RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #82 (Sam Jones)

[LA Bird]

Vote 1: Bill Walton
Vote 2: Larry Nance

Walton is one of the most polarizing player on all time rankings so I don't really expect this writeup to change the minds of most voters. But I did switched sides myself so maybe one or two of you might also join me in the Walton camp after reading this.

The first thing with Walton is the number of seasons. Many will immediately disqualify him from a career list because he played too little but not all seasons are equal. Like LeBron said, 2 points isn't always 2 points. Similarly, 2 seasons isn't always 2 seasons. ElGee's CORP method has become quite popular on this board but I don't think many still grasp the difference between an all time level peak like Walton's and 'regular' superstars. If we refer to the graph below, the equivalent of a +7 season is about 3 seasons in the top 10, 4.5 seasons as an All Star, or 10+ seasons as an average starter. Walton's short peak loses him the debate against any elite player with a sustained peak but those guys have all been voted in a long time ago. We have reached a point in the project where some of the candidates were rarely or even never top 10 in any season. Rodman was inducted recently - how many top 10 and All Star level seasons did he have in his career? How about Horford who is likely to be nominated soon? The number of seasons matter in a career comparison but so does the value of each season.



Estimating peak Walton as a +7 player might seem high but arguments for his impact at his peak is pretty ironclad. He was the clear leader on both offense and defense for a title team that completely fell apart without him. Walton is the WOWY GOAT in ElGee's dataset with a +10 net difference in 77/78 (raw MOV change without any teammate adjustment is even higher at +12) and he is ~100th percentile in Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs. Furthermore, the team's second best player was another big in Maurice Lucas, and they had a good backup center in Tom Owens so there is no question either if Walton's impact metrics were inflated by poor replacements. He is arguably the best passing center besides Jokic, one of the top 3 defensive rebounders ever by era-relative percentage (which synergizes perfectly with his outlet passing), and he is among the GOAT defensive players. Walton's skillset checks all the boxes you would expect from an impact monster and he has the numbers to back it up too. And since this is a career not peak list, I should also point out Walton consistently had massive impact outside of his peak years.

This is often overlooked but Walton actually played more than just 77/78/86. Obviously, him missing the 79-82 seasons is a giant red flag but unless we are penalizing players for missed potential, those years just get a zero from me. Now, from the team's point of view, was he a negative contract because he was getting paid a lot for nothing? Of course. But salaries and contracts are not a consideration in this project. The best player and the best player relative to salary (ie the most underpaid) are separate topics. Moving on to the seasons where Walton actually played over half the games, we get 76/84/85, three more years where he averaged 58 games per season. It is not a lot of games but we normally still count seasons of that length for other players. For example, 96/97/98 Shaq over three years averaged 55 games per season and I don't believe anybody is writing off those years because he didn't hit a threshold in games played. Such seasons get valued less than full 82 game seasons but they still usually get some credit.

Other than the numbers of games, the next thing with non-peak Walton is his minutes per game. He did play less but I think there is too much emphasis on the number of minutes itself rather than his impact in those minutes. Which, if we are being honest, seems a bit inconsistent for a board that already voted for a career 6th man in Ginobili at #39 because of his high impact in low minutes. Looking at samples with more than 10 games, Walton's raw WOWY scores were consistently quite strong even during his non-peak years (outside of an ugly rookie season)

Walton WOWY (MOV)
1975: -5.0
1976: +3.7
1980: +4.9
1983: +5.9
1984: +4.7
1985: +2.7

By the same measure, Dantley had 3 prime seasons with a negative raw WOWY (1980: -0.1, 1983: -2.0, 1988: -2.0) and Hagan, as trex_8063 pointed out before, often saw his teams perform better without him too. In other words, if we remove any preconceptions about his health, these forgotten years of Walton still provided more lift for his team than prime Dantley and Hagan did. The box scores are not as favorable to Walton but then again, his box score stats were never that impressive even at his peak. Still, a 13/10/3 slash line is comparable to some of the prime seasons of non-scorers like Unseld and Draymond. Walton is often penalized for having a GOAT-level peak because seasons which would otherwise be viewed as prime for lesser players get written off as meaningless for him, which in turn makes his already short career look even shorter than it really is.

1986 is the only non-peak season of Walton that gets any recognition but it is still underrated in my opinion. Winning 6MOY is nice but it relegates him to a mere footnote as just a good bench player when his impact was so much more. The Celtics saw a bigger jump after adding Walton than the Sixers did with Moses or the Warriors with Durant.

Celtics RS SRS / PO Relative Rating
1984: +6.4 / +6.9
1985: +6.5 / +5.8
1986: +9.1 / +13.1
1987: +6.6 / +3.5
1988: +6.2 / +4.7

The Walton team stands far above the rest despite the starters in 86 playing fewer minutes than in 85 and 87. The only other roster change in 86 was swapping Quinn Buckner for Jerry Sichting but that doesn't explain the improvement on defense or why the team fell back down to earth in 87 with Sichting still playing. Walton was the difference maker that elevated the Celtics from great to GOAT team status. I am guessing Walton's naysayers will still bring up his low minutes off the bench as rebuttal but focusing on minutes alone is pointless without evaluating his contribution in those minutes. There is no guarantee that a 40 minute starter would have more impact than a 20 minute reserve just because he played more. And once we move pass the labels, it's obvious to see how big of a difference Walton made to the Celtics.

TLDR
• Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates.
• His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games.
• He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.

[penbeast0]

2 points aren't always 2 points, but Robert Horry probably shouldn't make the top 100 players in NBA history although he has a disproportionate share of big finals shots and rings.

Walton is on everyone's peak list. My criteria involve how much you add to the possibility of your team winning a ring and Walton only being healthy for the playoffs once as a starter means you have to catch lightning in a bottle that season. Walton and the Blazers did exactly that, but he also demanded superstar money and teams that were built around him for over a decade of continual disappointments where he was a detriment to his teams' playoff hopes. That counts too and can't be just ignored when discussing career value. I loved Big Red's game but I have guys like Horace Grant as higher career value.

[HeartBreakKid]

2 points aren't always 2 points, but Robert Horry probably shouldn't make the top 100 players in NBA history although he has a disproportionate share of big finals shots and rings.

