RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #14 (Jerry West)

[Owly]

OK, Mikan dominated more in the 6 foot key years before there was enough data for rate stats because he was the tallest player in the league and he could just go stand next to the basket and stay there. Not impressed by that at all.

I don't think they were in the same league because he was BAA when Mikan was NBL but Ralph Siewert was around at the time. Played in 46-47 BAA.
Others have multiple listed heights but Don Otten's lowest list equals Mikan's and his highest is higher (6ft 10in to 7ft versus 6ft 10in to 6ft 10.5in) and others have a higher highest listed (Elmore Morganthaler somewhere between 6ft 9in and 7ft 1in).

He wasn't always the tallest and given the level of success of Siewert I don't think the underlying reasoning of height=success works either.

[iggymcfrack]

OK, Mikan dominated more in the 6 foot key years before there was enough data for rate stats because he was the tallest player in the league and he could just go stand next to the basket and stay there. Not impressed by that at all.

I don't think they were in the same league because he was BAA when Mikan was NBL but Ralph Siewert was around at the time. Played in 46-47 BAA.
Others have multiple listed heights but Don Otten's lowest list equals Mikan's and his highest is higher (6ft 10in to 7ft versus 6ft 10in to 6ft 10.5in) and others have a higher highest listed (Elmore Morganthaler somewhere between 6ft 9in and 7ft 1in).

He wasn't always the tallest and given the level of success of Siewert I don't think the underlying reasoning of height=success works either.

OK, there might have been one other stiff as tall as him, but when I was reading about Mikan today they were saying how his college coach at DePaul was a huge revolutionary for realizing that tall players were coordinated enough to play basketball. Even if that’s exaggerated and a legend and it probably is, it shows that basketball was in such embryonic stages that it’s just not remotely comparable. If you can even make any sort of era-relative argument that a modern player might have possibly dominated the real worldwide NBA more than Mikan dominated the kiddy league with 1% of the player pool you have to rate them ahead. Ranking Mikan ahead of D-Rob or Jokic is like rating Royce Gracie ahead of Khabib or GSP on a UFC list. It’s nonsense.

Like does anyone have a doubt that if you put Shawn Bradley in the ‘40s, he would have been way more dominant than Mikan? He honestly might have led the Lakers to a 68-0 record if you let him just camp 6 feet from the basket on offense and goaltend every shot he wants on defense.

I get Mikan’s a pioneer and you can’t do a straight time machine type competition, but if you’re not sure if he can dominate short white guys with a 12 foot key as much as modern centers with more longevity can do it with a 16 foot key, then voting for him is **** absurd. If we’re gonna put Mikan in ahead of D-Rob and Jokic, we might as well think about when we’re gonna nominate Diana Taurasi because she’s dominated the competition in front of her too.

[iggymcfrack]

-> A highlight reel and excerpts have moved people on his defense even though a Kobe-fan could pretty easily find better versions of both with Kobe(yet his defense was cited as a negative by some in the #12 thread)

I am not sure what you mean by "better version of both", but you can't really make a case that Kobe was comparable ballhawk or shotblocker to West, so I would be glad if you elaborate on that.

I'm pretty sure I can find more impressive highlights as well as better "hype from peers/contemporary observers" for the all-time leader in all-defensive teams.

Highlights? You talking about highlights? Not like a game, but highlights?

Well ****, I nominate Rafer Alston, that Skip to My Lou **** was dank. But yeah, if you're making a serious defensive analysis that includes effort off the ball and not just a cool play once in a while:

D-Rob >>>>> West >> Dirk > Kobe defensively

Honestly, I don't wanna get too controversial, but I'm...... not sure who's the better defender between Kobe and the Joker.

[70sFan]

I think people overstate how "small" the league was during Mikan's times. The average height in 1951 was just over 6'4 (probably barefeet) and the average center was just under 6'9:

https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/average-nba-height/

It's definitely smaller than today, I'm not denying that, but the idea that Mikan played against average height male population is wrong. Basketball during Mikan's prime was already big man sports.

