RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Larry Bird)

[One_and_Done]

The Celtics won 61 games and had the best SRS in the league in 1980, losing to a 59 win team in the playoffs. They were 100% a contender. Bird was still a rookie though, expecting him to get them the title in year 1 was asking alot. Even year 1 Duncan needed a chance to get used to the playoffs, not get veteran calls, etc. By year 2, like Duncan, Bird had won it though. His team was certainly not stacked relative to the other teams. Magic for eg joined a team with prime Kareem, all-star guard Norm Nixon, Wilkes, Cooper and a still solid Spencer Haywood.

[eminence]

If you replace Kobe with Ray Allen or Paul Pierce, the Lakers probably still win 3 titles.

I could see it, Vince is another guy I think would've looked pretty good playing as as Shaqs #2 (Vinces shooting gets underrated I've found, he was actually a very good shooter, but people remember him mainly for the acrobatics).

Kidd another guard/wing with the talent level, but I'm not sold on his fit with Shaq/in the triangle.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I'm having a hard time buying Bird was better than Robertson and West at this point. They both seem like more efficient scorers, and depending on who we are talking about they have anchored better more elite offenses, kill Bird on defense, better playmakers by quite some bit.

They were bigger outliers from other perimeter players than Bird was I think as well. They did not collect the rings or the fame but they played in a less commercial era with less stacked teams (mainly an argument for Oscar).

Bird did not really play longer than them either. So even West's injury disadvantages are mitigated some bit.

So I'll say up front I'm specifically scanning the pages looking for more comparisons between these 3 guys, because I find them close, and I expect they'll be my next 3 votes.

To your points, some counters:

1. Don't just brush over the fact that Bird's absolute TS% was on average better than Oscar & West. I understand that Oscar & West have the era advantage, but this is not something that we can expect to linearly adjust for. Oscar & West's scoring may be more impressive than Bird's, but they were not literally more likely to be successful with their scoring attempts than Bird.

2. Kill Bird on defense. Oh I totally disagree with this characterization of Bird's defense. I think as a young guy his defensive impact was quite high. I think he deserved those All-D teams. Not saying he's the equal of West on defense, particularly over the long run, but I have more faith in his defense than Oscar's.

3. Oscar & West bigger outliers from contemporary perimeter guys. I think you can say that about Oscar & West relative to all other guards who have come since. It's an argument in their favor, but not something that should be used against them only with respect to Bird...who isn't even really a clear cut perimeter guy.

From 80-88 (Bird's 9 or so MVP-ish years), he had a TS% of 55.5% in the playoffs at 24.5 points per game.

Jerry West from 62-70, has a TS% of 55.6% in the playoffs at 31.8 points per game.

Considering West didn't have a 3-point line to help further juice his efficiency (literally a lower ceiling can be had on peak scoring because of this), add spacing, and he played in a drastically poorer offensive environment, that is pretty compelling.

West is in a different stratosphere as a prime scorer.

[One_and_Done]

You're not adjusting for pace though. If West had per 100 #'s available it'd look very different.

[eminence]

Cases I see for each (relative to one another) pros/cons:

Mikan:
+Dominance, individual and team, well above anyone who isn't already voted in
+Defense, not a guy I think of as an ATG big man, but a very good defensive big man, laps the guards, and beats out Bird
-Era, most of the time I don't like era adjustment for play level, and I don't do it even here, but I get it in this instance
-Longevity, even adjusted

Oscar:
+Elite offense, best here
+Longevity probably the best if era adjusted
-4th of these 5 defensively even though he was fine on that end
-Lacking team success

West:
+Strong offense, though I think the evidence points towards Oscar as the era best
+One of the best defensive guards ever
Longevity a bit up in the air, decent length of seasons, but regular injury issues, I'd probably rate him #3 of this group
-Still a guard for defense, I'd have him behind Bird overall, and well behind Mikan
-Also a lack of team success, looks better than it was because that conference just sucked

Bird:
+2nd most team success as a superstar, Kobe beats him out adding in lower level star years
+Good defensive forward (very good to okay from '80-'88), which pretty easily beats even the best defensive guards
-Offensively notably more limited than the guards, behind 40's Mikan, ahead of '52 onwards Mikan (key change)
-2nd worst longevity here, arguably worst after era adjustment

Kobe:
+Team success both as the lead and as the #2
+Offense comparable to West, though I'd go slightly behind prime to prime
+Best longevity in a vacuum (I do adjust somewhat, but you don't have to, and even with adjustment I'd go #2)
-Poor defender for most of his career (bad bad at raising his teams foul rate with matador perimeter defense)

I'm planning on going Mikan #1 here, will have to decide on who I'll prefer as a strategic vote for slot #2, as it doesn't look like my first choice will be bringing it home.

I'll put somebody down for nomination ballot, but haven't got a lot of time to think on that front. Dirk/Karl are my first thoughts.

[DraymondGold]

great Bird war will come soon enough.

And so it did

I agree, they *shouldn't be*. But to all the people saying Kobe has a clear and large longevity advantage, I believe they're being biased by these extra seasons and total games. If we discount these seasons, Kobe played only 25% more games than Bird did in an 2000s era where players overall played 43% more games than the 1980s (which is likely an overestimate for stars, but still indicative of a large difference across eras).

I'm saying the longevity advantage for Kobe is smaller than people are saying. And if we turn to the impact metrics we have of them, Bird has an overall advantage in his prime that is greater than the advantage Kobe has for longevity.

It is much simpler than you are making it out to be.

From 2000-2011, Kobe played in 35K Minutes and 903 Games in the RS and 7.4K Minutes and 180 Games in the PS.
From 1980-1988, Bird played in 27K Minutes and 711 Games in the RS and 6.1K Minutes and 145 Games in the PS.

Kobe gets incremental value from 2012 and 2013 [off-prime, still all-star level].
Bird gets incremental value for 1990 and 1991 [off-prime, still all-star level]

Kobe also has 1998 and 1999 where he is a positive impact player [Missing a total of 4 games in these two seasons].

It is taken into account. The thing is the effect is nowhere near as pronounced when you filter for higher quality players:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107884176#p107884176

So in the graph you're linking (5Y Yr/Player plot, measuring average career length, minimum of 15 mpg career average as threshold), Bird's generation averaged a 9 year career and Kobe's generation averaged 11. So Kobe's generation played 22% more than Bird, and in Kobe's meaningful years that you're citing (non RAPM net-negative years, only starter years and pre-achilles, etc.), Kobe only played 27% more games than Bird did.

I.e., adjusting for era, Kobe only had 5% more longevity than Bird did. While Bird's advantage in Prime (single season) WOWY is 36%, and his advantage in Moonbeam's adjusted WOWY is more than 5%. Even if you award Kobe a few extra longevity points for those negative-RAPM years, it's still a far cry from the 36% he'd need to catch Bird.

This sounds like exactly what I said. I said Kobe has better longevity, but era-relative adjustments and meaningless seasons at the start/end of Kobe's career mean Kobe's longevity advantage is much smaller. And Bird's impact advantage is greater than Kobe's longevity advantage.

You just proved my own point.

And may I remind you, you've claimed in your own criteria that you're taking an era-relative approach. SO Kobe's longevity advantage *should* be taken era-relative, Bird's impact metrics should be analyzed era-relative.

And you know, this is something Ben(whose opinion, not actual tracking or tracking-derived metrics is now being treated as evidence), actually went and accounted for(there's also probably an argument to be made that isn't how era-relativity actually works...)

Me: Reference's Ben's film analysis to provide larger sample of film analysis to compliment my own.
You: *snarky* Yeah but what about Ben's opinion on Hakeem? Why didn't you vote for Hakeem?
Me: Explains Ben's opinion on both Hakeem and Bird
You: Why are my opponents just citing Ben's opinion as gospell ??

...