Walton is on everyone's peak list. My criteria involve how much you add to the possibility of your team winning a ring and Walton only being healthy for the playoffs once as a starter means you have to catch lightning in a bottle that season. Walton and the Blazers did exactly that, but he also demanded superstar money and teams that were built around him for over a decade of continual disappointments where he was a detriment to his teams' playoff hopes. That counts too and can't be just ignored when discussing career value. I loved Big Red's game but I have guys like Horace Grant as higher career value.

Did they really catch lightning in a bottle? It's not like he had the most stacked team of all time.

It's as if we are saying it is hypothetical that Bill Walton can lead a franchise to success when it's something that did happen.

[iggymcfrack]

Vote 1: Bill Walton
Vote 2: Larry Nance

Walton is one of the most polarizing player on all time rankings so I don't really expect this writeup to change the minds of most voters. But I did switched sides myself so maybe one or two of you might also join me in the Walton camp after reading this.

The first thing with Walton is the number of seasons. Many will immediately disqualify him from a career list because he played too little but not all seasons are equal. Like LeBron said, 2 points isn't always 2 points. Similarly, 2 seasons isn't always 2 seasons. ElGee's CORP method has become quite popular on this board but I don't think many still grasp the difference between an all time level peak like Walton's and 'regular' superstars. If we refer to the graph below, the equivalent of a +7 season is about 3 seasons in the top 10, 4.5 seasons as an All Star, or 10+ seasons as an average starter. Walton's short peak loses him the debate against any elite player with a sustained peak but those guys have all been voted in a long time ago. We have reached a point in the project where some of the candidates were rarely or even never top 10 in any season. Rodman was inducted recently - how many top 10 and All Star level seasons did he have in his career? How about Horford who is likely to be nominated soon? The number of seasons matter in a career comparison but so does the value of each season.



Estimating peak Walton as a +7 player might seem high but arguments for his impact at his peak is pretty ironclad. He was the clear leader on both offense and defense for a title team that completely fell apart without him. Walton is the WOWY GOAT in ElGee's dataset with a +10 net difference in 77/78 (raw MOV change without any teammate adjustment is even higher at +12) and he is ~100th percentile in Moonbeam's RWOWY graphs. Furthermore, the team's second best player was another big in Maurice Lucas, and they had a good backup center in Tom Owens so there is no question either if Walton's impact metrics were inflated by poor replacements. He is arguably the best passing center besides Jokic, one of the top 3 defensive rebounders ever by era-relative percentage (which synergizes perfectly with his outlet passing), and he is among the GOAT defensive players. Walton's skillset checks all the boxes you would expect from an impact monster and he has the numbers to back it up too. And since this is a career not peak list, I should also point out Walton consistently had massive impact outside of his peak years.

This is often overlooked but Walton actually played more than just 77/78/86. Obviously, him missing the 79-82 seasons is a giant red flag but unless we are penalizing players for missed potential, those years just get a zero from me. Now, from the team's point of view, was he a negative contract because he was getting paid a lot for nothing? Of course. But salaries and contracts are not a consideration in this project. The best player and the best player relative to salary (ie the most underpaid) are separate topics. Moving on to the seasons where Walton actually played over half the games, we get 76/84/85, three more years where he averaged 58 games per season. It is not a lot of games but we normally still count seasons of that length for other players. For example, 96/97/98 Shaq over three years averaged 55 games per season and I don't believe anybody is writing off those years because he didn't hit a threshold in games played. Such seasons get valued less than full 82 game seasons but they still usually get some credit.

Other than the numbers of games, the next thing with non-peak Walton is his minutes per game. He did play less but I think there is too much emphasis on the number of minutes itself rather than his impact in those minutes. Which, if we are being honest, seems a bit inconsistent for a board that already voted for a career 6th man in Ginobili at #39 because of his high impact in low minutes. Looking at samples with more than 10 games, Walton's raw WOWY scores were consistently quite strong even during his non-peak years (outside of an ugly rookie season)

Walton WOWY (MOV)
1975: -5.0
1976: +3.7
1980: +4.9
1983: +5.9
1984: +4.7
1985: +2.7

By the same measure, Dantley had 3 prime seasons with a negative raw WOWY (1980: -0.1, 1983: -2.0, 1988: -2.0) and Hagan, as trex_8063 pointed out before, often saw his teams perform better without him too. In other words, if we remove any preconceptions about his health, these forgotten years of Walton still provided more lift for his team than prime Dantley and Hagan did. The box scores are not as favorable to Walton but then again, his box score stats were never that impressive even at his peak. Still, a 13/10/3 slash line is comparable to some of the prime seasons of non-scorers like Unseld and Draymond. Walton is often penalized for having a GOAT-level peak because seasons which would otherwise be viewed as prime for lesser players get written off as meaningless for him, which in turn makes his already short career look even shorter than it really is.

1986 is the only non-peak season of Walton that gets any recognition but it is still underrated in my opinion. Winning 6MOY is nice but it relegates him to a mere footnote as just a good bench player when his impact was so much more. The Celtics saw a bigger jump after adding Walton than the Sixers did with Moses or the Warriors with Durant.

Celtics RS SRS / PO Relative Rating
1984: +6.4 / +6.9
1985: +6.5 / +5.8
1986: +9.1 / +13.1
1987: +6.6 / +3.5
1988: +6.2 / +4.7

The Walton team stands far above the rest despite the starters in 86 playing fewer minutes than in 85 and 87. The only other roster change in 86 was swapping Quinn Buckner for Jerry Sichting but that doesn't explain the improvement on defense or why the team fell back down to earth in 87 with Sichting still playing. Walton was the difference maker that elevated the Celtics from great to GOAT team status. I am guessing Walton's naysayers will still bring up his low minutes off the bench as rebuttal but focusing on minutes alone is pointless without evaluating his contribution in those minutes. There is no guarantee that a 40 minute starter would have more impact than a 20 minute reserve just because he played more. And once we move pass the labels, it's obvious to see how big of a difference Walton made to the Celtics.

TLDR
• Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates.
• His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games.
• He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.

Interesting Walton argument. I like a lot of the points you made, trying to quantify his peak with WOWY and making a good case that he might actually have superstar level impact off the bench.