[OhayoKD]

I am not sure what you mean by "better version of both", but you can't really make a case that Kobe was comparable ballhawk or shotblocker to West, so I would be glad if you elaborate on that.

I'm pretty sure I can find more impressive highlights as well as better "hype from peers/contemporary observers" for the all-time leader in all-defensive teams.

Yeah, except that these "highlights" come from incomplete ~20 games sample and some random documentary footage. We know that West in his last season posted higher steal and block rates than Kobe at his absolute best. We know that Kobe wasn't a big time shotblocker.

You act like someone cherrypicked plays to make West look good, but that's like saying someone cherrypicked Wade blocks to make him look like a better shotblocker than Kobe - no, it's a matter of pattern visible on film, in stats and contemporary reports.

No. I am acting as if voters explicitly noted a highlight reel changed their opinion on West's defense. Just like a voter went from thinking Bird's playmaking was "good but not special" based on his assist-numbers to thinking they were an all-timer after they saw passing highlights.

... and on that as well.

Language like "Genius", "Brillant", and "purest basketball savant" have repeatedly been used for bird and west. Have not been seeing that for Magic or Oscar.

But I guess if Curry's cola and Iverson's lean...

[Owly]

OK, Mikan dominated more in the 6 foot key years before there was enough data for rate stats because he was the tallest player in the league and he could just go stand next to the basket and stay there. Not impressed by that at all.

I don't think they were in the same league because he was BAA when Mikan was NBL but Ralph Siewert was around at the time. Played in 46-47 BAA.
Others have multiple listed heights but Don Otten's lowest list equals Mikan's and his highest is higher (6ft 10in to 7ft versus 6ft 10in to 6ft 10.5in) and others have a higher highest listed (Elmore Morganthaler somewhere between 6ft 9in and 7ft 1in).

He wasn't always the tallest and given the level of success of Siewert I don't think the underlying reasoning of height=success works either.

OK, there might have been one other stiff as tall as him, but when I was reading about Mikan today they were saying how his college coach at DePaul was a huge revolutionary for realizing that tall players were coordinated enough to play basketball. Even if that’s exaggerated and a legend and it probably is, it shows that basketball was in such embryonic stages that it’s just not remotely comparable. If you can even make any sort of era-relative argument that a modern player might have possibly dominated the real worldwide NBA more than Mikan dominated the kiddy league with 1% of the player pool you have to rate them ahead. Ranking Mikan ahead of D-Rob or Jokic is like rating Royce Gracie ahead of Khabib or GSP on a UFC list. It’s nonsense.

Like does anyone have a doubt that if you put Shawn Bradley in the ‘40s, he would have been way more dominant than Mikan? He honestly might have led the Lakers to a 68-0 record if you let him just camp 6 feet from the basket on offense and goaltend every shot he wants on defense.

I get Mikan’s a pioneer and you can’t do a straight time machine type competition, but if you’re not sure if he can dominate short white guys with a 12 foot key as much as modern centers with more longevity can do it with a 16 foot key, then voting for him is **** absurd. If we’re gonna put Mikan in ahead of D-Rob and Jokic, we might as well think about when we’re gonna nominate Diana Taurasi because she’s dominated the competition in front of her too.

Well not "one as tall" I've noted 3 guys at the time listed on aveage taller, there are several more like Mikan conventionally listed as 6ft 10in.

I think before the major league era Mikan would have been a height standout. I'm less convinced he was in his actual career.

Embryonic sure. And if you want to suggest it should be a separate list becuase the game is so distinct I get that.

