RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #42 (Anthony Davis)

[trex_8063]

Gonna offer my 2c on Dray, which I know will not be popular here, but I'm of the belief that this is WAY too early for Draymond Green.

Granted, my criteria probably values the rs more than many others do, and effective longevity is also a major consideration. Thus, it's hard for me to even consider a guy [here circa-#42] who has just 11 seasons [missing major time in 2-3 of them] with a career avg of <29 mpg........someone who is not even in the top 300 in career minutes played.
I almost don't care how big an impact you have when you play; when you've only played that little [relative to other candidates], I'm skeptical it could overcome the value gap.

And particularly when we note that Draymond has almost zilch floor-raising ability (see '20). More than most players, his success, or rather the dynamic monster-impact he's often credited for, is a bit situational.

Someone like Manu I can buy a little easier as high as circa-#40, because I have little difficulty imagining him raise the floor on a poor team. With Draymond, we've seen it; and he can't.

This is pretty out of pocket imo.

A season where he was well past his rs-prime and minutes restricted in a siutation where steph looked even worse per lineup data, doesn't really "show" anything imo. I'd also say pure defensive specialists generally have a better-track record raising floors than low minute do-it-all guard.

The Bulk of draymond's career offers evidence he offers superstar lift(notably this remains even if we swap out lineup-data for game to game data), at his peak his lineups looked as good without his co-star as it did in the reverse, and he floor-raised a team past the first round and may have even made the conference finals at his apex.

I think longevity and him coasting in the regular-season past a few years are fair knocls. But 2020 more or less the equivalent of using Washington for Jordan or 2013 for Kobe(leadership=/basketball ability) and isn't really any more relevant as proof of floor-raising than all the seasons he "cieling-raised" instead.

Those are made-up terms that draw lines describing an effect that is gradient. Consistently impactful players(and draymond has superstar-looking replciation regardless of the metrics) are more likely than not going to be impactful in the vast majority of situations. Contrary to common perception, I'd say defensive specialists/on-court generals historically are the most resilient across contexts.

"Draymond may lose some value on worse teams" is one thing. "Draymond can't raise a floor" isn't really defensible I think. A best defender in the league candidate historically can lead playoff teams. Now add being one of history's few two-way floor-general(something which can turn otherwise lineup negatives into positives, aka, floor-raising), and then you get "really gifted passer". If passing was the bulk of draymond's value this would make sense. But his impact is mostly defensive and his strengths have consistently led to great defensive floor-raising even when the players in question are physically compromised by injury/load(2015 Lebron, Boston KG, ect.)

Draymond is the pinnacle of the archtype and looks like a superstar with nearly any impact approach playing as many minutes as his co-star and elevating in the playoffs on a team which slants towards defense when its time to win. If you have to use a off-year when he's on a minutes restriction and hsi team is tanking while this projects #11 posted even worse lineup-splits...

yeah I don't think there's much of a case here at all.

I also think it's especially wierd to cite Manu-Ginobli who, in the year some here have said he was the best in the world, saw his team continue basically unaffected without him when he missed regular-season games.

Are we really going to cite Curry's on/off splits [twice] when he played all of four and half games that year?

I also think comparing '20 Draymond to Wizards Jordan [in terms of where they're at in their respective careers] is not being intellectually honest.
Draymond was 29 years old, contiguous career, it's just 4 years off his peak, and it's two years BEFORE he would get a return invitation to the Western All-Star team and be a key cog in the championship team. Jordan was 38/39 years old, coming back after three full seasons in retirement, more than a decade off his peak, and he would never play again after.

If '20 is not part of Draymond's prime years, what are we saying? That his prime is a mere five seasons?


Otherwise, I'm going with what we have. You say his archtype is the most resilient across scenarios; though here he took the team that was comfortably the worst net rating in the league [at -9.9] without him, and lifted them to -7.1 [28th of 30] when he was on the court.
His defensive lift was -3.4, which is good, but not Earth-shattering. They were league-worst +5.0 rDRTG without him, lifted to a +1.6 rDRTG [tied for 20th] when he played. idk if maybe the godawful offense hurt this indirectly?? They were dead-last in eFG% and only 23rd in OREB%, as well as being only 20th in TOV%.......perhaps those things added up to considerable transition opportunities for opponents.

But at any rate, that's the 3rd-worst defensive impact [as measured by on/off, which Doc at least has been quite fond of citing in this project] of his prime/peri-prime years, and about +1.5 worse than the average of the other eight years in this sample (and this in the one year it, theoretically, should have been easier to lift (because there was absolutely no place to go but up)):

'15: -6.3
'16: -12.7
'17: -5.2
'18: -0.5
'19: -4.5
'20: -3.4
'21: +1.3 (this was the other "weakish" year for GS within this span, fwiw: no Klay, depth is total shot, .542 win% [miss playoffs])
'22: -4.3
'23: -7.3

The offense that year [worst in the league] was actually a marginally WORSE worst in the league with him on court, too (again: no where to go but up, yet....).

So while you might theorize that his player-type should be one of the most resilient across all scenarios, I'm not sure reality has borne that to be true.
On the topic of floor-raising, I'd ask how much worse the cast he had to work with in '20 was than say.....the majority of Tracy McGrady's casts in Orlando? I certainly don't think they're any worse than McGrady's '04 cast [if even as bad]. That was -11.5 without TMac [worse than the '20 Warriors without Draymond], and -6.2 with him [better than the '20 Warriors were with Draymond].


I won't deny Draymond's impact on the GS dynasty has been remarkable. But holy cow what a fortunate circumstance to find himself in. If he was KG in Minny, TMac in Orlando, Elton Brand in Chicago/etc, or even Charles Barkley in Philly or Ralph Sampson in Houston type situations.......he never shines. He looks like a unique and somewhat promising, but never transcendent player in those scenarios, imo.

I knew saying so would not be popular with several people here. I knew it would draw some ire. But that's the point of the discussions, I guess. I think he belongs in the top 100 somewhere, maybe even the top 75. Top 45?......I just don't see it (sorry).

[OhayoKD]

Gonna offer my 2c on Dray, which I know will not be popular here, but I'm of the belief that this is WAY too early for Draymond Green.

Granted, my criteria probably values the rs more than many others do, and effective longevity is also a major consideration. Thus, it's hard for me to even consider a guy [here circa-#42] who has just 11 seasons [missing major time in 2-3 of them] with a career avg of <29 mpg........someone who is not even in the top 300 in career minutes played.
I almost don't care how big an impact you have when you play; when you've only played that little [relative to other candidates], I'm skeptical it could overcome the value gap.

And particularly when we note that Draymond has almost zilch floor-raising ability (see '20). More than most players, his success, or rather the dynamic monster-impact he's often credited for, is a bit situational.

Someone like Manu I can buy a little easier as high as circa-#40, because I have little difficulty imagining him raise the floor on a poor team. With Draymond, we've seen it; and he can't.

