RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #27 (Dwyane Wade)

[Colbinii]

Jesus Christ wait Wade isn’t on the board yet?

I'd have voted him in by now, but his spot got pushed back by the inclusion of old timers like West, Oscar, Mikan & Moses.

By Greater Players. He got pushed back by the Likes of LeBron, Durant and Curry as well--also greater players!

[tsherkin]

And again, we have Nash in already or I'd argue more, lol. Stockton v. Ewing or Kawhi or whoever is a different argument.

That's fair, I was mostly just interested in hearing your thoughts. They always make me have my ducks in a row when I voice an opinion, heh.

As far as Stockton versus the others, such as those remaining here... From an accolades perspective, he's still lacking. One and Done wasn't wrong, we're still in MVP territory here, Ewing notwithstanding. Barkley, Harden and Wade all have one and multiple visits to the top 3 in that vote. Pettit has 2 and spent the bulk of his career in the top 3 or 4.

Stockton was never higher than 7th in the MVP vote and only top 9 on 3 occasions. In 89 when he was 7th, he was behind Magic, MJ, Karl Malone, Ewing, Dream and Barkley. So as we circle to him in this discussion, it feels like he's still a little later on in the running based on what he was able to achieve.

Stockton for me was a little bit proto-Rondo ish. Better, of course, because he could shoot, didn't have an attitude and all that. He maximized the tools he had and filled his role exceptionally well in the RS. People remember Terry Porter taking him to town and his other playoff struggles due to his size and relative lack of athleticism or major scoring prowess in the postseason and that lingers, especially since the Jazz really hit their stride as he took on a lesser role. Their best team offenses came in 95 and later on... and in 98 (the first season since 87 he played less than 34 mpg, rocking 29 per) when he only played 64 games, they were still the best offense in the league, which sort of undercuts a lot of the talk about his RAPM and his assist production and so forth.

Now, take that frame and apply it elsewhere. Barkley got the Suns to the Finals and went toe to toe with Jordan. They won 62, 56, 59 and 41 games with him in Phoenix and later got cheated out of the Finals in Houston in 97. His Suns took the Rockets to 8 7 in both 94 and 95. He popped 27/14/5.5 on Chicago, but on 54.4% TS (59.6% in the RS). He stank in the first and sixth games, shooting 9/25 and 7/18. Had a 32/12/10 triple double on 10/19 shooting in a loss in Game 4. Rocked 24/19/4 on 9/20 shooting over 53 minutes in an OT win in Game 3. Jordan was insane that series, though. 41 ppg on 55.8% TS and 6.8% TOV. 41/8.5/6.3 on the series. Tough to beat that, and he logged some BIIIIG minutes that series (46.2).

Ewing folded like a suitcase against Houston when the Knicks made the Finals in 94, he was awful. 7-game series, but he shot 36.3% on the series and averaged 18.9 ppg on 39% TS. He was a 24.5 ppg / 55.1% TS guy in the regular season who shot 49.6% FG. He was BRUUUUTAL on O when it counted, so even with his defense, I feel like he ends up more in a tier where Stockton is competitive.

Wade gets interesting because he has the MVP, the scoring title, the pre-Lebron title and that epic 06 Finals performance. But he also has considerably less longevity/health and his utility dwindled as his athleticism was compromised due to age/injury. So that begets the "how much we do care about longevity versus prime/peak" type of conversation.

Barkley has the MVP, has a Finals appearance, has BIIIIG offensive stats. He shifted to Phoenix and his crazy offensive years ebbed off. Rebounding was crazy, defense was not. Led the league in FG% for 5 straight seasons, averaging 26.0 ppg during that stretch and peaking at 28.3. Impressive stuff (87-91). Had a couple of +5 ish team offenses in there as well, in 89 and 90. Didn't have a lot of help. Hersey Hawkins, Mike Gminski, Johnny Dawkins, Mo Cheeks in his 30s, like he was not rolling in help, heh. But at this stage, that goes only so far. He was a titan on offense but it didn't translate into a title. Timing and positioning weren't awesome for him as he hit the league in a strong EC and never really got his Pippen/Grant type help until he was in Phoenix, and then it wasn't enough to topple the Bulls.