"but if you’re not sure if he can dominate short white guys with a 12 foot key as much as modern centers with more longevity can do it with a 16 foot key, then voting for him is **** absurd"
"Dominate short white guys" is just even more wrong for the 12ft era. There's some black pivots and the centers aren't "short". Then too Mikan runs off 28 PER, .264 WS/48 then ups those numbers in the playoffs on the way to three consecutive titles. Crude measures but I don't see anyone as dominant RS and playoff. And then even post-prime his comeback year there's a substantial "WoWY" type suggestion of impact with his arrival.

My understanding would be defensive goaltend was already in place, I could be wrong. But yeah with tip-offs at each quarter and playing early era time machining in Bradley with all the advantages he had ... if he could stay healthy I would guess he would dominate. But I don't care about time-machining because I think its subjective, a parlor game and generally unfair.

My impression is this has always been a men's North American major league list. A women's list would be interesting but I wouldn't be in a good place to input on it.

[OhayoKD]

I am not sure what you mean by "better version of both", but you can't really make a case that Kobe was comparable ballhawk or shotblocker to West, so I would be glad if you elaborate on that.

I'm pretty sure I can find more impressive highlights as well as better "hype from peers/contemporary observers" for the all-time leader in all-defensive teams.

Highlights? You talking about highlights? Not like a game, but highlights?

Well ****, I nominate Rafer Alston, that Skip to My Lou **** was dank. But yeah, if you're making a serious defensive analysis that includes effort off the ball and not just a cool play once in a while:

D-Rob >>>>> West >> Dirk > Kobe defensively

Honestly, I don't wanna get too controversial, but I'm...... not sure who's the better defender between Kobe and the Joker.

I think serious defensive analysis requires not looking at a player's worst seasons defensively and extrapolating them to each and every year of their prime.

I'm also going to guess you are going for "value over replacement" and not "absolute value" with your list(feel free to correct me), so the nuetral bigs are tough sell

[eminence]

Well not "one as tall" I've noted 3 guys at the time listed on aveage taller, there are several more like Mikan conventionally listed as 6ft 10in.

I think before the major league era Mikan would have been a height standout. I'm less convinced he was in his actual career.

Embryonic sure. And if you want to suggest it should be a separate list becuase the game is so distinct I get that.

"but if you’re not sure if he can dominate short white guys with a 12 foot key as much as modern centers with more longevity can do it with a 16 foot key, then voting for him is **** absurd"
"Dominate short white guys" is just even more wrong for the 12ft era. There's some black pivots and the centers aren't "short". Then too Mikan runs off 28 PER, .264 WS/48 then ups those numbers in the playoffs on the way to three consecutive titles. Crude measures but I don't see anyone as dominant RS and playoff. And then even post-prime his comeback year there's a substantial "WoWY" type suggestion of impact with his arrival.

My understanding would be defensive goaltend was already in place, I could be wrong. But yeah with tip-offs at each quarter and playing early era time machining in Bradley with all the advantages he had ... if he could stay healthy I would guess he would dominate. But I don't care about time-machining because I think its subjective, a parlor game and generally unfair.

My impression is this has always been a men's North American major league list. A women's list would be interesting but I wouldn't be in a good place to input on it.

I'm not sure about the NBL, but I'm certain the BAA started with goaltending as a violation. The NCAA introduced it after either Mikans sophomore or junior season, I forget which. I believe a particular game against Kentucky/Rupp is noted heavily as the inspiration - Mikan had a stretch where he 'blocked' something like 19 of 20 shots by Kentucky in the upset win.

[70sFan]

No. I am acting as if voters explicitly noted a highlight reel changed their opinion on West's defense. Just like a voter went from thinking Bird's playmaking was "good but not special" based on his assist-numbers to thinking they were an all-timer after they saw passing highlights.

One voter to be precise...

Language like "Genius", "Brillant", and "purest basketball savant" have repeatedly been used for bird and west. Have not been seeing that for Magic or Oscar.

I don't know, I find all of these savants and I don't agree that this language is wrong as long as it is not the end of argumentation (which is not in most cases).