One thing I think is a weaker point is saying he should get credit for 76/84/85 since he still played 50+ games and comparing those to Shaq seasons when there are more reasons those years don’t get credit. In ‘76, the Blazers miss the playoffs altogether due to Walton’s lack of games played and they only go 26-25 in the games he played. There’s a big difference between missing some RS games to get ready for the playoffs and missing so many games you don’t make the playoffs at all.

Same thing in ‘84 except this time they only go 23-32 in games he plays as his minutes drop to 24.6 MPG. His 1476 total minutes would be pretty much exactly the pace Bradley Beal is on this year. It’s hard to give a guy credit when he plays that little and can’t get his team close to the playoffs. In ‘85, he plays more games, but less MPG and the team goes 27-40 in the games he played. The ‘76 Blazers finish last in their division, the ‘84 Clippers have the 2nd worst record in the conference, and the ‘85 Clippers are tied for the second worst record in the conference.

Now this is not to say that those seasons don’t still have value and the WOWY points to Walton still being valuable in those seasons, but the fact that the minutes are grouped such that you often don’t get enough of them in a season to make the playoffs, make Walton’s longevity significantly less valuable in 13K minutes than say Luka’s 13K minutes. Too many of those seasons have low enough minute thresholds that you’re practically throwing the season away. This isn’t to say that Luka has a better case than Walton, but more just that 13K minutes for Walton is more like 10K minutes for a guy who can stay on the floor more
consistently within a season.

[penbeast0]

Maybe we mean something different by that phrase. To me it means that everything broke right for the Blazers that year, not just Walton's health. I don't have them as stacked around him, rather that it was one of those years where everything broke right. Everyone else stayed healthy and had good years, Lucas and Gross had career years, and Walton was truly great. They deserved the title but it was not a sure thing and if you ran that season back 100 times, I don't think Portland wins more than 50 of those run backs.

[LA Bird]

A lot of things break right for a lot of championship teams, that is nothing special. Jordan might never have won a single title if the Bulls never drafted Pippen. Walton's impact is evident regardless of whether he won a ring or not.

[ShaqAttac]

VOTE

BILL WALTON

Won a chip n mvp and swept kareeem

TONY PARKER

won some rings and an fmvp. duncan and manu carried but still

NOMINATION

HAGAN
doc said he a won chip as best player soooo

TATUM

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote Bill Walton - He's by far the best player, and is still a notable difference maker even with the injuries.

Alternate Sam Jones - I like guys with strong peaks like Hagan and Moncrief, but I think Jones has a really long sample size of being a very good player in meaningful series. Unlike Parker, I don't see Jones as much of an underachiever, and seems to be a very balanced guy - solid as a rock type of player. If Moncrief and Hagan had a couple more good playoff runs I'd roll with them.

[Doctor MJ]

Personal Vote:

Induction 1: Sam Jones
Induction 2: Cliff Hagan

I'll side with Sam here. Being the 2nd most important guy on the greatest dynasty mattes to me.

I'm not sure I have Sam over Hagan, but I certainly see the argument much like I did Cousy.

[Doctor MJ]

Tally:

Induction 1:

Sam - 4 (beast, Clyde, OSNB, Doc)
Parker - 3 (AEnigma, trex, eminence)
Moncrief - 2 (Samurai, iggy)
Nance - 1 (trelos)
Walton - 3 (LA Bird, ShaqA, HBK)

No majority. Going Induction 2 between Sam, Parker & Walton:

Sam - 2 (Samurai, iggy)
Parker - 0 (none)
Walton - 0 (none)
none - 1 (Moncrief)

Sam 6, Parke 3, Walton 3

Sam Jones is Inducted at #82.

[trex_8063]

TLDR
• Walton's peak is so much higher that one season from him is equal to the top 3 or more seasons of the other candidates.
• His non-peak impact signals are still better than prime Dantley, Hagan and he had 3 of those years averaging at ~60 games.
• He added All Star level lift to the Celtics as a ceiling raiser despite overlapping with an existing All Star at the same position.

I finally just ran a Walton [rough, quick first-pass] assessment through my own CORP equation. fwiw, I then apply a weighting of era strength (I have year-by-year "objective-input-guided subjective" assessments of each year, which I then average out the span of their careers), and a longevity calibration (to avoid the whole "Sub All-Star for 50 years ends up as GOAT" conundrum).

NOTE: I don't base my ATL on this, and in fact there are many players I've yet to run through it. But I'm playing around with it as a supplementary consideration.

Anyway.....
I will admit that [largely based upon the strength of that '77 season] Walton does come out just slightly ahead of guys like Horace Grant and Willis Reed [note: I was vocally against Reed's placement].
He's also marginally ahead of Draymond Green, whom I thought was grossly overrated in this year's project. fwiw, I give Draymond credit for only two seasons at All-NBA level [or better], with '16 hedging toward "weak MVP"; and only 4-5 seasons at "All-Star level" or better. The rest of his career [sometimes due to injury/missed games, which downgrades my rating] I have him "Sub All-Star" or less.


Walton comes out just barely behind Baron Davis [who I've been discussing with others], though only because I rate Walton's era as weaker (i.e. before the era calibration, he is slightly ahead of Davis).

However, both Walton and Davis come out behind Tony Parker and Larry Nance.

And I don't think I'm grossly overrating Parker in my ratings. Even his '13 campaign, which I was very complementary toward previously, I do not rate that as even "Weak MVP". I rate it as merely "All-NBA" [which I think is totally fair, looking at it as a whole]; and I give him credit for only one other season that's even halfway between "All-Star" and "All-NBA" [I allow for half-measures]. So less than 2 seasons at even All-NBA level (and NONE higher) am I giving Parker credit for.

But I do give him credit for six seasons at "All-Star level" [or better], and ELEVEN as at least "Sub All-Star". And he has FOURTEEN total seasons as at least "Average [Role] Player". That value adds up. Even with my longevity calibration, it still comes out ahead of Walton.

[Owly]

Now, DJ was clearly a challenging personality that caused the Sonics to effectively choose Gus and others over him going forward, and I don't want to brush that aside. But of course, that gets into the whole thing of the Sonics being worth talking about because of the period where they had DJ, while DJ remained relevant for years afterward.