Actually there's alot of favorable assumptions and claims Ben makes for Bird(we will get to "stat bias" later) for example...

First noting I don't do an MVP/weak MVP distinction (a rougher ATG/MVP/All-NBA/Allstar set of groupings for me), but I would probably have all of '80-'88 (9 seasons) as MVP level.

That's very interesting. To me putting rookie Bird on MVP level is a level too much. Although he certainly showed a lot of impact, let's not forget that he was still relatively inefficient scorer, low volume creator who regressed in the playoffs and I don't think he was in his defensive prime yet either.

Here's the thing. Ben agrees. As of 2018 he had Bird with as a strong mvp in 1980. And then he stayed as a strong MVP all the way to 1988 despite only once posting a better srs than 1980 with significantly improved casts.

Ben also pretty much agrees with all of these(not really defensible) claims:

In the MJ Impact Metrics thread, you yourself argued that multi-season metrics are the most trustworthy WOWY samples we have. You used Kareem's rookie year to argue for Kareem's impact. You argued Ben preferred using multi-year large samples based on his Top 40 articles.

And Bird's rookie year sample is better than Kareem's rookie year, it's better than literally every rookie year ever. The only 2 years to surpass it are 2010 LeBron and 1998 Jordan. Both of which have far more contextual reasons to ding them (far more other roster changes at that time) than Bird does.

For someone who has argued for the penultimate importance of multi-season WOWY samples, this seems self-contradictory.

Unless this marks a change in your opinion since that last thread? If so, I would expect you to no longer use 2010 LeBron WOWY or 1970 Kareem WOWY as major datapoints for them in the future.

Larry Bird
Not much to see here, the purest basketball-savant we likely have ever seen. Developed into a lethal shooter and scorer during his 1984-1986 stretch, incredible feel and instincts as a catalyst unlike anything we have ever seen [Until Jokic]. He truly was able to vitalize an offense as well as anyone, ever. The greatest impetus who ever graced the court [along with Nash].

In fact, he went so far to put Bird ahead, for his prime, over this guy:



Keep in mind
-> impact consistently favors magic over bird(In fact it actually seems to like Johnson over everyone from the time period)
-> Magic's is #1 in regular season winning %
-> Magic is #1 in playoff winning %(Bird is not close)
-> Magic has led better regular-season offenses as well as better playoff offenses(as well as a bunch of other post-merger greats in this not exhaustive list):

Spoiler:

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Despite Ben's insistence Bird is a different calibre of player, Kobe has actually led comparable offenes without shaq and with Shaq his increase in production was the driving force for a +11 psrs improvement from what the Lakers managed in 2000 as they played far better in the playoffs than the Celtics ever have. You might recall Kobe outscored and outassisted Shaq for 2 of 3 rounds while averaging more minutes all playoffs. If 1980 Larry was a {b]strong MVP[/b] losing to a non finalist(and thus define the arc of every prime bird year), what does that make 2001 Kobe?

But I digress, because ultimately, you can ignore all of this as Ben, with all these assumptions and beliefs inputted his season to season evaluations into an objective championship formila for both players and came out with...

First off: this doesn't address the uncertainty range of WOWY or WOWYR. Both WOWY and WOWYR can have unceanties of +/- 1 or even 2. And Bird has the greatest uncertainty of any WOWYR star in Ben's sample. So no, Magic's not clearly above Bird. Bird's well within the uncertainty range of taking him over Magic for both WOWY and adjusted WOWY metrics.

Second off: Magic's are already voted in. What are we even doing here? So you prefer Magic to Bird. I prefer Shaq, Duncan, KG, and LeBron to Kobe. Taking Magic over Bird says nothing about the comparison on hand.

Kobe Bryant coming out ahead.

Kobe Bryant, in a better league, playing with different co-stars in a scheme asking him to take the most ineffecient shots...

Was more valuable over his career

Now. You might be surprised. After all we have these CAREER WOWY numbers clearly saying that Larry was the more valuable player! Here's the thing. Ben, with whatever bias he carries when he insists those 2-3 weakly defended 3's a game in an era with illegal defense were defense-warping, is not a robot. He wants to evaluate all the seasons properly, including ones where Bird didn't miss time.

And a couple issues arise when trying to claim Bird was actually such an outlier Kobe's longetvity doesn't matter.

For one, we have seen the Celtics without Bird, they were...fine:

-> in 1992 bird was replaced with an all-star and...the Celtics nearly made the conference finals
-> 89 with a weaker version of that replacement they played at a 45 or 44-win pace(40-games at full-strength)
-> 86-88 they played at a 45-win pace, 87-88, 43-win(7 gms/szn)

um... what? "Kobe did not have a more valuable career"... based on what? You've just cherry picked single samples where Bird doesn't have as good WOWY. But we have full averages, and Bird looks better than Kobe.

To reiterate:
10-year prime (single season) WOWY:
Bird: +5.3 (9th all time)
Kobe: +3.9 (26th all time)

10-year Prime (multi-season) WOWY:
Bird: +8.19
Kobe: +3.93

Non-Prime (multi-season) WOWY:
Bird: +4.88
Kobe: +2.19

10-year prime (single season) Adjusted WOWY metrics:
Kobe: +5.4
Bird: +5.3
*But Bird has the highest uncertainty of any star in the database. Thinking Basketball notes his method does well for most stars, but gives much of the credit for the late 80s Celtics to Reggie Lewis, which is likely incorrect.

Regressed WOWY by Moonbeam (5 year samples over career):



So Bird has 36% better prime (single season) WOWY, 108% better prime (multi-season) WOWY, 124% better non-prime (multi-season) WOWY (note that these incorporate the poor samples you cited!), -2% worse adjusted WOWY metrics (but with the greatest uncertainty of any superstar in this metric), and *massively* better Regressed WOWY by Moonbeam.

And Bird looks better in our more accurate box stats.

And Kobe, per the above source that you suggested using, only has 5% better era-relative longevity.

Where is there any evidence to say that Kobe had more impact than Bird??

For another, it's very difficult to find theoretical weaknesses with Bird's support. All of the celtics could pass. All of them could handle the ball. They had two strong isolation scorers, an excellent defensive cast with a goat-defensive guard and two bigs who were both switchable and decent to good rim-protectors and strong ball-handlers, scorers, decent floor-spacers, and capable passers...

Actually, pause. I want readers to really think about that last part.

Larry Bird, a guy with very limited ball-handling, a poor slashing game , vulnerable man defense, and weak(for a pf) rim-protection got to play with bigs who were good at at all of that...in the 80's.

While Ben presents Bird being able to play with a pf as a strength, really it is a luxury. Because if Bird was playing on a typical roster, he would not get to play power forward offensively, while being hidden as a small-forward on defense.

Bird not only had a talented team. He also had unique and hard to replicate roster construction. Fair to say then that Bird, impact extraordinaire should be expected to do alot of winning?

Bird was a guy with very limited ball-handling, a poor slashing game, vulnerable man defense, and weak (for a pf) rim protection.
"If Bird was playing on a typical roster, he would not get to play power forward offensively, while being hidden as a small-forward on defense." [citation needed]

Meanwhile 09 LeBron was very limited off-ball, had a poor shooting game, and on a typical roster wouldn't have the luxury of playing point guard on offense while playing small forward on defense.

... see if we single in exclusively on player's negatives, we miss all their multitude of positives. The result is a grossly inaccurate assessment of the player.

Well, this gets us to issue #3

WOWY is mostly looking at the regular season. And if SRS decided championships, Bird would have 5. And yeah, with 5 wins it would be alot harder to argue. The problem is he only has 3. Kobe, by srs, would only have 1 title. Instead, he has 5. You can bring up the srs and the wowyr, but that is a 6 ring delta in Kobe's favor. You also can't really put that all on Shaq, because the second Bryant got his own Kevin Mchale, he went

-> finals
-> championship
-> repeat championship

Bird has never won at that frequency, and frankly I think some of that is Bird's own doing(on both ends):

Yeah again, this is just ring counting with extra steps.

