RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #55 (Joel Embiid)

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

I don't see how his teams were "fringe contenders" or why going out in the 2nd round means it's his fault (you didn't really explain that).


For instance, you placed a value on the 2nd round, which is entirely arbitrary. 2019, they went 7 games and were eliminated in a buzzer beater against the Toronto Raptors. The Toronto Raptors won the championship that year. Explain why it matters that it happened in the 2nd round and not the ECF?

That's always the line about that series - they were a buzzer beater away. But look at some of his performances in that series. The Raptors had HCA. So the Sixers steal Game 2 and go back to Philly tied at 1-1, and then win Game 3 to take a 2-1 lead. They have an opportunity in their building to take a commanding 3-1 lead in Game 4. They lose Game 4 by 5, resulting in a 2-2 tie instead of the 3-1 lead. Embiid in Game 4:

11 points and 8 rebounds on 2/7 FG, 48.2% TS

The Raptors take Game 5 back in Toronto in a 36 point blowout. Embiid in Game 5:

13 points and 6 rebounds on 5/10 FG, 59.7% TS(better efficiency, but still lower volume than you expect).

Philly wins Game 6 to tie it up at 3-3, and then Toronto wins Game 7 at the buzzer. Embiid in Game 7:

21 points and 11 rebounds on 6/18 FG, 47.8% TS

Low efficiency in two games, low volume in two games, both in one game.

It's three different games where if he'd played better, they may well have won the series.

You can look at some other critical games too.

2022 Game 6 vs Heat, backs up against the wall, home team had won every game of the series until this point, so PHI could've been expected to hold court at home in Game 6. They lost by 9. Embiid:

20 points and 12 rebounds on 7/24 FG, 38.8% TS

2023 Game 7 vs Celtics. Sixers had been up 3-2, but blew Game 6 at home(though Embiid played well in that one). In the deciding game in Boston, Embiid did this:

15 points and 8 rebounds on 5/18 FG, 36.3% TS

It's not that he's a bad player in the playoffs, it's just that it feels like there as many underwhelming games as there are great games from him, and the former seem to come at inopportune times. And I get that he was hurt or coming back from injury in some of those games, but the frequency of his injuries in the postseason is part of the problem.

Since then the Sixers lost Jimmy Butler who is a major player. They tied their cap space to Tobias Harris who is not a major player. They tied their cap space to Ben Simmons, who barely played. I don't see how they are a "contender" at all. They lost 2 of all-stars, one of them even a top 50-60 guy all time.

You don't even mention Harden, who they had for two seasons, or Maxey, who's been an important player for them for three years now, in addition to the half season of Jimmy and even all the years of Simmons who, despite his offensive deficiencies, did provide some value in the form of defense and playmaking. And Tobias Harris, while overpaid, is still a decent player and is crapped on too much imo. Embiid has always had talent around him.

In 2019, they were the #3 seed the East with the 7th best record in the league.
In 2021, they were the #1 seed in the East with the best record in the league(and losing to the Hawks was a huge upset, but Embiid did play well in that series - that's the one Simmons gets blamed for)
In 2022, they were in a three-way tie for the 2nd best record in the East(but because they lost more to Boston/Milwaukee in the RS, they ended up being the #4 seed) and a three-way tie for 6th best record in the league. Just one more win in the regular season and it would've been #2 seed and 4th best record in the league. And they only had Harden for half the season and no Simmons for the other half.
In 2023, they were the #3 seed in the East and the 3rd best record in the league.
In 2024 so far, they have the best record in the league.

These all look like at least borderline-contender RS finishes to me. That bubble season with Horford is the only year where they didn't look as good.

The Sixers are not as good as the Celtics or the Heat. The last two years the conference champs have been the Celtics and the Heat. I don't think it matters much they were eliminated in the 2nd round, at the very least they were able to take those teams to 6 games.