Harden is another guy. 3 scoring titles, MVP, lots of top 5 MVP placements. Some deep playoff runs. 3 straight >= +5 team offenses, topping out at +6.1 in 2018 (the year he hit the WCFs and lost to the Steph/KD Warriors). Wild numbers. Has a pair of assist titles, most recently in 2023, which went largely unnoticed by everyone kvetching that he wasn't scoring like he used to despite injuries and age and such. Lots to work with there in this sort of conversation. I think the weight of his various accolades and achievements outdoes anything Stockton has. Harden has one of 9 seasons in league history of +9 OBPM. He, Steph, MJ and McGrady each have one, Jokic has 2 and Lebron has 3. Stockton peaked at 7, though it does tend to favor efficient volume scoring as a stat. 2020 Lebron with his assist title was a +6.6 and he did all of his +9s by 2013. Magic had 4 seasons of +7 or better, topping out at +8.3 in 89-90, FWIW (notably the 3rd-highest scoring average of his career).

Harden, for his part, 5 seasons of +7 or better, and in one stretch, he posted +7.0, +6.4, +7.5, +8.5 (league-high), +9.4 (league-high), +8.1. That's quite significantly better than any stretch in Stockton's career, though it behooves me to mention again that 18-20 was when he won his 3 straight scoring titles (30.4, 36.1, 34.3). He is, of course, the only dude besides Wilt and Jordan to score 36+. There are also only 17 player-seasons of 34+ ppg in league history. Harden and MJ have done it twice, as did Baylor. McAdoo, Kobe, Rick Barry, Nate Archibald and Kareem each managed it once, and the rest are Wilt. So that's another wild achievement of his. He takes a lot of heat for his turnover and shooting issues in the playoffs, for sure, but he's very competitive at this point in the game.

Were I a voting member, I'd be really harping on Pettit about now. I'm not a huge fan of 50s-era basketball, but he lasted well into the mid 60s, even against some dudes who were more known for what they did in the 70s like Reed. That tells me a lot about his ability to compete in later eras of the game, especially since he did that with a heavy minutes log and was still showing the same sort of production markers and stuff like his FTr and rebounding maintained well.

[Owly]

And again, we have Nash in already or I'd argue more, lol. Stockton v. Ewing or Kawhi or whoever is a different argument.

That's fair, I was mostly just interested in hearing your thoughts. They always make me have my ducks in a row when I voice an opinion, heh.

As far as Stockton versus the others, such as those remaining here... From an accolades perspective, he's still lacking. One and Done wasn't wrong, we're still in MVP territory here, Ewing notwithstanding. Barkley, Harden and Wade all have one and multiple visits to the top 3 in that vote. Pettit has 2 and spent the bulk of his career in the top 3 or 4.

Stockton was never higher than 7th in the MVP vote and only top 9 on 3 occasions. In 89 when he was 7th, he was behind Magic, MJ, Karl Malone, Ewing, Dream and Barkley. So as we circle to him in this discussion, it feels like he's still a little later on in the running based on what he was able to achieve.

Stockton for me was a little bit proto-Rondo ish. Better, of course, because he could shoot, didn't have an attitude and all that. He maximized the tools he had and filled his role exceptionally well in the RS. People remember Terry Porter taking him to town and his other playoff struggles due to his size and relative lack of athleticism or major scoring prowess in the postseason and that lingers, especially since the Jazz really hit their stride as he took on a lesser role. Their best team offenses came in 95 and later on... and in 98 (the first season since 87 he played less than 34 mpg, rocking 29 per) when he only played 64 games, they were still the best offense in the league, which sort of undercuts a lot of the talk about his RAPM and his assist production and so forth.

On the bolded ... why?

He's big on long-term RAPMs. He's great in that year's single season RAPM. That first place comes because they're really good with him on. They were bad with him off. Why would good overall offense hurt him if the math suggests he's driving it.


Fwiw, regarding attempting ... ad hoc, cross year, full year, team level performance with one season missing a spell for injury and the idea that the "best offense" really hurts ...
Their best offenses came once
a) Mark Eaton, an extreme offensive liability, was gone.
b) Jeff Hornacek arrived.

This should not be a surprise. Eaton for someone who can catch the ball, move, finish/shoot even a little, pass a little ... is a huge upgrade (Manute Bol's impact data gives us an indication of how a player could destroy both offenses when on - it seems plausible to me that Eaton was similar). Hornacek is a much better offensive player than anyone else the duo played with in prime.

Fwiw, '98 was the best league relative offense. They were somewhat significantly worse net on average than 95-97 (and worse than each individual year). Their most used lineup featured no center. Their most used center (8th in total rs minutes) was the net very bad but semi-competent spacer Foster. It's a more offense tilted team.

Like I say though the core of it is ... there's things that actually account for this far better than we can (heck even just the raw on off) ... I don't understand why the ad hoc, they were good in the season that missed a bit of him would "undercut" better, more precise tools suggesting he's one of the league's most impactful players (https://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/12/1997-98-rapm-non-prior-informed.html).