With Gus, I have to acknowledge I have a skepticism of him that I don't want to be too absolute about. I do think he was the better offensive guard, and I do think he had a track record for elevating his play in the playoffs. But while that's admirable, I'm always cautious about falling too in love with the leading scorer on a champion when it was the defense that actually gave the value add.

..., but DJ's continued team success dwarfs the other Sonics, and while he can be said to be "lucky" in the sense that he got to play on those Celtics. he was only on the Celtics because they chose to acquire him and were quite happy with that acquisition after the fact.


I'd say DJ is a clear example of a guy who looks strong going between teams because those teams tend to do particularly well when he's with them. Correlation may not be causation, but I don't think the correlation is all that mysterious.

I would highlight here, given there's a sense of DJ on good teams ... Sonics lost there relevance ... Celtics "chose" DJ ...

DJ got traded for a great but older player exactly as he was falling apart ... and Gus and the Sonics couldn't come to an agreement (and iirc the NBA didn't have true free agency and maybe still had a reserve clause - I think perhaps the Sonics argued something like that) ... and was compared to a cancer by his coach, which suggests they weren't seeking even on-court value. The Sonics, then fwiw, bounce back to a 5th place SRS (3.69) with Williams' return the next year (2nd in the West, a little above Phoenix). And then Boston did chose to acquire Johnson ... for the princely sum of ... a backup center - supposedly Bird's drinking partner - entering an ominous decline including posting what certainly looks like a sub-replacement level season (I don't know whether injuries mitigate that or make it worse) immediately before the trade, Boston's own 2nd round pick and a Clippers second rounder (28th) ... and Boston also get a late first rounder (21st, plus a third round pick [52nd] for what that's worth). It's easier to improve teams when your team gives you away for little of value (now if Westphal hadn't never been right, healthy in Seattle that would be something else and Seattle may have thought that was what they were getting) and it's easier to chose to take on ... whatever baggage you want to see in Johnson ... when the cost is ... about nothing ... which is what I think that net package is (honestly with Boston getting the best pick, maybe the deal is already in Boston's favor).

The correlation ... for the Boston period ... he's arriving on what has been the best team in the league thus far that decade with a core mostly still to enter their best years and even Phoenix a team coming off three straight years of an SRS slightly north of 3 in that era was nothing to be sniffed at (granted, as before Westphal had been good and would have important to that). This doesn't mean DJ didn't help but "but I don't think the correlation is all that mysterious" makes it sound like what is always a noisy measure of mapping team success to individuals (especially pre-databall) ... well it reads as though it were perhaps a simple matter.

Finally at the margins I'd argue Williams' turnover economy as could perhaps be argued as a benefit to Seattle's D?

So, you're communicating a lot knowledge, but I'm not sure I'm clear on what your arguments are. Feel free to clarify.

I think the point about Seattle bouncing back after Gus returned from his one year absence is important to chew on. It certainly says good things about Gus' impact even as it raises other concerns.

I do think though it's significant to note the playoff success of Seattle with the players in question.

With DJ the Sonics won 8 playoff series.
With Gus & Sikma they won 9.

Those would be the last series Gus won, while Sikma would win 2 more in Milwaukee.
DJ, a year younger than Gus and a year older than Sikma, would go on to win 1 in Phoenix, and then 16 in Boston.

This then to say that I feel like for the most part, while Gus & Sikma fought valiantly, they didn't really add significantly more to the accomplishment of the Sonic Golden Age in the years after DJ left. You might say, the band had a great run together, then split up. One guy's career soon fizzled. Another guy got in another band that was almost as successful. While the 3rd hit the big time with legends.

I think then it's an important question as to whether DJ was just lucky to be a) the guy they singled out for the Finals MVP and also b) the one acquired by a team with legit dynastic aspirations. As you might guess, I don't think it was just luck, and I also don't think it was just wrongness on the part of the contemporaries making these decisions.

To your questions at the last: The question of how turnover reduction on offense helps DRtg is a good one here.

I guess so far as "arguments"/divergence you seem to be putting significant stock into the correlation continuing in Boston, Boston winning a lot of series, Boston choosing DJ.

And I think Boston got DJ because he was going for ... as a above ... perhaps less than nothing. I think they'd absolutely have taken Sikma or Gus too but they weren't available.

Not sure about additional concerns raised unless perhaps you think Gus and the Sonics not being able to come to terms is particularly/especially on him. Limited info on this stuff but I think he's just unfortunate to be after ABA but before proper free agency and he's already cost a year of value.
As I say sources will likely vary but my notes from memory and glancing at an SI article 1) there was a deal to be made, though GW initially wanted high yearly on a single year; Sonics offered a bit less than he wanted on a longer deal; 2) GW was ultimately willing and perhaps set to come back at below market rate for one year in order to ensure he got proper free agency the next year; 3) the Sonics then wanted to fine him for missed preseason and then 1/82 for any missed RS games … if one doesn’t think there’s a reserve then he isn’t under contract [plus 1/82 for each RS plus preseason would mean a fine of more than they’d have been willing to pay him] and an offer where Seattle would be able to demand compensation, cooling any market for him. 4) This killed a deal. 5) Seattle ended up paying him what he wanted on a longer construction … maybe one says it’s less because salary inflation (though league highest paid player – per Wikipedia – remained stationary in the year before, the year out and the year after) and Seattle got a player 1 year older (who might reasonably have been concerned with hurting himself, though he seems to have come back effective).
SI Source: https://vault.si.com/vault/1981/02/02/no-gus-no-glory-with-its-star-gus-williams-sidelined-by-a-contract-dispute-seattle-is-sub-sonic

It feels harsh to highlight one further series wins as a player measure, as though 82-84 Williams (or through to then end) should have been doing more or DJ was driving Boston’s deep advances.

One area of significant uncertainty is D and impact. If you think Boston DJ was significantly better than his box through his D maybe that’s a spell of significant value added. If one is uncertain, notes a tendency for rep to last longer than defensive impact in reputational guards (*cough*Payton,Bryant*cough*) … a bunch of perfectly solid starter years may not move a CORP-y needle much. I wouldn't claim to have a great handle on how, overall, Johnson's defensive performance/impact aged.

[AEnigma]

1984-90 Celtics with Dennis Johnson: 382-159 = 70.6% win rate = 58-win pace
1983-91 Celtics without Dennis Johnson: 132-65 = 67% win rate = 55-win pace

It is not really compelling stuff to me. He was a luxury addition on a good team. Contrast those Boston numbers with Danny Ainge’s and it starts to raise the question whether calling DJ a #4 figure is even deserved for most of his tenure.

