RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #25 (Giannis Antetokounmpo)

[One_and_Done]

You have to distinguish between the stats a guy had on an ensemble cast where he's forced to play a reduced role and the stats/awards a guy gets when he's allowed to take a bigger role. It's similar the the 80s Pistons, 77 Sixers, or 04 Pistons problem. There's only 1 ball.

Oak wasn't what you think of when you picture your Robin, but he lived up to his name. He was a rock solid all-star big. I also don't think he was Ewing's 2nd best player. Anthony Mason for example was stuck in a lesser role for the Knicks, but was every bit as good as when he left and made an all-star and all-nba team.

Starks was the 2nd option on offense alot of years, and was a fringe all-star guard type. Smith/Doc/Jackson/Harper were all fine players for different iterations of those teams. McDaniels, a part of the team that pushed the Bulls to 7, was an all-star talent too.

His team wasn't glamorous, but Ewing had help.

[One_and_Done]

The Colonels won an average of 56+ games over Gilmore’s first 5 years there, including a 24 win improvement on his arrival. Then the team was folded. Ewing, for all his hype, led the Knicks to an average of 36 wins over his first 5 years in NY, and 39 wins over his first 7 years there. His impact doesn’t look the same at all. It was only after the Knicks made significant talent upgrades at many positions that the Knicks suddenly looked good. Then when Ewing aged, and even was missing, the late 90s Knicks thrived. There’s even a phenomena called the “Ewing effect”, to describe when teams play better without their star. I don’t mean to suggest Ewing was bad or anything, he was very good. I am not seeing the same impact as Gilmore though.

I also feel like Ewing would be a worse player than Gilmore today. His stamina appears poor, and his mobility as he aged got worse and worse. He’d be borderline unplayable for the latter half of his career against today’s pick and roll heavy offences in the playoffs. Once his knees were gone, that would be it. He was already visibly exhausted playing in the mid to late 90s. I can’t imagine how he’d survive on the court today, with what modern offenses force defensive players to do. Maybe it’s just my eyes, but Gilmore seems less stiff and more fluid as a younger man. His height and length would let him function exceptionally as a roller and rim protector. Ewing wouldn’t have adapted nearly as well. To be clear, Ewing would be an all-star today. He doesn’t suck or anything. But I feel there are a lot of players ahead of him, even Dwight and Pippen seem much more impactful.

Since you love hypotheticals, go watch ewing in 89-90 and imagine him playing from then on with the medical advancements we have today, players playing less minutes and the value bigs have to spread the floor out to the 3PT line. He wasn't the immobile lumbering giant you're thinking of in the late 90s. He was a dynamic force on both ends.

Assumedly as the older player with the worse medical conditions Artis would benefit even more if we wanted to engage in this sort of hypothetical. I don't btw.

I also don't think medical science has made much progress on knees and backs. Alot of progress on other things sure, but there's just not alot that can be done there.

[AEnigma]

Vote: Charles Barkley

More longevity than Jokic or Giannis(over 2x in the case of Jokic) and imo a higher peak/prime period than Wade or Harden.

Barkley's peak consisted of a period where he had a 10+ rTS and 60%+ 2P for five straight seasons while rebounding at a rate unheard of for someone his size. I simply don't understand how that isn't a standout peak.

People point to Barkley's lack of playoff success, like this:



But again, almost his entire prime was spent languishing on a poor Philly team, so it's no wonder there's a a lack of impressive playoff performances. That some of those teams made the playoffs at all is a testament to Barkley's value.

Kevin Garnett coming in at #9 in this thread indicates that a lot of people here have given him the benefit of the doubt despite spending much of his prime in a bad situation. Why does Barkley not get the same benefit of the doubt?

Because we know he was not as significant a piece to those wins as Garnett was.

That's perhaps valid for his Phoenix/Houston years(though debatable), but the Sixers didn't have many series wins in Barkley's time there because those rosters - after Moses and Doc were gone - were very lacking. Like I said before, that those 1990 and 1991 rosters had guys like Hersey Hawkins, Johnny Dawkins, Rick Mahorn, Arman Gilliam; if Barkley wasn't the most significant piece for their being as good as they were and winning a playoff series in each of those years, then who was?

Reread the comment. I did not say Barkley was not the best player on those teams. I said Garnett was more significantly tied to how his teams performed.

You talk about his peak/prime quality weighed against Wade, but many people feel he peaked in Phoenix — despite completely losing that “+10 rTS” streak — and he was relatively underwhelming after 1993, so what exactly is this peak/prime advantage?