Regarding "MVP territory" generally ...
Regarding MVP ballot as a measure of quality ... it's very indirect and often quite wrong. I would suggest efficiency, spacing, defense and many non-scoring aspects (that aren't on a physically dominant big man) are often undervalued.
Regarding "MVP territory" specifically ... this isn't a peaks list. MVP territory based just on actual MVPs (per above, often flawed, not a direct measure) extends beyond 100 where the likes of Rose, Wanzer and Walton have sometimes/often resided. If you don't like the Wanzer MVP and want to use All-NBA vote leader for that era we can substitute Johnston in.

[trex_8063]

As far as Stockton versus the others, such as those remaining here... From an accolades perspective, he's still lacking. One and Done wasn't wrong, we're still in MVP territory here,

Same as when O&D said it (like a dozen times), I disagree and am even slightly resentful of it being stated as though it's a matter of fact (and not opinion).

It's not for you or O&D to impose your own criteria/philosophy on to the project at large. You are free to be guided by whatever principles you wish, including those which say "we're still in MVP territory here", and I'm not going to to tell you you're wrong. However, while you're free to not utilize a CORP-type principle or similar (e.g. cumulative value above replacement [not referring to the bbref VORP stat, but rather a more encompassing assessment]) if you wish, the validity of such methodologies can hardly be argued against. So I resent the implication that those of us who do use them are somehow "wrong".

[Samurai]

Voting Wade. Should have been on board a few spots ago.

Damn, dude will be voted top 40 on these lil projects in 2029 at this rate.

I think it is fairly normal for a retired player to slip a few spots in subsequent projects. Last time around, Wade was voted well ahead of Giannis (#74) and Jokic (#95). This time both have already been voted in ahead of Wade. There will always be new/active players who have the chance to improve their resume, pushing them ahead of some of the retired guys that can no longer add to their accomplishments.

[iggymcfrack]

And again, we have Nash in already or I'd argue more, lol. Stockton v. Ewing or Kawhi or whoever is a different argument.

That's fair, I was mostly just interested in hearing your thoughts. They always make me have my ducks in a row when I voice an opinion, heh.

As far as Stockton versus the others, such as those remaining here... From an accolades perspective, he's still lacking. One and Done wasn't wrong, we're still in MVP territory here, Ewing notwithstanding. Barkley, Harden and Wade all have one and multiple visits to the top 3 in that vote. Pettit has 2 and spent the bulk of his career in the top 3 or 4.

Stockton was never higher than 7th in the MVP vote and only top 9 on 3 occasions. In 89 when he was 7th, he was behind Magic, MJ, Karl Malone, Ewing, Dream and Barkley. So as we circle to him in this discussion, it feels like he's still a little later on in the running based on what he was able to achieve.

It's kinda lame that the only way people can discredit Stockton is with award voting from a time when PPG was king and people didn't properly recognize elite stars that weren't primary scorers or rim protectors. By any objective measure, he had a very good peak to go with his insane longevity.

Stockton has 7 seasons where he was top 3 in the league in VORP. Harden has 5. Kobe has 3. Wade has 2. Barkley has 1. And true impact numbers have shown that box composites only underrate Stockton. Even just getting his age 34-40 seasons, 26 year RAPM has him at +7.2 (5th overall) compared to +5.1 (26th) for Harden, +3.8 (56th) for Barkley and +2.0 (167th) for Wade. He should have gone a long time ago. He might be the most underrated player in the entire project so far.

[AEnigma]

Stockton would not have been an MVP candidate even with BPM, because that is not what those measures mean. To whatever extent we want to call them “objective” in that they are cold formulas, they are not objective in determining actual player quality.

[iggymcfrack]

Stockton would not have been an MVP candidate even with BPM, because that is not what those measures mean. To whatever extent we want to call them “objective” in that they are cold formulas, they are not objective in determining actual player quality.

The point is that the evidence we have from impact stats shows that Stockton is actually MORE valuable than BPM shows which makes sense since he was such an excellent defender who didn’t need to gamble to put up his incredible steal totals. What’s not objective is a bunch of people looking at traditional newspaper box scores in the ‘90s and deciding Stockton’s PPG were too low for him to be an MVP candidate.

[70sFan]

Stockton would not have been an MVP candidate even with BPM, because that is not what those measures mean. To whatever extent we want to call them “objective” in that they are cold formulas, they are not objective in determining actual player quality.

The point is that the evidence we have from impact stats shows that Stockton is actually MORE valuable than BPM shows which makes sense since he was such an excellent defender who didn’t need to gamble to put up his incredible steal totals. What’s not objective is a bunch of people looking at traditional newspaper box scores in the ‘90s and deciding Stockton’s PPG were too low for him to be an MVP candidate.

