Doctor MJ wrote: Well I'm certainly not saying that I think people super-high on what Luka did as crazy, but for me there's a limit to how much credit I'm going to give you for playing teams tough in the playoffs.
The conference final run is certainly the big moment for Luka so far in his career, but I'll put it this way: I still don't have a year where I see Luka as a Top 5 POY guy, not even in the WCF year (where I have Jokic, Curry, Tatum, Giannis & Jimmy ahead). Moncrief makes my Top 5 3 times.
One can certainly argue that competition now is tough enough that being Top 10 now is better than being Top 5 then, but I think it's pretty understandable why I'd tend to see the guy with the Top 5's as having accomplished more.
Maybe it's playoff weighting, but I don't really see a good argument against Luka top 5 in 2021 or 2022. If anything i'd be tempted to put him top 3 for both. Feels you have to thread a needle to have jokic and tatum ahead those years.
I mean first: Jokic won the MVP in both of those years. You really suggesting it's weird to put him ahead of Doncic? Frankly, I have Jokic ahead of Doncic every single season.
Tatum vs Doncic is of course a major debate, but I'll emphasize:
'20-21 was a year known for Fat Luka. It was a year of disappointment after coming in (for the first time) as the pre-season MVP favorite. The hope that year was not that they'd come close to knocking off a Top 4 seed, but that they'd be a Top 4 seed.
'21-22 I think Luka has a very serious candidate, but I would put the candidates I listed above him. Just discussing Tatum, I do think it needs to be considered that the Celtics were an absolute machine once they got going with Tatum racking up +/- numbers that utterly dwarfed any teammate (or anyone else for that matter).
Regular season Celtics: Tatum +667 Brown +453 Smart +443
This is the type of gap that makes it awfully hard for me to look at the Celtics as the ensemble cast it's often portrayed as.
Now, is Tatum's scoring game as resilient as Luka's? No, and that makes it more debatable who the better player is when the chips are down, but Tatum is also an excellent 2-way player and that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
OhayoKD wrote:Maybe it's playoff weighting, but I don't really see a good argument against Luka top 5 in 2021 or 2022. If anything i'd be tempted to put him top 3 for both. Feels you have to thread a needle to have jokic and tatum ahead those years.
I mean first: Jokic won the MVP in both of those years. You really suggesting it's weird to put him ahead of Doncic? Frankly, I have Jokic ahead of Doncic every single season.
Tatum vs Doncic is of course a major debate, but I'll emphasize:
'20-21 was a year known for Fat Luka. It was a year of disappointment after coming in (for the first time) as the pre-season MVP favorite. The hope that year was not that they'd come close to knocking off a Top 4 seed, but that they'd be a Top 4 seed.
'21-22 I think Luka has a very serious candidate, but I would put the candidates I listed above him. Just discussing Tatum, I do think it needs to be considered that the Celtics were an absolute machine once they got going with Tatum racking up +/- numbers that utterly dwarfed any teammate (or anyone else for that matter).
Regular season Celtics: Tatum +667 Brown +453 Smart +443
This is the type of gap that makes it awfully hard for me to look at the Celtics as the ensemble cast it's often portrayed as.
Now, is Tatum's scoring game as resilient as Luka's? No, and that makes it more debatable who the better player is when the chips are down, but Tatum is also an excellent 2-way player and that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
Oh to be clear, in 2020-21 I don't have Tatum in my Top 5. There I have Giannis, Jokic, Gobert, Embiid & Curry.
Doctor MJ wrote: I mean first: Jokic won the MVP in both of those years. You really suggesting it's weird to put him ahead of Doncic? Frankly, I have Jokic ahead of Doncic every single season.
Tatum vs Doncic is of course a major debate, but I'll emphasize:
'20-21 was a year known for Fat Luka. It was a year of disappointment after coming in (for the first time) as the pre-season MVP favorite. The hope that year was not that they'd come close to knocking off a Top 4 seed, but that they'd be a Top 4 seed.
'21-22 I think Luka has a very serious candidate, but I would put the candidates I listed above him. Just discussing Tatum, I do think it needs to be considered that the Celtics were an absolute machine once they got going with Tatum racking up +/- numbers that utterly dwarfed any teammate (or anyone else for that matter).
Regular season Celtics: Tatum +667 Brown +453 Smart +443
This is the type of gap that makes it awfully hard for me to look at the Celtics as the ensemble cast it's often portrayed as.