I don't know why you put "+10 rts" in quotes. It's a thing that happened, and I'm pretty sure no one that's been inducted so far did it. It is impressive and bares mentioning.

…

if a player is consistently scoring on that volume and that efficiency, that means he's one of the greatest scorers of all time. So, yes. Because he's on the of the greatest scorers of all time, and unlike Adrian Dantley, who you mentioned earlier, he's not as one-dimensional because he's also a GOAT-tier rebounder.

Is that the goal of the sport.

Mind you, if this vote really is down to Barkley or Giannis, I am pretty willing to side with Barkley solely on the basis of longevity and not caring that yeah Giannis is on pace to comfortably clear him. But you are not really selling his peak here, and for as much as you think he merits comparison with Malone, Malone maintained high productivity for a lot longer.

I would question the consistency of some voters' criteria...if for example some people vote for guys like Malone, CP3, or Nash at least partially on the basis of longevity, and then turn around and vote for Giannis and Jokic, who just don't have it yet, or Wade, who had a very short prime.

I do not see Wade’s prime as too meaningfully “short” compared to Giannis’s and Jokic’s, and while his later years are uninspiring, they are more than you get from either. 2016 Wade nearly brought his team to the conference finals, albeit against uninspiring competition.

Here is a little exercise:

2004-14 Regular Season Wade, no Lebron, no Shaq: +2.6 on-court in 15436 minutes, -6.57 off-court in 9930 minutes

2017-23 Regular Season Giannis: +7.54 on-court in 16117 minutes, -0.70 off-court in 10663 minutes

And of course it is not as if those Lebron and Shaq minutes never happened — which brings him closer to Barkley. For their careers, Barkley played in total an extra 1700 minutes. If you think their average level of play was functionally even, maybe you lean Barkley. If you are like me and think Wade on average was better, that is probably not enough to sway anything.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Jokic
Three incredibly high level seasons, and another five at all-NBA level. Basically a full career of longevity with an all-time peak and the only multiple-time POY winner not voted in yet except for Pettit. Top 2 all-time in regular season PER, postseason PER, regular season BPM, and postseason BPM. Advanced numbers that consistently outpace his incredible box contribution.

Alternate: Giannis
Slightly lower peak than Jokic with similar longevity, but still maybe a top 10 peak all-time. 4 year run from 2019-2022 is up there with anyone.

Nominate: Stockton
Top 4 all-time in VORP with advanced stats that outpace his box contribution as the impact numbers would suggest he was still one of the best players of the data-ball era only looking at his seasons from age 34 on.

Alternate: Kawhi
Incredible peak, one of the best postseason scorers of all-time, and one of the best wing defenders of all-time. Could easily be top 10 if he could maintain health.

[iggymcfrack]

I think people should take a closer look on Havlicek for nomination at this point. He has everything in his resume to be considered - great longevity, a lot of team success, playoff resiliency, versatile and scalable skillset, two-way impact. What do you think about his candidacy?

Played in a weak era and is outside the top 100 in career PER and career WS/48. Nothing about his game makes you think that his contributions would be hugely underrated by the box score. If you're looking for a RANGZ guy, I don't see any case for Havlicek over Pippen who has better numbers AND is arguably the greatest wing defender of all-time.

[AEnigma]

Ewing, for all his hype, led the Knicks to an average of 36 wins over his first 5 years in NY, and 39 wins over his first 7 years there. His impact doesn’t look the same at all. It was only after the Knicks made significant talent upgrades at many positions that the Knicks suddenly looked good. Then when Ewing aged, and even was missing, the late 90s Knicks thrived. There’s even a phenomena called the “Ewing effect”, to describe when teams play better without their star. Ewing didn't miss alot of games; but it's notable that when he did in his later career the Knicks seemed largely unaffected. In 98 when he was 35 the Knicks were 15-11 with him and 28-28 without. Not much of a change. In 99 the team was 7-5 without him and made a finals run in his absence vs 20-18 with him.

The Colonels won an average of 56+ games over Gilmore’s first 5 years there, including a 24 win improvement on his arrival. Then the team was folded. Artis was 33 by the time he teamed up with a 30 year old Gervin. Neither was at their best anymore, yet their first season together they won 53 games and made the WCF and lost in 6 games to the Showtime Lakers. Were they supposed to beat the Showtime Lakers? Both Gervin and Gilmore regressed the next year; quite understandably. It was their 13th & 12th seasons.

I don’t mean to suggest Ewing was bad or anything, he was very good. I am not seeing the same impact as Gilmore though.