This is pretty out of pocket imo.

A season where he was well past his rs-prime and minutes restricted in a siutation where steph looked even worse per lineup data, doesn't really "show" anything imo. I'd also say pure defensive specialists generally have a better-track record raising floors than low minute do-it-all guard.

The Bulk of draymond's career offers evidence he offers superstar lift(notably this remains even if we swap out lineup-data for game to game data), at his peak his lineups looked as good without his co-star as it did in the reverse, and he floor-raised a team past the first round and may have even made the conference finals at his apex.

I think longevity and him coasting in the regular-season past a few years are fair knocls. But 2020 more or less the equivalent of using Washington for Jordan or 2013 for Kobe(leadership=/basketball ability) and isn't really any more relevant as proof of floor-raising than all the seasons he "cieling-raised" instead.

Those are made-up terms that draw lines describing an effect that is gradient. Consistently impactful players(and draymond has superstar-looking replciation regardless of the metrics) are more likely than not going to be impactful in the vast majority of situations. Contrary to common perception, I'd say defensive specialists/on-court generals historically are the most resilient across contexts.

"Draymond may lose some value on worse teams" is one thing. "Draymond can't raise a floor" isn't really defensible I think. A best defender in the league candidate historically can lead playoff teams. Now add being one of history's few two-way floor-general(something which can turn otherwise lineup negatives into positives, aka, floor-raising), and then you get "really gifted passer". If passing was the bulk of draymond's value this would make sense. But his impact is mostly defensive and his strengths have consistently led to great defensive floor-raising even when the players in question are physically compromised by injury/load(2015 Lebron, Boston KG, ect.)

Draymond is the pinnacle of the archtype and looks like a superstar with nearly any impact approach playing as many minutes as his co-star and elevating in the playoffs on a team which slants towards defense when its time to win. If you have to use a off-year when he's on a minutes restriction and hsi team is tanking while this projects #11 posted even worse lineup-splits...

yeah I don't think there's much of a case here at all.

I also think it's especially wierd to cite Manu-Ginobli who, in the year some here have said he was the best in the world, saw his team continue basically unaffected without him when he missed regular-season games.

Are we really going to cite Curry's on/off splits [twice] when he played all of four and half games that year?

Well the Warriors also looked bad without Draymond the next season...and were very good with as draymond hard-carried a top 10 defense. Not the best faith justification for "steph can't carry a bad team", but if we want to judge draymond on the worst-looking evidence we can find, then we should also do it with Curry.

I also think comparing '20 Draymond to Wizards Jordan [in terms of where they're at in their respective careers] is not being intellectually honest.
Draymond was 29 years old, contiguous career, and it's two years BEFORE he would get a return invitation to the Western All-Star team and be a key cog in the championship team. Jordan was 38/39 years old, coming back after three full seasons in retirement, would never play again.

Age is a red herring I think. Draymond was put on a minutes restriction, Jordan was not. The Warriors limited all their starters minutes in pursuit of a high draft-pick, the Wizards were trying to make the playoffs.

Intellectual honesty has long left the station.

Otherwise, I'm going with what we have.

Are you?

To me it just looks like you're just framing the mountain of evidence that challenges this assumption as "cieling-raising". Drop the labels and its 2020 that looks like the fluke...as we might expect given the context you neglected to mention.

I think, if you are going to argue that all those other years were "cieling-raising"(including 2021 where the team went from bad to good without and with), never-minding the career stretch where the warriors go from bad to 50ish wins without him(again, game-level data which rs manu looks comparably terrible in),..."but look at the tank year he was minutes restricted" is not nearly enough to be compelling(at least for me anyway).

Did Steph make Draymond good defensively too?

These lines are arbitrary. Have we seen bad teams without draymond be good with? Yes. Have players with only the defensive component seen the same again and again? Yes.

Would we expect outlierishly bad numbers in an outlierishly bad situation for numbers? I would think so.

Is 2020 more relevant than the rest of Draymond's prime in evaluation Draymond the floor-raiser, even if we only make it about the regular-season? No, I would think not

As is, for the player you originally mentioned as a more likely floor-raiser, I don't need to look for a 2020. I can literally take him at his best:

There are many players who've already been voted in I can make look terrible if I chose the worst possible frame for them and...without any real justification...proclaimed that frame is "what we have".

[OldSchoolNoBull]

So I'll just say, my top 2 votes this time will be the 2012 draftmates Anthony Davis and Draymond Green. I haven't yet decided who I'll put first.

To some degree I'm looking for arguments for one over the other, but I feel I should context that by saying I'm not particularly looking for people to tell me why Green doesn't belong anywhere near this spot. I can engage with those thoughts as well, but I'd like to see folks put down some serious thoughts between these two guys in particular.

Part of what's interesting here for me is that Davis was a prospect that I personally championed in a way I don't typically do. I saw him as a possible Bill Russell-style prospect and was curious to see how that would look today. My expectation was that he'd be considerably less impactful than Russell of course due to changes in the game, but I thought he has a serious chance to be a Defensive Player of the Decade level guy.

And the thing is, I wasn't wrong, but I actually think draftmate Dray has been the Defensive Player of the past Decade. That's no small thing.

Of course if I'll we're talking about are preferences and justifications, one can agree with all of that and simply point to Davis' offensive advantage (where he surpassed expectations from college a great deal), I think there's more to sink teeth into here.

I offer a series of not-necessarily-connected thoughts about the two.

1. The instinct would be to see it as a comparison between two bigs, but Draymond doesn't really play like a traditional big, but rather like a tall, pass-first wing.

Draymond's statistical profile is, I think, similar to Jason Kidd's in that they're both high-level defenders and playmakers and subpar scorers. Look:

Draymond / Regular Season
14.6 points/9.4 assists/11.7 rebounds PER 100
-1.2 rTS
.127 WS/48
2.5 BPM
+9.5 on/off

Draymond / Playoffs
16.6 points/8.8 assists/12.6 rebounds PER 100
-0.6 rTS
.144 WS/48
4.3 BPM
+12.6 on/off

Kidd / Regular Season
18.3 points/12.6 assists/9.1 rebounds PER 100
-2.3 rTS
.133 WS/48
3.8 BPM
+6.2 on/off

Kidd / Playoffs
18 points/11.1 assists/9.3 rebounds PER 100
-3.2 rTS
.114 WS/48
4.3 BPM
+8.4 on/off

That's to say that I think Draymond affects the game more like a large point guard, or point forward, would, than a big man.

2. While Draymond is a great playmaker, I am struck while watching some video of him that the way he makes plays is often a product of the system. Steph or another guard brings the ball up the court, at some point gets it to Draymond, Draymond stands still or moves in a limited fashion while others(Steph, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, whoever) run their sets, and then Draymond hits the right man at the right time. So it seems like, while Draymond is great at what he does - and while what he does requires the ability to protect the ball while waiting, and to time the passes exactly right and to make them at the right angles for the ball to get where it's going without getting picked off - his brand of playmaking requires teammates who are constantly moving and know exactly what to do and where to go. I don't really see the sort of improvisational on-the-run playmaking you might associate with a Magic or a Nash or a Kidd.