Now, is Tatum's scoring game as resilient as Luka's? No, and that makes it more debatable who the better player is when the chips are down, but Tatum is also an excellent 2-way player and that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
Oh to be clear, in 2020-21 I don't have Tatum in my Top 5. There I have Giannis, Jokic, Gobert, Embiid & Curry.
Okay so Curry who misses the playoffs and Gobert whose team does dramatically worse against a less healthy version of that same opponent?
Frankly the only guys who played as well or better those playoffs were kawhi(injured) and giannis imo.
OhayoKD wrote:I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
Oh to be clear, in 2020-21 I don't have Tatum in my Top 5. There I have Giannis, Jokic, Gobert, Embiid & Curry.
Okay so Curry who misses the playoffs and Gobert whose team does dramatically worse against a less healthy version of that same opponent?
Frankly the only guys who played as well or better those playoffs were kawhi(injured) and giannis imo.
In terms of my process, I start with my MVP list, and then look to elevate players based on achievement in the playoffs. I generally don't elevate guys who don't win a playoff series.
Another guy who's been voted in 77-78 in the last 3 projects. Not a flashy scorer, but he was a high impact player. A couple of seasons of efficient scoring alongside prime Nash, but otherwise, he was around league average in rTS%. I have him with 6 ALL D level seasons. He was a beast defensively, as a giant wing who could rebound with the best of them.
Looking at his PIPM, he had 3 really good peak years, which were borderline weak MVP level. I err on the side of caution, so I only have them as ALL NBA level seasons, but ultimately, his great peak and defensive play is what gets him here.
Alt vote: Sidney Moncrief
Injuries cut his career short. Fantastic guard defender. Decent shot, fairly efficient, with some seasons around +6rTS%. Slight decline in playoffs, but they were going against Bird’s Celtics and Erving’s 76ers. Would be higher if not for injuries.
5 All NBA level years. It’s a tough one vs Walton. Bill had 2 fantastic prime years, and not much else.
After Moncrief, I lean: Walton > Parker > Hagan
Nom: Terry Porter
88-93 in the last 2 projects. I have him with 6 very strong seasons, 2 of which I have at a weak MVP level. His career had some longevity to it, though it wasn't at any great level.
These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.
His 3 year post season peak from 90-92, he averaged 20 pp75 on + 10.6 rTS%. I think an efficient PG makes team building so much easier, and if they can also not be a turnstile on defense, it helps even more. Porter did that really well. Playoff Porter increased both his usage and shooting against playoff defenses, and that's not something that can be said of a lot of players.
Alt Nom: Kevin Johnson
Made it as high as 51 on a previous project, but he's always been elected by 76. KJ was another guy with a monster prime.
From 89-97 KJ was 20 pp75 on +5.3 rTS%. His best 3 yr post season stretch was 25, +6.2%. He was also an incredible offensive engine, who frequently had his teams at +5 rORtg.
OhayoKD wrote:Maybe it's playoff weighting, but I don't really see a good argument against Luka top 5 in 2021 or 2022. If anything i'd be tempted to put him top 3 for both. Feels you have to thread a needle to have jokic and tatum ahead those years.
I mean first: Jokic won the MVP in both of those years. You really suggesting it's weird to put him ahead of Doncic? Frankly, I have Jokic ahead of Doncic every single season.
Tatum vs Doncic is of course a major debate, but I'll emphasize:
'20-21 was a year known for Fat Luka. It was a year of disappointment after coming in (for the first time) as the pre-season MVP favorite. The hope that year was not that they'd come close to knocking off a Top 4 seed, but that they'd be a Top 4 seed.
'21-22 I think Luka has a very serious candidate, but I would put the candidates I listed above him. Just discussing Tatum, I do think it needs to be considered that the Celtics were an absolute machine once they got going with Tatum racking up +/- numbers that utterly dwarfed any teammate (or anyone else for that matter).
Regular season Celtics: Tatum +667 Brown +453 Smart +443
This is the type of gap that makes it awfully hard for me to look at the Celtics as the ensemble cast it's often portrayed as.
