RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Julius Erving)

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

DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 710
And1: 910
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#61 » by DraymondGold » Sun Sep 3, 2023 4:03 pm

Some Concerns with Giannis

For those voting for Giannis: what are your criteria?

I have a hard time voting him above Barkley or Nash, much less Durant or Erving, just given the lack of cumulative career value. He only really has 5 MVP level seasons, he got injured in 3/5 of those postseasons, and his team got upset by an SRS underdog in 3/5 years (including one where he was healthy).

Don’t get me wrong: His peak is up there (I’d definitely take his peak over Barkley or Nash) and I weigh peaks heavily. His goodness when healthy is up there, and I tend to care less about health concerns. But is his peak really so much higher as to take him just yet?

Concern 1: A lack of career value (from a lack of prime longevity)

Let’s check PIPM as a ballpark estimate for total career value. It’s just one stat, it’s not perfect, but it does a fairly good job at capturing value (it’s like luck-adjusted RAPM), it includes playoffs, and it has one of the better box estimates on the market going back to the NBA Merger.

PIPM Career Value (1977–2020):
Spoiler:
Giannis (through 2020): 74.1 wins
Giannis (estimate through 2023): 118.8 (assuming 2021–23 have the same value per game as 2019–2020)
Erving (post 1977): 126.2
Erving (estimate for ABA years): 187.3 (assuming 1972–76 have the same value per game as 1977–78)
Moses (post 1977): 147.1
Moses (estimate for ABA years): 159.7 (assuming 1975–76 have the same value per game as 1977)
Durant (through 2020): 149.8
Durant (estimating through 2023): 182.1 (assuming 2021–23 have the same value per game as 2019–2020)
Barkley: 187.8

Some recent nominations and other (post-1977) Top 30 candidates are also ahead of Giannis:
Nash: 130.1
Wade: 142.3
Pippen: 179.5
Stockton: +258.0
These estimates are obviously very approximate, but it does illustrate the point. Moses is 34% ahead, Durant’s 53% ahead, Erving and Barkley are 57% ahead in total career PIPM.

And it makes sense. PIPM grades Giannis as having 5 MVP years, 2 all NBA years through 2023. Compare that to Erving (likely 2 more MVP years, 1 more all NBA year including ABA), Durant (likely 5 more all-nba years through 2023), or Barkley (5 more all-nba years).

What about Moonbeam’s RWOWY? WOWY metrics have super wide uncertainty ranges, but they’re based on actual impact, and we have all the years for everyone.
Spoiler:
Durant: 1-2 samples touching 100th percentile, 4 over 97th, 8 over 90th, 11 over 75th, 12 over 50th
Dr J: 0 touching 100th percentile, 1 over 97th percentile, 6–7 over 90th percentile, 13 over 75th percentile, 16 over 50th percentile
Barkley: 1 touching 100th percentile line, 1 over 97th percentile, 8 over 90th percentile, 18 over 75th percentile, 18 over 50th percentile
Moses: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 0 over 97th percentile, 3 over 90th percentile, 8 over 75th percentile, over 50th percentile
Giannis: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 1-2 over 97th percentile, 4 over 90th percentile, 5 over 75th percentile, 5 over 50th percentile
So Durant and Barkley have better short peaks. Everyone has longer primes:
-Durant (4 more samples above 90th percentile, 6 more above 75th)
-Erving (3 more above 90th, 8 more above 75th)
-Barkley (4 more above 90th, 13 more above 75th),
Moses (2 less above 90th sample, but 3 more above 75th percentile

So… Giannis seems pretty significantly below most of these guys in career value. I would suspect Giannis will shoot up in career value the next time we do this project — 3 more seasons at this level do a lot for a career — but I’m also not sure we can credit him for those seasons just yet.

Concern 2: Health and a lack of playoff resilience

When a player doesn’t have the prime length or any longevity, they likely need to make up the value elsewhere. Does Giannis do particularly well in the playoffs?

Not exactly, although some of the decline comes from frequent health problems. A quick overview of health and team level performance:
2018: 1st Round loss to Celtics without Kyrie.
2019: Upset, with major decline in performance. Beat by team with 2.55 worse SRS.
2020: Upset, with a major decline in performance. Beat by team with 6.82 worse SRS. Giannis was injured, but Bucks were down 0-3 even before Giannis’ injury. Although the Bubble makes this a very unusual circumstance.
2021: Championship! But Giannis injured, misses 2 games, and the Bucks were a KD shoe size away from being upset again by a team with 1.33 worse SRS. Still, great performance post injury in the finals.
2022: 2nd Round loss. Giannis shoots 10.2% worse (!) in relative True Shooting than his Regular season average, although his defense absolutely picks up against a strong opponent.
2023: Upset, one of the biggest upsets of the modern era as a 1st seed losing in the 1st Round. Beat by a team with 3.74 worse SRS. Giannis was injured and missed 2.5 games and returned unhealthy, although the Bucks played better without him.

So… not exactly the kind of stalwart playoff performance to make up for the longevity disadvantage. Now Giannis' team results may look better with more granular analysis, like playoff SRS or ELO. But Giannis does have poor playoff health (injured in 50% of his prime playoffs!), a lack of resilient shooting counters or free throw efficiency, and occasional decision making blunders. And his teams have had multiple playoff upsets to weaker SRS teams (significant SRS upsets in 50% of his prime playoffs!). Although to his credit, the defense is absolutely resilient when he's healthy.

This decline shows up in the individual data too. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declines by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline on record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and likely declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.

Concern 3: His peak isn’t far enough ahead to make up for Concern 1–2.

We’ve voted for players with shorter longevity and poor playoff health and/or resilience. Curry was 11th and has far fewer impactful non-prime years… yet he still has ~50+% more prime years than Giannis, a higher peak, and less playoff impact decline (perhaps because better health). We just voted Chris Paul and Karl Malone, who have larger playoff health concerns or playoff decline than most… but they have an even greater prime length / longevity advantage over Giannis. As do Durant and Erving and Barkley and others, as I’ve shown above. So for us to pick Giannis, he has to have such a better peak or prime that it makes up for the longevity, poor playoff health, and larger playoff decline than most.

EPM is generally the best stat on the market for measuring current goodness/value. Here are the EPM ranks for Giannis:
2019: 6th
2020: 1st (2nd in total season value)
2021: ? (I don’t have a subscription, but Jokic was 1st)
2022: 3rd
2023: 8th
… which is great stuff! Absolutely one of the top players in the world right now. But not exactly domination by such an extreme extent that it makes sense to take Giannis over guys with 50% longer primes and careers than him. Giannis' best years are better than Durant per 100 possessions, but Durant’s minute/game advantage in 2014 actually gives him the best overall season. Durant is still ranked 5th in 2022 (only 2 spots behind) and 9th in 2023 (1 spot behind) while being 6 years older. Harden has actually has more total season value in his best years than Giannis in his best too.