3. For someone who's in his twelfth season, Anthony Davis doesn't have that much playoff experience - 55 games for his whole career. These came across five runs: two with New Orleans; the 2020 title run in the bubble; the five games he played in 2021 before getting hurt; and the WCF run earlier this year. I see two things here:

A. In seven years in New Orleans, he only made the playoffs twice and only won one playoff series despite having some decent teammates(Jrue Holiday, Eric Gordon, others). Why wasn't he a better floor raiser?

B. His injury-proneness reared it's head both with the injury he sustained in the 2021 playoffs and in the fact that one of the reasons the Lakers missed the playoffs in 2022 is because he missed half the regular season.

4. Davis, for his career, scores 34.4 points per 100 on +4.6 rTS in the RS, and 34.1 points per 100 on +6.4 rTS(relative to league regular season average) in the PO. Draymond scores 14.6 points per 100 on -1.2 rTS in the RS and 16.6 points per 100 on -0.6 rTS in the PO. Davis scores on over 2x the volume and over five percentage points higher in efficiency in both RS and PO. It's something that has to be considered.

Obviously though, what Draymond lacks as a scorer he makes up for with his playmaking.

5. Davis's WS/48 and BPM are considerably higher - .213 and 6.1 RS(vs Draymond's .127 and 2.5) and .225 and 6.8 in the PO(vs Draymond's .144 and 4.3).

6. Their playoff on/off are pretty close - Davis is +11.1, Draymond is +12.6.

7. The question of Draymond as a floor-raiser, particularly in the context of 2020, is currently being debated in this thread. Some might argue the validity of using that season given the circumstances, but it's the only real extended Steph-less stretch Draymond has had.

8. When considering peak, it's hard to look at AD's 2020 playoff run and not take him over Draymond. AD's numbers for that playoff run:

27.7ppg/9.7rpg/3.5apg on +11.1 rTS
.284 WS/48, 8.7 BPM
+17.4 on/off

HOWEVER, on the other hand, it's also worth noting that AD did that while playing to next to a LeBron who did this:

27.6 ppg/10.8rpg/8.8apg on +8.2 rTS
.269 WS/48, 10.7 BPM
+15.3 on/off

I draw no final conclusion yet.

(Worth noting, so far, it seems like neither of these guys is going to get in this round - Baylor and Schayes are in front.)

[OhayoKD]

So I'll just say, my top 2 votes this time will be the 2012 draftmates Anthony Davis and Draymond Green. I haven't yet decided who I'll put first.

To some degree I'm looking for arguments for one over the other, but I feel I should context that by saying I'm not particularly looking for people to tell me why Green doesn't belong anywhere near this spot. I can engage with those thoughts as well, but I'd like to see folks put down some serious thoughts between these two guys in particular.

Part of what's interesting here for me is that Davis was a prospect that I personally championed in a way I don't typically do. I saw him as a possible Bill Russell-style prospect and was curious to see how that would look today. My expectation was that he'd be considerably less impactful than Russell of course due to changes in the game, but I thought he has a serious chance to be a Defensive Player of the Decade level guy.

And the thing is, I wasn't wrong, but I actually think draftmate Dray has been the Defensive Player of the past Decade. That's no small thing.

Of course if I'll we're talking about are preferences and justifications, one can agree with all of that and simply point to Davis' offensive advantage (where he surpassed expectations from college a great deal), I think there's more to sink teeth into here.

I offer a series of not-necessarily-connected thoughts about the two.

1. The instinct would be to see it as a comparison between two bigs, but Draymond doesn't really play like a traditional big, but rather like a tall, pass-first wing.

Draymond's statistical profile is, I think, similar to Jason Kidd's in that they're both high-level defenders and playmakers and subpar scorers. Look:

Draymond / Regular Season
14.6 points/9.4 assists/11.7 rebounds PER 100
-1.2 rTS
.127 WS/48
2.5 BPM
+9.5 on/off

Draymond / Playoffs
16.6 points/8.8 assists/12.6 rebounds PER 100
-0.6 rTS
.144 WS/48
4.3 BPM
+12.6 on/off

Kidd / Regular Season
18.3 points/12.6 assists/9.1 rebounds PER 100
-2.3 rTS
.133 WS/48
3.8 BPM
+6.2 on/off

Kidd / Playoffs
18 points/11.1 assists/9.3 rebounds PER 100
-3.2 rTS
.114 WS/48
4.3 BPM
+8.4 on/off

That's to say that I think Draymond affects the game more like a large point guard, or point forward, would, than a big man.
)

The big wrench in the Jason Kidd comparison is that Draymond spends more possessions as his team's paint-protector than anyone else on the Warriors by a margin.

Even high-block accumulating guards tend to be on the bottom end of that:

Spoiler:

(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)

Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentator[url][/url]s, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)


Distribution went

Pippen/Grant
14 each

Purdue
6 or 7

Cartwright
4

Armstrong/Jordan
1 each

FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else

All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.

...

Fwiw, in this game, Pippen and Grant, the two defenders protecting the paint more than anyone, ended with 0 blocks. As did the centers who protected the paint more than anyone else. Jordan and Livingston ended with 2. And now BPM, unless I am misuderstanding the writeup, is giving bonus points to those 2 blocks on the assumption they're especially valuable. Here's what it's saying is an extra valuable play:
https://youtu.be/iZlw-GzD9AA?t=200

As we can see here, Jordan is not the rim defender. He stops the shot largely thanks to a bigger attacker occupying Aguire and thus distracting him from Jordan.

This would make more sense if Draymond wasn't the Warriors primary paint-protector by far. Jason Kidd on the other hand was probably offering close to the least(if not outright the least) in his team's lineup. It is literally the most valuable defensive thing and they're worlds apart in volume.

[trex_8063]

Age is a red herring I think. Draymond was put on a minutes restriction, Jordan was not. The Warriors limited all their starters minutes in pursuit of a high draft-pick, the Wizards were trying to make the playoffs.

Minute-restriction is a red herring, I think, as it should have little to no bearing on on/off splits. It could arguably be said to help his splits (basically never playing while fatigued).

Unless you're suggesting that Draymond was tanking while on the court. e.g. the coaching staff asked him, "Hey Dray, do you suppose you could tone down the intensity? Try to just.......not give a damn part of the time out there? Maybe let a few opponents by for some easy ones now and again??" And Draymond Green said, "Sure, no problem." I have a hard time imagining that from him, anyway (but maybe I'm projecting my impressions of him).