I agree they're not as good as the Celtics, but as for the Heat, compare their finishes since Jimmy got there to Philly's since 2019 as outlined above:

2020 - #5 seed, #11 in the league
2021 #6 seed, #13 in the league
2022 #1 seed, tied for #3 in the league
2023 #7(but fell into play-in and ended up playing from #8), tied for #13 in the league

On the whole, Philly has had better RS's than Miami more often than not.

This is not the 2000s, the East is much stronger. There are three strong teams in the East during this decade. That doesn't leave a lot of room to sneak into the WCF in the 2010s. See Chris Paul, who also never made it past the 2nd round until he was in his 30s with a "fringe" contender (not really a contender at all most years).

Well, to be fair, I also thought CP3 went too high, and that was one of the reasons, and I said so at the time.

[ty 4191]

Our system is now as follows:

Our system is now as follows:

I have no intention of continuing to vote and participate actively in this project, due to life/time constraints....however:

Nate Thurmond

Quotes about Thurmond:

"Wilt Chamberlain sat in the airport terminal in San Francisco awaiting a flight to Boston. “He’s the toughest center I have to play,” he said. “He can rebound, play defense, and you’ve got to worry about him scoring, too. He’s a helluva center, and I don’t think he gets the recognition he deserves.”

"Nate was one of the great centers to ever play the game, and I was privileged to call him a teammate and dear friend" -Rick Barry

"Both Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain have gone on record saying they felt Thurmond was their toughest adversary. “He plays me better than anybody ever has,” Abdul-Jabbar told Basketball Digest when he was in his prime. “He’s tall, has real long arms, and most of all he’s agile and strong.” In an article in Sport, Abdul-Jabbar also said, “When I score on Nate, I know I’ve done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too.”

--He was 45th in the NBA's 50 at 50 (October, 1996)

--He was 49th in the NBA's 75 at 75 (December, 2022)

Moreover, since most people are-clearly-& almost completely- stats and "impact" obsessed here; here's a bit of my empirical research:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jE5K2XrILol56zGe0e7LA-bKyRECGNgG/edit#gid=367062482

1. Thurmond held opposing HOF Centers to a .422 FG% across 524 games in the regular season plus playoffs. That's a ~15% reduction in FG%.

2. Russell: .416 vs. .464 FG% (757 games vs. HOF Centers). That's a 10% reduction in FG%.

3. Chamberlain: .434 vs .469 FG% (828 games). That's a 7.5% reduction in FG%.

4. Kareem: .493 vs .501 FG% (659 games). That's a 1.5% reduction in FG%.

5. Hakeem: .504 vs .484 FG% (359 games). 6% reduction in FG%.

6. Shaq: .445 vs .513 FG% (224 games). 13% reduction in FG%.

Thurmond's defensive rating (93) from 1973-1974 through 1976-1977 was third best in the NBA among players with 250+ games played. He was also well past his prime, ANCIENT for that era (ages 32-35) and, also, injury riddled.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

I know he was a terrible shooter, but his man to man post defense HAS to be among the top few greatest in NBA history.

All thoughts and input from the historians here is very, very much welcomed and appreciated.

Thank you, everyone!!!

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Induction Vote #1: Paul Arizin

Induction Vote #2: Pau Gasol

Arizin has the best overall era-relative resume, the best overall combination of primacy, statistical consistency, playoff resilience, playoff success, and longevity.

But I reserve the right to change my mind before the votes are tallied.

Nomination Vote #1: Isiah Thomas

Nomination Vote #2: Dave Cowens

Going with Isiah. Superior playoff WS/48 and BPM to Cowens. The efficiency doesn't look good, but outside of scoring he was a good playmaker, a good man defender, and a great leader on back-to-back champions. But I'm still going to look closer at these other potential nominees, and I don't think Isiah is getting in this round anyway.

[Owly]

Embiid currently has the edge in votes, but despite being a fan of his game, I'm still not comfortable voting for him. I'm looking at probably Gasol or Arizin here, honestly depending on who(if either) looks to have a better shot at topping Embiid.