Now, Gus hardly has a sparkling record in Washington on that front either, but his post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ’s Boston years, and his Seattle indicators are exemplary both year to year and overall (and to be clear, I am not referring to 1981) before taking into account his consistent playoff elevation.

[Owly]

Also, @ Owly
I had a question regarding why you seem to bring up playoff sample [within RAPM full-season figures] as something that will work AGAINST Parker.

Haven't got time to read fully but am pretty confident that if you go back to the post it will be in the context of "value above X" that I refer to Baron disadvantaged by having smaller samples by lesser opportunity.

Though fwiw in this comp if one believes playoff performance is more real than noise then I would think Baron getting more playoff minutes should boost his RAPM given he's a high end improver in box and impact side measures.

Both statements, in blanket fashion, assume Baron's playoff RAPM is always better than his rs RAPM.

I mean, his avg per-possession impact in the playoffs MUST be better than his rs impact for added playoff sample to RAISE his figure, right?
And if it's the same: no change.
If it's worse: lowers it.

Baron was a "good" playoff performer, so maybe it would "boost" his RAPM, but this certainly cannot be assumed. It's also possible that a larger playoff sample changes nothing over that sample (and it's also possible it would lower it slightly). Added playoff opportunity is only helping Baron if the first of these three is the case.


I would concede that, all things being equal [playoff minutes, that is], the playoff sample is likely to help Baron more than Tony (or it might be more accurate to say: that playoff sample will "hurt" Baron "less" than it does Tony). And that's where I think Tony's huge playoff sample is perhaps a drag on him (because of his playoff decline).

If his playoff sample had been as small as Baron's, it's possible [likely?] that his RAPM would be higher (no declined playoff sample dragging the figure downward).

Not quite sure what is meant here (e.g. "both statements", "always").

In short cf post 38: Baron posts monster on-off playoff numbers. For whatever it's worth a 97-19 playoff RAPM I have saved has Baron 33rd at 2.94 and Parker 860th (the third Parker, behind Smush and Jabari, at -0.46)


In long, granting non-expertise in this area ...

Baron played less in the playoffs hurting him in cumulative metrics such as "Value above average" "Value above replacement". Moreso if one believes playoff raising is more "real" than luck. This doesn't rely on him being exceptional but merely above average or above replacement.

I think ...

"Though fwiw in this comp if one believes playoff performance is more real than noise then I would think Baron getting more playoff minutes should boost his RAPM given he's a high end improver in box and impact side measures."

... was sufficiently conditional that I don't understand any pushback. Baron has exceptional impact side playoffs, his production does improve so if one believes this sort of improvement is real then him getting more opportunity and following the prior premises, likely doing more of this would boost him. Especially if/when, as you suggest is typical, playoffs is heavier weighted.*

But again the original post regarded the disadvantage of Davis's lack of opportunity in cumulative "value above X" measures

And the longer term picture from Googlesites has peer Baron Davis ahead in 97-14 RAPM, but also narrowly ahead in RAPM Value above average despite the longevity disadvantage including less opportunity in the playoffs, granting Parker gains an edge if the above replacement variant is favored. This measure also includes Davis's down years and depending on ones perspective denies Parker his full career value or does not include his weaker years. 97-22 and 97-24 continue to find Davis as if anything - at a glance - more strong, whilst the 97-22 and 97-24 find Parker a fairly average player in a way that I would imagine more than negates the minutes "value" added [Parker ranked 68th (of 1648) in 97-14, 559th (of 2465) 97-22 and 718th (of 2615) for 97-24] whether one is imagining above average or replacement.
versus Davis that's ...

Player: to 14 RAPM (rank); to 22 RAPM (rank); to 24 RAPM (rank)
TP: 2.15 (68th); -0.3 (559th); 0.7 (718th)
BD: 2.66 (40th); 6.1 (30th); 2.8 (26th)

Restated (and moving on from clarifying the specific to restating the general)
Baron was playoff better.
Baron looked - in general - impact better.
Baron looked enough impact better that he might have accrued more value (through 2014) depending on one's baseline (by this measure) without any curving for a higher peak, based on the 97-14 models.
Later models that could theoretically give a "Value above X" could credit Parker with more minutes, but they're so much lower on Parker and trend higher on Davis to such a degree that I would imagine it more than negates the additional minutes value at either baseline.


*= Of course if one is more trusting in the RS, thinks risings and fallings are largely noise (or the impact side stuff especially noisy in these samples), then they may find such arguments less persuasive (or such general trends less likely to sustain over a larger sample). But with our rankings on say Olajuwon, Miller, Butler, Thomas (mostly even without playoff impact data - or for Butler the full career playoff on-off is much below what one might anticipate off the box-rise) my guess would be that that, for the most part, isn't our voter pool.

[trex_8063]

Haven't got time to read fully but am pretty confident that if you go back to the post it will be in the context of "value above X" that I refer to Baron disadvantaged by having smaller samples by lesser opportunity.

Though fwiw in this comp if one believes playoff performance is more real than noise then I would think Baron getting more playoff minutes should boost his RAPM given he's a high end improver in box and impact side measures.

Fair enough, that's my bad: I missed the context of "value above X". Though fwiw, do we know for positive those specific calculations include BOTH rs and ps? It would seem odd to include the ps for a cumulative stat, for what I think are obvious reasons. I'm thus wondering if it actually does.

And I guess mentally erased the "if" in the second statement. I apologize for mischaracterizing what you said.

Player: to 14 RAPM (rank); to 22 RAPM (rank); to 24 RAPM (rank)
TP: 2.15 (68th); -0.3 (559th); 0.7 (718th)
BD: 2.66 (40th); 6.1 (30th); 5.8 (26th)

.[/quote]

I meant to ask a question about these figures.

In a sample of '97 to '14 he's 40th........then somehow he jumps to 30th (with an RAPM more than twice as large) in a '97 to '22 sample (even though he retired in 2012)????
Then his rank jumps still further in a '97 to '24 sample??