People stop being taken seriously when they start speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

Artis Gilmore joins the fourth best regular season team in the league, a team that lost in Game 7 of the ABA Finals. With him, they become the best regular season team… and lose in six games to the league runner-up. Impact!

He joins the Bulls. The Bulls win an average of 37 games with Gilmore in his age 27-32 seasons. In 1980, he missed nearly half the season, and oooh looks like we have some “Ewing theory” effect as the Bulls improve their win percentage without him. In 1982 he leaves and they drop six wins from the prior season with him. The Spurs gain five wins with him — and this time manage to win twice in the conference finals, against a worst Lakers team. Very high impact stuff.

You say the team got better around Ewing and that is what spiked the success of the Knicks — as if Ewing himself did not also improve. You criticise his “impact” when the Knicks could substitute in Bill Cartwright or Marcus Camby (at an age two years older than when you say Gilmore’s middling impact was totally excusable), but gloss over Ewing’s entire prime where he was healthy, playing at his best, and not backed up by anyone notable. And then you talk about creaky pnr defence even though prime Ewing probably defended the pnr better than prime athlete David Robinson.

What it obviously comes down to is you being disproportionately impressed by the ABA, and you know what, that is fine, but these post-hoc “explanations” beyond that are untenable.

I also feel like Ewing would be a worse player than Gilmore today. His stamina appears poor, and his mobility as he aged got worse and worse. He’d be borderline unplayable for the latter half of his career against today’s pick and roll heavy offences in the playoffs. Once his knees were gone, that would be it. He was already visibly exhausted playing in the mid to late 90s. I can’t imagine how he’d survive on the court today, with what modern offenses force defensive players to do.

Uh huh. As opposed to “Rigor Artis”?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Because we know he was not as significant a piece to those wins as Garnett was.

That's perhaps valid for his Phoenix/Houston years(though debatable), but the Sixers didn't have many series wins in Barkley's time there because those rosters - after Moses and Doc were gone - were very lacking. Like I said before, that those 1990 and 1991 rosters had guys like Hersey Hawkins, Johnny Dawkins, Rick Mahorn, Arman Gilliam; if Barkley wasn't the most significant piece for their being as good as they were and winning a playoff series in each of those years, then who was?

Reread the comment. I did not say Barkley was not the best player on those teams. I said Garnett was more significantly tied to how his teams performed.

If you mean on/off...I can't argue with that.

But I re-iterate that even if KG's individual impact numbers in Minnesota were higher, his teams, excepting 2004, really didn't win much more than Barkley's Sixers did.

You talk about his peak/prime quality weighed against Wade, but many people feel he peaked in Phoenix — despite completely losing that “+10 rTS” streak — and he was relatively underwhelming after 1993, so what exactly is this peak/prime advantage?

I don't know why you put "+10 rts" in quotes. It's a thing that happened, and I'm pretty sure no one that's been inducted so far did it. It is impressive and bares mentioning.

…

if a player is consistently scoring on that volume and that efficiency, that means he's one of the greatest scorers of all time. So, yes. Because he's on the of the greatest scorers of all time, and unlike Adrian Dantley, who you mentioned earlier, he's not as one-dimensional because he's also a GOAT-tier rebounder.

Is that the goal of the sport.

Mind you, if this vote really is down to Barkley or Giannis, I am pretty willing to side with Barkley solely on the basis of longevity and not caring that yeah Giannis is on pace to comfortably clear him. But you are not really selling his peak here, and for as much as you think he merits comparison with Malone, Malone maintained high productivity for a lot longer.

It's not the goal, but it merits mentioning in an argument such as this. We often cite a lack of scoring efficiency as an argument against players, so when a player scoring at hyper-efficient rate on big volume over a significant stretch of time, I think he ought to be given credit for that, and when he rebounds the basketball at an ATG rate, I think he should be given credit for that too. But it seems like you're not overly impressed by box numbers, so let's move on.

And I've said it before, but I think the longevity gap between Malone and Barkley, while real, is exaggerated. Barkley played three fewer years, but he was never truly washed. The dude was a double-double machine right up until he got hurt in 1999. He played 20 games in 1999; if you omit the game he got hurt in, and the game he came back for at the very end of the season, he averaged 15.9 points and 11.4 rebounds on +2.1 rTS in 18 games. It is a small sample size, but it indicates he was still playing at a solid level. There's also his last playoff series in 1999 - only 4 games, but he put up 23.5 points and 14.8 rebounds on 57.9% TS. He also had 3+ RAPMs in 98 and 99 and a 2.6 RAPM in his brief 00 season. I'm not saying his longevity is better than Malone's, and Barkley was certainly several years past his prime in Houston, but there is a narrative that Barkley was completely washed or something at the end, and I don't believe that to be true.

