Top 25 peaks of the 2001-25: #7-#8 Spots

[lessthanjake]

Do we really think that those Warriors were just more talented than every other team ever? I think it’d require having a *really* charitable view of guys like Klay Thompson and post-prime Andre Iguodala to get to that conclusion. To me, it just seems intuitively obvious that those Warriors had superior fit to other stacked teams.

I spent an entire post explaining why it isn't just talent.

Did you read my post? I talked about how fit and structure were important and unique compared to other modern super teams.

But, to circle back since you and Doctor MJ seem to keep harping on talent, the 2017 Warriors were the most talented team ever in my eyes. That doesn't take away my main point though about modern-day super teams and how fit and structure become more important as talent increases.

Klay was 3rd Team All-NBA in 2016. Andre Iguodala was the 5th best player.

Yes, I did read both your posts, and your posts (particularly your first one) seemed to largely be suggesting that the Warriors had more depth of talent than the teams you were using as your examples (Heat, Celtics, and Nets), in large part because these other teams had to “strip[] part of their core” to get the super team. Indeed, your argument was originally that “The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.” I interpreted that as an argument about talent. That’s why I brought up the existence of many other extremely talented teams throughout NBA history for which your arguments about the Heat/Celtics/Nets were not the case and who nevertheless were not as good as the 2017 Warriors. I realize it may have been a bit confusing since my post was responding to something you’d mostly talked about in a prior embedded post in the exchange, rather than your last post.

But yes, you did end the second post by talking about how “the Warriors . . . added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need.” That seems to me like it’s basically agreeing with what DocMJ was saying. Or at least it’s agreeing with what I’m saying—which is that it seems obvious to me that the Durant Warriors had superior fit than other hyper talented teams in history. So yeah, I have no real issue with that part.

To me, though, the fact that that team fit together better than other extremely talented teams is a huge credit to the stars on that team. As evidenced from the fact that many other hyper talented teams in NBA history didn’t fit together as well, it is really not easy for such talented rosters to fit together as well as the 2017 Warriors did. This is a feather in the cap of all involved IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re wanting to acknowledge that they had superior fit but then simultaneously say that the difference here isn’t “because of Durant . . . nor is it because of Curry or Kerr’s system.” And I just don’t think it’s plausible to acknowledge that a team fit uniquely well together compared to other hyper talented rosters and then not give any credit for that to the team’s best players (or even the system the team plays in). Intuitively, that just seems like an incorrect conclusion to me.

[eminence]

Tangential to this discussion - I expect to be strongly considering Draymond next thread. Probably more impressed with his ‘16 than any season from KD.

Overall never overly impressed with the Warriors depth from Klay on down. Certainly not bad, but doesn’t stand out above other title contending teams from the last ~20 years. Mostly a marketing ploy ‘Strength In Numbers/Splash Bros’ imo.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Do we really think that those Warriors were just more talented than every other team ever? I think it’d require having a *really* charitable view of guys like Klay Thompson and post-prime Andre Iguodala to get to that conclusion. To me, it just seems intuitively obvious that those Warriors had superior fit to other stacked teams.

I spent an entire post explaining why it isn't just talent.

Did you read my post? I talked about how fit and structure were important and unique compared to other modern super teams.

But, to circle back since you and Doctor MJ seem to keep harping on talent, the 2017 Warriors were the most talented team ever in my eyes. That doesn't take away my main point though about modern-day super teams and how fit and structure become more important as talent increases.

Klay was 3rd Team All-NBA in 2016. Andre Iguodala was the 5th best player.

Yes, I did read both your posts, and your posts (particularly your first one) seemed to largely be suggesting that the Warriors had more depth of talent than the teams you were using as your examples (Heat, Celtics, and Nets), in large part because these other teams had to “strip[] part of their core” to get the super team. Indeed, your argument was originally that “The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.” I interpreted that as an argument about talent. That’s why I brought up the existence of many other extremely talented teams throughout NBA history for which that was not the case and who nevertheless were not as good as the 2017 Warriors. I realize it may have been a bit confusing since my post was responding to something you’d mostly talked about in a prior embedded post in the exchange, rather than your last post.

But yes, you did end the second post by talking about how “the Warriors . . . added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need.” That seems to me like it’s basically agreeing with what DocMJ was saying. Or at least it’s agreeing with what I’m saying—which is that it seems obvious to me that the Durant Warriors had superior fit than other hyper talented teams in history. So yeah, I have no real issue with that part.

