Remove the star, highest win differential?

[One_and_Done]

How about another thing - can you tell me what made Tom Heinsohn a star-caliber player in 1964? What were his strengths and limitations? How did he influence the Celtics offense and defense? You seem to know a lot about 1960s basketball, please share the knowledge with us!

You're changing the subject because you've just realised you're wrong. I'm not going to engage in this goalpost shift.

[70sFan]

How about another thing - can you tell me what made Tom Heinsohn a star-caliber player in 1964? What were his strengths and limitations? How did he influence the Celtics offense and defense? You seem to know a lot about 1960s basketball, please share the knowledge with us!

You're changing the subject because you've just realised you're wrong. I'm not going to engage in this goalpost shift.

I am definitely not changing the goal of the discussion. I disagree with your evaluation of 1964 Celtics players, so please explain me why I am wrong. You know, you saying I am wrong without showing evidences don't mean much.

[eminence]

Agreeing that Jones was one of the 2nd tier 60s guys. He proved himself plenty in the playoffs and was certainly a good player, but nowhere near the top 4. In modern terms I'd put him in the solid Allstar to fringe All-NBA range (Klay Thompson pre-injury?).

I don't particularly mind his 4th place MVP finish in '65 - as I think most can agree that wasn't Wilt at his best.

I will give a shout to Satch/Heinsohn/Hondo as an absolutely loaded defensive forwards lineup. It's not surprising with Russell at the head they put out their best defenses those seasons (throw in KC, Sam was just okay but had to carry the offensive load).

[One_and_Done]

How about another thing - can you tell me what made Tom Heinsohn a star-caliber player in 1964? What were his strengths and limitations? How did he influence the Celtics offense and defense? You seem to know a lot about 1960s basketball, please share the knowledge with us!

You're changing the subject because you've just realised you're wrong. I'm not going to engage in this goalpost shift.

I am definitely not changing the goal of the discussion. I disagree with your evaluation of 1964 Celtics players, so please explain me why I am wrong. You know, you saying I am wrong without showing evidences don't mean much.

It's not necessary for us to agree, because you've already ballparked some of these guys in a way that is irreconcilable with the players you were comparing them to, e.g. claiming that Sam Jones was 'no better than Elgin Baylor'. Ok, so we have a ballpark for how good you think Sam Jones was, and clearly it was far superior to 2002 D.Rob.

[70sFan]

You're changing the subject because you've just realised you're wrong. I'm not going to engage in this goalpost shift.

I am definitely not changing the goal of the discussion. I disagree with your evaluation of 1964 Celtics players, so please explain me why I am wrong. You know, you saying I am wrong without showing evidences don't mean much.

It's not necessary for us to agree, because you've already ballparked some of these guys in a way that is irreconcilable with the players you were comparing them to, e.g. claiming that Sam Jones was 'no better than Elgin Baylor'. Ok, so we have a ballpark for how good you think Sam Jones was, and clearly it was far superior to 2002 D.Rob.

What makes Jones one of the best players in the league? What prevented him from being the best?

[One_and_Done]

I am definitely not changing the goal of the discussion. I disagree with your evaluation of 1964 Celtics players, so please explain me why I am wrong. You know, you saying I am wrong without showing evidences don't mean much.

It's not necessary for us to agree, because you've already ballparked some of these guys in a way that is irreconcilable with the players you were comparing them to, e.g. claiming that Sam Jones was 'no better than Elgin Baylor'. Ok, so we have a ballpark for how good you think Sam Jones was, and clearly it was far superior to 2002 D.Rob.

What makes Jones one of the best players in the league? What prevented him from being the best?

You're trying to backpedal again because you've realised you're wrong. I'm out. Nothing more to do here.

[70sFan]

It's not necessary for us to agree, because you've already ballparked some of these guys in a way that is irreconcilable with the players you were comparing them to, e.g. claiming that Sam Jones was 'no better than Elgin Baylor'. Ok, so we have a ballpark for how good you think Sam Jones was, and clearly it was far superior to 2002 D.Rob.

What makes Jones one of the best players in the league? What prevented him from being the best?

You're trying to backpedal again because you've realised you're wrong. I'm out. Nothing more to do here.

No, you don't answer because you have no knowledge about these 1960s players. Sounds harsh but that's the reality.