Which is fine if you want to do it, but I'm disinterested in the activity. It doesn't allow for nuance, or really get at the actual impact of the player. I already provided team evidence for Bird over Kobe, so we can discuss that if you want, but I don't have much interest in just ring counting here.

...
By available creation metrics(Including those that give Bird credit for high era-relative 3-point volume), it's Kobe who creates more, and Kobe who has the more reselient(and versatile) scoring arsenal. There are box cases for either, but Bird is helped greatly by a high volume of defensive rebounds and a block a game...playing next to two bigger and better defenders.

And yet available impact metrics portray Bird as better.

You keep citing Ben's opinion, as opposed to addressing these points, so I'll just reiterate what I said the last time "Ben Says" was brought up:

Spoiler:

Sure, but there's no inherent bias here. It is certainly possible that all the stuff not shown would actually lean bird's direction but it's also possible vice versa. It's the acknowledgement that bias can swingway which makes film-tracking useful. If Ben with his hundreds of possessions was laying out for us how many wide-open looks one player created and how many wide-open looks another player created or how many times player a took out 3 defenders and player b took out 3 defenders, then yeah, I'd trust that film-tracking more too. But he's not. He just vaguely says "this is a high quality read" without a clear standard and then says a metric which he designed based on his own film-tracking likes Steph Curry is biased because it doesn't appreciate what Bird brings off-the-ball.

He also doesn't address or comment on Bird's limited ball-handling and he never contemplates what his limited slashing might mean for how defenses react to him. Like...

Where do I even start here.

-> +4.2 is being treated like "historically good" here when countless players have hit that mark over and over again
-> Only looks at scoring and creation
-> Doesn't comment on how his team literally never matches that srs outside of when their defense spikes in 1986(the offense does not improve) when he literally makes that same type of comment for players generating much better offense who do eventually exceed those marks with better help("+21 year old leading a +6 offense without 3-point specialists in 2006 is probably a fluke!")

"Bird is one of the greatest creators ever because of reasons x, y, z, w ben brings up" is fine and dandy.

But telling me "bird is one of the greatest creators ever because ben says so" is not a good justification. You're not citing film-tracking here, you're citing an opinion. That's not the same thing.

Knowing and watching ball =/ creating coherent and internally consistent frameworks with said knowledge. Ben may be top-tier at the former, but he's not an expert in the latter so you shouldn't just cite a stance as a rebuttal to a metric literally built on ben's own film-tracking which happens to correlate better with offensive-rating than the alternatives.

If we're going to appeal to Ben's film-tracking...why don't we actually check out this film-tracking:

Watch on YouTube

;t=29s
For context here is how this is introduced:

Bird was also the best off-ball forward ever, so much so that I’d classify his game as primarily off-ball. Watching him without the rock, particularly in the first (1980-83) and second trimester (1984-88) of his career is a study in advantageous positioning. Here’s a 30-second sample of Bird spinning, cutting, banging, boxing and constantly threatening the defense with his high-motor perpetual motion

Okay, so, yeah Bird is moving perpetually and he is threatening...his defender. But besides getting a guy not directly involved to look at him momentarily...what is Bird actually creating? Here's what a friend(currently film-tracking game 1 of the 86 finals) had to say:

Well for a second time, you literally just proved my point

"what is Bird actually creating?"
Literally an open shot.

At the start of the possession, Celtics #18 is not open. He's being guarded by #9.

At the end of the possession, Celtics #18 is *entirely open*, and takes the shot.

How did this happen?? Well #9 was staying in the lane.

Why was #9 out of position?? He must have been either distracted by something off ball, or trying to zone up the paint to block the layup pass if someone was back cutting to the hoop.

Who was moving off ball and back cutting to the rim to distract the defender?? Larry Bird

You just provided evidence against yourself. And furthermore provided evidence that your own film analysis can *miss cases where offball movement generated an open shot*, which is the very thing you were criticizing Bird for in the beginning.

For those who are curious, a half into the final round of 86, Bird is having a fantastic scoring game(16 points with 7 possessions, 1 technical)


He is offering creative value but it's limited(2 Great OC, 12:40, 28:50)but he seems limited here(and thus far not much of anything seems to be happening off-ball):


His defense(1 Decent DP, 46:30, 5 Minor Breakdowns, 53:20, 41:55, 26:55, 26:40, 12:30, 2 Moderate Breakdowns, 20:10, 20:35) isn't great



Here's the game for those who want to vet/comment:

Watch on YouTube

;t=235s

For those who are curious on the justification for a certain classification, there are notes attached to all of these. Ask(with a time-stamp), and I can pull it up.

For posterity here were some examples of things that were not counted:

-> 44:15 ("empty-ish assist")
-> 48:10 ("i hope that didn't get an assist")

Anyway...

I responded to your full post, and broadened your highly specific criteria for creation.

Nope:


Should be obvious what's going on here but I'll let posterity decide

So no, I don't think we should just look at when teammates were exclusively wide open. The criteria you set are too specific and miss most of the game.

I have no idea why you assumed we only looked at wide-open looks. I specifically brought that up to make a point about creative efficiency. With game 5 of the 87 ECF we credited Bird with a decent OC after he set a pick even though it is somewhat atypical to give players creations when they only affect one defender. We are not "only" looking for wide-open looks, but when we are discussing passer-rating, a metric that tracks creative effeciency, the quality of look created matters.

Why did I assume you only looked at wide-open looks? Well because you didn't actually say what you did. You didn't provide time stamps, didn't provide any notes, and even here do provide slightly more notes but don't provide time stamps to check anything.

And furthermore have shown examples where you yourself (or your friend) can miss pretty clear cases where off-ball movement generate open shots. Without timestamps and when showing examples of your own film analysis missing the value of off-ball movement, I'm not not super interested in getting into the weeds of this film analysis...

The rest has been discussed ad-nauseum so I'm going to post this, start my tracking of Hakeem, and sleep. If you are only planning to reference Ben's opinions, replying is probably not going to be too productive.

Well enjoy the Hakeem film!

i wanna see how bird voters respond to this. especially those callin him dpoy and an offensive goat

that relentless offball clip seems pretty sus ngl

Not to belabor this, but with stuff like this, I wonder if Bird shouldn't be considered a top 15 player anymore. My point of him not being top 30 is maybe a bit aggressive, but there are a lot of questions...

Also, have some concerns about Ben's eye test given the above.

Well we responded.

ShaqAttac, for someone who supposedly values WOWY as true impact, for someone who has used raw WOWY as basically the only datapoint to justify a vote in the past.... it seems little contradictory to just flat-out ignore that Bird has significantly better WOWY (and Regressed WOWY) than Kobe. Flat out. And Bird has a mathematically larger advantage in WOWY than Kobe has in longevity, per above.

ceiling raiser, not sure what's wrong with Ben's eye test here. He points out that Bird's off ball movement created an open shot, and it literally did. Ohayo is the one who missed it.

[One_and_Done]

ShaqAttac, for someone who supposedly values WOWY as true impact, for someone who has used raw WOWY as basically the only datapoint to justify a vote in the past.... it seems little contradictory to just flat-out ignore that Bird has significantly better WOWY (and Regressed WOWY)

I'm sure he has a really well reasoned and coherent explanation for the apparent inconsistency per usual.

[LukaTheGOAT]

You're not adjusting for pace though. If West had per 100 #'s available it'd look very different.

I didn't adjust for pace, because Doc seemingly didn't want to adjust for efficiency relative to era. Plus, I am pretty sure West plays more MPG than Bird, and therefore he should be crediting for playing for MPG. However, even if I wanted to disadvantage West.