Now, is Tatum's scoring game as resilient as Luka's? No, and that makes it more debatable who the better player is when the chips are down, but Tatum is also an excellent 2-way player and that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
You're questioning Jokic over Luka in 2021? That doesn't even make sense. Jokic was the MVP in 2021 leading in every statistical category imaginable and then he carried the Nuggets past the Blazers with no Murray and Monte Morris being the only rotation player with a positive BPM while Luka wasn't even top 5 in MVP votes and then lost in the first round. If you want a consensus, here's POY voting for those 2 seasons on this forum:
2021 1. Giannis Antetokounmpo 133 2. Nikola Jokic 117 3. Joel Embiid 52 4. Steph Curry 48 5. Rudy Gobert 19 6. Kawhi Leonard 12 7. Luka Doncic 6 8. Kevin Durant 3
2022 1. Nikola Jokic 151 2. Steph Curry 105 3. Giannis Antetokounmpo 86 4. Joel Embiid 26 5. Jayson Tatum 24 6. Jimmy Butler 14 7. Luka Doncic 10
If you want a breakdown by place, this is what we have: 2021 Jokic: 4 first place votes, 11 2nd place votes, 0 3rd place or lower 2021 Doncic: 1 4th place vote, 3 5th place votes, 11 not on ballot 2022 Jokic: 13 first place votes, 2 2nd place votes, 0 3rd place or lower 2022 Doncic: 3 4th place votes, 1 5th place vote, 11 not on ballot
So the worst anyone voted Jokic either of those year was second while the best anyone voted Luka either of those years was 4th with the majority both years having Luka outside the top 5. Not really sure what case you're trying to make here.
Vote: Sidney Moncrief 9th in prime WOWY with only elite superstars ahead of him. Back-to-back DPOY. TS Add of 30 or higher every season of his career peaking at 201.0 in 82/83 (4th in the league).
Nominate: Kevin Johnson Tremendous offensive engine. Very efficient for his day. Had some good playoff runs and looked good in the on/off data we had at the tail end of his career.
Alternate: Baron Davis 17th all-time in playoff BPM and 21st in age-adjusted RAPM. Both are the best of any player not yet taken. Also has a sparkling career playoff on/off of +15.8.
Vote Bill Walton - He's by far the best player, and is still a notable difference maker even with the injuries.
Alternate Vote is for Cliff Hagan - Tough between Cliff and Moncrief. Both guys kind of have a similar level of "good" post seasons but I think Cliffs felt more definitive. Also, in some respects Cliff doesn't have as many weak runs as Sidney does. I think there seems to be more of a pattern that Sidney doesn't play as well in the post season, though I wish we had more chances to see him more.
Induction vote: Tony Parker Starting PG for a virtual dynasty of more than a decade. Near his peak was good for around 20 pts and 7 ast on good efficiency, functioning as the primary driver of their offense......they were sometimes better offensively than defensively in that period. For example, he once anchored [led in pts and assists] a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league]. Multiple other good ones around that time, too.
In '13 he was 9th in PER, 5th in WS/48 (and I think like 12th or 13th in BPM), while having the 2nd-best [behind only LeBron] RAPM in the league (RAPM including playoffs, fwiw) [note: other sources have him lower]; this for a 7th-rated offense that came one made trey away from winning the title in 6 games. Was top 5 in RAPM in '12, too by that same source: that was as the leader in ppg and apg (18.3 and 7.7, with +1.2% rTS and only 2.6 topg) for a +6.3 rORTG [#1 in league].
Other years lag behind; still, he's got really solid longevity to augment some of these bullet points. While I don't think he peaked any higher than roughly All-NBA 2nd Team level, I think [as far as CORP evaluations are concerned] he's got probably SIX seasons "All-Star level" or better, and a whopping ELEVEN at "Sub All-Star" or better (that's equal/more seasons than the entire careers of Walton and Moncrief), and probably FOURTEEN as at least Avg/role player (more than the full careers of all other candidates).
Anyway, he's perhaps comfortably my preferred candidate among this group.
Alternate vote: Shawn Marion 6'7", athletic, with long arms and high-set shoulders [sort of like Kevin McHale] making his "effective height" more like 6'9" or so, and helped make him a versatile [and at times disruptive] defender, and one of the best rebounding SF's in NBA history (so quick on the second jump). Weird looking shot that nonetheless went in an awful lot. He was good working the baseline or filling the lane, could make these little pseudo-runners, hit the three OK [made especially good use of the corner]---peaking at 38.7% on decent volume, 33.1% for his career---and a career 81% FT-shooter (peaking at 85.1% [twice])......again, despite that weird-looking shot. Very good in transition.