People have said Erving has a strong case for best peak in 76, if we don’t curve the ABA years down. I’m personally less sure about Moses or Barkley having greater peaks, but again they have significant prime length and longevity advantage. Does Giannis really have enough of a peak advantage to make up for the other disadvantages?



In sum, I’m not saying you can’t pick Giannis. There’s definitely certain criteria where he rises up… extremely peak heavy, less of a focus on playoff health or playoff decline, caring more about whether a player reached “that level” of goodness at some point even if it hasn’t been that long (yet!), caring much less about career value or prime length or longevity. But, me personally, given how many player have a career value advantage over Giannis (Concern 1), and given he doesn’t show enough playoff resilience/health (Concern 2) or have a significant peak advantage over the best of these players (Concern 3), I’m not quite ready to vote for him just yet.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,723
And1: 8,354
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#62 » by trex_8063 » Sun Sep 3, 2023 4:27 pm

OhayoKD wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:VOTE: Kevin Durant*
Alternate: Julius Erving* (*for now)


These two are adjacent on my ATL. Both have concerns regarding on/off [or other impact numbers, where Durant is concerned] lagging a bit behind their box stuff. Durant's box stuff, for the record, is insane, though. One of the greatest pure scorers the game has ever seen, imo, and definitely whoops Dr. J in that regard for me. Similar-tiered playmakers (gun to my head, I probably give

That seems pretty dubious to me:
Effect on eFG% (Note, this is only spanning 2001-14):
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329072330/http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/adj_PPS_shooter_all.html
Nash - 5.6 points :o
Dirk - 3.6 points
LBJ - 2.9 points
Kobe - 3.5 points
Curry - 1.9 points
Russ - 2.6 points
Harden - 2.4 points
CP3 - 2.5 points
D. Williams - 3.4 points
Wade - 4.2 points
Durant - 0.0 points




Spoiler:
Image


Sorry; as long as we were dealing in cutesy baits. Anyway....


Am I comparing Durant's ability as a playmaker to anyone listed there? NO.

Would I agree that Duran'ts ability as a playmaker falls below everyone listed there? With more strict definition of "playmaking" [to be specifically about the pass and/or individual action prior to pass], I would say YES with the probable exception of Dirk (whose affect comes more by way of gravity, imo).

So where does that leave us on a Durant vs Erving debate of playmaking? Nowhere.


If you intended to illustrate Durant is not a notably good playmaker, you've scored a few points toward that agenda; though not a LOT of points, considering this data breaks off the bulk of Durant's prime, including MOST of the years in which he'd improved upon the front of passing/playmaking (imo, '13 was probably the first year he was kinda/sorta decent(ish)......and it's the second-from-LAST year of this sample!).

Anyway, I never suggested he was a particularly good playmaker.
Neither was Erving.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,266
And1: 2,273
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#63 » by rk2023 » Sun Sep 3, 2023 5:15 pm

DraymondGold wrote:Some Concerns with Giannis

Concern 2: Health and a lack of playoff resilience

When a player doesn’t have the prime length or any longevity, they likely need to make up the value elsewhere. Does Giannis do particularly well in the playoffs?

Not exactly, although some of the decline comes from frequent health problems. A quick overview of health and team level performance:
2018: 1st Round loss to Celtics without Kyrie.
2019: Upset, with major decline in performance. Beat by team with 2.55 worse SRS.
2020: Upset, with a major decline in performance. Beat by team with 6.82 worse SRS. Giannis was injured, but Bucks were down 0-3 even before Giannis’ injury. Although the Bubble makes this a very unusual circumstance.
2021: Championship! But Giannis injured, misses 2 games, and the Bucks were a KD shoe size away from being upset again by a team with 1.33 worse SRS. Still, great performance post injury in the finals.
2022: 2nd Round loss. Giannis shoots 10.2% worse (!) in relative True Shooting than his Regular season average, although his defense absolutely picks up against a strong opponent.
2023: Upset, one of the biggest upsets of the modern era as a 1st seed losing in the 1st Round. Beat by a team with 3.74 worse SRS. Giannis was injured and missed 2.5 games and returned unhealthy, although the Bucks played better without him.

So… not exactly the kind of stalwart playoff performance to make up for the longevity disadvantage. Now Giannis' team results may look better with more granular analysis, like playoff SRS or ELO. But Giannis does have poor playoff health (injured in 50% of his prime playoffs!), a lack of resilient shooting counters or free throw efficiency, and occasional decision making blunders. And his teams have had multiple playoff upsets to weaker SRS teams (significant SRS upsets in 50% of his prime playoffs!). Although to his credit, the defense is absolutely resilient when he's healthy.

This decline shows up in the individual data too. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declines by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline on record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and likely declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.


How come "playoff resiliency" is more or less a buzzword when it comes to championing David Robinson (arguably the player with the worst translation in NBA History against good defenses) where you have mentioned many more times "scalability" matters more to you in assessment, but then nitpick Giannis' "resiliency" with a year over year break-down that is no more nuanced and as laughable in breadth as to that of the average twitter or reddit troll? I haven't even voted Giannis myself due to my guesstimation his prime quality isn't quite here yet (he's climbing each season - however) but this YoY playoff "breakdown" is objectively hilarious
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 710
And1: 910
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#64 » by DraymondGold » Sun Sep 3, 2023 5:52 pm

rk2023 wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:Some Concerns with Giannis

Concern 2: Health and a lack of playoff resilience

When a player doesn’t have the prime length or any longevity, they likely need to make up the value elsewhere. Does Giannis do particularly well in the playoffs?

Not exactly, although some of the decline comes from frequent health problems. A quick overview of health and team level performance:
2018: 1st Round loss to Celtics without Kyrie.
2019: Upset, with major decline in performance. Beat by team with 2.55 worse SRS.
2020: Upset, with a major decline in performance. Beat by team with 6.82 worse SRS. Giannis was injured, but Bucks were down 0-3 even before Giannis’ injury. Although the Bubble makes this a very unusual circumstance.
2021: Championship! But Giannis injured, misses 2 games, and the Bucks were a KD shoe size away from being upset again by a team with 1.33 worse SRS. Still, great performance post injury in the finals.
2022: 2nd Round loss. Giannis shoots 10.2% worse (!) in relative True Shooting than his Regular season average, although his defense absolutely picks up against a strong opponent.
2023: Upset, one of the biggest upsets of the modern era as a 1st seed losing in the 1st Round. Beat by a team with 3.74 worse SRS. Giannis was injured and missed 2.5 games and returned unhealthy, although the Bucks played better without him.