At any rate, I'm going to stand by my statement that suggests two guys separated by a decade in age, 7-8 years in terms of distance from their respective peaks, one with the rust of three years in retirement [vs a contiguous career for the other], and one who would be an All-Star again two years later while the other would be retired and never play again........are NOT at the same point in their respective career arcs. I don't think that's a provocative statement to make in any way, shape, or form.


I'll concede some fair points made in the rest of your post, even if we may have to agree to disagree on the broad implications.

[f4p]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

So first thing here, I think this was brought up by another poster and I don't want to rehash it, but the existence of a guy like Andre Drummond (the other "AD") being able to trounce old-timers by this stat as well really makes clear how limited it is as a tool.

I think Davis is better than Baylor & Schayes and will be continuing to vote for Davis above them, but would say that Drummond is DRASTICALLY worse than all 3 of these player to such a degree that the difference between the other 3 is minor in comparison, and so if a stat thinks Drummond is better than old Hall of Famers when the reality is he's not even good enough to play for a contender as more than a guy to fill out the bench, I can't take it as much of an argument.

why are you making this drummond argument against PER again? i just don't get it. first, who is he trouncing? he peaks at a 23.4 PER in the regular season and 19.2 in the postseason. peak, not average. that isn't trouncing anybody. and certainly not baylor or schayes. second, is there a single stat in existence that doesn't have a drummond-level outlier (or much worse)? unless we should never quote any stat because they all have outliers, then i'm not sure of the point (and "i don't just look at one stat" is not the answer i'm going for, i'm talking about negating/removing a given stat simply because of an outlier). if not, i see no reason why andre drummond somehow invalidates the fairly large differences Mogspan brings up between the 3 relevant players. considering he also specifically pointed out that a baylor archetype is basically the exact box-score stuffing, higher-volume/lower-efficiency player that PER typically loves, without the dominant defense of AD to boot. of course, baylor actually does look very good by PER...until 1963. then he just falls off a cliff. that doesn't mean all analysis should end at PER, just that it most certainly should be treated as evidence as much as basically any other stat.

i brought it up the last time you said this, but we can look at RAPM and find much, much weirder results. such as anthony davis finishing like 163rd in the last 25 years. steve nash 30 spots behind paul george. iman shumpert and pablo prigioni over dwight howard. and a bunch of other results. but when these happen, then, because RAPM is supposed to be so much better, everybody supplies endless context (i believe you supplied some in the previous thread) and there are reasons why these results do, or at least could, make sense. but PER, despite tracking this project quite well and arguably avoiding outliers as well as any stat there is (at least at the top of the list), gets one strike and it's out. it's a strange argument.

[Owly]

Spoiler:

Vote 1 - Dolph Schayes
Vote 2 - TBD
Nomination 1 - Clyde Drexler
Nomination 2 - George Gervin

What stands out most with Schayes was his ability to get to the line and hit at an elite %: his career FT rate is .512, with a career high .654 in '51 (league avg was .399 that yr). His career FT% was 84.9% on 7.9 attempts per game. The league avg typically hovered around 70-73% throughout his career.

From the footage I've seen, he had a consistent outside shot and good first step, with solid body control once he got into the lane. He also had a floater, which I find funny for some reason, but it was still effective. The Nationals were also one of the best defensive teams in the league during his prime (yes, only 8-10 teams, but routinely ranked in the top 1-3 in DRtg).

Again, his marked consistency and longevity relative to his era really impressed me. In '55, he led the Nationals to the NBA title in 7 games over the #1 SRS ranked Pistons. One can point to inferior competition, but I think a player who was considered one of the best in the game for as long as he was deserves a spot in the top 50.

Schayes retired having played the most seasons, games and minutes in league history (this includes NBL play). Some more insight on his playing style from a SLAM Magazine interview: 

On minutes ... would that include NBL ... if so is it off a safe assumption that he would have been ahead but without totals? Or press stories from the time? To my knowledge minutes only come in in 51-52 for the NBA (never in NBL). Or is the NBL tag just to cover seasons, games (i.e. minutes is just in terms of known totals). He wouldn't need the NBL season for a tied lead with Braun for seasons at 15 but in any case Braun missed two years for military service taking him down to 13 years across a 15 year range. So granting that I'm mainly only looking at "major league" era (and only significant players) so there really isn't much of a window before him, I think even his 15 (NBA) years would have retired him as a clear leader.

The NBL mention came from the 2020 project writeup I did, and I'm having trouble finding the source now. I'll continue looking. I know we're talking about minutes, but it's a little confusing because the NBA's page for Schayes for example lists him at 19,249 career points without mentioning the NBL. Whereas basketball reference has him at only 18,438 points.

https://www.nba.com/news/history-nba-legend-dolph-schayes

First instinct is Reference will be right for NBA and then the greater number will be with the NBL season. But lets test that

Ref RS Points (main page): 18438
'49 Season Points RS (Neft and Cohen): 809
'49 Season Points RS (Hollander and Sachare): 809
'49 Season Points RS (Reference, NBL page): 809

18438+809=19247 ... close enough to the article that I think it's intended as the same but probably an error (would guess in article). The game citation (1059) matches NBA (996 from Ref) plus NBL (63 from Ref, NBL). My guess is any minute lead cited in this type of thing would be in the known minutes era.

[Doctor MJ]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

So first thing here, I think this was brought up by another poster and I don't want to rehash it, but the existence of a guy like Andre Drummond (the other "AD") being able to trounce old-timers by this stat as well really makes clear how limited it is as a tool.

I think Davis is better than Baylor & Schayes and will be continuing to vote for Davis above them, but would say that Drummond is DRASTICALLY worse than all 3 of these player to such a degree that the difference between the other 3 is minor in comparison, and so if a stat thinks Drummond is better than old Hall of Famers when the reality is he's not even good enough to play for a contender as more than a guy to fill out the bench, I can't take it as much of an argument.

why are you making this drummond argument against PER again? i just don't get it. first, who is he trouncing? he peaks at a 23.4 PER in the regular season and 19.2 in the postseason. peak, not average. that isn't trouncing anybody. and certainly not baylor or schayes. second, is there a single stat in existence that doesn't have a drummond-level outlier (or much worse)? unless we should never quote any stat because they all have outliers, then i'm not sure of the point (and "i don't just look at one stat" is not the answer i'm going for, i'm talking about negating/removing a given stat simply because of an outlier). if not, i see no reason why andre drummond somehow invalidates the fairly large differences Mogspan brings up between the 3 relevant players. considering he also specifically pointed out that a baylor archetype is basically the exact box-score stuffing, higher-volume/lower-efficiency player that PER typically loves, without the dominant defense of AD to boot. of course, baylor actually does look very good by PER...until 1963. then he just falls off a cliff. that doesn't mean all analysis should end at PER, just that it most certainly should be treated as evidence as much as basically any other stat.

i brought it up the last time you said this, but we can look at RAPM and find much, much weirder results. such as anthony davis finishing like 163rd in the last 25 years. steve nash 30 spots behind paul george. iman shumpert and pablo prigioni over dwight howard. and a bunch of other results. but when these happen, then, because RAPM is supposed to be so much better, everybody supplies endless context (i believe you supplied some in the previous thread) and there are reasons why these results do, or at least could, make sense. but PER, despite tracking this project quite well and arguably avoiding outliers as well as any stat there is (at least at the top of the list), gets one strike and it's out. it's a strange argument.