Am I wrong because I don't think 2002 Spurs had good roleplayers? Or because I don't think Jones is top 5 player in the league at any point of his career? Or because Tom Heinsohn wasn't all-star level player in 1964 and got the accolades based on reputation?

[DCasey91]

Guys it's clear nothing productive is happening, failure to acknowledge/changing the frame just turns into a pee pee contest without actually addressing it

70's fan I do not think the Spurs cast is close to the Russell one. The poster made coherent statements at least

Anyway Jokic looks like an all time floor raiser which shouldn't be surprising at all that 22' team was putrid.

The question is highest win/loss differential. Bron obviously has alien like carry jobs

Duncan included that's a really really awesome top 3.

And no I'm not getting into replacement I.e replace player X with average across the board it becomes too theoretical.

Instead I focus on how bad the support was and go from there. Realistically all 3 had 25++ wins added

Ways to determine the support cast level if in itself it's actually quite decent. Bucks had Middleton/Lopez/Holiday which is unsurprising they were above .500 for the majority (Jrue was killing on the plus minus if I recall for a season)

94 Bulls

Means to say I suspect a truly bad support cast can definety drop lower than expected outcome vs a good support cast performing well enough or overperforming

[NBA4Lyfe]

I might be bias, but do this years clippers even have one win without James harden this year. And that’s with harden playing like “trash” this year. Like Norman Powell and zubac are playing way over their talent level. If their is no harden then the clippers starting pg is kpj and Kris Dunn

[Doctor MJ]

Name the team and season where if you remove a single player, the win column gets impacted the most with less wins?

I'd go with '08-09 Cavs with LeBron.

To get into a bit more detail here: There's not a statistical measure I trust for this. RAPM measures the drop off (noisily), but normalizes for team quality. I have a measure I call WaffL (Wins with OffLoss - negative +/- without the player), but while the data generally points in the right direction, the highest WaffL scores I've found even ahead of '09 LeBron are Dray & Steph in '15-16.

I will say that I think Jokic this year might challenge Bron for this crown in my eyes.

[falcolombardi]

Name the team and season where if you remove a single player, the win column gets impacted the most with less wins?

I'd go with '08-09 Cavs with LeBron.

To get into a bit more detail here: There's not a statistical measure I trust for this. RAPM measures the drop off (noisily), but normalizes for team quality. I have a measure I call WaffL (Wins with OffLoss - negative +/- without the player), but while the data generally points in the right direction, the highest WaffL scores I've found even ahead of '09 LeBron are Dray & Steph in '15-16.

I will say that I think Jokic this year might challenge Bron for this crown in my eyes.

What makes 09/10 lebron carry job so absurd in my eyes is that he provided jokic like floor raising (even in his pre offensive prime version) with all league defense for a wing/power forward

Even compared to other great carryjobs like jokic has, the latter is slightly aided by stuff like denver having not even a replacement level backup as well as usually playing jokic with the rest of starters since their bench is so thin, creating some collinearity issues.

Whereas cleveland theorical second best player (mo williams) would be played with the second unit and it still was awful

[DCasey91]

I do agree about the 09 Cavs but the thing is they did have Big Z and V and Big Ben playing 50+ on the frontcourt which at least is something.

For me Jokic this year definety has an argument. Outside of MPJ I don't believe there's anyone on the list that shifts the mean in a productive way (offense or defence) especially with Murray looking like this.

It's the 66 wins that's a humugous total which you can appropriately estimate north of 30+.

2022 was at 48 and it would have been a struggle without Jokic to get to 18.

This year it looks so awful too, but yeah food for thought when discussing the whole list outside the Superstar.

I've already put Jokic on shorter end along with early Bron, Keem and Garnett.

FO needs to take a hard long look themselves. It's weird because Nuggets can actually draft reasonably well all things considered. It's also weird that Jokic isn't an ultra domineering ball handler but every time he sits its like the whole team doesn't know what to do on either side of the ball. Malone needs to come up with solidified plans when he isn't on the court.

[One_and_Done]

Jokic lift is very large, but it's being overestimated because of small samples or other guys missing across some of the sample. If Jokic lift was anywhere close to Lebron (or Duncan) we'd see better regular seasons I'm those years where he does have a good support cast (e.g. 23 & 24). It's a big lift, but it's not at the summit of Lebron type carries. As was pointed out, the lack of a replacement level player for Jokic is also an issue.

23 & 24 support cast for Jokic was vastly better than Lebron or Duncan had in the listed years.