So… not exactly the kind of stalwart playoff performance to make up for the longevity disadvantage. Now Giannis' team results may look better with more granular analysis, like playoff SRS or ELO. But Giannis does have poor playoff health (injured in 50% of his prime playoffs!), a lack of resilient shooting counters or free throw efficiency, and occasional decision making blunders. And his teams have had multiple playoff upsets to weaker SRS teams (significant SRS upsets in 50% of his prime playoffs!). Although to his credit, the defense is absolutely resilient when he's healthy.

This decline shows up in the individual data too. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declines by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline on record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and likely declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.


How come "playoff resiliency" is more or less a buzzword when it comes to championing David Robinson (arguably the player with the worst translation in NBA History against good defenses) where you have mentioned many more times "scalability" matters more to you in assessment, but then nitpick Giannis' "resiliency" with a year over year break-down that is no more nuanced and as laughable in breadth as to that of the average twitter or reddit troll? I haven't even voted Giannis myself due to my guesstimation his prime quality isn't quite here yet (he's climbing each season - however) but this YoY playoff "breakdown" is objectively hilarious
First off, be careful calling someone an average twitter or reddit troll. Not particularly conducive to productive discussion.

But to answer your question:
I made it pretty clear that I only looked at playoff resilience after it became clear that he had so much less career value.
i.e. "Giannis has less career value --> therefore, does he have other factors that boost him up, such as playoff improvement or peak? --> no (or at least, not enough in the case of peak where it makes sense to overcome career value deficit) --> if not, what is the criteria for voting Giannis at this point?"

So for the David Robinson comparison....

Concern 1: Does Giannis have as much career value as Robinson?
Let's look at Career PIPM and RWOWY, granting the uncertainties and flaws in both stats. They're not perfect, they're approximate, but they do illustrate the point.

Giannis' Career PIPM (through 2020): 74.1 wins
Giannis' Career PIPM (estimate through 2023): 118.8 (assuming 2021–23 have the same value per game as 2019–2020)
Robinson's Career PIPM: 217.5 (83% more than Giannis!)

Robinson's RWOWY: 2 samples touching 100th percentile, 4 samples over 97th percentile, 11 over 90th percentile, 16 over 75th percentile, 16 over 50th percentile (18 total).
Giannis's RWOWY: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 1-2 over 97th percentile, 4 over 90th percentile, 5 over 75th percentile, 5 over 50th percentile
So Robinson has 2 samples at a clear of Giannis peak, 7 more prime samples over the 90th percentile than Giannis.

Concern 2: Is Giannis more playoff resilient than Robinson?
Thus, *given the career value deficit*, does Giannis make up the gap in the playoffs. It's a secondary concern for me, but clearly one that a lot of people care about, so it would be foolish to not address it.

The point I was making is that Giannis is not some "resilience god" to such an extent that it makes up for the career value gap. 1) He has been injured and missed playoff games in 50% of his prime playoff runs, 2) his team been upset by a team with significantly worse SRS in 50% of his prime playoff runs (upset by a team with 2.55 worse SRS, 3.74 worse SRS, and *6.82* worse SRS), and 3) he performs worse in stable impact metrics (-8% worse in AuPm in the playoffs).

Compared to Robinson, Robinson actually improves in AuPM in his the late prime and post prime years in the playoffs. I made it pretty clear in my post back then that I saw Robinson's postseason decline as *partially* explainable by poor fit during his prime, and that (at a minimum) he could actually be a playoff improver in an ideal situation.

How much of Giannis' playoff decline can be explained by poor health? Perhaps some, perhaps all. Perhaps if we afford him 1 "still figuring it out" playoffs when he was young in 2019 (which many players have!), we can explain the playoff decline entirely by a) figuring it out in early prime and b) poor health throughout the rest of the prime. But the point is that, however important playoff resilience is (I see it as overrated, many others here see it as underrated), Giannis doesn't perform well enough here to make up for the gap in career value.

And for the record, I'm not sure any twitter troll really knows what SRS is or Augmented Plus Minus or PIPM or RWOWY. Again, I phrased my main post as a question "What is your Criteria for Giannis?" to get the discussion started. If you disagree, why not simply state what the pro argument actually would be, rather than resorting to snide remarks that don't really address the actual points I was making....
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,266
And1: 2,273
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#65 » by rk2023 » Sun Sep 3, 2023 8:29 pm

DraymondGold wrote:
rk2023 wrote:
DraymondGold wrote:Some Concerns with Giannis

Concern 2: Health and a lack of playoff resilience

When a player doesn’t have the prime length or any longevity, they likely need to make up the value elsewhere. Does Giannis do particularly well in the playoffs?

Not exactly, although some of the decline comes from frequent health problems. A quick overview of health and team level performance:
2018: 1st Round loss to Celtics without Kyrie.
2019: Upset, with major decline in performance. Beat by team with 2.55 worse SRS.
2020: Upset, with a major decline in performance. Beat by team with 6.82 worse SRS. Giannis was injured, but Bucks were down 0-3 even before Giannis’ injury. Although the Bubble makes this a very unusual circumstance.
2021: Championship! But Giannis injured, misses 2 games, and the Bucks were a KD shoe size away from being upset again by a team with 1.33 worse SRS. Still, great performance post injury in the finals.
2022: 2nd Round loss. Giannis shoots 10.2% worse (!) in relative True Shooting than his Regular season average, although his defense absolutely picks up against a strong opponent.
2023: Upset, one of the biggest upsets of the modern era as a 1st seed losing in the 1st Round. Beat by a team with 3.74 worse SRS. Giannis was injured and missed 2.5 games and returned unhealthy, although the Bucks played better without him.

So… not exactly the kind of stalwart playoff performance to make up for the longevity disadvantage. Now Giannis' team results may look better with more granular analysis, like playoff SRS or ELO. But Giannis does have poor playoff health (injured in 50% of his prime playoffs!), a lack of resilient shooting counters or free throw efficiency, and occasional decision making blunders. And his teams have had multiple playoff upsets to weaker SRS teams (significant SRS upsets in 50% of his prime playoffs!). Although to his credit, the defense is absolutely resilient when he's healthy.

This decline shows up in the individual data too. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declines by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline on record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and likely declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.