I'll stop there though, as I don't think you and I are going to have any kind of agreement re Barkley/Malone.

I am happy that Barkley seems to have your secondary vote, though, so cheers for that.

I would question the consistency of some voters' criteria...if for example some people vote for guys like Malone, CP3, or Nash at least partially on the basis of longevity, and then turn around and vote for Giannis and Jokic, who just don't have it yet, or Wade, who had a very short prime.

I do not see Wade’s prime as too meaningfully “short” compared to Giannis’s and Jokic’s, and while his later years are uninspiring, they are more than you get from either. 2016 Wade nearly brought his team to the conference finals, albeit against uninspiring competition.

Here is a little exercise:

2004-14 Regular Season Wade, no Lebron, no Shaq: +2.6 on-court in 15436 minutes, -6.57 off-court in 9930 minutes

2017-23 Regular Season Giannis: +7.54 on-court in 16117 minutes, -0.70 off-court in 10663 minutes

And of course it is not as if those Lebron and Shaq minutes never happened — which brings him closer to Barkley. For their careers, Barkley played in total an extra 1700 minutes. If you think their average level of play was functionally even, maybe you lean Barkley. If you are like me and think Wade on average was better, that is probably not enough to sway anything.

I agree, Wade's prime is not "meaningfully short" compared to Giannis and Jokic, but it is (IMO) compared to Barkley.

[70sFan]

I also feel like Ewing would be a worse player than Gilmore today. His stamina appears poor, and his mobility as he aged got worse and worse. He’d be borderline unplayable for the latter half of his career against today’s pick and roll heavy offences in the playoffs. Once his knees were gone, that would be it. He was already visibly exhausted playing in the mid to late 90s. I can’t imagine how he’d survive on the court today, with what modern offenses force defensive players to do. Maybe it’s just my eyes, but Gilmore seems less stiff and more fluid as a younger man. His height and length would let him function exceptionally as a roller and rim protector. Ewing wouldn’t have adapted nearly as well. To be clear, Ewing would be an all-star today. He doesn’t suck or anything. But I feel there are a lot of players ahead of him, even Dwight and Pippen seem much more impactful.

Again, nothing wrong with taking Gilmore over Ewing but why do you compare old Ewing who suffered knee injuries to young Artis at his physical peak? Older Artis would also have a lot of problems with the pace and space of the modern game. Old Artis was also very stiff.

Make the comparison fair and either compare two at their best, or talk about their concerns past prime.

[70sFan]

I think people should take a closer look on Havlicek for nomination at this point. He has everything in his resume to be considered - great longevity, a lot of team success, playoff resiliency, versatile and scalable skillset, two-way impact. What do you think about his candidacy?

Played in a weak era and is outside the top 100 in career PER and career WS/48. Nothing about his game makes you think that his contributions would be hugely underrated by the box score. If you're looking for a RANGZ guy, I don't see any case for Havlicek over Pippen who has better numbers AND is arguably the greatest wing defender of all-time.

Havlicek played in the same era as Kareem and Gilmore.

Why do you think nothing in his game makes his box score underrate him?

He was a top tier off-ball player which isn't captured in the box score.
He was excellent shooter and floor spacer in his prime, which isn't captured by 1970s numbers.
He's elite passer without being ball-dominant playmaker, which is why his assist numbers underrate his passing skills.
He's elite defender, which isn't captured by box score.
He consistently improved his production in the playoffs (unlike Pippen).

It's fine to pick Pippen over Havlicek, but unlike Scottie Hondo won the title as the best player on his team and he was definitely a better postseason performer (at least offensively speaking). Peak (1971-74) Havlicek was more refined offensive player than Pippen, his better shooting and comparable passing skills made him more versatile offensive weapon in my eyes.

So yeah, you may think Havlicek was weak because of PER, but he is a worthy candidate.

[AEnigma]

I am pretty comfortable marking Cowens as the best player on those teams — and had peak-ish Pippen been there in Havlicek’s place, I would be much less confident in that label.

[Gibson22]

My last post was a bit overstated, the thing is I don't have much time to debate that much so, because I can't argue back and forth tht much, I just try to express what I'm feeling like clearly, but yeah I didn't mean to stop partecipating or anything like that, and there's nothing terrible going on in the project.