[rk2023]

No. I am acting as if voters explicitly noted a highlight reel changed their opinion on West's defense. Just like a voter went from thinking Bird's playmaking was "good but not special" based on his assist-numbers to thinking they were an all-timer after they saw passing highlights.

One voter to be precise...

Language like "Genius", "Brillant", and "purest basketball savant" have repeatedly been used for bird and west. Have not been seeing that for Magic or Oscar.

I don't know, I find all of these savants and I don't agree that this language is wrong as long as it is not the end of argumentation (which is not in most cases).

I’ve seen it be tossed around for Bill Russell, Magic, and LeBron repetitively- rightfully so in all 3 cases.

[penbeast0]

Highlights? You talking about highlights? Not like a game, but highlights?

Well ****, I nominate Rafer Alston, that Skip to My Lou **** was dank. But yeah, if you're making a serious defensive analysis that includes effort off the ball and not just a cool play once in a while:

D-Rob >>>>> West >> Dirk > Kobe defensively

Honestly, I don't wanna get too controversial, but I'm...... not sure who's the better defender between Kobe and the Joker.

You have Dirk as a better defender than Kobe? That's an unusual take.

[Owly]

Highlights? You talking about highlights? Not like a game, but highlights?

Well ****, I nominate Rafer Alston, that Skip to My Lou **** was dank. But yeah, if you're making a serious defensive analysis that includes effort off the ball and not just a cool play once in a while:

D-Rob >>>>> West >> Dirk > Kobe defensively

Honestly, I don't wanna get too controversial, but I'm...... not sure who's the better defender between Kobe and the Joker.

You have Dirk as a better defender than Kobe? That's an unusual take.

With caveats about positional adjustments/expectations/norms ... it's not one that seems wild data wise off what I've seen

97-14 DRAPM (positive good)
DN: 0.90
KB: -0.32
97-22 DRAPM (negative good)
DN: -1.40
KB: 2.2

Now I don't know why it's spitting out such a different number for Bryant. I am not an expert in this area ... I think this is RS only ... different versions might come out differently (as indeed they do here) ... people can mean different things talking peak or prime or career ... impact isn't purely directional [i.e. amazing offensive skill could allow you to play with defense tilted lineups] ... plus the caveats above.

See also (noisier)
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/480/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/2730/onoff#tab-team_efficiency

[DraymondGold]

-> A highlight reel and excerpts have moved people on his defense even though a Kobe-fan could pretty easily find better versions of both with Kobe(yet his defense was cited as a negative by some in the #12 thread)

This is pretty blatant strawmanning.

Film from some of the best experts of 1960s film has been analyzed by people discussing in this project, and they have concluded that West is the better defender than Oscar (and Kobe).

Impact metrics, based on actual impact, which actually measures defense, was provided which supported that West was better than Oscar at his peak, and significantly better than Kobe relative to era (which is your own criteria).

With limited film and data, reports from players at the time have been provided citing West was one of the best defensive guards ever, clearly over Oscar defensively.

And furthermore, this board agrees with me, voting Jerry West in the Top 5 best point guard defenders ever… while Kobe didn't sniff the top 10 and Oscar didn’t even sniff the honorable mentions for top 24. This post doesn’t address any of this.

-> Finals appearances were listed as an advantage over Oscar as if he is a better player because his team was in a separate conference from Bill's

Well that’s another straw man.

You: West wasn’t able to lead teams to the championship. “Would your models support that was a result of help? “
Me: Yes. Changing his help by just having them shoot at their own season average from the foul line in 1 game per series would have resulted in 3 more championships for West.
You: Why are people bringing up finals appearances??
Me: …

You suggested West wasn’t able to win a championship against Russell (as if Oscar was…?). I pointed out that West was so close to winning a championship that variability and minor changes to teammate performance, separate from West, would have easily given West *3 more rings against Russell*.