[falcolombardi]

I do agree about the 09 Cavs but the thing is they did have Big Z and V and Big Ben playing 50+ on the frontcourt which at least is something.

For me Jokic this year definety has an argument. Outside of MPJ I don't believe there's anyone on the list that shifts the mean in a productive way (offense or defence) especially with Murray looking like this.

It's the 66 wins that's a humugous total which you can appropriately estimate north of 30+.

2022 was at 48 and it would have been a struggle without Jokic to get to 18.

This year it looks so awful too, but yeah food for thought when discussing the whole list outside the Superstar.

I've already put Jokic on shorter end along with early Bron, Keem and Garnett.

FO needs to take a hard long look themselves. It's weird because Nuggets can actually draft reasonably well all things considered. It's also weird that Jokic isn't an ultra domineering ball handler but every time he sits its like the whole team doesn't know what to do on either side of the ball. Malone needs to come up with solidified plans when he isn't on the court.

I think the reason for your last question is that the negative effects of playing with "ball dominant" ball handlers when those sits are largely overstated to meme proportions if they even exist at all

All systems ran around a star whether it is a high usage ball handler ala luka, a off ball/on ball hybrid like curry or a passing/post hub like jokic will have the teams scramble to replace them whem they sit

Because there is no readily available bench player who can approximate what they do.

[DCasey91]

Wait how is it overestimated when the sample size is quite large going back to 2021?

Like clockwork the offense and defence falls of a cliff when he's not on the court

KCP had a bad year and Murray missed games they would have won 60 which would be in the ballpark imo

As bad as the 09 Cavs were do you see the names in the frontcourt?

If the Nuggets had a Big Ben defensive backup (which won't happen) then things change

Also the factor of Conference play especially as the Nuggets are in the harder difficulty

I do see a comfortable and reasonable way to make things better to make the weaknesses less exposed but until that happens this is the list. I've been ringing for double O to moved to a place where he's more appreciated.

But anyway yeah if Jokic can make Westbrook playable dude could make anyone seem decent lmao

[One_and_Done]

Wait how is it overestimated when the sample size is quite large going back to 2021?

Like clockwork the offense and defence falls of a cliff when he's not on the court

KCP had a bad year and Murray missed games they would have won 60 which would be in the ballpark imo

As bad as the 09 Cavs were do you see the names in the frontcourt?

If the Nuggets had a Big Ben defensive backup (which won't happen) then things change

Also the factor of Conference play especially as the Nuggets are in the harder difficulty

I do see a comfortable and reasonable way to make things better to make the weaknesses less exposed but until that happens this is the list. I've been ringing for double O to moved to a place where he's more appreciated.

But anyway yeah if Jokic can make Westbrook playable dude could make anyone seem decent lmao

Conferences are irrelevant for the 09 & 10 Cavs. They were even better against the West than the East.

I think you're underestimating those Nuggets players, and overestimating what the Spurs/Cavs had. Big Ben was washed. The Cavs were trying to win games the next year for the first 40 games and opened the season 8-32.

The 2002 Spurs wouldn't have won 20 games without Duncan. The 09 & 10 Cavs were probably a 25-ish win team. The 23 & 24 Nuggets minus Jokic were nowhere near that bad. It only feels like that this year because Murray is trash after the injuries, Gordon has missed time, and other role players like KCP, Brown, J.Green, etc, are gone.

The Nuggets weren't as good as those Spurs/Cavs teams, despite having better support talent.

[DCasey91]

I do agree about the 09 Cavs but the thing is they did have Big Z and V and Big Ben playing 50+ on the frontcourt which at least is something.

For me Jokic this year definety has an argument. Outside of MPJ I don't believe there's anyone on the list that shifts the mean in a productive way (offense or defence) especially with Murray looking like this.

It's the 66 wins that's a humugous total which you can appropriately estimate north of 30+.

2022 was at 48 and it would have been a struggle without Jokic to get to 18.

This year it looks so awful too, but yeah food for thought when discussing the whole list outside the Superstar.

I've already put Jokic on shorter end along with early Bron, Keem and Garnett.

FO needs to take a hard long look themselves. It's weird because Nuggets can actually draft reasonably well all things considered. It's also weird that Jokic isn't an ultra domineering ball handler but every time he sits its like the whole team doesn't know what to do on either side of the ball. Malone needs to come up with solidified plans when he isn't on the court.