Embiid vs Gasol career playoff numbers:

Arizin - .183 WS/48, +4.1 rTS(relative to RS league average)
Gasol - .154 WS/48, 4.1 BPM, +2.4 rTS(relative to RS league average), +7.9 on/of(up +4.6 from RS)
Embiid - .134 WS/48, 3.5 BPM, +1.2 rTS(relative to RS league average), +12.1 on/off(up +1.8 from RS)

I am very willing to forgive playoff failure for a great player on a subpar team that isn't expected to go far and doesn't have the talent to do so. But these 76ers teams have been considered at least fringe contenders every year since 2019(perhaps with the exception of 2021 when they had the poor Embiid/Horford fit), and they've never gotten past the second round. I don't think they've ever performed up to expectations, and at least some of that has to be attributable to the combination of Embiid's postseason injury woes and inconsistent performance. I emphasize "inconsistent", because he certainly has had some very good playoff performances, but for someone who puts up his RS numbers, his playoff numbers should probably be better.

There is also the longevity issue. For someone who is only 7.5 years into his career, and who hasn't been the most durable guy, I just feel like he needs more playoff success to go quite this high.

I don't see how his teams were "fringe contenders" or why going out in the 2nd round means it's his fault (you didn't really explain that).


For instance, you placed a value on the 2nd round, which is entirely arbitrary. 2019, they went 7 games and were eliminated in a buzzer beater against the Toronto Raptors. The Toronto Raptors won the championship that year. Explain why it matters that it happened in the 2nd round and not the ECF?

That's always the line about that series - they were a buzzer beater away. But look at some of his performances in that series. The Raptors had HCA. So the Sixers steal Game 2 and go back to Philly tied at 1-1, and then win Game 3 to take a 2-1 lead. They have an opportunity in their building to take a commanding 3-1 lead in Game 4. They lose Game 4 by 5, resulting in a 2-2 tie instead of the 3-1 lead. Embiid in Game 4:

11 points and 8 rebounds on 2/7 FG, 48.2% TS

The Raptors take Game 5 back in Toronto in a 36 point blowout. Embiid in Game 5:

13 points and 6 rebounds on 5/10 FG, 59.7% TS(better efficiency, but still lower volume than you expect).

Philly wins Game 6 to tie it up at 3-3, and then Toronto wins Game 7 at the buzzer. Embiid in Game 7:

21 points and 11 rebounds on 6/18 FG, 47.8% TS

Low efficiency in two games, low volume in two games, both in one game.

It's three different games where if he'd played better, they may well have won the series.

You can look at some other critical games too.

2022 Game 6 vs Heat, backs up against the wall, home team had won every game of the series until this point, so PHI could've been expected to hold court at home in Game 6. They lost by 9. Embiid:

20 points and 12 rebounds on 7/24 FG, 38.8% TS

2023 Game 7 vs Celtics. Sixers had been up 3-2, but blew Game 6 at home(though Embiid played well in that one). In the deciding game in Boston, Embiid did this:

15 points and 8 rebounds on 5/18 FG, 36.3% TS

It's not that he's a bad player in the playoffs, it's just that it feels like there as many underwhelming games as there are great games from him, and the former seem to come at inopportune times. And I get that he was hurt or coming back from injury in some of those games, but the frequency of his injuries in the postseason is part of the problem.

Since then the Sixers lost Jimmy Butler who is a major player. They tied their cap space to Tobias Harris who is not a major player. They tied their cap space to Ben Simmons, who barely played. I don't see how they are a "contender" at all. They lost 2 of all-stars, one of them even a top 50-60 guy all time.

You don't even mention Harden, who they had for two seasons, or Maxey, who's been an important player for them for three years now, in addition to the half season of Jimmy and even all the years of Simmons who, despite his offensive deficiencies, did provide some value in the form of defense and playmaking. And Tobias Harris, while overpaid, is still a decent player and is crapped on too much imo. Embiid has always had talent around him.