That seems a pinch fishy to me (does this again speak to the wild variability in weighting of priors, etc??).
I understand there will be a few players whose careers started maybe between 2005-2010 (or thereabouts), whose career RAPM dropped by 2022 or 2024 (because of their twilight years now within the sample)--->and thus fall behind Baron.

otoh, I'd expect that to be MORE THAN compensated by new [elite] players whose whole or most of careers have come along after 2014 (e.g. Jokic, Curry, Embiid, Jimmy Butler, Tatum, Lillard, Draymond, Paul George, Kawhi, Jrue Holiday, and likely Harden or Durant pulling ahead during those years).

idk, it just seems odd that he CLIMBED by FOURTEEN places from '14 to '24, without playing a game, with all of the above [12!] names pulling ahead within that same time period.
Is it possible that 26 others fell behind? And in many instances---if they did----is it not because they played WELL past their primes (maybe 17-20 seasons)? And if the latter is true, this is sort of punishing guys for having some lingering usefulness in the league (where Baron could not do so)?


Anyway, more likely what happened is simply a change in the formula.......for I notice there are other guys who ALSO didn't play another game after 2014 [or barely did], who were AHEAD OF Baron in the '97 to '14 sample, yet suddenly are NOT in the later samples (e.g. Gheorghe Muresan [15th in '14, tied for 176th!!! in '24], Terry Mills [13th in '14, tied for 126th in '24], Byron Scott [16th in '14, falls to a tie for 357th in '24 sample!!!! (what?!?)], Alonzo Mourning, Clyde Drexler, Detlef Schrempf, Bo Outlaw [21st in '14, falls to 92nd in '24], Mookie Blaylock, Arvydas Sabonis, Nate McMillan [25th in '14, tied for [b]146th in '24], [possibly Kobe Bryant: I'm skeptical '15 and '16 could have dropped him so far; ditto Metta WP], Ron Harper, Steve Nash, Josh Howard).

This is perhaps "whatever", as maybe the newer formulations are "better". But again, the sometimes WILD (see Byron Scott) differences we can see, apparently based upon nothing but a change in formulation is a little disheartening.
And idk what to think sometimes; there's not a ton of transparency on these things.

[Doctor MJ]

I would highlight here, given there's a sense of DJ on good teams ... Sonics lost there relevance ... Celtics "chose" DJ ...

DJ got traded for a great but older player exactly as he was falling apart ... and Gus and the Sonics couldn't come to an agreement (and iirc the NBA didn't have true free agency and maybe still had a reserve clause - I think perhaps the Sonics argued something like that) ... and was compared to a cancer by his coach, which suggests they weren't seeking even on-court value. The Sonics, then fwiw, bounce back to a 5th place SRS (3.69) with Williams' return the next year (2nd in the West, a little above Phoenix). And then Boston did chose to acquire Johnson ... for the princely sum of ... a backup center - supposedly Bird's drinking partner - entering an ominous decline including posting what certainly looks like a sub-replacement level season (I don't know whether injuries mitigate that or make it worse) immediately before the trade, Boston's own 2nd round pick and a Clippers second rounder (28th) ... and Boston also get a late first rounder (21st, plus a third round pick [52nd] for what that's worth). It's easier to improve teams when your team gives you away for little of value (now if Westphal hadn't never been right, healthy in Seattle that would be something else and Seattle may have thought that was what they were getting) and it's easier to chose to take on ... whatever baggage you want to see in Johnson ... when the cost is ... about nothing ... which is what I think that net package is (honestly with Boston getting the best pick, maybe the deal is already in Boston's favor).

The correlation ... for the Boston period ... he's arriving on what has been the best team in the league thus far that decade with a core mostly still to enter their best years and even Phoenix a team coming off three straight years of an SRS slightly north of 3 in that era was nothing to be sniffed at (granted, as before Westphal had been good and would have important to that). This doesn't mean DJ didn't help but "but I don't think the correlation is all that mysterious" makes it sound like what is always a noisy measure of mapping team success to individuals (especially pre-databall) ... well it reads as though it were perhaps a simple matter.

Finally at the margins I'd argue Williams' turnover economy as could perhaps be argued as a benefit to Seattle's D?

So, you're communicating a lot knowledge, but I'm not sure I'm clear on what your arguments are. Feel free to clarify.

I think the point about Seattle bouncing back after Gus returned from his one year absence is important to chew on. It certainly says good things about Gus' impact even as it raises other concerns.

I do think though it's significant to note the playoff success of Seattle with the players in question.

With DJ the Sonics won 8 playoff series.
With Gus & Sikma they won 9.

Those would be the last series Gus won, while Sikma would win 2 more in Milwaukee.
DJ, a year younger than Gus and a year older than Sikma, would go on to win 1 in Phoenix, and then 16 in Boston.

This then to say that I feel like for the most part, while Gus & Sikma fought valiantly, they didn't really add significantly more to the accomplishment of the Sonic Golden Age in the years after DJ left. You might say, the band had a great run together, then split up. One guy's career soon fizzled. Another guy got in another band that was almost as successful. While the 3rd hit the big time with legends.

I think then it's an important question as to whether DJ was just lucky to be a) the guy they singled out for the Finals MVP and also b) the one acquired by a team with legit dynastic aspirations. As you might guess, I don't think it was just luck, and I also don't think it was just wrongness on the part of the contemporaries making these decisions.

To your questions at the last: The question of how turnover reduction on offense helps DRtg is a good one here.

I guess so far as "arguments"/divergence you seem to be putting significant stock into the correlation continuing in Boston, Boston winning a lot of series, Boston choosing DJ.

And I think Boston got DJ because he was going for ... as a above ... perhaps less than nothing. I think they'd absolutely have taken Sikma or Gus too but they weren't available.