And furthermore, that his team actually over performed their SRS expectations. The 60s had two playoff rounds. 2 datapoint samples are going to be a lot of noise. So don’t look at series wins, look at *playoff record*. The Celtics had +4.58 better SRS over the Lakers in 1963, +1.58 better SRS in 1966, +1.51 better SRS in 1969, and the Knicks had +6.66 better SRS in 1970. And yet West’s teams took them all to 7 games. This *is* team over performance in the playoffs, and many of the Game 7s were within one shot of going the other way… i.e. they were within the range variability and luck. This suggests that West *was* capable of leading championship teams in the 60s. Moreso than Oscar by the results.

And if we start looking at more accurate measures than just "Oscar dominant rangz West only 1 Rangz" like playoff SRS, we again see that West is leading teams better than Oscar.

-> Impact numbers which also indicate he was left with one-ring not because of weaker help, but because he was simply a less valuable player than the guy who kept beating him

As opposed to Oscar? How is this a point in Oscar's favor?

"Russell is better than West, therefore I'm voting for Oscar instead of West."

Impact numbers (WOWY) portray West has having a better peak than Oscar. The best adjusted WOWY metric we have, Moonbeam’s RWOWY, puts West just over Oscar in terms of impact (better in 11/18 samples).

And for the record, the impact metrics we have for both West and Kobe again put West as the clearly superior player.

-> "he was 10 points away from 4 championships" but no commentary on how he was outscored in the conference finals for the ring he did win(despite clearly having better support than Kareem)

Oscar won one ring, but no commentary about how Oscar didn’t face healthy West in the conference finals for the ring he did win.

(despite clearly having better support than Kareem) [Citation needed].

-> The same mythology of "iq" and "genius" we see with Bird(even on defense where it really doesn't apply)

And the majority of people agreed that the film analysis you provided actually supported that Bird was a high value offensive player, in a play that actually showed generating an open shot that you missed. So i'm going to keep sticking with the expert and majority interpretation of the film here

[ceiling raiser]

Interestingly, there was a real contingent that viewed Oscar as the GOAT player for some time. Not large, but not trivial. That contingent evaporated in the 90s when the Bulls started winning titles, but it couldn't have been entirely unfounded.

But what I wonder is...what happened between 1990-2023 for West to be viewed as Oscar's peer, and what data justifies them being viewed as peers?

[penbeast0]

....

I remember there ALWAYS, going all the way back to the 60s, there being arguments over Wilt v. Russell, West v. Oscar. The one difference I've seen is there used to be a much bigger deal made over Oscar getting triple doubles after Magic got so much press about it. This has died back here as analytics looking at pace and rebound opportunities become more accepted and, more recently, as the luster faded a bit on Russell Westbrook's prime.

[DraymondGold]

Interestingly, there was a real contingent that viewed Oscar as the GOAT player for some time. Not large, but not trivial. That contingent evaporated in the 90s when the Bulls started winning titles, but it couldn't have been entirely unfounded.

Yeah, criteria has changed over time. Which is super interesting! People were more regular season box stat based in the 60s. Playoff stats were less available (e.g. a lot of sources for easily available stats were regular season only), box stats in general were weighted more heavily, rebounds specifically tended to be weighted more heavily, and the triple doubles were another factor. The perception of the rebound has gone down in public perception. Triple doubles took a dip in perceived value after Westbrook got MVP then fell off pretty quickly. I think we might find similar themes in the trend of Wilt falling in GOAT lists.

Doctor MJ and others might have better insights on this than I do, here's just a few of my thoughts.

But what I wonder is...what happened between 1990-2023 for West to be viewed as Oscar's peer, and what data justifies them being viewed as peers?

I mean most of the actual impact metrics we have support West being Oscar's peer. (see my post #50 on page 3? of this thread).