In 2019, they were the #3 seed the East with the 7th best record in the league.
In 2021, they were the #1 seed in the East with the best record in the league(and losing to the Hawks was a huge upset, but Embiid did play well in that series - that's the one Simmons gets blamed for)
In 2022, they were in a three-way tie for the 2nd best record in the East(but because they lost more to Boston/Milwaukee in the RS, they ended up being the #4 seed) and a three-way tie for 6th best record in the league. Just one more win in the regular season and it would've been #2 seed and 4th best record in the league. And they only had Harden for half the season and no Simmons for the other half.
In 2023, they were the #3 seed in the East and the 3rd best record in the league.
In 2024 so far, they have the best record in the league.

These all look like at least borderline-contender RS finishes to me. That bubble season with Horford is the only year where they didn't look as good.

The Sixers are not as good as the Celtics or the Heat. The last two years the conference champs have been the Celtics and the Heat. I don't think it matters much they were eliminated in the 2nd round, at the very least they were able to take those teams to 6 games.

I agree they're not as good as the Celtics, but as for the Heat, compare their finishes since Jimmy got there to Philly's since 2019 as outlined above:

2020 - #5 seed, #11 in the league
2021 #6 seed, #13 in the league
2022 #1 seed, tied for #3 in the league
2023 #7(but fell into play-in and ended up playing from #8), tied for #13 in the league

On the whole, Philly has had better RS's than Miami more often than not.

This is not the 2000s, the East is much stronger. There are three strong teams in the East during this decade. That doesn't leave a lot of room to sneak into the WCF in the 2010s. See Chris Paul, who also never made it past the 2nd round until he was in his 30s with a "fringe" contender (not really a contender at all most years).

Well, to be fair, I also thought CP3 went too high, and that was one of the reasons, and I said so at the time.

Some thoughts on topics brought up in this discussion.

JE has minute longevity and health/availability issues that limit his total value.

JE's playoff production on average takes a hit (from a high absolute level)

His on-off (at least at a raw level) doesn't (though I think Doc has [implicitly?] noted the positive +/- takes a hit with his absences).

An implied comparison to Miami Butler sees some aspects flipped - playoff production holding steady in raw numbers (WS/48 down a bit) for an real-terms (tougher competition, higher "league" mean baseline) rise, but a drop from a quite solid, good on-off to the teams doing worse with him on-court.

Team level expectations as an anchor can be an issue. It actively penalizes players for very strong regular seasons.2020-2023 Embiid plays 7672 RS minutes, with the team +8.5 with him on, (and with a +10.0 on-off, they've been a little below average with him off).
Butler's numbers are 7773 mins, +4.5 (+5.6).
Personally I might first glance conclude ... Embiid's minutes aren't an issue for this comp. Joel's team having better expectations might well relate to him having a non-marginally better team when he's on the court (he's got a fair RS productivity gap too) whilst his team fared very marginally worse when the star wasn't on the floor

Team level expectations versus Miami ... might not be the fairest bar. Miami are an outlier in terms of deep runs off unexceptional RS performance. How far one thinks they were lucky is up to the individual but it's not exactly a normal bar. Expecting teams trending toward the lower and of SRS range between around four and around zero to make deep runs ... there aren't enough conference final or final spots for all such teams to be doing this.

Versus Toronto, "Going far"/expectations and the box. The box hurts JE. An expectations analysis, so far as one trusts it, hurts Embiid. Still "never gotten past the second round" feels a but icky for me. The response given doesn't address that Toronto were (a) a very good team (especially after the trade when maximizing). (b) That the series is plausibly flippable. (c) That Philly are +89 with Embiid on the court, winning his minutes in 6 of 7 games.

Now if you're into the boxscore and want to say ... he doesn't look great. Fair enough.
If you want to say his team didn't happen to advance ... I like that less, but okay, if that's how you do things consistently ...
But the implied point of the latter method is surely a crude measure of impact. Your team didn't win so you can't have been that helpful. You are choosing an indirect impact measure more than focusing on how they played.
But a more direct measure of team goodness with him actually on says, they're really good.
I don't know how much is noise or how much non-box side stuff JE did really helped his team.
But it feels like pivoting to his box is pitching a very different argument to the implied "didn't advance" one. It feels, at least to me, more of an ad hoc defense for a position than an evaluation process.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - George Gervin
Vote 2 - Paul Arizin
Nomination 1 - Willis Reed
Nomination 2 - TBD