Not sure about additional concerns raised unless perhaps you think Gus and the Sonics not being able to come to terms is particularly/especially on him. Limited info on this stuff but I think he's just unfortunate to be after ABA but before proper free agency and he's already cost a year of value.
As I say sources will likely vary but my notes from memory and glancing at an SI article 1) there was a deal to be made, though GW initially wanted high yearly on a single year; Sonics offered a bit less than he wanted on a longer deal; 2) GW was ultimately willing and perhaps set to come back at below market rate for one year in order to ensure he got proper free agency the next year; 3) the Sonics then wanted to fine him for missed preseason and then 1/82 for any missed RS games … if one doesn’t think there’s a reserve then he isn’t under contract [plus 1/82 for each RS plus preseason would mean a fine of more than they’d have been willing to pay him] and an offer where Seattle would be able to demand compensation, cooling any market for him. 4) This killed a deal. 5) Seattle ended up paying him what he wanted on a longer construction … maybe one says it’s less because salary inflation (though league highest paid player – per Wikipedia – remained stationary in the year before, the year out and the year after) and Seattle got a player 1 year older (who might reasonably have been concerned with hurting himself, though he seems to have come back effective).
SI Source: https://vault.si.com/vault/1981/02/02/no-gus-no-glory-with-its-star-gus-williams-sidelined-by-a-contract-dispute-seattle-is-sub-sonic

It feels harsh to highlight one further series wins as a player measure, as though 82-84 Williams (or through to then end) should have been doing more or DJ was driving Boston’s deep advances.

One area of significant uncertainty is D and impact. If you think Boston DJ was significantly better than his box through his D maybe that’s a spell of significant value added. If one is uncertain, notes a tendency for rep to last longer than defensive impact in reputational guards (*cough*Payton,Bryant*cough*) … a bunch of perfectly solid starter years may not move a CORP-y needle much. I wouldn't claim to have a great handle on how, overall, Johnson's defensive performance/impact aged.

So I think the thing fundamentally here is that I think it represents a major player success a top tier team choosing to pursue you as their new starting point guard, and then that team reaching even higher heights with plenty of praise thrown your way.

The idea of just dismissing that as "Eh, Gus coulda done that if his team wasn't so dead set on keeping him" doesn't sit right with me - and wouldn't even if his future time in Seattle weren't so short lived.

One other interesting rub: Before the Celtics acquired DJ, they hired KC Jones. The original great Celtic defensive guard. Hard to see that as a coincidence. KC would make the choice to put DJ on Magic midway through the Finals in that first year, and Magic's resulting struggles ended with the new nickname Tragic Johnson.

Incidentally: While I don't want to blow the scale of KC's defensive impact as a player out of proportion, I don't have doubts pertaining to his actual prowess doing that job. Bill Russell really made clear that he looked up to KC's understanding of team defense.

[Doctor MJ]

1984-90 Celtics with Dennis Johnson: 382-159 = 70.6% win rate = 58-win pace
1983-91 Celtics without Dennis Johnson: 132-65 = 67% win rate = 55-win pace

It is not really compelling stuff to me. He was a luxury addition on a good team. Contrast those Boston numbers with Danny Ainge’s and it starts to raise the question whether calling DJ a #4 figure is even deserved for most of his tenure.

Now, Gus hardly has a sparkling record in Washington on that front either, but his post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ’s Boston years, and his Seattle indicators are exemplary both year to year and overall (and to be clear, I am not referring to 1981) before taking into account his consistent playoff elevation.

I mean, after making the finals 1 time in Bird's first 4 years, the Celtics made the finals in each DJ's first 4 years on the team. If you don't see that as a significant improvement I'm not sure what to say.

Ainge? I mean, in DJ's first year in Boston - when they immediately won the chip - Ainge was playing 13 MPG in the playoffs, so don't go giving the impression that maybe what appeared to be about DJ was actually about Ainge. Ainge would develop into a great player in his own right, but let's not over-credit the value of his charming presence.

Re: Gus' post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ's Boston years. Well, yeah, but that's largely because DJ was still playing in Boston at an age several years beyond Gus' retirement.

[AEnigma]

1984-90 Celtics with Dennis Johnson: 382-159 = 70.6% win rate = 58-win pace
1983-91 Celtics without Dennis Johnson: 132-65 = 67% win rate = 55-win pace

It is not really compelling stuff to me. He was a luxury addition on a good team. Contrast those Boston numbers with Danny Ainge’s and it starts to raise the question whether calling DJ a #4 figure is even deserved for most of his tenure.

Now, Gus hardly has a sparkling record in Washington on that front either, but his post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ’s Boston years, and his Seattle indicators are exemplary both year to year and overall (and to be clear, I am not referring to 1981) before taking into account his consistent playoff elevation.

I mean, after making the finals 1 time in Bird's first 4 years, the Celtics made the finals in each DJ's first 4 years on the team. If you don't see that as a significant improvement I'm not sure what to say.

… Are you saying you believe that DJ is responsible for that shift? If not, what type of argument is this.

Again, may as well point out the Suns made the conference finals in 1979 and 1984 but never when DJ was there (even with a gifted path to it in 1981).

If this is the approach you feel you need to take to argue for DJ, then his case here is substantially worse than I had thought.

Ainge? I mean, in DJ's first year in Boston - when they immediately won the chip - Ainge was playing 13 MPG in the playoffs, so don't go giving the impression that maybe what appeared to be about DJ was actually about Ainge. Ainge would develop into a great player in his own right, but let's not over-credit the value of his charming presence.

Read what I wrote. Ainge was not relevant in 1984. I would probably take DJ in 1985. After that, Ainge rapidly starts looking much more important to the team’s functioning, so DJ drops even further down the pecking order of essentiality.

Re: Gus' post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ's Boston years. Well, yeah, but that's largely because DJ was still playing in Boston at an age several years beyond Gus' retirement.

… It would have been true if they had retired at the same age. It would have been true even if they had retired at the same time.

If your reflex is just to challenge something rather than think about it, what does that say about the strength of your position.

[Doctor MJ]

1984-90 Celtics with Dennis Johnson: 382-159 = 70.6% win rate = 58-win pace
1983-91 Celtics without Dennis Johnson: 132-65 = 67% win rate = 55-win pace

It is not really compelling stuff to me. He was a luxury addition on a good team. Contrast those Boston numbers with Danny Ainge’s and it starts to raise the question whether calling DJ a #4 figure is even deserved for most of his tenure.

Now, Gus hardly has a sparkling record in Washington on that front either, but his post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ’s Boston years, and his Seattle indicators are exemplary both year to year and overall (and to be clear, I am not referring to 1981) before taking into account his consistent playoff elevation.

I mean, after making the finals 1 time in Bird's first 4 years, the Celtics made the finals in each DJ's first 4 years on the team. If you don't see that as a significant improvement I'm not sure what to say.