62- 70 Jerry West in the PS

Adjusted 26.5 pts per 75 (rTS% of 6.8%)

ScoreVal-2.4


80-88 Larry Bird in the PS

Adjusted 22.2 pts per 75 (rTS% of 2.5%)

ScoreVal-1


In an era, where teams scored less per 100 possessions, and West still looks to be in a different tier.

[MyUniBroDavis]

ShaqAttac, for someone who supposedly values WOWY as true impact, for someone who has used raw WOWY as basically the only datapoint to justify a vote in the past.... it seems little contradictory to just flat-out ignore that Bird has significantly better WOWY (and Regressed WOWY)

I'm sure he has a really well reasoned and coherent explanation for the apparent inconsistency per usual.

Oo hell nah

Bird sux pigeon, not like that

[One_and_Done]

I don't really care for a flat TS adjustment for era.

How do Bird and West compare as per 75 scorers to Oscar and Kobe then. That's the other variable here, that and what were their RS #'s, because just as more minutes has value so does the RS.

[ShaqAttac]

Cases I see for each (relative to one another) pros/cons:

Mikan:
+Dominance, individual and team, well above anyone who isn't already voted in
+Defense, not a guy I think of as an ATG big man, but a very good defensive big man, laps the guards, and beats out Bird
-Era, most of the time I don't like era adjustment for play level, and I don't do it even here, but I get it in this instance
-Longevity, even adjusted

Oscar:
+Elite offense, best here
+Longevity probably the best if era adjusted
-4th of these 5 defensively even though he was fine on that end
-Lacking team success

West:
+Strong offense, though I think the evidence points towards Oscar as the era best
+One of the best defensive guards ever
Longevity a bit up in the air, decent length of seasons, but regular injury issues, I'd probably rate him #3 of this group
-Still a guard for defense, I'd have him behind Bird overall, and well behind Mikan
-Also a lack of team success, looks better than it was because that conference just sucked

Bird:
+2nd most team success as a superstar, Kobe beats him out adding in lower level star years
+Good defensive forward (very good to okay from '80-'88), which pretty easily beats even the best defensive guards
-Offensively notably more limited than the guards, behind 40's Mikan, ahead of '52 onwards Mikan (key change)
-2nd worst longevity here, arguably worst after era adjustment

Kobe:
+Team success both as the lead and as the #2
+Offense comparable to West, though I'd go slightly behind prime to prime
+Best longevity in a vacuum (I do adjust somewhat, but you don't have to, and even with adjustment I'd go #2)
-Poor defender for most of his career (bad bad at raising his teams foul rate with matador perimeter defense)

I'm planning on going Mikan #1 here, will have to decide on who I'll prefer as a strategic vote for slot #2, as it doesn't look like my first choice will be bringing it home.

I'll put somebody down for nomination ballot, but haven't got a lot of time to think on that front. Dirk/Karl are my first thoughts.

did kobes defenses get worse with him on the floor? i thought he was alright at d?

also from the eyetest stuff thats been shared it seems bird defense wasn't great either

[DraymondGold]

Voting Post
Vote: Larry Bird
Alternate: Kobe Bryant

Short reasoning for Bird: best combination of impact, team results, and ceiling raising. The advantage in impact is greater than Kobe's advantage in longevity.
Reason for Kobe: Longevity advantage primarily, as well as great team success.

I could listen to arguments for Oscar or West -- they have better WOWY stats, but worse box stats. Both have great team results when paired with another star, worse beforehand. Era relative longevity may help them, but they also played in a weaker era than Bird or Kobe which hampers some of what they would gain from an era-relative approach to longevity. I have West clearly over Oscar for peak, but West struggles more with prime injuries and wasn't quite as good as early as Oscar. I also have West as peaking higher than Kobe. I may one day end up having one of them over Kobe, perhaps soon if anyone presents particularly compelling arguments. But at the moment I'm not quite ready to deviate that far from my (prior) intuition.

I go into this Top 100 project without having my final votes exactly figured out. Sure, I have my prior intuition/list. But part of the fun of this project is that it provides an excuse to go back over all these players with a fine comb, question previous thoughts and reasonings, and consider new evidence brought up by others. The result is that my list may be in slight flux over the course of the project, and even perhaps after the project as I keep reflecting back on the arguments.

This might mean that I end up settling for, say, West over Kobe in a few months. Or heck, maybe even Kobe over Bird. In theory it would be a shame that I wouldn't have voted how I ultimately ended up siding after a long period to reflect. But I think that's an unreasonable criticism. This project is conducted at a certain time, and thus it reflects the feelings of the voters at that time, not 3 months from now. It also means that particularly compelling arguments -- say, Zeppelin's historical analysis of 1965 Wilt -- can sway me toward actually changing my vote in a way that I wouldn't have predicted beforehand.

I think that's one of the greatest facets of this project. It provides such a great chance to learn from so many smart, avid basketball fans

Re: Nomination, I would have thought Dirk due to his longevity, and if a tiebreaker is necessary I would go Dirk for now. But I do have Robinson over Dirk for peak and prime. As such, I'm hoping to do more of that thing I mentioned above, and read some of the compelling arguments made in favor of each player. Looking forward to reading everyone's analysis!

Re-posting this as an addendum for those on the fence about Bird:

~The Benefits of Off-ball Value~

There’s an obvious benefit to passing: it creates scoring opportunities to teammates. A star offensive player creates an advantage, hits the open man with the pass, and the open man then has a more efficient scoring opportunity. This boosts the full team offense.

The benefits of off-ball movement are subtler, often unnoticed, but they can be just as beneficial to a team offense:
1) Off-ball movement also creates scoring opportunities for teammates
2) Off-ball movement creates *passing and playmaking* opportunities for teammates
3) Off-ball movement can be done throughout the possession, and does not require the ball to be in your hand

Benefit 1: Off-ball movement creates scoring opportunities for teammates.
As this era should make blatantly obvious, good spacing and shooting are invaluable. Distance shooting is not only a more efficient form of basketball, but it has constant compounding benefits: it opens the lanes for easier drives, it makes approaching double teams more obvious, it makes passes out of double teams and drives more valuable, and it puts a greater strain on the defense both mentally and positionally.

When combined with off ball movement, the defense warping tendency of good shooting becomes even more impactful. And the result is usually twofold: either the defense isn't able to keep up with the great movement shooter shooter and the shooter gets a great shot, or the defense commits too much to defending the movement shooter and an open teammate gets a great shot.

Curry and Bird are all-time shooters. Bird is possibly the best shooter of the entire 80s, who provides extra spacing benefits by pulling a Forward out of the paint. Curry is the GOAT shooter. Likewise, Curry and Bird are all-time off-ball players. Bird may be the best off-ball player of the 80s. And Curry may be the GOAT off-ball player ever.

This combination of all-time shooting and movement creates open, easy scoring opportunities for scoring opportunities for teammates that doesn’t get recognized in a cursory eye test, in highlights, in basic box stats, or in all-in-one box stats.

Benefit 2: Off-ball movement creates playmaking opportunities for teammates.
In the same way passing makes scoring opportunities for teammates, off-ball movement makes playmaking opportunities for teammates. Just as passing can boost the offense of teammates by giving them better scoring opportunities, off-ball movement boosts the offense of teammates by giving them better passing and screening opportunities.

This allows teams to play better defenders, passers, screeners, and rebounders, who would otherwise be more offensively limited from their lack of a scoring package. This is true for both Bird and Curry!

Bird’s Celtics were able to be more well rounded, focusing more on defensive lineups and rosters than Magic’s Lakers. These defensive players were viable offensively because Bird’s off-ball value enabled them to be passers without needing to be major scoring threats.
As Sansterre notes in the 1981 Celtics profile: “Celtics seemed to favor passing shooting guards. Chris Ford wasn’t much of a scorer, but he passed pretty well. [Gerald] Henderson wasn’t as much, but when [Danny] Ainge came up he also passed decently.” Likewise in the 1984 profile: “I’m consistently amazed by how unimpressive Bird’s supporting casts are. Dennis Johnson at this point was a decent passer and sufficient scorer, but most of his value came on the defensive end (at least in ‘84).” And of course in 1986, Bill Walton provided some portion of his offensive value with passing, screening, and offensive rebounding rather than pure scoring.