I'm bringing Drummond up again because PER is getting used very, very similarly to how it was used last time...which I alluded to in my first sentence of this post. I'm not bringing up PER out of the blue as a punching bag, I'm responding to its use, just like I did last time.

Re: Drummond not trouncing Baylor or Schayes. Fair point. "trounce" was not the right word here. Someone taking PER super-seriously would likely conclude that Baylor & Schayes were slightly more effective in their time than Drummond was in his, and that's the misconception I'm looking to address.

As I said in my post, the gap between Davis & Baylor/Schayes in effectiveness is small compared to Baylor/Schayes & Drummond, and so using a stat that indicates otherwise is problematic.

Re: Should we never use stats that have "outliers"? This is a good question to ask. I'm actually fond of stating that stats shouldn't be dismissed simply because you don't like a particular player outcome. Instead what you should do is ask why the stat became so misguided in this specific circumstance.

In the case of Drummond, the answer is that use of box score-based stats can allow a big man to fill up the box score pretty dang well without him knowing really knowing what he's doing out there, and this can lead to a fool's gold situation where you think a player is your franchise player - complete with max contracts, re-designed systems around him, and even all-star appearances - when really he was never capable of being a starter-level player against playoff-level competition.

We then take what we learn from the data point and apply it back to the other players. Good performance in the metric obviously is not a damning thing, but if the metric cannot tell the difference between a superstar and and a benchwarmer, then you have to ask what information you can expect to glean by looking at the stat for new players.

Now, why did I put the word "outlier" in quotes? Because the use of the term generally conveys more than just strange performance by a particular stat when there are volitional agents involved. It's a statement about the volitional agent himself. When we refer to human beings that are "outliers", we generally mean people whose performance diverges from norms...like the types of players we talk about in a Top 100 project. "outlier" is used as a synonym for greatness or terribleness. And that's not what Drummond was. Drummond was perpetually a guy who people got excited about and eventually disappointed on the next level because he lacked feel for the game. He wasn't an outlier, he was a regression to the mean. A flaming mediocrity.

And if you wanted to identify the big problem with all-in-one box score stats, you might say that they are effectively feel-blind.

Now, clearly folks want to come back and say "But Davis has feel so that's not an issue here", but that assumes feel is a binary thing and nothing could be further from the case. Feel is more complicated than the box score, not less, so using reasoning like this is essentially saying "Let's assume these guys are all the same at the stuff we can't quantify, and just go by the stuff we can quantify." And this, I'm saying, is problematic for analysis.

Re: What about RAPM? Last time this came up someone (maybe you, I don't remember) asked this same question, and I believe I responded point by point to the cases they mentioned and no one responded back to me. My memory might be foggy, and I'm willing to get more into it if people will remind the context, but this is not something that I can accept being thrown in my face as if I've never considered such concerns, when I've written about such concerns more than almost anyone.

In a nutshell though:

1. RAPM has limitations and I wouldn't advise anyone to rely solely upon it.
2. The same is true for +/- in general.
3. But +/- in general is based on scoreboard outcome that allows us to ask "How did that happen?", which is where the really useful analysis comes in.
4. I don't object to the use of PER as a first pass analysis, but I know that the numbers come about by simply combining box score columns, so there's no real mystery to what's going on there.
5. The rub is that when you identify that PER is not capturing a player's ability to impact winning, you're basically left at a dead end. "There must be something beyond the box score!"...which we already knew.

In general my advise would be to use all complex stats - whether PER or RAPM - as first-pass analysis tools only, and then to use them along with other tools to drill down into the actual "what happened for the team".

Hence my aversion to using PER in a project like this to try to categorically separate players of different types from different eras as if that's all that needs doing.

As I've said, I intend none of this as a knock against Davis, who I'll be voting for over Baylor & Schayes. I'm just speaking to process.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'll just say, my top 2 votes this time will be the 2012 draftmates Anthony Davis and Draymond Green. I haven't yet decided who I'll put first.

To some degree I'm looking for arguments for one over the other, but I feel I should context that by saying I'm not particularly looking for people to tell me why Green doesn't belong anywhere near this spot. I can engage with those thoughts as well, but I'd like to see folks put down some serious thoughts between these two guys in particular.

Part of what's interesting here for me is that Davis was a prospect that I personally championed in a way I don't typically do. I saw him as a possible Bill Russell-style prospect and was curious to see how that would look today. My expectation was that he'd be considerably less impactful than Russell of course due to changes in the game, but I thought he has a serious chance to be a Defensive Player of the Decade level guy.

And the thing is, I wasn't wrong, but I actually think draftmate Dray has been the Defensive Player of the past Decade. That's no small thing.

Of course if I'll we're talking about are preferences and justifications, one can agree with all of that and simply point to Davis' offensive advantage (where he surpassed expectations from college a great deal), I think there's more to sink teeth into here.

I offer a series of not-necessarily-connected thoughts about the two.

1. The instinct would be to see it as a comparison between two bigs, but Draymond doesn't really play like a traditional big, but rather like a tall, pass-first wing.

Draymond's statistical profile is, I think, similar to Jason Kidd's in that they're both high-level defenders and playmakers and subpar scorers. Look:

Draymond / Regular Season
14.6 points/9.4 assists/11.7 rebounds PER 100
-1.2 rTS
.127 WS/48
2.5 BPM
+9.5 on/off

Draymond / Playoffs
16.6 points/8.8 assists/12.6 rebounds PER 100
-0.6 rTS
.144 WS/48
4.3 BPM
+12.6 on/off

Kidd / Regular Season
18.3 points/12.6 assists/9.1 rebounds PER 100
-2.3 rTS
.133 WS/48
3.8 BPM
+6.2 on/off

Kidd / Playoffs
18 points/11.1 assists/9.3 rebounds PER 100
-3.2 rTS
.114 WS/48
4.3 BPM
+8.4 on/off

That's to say that I think Draymond affects the game more like a large point guard, or point forward, would, than a big man.

2. While Draymond is a great playmaker, I am struck while watching some video of him that the way he makes plays is often a product of the system. Steph or another guard brings the ball up the court, at some point gets it to Draymond, Draymond stands still or moves in a limited fashion while others(Steph, Klay, Wiggins, Poole, whoever) run their sets, and then Draymond hits the right man at the right time. So it seems like, while Draymond is great at what he does - and while what he does requires the ability to protect the ball while waiting, and to time the passes exactly right and to make them at the right angles for the ball to get where it's going without getting picked off - his brand of playmaking requires teammates who are constantly moving and know exactly what to do and where to go. I don't really see the sort of improvisational on-the-run playmaking you might associate with a Magic or a Nash or a Kidd.