How come "playoff resiliency" is more or less a buzzword when it comes to championing David Robinson (arguably the player with the worst translation in NBA History against good defenses) where you have mentioned many more times "scalability" matters more to you in assessment, but then nitpick Giannis' "resiliency" with a year over year break-down that is no more nuanced and as laughable in breadth as to that of the average twitter or reddit troll? I haven't even voted Giannis myself due to my guesstimation his prime quality isn't quite here yet (he's climbing each season - however) but this YoY playoff "breakdown" is objectively hilarious
First off, be careful calling someone an average twitter or reddit troll. Not particularly conducive to productive discussion.

But to answer your question:
I made it pretty clear that I only looked at playoff resilience after it became clear that he had so much less career value.
i.e. "Giannis has less career value --> therefore, does he have other factors that boost him up, such as playoff improvement or peak? --> no (or at least, not enough in the case of peak where it makes sense to overcome career value deficit) --> if not, what is the criteria for voting Giannis at this point?"

So for the David Robinson comparison....

Concern 1: Does Giannis have as much career value as Robinson?
Let's look at Career PIPM and RWOWY, granting the uncertainties and flaws in both stats. They're not perfect, they're approximate, but they do illustrate the point.

Giannis' Career PIPM (through 2020): 74.1 wins
Giannis' Career PIPM (estimate through 2023): 118.8 (assuming 2021–23 have the same value per game as 2019–2020)
Robinson's Career PIPM: 217.5 (83% more than Giannis!)

Robinson's RWOWY: 2 samples touching 100th percentile, 4 samples over 97th percentile, 11 over 90th percentile, 16 over 75th percentile, 16 over 50th percentile (18 total).
Giannis's RWOWY: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 1-2 over 97th percentile, 4 over 90th percentile, 5 over 75th percentile, 5 over 50th percentile
So Robinson has 2 samples at a clear of Giannis peak, 7 more prime samples over the 90th percentile than Giannis.

Concern 2: Is Giannis more playoff resilient than Robinson?
Thus, *given the career value deficit*, does Giannis make up the gap in the playoffs. It's a secondary concern for me, but clearly one that a lot of people care about, so it would be foolish to not address it.

The point I was making is that Giannis is not some "resilience god" to such an extent that it makes up for the career value gap. 1) He has been injured and missed playoff games in 50% of his prime playoff runs, 2) his team been upset by a team with significantly worse SRS in 50% of his prime playoff runs (upset by a team with 2.55 worse SRS, 3.74 worse SRS, and *6.82* worse SRS), and 3) he performs worse in stable impact metrics (-8% worse in AuPm in the playoffs).

Compared to Robinson, Robinson actually improves in AuPM in his the late prime and post prime years in the playoffs. I made it pretty clear in my post back then that I saw Robinson's postseason decline as *partially* explainable by poor fit during his prime, and that (at a minimum) he could actually be a playoff improver in an ideal situation.

How much of Giannis' playoff decline can be explained by poor health? Perhaps some, perhaps all. Perhaps if we afford him 1 "still figuring it out" playoffs when he was young in 2019 (which many players have!), we can explain the playoff decline entirely by a) figuring it out in early prime and b) poor health throughout the rest of the prime. But the point is that, however important playoff resilience is (I see it as overrated, many others here see it as underrated), Giannis doesn't perform well enough here to make up for the gap in career value.

And for the record, I'm not sure any twitter troll really knows what SRS is or Augmented Plus Minus or PIPM or RWOWY. Again, I phrased my main post as a question "What is your Criteria for Giannis?" to get the discussion started. If you disagree, why not simply state what the pro argument actually would be, rather than resorting to snide remarks that don't really address the actual points I was making....


Alright so.. to clarify a couple things off the bat -
(1) I was not equating you, yourself out to be a Troll - rather the tone of "losing to Celtics without Kyrie" , "dropped -11% rTS", "one kevin durant shoe size away" reads akin to that label for me (rather than the entire post)

(2) I'm not disagreeing regarding longevity and ranking from more of an Aggregate / WAR perspective - hence why Erving/Durant are my choices here and I'm not entirely sure I take Giannis over Chuck/Nash/Wade just yet..

That's not what I'm disagreeing with, instead how the classification and nitpicking of information about Giannis' PS translation when such is glossed over for Robinson - just as example - in spite of well-documented flaws (due to WOWY and some impact metrics, where the former is somewhat due to essentially no serious big-man depth pre Duncan's draft and there is a good chance the latter is overstated due to astounding performance against weaker defenses). This is in a general sense too, not just pertaining to your votes/rationale FWIW.

So to address the points you put forth, and the years I feel are outright missing context:

Spoiler:
Not exactly, although some of the decline comes from frequent health problems. A quick overview of health and team level performance:
2018: 1st Round loss to Celtics without Kyrie.
2019: Upset, with major decline in performance. Beat by team with 2.55 worse SRS.
2020: Upset, with a major decline in performance. Beat by team with 6.82 worse SRS. Giannis was injured, but Bucks were down 0-3 even before Giannis’ injury. Although the Bubble makes this a very unusual circumstance.
2021: Championship! But Giannis injured, misses 2 games, and the Bucks were a KD shoe size away from being upset again by a team with 1.33 worse SRS. Still, great performance post injury in the finals.
2022: 2nd Round loss. Giannis shoots 10.2% worse (!) in relative True Shooting than his Regular season average, although his defense absolutely picks up against a strong opponent.
2023: Upset, one of the biggest upsets of the modern era as a 1st seed losing in the 1st Round. Beat by a team with 3.74 worse SRS. Giannis was injured and missed 2.5 games and returned unhealthy, although the Bucks played better without him.


2018 --> Why wasn't SRS brought up here? With or without Kyrie, the Bucks were a 3.7 pt SRS underdog heading into this series and took Boston the full distance (the same amount of games 2018 James' Cavaliers were able to take them, whom a lot tout as James' best self on offense, albeit Cleveland went into Boston and won to end the series. MIL had an ORTG of 109.5 (5.6 rORTG) against Boston's #1 ranked defense - where Giannis had 26-6 on 62.0% TS and solid TOV economy.

2019 --> Using Regular Season SRS here to get your agenda off when the 19 Raptors are known to have translated very well to the PS - especially on the defensive end - and had a load managed, sort-of coasting, Kawhi who missed 20 games outright (known for his own amazing playoff resilience) doesn't capture the whole picture. Yes, Giannis had offensive struggles against Toronto's vaunted defense - but he was the anchor in what has been the best slate of PS defenses in the modern era (keying in on 19-22) including anchoring a very solid unit against the Raptors themselves - where they were held 5 points under their RS rating (including to a 105.6 ORTG in Giannis' minutes - which MIL won by 2.2/100). This is not to mentioning MIL, led by a tremendous 2-way series by Giannis, cremating the Celtics (this time with Kyrie :wink: ).