Even though Gervin's playoff success leaves something to be desired, he was still an impressive playoff performer, putting up the following from '75-'83 (65 games):

28.8 PPG, 7.2 RPG, 3 APG, 1.2 SPG, 1.1 BPG, 56% TS, 113 ORtg 

In '79, the spurs faced the defending champion bullets in the ECF, with a heartbreaking 2 pt game 7 loss. Gervin scored 42 pts in the game, including 24 in the 2nd half. The spurs and bullets ranked 1st and 2nd in SRS respectively that season.

In '82, the spurs made a mid season trade for talented scorer Mike Mitchell. He would only appear in 57 games for the spurs, and gervin still led the spurs to the 7th best SRS in the league. For context as owly mentioned, Ron brewer was pretty productive that season before being traded for Mitchell: https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1982.html. They would fall to the eventual NBA champion lakers (4th in SRS) in the WCF.

In '83, the spurs (6th in SRS) would again fall to the lakers (3rd in SRS) in the WCF. Gervin and Mitchell both had solid performances in the post season that year, but simply weren't enough for a deep lakers roster that featured magic, kareem, nixon, wilkes, mcadoo and cooper.

Had gervin and gilmore had more time together during each other's primes, i'm sure both would have helped each other to further playoff success.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

But it feels like pivoting to his box is pitching a very different argument to the implied "didn't advance" one. It feels, at least to me, more of an ad hoc defense for a position than an evaluation process.

I don't think it is a very different argument. He's supposed to be one of the game's great scorers and he's had multiple closeout playoff games where he hasn't looked like it. Impact metrics matter a great deal, but box stats matter too and I'm generally not a fan of dismissing their importance.

That said, when you speak of non-box impact, for Embiid that means mostly his defense, imo, and it's a fair point to make. He's a very good defender, and if he's having positive +/- while shooting poorly and/or not scoring much, then that positive impact has to be coming from somewhere. So that should absolutely be considered, and to be perfectly honest, it's possible I haven't considered it enough.

But the fact is his teams haven't had much playoff success despite having generally good regular seasons. And he has had good talent around him over the years in Harden, Maxey, Simmons, half a season of Butler, Harris, Tucker, etc. So if it's not his fault they haven't advanced, and it's not for a lack of talent around him, then what is it?

[Owly]

Induction Vote #1: Paul Arizin

Induction Vote #2: Pau Gasol

Arizin has the best overall era-relative resume, the best overall combination of primacy, statistical consistency, playoff resilience, playoff success, and longevity.

But I reserve the right to change my mind before the votes are tallied.

Nomination Vote #1: Isiah Thomas

Nomination Vote #2: Dave Cowens

Going with Isiah. Superior playoff WS/48 and BPM to Cowens. The efficiency doesn't look good, but outside of scoring he was a good playmaker, a good man defender, and a great leader on back-to-back champions. But I'm still going to look closer at these other potential nominees, and I don't think Isiah is getting in this round anyway.

I would note here that both playoff DWS/48 and DBPM regard Thomas as a better defender than Cowens. In both instances it's less than the offensive gap but more than a third of the total gap.

Personally I may be lower than some on Thomas's leadership, the quality of those title-winning teams and the value of consecutivenes.

[Owly]

But it feels like pivoting to his box is pitching a very different argument to the implied "didn't advance" one. It feels, at least to me, more of an ad hoc defense for a position than an evaluation process.

I don't think it is a very different argument. He's supposed to be one of the game's great scorers and he's had multiple closeout playoff games where he hasn't looked like it. Impact metrics matter a great deal, but box stats matter too and I'm generally not a fan of dismissing their importance.

That said, when you speak of non-box impact, for Embiid that means mostly his defense, imo, and it's a fair point to make. He's a very good defender, and if he's having positive +/- while shooting poorly and/or not scoring much, then that positive impact has to be coming from somewhere. So that should absolutely be considered, and to be perfectly honest, it's possible I haven't considered it enough.