… Are you saying you believe that DJ is responsible for that shift? If not, what type of argument is this.

If this is the approach you feel you need to take to argue for DJ

You literally just contrasted the team's performance with and without DJ yourself, and now you're taking issue with me doing it in direct response to you because it tells a different story. Of course, showing the possibility of a different story with the same basic logic was the point.

Ainge? I mean, in DJ's first year in Boston - when they immediately won the chip - Ainge was playing 13 MPG in the playoffs, so don't go giving the impression that maybe what appeared to be about DJ was actually about Ainge. Ainge would develop into a great player in his own right, but let's not over-credit the value of his charming presence.

Read what I wrote. Ainge was not relevant in 1984. I would probably take DJ in 1985. After that, Ainge rapidly starts looking much more important to the team’s functioning, so DJ drops even further down the pecking order of essentiality.

I mean, in Ainge's final season in Boston, DJ is still the guy the team is relying on more in the playoffs. That's old man DJ and arguably peak Ainge. And I say this not to dismiss Ainge in the slightest - I think Ainge was awesome, but DJ was just more central to what they did.

Re: Gus' post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ's Boston years. Well, yeah, but that's largely because DJ was still playing in Boston at an age several years beyond Gus' retirement.

… It would have been true if they had retired at the same age. It would have been true even if they had retired at the same time.

If your reflex is just to challenge something rather than think about it, what does that say about the strength of your position.[/quote]

To be clear I say "largely" because the thing I'm pointing to makes for the bulk of what's going on. DJ plays 7 years in Boston while Gus plays 2 years in Washington. If Gus had played in Washington until he was 35 like DJ did in Boston, he'd have played 5 years in Washington. So yeah, DJ would spend more time in Boston anyway, but the majority of the difference in the longevity of these two guys on these respective teams is due to Gus falling off at a younger age than DJ.

I think you should reflect upon your last sentence yourself.

[AEnigma]

I mean, after making the finals 1 time in Bird's first 4 years, the Celtics made the finals in each DJ's first 4 years on the team. If you don't see that as a significant improvement I'm not sure what to say.

… Are you saying you believe that DJ is responsible for that shift? If not, what type of argument is this.

If this is the approach you feel you need to take to argue for DJ

You literally just contrasted the team's performance with and without DJ yourself, and now you're taking issue with me doing it in direct response to you because it tells a different story. Of course, showing the possibility of a different story with the same basic logic was the point.

No, I am taking issue with you presenting something you very obviously do not believe and doing so for no constructive purpose. I did not say DJ had negative value; I said he was a marginal addition, and your retort was “Well they got more Finals and rings, so how marginal could it be.” It is not a serious response and addresses nothing, and when we both know that, it signals you prioritised making a response of any kind rather than trying to work through a productive one.

Ainge? I mean, in DJ's first year in Boston - when they immediately won the chip - Ainge was playing 13 MPG in the playoffs, so don't go giving the impression that maybe what appeared to be about DJ was actually about Ainge. Ainge would develop into a great player in his own right, but let's not over-credit the value of his charming presence.

Read what I wrote. Ainge was not relevant in 1984. I would probably take DJ in 1985. After that, Ainge rapidly starts looking much more important to the team’s functioning, so DJ drops even further down the pecking order of essentiality.

I mean, in Ainge's final season in Boston, DJ is still the guy the team is relying on more in the playoffs. That's old man DJ and arguably peak Ainge. And I say this not to dismiss Ainge in the slightest - I think Ainge was awesome, but DJ was just more central to what they did.

Did the Spurs rely on Parker more than Manu? He got more minutes. He took more shots.

DJ was “relied upon” in the same way… yet when both of them missed time, Ainge was the one whose absence was felt more.

Oh, and Ainge also took the Suns to the Finals in his first year; cannot discount that!

Re: Gus' post-Seattle years represent far less of his career than DJ's Boston years. Well, yeah, but that's largely because DJ was still playing in Boston at an age several years beyond Gus' retirement.

… It would have been true if they had retired at the same age. It would have been true even if they had retired at the same time.

If your reflex is just to challenge something rather than think about it, what does that say about the strength of your position.

To be clear I say "largely" because the thing I'm pointing to makes for the bulk of what's going on. DJ plays 7 years in Boston while Gus plays 2 years in Washington. If Gus had played in Washington until he was 35 like DJ did in Boston, he'd have played 5 years in Washington. So yeah, DJ would spend more time in Boston anyway, but the majority of the difference in the longevity of these two guys on these respective teams is due to Gus falling off at a younger age than DJ.

What is going on is that Gus was a star on Seattle until the 1985 season and then, like many guards of his stature and playstyle, dropped off pretty rapidly. DJ meanwhile became a support piece by 1983 — although he kept up his all-star shot volume far longer than that — and settled in well on a superteam. If both of them had retired at age 31, it would have minimal effect on how I assess them, because neither were providing much value after that. The difference is that 31 is when Gus stopped being an all-star value player, whereas DJ had dropped below that years earlier.

I think you should reflect upon your last sentence yourself.

None of this is reflexive for me because I am not grasping at anything I can to defend Gus. I started this entire conversation — it would seem mistakenly — saying that I thought DJ had fine arguments over Gus even if I generally disagreed that they qualified as an ultimate advantage. I spent a lot of time thinking about why someone would pick DJ and had arrived at what I felt was a reasonable understanding of what that position would be.

However, rather than go over pretty much any of those, I have instead watched someone who has consistently not cared about minutes suddenly extol their importance, someone who deeply adheres to impact data ignore weak signals, someone who is normally passionate about the history of the league gloss over some of the best frontcourt defenders of the era, someone who hates low efficiency chuckers shrug because the team was good enough to get wins anyway, all culminating in the facially disingenuous suggestion that the Celtics saw their peak success as a result of DJ joining the team rather than because Bird was peaking and McHale was entering his prime (plus a nice little Walton bonus to really secure things). It comes across as wholly unprincipled in everything other than “were you part of successful teams.”

This could have been a productive dialogue, but instead I am completely out on the player and now have zero intent to give him any support. When his biggest supporter can only positively gesture at how he happened to be a fourth or fifth figure on a great team during the sub-all-star back half of his career, while also consistently downplaying any and all teammates to defend that stance, that tells me I must have been giving far, far too much credit from the start.