2019 Raptors then Bucks, h/t Sansterre:
Spoiler:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +1.72 (86th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -8.55 (15th)
Playoff SRS: +12.33 (30th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +4.59 (12th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.55 (40th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -2.12 (48th)

Round 1: Orlando Magic (+0.3), won 4-1, by +14.4 points a game (+14.7 SRS eq)
Round 2: Philadelphia 76ers (+4.8), won 4-3, by +2.7 points a game (+7.5 SRS eq)
Round 3: Milwaukee Bucks (+12.4), won 4-2, by +1.0 points a game (+13.4 SRS eq)
Round 4: Golden State Warriors (+9.2), won 4-2, by +5.7 points a game (+14.9 SRS eq)


Playoff Offensive Rating: +3.21 (70th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -9.21 (8th)
Playoff SRS: +13.71 (19th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +3.18 (38th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +1.31 (73rd), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -2.51 (38th)

Round 1: Detroit Pistons (-0.6), won 4-0, by +23.8 points per game (+23.2 SRS eq)
Round 2: Boston Celtics (+5.5), won 4-1, by +8.6 points per game (+14.1 SRS eq)
Round 3: Toronto Raptors (+8.0), lost 2-4, outscored by 1.0 points per game (+7.0 SRS eq)


Spoiler:
What to make of this series? First, Giannis really struggled to score. His efficiency had dropped from +8.4% in the regular season to -2.3% in the series. That is an incredible drop. Some of it was his free throw shooting. That season Giannis had shot 72.9% from the line. This series he shot 58.3% on 60 attempts. Do you know the odds that a 72.9% shooter only makes 35 or less of 60 shots? 1.1%. So while it’s totally possible that this could happen naturally (1.1% events do happen . . . 1.1% of the time) but it certainly fits alternate narratives (choking, frustrations, lack of condition, what have you). And while Giannis’ struggles were very real, the rest of the Bucks weren’t able to take advantage of the extra attention Giannis got.


2021 --> "One Kevin Durant foot away from an SRS upset" [often cited by more casual Durant loyalists/shills, not saying you are one ofcourse] reads as a moot point for me (I'm surprised this is being mentioned as a lot of the posts I've seen from you tangibly drill down on individual performance and impact to gauge whom did what and to what particular extent it was done). I'm in the camp that Giannis was the best player in that series - clearly:
Spoiler:
rk2023 wrote:
A few notes I have regarding that series (will try not to be redundant compared to what Ohayo presented):

https://youtu.be/krxgE5Eis7I

I think this video hits the nail on the head regarding Giannis coverage and why taking somewhat a closer eye is how to look into Giannis’ defense in the context of Bucks’ scheme. This is a very scholarly and analytical circle of basketball talk compared to any other Medium I engage with, so I think the concept of Giannis weak-side help would make sense with most of the PC Board.

Some Nets team data cited from that series (compared to season long values):

26.9 Attempts —> 17.7
65.9% Rim FG —> 61.3%
1.31 PPP —> 1.22
50.2% Drive(s) FG —> 41.9 (Passing Rate on drives increased from 36 to 48, with rim deterrence factored in).

For Kevin Durant specifically:
19% Rim frequency / 78% FG —> 15 & 57

While I think the box may be overselling Giannis’ offense and his true valuation on that end, a lot of his defense from that series doesn’t seem to be quantified / capture-able in box metrics when taking more a “bottom-up” means of analysis. Durant outclasses Giannis in some box metrics (eg. game score, individual ORTG) while the two shared similar efficiency - albeit Durant is the comfortably better offensive player here. My opinion is Giannis makes up for that gap and more in the defensive end.

Impact Assessment from that series (of course prone to a small sample bias):

Durant: 4.2 AuPM, 3.8 AuPM/G

Giannis: 5.5 AuPM, 4.6 AuPM/G

Furthermore, the Bucks were +3.37 / 100 poss. in minutes Giannis was on floor (-32 Net off, but it’s a virtually inconclusive sample) and +5.1 in minutes Giannis shared with Durant - churning out a 104.3 DRTG in this scenario.

I think you could make a reasonable Giannis case for being the best player this series - let alone the entirety of the 2020/21 season.


2022 --> Glad you mentioned the ramp up in defense / elevation against a very formidable opponent (one that was favored by 4 SRS - without factoring in MIL being w/o Middleton - and was taken 7 games). However, just going off of the "X.YZ % true shooting drop" is lazy analysis. Linking a graphic here for the full breakdown of impact and production (not originally mine, and I unfortunately forgot the source) which was left out for just the raw scoring efficacy- and I am aware that the +/- and on-off here is a small sample once again (https://imgur.com/a/kZBhHAc). In a more rhetorical sense, what more could you have asked for Giannis as he raised his offensive load / responsibility to a 100th %ile value (only surpassed by Young, Doncic, LBJ, Westbrook) in Taylor's series database?

- In general, you mention that a fair share of Giannis' problems are due to health (or at-least pose the question, perhaps this is more accurate). All three of his PS injuries have been more or less flukes rather than a case of his body being fragile / concerns about holding up - I wouldn't even attribute this towards his play-style. They happened yes, but I don't like the way it is being framed. It's just very odd that Giannis gets roasted for immediately returning from a back injury requiring him to take IV fluids and not be close to his full health for a team collapse with almost all parties involved / facing supernova Butler. It's crazy that had he sat out and nursed the injury some more, he probably wouldn't have this crazy a revisionist history for his PS translation (saying in general, here).

-
I made it pretty clear in my post back then that I saw Robinson's postseason decline as *partially* explainable by poor fit during his prime, and that (at a minimum) he could actually be a playoff improver in an ideal situation.