It's not always a bad thing, but Stockton definitely gambled a lot - he was just so smart he usually could make it work. He was also very active and could recover really quickly despite the size.

[70sFan]

Since Gilmore got some interest and it's his birthday now, is anyone interested in some tracking data for him?

[Cavsfansince84]

Stockton would not have been an MVP candidate even with BPM, because that is not what those measures mean. To whatever extent we want to call them “objective” in that they are cold formulas, they are not objective in determining actual player quality.

I'd agree that bpm doesn't equate to mvp quality(particularly factoring in defense) the same way no metric really does. They are all tools. They are definitely used(some overly used as almost gospel despite some saying they aren't) to determine player quality. I think Stockton's main reason for not being seen as such has a lot to do with Malone getting more of the credit and media attention. Going back to the bigger, faster, stronger SI cover in like 89. It was sort of assumed that he was the real mvp and Stockton was secondary but they may have been closer to equals. It's pretty hard to say for certain.

[WestGOAT]

Stockton would not have been an MVP candidate even with BPM, because that is not what those measures mean. To whatever extent we want to call them “objective” in that they are cold formulas, they are not objective in determining actual player quality.

The point is that the evidence we have from impact stats shows that Stockton is actually MORE valuable than BPM shows which makes sense since he was such an excellent defender who didn’t need to gamble to put up his incredible steal totals. What’s not objective is a bunch of people looking at traditional newspaper box scores in the ‘90s and deciding Stockton’s PPG were too low for him to be an MVP candidate.

https://www.thespax.com/nba/calculating-regularized-adjusted-plus-minus-for-25-years-of-nba-basketball/

#11 Stockton
..
#18 Kyle Lowry
#19 Baron Davis
..
#64 Dwyane Wade

Isn't this a bit comparing apples with oranges?

How much can you generalize the degree impact stats reflect "goodness" of a player versus how well they are performing their specific role? And to what extent can you adjust for team context, even with RAPM?

Statistical models cannot turn "bad" data into "good" data. I'm very much interested to actually reading to how well regularization solves the multicollinearity problem inherent with +/- data.

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: Patrick Ewing
Alternate Vote: Bob Pettit

Nomination: Scottie Pippen
Alternate Nomination: Walt Frazier

Ewing is my main vote as per my criteria, he just adds more as a defender than Pettit while still being valuable on offense. Total shame the Knicks were unable to acquire a better 2nd option than John Starks. In terms of overall impact to a basketball team, having the ability to rim protect and rebound at an elite level while being able to handle a heavy offensive load is immensely valuable. I rate guys like Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace highly, so it makes sense that Ewing, who can provide offense with his ability to score and shoot from the mid range, is rated above them.

It's about time for Pippen to be up for voting, a main option for multiple championship teams while providing all-time versatility on defense. I could easily go another big here with how much I value what they bring, but Frazier does have the ability to score, pass, brings playoff resiliency, along with some of the best perimeter defense of his time.

[trex_8063]

Since Gilmore got some interest and it's his birthday now, is anyone interested in some tracking data for him?

Yeah, of course. You have some?

[iggymcfrack]

Stockton would not have been an MVP candidate even with BPM, because that is not what those measures mean. To whatever extent we want to call them “objective” in that they are cold formulas, they are not objective in determining actual player quality.

The point is that the evidence we have from impact stats shows that Stockton is actually MORE valuable than BPM shows which makes sense since he was such an excellent defender who didn’t need to gamble to put up his incredible steal totals. What’s not objective is a bunch of people looking at traditional newspaper box scores in the ‘90s and deciding Stockton’s PPG were too low for him to be an MVP candidate.

https://www.thespax.com/nba/calculating-regularized-adjusted-plus-minus-for-25-years-of-nba-basketball/

#11 Stockton
..
#18 Kyle Lowry
#19 Baron Davis
..
#64 Dwyane Wade

Isn't this a bit comparing apples with oranges?

How much can you generalize the degree impact stats reflect "goodness" of a player versus how well they are performing their specific role? And to what extent can you adjust for team context, even with RAPM?

Statistical models cannot turn "bad" data into "good" data. I'm very much interested to actually reading to how well regularization solves the multicollinearity problem inherent with +/- data.