But the fact is his teams haven't had much playoff success despite having generally good regular seasons. And he has had good talent around him over the years in Harden, Maxey, Simmons, half a season of Butler, Harris, Tucker, etc. So if it's not his fault they haven't advanced, and it's not for a lack of talent around him, then what is it?

Don't see the point in priveleging specific moments.

Box- and impact-side can matter but in general see above. Putting stock into "never advanced past X" team level stuff overall and not being aware that in a highlighted series the team were great with him on and awful with him off and seems to me to undermine the legitimacy of that stat. It's very easy to imagine them winning the series with him doing nothing at all different, if they just get killed slightly less in his off minutes.

"He could have done more ..." type arguments ... that's literally true of every player ever. Unless a player is literally perfect then they could have done more but that isn't an analysis of what they did do and how much value the actual player provided.

Regarding "but box stats matter too and I'm generally not a fan of dismissing their importance." ... okay. I don't think I did that though. An argument that leads with box-side stuff playoff dropoff will have traction for those who focus on the box and the playoffs in that it is accurate. I dislike it in the present context to support an "absence of impact" argument at the team level because at least at first glance, when you actually look how the team does with him on (and versus him not being on) and the impact does appear to be there. And if one is primarily, in the first instance, trusting the team level indicators and the better/less crude one says ... actually they're good with him on then the box then this supporting piece of evidence is trying to support something where the foundational argument has been fatally undermined ("his box declined, showing some of the way he was less impactful, leading to their loss" makes a lot less sense when the better signal is that he was impactful, they just got killed with him off the court). I'm not against using the box. And this stuff is really complicated. I think the main thing is the "X didn't advance" "point" has always felt lazy to me. If it's something they did there should be evidence of it (especially in the play-by-play era), and if there is use that.

Regarding casts, expectations ... depends on where your expectations were, how much you think Embiid contributed to them, how one measures players. So mileage will vary depending on ones methods.
Think your year count on Maxey ("3 years now") is generous in the present context. Present season isn't eligible and is less than a third through. We're looking at an established player in 2 playoff runs (and not at the level he's looking like this season).
For those with a playoff bent, Philadelphia playoff Harden hasn't looked particularly special by the boxscore (depending slightly on preferred measure) or by the on-off numbers.
But yeah it will depend on what measures you trust, how much you think Embiid is contributing to expectations, to what extent a playoff team level drop is noise/randomness versus a fundamental, "real", sustainable weakness (and how much such matters, versus an outlook prioritizing exactly what happened to happen, regardless of any luck). I don't have strong opinions (and acknowledge the JE box production is weaker than his RS levels) but I do think that a notionally good casts doesn't undermine the point regarding better measures of impact, but on-off rather does undermine "never advanced past point X".

[HeartBreakKid]

Consider this:

Serbia has about 7 million citizens.
The US has about 230 million white people.

I'm glad someone pointed out places like Serbia. I've been thinking of making this analogy for a while to people who say older players weren't that great because less people played basketball back then.


USA was still a huge country 70 years ago, and it was a sport where just as many people played basketball as today more or less. It was almost ALWAYS a very popular recreational sport AND it was a valuable spectator sport at an amateur level early on. it took time to get its legs as a spectator (professional) sport which is not the same.

More people were playing basketball back then than the entire population of Serbia, Greece, Slovenia...3 of the best players in the NBA are from those tiny countries. "Oh, you really think the best player of a country of 7 million can be the best in the world?" Yeah....

Pretty much every NBA player is a 1 in a million talent. There have only been like 4,000 players in all of NBA history. It isn't the same thing as being the best in your local rec league or the best in the playground. That's why it is entirely plausible that the best player from 60 years ago can end up being better than the best player today.

Usain Bolt 30 years from now will still have fast times. A Mike Tyson like athlete will still hit hard.. Etc

[WintaSoldier1]

Vote: Embiid, Frankly I think this is wrong to vote him but I think he’s at some level derailing competitive conversation just due to his functional dominance… Basically the only thing we can boil a reason not to vote for him is because of longevity; kills dialogue.
Alt: Paul Arizin
The rightful owner of the spot.