In general, I commend the approach to push back against fundamental attribution error, but I don't see the same rationale laid out for Giannis. With how he is discussed (compared to others like Garnett and Robinson) it is almost like Giannis is being penalized for shouldering more than both on the offensive end, and better equipped to raise a team's floor. Not to mention ball-stopping and puzzling shot-selection from other Milwaukee teammates (eg. terrible 3P% compared to RS results against BOS, BKN, MIA, & TOR across 2019-22 - the latter two years where Giannis was more efficient [substantially so in 2021] than the team averages in-spite of shouldering the brunt of MIL's offense.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
User avatar
cupcakesnake
Senior Mod- WNBA
Senior Mod- WNBA
Posts: 15,839
And1: 32,564
Joined: Jul 21, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#66 » by cupcakesnake » Sun Sep 3, 2023 8:44 pm

Vote: Durant
Alternate: Dr. J
Nominate: Nash


I've had a harder time making the Doc>Durant case than I have with the Durant>Doc case. I don't really like Durant. I'm not a hater and I didn't care at all about the whole Golden State cap spike move. My screen name is purely making fun of "the discourse" that dominated NBA fandom for that era. I've always felt Doctor J was the coolest.

I think there's a pretty big ocean in terms of scoring efficiency between these 2 and while I think Doctor J has some edges (better defense and overall physical game), Durant isn't enough of a slouch in these areas to base my case off that. I thought KD was a neutral defender in OKC who was low effort and iq, but still managed to provide impact with his mobility and length. He mostly seemed full on board with letting Roberson/Sefolosha/Ibaka/Perkins/Adams handle the defense for him. He looked very good playing on a defensive juggernaut in OKC, where his attributes were bonuses to an already great defense. His ability to switch against most players, while providing bonus rim protection seems very valuable. You can't anchor a defense around Durant, but he's a nice booster pack. The defense has actually looked better than ever (by my eye) in his last 2-3 seasons. Doc is straight up a more disruptive, stronger, more focused defender, and he does it for larger swaths of his career.

But yeah that scoring gap.
Durant: 37 pp100 on 62%ts
Erving: 30.5 pp100 on 55%ts
We're simply looking at a guy who does a ton of damage at the line and from 3, vs. a guy who doesn't (and I don't see a case that Dr. J would do damage differently in a different era).

I think KD has a slight edge as a playmaker (though I don't think KD's playmaking holds up at the highest levels). I'm just stacking up two of the great all-time small forwards to ever do it and not obsessed enough with Doc's defense to say it makes up for the offensive difference.

(Crazy how polarizing Nash is already, btw. Some people see the offensive goat, and some people are just not very impressed by him it seems).
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."

Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
User avatar
PaulieWal
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,909
And1: 16,218
Joined: Aug 28, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#67 » by PaulieWal » Sun Sep 3, 2023 8:48 pm

Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,790
And1: 5,787
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#68 » by One_and_Done » Sun Sep 3, 2023 9:32 pm

PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.

If we looked at their high end MVP vote outcomes it would be more surprising to see Wade over them. Wade is a worthy choice soon, but his high end issn't as high as those guys, he can't shoot the 3, and he doesn't have much longevity either.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,978
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#69 » by AEnigma » Sun Sep 3, 2023 9:46 pm

PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.

Sounds like we again need to reemphasise the distinction between the peaks project and this project. There, Wade was 18th (could have possibly been higher) above Kobe (19th), Robinson (20th), Erving (22nd), Dirk (23rd), Durant (24th), Moses (25th), Nash (27th), Paul (28th), Harden (29th), Barkley (31st), Karl Malone (32nd), and Ewing (33rd but in all previous iterations much higher). To whatever extent it is possible or even likely that all those names finish ahead of him, as a collective, it is clearly not because of any objections to how incredible he was at his peak.

The objections are all to weak longevity tied to injury / physical deterioration. Postseasons like 2006/09/10/11 are beyond anything I have seen from Chris Paul… but I might be similarly confident in some hypothetical average Chris Paul postseason weighed against the average Wade postseason, and Chris Paul has quite a few more postseasons to his name.

Wade will make top 30, and while that could be read as low, I think pushing him for top 20 based on his peak is at least comparably aggressive. If your goal is to quickly elevate him into the top 25 — unlikely at this point but possible — I think the two best angles are A) his non-peak years being potentially undervalued and B) the primes of players like Giannis and Jokic perhaps being inconsistently overvalued by comparison.
User avatar
OldSchoolNoBull
General Manager
Posts: 9,107
And1: 4,506
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Ohio
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#70 » by OldSchoolNoBull » Sun Sep 3, 2023 9:47 pm

Are there individual season RAPM datasets that go past 2019? I have JE's set that goes through 2018-19 and his cumulative 97-22 sheet, but I'm looking for post-2019 single year RAPMs.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,768
And1: 3,213
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#71 » by Owly » Sun Sep 3, 2023 9:50 pm

PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.

Paul was at 23 to Wade's 22 in 2017 and then still 23 to Wade's 28 in 2020. If your disoriented on that one you might have been feeling that way for the past 6 years ('17 is close ranking and there's been significant value add since then, especially '18, then moderate gap opening in '20 and Paul still being active to help at the margins).

Nash finished narrowly ahead last time too (27 to 28) and whilst Wade is ahead in prior projects it has generally been close.

This isn't to say the votes are "correct" or necessarily representative of the wider forum but ... getting "disoriented" ... well Paul being earlier and Nash having some advocates earlier ... one might have been able to see coming or - given turnover - at least as plausible.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,870
And1: 22,806
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#72 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Sep 3, 2023 10:37 pm

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
So, not to take anything away from how good Nash was, but I do want to push back a little against that guy's tweet - I'm weary of giving any individual credit for "inventing" the modern game or for changing the game from what it was until the early 00s to what it is now. I've seen Nash and Steph and Mike D'Antoni given this type of credit over the years and I just think there's more to it.

The fact is, the way the game has changed over the last 20 years is not some kind of natural evolution, nor is it the result of one genius player or coach coming along and changing everything. It was a business decision the league made. Straight up, they made a series of rule changes in the early 00s, in an era when ratings were slipping due to the game having become very defensive and slow and due to the Dream Team generation retiring, with the expressed intent of opening up offenses in order to boost the game's popularity. That's what happened. They legalized zone defenses and implemented the defensive three-second rule in 2001 and eliminated hand-checking in 2004(incidentally right as Nash was joining Phoenix and 7SOL was getting underway), for these reasons, and there were people who weren't happy about it at the time. The game would not have been able to evolve the way it has since then without those rule changes. It is not a coincidence that the "modern" era of the league is usually said to start around 2005. Again, this is not to in any way argue against Nash or Steph as players, but I'm not sure they'd have been able to what they've done without the rule changes. I just think we need to remember that before giving any individual credit for changing the game.