3. For someone who's in his twelfth season, Anthony Davis doesn't have that much playoff experience - 55 games for his whole career. These came across five runs: two with New Orleans; the 2020 title run in the bubble; the five games he played in 2021 before getting hurt; and the WCF run earlier this year. I see two things here:

A. In seven years in New Orleans, he only made the playoffs twice and only won one playoff series despite having some decent teammates(Jrue Holiday, Eric Gordon, others). Why wasn't he a better floor raiser?

B. His injury-proneness reared it's head both with the injury he sustained in the 2021 playoffs and in the fact that one of the reasons the Lakers missed the playoffs in 2022 is because he missed half the regular season.

4. Davis, for his career, scores 34.4 points per 100 on +4.6 rTS in the RS, and 34.1 points per 100 on +6.4 rTS(relative to league regular season average) in the PO. Draymond scores 14.6 points per 100 on -1.2 rTS in the RS and 16.6 points per 100 on -0.6 rTS in the PO. Davis scores on over 2x the volume and over five percentage points higher in efficiency in both RS and PO. It's something that has to be considered.

Obviously though, what Draymond lacks as a scorer he makes up for with his playmaking.

5. Davis's WS/48 and BPM are considerably higher - .213 and 6.1 RS(vs Draymond's .127 and 2.5) and .225 and 6.8 in the PO(vs Draymond's .144 and 4.3).

6. Their playoff on/off are pretty close - Davis is +11.1, Draymond is +12.6.

7. The question of Draymond as a floor-raiser, particularly in the context of 2020, is currently being debated in this thread. Some might argue the validity of using that season given the circumstances, but it's the only real extended Steph-less stretch Draymond has had.

8. When considering peak, it's hard to look at AD's 2020 playoff run and not take him over Draymond. AD's numbers for that playoff run:

27.7ppg/9.7rpg/3.5apg on +11.1 rTS
.284 WS/48, 8.7 BPM
+17.4 on/off

HOWEVER, on the other hand, it's also worth noting that AD did that while playing to next to a LeBron who did this:

27.6 ppg/10.8rpg/8.8apg on +8.2 rTS
.269 WS/48, 10.7 BPM
+15.3 on/off

I draw no final conclusion yet.

(Worth noting, so far, it seems like neither of these guys is going to get in this round - Baylor and Schayes are in front.)

I appreciate the thoughts OSNB!

I'm inclined to agree with Ohayo though. While we can argue that Draymond is more similar on offense to Kidd than Davis, Draymond's main value add is on defense, and on defense he plays more like a big.

That's not to say that Green is the shot-blocking threat that Davis is, but he plays against the opponent's bigger players, does protect the rim, does tend to be more on the back line directing the teammates in front of him. He can be said to approach his defensive role differently than a traditional defensive anchor, but that speaks more to the evolution of the game than anything else.

Re: Hard not to take Davis for peak. I agree. During the 2020 playoffs, Davis truly looked like the best player in the world to me.

But career-wise it's hard for me to say that Davis has the better impact profile compared to Green, Green's played an absolutely critical role on the dynasty of the era, and despite criticisms of Green's limited career minutes, he's actually played more minutes in the NBA (RS + PS) than Davis to this point.

I think we all continue to expect that if Davis can stay healthy he'll eventually put distance between he and 3-years-older Green...but I'm not sure it's happened yet.

In general I'm with you that I'm trying not to draw conclusions prematurely. I consider this a very interesting debate.

Re: Baylor & Schayes likely to go in ahead of either. Perhaps, and if so, that's fine. Those guys are legends after all!

[Owly]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

So first thing here, I think this was brought up by another poster and I don't want to rehash it, but the existence of a guy like Andre Drummond (the other "AD") being able to trounce old-timers by this stat as well really makes clear how limited it is as a tool.

I think Davis is better than Baylor & Schayes and will be continuing to vote for Davis above them, but would say that Drummond is DRASTICALLY worse than all 3 of these player to such a degree that the difference between the other 3 is minor in comparison, and so if a stat thinks Drummond is better than old Hall of Famers when the reality is he's not even good enough to play for a contender as more than a guy to fill out the bench, I can't take it as much of an argument.

why are you making this drummond argument against PER again? i just don't get it. first, who is he trouncing? he peaks at a 23.4 PER in the regular season and 19.2 in the postseason. peak, not average. that isn't trouncing anybody. and certainly not baylor or schayes. second, is there a single stat in existence that doesn't have a drummond-level outlier (or much worse)? unless we should never quote any stat because they all have outliers, then i'm not sure of the point (and "i don't just look at one stat" is not the answer i'm going for, i'm talking about negating/removing a given stat simply because of an outlier). if not, i see no reason why andre drummond somehow invalidates the fairly large differences Mogspan brings up between the 3 relevant players. considering he also specifically pointed out that a baylor archetype is basically the exact box-score stuffing, higher-volume/lower-efficiency player that PER typically loves, without the dominant defense of AD to boot. of course, baylor actually does look very good by PER...until 1963. then he just falls off a cliff. that doesn't mean all analysis should end at PER, just that it most certainly should be treated as evidence as much as basically any other stat.

i brought it up the last time you said this, but we can look at RAPM and find much, much weirder results. such as anthony davis finishing like 163rd in the last 25 years. steve nash 30 spots behind paul george. iman shumpert and pablo prigioni over dwight howard. and a bunch of other results. but when these happen, then, because RAPM is supposed to be so much better, everybody supplies endless context (i believe you supplied some in the previous thread) and there are reasons why these results do, or at least could, make sense. but PER, despite tracking this project quite well and arguably avoiding outliers as well as any stat there is (at least at the top of the list), gets one strike and it's out. it's a strange argument.

So I'd agree that a simple Drummond wrong therefore bad wouldn't be a satisfactory reason to really chuck out PER.

Drummond is perhaps the elite box-rebounder ever. Shift in team defensive rebounding levels (with him present) though have been wildly inconsistent (https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/960/onoff#tab-team_efficiency.) Other aspects of box defense seem to overrate him.

If a team is entering the ball to Drummond at any rate the awful (as a younger player) passing is an issue but PER doesn't look at the balance of these aspects.

There are, in short, things that are likely known that would lead anyone wishing to rate Drummond in an informed manner, that would shift him below PERs' raw box-aggregation.

And I think it's fair to say that Scayes and Baylor each have a better career PER (though not substantially so) than Drummond over a longer career, with a much stronger playoff showing. So the "trouncing" stuff seems a touch ... out of place. And I might argue better versions of Drummond could do more than "fill out the bench", though the inconsistency in first level impact stuff (on-off at Reference and CleaningTheGlass) is a bit jarring.