Again, this is a completely different dataset than the one I was bringing up and it ALSO shows Stockton to be a top 11 player of the last 25 years in his decline years. Now I’d agree that a “whole career RAPM” approach isn’t very fair to Dwyane Wade since he had a lengthy decline phase where he wasn’t very good from 2014-2019, and in fact I’m voting for him now despite that due to his high peak. But if Wade can get brought down that much that his overall numbers look pedestrian because he was so poor from age 32-37, doesn’t that make it even more impressive that Stockton was showing MVP level impact from ages 34-40? We don’t even have play-by-play data for Stockton’s prime years. I imagine if we did, he’d look even better. Yeah, he was never gonna be MVP over Jordan, but if he was judged fairly, he might have more top 5 years than any player except LeBron or Kareem.

[AEnigma]

It is nothing to do with “fair” judgment and everything to you with you improperly imprinting RAPM ranks onto objective player value. Mike Conley was not the league’s top MVP candidate in 2013, Lamar Odom was not the league’s top MVP candidate in 2009, and John Stockton was not some perennial top five player.

[iggymcfrack]

It is nothing to do with “fair” judgment and everything to you with you improperly imprinting RAPM ranks onto objective player value. Mike Conley was not the league’s top MVP candidate in 2013, Lamar Odom was not the league’s top MVP candidate in 2009, and John Stockton was not some perennial top five player.

1. Multiple multiple year data sets are much more reliable than one single year data set.

2. Whatever dataset you found placing Odom #1 in 2009 sounds like a garbage dataset.

3. I’m not trying to say Stockton was as good as the RAPM numbers say. Obviously, he wasn’t playing at a higher level from age 34-40 than any of his contemporaries except for KG. All I’m trying to extract from those incredibly impressive RAPM numbers is that he was generally more valuable than his box numbers would suggest. I think that’s a very fair conclusion to draw from multiple multiple year datasets rating him so incredibly high in his later years.

4. Even just the best box numbers we have rank Stockton as a perennial top 5 player. All I’m saying is that given the incredible impact numbers he had, the box numbers are a floor.

[AEnigma]

1. Yes, and I can feed you extended datasets extolling the brilliance of Amir Johnson and Patrick Beverley. They are a measure of impact in role, not a player ranking.

2. Cool, someone should let Engelmann know iggymcfrack thinks his data is garbage.

3/4. “I am not trying to say he was a top five player, but I think he may have double digit seasons as a top five player because ‘box numbers’ say he is consistently top five and that is his floor.”

He was not a secret MVP candidate. If that is how you want to interpret whatever aggregated numbers you see, suit yourself, but there is a reason even people who think highly of him stop well short of that, and it is not because you alone appreciate the objective truth hidden in those impact indicators.

[iggymcfrack]

1. Yes, and I can feed you extended datasets extolling the brilliance of Amir Johnson and Patrick Beverley. They are a measure of impact in role, not a player ranking.

2. Cool, someone should let Engelmann know iggymcfrack thinks his data is garbage.

3/4. “I am not trying to say he was a top five player, but I think he may have double digit seasons as a top five player because ‘box numbers’ say he is consistently top five and that is his floor.”

He was not a secret MVP candidate. If that is how you want to interpret whatever aggregated numbers you see, suit yourself, but there is a reason even people who think highly of him stop well short of that, and it is not because you alone appreciate the objective truth hidden in those impact indicators.

I mean, what’s an MVP candidate? Was Stockton ever the best player in the league? No. Was he particularly close to Jordan for #1? No. In that sense he wasn’t an MVP candidate, in the same way that I’d say Giannis wasn’t really an MVP candidate last year.

Did he have a ton of years as maybe the 3rd to 10th best player in the league? In that case, I’d say yes, enthusiastically. I mean, even though he did get an MVP, Kobe was never a top 2 player in the league either, but he still got voted in the top 15 for having a bunch of years just below the top level. Well, Stockton did the same thing Kobe did for 9 or 10 years only he did it for 15 years instead.

[trex_8063]

Stockton would not have been an MVP candidate even with BPM, because that is not what those measures mean. To whatever extent we want to call them “objective” in that they are cold formulas, they are not objective in determining actual player quality.

The point is that the evidence we have from impact stats shows that Stockton is actually MORE valuable than BPM shows which makes sense since he was such an excellent defender who didn’t need to gamble to put up his incredible steal totals. What’s not objective is a bunch of people looking at traditional newspaper box scores in the ‘90s and deciding Stockton’s PPG were too low for him to be an MVP candidate.

It's not always a bad thing, but Stockton definitely gambled a lot - he was just so smart he usually could make it work. He was also very active and could recover really quickly despite the size.

Yeah, my impression was that he gambled a fair bit, too. Though for whatever it's worth, he did less gambling on shooting passing lanes and more gambling on impromptu double-teams and ball-hawking (just my opinion, but I think gambling on passing lanes leaves your team hanging out to dry [when you miss] more than the other) .