Curry’s Warriors, likewise, made use of this. Throughout their dynasty, Warriors did not over-prioritize offense. If anything, they were defense-first in the majority of their rosters and coaching focus. Players like 1) non-16/17 Draymond green (defender and passer, not a scoring threat), 2) Andre Iguodala (defender and passer, some rim threat), 3) Shaun Livingston (defender and passer, some midrange threat), 4) Kevon Looney (defender, screener, and rebounder, not a scoring threat), 5) Bogut (defender, screener, and passer, slight alleyoop threat), 6) Zaza Pachulia (defender and screener, not a scoring threat), 7) Gary Payton the 2nd (defender)… all played a significant number of minutes throughout the Warriors dynasty. They were *all* largely non scoring threats, absolutely non 3 point shooting threats. Throughout the dynasty, the Warriors often had *2 non shooters* on the floor for a majority of minutes, while their opponents often had 1 or even no non-shooting threats.

The Warriors and Celtics were able to get away with such non-shooting threats, such defense-first and playmaking-first players, because the off-ball value of Curry and Bird made these players more passable on offense. This boosted the overall rating of the team (e.g. by SRS or ELO), even if it doesn’t boost the team relative offensive rating quite as much as an offense-only approach would have.

In this way, off-ball action is a kind of creation. But rather than creating scoring opportunities for teammates, it creates playmaking opportunities for teammates.

Benefit 3: Off-ball movement can be done throughout the possession, and does not require the ball to be in your hand.
This constancy of the attack throughout the possession, and the fact that it's coming from multiple places on the court at once (both from the movement shooter and the ball handler) puts immense strain on the defense. Off ball movement requires immense stamina for defenders, it requires constant mental attention, it demands good communication around switches and getting over screens.... It gives the offensive player a vast variety of counters to pull from: they can use a screen to leak out to the three point line, they can position themselves at the perimeter to stretch the floor, they can backcut to the basket, they can set a screen themselves, they can relocate after a pass, they push for good interior position on a post up, they could get in good offensive rebounding position, and that's all before the player gets the ball.

This combination of factors can lead to resilient offense.

Take the 2022 playoffs: Curry’s combination of on and off-ball skill provided immense versatility for the Warriors’ offense. They changed their offensive focus every round based on their opponent, and included a variety of adjustments mid-series. This made their offense quite difficult to guard -- and it was enabled by the versatility of Curry. For example...
Round 1: High focus on stretch pick and roll, lots of passing, with off-ball movement from the non ball handling splash cousin. Perhaps the most effective offense against Jokic’s Nuggets in 2021–2023.
Round 2: Increased action closer to the basket in the paint, post, and elbow. Increased focus on team offensive rebounding.
Round 3: Return to more team motion, shooting, and passing. Combination of pick and roll attacking Luka, off-ball relocation after the pass, and weak side ball movement attacking and occupying weaker off-ball defenders. Produced far more effective results than the Suns did against the Mavs’ stronger on-ball defense.
Round 4: Increase in ball handling, on-ball playmaking, and 3 point volume for Curry. Produced the most effective offense of any star against one of the best defenses of the century.
And of course on a possession level, even in series when there’s a greater on-ball or off-ball focus, Curry and the Warriors’ can still switch to the other playtype based on what the defense gives them. The ability to have so many counters (see above) makes it much harder for the defense to know what’s coming.

Let's consider the team results. Both Bird and Curry have a reputation for not leading good enough offenses. Are we sure this is true?

Bird Team Offenses:

Spoiler:

Regular Season Offenses (rORTG rank):
1980 Celtics: 2nd (2nd to Lakers, much better defense)
1981 Celtics: 4th
1982 Celtics: 4th (behind Lakers, but better defense)
1983 Celtics: 6th (behind Lakers, but better defense)
1984 Celtics: 6th (tied with Lakers, but with far better defense)
1985 Celtics: 2nd (just behind Lakers, but with better defense)
1986 Celtics: 3rd (behind Lakers, but with far better defense)
1987 Celtics: 3rd (behind Lakers)
1988 Celtics: 1st (2nd best ever at that time)
[1989 Celtics: 7th… in year Bird missed most of the season. So healthy Bird correlates with better offense. ]
… At this point in time, Bird’s accumulated injuries start leading to clear signs of decline, and his surrounding cast is also declining. Even so:
1990 Celtics: 6th
1991 Celtics: 3rd
So Bird clearly let a number of top offenses. Notice that 1988 Bird actually led a better regular season offense than Magic ever led, and led another Top 20 offense ever in 1987. This performance strongly correlates with an increase in 3 point shooting, both from Bird as a whole and from the team.

Bird’s resilient Playoff offense (rORTG rank)
1980 Celtics: 7th in league (5th discounting first round exits, 1st in defense, tied net rating)
1981 Celtics: tied 2nd (2nd in defense)
1982 Celtics: 5th (4th discounting first round exits, 1st in defense)
1983 Celtics: 9th (6th in defense)
1984 Celtics: 3rd in league (2nd discounting first round exits, 24th ever at that time, 18th ever at that time discounting first round exits, with positive defense)
[1985 Celtics: 8th in league (4th discounting first round exits, in year Bird got injured… so healthy Bird clearly correlates with better offense) ]
1986 Celtics: 2nd in league (16th ever at that time, 11th ever discounting first round exits, with best defense in the playoffs too)
1987 Celtics: 2nd in league (14th ever at that time, 10th ever discounting first round exits)
[1988 Celtics: 7th in league (5th discounting first round exits, with positive defense, in year Bird got injured… so healthy Bird again correlates with better offense)]
[1989 first round exit, in year Bird got injured and missed playoffs… so healthy Bird again correlates with better offense.]
1990 Celtics: 1st in league (but were first round exit)
1991 Celtics: 4th in league (3rd discounting first round exits)
Notice that the Celtics always had good playoff offenses when healthy — it’s the unhealthy years that drag them down. Note also that they were generally prioritized defense more than the Lakers, at least before losing all their depth by 1990.

I think this provides compelling team-level data for Bird. Regular season, Bird consistently led top 5 level regular season offenses in the league. He led the 2nd best regular season offense ever (even over any of Magic offense). In the playoffs, the Celtics improved their league ranking in rORTG every year Bird was healthy from 84 on. Bird led three top 20-level postseason offenses ever at that time.

Now consider that Bird’s supporting cast was generally worse offensively than Magic’s (i.e. frequently more defense oriented, certainly worse overall by 90-91, certainly worse overall by 90-91), and that Bird showed the ability to equal or surpass prime Magic-led offenses as 3 point shooting increases (RS: 1984, 1988, 1991. PS: 1986, 1990, 1991). There’s certainly still an argument for Magic offensively: indeed, I have Magic as the better offensive player! But Bird’s offensive results are underrated, and he’s absolutely deserving of his all time offensive status. Add in that he’s clearly better defensively than Magic, Curry, or Kobe, and you get a guy who (when healthy) is clear Top 10 GOAT candidate.

