ would have been a high drafted prospect, yet despite lacking this, on the Warriors he's been super valuable because of things that have everything to do with Kerr's philosophy and Curry's gravity.

yes it is unique. and partly, the warriors lack of any real offensive success before kerr should show that curry is not just a "plug and play" top 5 offense. perhaps curry would have better volume stats in a PnR heavy team, but i'm not entirely sure why it would make him more resilient. as for GPII, i guess i'm not sure what you mean. he was valuable because he provided a lot of defense and then was able to be a respectable corner 3 point shooter on a team that could give him all those open looks (obviously because of curry). james harden got ben mclemore off the nba scrap heap and gerald green off his couch and turned them into valuable role players for a while.

Spoken someone who has never bothered to go back and check whether Curry was having huge offensive impact before Kerr got there.

Can Curry do it all by himself? No, no one can, but he showed plenty of evidence of offensive impact at the time if you were looking.

Re: GPII vs other guys. I mean we can have the conversation about how good each of these journeymen actually were, but my words spoke to far more than that.

so i know i brought up some of this a long time ago in maybe thread #3 or #4 and you responded with a really good post and i never got a chance to respond, but i'll bring up what i brought up then. when steph's impact seemingly always looks good, whether he plays well or not (i'll say more when i respond to DraymondGold), it makes me question the value of the numbers and whether we're not just getting some weird lineup/draymond effect in the numbers and not really impact, per se.

I appreciate you being open about your concerns here. It's absolutely worth talking through.

On the broadest level I think the thing to remember is this:

The only reason why we shouldn't take +/- data to be THE defining estimation of player value in that context is noise.
That noise is a very real and massive concern...but when you're talking about something that's "seemingly always" happening, it starts becoming very problematic to chalk it up to noise.

Now, you're using the terminology of "weird lineup effect" rather than "noise", and I think it's worth getting into what exactly that could be. It's possible that in the end we can reduce that down to un-reproducible luck, so we can look at that...but with you saying "seemingly always", to me that doesn't really fit with the concept of "luck", unless you're talking about fit as luck, which we can discuss, but which I'm on record saying I think that this is an association to be very, very cautious about.

by lineup effect, i just mean i think certain players look way more impactful in certain situations than they would in others, even if when it comes to the playoffs, a lower impact person can be just as indispensable to a team reaching its peak level of play. i'll mention steve nash again since he's the best example i can think of. steve nash joins the suns and his team wins 33 more games, he wins mvp, the suns seemingly can't do anything without him. he must be the most impactful player ever! meanwhile, his old team the mavs are like "steve who?" as they replace him with dampier and go to a finals by year 2 and win 67 the next. so is steve nash valueless or worth 33 wins? or when i look at 2022 luka having poor impact numbers but then doing what someone like me, less attuned to the impact metrics, would expect and putting up a massive volume series and knocking off a star-less 64 win team like various other superstars have done to "deep but superstar-less" teams before. even ignoring squared2020's RAPM for hakeem, i have a sneaky suspicion if we ever get RAPM data for hakeem, he won't look amazing. for whatever reason, he'll be of the archetype that can lead teams to amazing titles without looking like an impact king. i think steph is just one of those guys for whom the impact metrics outstrip his actual value.

obviously, he's still great. i mentioned this back in an earlier project thread, but we tend to only talk about the negatives of a person when we're trying to talk them down the rankings and only the positives when we're trying to talk them up the rankings. so you get situations like:

"you guys think steph is 11th? you're insane if you think he's the 11th best player ever."
"so where do you have him?"
"12th."

now i'm not quite sure i have him 12th (and he won't survive to the next round to test that theory), but he's still right there in the bird/west/curry 12-14 range.

Re: in certain situations players look more impactful than others. I would say players ARE more or less impactful as context changes because this is an open field team game and always has been.

If you choose to have an approach here where you try to effectively normalize for fit, I get it, and you're not alone, but just remember that every player you've ever watched in any 5v5 situation had the same truth about them.

Do some players vary more than others in practice? Absolutely, but I think we need to be careful about not using that as a cudgel to unusual stars, particularly when said star has literally revolutionized the game going forward.

The next time there's a prospect that's seen as being able to play like Curry as good as Curry, teams will not hesitate to draft him first and build their franchise around him.

Re: Bird/West/Curry all close to each other, and close to getting your vote. Cool, glad to here you're not so extreme is your holistic assessment.

[One_and_Done]

For reference, the vote is 8 Curry, 3 West, 3 Kobe, 2 Bird, 2 Mikan (but Bird has at least 8 alternates, so will presumably win next round).

Nominations are 8 Oscar, 6 D.Rob, 1 Moses, 1 Barkley.

[trex_8063]

VOTE: Kobe Bryant

Sorry, I've been off the grid recently (not that my direct participation has been all that substantial anyway). I'll be short and sweet in this vote post too.....

Kobe is very likely NOT a top 20 peak for me. He might barely be a fringe top-25 peak, actually (I'm pretty comfortable saying he's at least in my top 30 peaks). However, he's got MULTIPLE seasons which could [not always for the same reasons] be argued as his "peak season".......which means he's got multiple years playing at that fringe top-25(ish) [all-time] level. And he's got an "extended prime" that lasts 13 durable seasons. Compared to Curry, for example, Kobe's PRIME is like 90 or so additional games and >7k more minutes, iirc, than Curry's entire career (and not all of that is prime for Steph).
And there are about 3 other seasons that are [imo] value-adding for Kobe.