Raw 10-year prime WOWY: Oscar is 1st all time and West is 2nd. Ever. Which pretty clearly makes them contemporaries. It is a slight point for Oscar, but note that West has a larger sample size, so Oscar's uncertainty bounds are notably larger. Also note most of this signal is from the regular season, and the playoff WOWY and playoff box stats for West suggest his impact increases in the playoffs.

Raw 5-year peak WOWY: West beats Oscar.

10-year prime (multi-season) WOWY: West beats Oscar.

Thinking Basketball's 10-year prime Adjusted WOWY metrics: Oscar is 6th all time and West is 8th all time. Both within uncertainty bounds of each other. So that again supports that they're contemporaries. Note this has the the same sample size / playoff context as the raw 10-year prime one above.

Moonbeam's Regressed WOWY: West just beats out Oscar, and both look like some of the best impact players ever.

Regular season team offenses: favor Oscar

Regular season playoff offenses: favor West.

So they're pretty clearly contemporaries in a lot of the data we have, and there's an argument to be made for both. I side with West for his superior peak, superior career in Moonbeam's data, and superior playoff offenses, but a reasonable person could go the other way if they value 10-year raw WOWY or regular season offense more, for example.

[ceiling raiser]

....

I remember there ALWAYS, going all the way back to the 60s, there being arguments over Wilt v. Russell, West v. Oscar. The one difference I've seen is there used to be a much bigger deal made over Oscar getting triple doubles after Magic got so much press about it. This has died back here as analytics looking at pace and rebound opportunities become more accepted and, more recently, as the luster faded a bit on Russell Westbrook's prime.

During the early-mid 60s, it feels like Oscar was viewed as a near equal to Wilt/Russell from newspaper coverage. Maybe that dissipated by the early 70s. But you would see Oscar occasionally near the top of top 10 lists in publications before Jordan won his first title.

[Owly]

Impact metrics, based on actual impact, which actually measures defense, was provided which supported that West was better than Oscar at his peak, and significantly better than Kobe relative to era (which is your own criteria).
...
Impact numbers (WOWY) portray West has having a better peak than Oscar. The best adjusted WOWY metric we have, Moonbeam’s RWOWY, puts West just over Oscar in terms of impact (better in 11/18 samples).

Very, very much not an expert in this area ... take all the below with a pinch of salt/"I don't know what I'm doing"
I don't know what the best WoWY metric is, I don't know whether counting up the sample wins is viable [if that sounds skeptical ... I don't love binary W-L and I think sometimes those graphs extend a bit beyond retirement or before starting so maybe you'd be overweighting first and final years ... idk ... I'm out of my depth here], I do know the area is very noisy, I do know it's very hard to compare like with like in this area.

I think Oscar was ahead on WoWYR (prime and career) on the tables from circa the main Backpicks 40 time. Ben also did a spreadsheet with multiple different spells ... My impression, and I may well be wrong was that the data pointed to them both being very impressive but given the noise in this area there wasn't a decisive winner.

I do tend to prefer Oscar so could be my bias but glancing at one of the table it seems to hate early Oscar, but their SRS jumps up fairly well on arrival for a rookie (up 2.88) and at first glance there isn't a lot of other turnover at the top of the roster. Looking at it, Ben's version for '61 looked very strong for Oscar (these are the given controls "25+ In; Jordon (24 mpg) and Farmer (23 mpg) miss 53 combined") +12.6 SRS change (+5.3 WoWY score).

As before others who know what they're doing will understand this all better than me.

[Owly]

Regular season playoff offenses: favor West.

...

[eminence]

Raw 10-year prime WOWY: Oscar is 1st all time and West is 2nd. Ever. Which pretty clearly makes them contemporaries. It is a slight point for Oscar, but note that West has a larger sample size, so Oscar's uncertainty bounds are notably larger. Also note most of this signal is from the regular season, and the playoff WOWY and playoff box stats for West suggest his impact increases in the playoffs.

I'm not opposed to mentioning uncertainty, but the framing here makes it sound like a negative, when it's non-directional.