I think the reason for your last question is that the negative effects of playing with "ball dominant" ball handlers when those sits are largely overstated to meme proportions if they even exist at all

All systems ran around a star whether it is a high usage ball handler ala luka, a off ball/on ball hybrid like curry or a passing/post hub like jokic will have the teams scramble to replace them whem they sit

Because there is no readily available bench player who can approximate what they do.

I understand this as the chasm left when the main guy, 1/2 combo isn't on the court. There is going to be negative effects as the best players on the team take up the brunt of responsibility regardless

But I look at it from a 5v5 perspective rather than one sits and the dynamics of play of course changes.

In my view not as a replacement obviously but there's just more guard play readily to go whereas Jokic is so unique it covers so many weaknesses for a teams perspective.

That's why I look at quality of list in particulars. I'd have to check how the defence was in 2021 sans Curry not on the court for example

If not mistaken the Mavs bench was capable a couple seasons back

I think just whether by pure volume scoring, good defensive role players, very good off ball shooters there's ways for a bench or bench + starters - superstar/superstars to have some reasonable float (obviously most of the time it will be sub average but the hope is not to be outright terrible)

I don't have a cut and dry formula, as I've already mentioned that having a backup defensive C would change things altogether, but they don't have one so I only can go off what is presented so far.

[DCasey91]

Wait how is it overestimated when the sample size is quite large going back to 2021?

Like clockwork the offense and defence falls of a cliff when he's not on the court

KCP had a bad year and Murray missed games they would have won 60 which would be in the ballpark imo

As bad as the 09 Cavs were do you see the names in the frontcourt?

If the Nuggets had a Big Ben defensive backup (which won't happen) then things change

Also the factor of Conference play especially as the Nuggets are in the harder difficulty

I do see a comfortable and reasonable way to make things better to make the weaknesses less exposed but until that happens this is the list. I've been ringing for double O to moved to a place where he's more appreciated.

But anyway yeah if Jokic can make Westbrook playable dude could make anyone seem decent lmao

Conferences are irrelevant for the 09 & 10 Cavs. They were even better against the West than the East.

I think you're underestimating those Nuggets players, and overestimating what the Spurs/Cavs had. Big Ben was washed. The Cavs were trying to win games the next year for the first 40 games and opened the season 8-32.

The 2002 Spurs wouldn't have won 20 games without Duncan. The 09 & 10 Cavs were probably a 25-ish win team. The 23 & 24 Nuggets minus Jokic were nowhere near that bad. It only feels like that this year because Murray is trash after the injuries, Gordon has missed time, and other role players like KCP, Brown, J.Green, etc, are gone.

The Nuggets weren't as good as those Spurs/Cavs teams, despite having better support talent.

No I've had this feeling since 2021, it's legit clockwork when he sits.

It's not overestimation it's about perspective. Regardless I'm saying in regards to having no backup. If Big Ben is washed then Westbrook shouldn't be in the league not that Big Ben was at least defensively which is obvious that was his role.

Also I was just saying the 60 total for 2024 didn't mention 2023 at all.

But I cannot remiss how bad the 2022 list actually was. Check the names I do not think that's an overestimation at all. He was playing heavy minutes with multiple G league level players.

[One_and_Done]

Some of the 2002 Spurs belonged in a G-League; e.g. Charles Smith, broken down Steve Smith, 38 yr old T.Porter, Dan Ferry age 35, etc. Malik Rose was at best a career back-up. In today's league he would be a G-Leaguer.

[DCasey91]

Thank you that's my top 3 that I have.

Rudimentary netrtg, WOWY and W/L doesn't tell the full scope. There's a lot of variables

For project sake I would have 09 Cavs at 1# and go from there.

And the theory of having worst support cast vs median or better support cast needs more evidence and research to back this but I have a feeling it holds up.

Objectively a better support cast has more of a chance of meeting or exceeding expectation vs a bad support cast dipping below expectancy.

Like Holiday/Middleton/Lopez is an obviously good support cast

I do like having floating dividends for starters or bench components.

Like say a Gallinari off the bench, or more specifically Hartenstein off the bench obviously floats to two different ends of the spectrum (offense/defence)

Starters as well, Draymond Green for defence or say a Hedo at the Magic just for an example

I do obviously think there's better compensation than just a support player whose direct median at both or worse terrible on both sides of the court.