Having said all that, if I was to give credit to any one individual, it would be Don Nelson. He was decades ahead of his time. He was D'Antoni before D'Antoni. He was using point forwards and small-ball and run-and-gun offenses in the 80s and 90s. So out there were his offenses that they were seen as a novelty in those years - "Nellyball!" - fun to watch but you can't win playing like that, was the thought(and it may have been correct prior to the rule changes). Now, the current NBA is all of his dreams realized. The phrase "run and gun" isn't really even used anymore because the whole league is run and gun now. And also, who did Nash break out under before going to Phoenix? Don Nelson. And who guided the Warriors' front office to select Steph Curry in 2009 as one of the last significant acts of his NBA career? Don Nelson. (Also worth nothing that it was Nelson who selected Dirk in 1998, another very modern player, for the Mavs.)

Yeah, I'm high on Nelson.


So, I'm going to push back on your push back here a bit, but to be clear, I do respect the history you're bringing in and I also chafe at the idea that Nash "invented" pace & space basketball.

Key points for me:

a. While there were indeed rule changes made in the early '00s intended to increase the pace and give more freedom of motion, and those rule changes are a part of the "pace & space revolution" equation...they're a very small part in the grand scheme of things.

First because the key rule change came in 1980 with the addition of the 3 point shot. That was the essential ingredient, and it's my assessment that the only reason we didn't see a pace & space revolution in the '80s is because those with the power to make it happen lacked the vision and courage. I don't want to act to dismissive of these folks because they did know quite a lot about basketball at the time, and those who were running teams knew things I still don't know...but they also "knew" some things that just weren't true.

This is how it goes with paradigm shifts. It's not a pace & space thing, you'll see it in the precursor to any paradigm shift, and most certainly in scientific revolutions which of course is where the notion of paradigm shifts came from. When it comes to the 3, we can point to specific reasons why some amount of delay was necessary between its inception in 1980 and the time when it came to dominate the sport...but there's absolutely no reason that it needed to take decades. It could have been much, much faster.

b. I am so confident in asserting that the 2000s rule changes were a small part of the shift, because we know that the truly big acceleration came not immediately after their addition, but in fact a decade plus later. I think it's critical to understand that if a rule change doesn't immediately result in "the big shift", then we need to look closer to the big shift to understand what really did the trick.

In pace & space, it really had everything to do with teams breaking through and winning titles with this approach. Those breakthrough teams were heavily influenced by the pace & space Suns...but the league didn't really follow suit until the emulators broke through. I would suggest this would have happened in the '00s if the Suns had won a title and then continued to be a serious threat afterward. And this absolutely could have happened, but for reasons worth discussing - in another post if desired - it didn't.

c. Nelson wasn't D'Antoni before D'Antoni, though it's understandable you see it that way. In reality Mike D'Antoni was on this trend BEFORE 1980 because he was playing Europe. His brother Dan - a basketball coach - has told the story of Mike talking to him from Europe and emphasizing that the 3-point shot was working surprisingly well in his league, and that it seemed the way forward.

So D'Antoni was basically playing this way before the shot ever came to the NBA, and was known for pushing the style of play further after he retired as a player from Olimpia Milano and becoming the coach of Olimpia Milano in 1990. From there, at every stop along the way D'Antoni's been making the team's he joins shoot a lot more 3's.

Hence, while Nelson had NBA effect before D'Antoni, this absolutely wasn't a situation where D'Antoni was inspired by Nelson to do this. It was already his philosophy before Nelson even had the opportunity to try it.

d.. Nelson wasn't even the most 3-forward coach in the NBA in the '80s. That would be Rick Pitino. For perspective here, in '88-89, here are the relevant 3PA rates:

Knicks (Pitino) .151
Warriors (Nelson) .079
League Average .074

Recall that Nelson had access to perimeter scorers, and most notably Chris Mullin, one of the great shooters from the era. Between the two teams, here's the Top 4 guys by 3PA:

1. Trent Tucker (NYK) 296
2. Johnny Newman (NYK) 287
3. Mark Jackson (NYK) 240
4. Gerald Wilkins (NYK) 172

So yeah, while Nelson can claim to have NBA influence before D'Antoni or Pitino, he didn't really grasp the potential of the 3 to anywhere near the degree of those other guys.

In general, I'd see D'Antoni & Pitino as true 3-point zealots, while Nelson was more of a mad scientist willing to try a whole bunch of weird ideas but never really staying the course and taking things to their logical conclusion. Doesn't necessarily make those other guys better coaches of course - Nelson clearly has a greater NBA coaching career than Pitino at the very least - I think it's important not to be under the impression that Nelson was typically way out in front of everyone else on 3's.

e. "Who did Nash break out under? Don Nelson." Ah, but key thing:

Who pushed for Nash to get drafted in Phoenix? Donnie Nelson, then working for the Suns.
Who pushed for Dallas to acquire Nash? Donnie Nelson, then working for the Mavs.
Who pushed to kill of illegal defense to encourage pace in the NBA? Jerry Colangelo.
Who re-acquired Nash for Phoenix? Bryan Colangelo working with father Jerry.

Don had a role to play here, but the key people involved with championing Nash were all in Phoenix in 1996, and these things weren't a coincidence. There were people in the Suns front office during Nash's initial run there who were adamant that the franchise was making a mistake in choosing the more established Jason Kidd over Nash, and Nash maintained relationships in Phoenix after that - including playing pick-up ball there in the summer for years.

Jerry Colangelo saw a way forward for basketball, and the avatar of that way forward was Steve Nash...who instinctively played in this way in pick-up games.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
rk2023
Starter
Posts: 2,266
And1: 2,273
Joined: Jul 01, 2022
   

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#73 » by rk2023 » Sun Sep 3, 2023 10:43 pm

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Are there individual season RAPM datasets that go past 2019? I have JE's set that goes through 2018-19 and his cumulative 97-22 sheet, but I'm looking for post-2019 single year RAPMs.


FWIW, I haven't found anything from Engelmann that solely has 2019 and onwards data.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
User avatar
cupcakesnake
Senior Mod- WNBA
Senior Mod- WNBA
Posts: 15,839
And1: 32,564
Joined: Jul 21, 2016
 

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#74 » by cupcakesnake » Sun Sep 3, 2023 10:47 pm

AEnigma wrote:
PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.

Sounds like we again need to reemphasise the distinction between the peaks project and this project. There, Wade was 18th (could have possibly been higher) above Kobe (19th), Robinson (20th), Erving (22nd), Dirk (23rd), Durant (24th), Moses (25th), Nash (27th), Paul (28th), Harden (29th), Barkley (31st), Karl Malone (32nd), and Ewing (33rd but in all previous iterations much higher). To whatever extent it is possible or even likely that all those names finish ahead of him, as a collective, it is clearly not because of any objections to how incredible he was at his peak.