EXTREMELY limited in terms of passing, and generally not a good creator, but he also played within his game very well; consequently had a VERY good turnover economy for a wing or combo forward (averaged just 1.5 topg for his career, despite producing roughly 15/9/2 per game). Peaked at roughly All-NBA 2nd Team level [or pretty close, at least]; probably 8 seasons as at least a borderline All-Star, and some other useful years outside of that, including being a starter and key role player on a title team.
Among this crowd of candidates he's rather easily my alternate pick.
If it comes to any runoff, I'm presently ranking them: Parker > Marion > Moncrief > Hagan > Walton (with Hagan and Walton being very close)
Nomination: Kevin Johnson Alt Nomination: Al Horford
Could see switching my alternate to Horace Grant (or Chris Bosh or Nique), pending how the tallies are turning out.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Doctor MJ wrote: I mean first: Jokic won the MVP in both of those years. You really suggesting it's weird to put him ahead of Doncic? Frankly, I have Jokic ahead of Doncic every single season.
Tatum vs Doncic is of course a major debate, but I'll emphasize:
'20-21 was a year known for Fat Luka. It was a year of disappointment after coming in (for the first time) as the pre-season MVP favorite. The hope that year was not that they'd come close to knocking off a Top 4 seed, but that they'd be a Top 4 seed.
'21-22 I think Luka has a very serious candidate, but I would put the candidates I listed above him. Just discussing Tatum, I do think it needs to be considered that the Celtics were an absolute machine once they got going with Tatum racking up +/- numbers that utterly dwarfed any teammate (or anyone else for that matter).
Regular season Celtics: Tatum +667 Brown +453 Smart +443
This is the type of gap that makes it awfully hard for me to look at the Celtics as the ensemble cast it's often portrayed as.
Now, is Tatum's scoring game as resilient as Luka's? No, and that makes it more debatable who the better player is when the chips are down, but Tatum is also an excellent 2-way player and that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
You're questioning Jokic over Luka in 2021? That doesn't even make sense.
Not really sure why you're bringing up voting for a regular-season award in response to me pointing out Luka's Mavericks were the better postseason team in both 2021 and 2022 in similar circumstances.
OhayoKD wrote:I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
You're questioning Jokic over Luka in 2021? That doesn't even make sense.
Not really sure why you're bringing up voting for a regular-season award in response to me pointing out Luka's Mavericks were the better postseason team in both 2021 and 2022 in similar circumstances.
Why are you chopping out the vast majority of his post which dealt with the post-season to knock him for having one line about the regular season?
Vote #1: Tony Parker -Good longevity, peak not that far below competition (fringe All-NBA level) -Important role on a historically notable team -Manu is the toughest competition for a backup in terms of on/off numbers
Vote #2: Sidney Moncrief -Very strong 5-6 year prime (~including '81), leading consistent 50+ win squads -One of the best defensive guards ever -All around solid on the offensive end as well -Never broke through in the playoffs, but not expecting that for candidates at this level.
Marion next in line for current nominees, but I could see a few other guys over him.
Nomination #1: Bob Davies -1st great guard, #2 overall of the first era -8 years at a star level ('46-'53) -2x champ as a star
Nomination #2: Horace Grant -Similar to Parker in story, as one of the most important 3rd guys ever -More proven across settings
I think KJ might be my next guy (obviously guys are all getting pretty close at this point). Could see going with Bosh as well, would have to think a bit more on it.
Not an ideal pick but the current crop of nominees is kid of underwhelming imo. After all the hubaloo about modern and recency bias over the last few threads, it's wierd to me no one takes an issue with the 80's and 90's still getting way more representation than any other decade in terms of inductees who have played and peaked and current nominees, including the 10's and 2000's which took place after foreign talent doubled within a span of 6 years and kept increasing.
Is no one going to push for a course correction here?
But I digress. LA Bird made Walton's case better than I could so...
Spoiler:
LA Bird wrote: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)
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.
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.
Impact portfolio only really cleanly topped by Lebron and Russell, a dominant championship, and an MVP, not to mention a key role in a second dominant championship is better than what everybody else on the board has to offer.
Nomination
1. Horace Grant
2. Al Hoford
Going with these two as they seem to have the most traction, but will make a case some other players I think more deserving than most of the current nominees(and maybe even a couple inductees).