My votes would be:
Barkley: about a decade of weak-mvp/all-nba play + a few all star level seasons at the start and the end of his career. he has his flaws: terrible defense, fittability since he was a poor shooter and hold the ball a lot. but he was also an incredible scorer and rebounder. from 87/90 he averaged 26/12/4/2.8 stocks on an absurd +12 point something rts. he didn't really have great teams/teammates compared to opponents he faced. he lost to 90, 91 and 93 bulls, 94 and 95 rockets, 97 98 jazz, 99 lakers.

alternate: giannis. I don't feel supercomfortable with this. but yeah, giannis is a monster two way player, perennial mvp candidate, and he's starting to pile up some longevity.

nominations pettit*
alternate nomination: stockton for durability/longevity while being a very good two way player.

about pettit this time I just want to say this: what's the big argument for giannis over pettit?
1st season: pettit is 1st team all-nba, giannis averages 7 ppg pettit>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2nd season: pettit wins mvp, giannis in an average starter petti>>>>>>>>>>>
3rd season pettit is the best player in basketbal, giannis is starting to reach an all-starhis level of play pettit>>>>>>>>>
4th season: pettit is probably still the best player in basketball, giannis is a weak all-nba guy pettit>>>>>
5th season: pettit wins mvp, is the 2nd best player in basketball, giannis is a strong all-nba to weak mvp guy petti>>>
6th season: this is the first season where giannis is better than pettit. giannis wins mvp, and probably the top 3 that season is leonard giannis harden. pettit is now comfortably worse than russell and wilt giannis>
7th season: this is a squash more or less. while pettit has now transitioned to his role as a top 5 guy more than best in the world contender, giannis wins mvp, but then he loses in the 2nd round against the heat, averaging 22/11 =
8th season: this is giannis ring season. giannis wasn't really an mvp candidate, he misses a couple games in the playoffs and he didn't really have the best competition, especially risking losing against kevin durant my himself isn't the best, but it's still a rateable, notable peak season. on the meanwhile it's pettit's worst season to date. still great numbers in the rs and 1st team all nba but he doesn't make the playoffs giannis >>
9th season: similar value seasons, 2nd round loss, 1st team all nba but no contention for mvp. giannis>
10th season: again similar value, i'd give the edge to pettit because giannis played 3 playoff games. pettit>
pettit also has a last 11th season, where he was still a comfortable all-star level player

so, pettit has the first 5 seasons where he's basically a mvp contender, while giannis is gradually getting better from random guy all the way to strong all nba guy. giannis has the clear edge only in two seasons, 3 seasons are pretty much a squash, plus pettit has one more season of all star play.

[OhayoKD]

And the result was 51 wins, and took the eventual champs [all-time great team] to 7 games......if I'm not mistaken the ONLY team to ever take Jordan's Bulls to 7 games during his title years.

You're forgetting Reggie's Pacers.

Outside of 2-3 or three years, he REALLY didn't have anything at all noteworthy beyond Jackson/Oakley (and some early years, he was well short of even having someone as good as those two).

[/quote]
Not sure what you're calling notable, but I think cartwright was good even in 91/92. I would expect he would have been significantly better in 87 but that could be wrong.

Regardless, would agree ewing probably warrants more serious consideration and the cast is being overplayed. But I'd also wonder how confident you are that barkley should be voted over ewing when the suns were unable to present the challenge to those bulls the knicks did.

I don't want to go and find the post, but the specific thing i was getting at the box-score bit was that if we were to just count other things during the game(notably things related to defense), we could very easily end up with a box-score that favored players like moses, ewing, and pippen.

Perhaps it's a matter of cast(and i'd probably want that case in order to consider voting for him), but two contemporaries played the bulls closer(one played a stronger version closer), the second dude on those teams he lost two led multiple contenders with 3 bites at the apple(1 in his prime), and then there's harden who you see as a statistical peer(and who also played a much better team closer twice), and that is before we get to actual "best player on title team" guys like Moses, Giannis, Jokic, Petit, Cowens, Wade and Gilmore.

This just seems like a jump to me. Was barkley disadvantaged in terms of teammates enough to explain away his lesser success vs all these other guys?

I mean, you just said it. He was never expected to beat Jordan or Hakeem. Most of his high-profile playoff series losses as the #1 option came to Jordan three times in four years and then to Hakeem in back-to-back years. That said, that 1995 loss to Houston after being up 3-1 with HCA is for sure a black eye.

Yeah, neither was Ewing, but he still played both Jordan and Hakeem closer. Malone played Jordan closer. Reggie played Jordan closer. Harden played a much better team than the 93 bulls closer and then replicated the trick with weaker support the next year.'