Curry's Team Offenses:

Spoiler:

Regular Season rORTG Rank:
2013 Warriors: 11th
2014 Warriors: 12th (4th on defense)
2015 Warriors: 2nd (1st on defense)
2016 Warriors: 1st (3rd best ever, 2nd in league on defense)
2017 Warriors: 1st (21st best ever, 2nd in league on defense)
2018 Warriors: 3rd
2019 Warriors: 1st
2020 Warriors: Last (Curry injured... S)
2021 Warriors: 21st
2022 Warriors: 16th (better in the 64/82 games Curry played, 2nd on defense)
2023 Warriors: 10th (better in the 56/82 games Curry played)

Playoffs:
2013 Warriors: 5th
2014 Warriors: 6th
2015 Warriors: 5th (barely below Cleveland, 2nd in defense)
2016 Warriors: 6th (when Curry was injured)
2017 Warriors: 2nd (11th best ever, 9th discounting first round exits, 2nd in league on defense, 1st discounting first round exits)
2018 Warriors: 1st (2nd on defense, 1st discounting first round exits)
2019 Warriors: 1st
2020 Warriors: N/A (Curry injured, missed playoffs)
2021 Warriors: N/A
2022 Warriors: 5th (2nd discounting first round exits, 6th on defense)
2023 Warriors: 9th (6th discounting first round exits, 6th on defense)

So for a team that usually prioritizes defense in roster design, lineups, coaching, these are pretty great offensive results. Curry led the top 10 level offenses ever in the regular season and the playoffs, while being on a team that was also a defensive dynasty. In fact, Curry led the overall most dominant dynasty ever when healthy. And for a supposed playoff faller, the Warriors offensive rank improved in 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023 in the playoffs. If you look at actual rating, not rank, you can add 2017 to the list (when they were only eclipsed by the 3rd best PS rORTG ever). These are absolutely great offensive results for a team that generally also prioritizes defense in its roster, lineup, and coaching.

What about on film? Bird Film Analysis:

Watch on YouTube

Here's a 1986 Celtics Game, Round 1 Game 2. It's the game Jordan scored 61 points, so it should be pretty fun! This is from Bird's best playoff run, but it's far from his best game from that run. Let's look at his off-ball action in this game;

Spoiler:

Bird 4:54
-Bird screen gets teammate open but they pass up the shot. Then screen down low there McHale a shot near basket (Benefit 1, Benefit 3)
Bird 5:25
-Bird off ball fake gets open for pass, gets defense out of balance, drives and takes shot, misses. Example of some of his struggles at the rim (for an all time player). Bird starts this game off cold for the first few shots, but warms up later on . (Benefit 2, Benefit 3).
Bird 7:44
-Bird gets inside position, grabs pass, then passes out to start offense. Leads to a McHale shot near basket. (Benefit 1, Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 12:18
-Bird curls around and gets handoff, Beautiful layup pass breaks down the defense. Ainge is in position to layup, draws one defender, then second, then great pass to the open man. Celtics Bucket. (Benefit 1, Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 12:32
-Bird great off ball movement to get open for layup. But like I said starts cold, rushes shot, misses. Boston does end up with offensive rebound though, and they get the basket. (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 17:28
-Great off ball movement gives Walton a good passing opportunity and the Celtics a good attempt at the rim. (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 30:55
x not off ball, but Bird drive draws double team, pass over top to Walton gets Celtics free throws
Bird 33:00
x not off ball, but same play. Bird draws double in same spot, which leads to the Celtics shot
Bird: 36:09
-entry pass, off ball gravity gets Walton easier shot, then off ball rebounding. Taps it to teammate, gets rebound, makes shot (Benefit 1, Benefit 3)
Bird 39:07
-teammate looking to pass. Bird’s movement gets teammate the pass, pick and roll to a bird layup (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 49:28
-Bird good screen on pick and roll, then slides to give his teammate an open pass and himself an open shot. Misses, but Celtics end up with the ball. In next shot, he’s active off ball to get in rebounding position and helps his teammate get it. Then backs out to the three point line. Gets the ball, good quick pass gets McHale an easy shot. (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 58:45
-Bird sets good screen for pick and roll, then moves out for the open long 2 which he makes. (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:00:52
-Bird’s physical at the top of the screen, posts up for entry pass, then sneaks out to the far three point line. Makes a long two. (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:03:38
-Bird drives to the basket, drags 2 defenders with him using his gravity. This could have got Walton better position on an easier post up shot, but they call a foul. (Benefit 1, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:03:56
-next possession, similar action. Bird drives, defender goes with him, teammate gets open shot, but now they score (Benefit 1, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:07:57
Bird passes in, moves all over the court with 2 screens for teammates, then cuts baseline and gets a layup (Benefit 1, Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:10:30
x not offball, but what a pass by Bird! Same play 1:13:33
Bird 1:15:35
-Offensive rebound to takeout and pass (Benefit 3)
Bird 1:20:50
-here you see the Celtics are continuing to use their counter. Entry pass to a Bird post up, pass over the top to a cutting guard. Bird then moves off ball for the rebound, but misses the second shot. The rebound shows good toughness and positioning, but the shot does show Bird’s lack of verticality at the rim. (Benefit 3)
Bird 1:24:45
-pick and roll with Bird screen, then Bird moves horizontally to the far midrange (which would be the 3 point like today as they’d start the pick and roll higher). Bird gets the pass, Then second pick and roll with Bird as ball handler to the made shot for Bird (Benefit 1, Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:26:25
-inbound, some physical jostling screen, then gets pushed back for the looong 3 point shot! First lead since the start (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:29:50
x not off ball, but great play. Cross court pass, great fight for offensive rebound, McHale makes the shot from the floor
Bird 1:34:33
-Bird entry pass, then gets pass and nails 3 point shot on sagging defender (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:41:44
-Bird moving off screen gets open for pass, great layup pass. Jordan makes the great save. (Benefit 1, Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 1:43:49
-Bird moves off ball takes the handoff, draws double, pass to teammate right under the basket. (Benefit 1, Benefit 3)
overtime.
Bird 2:02:28
-Bird runs to elbow off-ball, gets pass and draws double team. Good pass breaks down the defense, Celtics make the shot. (Benefit 1, Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 2:10:10
-Bird runs off ball, gets inbound pass, and the long 3. misses. (Benefit 2, Benefit 3)
Bird 2:15:00
x not off ball, but Bird draws double and gets teammate open shot. Celtics up 2
Bird 2:19:30
x not off ball, but Bird draws double and gets teammate open shot. Celtics up 4 with 9 seconds left in 2OT.
Celtics win.

So in a quick film analysis, I noted Bird’s off ball movement was involved in at lest 27 offensive possessions throughout the game. It helped produce a scoring opportunity for a teammate 11 times. It helped capitalize off his teammates passing ability 16 times. The Celtics had a relative offensive rating of +5.2 in this game and +8.2 for the playoffs. They also had a defensive rating of -4.9 (negative is good), and Bird showed film evidence of being a much better defender than Magic, Curry, and Kobe in-era. Overall, this team had the 7th best playoff SRS of all time (just behind 2 Curry/KD Warriors teams, 2 Jordan Bulls, the Kareem/Oscar 71 Bucks, and the Shaq/Kobe 01 Lakers), the 6th best overall SRS of all time, and Bird was clearly the most valuable player. Great offensive ceiling raising through his off ball value.

I've performed similar film analysis for Curry in the Greatest Peaks project.

All in all, I'd argue the off-ball skills of Curry and Bird are immensely valuable for a team. They're key to why these players were the leaders of some the most dominant teams ever. And this kind of stuff gets missed in the simple box stats or in a cursory eye test. Curry and Bird are absolutely deserving of their reputation as being some of the greatest offensive players ever, as supported by the metrics, the team results, and the film analysis.

...

[DraymondGold]

Hey f4p, I find your discussion of Robinson vs Dirk interesting. I tend to agree Robinson could have absolutely won in more of his prime if he had a better fitting cast around him.

Just to get a better idea of your perspective:
-Dirk has better longevity than Robinson
-Oscar Robertson seems to be typically taken over both Dirk / David, typically because he’s considered to have a higher peak, more consistent prime, and era relative longevity isn’t too bad.