1. Horace Grant
Not neccesarily the most deserving player, but with Sam Jones being pushed for a while now, I'd say Grant's case is probably a better version of Jones':
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
I've pointed this out before, but these box-numbers likely don't give Grant his full credit as a co-primary paint-protector on Chicago:
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)
Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentator[url][/url]s, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)
Distribution went
Pippen/Grant 14 each
Purdue 6 or 7
Cartwright 4
Armstrong/Jordan 1 each
FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else
All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.
FWIW, Chicago postseason defense tended to be closer to their postseason offense than one might think.
Horace Grant also probably deserves at least some credit for the 2001 Lakers dramatically improved postseason defense(and overall) performance relative to their 2000 iteration(their rim-protection numbers in particular were significantly).
Probably fair to say he played a "key role" on 4 champions and 5 finalists with three distinct cores(though there was common ground between all 3 teams). Nothing mind blowing in terms of rs impact(similar to Sam Jones and Sharman), but there's a consistent trend in terms of playoff results:
-> Chicago improves drastically overnight as he and pippen see their roles increase in 1990, looks similar to the 91 Bulls in the first two rounds per M.O.V iirc -> Chicago has their worst playoff run of the dynasty with his depature(despite looking pretty good without him in the RS) -> Magic go from a first round out to a finalist(though the "real nba finals" was arguably in the West) -> Lakers go from one of the worst champions ever to statistically maybe the best
All these teams specifically see their defense and ability to protect the paint rise and drop with his arrival and depature in the postseason.
I think if we're going to have the jones and sharmans inducted, Grant should also probably be there as well. Replication across contexts and a more clear connect between team performance and the nature of his contributions are advantages for him here I think.
TLDR: While both have eh rs profiles, unlike Sam Jones, Horace Grant has a consistent pattern of joining teams and seeing their playoff performance jump, and leaving teams and seeing their playoff performance fall, with his specific contributions correlating with the side of the floor the team jumps the most in. He also had one chance taking up a bigger role in 1994 and played like a legit no.2 on a contender. Sam Jones has no track record to speak off without the biggest impact outlier in history. Moreover, while the Bulls clearly missed Grant vs the Magic when he left, the Celtics went on their most impressive two-year playoff run with Sam Jones as a 6th man beating the 68 Lakers(highest mov ever with west), the 68 Sixers(wilt + a team that was good without him), the 69 Lakers(merger of 2nd and 3rd best team in the league, core that won a championship soon after), and the 69 Knicks(rotation that won the next year's championship and made three finals, winning two in short order). All in all, I'd say there are bigger questions around Sam Jones replicability than Grant and don't really see why Sam Jones should go ahead.
2. Marc Gasol
This omission is really weird to me:
-> Was the clear best player on a fringe contender, most notably going 2-1 up on the eventual champion 2015 Warriors before their point guard got hurt. -> Post-prime, was the clear-cut defensive anchor on a toronto side that won a title and then contended without their best player on the back of an all-time defense: Said defense becomes all-time when he comes, and returns to mediocrity when he leaves. Team immediately turns from contender to fringe playoff team -> Was correctly identified as the best defender in the league in 2013, and an all-time menace for opposing bigs(giannis, gasol) even post-prime -> Was helping the Lakers post the best defense and rs record and srs in the league before injuries derailed their 2021 campaign
The comparisons that come to mind are are
already inducted Sam Cousy who -> did not co-lead a team as close to winning as what Gasol led -> did not show the same level impact post-prime on a winner
already getting inductee votes larry nance -> did not co-lead a team as competitive as the grizzlies -> never won -> not as clear-cut of a defensive anchor
Bill Sharman -> same as cousy except without the MVP
Gasol has yet to get a single nomination vote, I don't get it at all. Probably should have been inducted already tbh.
3. Iggy A few years as the star(and defensive anchor) of playoff teams, and then post-injury played a key role for 3 championships and 6 final apperances over two teams. Since championship role-players are in vogue right now...
Also strong rapm for what it's worth.
4. Luka Donicic
Better peak than anyone left on the board besides Walton and argument for being the best in a vacuum. His longetivity is a knock but he was pretty much better than anyone here besides Bill in his second year in the league if not his first and while people may not be overly impressed by the round finishes and rs record, on a series to series basis, Luka's Mavs have done pretty well:
-> went toe to toe with "maybe win the title if kawhi is healthy" clippers with kawhi -> beat "best record over the last 5 years" suns a year removed from their final run
Mavs have been a fringe contender with Luka in the playoffs and haven't been a good team without him in the regular season if you go by game instead of "few minutes without". If Walton is getting serious inductee consideration, Luka deserves some nomination love I think.