I would say that there is some difficulty in comparing these numbers over wildly different eras, especially where available numbers are incomplete. And a glance at other box aggregations would paint a different picture, that even without his first year (and including a slight negative value accrued in final year - something I've seen some pretty vehement fightback against in regard to a more modern player) he has a sizeable lead in Win Shares despite playing almost all his prime in a league playing 72 games or fewer per season (142.4 to 100.3 - figure through the end of last season the close point for consideration for the list). Part of this is a longevity advantage, not factored into PER. I think though, that if minutes were available for his first couple of seasons in the NBA, that WS/48 (rate) might well rise above Davis's too. Now WS isn't perfect either. And has the same boxscore gaps to deal with.

[trex_8063]

Now, why did I put the word "outlier" in quotes? Because the use of the term generally conveys more than just strange performance by a particular stat when there are volitional agents involved. It's a statement about the volitional agent himself. When we refer to human beings that are "outliers", we generally mean people whose performance diverges from norms...like the types of players we talk about in a Top 100 project. "outlier" is used as a synonym for greatness or terribleness. And that's not what Drummond was. Drummond was perpetually a guy who people got excited about and eventually disappointed on the next level because he lacked feel for the game. He wasn't an outlier, he was a regression to the mean. A flaming mediocrity.

I think you may have misconstrued what f4p meant by "outlier" (or at least, the above paragraph seems to speak to something that's off on a not-too-parallel tangent, at any rate).

He wasn't saying that Drummond was an "outlier" [good or bad] as a player, or that his PER [that is: the actual numerical value] was outlier........he was saying the degree to which PER miscasts/misrepresents a player's actual quality is outlier in Drummond's case (i.e. with most other players it will do a much better job of accurately representing realistic player quality; Drummond is an extreme [outlier] example of just how badly it can mislead).

[Doctor MJ]

Now, why did I put the word "outlier" in quotes? Because the use of the term generally conveys more than just strange performance by a particular stat when there are volitional agents involved. It's a statement about the volitional agent himself. When we refer to human beings that are "outliers", we generally mean people whose performance diverges from norms...like the types of players we talk about in a Top 100 project. "outlier" is used as a synonym for greatness or terribleness. And that's not what Drummond was. Drummond was perpetually a guy who people got excited about and eventually disappointed on the next level because he lacked feel for the game. He wasn't an outlier, he was a regression to the mean. A flaming mediocrity.

I think you may have misconstrued what f4p meant by "outlier" (or at least, the above paragraph seems to speak to something that's off on a not-too-parallel tangent, at any rate).

He wasn't saying that Drummond was an "outlier" [good or bad] as a player, or that his PER [that is: the actual numerical value] was outlier........he was saying the degree to which PER miscasts/misrepresents a player's actual quality is outlier in Drummond's case (i.e. with most other players it will do a much better job of accurately representing realistic player quality; Drummond is an extreme [outlier] example of just how badly it can mislead).

Fair enough.

My perspective is though that Drummond is basically giving exactly what PER is looking for, and it just turns out that that on its own isn't actually valuable. The value of players is coming from the stuff that PER can't measure that tends to coincide with what it does measure, and that represents a major issue if you want to use PER not simply for a first pass measure, but a reason to toss some players off to the side as being of a fundamentally lower tier.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Anthony Davis
Put up much better numbers in the modern international NBA than Schayes and Baylor did in a niche regional league that wasn’t even fully integrated. Has more career VORP than Howard in roughly half the minutes.

Nominate: Russell Westbrook
Peaked the same year as Steph Curry (2017) and was honestly the better player that season. Had a fantastic 6 to 7 year prime by both box and impact stats.

[OhayoKD]

Vote
1. Anthony Davis

-> the best player left

2. Alternate: Draymond Green


-> Superstar impact by every approach throughout prime
-> Playoff-Riser
-> Centerpiece of an arguably era-best defense
-> Cornerstone of an all-time dynasty
-> Best-in-league calibre defender
-> One of the few two-way floor-generals in history

Nomination

1. Westbrook

Honestly weird he hasn't gotten discussion yet(and now that I think about he probably should have already been inducted by now)

but whatever, let's get this going

-> All-time Creator with all-time playoff elevation and all-time playoff impact
-> Was the most valuable piece on a team that thumped a 67-win team and took a 73-win team to 7, probably the best playoff performer in 2014 on a team which pushed the tiki-taka spurs without their best defender
-> Track-record of elevating against better opponents
-> Excellent cultural figure/teammate by all accounts, something which he leveraged to help OKC sign Paul George to a long-term contract, something they are still benefitting from
-> Great RS floor-raiser, 45-wins(full-strength) without KD with OKC's shallowest cast in 2015, and 2017 was even better
-> Saw a +9 srs team in 2013 turn into something like a +3 one when he was hurt
-> Excellent clutch player
-> Underrated longetivity, has been an elite playoff creator as early as 2010(when he elevated vs the eventual champions as he tends to do), had a strong 2023

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Draymond Green
Nomination: Paul Pierce
Alt Nomination: Russ Westbrook

Draymond’s Case

We have too many pieces of data, including RAPM with confidence levels, playoffs only RAPM, effect on win probability, etc., to not seriously consider Draymond here.

Regular Season



1. Lebron, 5.54, 274K Poss
2. KG, 5.1, 206K Poss
3. CP3, 4.8, 181K Poss
4. Steph, 4.7, 142K Poss
5. Duncan, 4.7, 241K Poss
6. Manu, 4.3, 131K Poss
7. Draymond, 4.25, 110K Poss
8. PG, 4.05, 126K Poss
9. Dirk, 3.89, 238K Poss
10, Lillard, 3.87, 112K Poss
HM: Harden, Shaq, Lowry

Playoffs



1. Lebron, 5.9, 41K Poss
2. Draymond, 5.5, 18K Poss
3. Manu, 5.2, 23K Poss
4. KG, 4.8, 19K Poss
5. Duncan, 4.3, 34K Poss
6. Curry, 4.2, 17K Poss
7. Harden, 4.1, 22k Poss
8. Shaq, 3.9, 24K Poss
9. KD, 3.7, 24K Poss
10. PG, 3.2, 16K Poss
HM: Allen, Danny Green, Westbrook

Biggest Risers (Using graph 2 RS)

1. Draymond, +1.2
2. Rondo, +.9
3. Manu, +.8
4. Billups, +.7
5. Prince, +.7
6. Horry, +.6
7. Danny Green, +.6
8. Lebron, +.3
9. Harden, +.3
10. Westbrook, +3
HM: Allen, Wade, Shaq

Notes

-> Lebron, Manu, and Draymond are the only players with a top-10 rs score to see an increase in their playoffs. That increase would have been higher for all 3 if I'd used graph 1 instead of graph 2.

2015, 2016, and 2017 Draymond in the playoffs:


In JE’s RS+PS 1997-2022 RAPM set, there is tiny set of players who are -4 career defense impact players and the majority of them are negatives on offense, or are basically neutral. A player who can be a monster defensive impact player, and be a positive impact offensive player is a unicorn, a unicorn who is going to give your team a chance to win over a long stretch of time.