I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on why you lean Robinson here!

honestly, i'm not strong on robinson over dirk. in fact, i think i'm changing my nomination to neither of them this round. robinson is certainly one of the bigger playoff fallers and dirk isn't. but robinson also seems to have massive regular season impact right out of the box and the ability to show huge impact in a perfect team situation in the second half of his career. as much as i am impressed with dirk's 2011 run, i'm not sure it's really in the 1994 hakeem/2003 duncan realm in the sense that dirk basically got to do exactly what he was put on earth to do and didn't have to really do much else. if he had done it in 2006 at his peak, it would mean a little more (not that it isn't a leg up on robinson in leading a team to a title). but then, dirk before the 2006 finals was unbelievable and smoked KG in a series and robinson was getting punked by karl malone (an even bigger playoff faller than robinson) even when he wasn't getting destroyed by hakeem.

as for oscar, i'm just not very high on him. yes, great TS Add, yes a bunch of #1 offenses, but his last dominant regular season seems to be at age 29 or maybe age 30 if you want to include one more 300 TS Add season. but his playoffs numbers have never blown me away and his last dominant playoffs is at age 28. so i'm not seeing a ton of longevity. also, for a guy who had the misfortune of playing on untalented teams, he didn't take advantage of the few chances he got, going 1-2 as an SRS favorite before kareem, with all 3 of them being at least +2 favorites. his only win was as a +8 favorite.

also, i tend to think we probably slightly overrate oscar and west's efficiency numbers like TS Add because they just played in such an inefficient era that they basically have a first mover advantage on being guys who first had something like modern efficiency. i'm not sure they're really standing out like this in the 80's or later.

and just finally, with russell and wilt and mikan and west, i feel like i'm reaching my limit on guys who had careers that basically ended in the first 25 years of the league. that's only 1/3 of the league history, in an era where there often only 8 or 9 teams. the talent pool was significantly shallower on an absolute basis and we're talking much less than 1/3 of the total team-seasons played during that era. so if oscar gets in in the top 15 or 17, then we're using up 1/3 of the slots on way less than 1/3 of the talent pool and team-seasons.

That all makes sense, thanks for the thoughtful response!

As an aside, I never got to reply to your last post (many threads ago) about Hakeem, but just wanted to mention a lot of it seemed reasonable. We certainly don't necessarily share the same criteria or use all the same type of evidence, but your argument back then was coherent and consistent with the criteria you set out. Since we don't always agree, just thought it was worth highlighting some of the areas we do agree (like Robinson and Dirk) and some of the areas we may not agree but can at least do so respectfully. Cheers!

[ShaqAttac]

when did i only use WOWY?

Eni cookin, but ill try and do my best. I aint ever write this muuch but imma try to format proper like ppl tell me too.

I know we aint votin on em all, but imma list the 6 players who i think should get noms first

1 Russ, will say more down under
2 Mikan, will say more down under
3 Bron, Nukes every1 but russ n cap in "Impact", crazy longetvity, plays in way better league, apm goes craaazy
4 Cap, Crazzy longetvity, also better in "impact" for his peak than every1 but bron n russ from what im seein, was awesome before he even entereed nba
5. Timmy D, always on a good team, all-time carry job in 03, all-time leadeer who took paycuts to help antonio win, n honestly, was prob the best player of the 2000's, I thought shaq was 1 but i cant argue with da facts.
6. Dream, I know its crazy soundin, but I think he got a good arg here from what im seein. same rs impaact, n went nova in the pos. Eni n KD make really goood points so ill let em d up. basically tho his "impact' In rs is comp and he gets way better in the yoffs. He also carried meh help to b2b chips while MJ literallly only won with an uberduper superteam. Unless im missin sumthn MJ would be the only nom whose never won without a deathsquad.


VOTE BILL RUSSELL
this is p easy. He won 11 rings as the best player by faar and was so good ppl been strugglin hard to come up with any kinda arg against the season when he was bout to retire. Man literally crusshes superteams with bad help n was also the coach. He also was facin craazy comp

ut this doesn't mean anything of itself. For the KD parallel to work, the Celtics need to be great(relative to the comp) without Russell. Nothing suggests this is true beyond the Celtics first few titles(i listed the different stuff in my previous post). Crucially everything we have suggests the opposite was true in 1969, and here the competition is far better than "not weak".

Assuming you are not trying to break era-relativity, here are 3-ways we can look at opposition strength
1. Look at how the teams look relative to the league for the era(bullets and knicks are outliers by srs, Lakers are close)
2. Look at how the comp was relative to the league that season(Celtics beat the best, 2nd best and 4th best opponent they could have had by SRS)
3. Look at how the comp was in surrounding seasons(Knicks SRS doubles en-route to a championship the following year, Bullets and Lakers srs drops but they take the Knicks to 7 and LA win a championship and make 3 finals)

By any of these approaches the Celtics faced an all-time difficult gauntlet and there is absolutely nothing to suggest the Celtics were some stacked super-squad. "Competition" is not a serious argument here. Bill went through just about the hardest possible route, with weak support, in a year where the best teams were unusually good. Not sure how that doesn't get him to a tier 1(era-relative) peak unless you arbitrarily decide to curve 1969 down to what feels reasonable without scaling the other title-winning years up.

Idrg how u can arg against a guy who won way more than every1 and also won with less help. Team went bitw to bad without him when he was supposed to be waashed. If you got him low coz the league sucked i get you. But ppl sayin they era-relative and not havin russ 1 is cap. He only ever lost when hurt and he stay winnin even when his teammates sucked facin the death-star. Ez 1 for me.

I wanna vote MIKAN for 2 but imma keep my vote in case i need to use it for bron.

This is also p simple. He was waay better than everyone else in a waay no one else was, was the best on o and d, and won 7 rings.

George Mikan (1924) "Mr. Basketball", 6'10" center, the first true big man, 7 total pro titles with Chicago Gears & Lakers

Image
Origin: Illinois
College: DePaul
Series Wins: 23
All-League 1st Team: 8 times
Star-Prime: 8 seasons
POY wins: 8, POY shares: 8.0
OPOY wins: 3, OPOY shares: 3.8
DPOY wins: 6, DPOY shares: 6.2


The obvious top player from the era so maybe not a ton to be gleaned from going into further detail, but some observations:

- Mikan appears to have been the best offensive player in pro basketball basically from the time he turned pro. Eventually others arrive in the league to top him, but he remains elite until the rule change of 1951 that widened the key from 6 to 12 feet specifically to stop him. From that point onward, while Mikan likely remained the best rebounder in the world, it seems that the rule change did have the desired effect.

- Mikan almost certainly would have been an even more impactful defender from the jump if not for the banning of goaltending. As it was, it seems like it took Mikan some time to re-optimize his defensive play. He had a recurring issue of foul trouble that was often the Achilles heel for his teams win the lost.

- So far as I can tell, Mikan's defensive dominance in the NBA was less about shotblocking and more about rebounding. Certainly the shotblocking threat was there to a degree, but in a league with such weak shooting percentage, rebounding was arguably king.

ik we dont got data, but he won the 2nd most and he was way better than every1 else. Seems like a simple 2 to me.

Hope that was good!

i brought up a whole bunch of things that werent wowy so I dont know why you're trying to say i only vote on wowy. kinda seems like ur being kinda dishonest. Didnt kd post a pic of you misrepresenting her?

[DraymondGold]

when did i only use WOWY?

... use WOWY as your only *stat*.

When you voted for magic, your pro-Magic argument was:
"Got the most impact. won 5 chips. steph got good wowy ig but his rapm aint that good and he's not so good in the pos. Magic win more, probably better impact, and he played more." Championships is not a stat, winning more is not a stat, playing more is not a stat.

So the only stat you cite for Magic is "impact", which in the past seemed to be synonymous with WOWY (e.g. in the 'Who has the best impact between...' thread you created). Unless you mean something else by "impact", in which case apologies for misunderstanding.