With Jones and Cousy getting some traction, i'll copy and paste some of the counterpoints offered in the #72 thread that I do not think have been satisfactorily addressed:
Skepticism on Sam Jones and Bob Cousy
Spoiler:
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: As an era-relativist, I get irked when the only(or predominant) argument someone can come up with for one player over another is "tougher era".
I also take issue with "reasonably equivalent offensive production" when Sharman was significantly more efficient relative to his competition.
Ultimately though, my real gripe isn't that you might take Jones over Sharman(though I disagree with it), it's the fact that Sharman didn't make the Top 100 at all last time(or the time before that) while Jones made it both times. I just want to make sure Sharman is in the conversation because I don't see any argument for him not to make the list if Jones is in.
Or we can exclude both
Sam Jones does look better by WOWY, mostly by default:
In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him.
This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain
I would have pause considering either for the top 100 simply because they were on championship teams. I also know some voters here have put stock into moonbeam's version of psuedo-rapm where Russell is the gold standard regularized and torches the field to a degree no one else across history does with his raw inputs(doubles 2nd place Wilt iirc over a certain stretch). Lots of emphasis on points and ts add on average offenses seems odd. Sam Jones defense has been praised but he is a guard and the defenses don't actually seem to care too much about whether he's there or not. 1969 is probably not fair since it's 6th man Sam Jones, but 1966 Sam Jones put up one of his highest point totals and fg percentages so if that version is not making a signficant impact, why is he being voted in here, let alone Sherman?
Honestly would be wierd to be putting more of Russell's teammates on this list than last time when we have a bunch of new evidence/argumentation suggesting Russell is more valuable individually than people were crediting him as the last go around and we have a bunch of new players to consider. Do these players actually warrant being considered over 100 other nba players?
Am pretty open to Cousy since he was post-prime with his own unimpressive signal and I assume he did something to earn the MVP but...
trex_8063 wrote:
Will first emphasize that your above comments appear to specifically delineate Cousy's post-prime. And I'll also acknowledge that the league/game progressed faster than Cousy did as a player.
That said, the limited/noisy impact metric from the very same source (Ben Taylor) reflects decently upon Cousy: his prime WOWYR is +4.4, career +3.9.
As always, when using these sorts of numbers I think it can be worthwhile to check what the sample here is. I don't know what exact years are factored into prime, but up until 1957, Cousy doesn't really miss time with the exception of 52 and 51 where the Celtics see a +1.3 SRS improvement when Cousy joins. I don't highlight that to criticize rookie Cousy, but rather to highlight a potential discrepancy:
With how WOWYR works(this is true in general when you take stretched singals vs concentrated ones but WOWYR's "adjustments" compound this considerably), that +3.9(and perhaps to a degree the +4.4) is disproportionately operating off that 1951 and 1952 wothout sample and transposing it as part of the off for all the other years(where cousy barely misses time) as well. Also note, unlike Moonbeam's version, the much larger sampled +1.3 mark is not factored in at all.
In other words, that score, mantained over a very small per-season sample, is likely significantly inflated by 9 games coming with a much weaker cast from Cousy's first two years.
I am also somewhat concerned with the lack of success in this pre-russell prime period where the team does not make a single final in a very weak league winnig a grand total of 4 series. The term "offensive dynasty" is thrown around for the Cousy years, but success on one side of the court is really not the point.
The Celtics having goat-level defenses is cool, but it matters to the degree it helped produce the most successful team ever, not because the goat defense isinofitself of extreme importance. Good on them for having the best offenses pre-Russell, but does it really matter if they weren't the all that close to being the best team?
eminence wrote: On Cousy.
I think his early career WOWY signal is unfortunately impossible to pin down.
He/Macauley arrive in Boston at the same time, the league contracts from 17 to 10.5 teams, both the without and with samples have large gaps between their ratings/win% (in opposing directions). It all combines to make the '50 vs '51 Celtics comparison very difficult, though I think it's clear the two combine with Red to turn the franchise around (they were absolute garbage their first four seasons and turned into a consistent .500+/playoff squad).
He then misses a grand total of 1 RS game prior to '57.