There are half a dozen mvp winners who led better teams than barkley who haven't been voted in. Was Barkley's support that bad?

[70sFan]

I am pretty comfortable marking Cowens as the best player on those teams — and had peak-ish Pippen been there in Havlicek’s place, I would be much less confident in that label.

Cowens was definitely the best in 1976, but I wouldn't be confident for 1972-74 period at all. In fact, I think I might go with Havlicek for those seasons (despite Dave's MVP from 1973). It's at least debatable and it's definitely closer than any title year Pippen had in his career (as he was never close to Jordan).

[OhayoKD]

I think people should take a closer look on Havlicek for nomination at this point. He has everything in his resume to be considered - great longevity, a lot of team success, playoff resiliency, versatile and scalable skillset, two-way impact. What do you think about his candidacy?

Played in a weak era and is outside the top 100 in career PER and career WS/48. Nothing about his game makes you think that his contributions would be hugely underrated by the box score. If you're looking for a RANGZ guy, I don't see any case for Havlicek over Pippen who has better numbers AND is arguably the greatest wing defender of all-time.

Havlicek played in the same era as Kareem and Gilmore.

Why do you think nothing in his game makes his box score underrate him?

He was a top tier off-ball player which isn't captured in the box score.

What ways did that off-ball play manifest that wouldn't be captured in the box-score. If it's a matter of getting open to score...

He was excellent shooter and floor spacer in his prime, which isn't captured by 1970s numbers.

Let's say that spacing was a big deal, wouldn't his shooting be baked into his overall effeciency?

Also, if he is doing things off-ball, he is presumably not doing things on-ball which would also not be captured in the box-score. Pippen for example did alot to break-down defenses that didn't manifest as assists into a primary and he was rather good at it. Why would this be a comparative advantage for Hondo

He's elite passer without being ball-dominant playmaker, which is why his assist numbers underrate his passing skills.

That is assuming assists capture all there is to be captured in terms of on-ball playmaking(which they obviously don't). You are presenting this as an obvious positive, but it could easily be a negative(probably is tbh).

On that note, "passing skills" aren't relevant on their own. The goal is to create, not pass pretty.

He's elite defender, which isn't captured by box score.

This also would apply more to Pippen who, unlike hondo, organized his teammates defensively, something that has no box-score analog but contributed to average defenses turning into elite ones and staying elite irrelevant of Jordan or Grant being on the team. The box-score also doesn't capture Pippen making as many plays at the paint as grant and often allowing his teammates to get blocks

He consistently improved his production in the playoffs (unlike Pippen).

Huh?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107859912#p107859912
Not sure what you're using to measure "production" here, but in fp4's simple box-thing, Pippen ranked 11th in terms of playoff translation. By individual runs, 1990 ranks 15th ahead of anything(in terms of translation, not absolute value) from Jordan, Curry, Chris Paul or Bird. Where did hondo being a better playoff riser come from?

It's fine to pick Pippen over Havlicek, but unlike Scottie Hondo won the title as the best player on his team and he was definitely a better postseason performer (at least offensively speaking).

Was hondo the best player on those teams? What makes you think he was better than Cowens? IF nothing else, it was rookie cowens arrival that conincided with the celtics going from bad to fine. Feel free to bring up mitigating context you can recall.

You also don't have to be the best player to be more valuable than another team's best player. If "help" is distributed correctly, a "second best guy" can be better than a "best" guy.

[70sFan]

What ways did that off-ball play manifest that wouldn't be captured in the box-score. If it's a matter of getting open to score...

How can you differentiate a good and bad off-ball mover strictly going with boxscore?

Let's say that spacing was a big deal, wouldn't his shooting be baked into his overall effeciency?

Not necessarily, because it depends on his shot selection. Havlicek is the guy who took almost all his shots outside the paint, which is why his raw efficiency doesn't look great.

Also, if he is doing things off-ball, he is presumably not doing things on-ball which would also not be captured in the box-score. Pippen for example did alot to break-down defenses that didn't manifest as assists into a primary and he was rather good at it. Why would this be a comparative advantage for Hondo

Or, he can play both on ball and without the ball during the game. Which is what often happened during his peak years.

That is assuming assists capture all there is to be captured in terms of on-ball playmaking(which they obviously don't). You are presenting this as an obvious positive, but it could easily be a negative(probably is tbh).

No, I don't assume that. I assume that ball-dominant players usually have higher assist numbers, but it doesn't mean that assists capture playmaking ability well. Please do not tell me what I assume, that will be better for the discussion.