Either way, you also mentioned RAPM for steph, so my apologies, let me offer a correction -- WOWY is one of the *two* stats you used to vote for a player. You can offer other reasoning too of course! Team performance or contextual analysis or whatever else is valuable too. But those other reasons you mentioned ("5 championships", "winning") are not stats. At least I wouldn't consider them to be -- do you disagree?

Regardless, the point still stands -- Bird has more "impact" than Kobe. And the "impact" advantage is greater than Kobe longevity advantage. So why the vote for Kobe?

...
i brought up a whole bunch of things that werent wowy so I dont know why you're trying to say i only vote on wowy. kinda seems like ur being kinda dishonest. Didnt kd post a pic of you misrepresenting her?

Uh no, KD did not post a pic of me intentionally representing them. I don't intentionally misrepresent anyone.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm having a hard time buying Bird was better than Robertson and West at this point. They both seem like more efficient scorers, and depending on who we are talking about they have anchored better more elite offenses, kill Bird on defense, better playmakers by quite some bit.

They were bigger outliers from other perimeter players than Bird was I think as well. They did not collect the rings or the fame but they played in a less commercial era with less stacked teams (mainly an argument for Oscar).

Bird did not really play longer than them either. So even West's injury disadvantages are mitigated some bit.

So I'll say up front I'm specifically scanning the pages looking for more comparisons between these 3 guys, because I find them close, and I expect they'll be my next 3 votes.

To your points, some counters:

1. Don't just brush over the fact that Bird's absolute TS% was on average better than Oscar & West. I understand that Oscar & West have the era advantage, but this is not something that we can expect to linearly adjust for. Oscar & West's scoring may be more impressive than Bird's, but they were not literally more likely to be successful with their scoring attempts than Bird.

2. Kill Bird on defense. Oh I totally disagree with this characterization of Bird's defense. I think as a young guy his defensive impact was quite high. I think he deserved those All-D teams. Not saying he's the equal of West on defense, particularly over the long run, but I have more faith in his defense than Oscar's.

3. Oscar & West bigger outliers from contemporary perimeter guys. I think you can say that about Oscar & West relative to all other guards who have come since. It's an argument in their favor, but not something that should be used against them only with respect to Bird...who isn't even really a clear cut perimeter guy.

wouldnt disreagding era advantage mean daron fox led a better playoff offense than steph did with kd, klay and draymond?

To be clear: I'm not advocating that we should only look at absolute numbers while ignoring all relative numbers, rather I'm saying we should not only look at relative numbers but also absolute numbers, particularly when we talk literally.

As statement of greater efficiency should generally be interpreted as an absolute statement unless it is specifically specified as relative.

[ShaqAttac]

when did i only use WOWY?

... use WOWY as your only *stat*.

When you voted for magic, your pro-Magic argument was:
"Got the most impact. won 5 chips. steph got good wowy ig but his rapm aint that good and he's not so good in the pos. Magic win more, probably better impact, and he played more." Championships is not a stat, winning more is not a stat, playing more is not a stat.

uhh championships is a stat? minutes played is a stat? what? also how does this even matter. You said I was being inconsistent but I've used championships and longevity before. Am I being inconsistent or not?

So the only stat you cite for Magic is "impact", which in the past seemed to be synonymous with WOWY (e.g. in the 'Who has the best impact between...' thread you created). Unless you mean something else by "impact", in which case apologies for misunderstanding.

im pretty sure people didnt just comment with average wowy whatever? i think stats matter but i dont understand why u thought that means u only look at impact through the stuff you been posting.

...
i brought up a whole bunch of things that werent wowy so I dont know why you're trying to say i only vote on wowy. kinda seems like ur being kinda dishonest. Didnt kd post a pic of you misrepresenting her?

Uh no, KD did not post a pic of me intentionally representing them. I don't intentionally misrepresent anyone.[/quote]
So if i go back and look at the post you replied to. I won't find a screenshot of you taking a thing they counted, saying you counted another thing, and then saying you dont trust them?

[One_and_Done]

I think whoever gets nominated this time around has a real chance to get up next round. I know I'll likely be voting for whoever is nominated this round after Bird gets in.

[DraymondGold]

when did i only use WOWY?

... use WOWY as your only *stat*.

When you voted for magic, your pro-Magic argument was:
"Got the most impact. won 5 chips. steph got good wowy ig but his rapm aint that good and he's not so good in the pos. Magic win more, probably better impact, and he played more." Championships is not a stat, winning more is not a stat, playing more is not a stat.

uhh championships is a stat? minutes played is a stat? what? also how does this even matter. You said I was being inconsistent but I've used championships and longevity before. Am I being inconsistent or not?

So the only stat you cite for Magic is "impact", which in the past seemed to be synonymous with WOWY (e.g. in the 'Who has the best impact between...' thread you created). Unless you mean something else by "impact", in which case apologies for misunderstanding.

im pretty sure people didnt just comment with average wowy whatever? i think stats matter but i dont understand why u thought that means u only look at impact through the stuff you been posting.

Here is your quote for why you didn't vote for Bird: "I think its kinda clear bird really wasn't good enough to be talked about here."
Here is your quote for why you voted for Magic: "Got the most impact."

The criteria for voting Magic and not voting Bird are inconsistent, yes.

Bird has the most impact over Kobe. This alone makes it clear that he's good enough to be talked about here. Either you don't think impact should be a factor, in which case that belief is inconsistent with your reasoning for Magic, or you do think impact should be a factor, in which case that's inconsistent with your assessment of Bird.

...
i brought up a whole bunch of things that werent wowy so I dont know why you're trying to say i only vote on wowy. kinda seems like ur being kinda dishonest. Didnt kd post a pic of you misrepresenting her?

Uh no, KD did not post a pic of me intentionally representing them. I don't intentionally misrepresent anyone.

So if i go back and look at the post you replied to. I won't find a screenshot of you taking a thing they counted, saying you counted another thing, and then saying you dont trust them?

Misrepresenting someone =/= not being swayed by their point. That's pretty obvious bruh

Ohayo did less than 36 minutes of film analysis.
I did over 58% more film analysis, and examined other people's film analysis who at least did over 1000% more film analysis.

I explained that a larger sample is more trustworthy, which it is.

Ohayo than posted some film that they said depicted Bird not creating much when off-ball... in a play where Bird literally generates an entirely open shot from his off ball movement.

So not being convinced by someone's small-sample film analysis, which includes notable mistakes, does not mean that I'm misrepresenting them, no.

[ShaqAttac]

Here is your quote for why you didn't vote for Bird: "I think its kinda clear bird really wasn't good enough to be talked about here."
Here is your quote for why you voted for Magic: "Got the most impact."

The criteria for voting Magic and not voting Bird are inconsistent, yes.

What? Magic won more. Magic better impact. Magic better playoffs. Magic got handles. Magic better playmaker. Magic better longetivity.

Kobe won more. Got similar impact. Got better longevity, better playmaker, got handles, better in playoffs

How is that inconsistent

Bird has the most impact over Kobe.

According to you. People have made arguments for kobes peak being similar and Kobe being more skilled and Kobe achieving the same results and Bird having really good help.

Uh no, KD did not post a pic of me intentionally representing them. I don't intentionally misrepresent anyone.

So if i go back and look at the post you replied to. I won't find a screenshot of you taking a thing they counted, saying you counted another thing, and then saying you dont trust them?

Misrepresenting someone =/= not being swayed by their point. That's pretty obvious bruh

I just looked. They said they counted x "wide open" stuff. You said u counted 11 "more open" so you're skeptical. You contradicted them with something different and then said u didn't trust them...

I explained that a larger sample is more trustworthy, which it is.

No, you just said Ben thinks Bird is an offensive goat coz blah blah and blah. Idk what sample ur talking about

Ohayo than posted some film that they said depicted Bird not creating much when off-ball... in a play where Bird literally generates an entirely open shot from his off ball movement.

I dont think bird "generated" that and neither did kd or their friend or cieling. Idk why thats a mistake