Agreed that 'offensive dynasty' oversells the Celtics of the period (hey, sometimes we're all sellers). They were a decent to good team, built around a strong offense. Related - I believe they only won 3 series over that period (you may have counted the '54 round robin as two wins).
0-2 vs Knicks '51 1-2 vs Knicks '52 2-0 vs Nats '53 1-3 vs Knicks '53 2-2 '54 Round Robin (2-0 vs Knicks, 0-2 vs Nats) 0-2 vs Nats '54 2-1 vs Knicks '55 1-3 vs Nats '55 1-2 vs Nats '56
For comparison the other Eastern conference squads from '51-'56 (not counting tiebreakers). Knicks 6 series wins Nats 8 (counting the '54 round robin as 2 wins) Warriors 2 (their '56 title)
A worse but healthier version of the Lob City Clippers.
My current sentiment on inclusion in the top 100 for both is Cousy as a maybe(entirely on the basis of him winning an MVP really), and Sam Jones as a no. The former does not have notable team-success in the "prime" we don't have substantial data for and Russell's Celtics play better without him in the post-period.
For the latter, we have a peak signal where the Celtics do not drop-off without him, a marginal bit of lift in the year he's a 6th man, and is his claim to fame is scoring prowess on an average offense with the possiblity that this is a result of scheme(which still only works if we assume Sam Jones had substantially better impact than what can be discerned statistically).
Possible he's just gotten unlucky with the games he's missed, but the evidence for Jones being top-100 worthy just isn't there I think.
OhayoKD wrote:Maybe it's playoff weighting, but I don't really see a good argument against Luka top 5 in 2021 or 2022. If anything i'd be tempted to put him top 3 for both. Feels you have to thread a needle to have jokic and tatum ahead those years.
I mean first: Jokic won the MVP in both of those years. You really suggesting it's weird to put him ahead of Doncic? Frankly, I have Jokic ahead of Doncic every single season.
Tatum vs Doncic is of course a major debate, but I'll emphasize:
'20-21 was a year known for Fat Luka. It was a year of disappointment after coming in (for the first time) as the pre-season MVP favorite. The hope that year was not that they'd come close to knocking off a Top 4 seed, but that they'd be a Top 4 seed.
'21-22 I think Luka has a very serious candidate, but I would put the candidates I listed above him. Just discussing Tatum, I do think it needs to be considered that the Celtics were an absolute machine once they got going with Tatum racking up +/- numbers that utterly dwarfed any teammate (or anyone else for that matter).
Regular season Celtics: Tatum +667 Brown +453 Smart +443
This is the type of gap that makes it awfully hard for me to look at the Celtics as the ensemble cast it's often portrayed as.
Now, is Tatum's scoring game as resilient as Luka's? No, and that makes it more debatable who the better player is when the chips are down, but Tatum is also an excellent 2-way player and that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
I think it takes a specific angle to put jokic and taum ahead as one's would be rooted in the regular season, and the other would be rooted in the playoffs. The Nuggets were completely uncompetitive against serious competition and could barely handle .500ish competition(literally outscored in 2021). The Mavericks went toe to toe with the kawhi-clippers and then were taking out the suns.
On the other hand, fat luka's mavericks won 12 more games than the Celtics did in 2021 and 1 more game than the Celtics did in 2022.
Put another way, for those 2 years Luka is leading better playoff teams than one guy and leading better rs teams than the other guy. Him coming behind both requires some specific stuff here unless the argument is that he just had more help(plausible with jokic i guess, almost certainly the opposite with tatum).
Can you post the Luka comps with Tatum and Jokic including longevity so we can see why Luka is ahead of one in the RS and the other in the PS? I may be neglecting Luka unfairly (or elevating Tatum unfairly).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
I still think Moncrief is the best two-way peak here other than Walton. Hagan's support has dropped, Parker's individual stats give me concern, and I am lukewarm on Marion. Moncrief had a five-year run where he was the #1 on three ECF teams while putting up some impressive RS box composites. I think if his playoff performance had been a bit better, he'd be in by now.
Giving Walton my #2, undeniable peak.
Nomination Vote #1: Bill Sharman
Nomination Vote #2: Kevin Johnson
I nominate Sharman again. I implore you all to support him for his outlier scoring efficiency, his significant(by WS/48) contribution to multiple championship teams, his durability, and his overall athleticism.