In JE’s set, we have nearly 2,500 player careers and out of these players, only TWO have a +2.0 or better ORAPM, and a -4 or better DRAPM, i.e., KG and Duncan. We only have three who are +1.5 or better ORAPM, and a -4 or better DRAPM, i.e., KG, Tim, and Draymond.



And of course his overall impact



Often people bring up that he is not a “rim protecting specialist,” but Draymond’s does provide a paint presence and rim protection, while also being one of the greatest defensive communicators of the past 25 years, allowing him to quarterback defenses.



If you go through the seasons from 2015 through 2023, you see some elite tracking numbers for how much worse opponents shot against Draymond vs. everyone else for shots under 6 feet and under 10 feet from the rim. Pick any of the seasons at random; those numbers on the far right over there:







[/quote]

We saw this in the 2022 finals versus the Boston Celtics:

Nobody was making anything against Draymond these playoffs, especially in the paint or near the rim:



And the Celtics didn’t do much better:



Jayson Tatum and Jalen Brown hated going up against him:




Earlier in the 2022 playoffs, Draymond was the only one who could slow down Jokić in a little bit, shooting 67% against everybody else:



I could go on, but one last thing is JE’s study a player’s effect on win probability

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote
1. Rick Barry

Barry is already in. Choices are Baylor, AD, Draymond, Dwight, Schayes.

[Mogspan]

Wilt is my favorite player of all-time, but even I can appreciate that he has no real argument for being in the top 10. Would he have been a stud today? Very likely (which I can't say about Elgin and Dolph), but I'm not giving him extra credit for being born in an era when being 6' 8" was an automatic spot on an NBA roster and one could make more money being a dentist.

The bolded is just not true. And I can provide examples, should that be needed.

Also, the dentist comment is largely only true in comparison to the NBA's lower-tier players, and even those only near the START of Wilt's career:
*An average NBA starter was making the equivalent [corrected for inflation] of six-figure salary, even in Wilt's rookie season [1959-60]. Even the single lowest-paid full-time player was making a livable wage in '60 (maybe about $70k in modern-day equiv).
**By just 2-3 years later, even many of the scrubs and lowest-paid players were making the equivalent of six-figure salaries. An average or low-level NBA starter could expect the equiv of around $200-250k/year.
***By the early 70s [end of Wilt's career], the AVERAGE NBA salary was the modern-day equiv of about $700k; even the lowliest scrub was making a GOOD living. The highest paid players were making modern-day equiv of >$2.5M annually.

Ok, but when Russell and Wilt were in their formative athletic years growing up, the BAA/NBA was barely a viable career aspiration. Assuredly there were plenty of tall compatriots in their cohort who would have been above replacement level that simply never took basketball seriously in their youth. If you were 6' 8", born in the thirties, and had 80th percentile athleticism, I have no doubt whatsoever that you could have gotten clock in the early NBA if you cared to do so.

[Special_Puppy]

Really suprised that Drexler fell outside the top 30. Excellent two-way player. Great Advanced Stats. 21st in career VORP

[Mogspan]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

I'm not an "everything before the merger was uncompetitive trash" kind of guy, but let's be real here: when those guys played, no one outside of America considered basketball as a career, whereas one could argue that the five best players today aren't from the United States. I don't want to be too harsh when it comes to these old-timers; I don't expect their skills and physiques to be on a par with players of today - and I don't want to unduly penalize them for being born early - but some of y'all are giving them extra credit for being born early.

Like if the first 15 years of the NBA consisted only of players born within 10 miles of Springfield, MA, would you be comfortable calling the third-best player in that league a more historically significant and accomplished player than Anthony Davis because he made more All-League teams? That would be insane.

Wilt is my favorite player of all-time, but even I can appreciate that he has no real argument for being in the top 10. Would he have been a stud today? Very likely (which I can't say about Elgin and Dolph), but I'm not giving him extra credit for being born in an era when being 6' 8" was an automatic spot on an NBA roster and one could make more money being a dentist.

Foreign nba talent more than doubled in a 6-year span between 1998 and 2003 and did not stop looking back.

Do you apply this era-based curvature against players in the 2010's, 2000's, and 90's too?

Absolutely. I, for instance, think LeBron is clearly greater all-time than MJ, as I believe making the Finals in the 2010s is about as impressive as winning it in the 90s. Plus he is as big of a statistical outlier in this era as MJ was in his, but now, essentially everyone on Earth who can play in the NBA does play in the NBA. When MJ was growing up, people were watching the Finals on tape delay if at all and the recruitment rate was relatively trivial. If they had been born in the 60s, Embiid would have been a volleyball player, Giannis a tall olive merchant, and Jokić an obese stable hand. The latter two players are more impressive to me than Magic and Bird, whose careers at this point can justifiably be ranked higher - but it's simply a matter of time.

[OhayoKD]

Elgin Baylor, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has one season where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

Dolph Schayes, despite playing against far inferior competition and whose impact is more likely to be overrated by such a stat, has 0 seasons where his PER is higher than AD's career average.

I'm not an "everything before the merger was uncompetitive trash" kind of guy, but let's be real here: when those guys played, no one outside of America considered basketball as a career, whereas one could argue that the five best players today aren't from the United States. I don't want to be too harsh when it comes to these old-timers; I don't expect their skills and physiques to be on a par with players of today - and I don't want to unduly penalize them for being born early - but some of y'all are giving them extra credit for being born early.

Like if the first 15 years of the NBA consisted only of players born within 10 miles of Springfield, MA, would you be comfortable calling the third-best player in that league a more historically significant and accomplished player than Anthony Davis because he made more All-League teams? That would be insane.

Wilt is my favorite player of all-time, but even I can appreciate that he has no real argument for being in the top 10. Would he have been a stud today? Very likely (which I can't say about Elgin and Dolph), but I'm not giving him extra credit for being born in an era when being 6' 8" was an automatic spot on an NBA roster and one could make more money being a dentist.

Foreign nba talent more than doubled in a 6-year span between 1998 and 2003 and did not stop looking back.

Do you apply this era-based curvature against players in the 2010's, 2000's, and 90's too?

Absolutely. I, for instance, think LeBron is clearly greater all-time than MJ, as I believe making the Finals in the 2010s is about as impressive as winning it in the 90s. Plus he is as big of a statistical outlier in this era as MJ was in his, but now, essentially everyone on Earth who can play in the NBA does play in the NBA. When MJ was growing up, people were watching the Finals on tape delay if at all and the recruitment rate was relatively trivial. If they had been born in the 60s, Embiid would have been a volleyball player, Giannis a tall olive merchant, and Jokić an obese stable hand. The latter two players are more impressive to me than Magic and Bird, whose careers at this point can justifiably be ranked higher - but it's simply a matter of time.

I respect the consistency.