That's adds up to a substantial amount of on-court career value (and recall: I'm a career value above RP type of guy).
Obviously his resume in terms of team success and media accolades [for whatever it's worth] speaks for itself. And he was [like Bird and Curry, among other current candidates] one of those players that drove global popularity of the game (and the NBA product); which, in turn, drives salaries, player pools, and general competitiveness of the league. He was, in fact, a global icon that transcended just basketball [fwiw].

I hope that will suffice for now as argumentation.

Alternate: Larry Bird
Nomination: Karl Malone

I hope to make a longer post about the Mailman at some point, but I never know if I'll get the chance at this point.
One thing I can't help thinking about when it comes to ranking Karl Malone is that if the refs don't blow two shotclock calls in game 6 ['98] (or if they DID blow them in real-time, but were allowed video review--->as would be mandated protocol today), the Jazz almost assuredly win game 6. Then game 7 is played in SLC, with Scottie Pippen playing injured.
In short: two crucial calls made correctly likely results in the Jazz winning the '98 title [and Malone winning FMVP]==>both of these things likely occurring even without any improvement in Malone's performance in said Finals.

If that had taken place, I don't think anyone would blink at someone ranking Karl Malone in the top 10-11 all-time. Because honestly: we'd be looking at the 3rd-leading scorer of all-time (with a couple of the higher/highest rs TS Added on record, iirc), who's also top 10 [I think] in rebounds, high(ish) ranked in steals and assists, who was also awarded All-Defensive honours, twice MVP of the league, a gigantic smattering of All-Star and All-NBA nods, and then a proven leader of a championship team. Almost no one would vehemently argue against such placement of that broad-strokes resume.

But because the refs did blow those calls and the Jazz lost, I'm perpetually among the contingent that vociferously argues [usually without success] to even garner him serious top 15 consideration. Alas....

[penbeast0]

One_and_Done just posted what I was doing, lol. Here is the basic information I will be pulling off tomorrow morning to post the new one since Doc will be busy:

lessthanjake: Curry/Bird, nominate Moses

penbeast0: Curry/Mikan, David Robinson

Samurai: Curry/Bid, Oscar

iggymcfrack: Curry/Bird, Robinson

Gibson22: West/Curry, Oscar

One_and_Done: Curry/Bird, Robinson

trelos6: Curry/Bird, Robinson

ZeppelinPage: West/--, Oscar

rk2023: Kobe/--, Oscar

HeartbreakKid: West/Bird, Oscar

Narigo: Bird/Kobe, Oscar

Aenigma: Kobe/--, Oscar

eminence: Mikan/West, Oscar

ceiling raiser: Curry/Kobe, Oscar

DraymondGold: Curry/Bird, Oscar

OldSchoolNoBull: Mikan/Bird, Barkley

f4p: Kobe/--, Robinson

Clyde Frazier: Bird/Kobe, –

trex_8063: Kobe/Bird, Karl Malone


If you want to fill in the blank, are missing, or I have missed your vote, please post it now with votes and nominations in bold print and page references (# or URL) for mistakes/ommissions.

[One_and_Done]

VOTE: Kobe Bryant

Sorry, I've been off the grid recently (not that my direct participation has been all that substantial anyway). I'll be short and sweet in this vote post too.....

I'll be honest, Kobe is very likely NOT a top 20 peak for me. He might barely be a fringe top-25 peak, actually. However, he's got MULTIPLE seasons which could [not always for the same reasons] be argued as his "peak season".......which means he's got multiple years playing at that fringe top-25(ish) level. And he's got an "extended prime" that lasts 13 durable seasons. Compared to Curry, for example, Kobe's PRIME is like 90 or so additional games and >7k more minutes, iirc, than Curry's entire career (and not all of that is prime for Steph).
And there are about 3 other seasons that are [imo] value-adding for Kobe.

That's adds up to a substantial amount of on-court career value (and recall: I'm a career value above RP type of guy).
Obviously his resume in terms of team success and media accolades [for whatever it's worth] speaks for itself. And he was [like Bird and Curry, among other current candidates] one of those players that drove global popularity of the game (and the NBA product); which, in turn, drives salaries, player pools, and general competitiveness of the league. He was, in fact, a global icon that transcended just basketball [fwiw].

I hope that will suffice for now as argumentation.

Alternate: Larry Bird
Nomination: Karl Malone

I hope to make a longer post about the Mailman at some point, but I never know if I'll get the chance at this point.
One thing I can't help thinking about when it comes to ranking Karl Malone is that if the refs don't blow two shotclock calls in game 6 ['98] (or if they DID blow them in real-time, but were allowed video review--->as would be mandated protocol today), the Jazz almost assuredly win game 6. Then game 7 is played in SLC, with Scottie Pippen playing injured.
In short: two crucial calls made correctly likely results in the Jazz winning the '98 title [and Malone winning FMVP]==>both of these things likely occurring even without any improvement in Malone's performance in said Finals.

If that had taken place, I don't think anyone would blink at someone ranking Karl Malone in the top 10-11 all-time. Because honestly: we'd be looking at the 3rd-leading scorer of all-time (with a couple of the higher/highest rs TS Added on record, iirc), who's also top 10 [I think] in rebounds, high(ish) ranked in steals and assists, who was also awarded All-Defensive honours, twice MVP of the league, a gigantic smattering of All-Star and All-NBA nods, and then a proven leader of a championship team. Almost no one would vehemently argue against such placement of that broad-strokes resume.

But because the refs did blow those calls and the Jazz lost, I'm perpetually among the contingent that vociferously argues [usually without success] to even garner him serious top 15 consideration. Alas....

You know if you nominate D Rob and he gets in, alot of the D.Rob voters like me will probably shift to Malone next round. You're kinda throwing your vote away here.

This is why I'm hoping for a 2nd preference for noms next round.