For my #2 vote, KJ and Grant have traction, and as much as I love Grant, there is a question of primacy - KJ was #1 on multiple WCF teams and then #2 on a Finals team; Grant was always #3 in his prime years(except for 1994).
Vote 1 - Tony Parker Vote 2 - Sidney Moncrief Nomination 1 - Bill Sharman Nomination 2 - Kevin Johnson
Parker has solid longevity on one of the best sustained stretches of team success in league history. While his impact relative to other spurs may have been uneven, I think he peaked pretty highly and is deserving at this point in the project. At his best he was a killer off the dribble, crafty finishing in the paint and a respectable shooter.
No chance for Walton this round so I'll swing my vote to Moncrief instead. Elite two way play and his prime, while short, is not any shorter than Reed's who was inducted 20+ rounds ago. Strong impact numbers in 85/86 but fell off quickly in 87. I used to compare Moncrief to Butler because of their similar statistical profile but Butler has leveled up to a higher tier with stronger playoffs performances and longevity.
My previous post on why I won't vote Parker:
Spoiler:
Not sure why people still cite the googlesites data to this day when it's literally a mishmash of different RAPMs with two incomplete seasons. Maybe it served its purpose back in the day when analytics was still in its wild west era but that site became obsolete the moment JE posted complete NPI and PI RAPM for every season from 2001 to 2015.
As for how big of a role RAPM should factor into GOAT lists, obviously everyone has different opinions. Some care about it a lot, some don't care at all, but no matter where you stand, the same standard should be applied consistently without bias. If you are going to argue for Tony Parker because of the length of his prime, you can't just only cite the one or two seasons where he looks good in RAPM and ignore the rest. Let's look at his multi-year RAPM in the regular season and playoffs over his entire prime. Oh, it's pretty mediocre. Maybe he has incredible box scores instead? Nope. Playoffs resiliency? No again. He has a FMVP in 2007 in the sweep against the Cavs but he was poor in every other Finals series.
2003: 14/3/4 on 45% TS 2005: 14/2/3 on 47% TS 2013: 16/2/6 on 47% TS 2014: 18/0/5 on 55% TS (rest of Spurs shot 66% TS)
For his overall playoffs career, Parker's composite stats are hovering near league average (0.3 BPM, 0.084 WS/48) and his on/off is negative. This is an offense-only guard with basically one standout ability, finishing in the paint, that got nerfed in the playoffs over and over. As a player, I just don't see the argument for him here. Obviously, if we are talking about historical significance, Parker would deserve to be top 100 because the Duncan Spurs are one of the GOAT dynasties. But by that same very criteria, Cousy should be a top 50 lock and he missed that mark by 30 spots.
Idk. i read ppl say he led a team to a title so i guess him.
[b]Hoford
Hey ShaqA, a couple things:
1. Hagan is one of the Nominees list at the start of every thread. If you'd like to vote for Induction, make clear that's what you're doing.
2. Please have the confidence to just vote for guys based on what you think rather than feeling pushed to vote for what others think. It's okay to be wrong, just do your best and ask questions of what you're unsure of.
HeartBreakKid wrote:Vote Bill Walton - He's by far the best player, and is still a notable difference maker even with the injuries.
Alternate Vote is for Cliff Hagan - Tough between Cliff and Moncrief. Both guys kind of have a similar level of "good" post seasons but I think Cliffs felt more definitive. Also, in some respects Cliff doesn't have as many weak runs as Sidney does. I think there seems to be more of a pattern that Sidney doesn't play as well in the post season, though I wish we had more chances to see him more.
Vote Bill Walton - He's by far the best player, and is still a notable difference maker even with the injuries.
Alternate Vote Sidney Moncrief - Pretty close between him and Hagan, but I'll switch my vote to Sidney since it seems like it's between him and Parker, and I don't think Parker was all that useful (compared to all time great players). He was a really weak defender, kind of lukewarm as an offensive player as well for most seasons, not really a great combination for me.
I've voted for these two guys before and I'm doing it again. Walton aside, I don't think anyone was as valuable to a championship among the players listed as Hagan was. Can definitely see the argument for Parker specifically here over both, but it's awfully hard for me to champion Parker as I think he was very much in the right place at the right time.
Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum Nomination 2: Kevin Johnson
Continuing to side with Tatum, and casting my 2nd to KJ. I think in both cases these are guys who it's easy to overstate how problematic their longevity is. In the time they played, they had profound value to contenders.
These can be seen on his career PIPM graph.