I watched some Dave cowens… Will save my opinion for when he’s nominated( probably now)

I’ll nominate IT
Nom: Isiah Thomas
Alt: Dave Cowen

I don't understand your reasoning here...you think Arizin is the one who should be voted in, you think Embiid shouldn't be, but you're voting for Embiid?

Seems illogical.

Feels like there's no real way to say it shouldn't be embiid except for longevity outcries, but it's one of those moments where shaq got on the top 50 list "early" because they preemptively selected him for greatness. Feels like Embiid frankly is hampering conversation because outside of longevity people think it should be him; That was my train of thought!

[WintaSoldier1]

[Revamped Post, Hopefully this is fair]


Vote: Embiid, Feels like there's no real way to say it shouldn't be embiid except for longevity outcries, but it's one of those moments where shaq got on the top 50 list "early" because they preemptively selected him for greatness. Feels like Embiid frankly is hampering conversation because outside of longevity people think it should be him; That was my train of thought! But I do not have any real oppositive opinion of going against embiid, I think the lack of real pushback against him at this point and relative to his modern counterparts he's been slipping through the cracks for a while due to circumstance(on the forum & his irl circumstances)...

Alt: Paul Arizin
Even although he's getting a late game-push I'd like to see his Comparisions, when Cowens gets in. Feels like that'll be a point in time where people come together and are really convinced Paul deserves the spot. Rather take a Strong #56 then a weak #55(Refercing the quality of opinion/certainty at a spot)


I watched some Dave cowens… Will save my opinion for when he’s nominated( probably now)

I’ll nominate IT
Nom: Isiah Thomas
Alt: Dave Cowen

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Embiid - 4 (beast, trelos, HBK, Winta)
Gervin - 2 (AEnigma, Clyde)
Gasol - 2 (trex, iggy)
Thurmond - 3 (hcl, ShaqA, ty)
Arizin - 3 (Samurai, Doc, OSNB)

No majority, going to Vote 2 between Embiid, Thurmond & Arizin:

Embiid - 2 (trex, iggy)
Thurmond - 0 (none)
Arizin - 1 (Clyde)
none - 1 (AEnigma)

Eliminating Thurmond:

Embiid - 1 (hcl)
Arizin - 0 (none)
neither - 2 (ShaqA, ty)

Embiid 7, Arizin 4

Joel Embiid is Inducted at #55.



Nomination Vote 1:

Bobby - 1 (beast)
Cowens - 4 (AEnigma, hcl, Samurai, Doc)
Parish - 1 (trex)
Mutombo - 1 (trelos)
Carter - 1 (iggy)
Walton - 1 (ShaqA)
Reed - 2 (HBK, Clyde)
Isiah - 2 (OSNB, Winta)
none - 1 (ty)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Cowens, Reed & Isiah.

Cowens - 0 (none)
Reed - 0 (none)
Isiah - 1 (trex)
none - 5 (beast, trelos, iggy, ShaqA, ty)

Eliminating Reed.

Cowens - 0 (none)
Isiah - 0 (none)
neither - 2 (HBK, Clyde)

Cowens 4, Isiah 3

Dave Cowens is added to Nominee list.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey folks, just so everyone is aware:

With Winta's new post with reasoning I ended up counting it. But feel like I should say:

Had Winta's post made the difference between Embiid & Arizin, I don't think I would have given that I saw him explicitly say he thought Arizin was more deserving.

I would push everyone to right sincere votes at all times or else I may feel a need to not count your vote, and you may not get a head's up ahead of time.

Also Winta, please just edit your voting posts rather than posting a new one in the future.

Cheers,
Doc

[OldSchoolNoBull]

But it feels like pivoting to his box is pitching a very different argument to the implied "didn't advance" one. It feels, at least to me, more of an ad hoc defense for a position than an evaluation process.