On that note, "passing skills" aren't relevant on their own. The goal is to create, not pass pretty.

I didn't know that, thank you.

This also would apply more to Pippen who, unlike hondo, organized his teammates defensively, something that has no box-score analog but contributed to average defenses turning into elite ones and staying elite irrelevant of Jordan or Grant being on the team. The box-score also doesn't capture Pippen making as many plays at the paint as grant and often allowing his teammates to get blocks

I am aware of that and that's why I said Pippen has a notable defensive advantage.

Why do you think that Hondo didn't organize his teammates on defense by the way? He seems the me like a very active communicator on D and I have seen him setting up his teammates during the action.

Huh?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107859912#p107859912
Not sure what you're using to measure "production" here, but in fp4's simple box-thing, Pippen ranked 11th in terms of playoff translation. By individual runs, 1990 ranks 15th ahead of anything(in terms of translation, not absolute value) from Jordan, Curry, Chris Paul or Bird. Where did hondo being a better playoff riser come from?

First of all, he didn't inlude Havlicek on his list, so we don't know how he compares to Pippen in that regard.

Secondly, I don't know his formula, but looking at their boxscore composites (which usually I don't use for obvious reasons, but let's do it for a simplicity):

1990-97 Pippen in RS: 20.7 PER, .172 WS/48, 5.6 BPM
1990-97 Pippen in PS: 19.4 PER, .155 WS/48, 5.6 BPM

1967-74 Havlicek in RS: 18.9 PER, .149 WS/48, no BPM
1967-74 Havlicek in PS: 20.0 PER, .169 WS/48, no BPM

I really don't know what fp4 uses to get this "translation" indicator, but Pippen's boxscore production went down considerably in the playoffs in most years.

Was hondo the best player on those teams? What makes you think he was better than Cowens?

What I have seen from the games I have watched. Havlicek was clearly the most important offensive player on that team, while being likely 2nd best defender behind the Cowens (by a clear margin to be fair). It's close, but I think Havlicek was the man on those teams until he started to break down.

IF nothing else, it was rookie cowens arrival that conincided with the celtics going from bad to fine. Feel free to bring up mitigating context you can recall.

Well yeah, getting an all-star level center in place of the worst starting center in the league was a huge help for the Celtics, but it doesn't mean that Cowens was better than Havlicek. We don't know how good their teams would look like with Cowens and without Havlicek. Having two stars instead of one is a big deal, you know?

You also don't have to be the best player to be more valuable than another team's best player. If "help" is distributed correctly, a "second best guy" can be better than a "best" guy.

I agree.

[f4p]

Huh?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107859912#p107859912
Not sure what you're using to measure "production" here, but in fp4's simple box-thing, Pippen ranked 11th in terms of playoff translation. By individual runs, 1990 ranks 15th ahead of anything(in terms of translation, not absolute value) from Jordan, Curry, Chris Paul or Bird. Where did hondo being a better playoff riser come from?

First of all, he didn't inlude Havlicek on his list, so we don't know how he compares to Pippen in that regard.

Secondly, I don't know his formula, but looking at their boxscore composites (which usually I don't use for obvious reasons, but let's do it for a simplicity):

1990-97 Pippen in RS: 20.7 PER, .172 WS/48, 5.6 BPM
1990-97 Pippen in PS: 19.4 PER, .155 WS/48, 5.6 BPM

1967-74 Havlicek in RS: 18.9 PER, .149 WS/48, no BPM
1967-74 Havlicek in PS: 20.0 PER, .169 WS/48, no BPM

I really don't know what fp4 uses to get this "translation" indicator, but Pippen's boxscore production went down considerably in the playoffs in most years.

first, it's f4p, don't know why y'all always get that wrong. second, i used math. most people's numbers go down in the playoffs so pippen's numbers holding up or staying the same gives him more resilience than an average player. not by a ton, but still 13th out 42 players. year by year breakdown, more negatives later in his career but also no negatives below -0.2 in his prime, which is pretty unusual:

Code: Select all

Scottie Pippen   1989 +0.5020
Scottie Pippen   1990 +0.8555
Scottie Pippen   1991 +0.3866
Scottie Pippen   1992 +0.0950
Scottie Pippen   1993 -0.1516
Scottie Pippen   1994 -0.1203
Scottie Pippen   1995 -0.1729
Scottie Pippen   1996 -0.0476
Scottie Pippen   1997 -0.1989
Scottie Pippen   1998 +0.0424
Scottie Pippen   1999 -0.0173
Scottie Pippen   2000 +0.3515
Scottie Pippen   2001 -0.2720


i suspect hondo would probably beat pippen by a little but i don't know. they're both probably overrated due to rangz.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote Giannis
Alternate Nikola Jokic
Nomination John Stockton

Giannis has a case for the best defender in the league for how many years now? Maybe 7?