The objections are all to weak longevity tied to injury / physical deterioration. Postseasons like 2006/09/10/11 are beyond anything I have seen from Chris Paul… but I might be similarly confident in some hypothetical average Chris Paul postseason weighed against the average Wade postseason, and Chris Paul has quite a few more postseasons to his name.

Wade will make top 30, and while that could be read as low, I think pushing him for top 20 based on his peak is at least comparably aggressive. If your goal is to quickly elevate him into the top 25 — unlikely at this point but possible — I think the two best angles are A) his non-peak years being potentially undervalued and B) the primes of players like Giannis and Jokic perhaps being inconsistently overvalued by comparison.


Peak Wade really did have one of the best single weapons ever with that "Flash" first step. But Wade lost that edge in 2012 and the spry age of 30. Without it, he was still an all-star calibre player with tons of strength and versatility. Considering his injuries in 2007 and 2008, and his rookie season where he was still wet behind the ears, and we're left with only 5 seasons that we can debate Wade as having MVP or weak MVP level impact.

I think a Nash-pessimist could still debate Wade vs. Nash. You just have to be low on Dallas Nash (like lower than post 2011 Wade), and pick apart a few of his later Phoenix years. But Chris Paul is a tougher one. Even if he never reached the peak that Wade or Nash did (and I think that's debatable), he's consistently at level higher than Dallas Nash or 30s Wade for a decade. Stockton fans make a similar argument. A fair knock on Paul is the post-season durability, but Wade is no darling in this area either.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."

Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
User avatar
homecourtloss
RealGM
Posts: 11,532
And1: 18,933
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#75 » by homecourtloss » Sun Sep 3, 2023 11:06 pm

DraymondGold wrote:This decline shows up in the individual data too. In Augmented Plus Minus, Giannis declines by -8% in the playoffs, which would be the 2nd biggest decline on record to be voted in. For context, Chris Paul declines -4% and Durant declines -1%, and both have overall more postseason value. Note that this data is only through 2021: he improved slightly in 2022 and likely declines in 2023, so the true average may look slightly better, but likely not enough to take him over Durant or make up for the longevity disadvantage.


Do you have the APM declines (those available) for the top 100 list so far?
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.

lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
tone wone
Pro Prospect
Posts: 961
And1: 728
Joined: Mar 10, 2015

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#76 » by tone wone » Sun Sep 3, 2023 11:12 pm

AEnigma wrote:
PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.

Sounds like we again need to reemphasise the distinction between the peaks project and this project. There, Wade was 18th (could have possibly been higher) above Kobe (19th), Robinson (20th), Erving (22nd), Dirk (23rd), Durant (24th), Moses (25th), Nash (27th), Paul (28th), Harden (29th), Barkley (31st), Karl Malone (32nd), and Ewing (33rd but in all previous iterations much higher). To whatever extent it is possible or even likely that all those names finish ahead of him, as a collective, it is clearly not because of any objections to how incredible he was at his peak.

The objections are all to weak longevity tied to injury / physical deterioration. Postseasons like 2006/09/10/11 are beyond anything I have seen from Chris Paul… but I might be similarly confident in some hypothetical average Chris Paul postseason weighed against the average Wade postseason, and Chris Paul has quite a few more postseasons to his name.

Wade will make top 30, and while that could be read as low, I think pushing him for top 20 based on his peak is at least comparably aggressive. If your goal is to quickly elevate him into the top 25 — unlikely at this point but possible — I think the two best angles are A) his non-peak years being potentially undervalued and B) the primes of players like Giannis and Jokic perhaps being inconsistently overvalued by comparison.

Chris' 1st postseason was absolutely on the level of Wade's best. It just only lasted 2 rounds.

But yeah, right now Wade has a "old rookie; washed after 30" rep so guys who were flat out better in their 30s have a leg up. Losing the 2007 season due to injury REALLY hurts.

As he was flat out the best player in the league from spring '06 to all-star break '07. And seeing as that middling Cavs team made it out the East. He could've very well carried MIA to another Finals. Add in his injury in '05 ECFs with MIA up 3-2....that's possibly 3 straight Finals runs as he missed out on due to injury. This would've vaulted him into top 15 territory imo.
SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:I don’t think LeBron was as good a point guard as Mo Williams for the point guard play not counting the scoring threat. In other words in a non shooting Rondo like role Mo Williams would be better than LeBron.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 9,790
And1: 5,787
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#77 » by One_and_Done » Sun Sep 3, 2023 11:22 pm

Let's not go crazy praising the Colangelos, who made plenty of dumb moves too. I think the degree of success Nash had came as a shock to them too.

Don Nelson strikes me as the more impressive basketball mind over his career.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
User avatar
PaulieWal
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,909
And1: 16,218
Joined: Aug 28, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#78 » by PaulieWal » Sun Sep 3, 2023 11:26 pm

One_and_Done wrote:
PaulieWal wrote:Seeing more Harden/Nash mentions than Wade is a bit weird to me. CP already got in at 20. Seems to me this particular group is very low on Wade. To me Wade is clearly better than Harden, Nash, CP etc. so I am getting a bit disoriented lol.

If we looked at their high end MVP vote outcomes it would be more surprising to see Wade over them. Wade is a worthy choice soon, but his high end issn't as high as those guys, he can't shoot the 3, and he doesn't have much longevity either.


I don't want to derail this thread too much since I am not actively participating in this project but the whole "can't shoot the 3" is like a meme in some ways when you are talking about one of the GOAT slashers in the history of the game. He doesn't need to shoot the 3.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
therealbig3
RealGM
Posts: 29,620
And1: 16,147
Joined: Jul 31, 2010

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#79 » by therealbig3 » Sun Sep 3, 2023 11:40 pm

I mean, if you feel that Nash/Paul/Harden are comparable at their peaks to Wade, then taking them over him is pretty easy to see.

And those are perfectly defensible positions.
User avatar
PaulieWal
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,909
And1: 16,218
Joined: Aug 28, 2013

Re: RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #21 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 9/4/23) 

Post#80 » by PaulieWal » Sun Sep 3, 2023 11:43 pm

therealbig3 wrote:I mean, if you feel that Nash/Paul/Harden are comparable at their peaks to Wade, then taking them over him is pretty easy to see.

And those are perfectly defensible positions.


That's fair but I don't see Nash and Harden (and very specifically Harden) as comparable to Wade at his peak so to me it's not that defensible. I am fine with CP's ranking ahead of Wade though I think 20 is a tad too high for him but no one's going to agree with all the rankings right :)
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.

Return to Player Comparisons