I don't think it is a very different argument. He's supposed to be one of the game's great scorers and he's had multiple closeout playoff games where he hasn't looked like it. Impact metrics matter a great deal, but box stats matter too and I'm generally not a fan of dismissing their importance.

That said, when you speak of non-box impact, for Embiid that means mostly his defense, imo, and it's a fair point to make. He's a very good defender, and if he's having positive +/- while shooting poorly and/or not scoring much, then that positive impact has to be coming from somewhere. So that should absolutely be considered, and to be perfectly honest, it's possible I haven't considered it enough.

But the fact is his teams haven't had much playoff success despite having generally good regular seasons. And he has had good talent around him over the years in Harden, Maxey, Simmons, half a season of Butler, Harris, Tucker, etc. So if it's not his fault they haven't advanced, and it's not for a lack of talent around him, then what is it?

Don't see the point in priveleging specific moments.

Box- and impact-side can matter but in general see above. Putting stock into "never advanced past X" team level stuff overall and not being aware that in a highlighted series the team were great with him on and awful with him off and seems to me to undermine the legitimacy of that stat. It's very easy to imagine them winning the series with him doing nothing at all different, if they just get killed slightly less in his off minutes.

"He could have done more ..." type arguments ... that's literally true of every player ever. Unless a player is literally perfect then they could have done more but that isn't an analysis of what they did do and how much value the actual player provided.

Regarding "but box stats matter too and I'm generally not a fan of dismissing their importance." ... okay. I don't think I did that though. An argument that leads with box-side stuff playoff dropoff will have traction for those who focus on the box and the playoffs in that it is accurate. I dislike it in the present context to support an "absence of impact" argument at the team level because at least at first glance, when you actually look how the team does with him on (and versus him not being on) and the impact does appear to be there. And if one is primarily, in the first instance, trusting the team level indicators and the better/less crude one says ... actually they're good with him on then the box then this supporting piece of evidence is trying to support something where the foundational argument has been fatally undermined ("his box declined, showing some of the way he was less impactful, leading to their loss" makes a lot less sense when the better signal is that he was impactful, they just got killed with him off the court). I'm not against using the box. And this stuff is really complicated. I think the main thing is the "X didn't advance" "point" has always felt lazy to me. If it's something they did there should be evidence of it (especially in the play-by-play era), and if there is use that.

Regarding casts, expectations ... depends on where your expectations were, how much you think Embiid contributed to them, how one measures players. So mileage will vary depending on ones methods.
Think your year count on Maxey ("3 years now") is generous in the present context. Present season isn't eligible and is less than a third through. We're looking at an established player in 2 playoff runs (and not at the level he's looking like this season).
For those with a playoff bent, Philadelphia playoff Harden hasn't looked particularly special by the boxscore (depending slightly on preferred measure) or by the on-off numbers.
But yeah it will depend on what measures you trust, how much you think Embiid is contributing to expectations, to what extent a playoff team level drop is noise/randomness versus a fundamental, "real", sustainable weakness (and how much such matters, versus an outlook prioritizing exactly what happened to happen, regardless of any luck). I don't have strong opinions (and acknowledge the JE box production is weaker than his RS levels) but I do think that a notionally good casts doesn't undermine the point regarding better measures of impact, but on-off rather does undermine "never advanced past point X".

I mean, even a number of the people who did vote for Embiid cited his playoff woes as a cause for concern, I'm hardly an outlier in that respect. They just think his regular season performance is so much higher than the others on the ballot that it doesn't matter.

You seem to be leaning on on/off to make the case that Embiid's playoff performance is not a cause for concern. When box numbers and impact numbers say different things, we should ask why. I suppose the fairly obvious answer here is that the the things Embiid does that don't show up in the box - defense, requiring defensive attention such that it creates good shots for his teammates - add positive value even when his own shot isn't falling.

It is worth investigating further.

But I also think it's worth asking why his performance purely as a scorer seems to be less consistent in the playoffs and how much that should matter.

All that said, you've convinced me to at least re-evaluate his playoff performance.

For now though, he's in, so I don't know how much more we want to debate it.