I know Gobert exists. I feel like Giannis' coverage in PnR is far better.

Now imagine that on a player that consistently drops high points (6 seasons above 25PPG now), that while not being a playmaker provides a good number of assists based on his gravity, and is a king in the boards. (6 seasons above 10 RPG).

So he at least has 6 seasons of super high level, that might be better than most players ever did.

Prime and peak he is there. Sure he needs longevity, but unlike Nash or Barkley he contributes a lot as a two way player.

I feel it's time for Giannis to get in

[Samurai]

I am pretty comfortable marking Cowens as the best player on those teams — and had peak-ish Pippen been there in Havlicek’s place, I would be much less confident in that label.

Cowens was definitely the best in 1976, but I wouldn't be confident for 1972-74 period at all. In fact, I think I might go with Havlicek for those seasons (despite Dave's MVP from 1973). It's at least debatable and it's definitely closer than any title year Pippen had in his career (as he was never close to Jordan).

When Cowens won his MVP in 73, there was a controversial (at that time) magazine article that argued that Cowens was clearly not the best player in the league (Kareem was but had just won back-to-back MVP awards and the journalists who strongly disliked him were concerned that he was too dominant and would win every year) but was not even the best player on his own team (he felt Hondo was). The article claimed Cowens' super power was his hustle and motor but no one in the league had a motor with greater endurance than Havlicek. Havlicek was the team leader, the guy everyone turned to when they needed a play made or a clutch basket. So even when Cowens won league MVP, it wasn't a consensus at the time that he was even the best player on his own team.

[HeartBreakKid]

I am pretty comfortable marking Cowens as the best player on those teams — and had peak-ish Pippen been there in Havlicek’s place, I would be much less confident in that label.

Cowens was definitely the best in 1976, but I wouldn't be confident for 1972-74 period at all. In fact, I think I might go with Havlicek for those seasons (despite Dave's MVP from 1973). It's at least debatable and it's definitely closer than any title year Pippen had in his career (as he was never close to Jordan).

When Cowens won his MVP in 73, there was a controversial (at that time) magazine article that argued that Cowens was clearly not the best player in the league (Kareem was but had just won back-to-back MVP awards and the journalists who strongly disliked him were concerned that he was too dominant and would win every year) but was not even the best player on his own team (he felt Hondo was). The article claimed Cowens' super power was his hustle and motor but no one in the league had a motor with greater endurance than Havlicek. Havlicek was the team leader, the guy everyone turned to when they needed a play made or a clutch basket. So even when Cowens won league MVP, it wasn't a consensus at the time that he was even the best player on his own team.

This doesn't feel surprising. Certainly the sentiment many people feel looking back with hindsight.

Goes to show there were always people going against the grain of the media back then.

[AEnigma]

Cowens was definitely the best in 1976, but I wouldn't be confident for 1972-74 period at all. In fact, I think I might go with Havlicek for those seasons (despite Dave's MVP from 1973). It's at least debatable and it's definitely closer than any title year Pippen had in his career (as he was never close to Jordan).

When Cowens won his MVP in 73, there was a controversial (at that time) magazine article that argued that Cowens was clearly not the best player in the league (Kareem was but had just won back-to-back MVP awards and the journalists who strongly disliked him were concerned that he was too dominant and would win every year) but was not even the best player on his own team (he felt Hondo was). The article claimed Cowens' super power was his hustle and motor but no one in the league had a motor with greater endurance than Havlicek. Havlicek was the team leader, the guy everyone turned to when they needed a play made or a clutch basket. So even when Cowens won league MVP, it wasn't a consensus at the time that he was even the best player on his own team.

This doesn't feel surprising. Certainly the sentiment many people feel looking back with hindsight.

Goes to show there were always people going against the grain of the media back then.

I am struggling to understand why “consensus” would be the standard. I can find people who think Amar’e was better than Nash, that Penny was better than Magic Shaq, that Wade was better than Lebron until 2012, that 2004 Billups was better than Ben, that 2008 Pierce was better than Garnett, that Westbrook was better than Durant, that Durant was better than Curry, etc.

The reality is that the bulk of people at the time felt Cowens was the team’s top player, and while that does not mean they were objectively correct, in this instance I agree with them.