To me, though, the fact that that team fit together better than other extremely talented teams is a huge credit to the stars on that team. As evidenced from the fact that many other hyper talented teams in NBA history didn’t fit together as well, it is really not easy for such talented rosters to fit together as well as the 2017 Warriors did. This is a feather in the cap of all involved IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re wanting to acknowledge that they had superior fit but then simultaneously say that the difference here isn’t “because of Durant . . . nor is it because of Curry or Kerr’s system.” And I just don’t think it’s plausible to acknowledge that a team fit uniquely well together compared to other hyper talented rosters and then not give any credit for that to the team’s best players (or even the system the team plays in). Intuitively, that just seems like an incorrect conclusion to me.

It's possible the Warriors are the most talented team ever and had the best nucleus for any superteam (Curry/Draymond/Klay being a super team) to be in position to seamless add one of the best scorers ever.

These can both be true.

What happens when teams continue to add talent is there becomes more of a focus on fit, structure and a chess master (coach) ability to utilize all the pieces to their maximum value. Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets. This is why someone who can do more on the basketball-court is going to be more portable, and a person who can do less typically will be less portable than someone who can do more things, since it is more likely someone who can do less things will have overlap than someone who can do more things.

Where this concept of portability sort of falls by the wayside is when we are comparing "How does an MVP do when added to a 73-win team?" As part of an argument for why one player is better than another. As if this is more important than any realistic roster construction, which typically involves building directly around a specific player and their skill-set(s).

I don't have Giannis highly ranked due to his offense. In fact, his offense is feeble in the sense of its simplicity and he isn't going to be a great fit when added to certain rosters, certainly compared to Durant.

That, to me, doesn't make Giannis a worse player than Durant though. Giannis' defense and rim pressure will always be a boon for his impact regardless the roster construction or who his teammates are and his defense is near GOAT level.

[lessthanjake]

I spent an entire post explaining why it isn't just talent.

Did you read my post? I talked about how fit and structure were important and unique compared to other modern super teams.

But, to circle back since you and Doctor MJ seem to keep harping on talent, the 2017 Warriors were the most talented team ever in my eyes. That doesn't take away my main point though about modern-day super teams and how fit and structure become more important as talent increases.

Klay was 3rd Team All-NBA in 2016. Andre Iguodala was the 5th best player.

Yes, I did read both your posts, and your posts (particularly your first one) seemed to largely be suggesting that the Warriors had more depth of talent than the teams you were using as your examples (Heat, Celtics, and Nets), in large part because these other teams had to “strip[] part of their core” to get the super team. Indeed, your argument was originally that “The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.” I interpreted that as an argument about talent. That’s why I brought up the existence of many other extremely talented teams throughout NBA history for which that was not the case and who nevertheless were not as good as the 2017 Warriors. I realize it may have been a bit confusing since my post was responding to something you’d mostly talked about in a prior embedded post in the exchange, rather than your last post.

But yes, you did end the second post by talking about how “the Warriors . . . added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need.” That seems to me like it’s basically agreeing with what DocMJ was saying. Or at least it’s agreeing with what I’m saying—which is that it seems obvious to me that the Durant Warriors had superior fit than other hyper talented teams in history. So yeah, I have no real issue with that part.

To me, though, the fact that that team fit together better than other extremely talented teams is a huge credit to the stars on that team. As evidenced from the fact that many other hyper talented teams in NBA history didn’t fit together as well, it is really not easy for such talented rosters to fit together as well as the 2017 Warriors did. This is a feather in the cap of all involved IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re wanting to acknowledge that they had superior fit but then simultaneously say that the difference here isn’t “because of Durant . . . nor is it because of Curry or Kerr’s system.” And I just don’t think it’s plausible to acknowledge that a team fit uniquely well together compared to other hyper talented rosters and then not give any credit for that to the team’s best players (or even the system the team plays in). Intuitively, that just seems like an incorrect conclusion to me.

It's possible the Warriors are the most talented team ever and had the best nucleus for any superteam (Curry/Draymond/Klay being a super team) to be in position to seamless add one of the best scorers ever.

These can both be true.

What happens when teams continue to add talent is there becomes more of a focus on fit, structure and a chess master (coach) ability to utilize all the pieces to their maximum value. Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets. This is why someone who can do more on the basketball-court is going to be more portable, and a person who can do less typically will be less portable than someone who can do more things, since it is more likely someone who can do less things will have overlap than someone who can do more things.

Where this concept of portability sort of falls by the wayside is when we are comparing "How does an MVP do when added to a 73-win team?" As part of an argument for why one player is better than another. As if this is more important than any realistic roster construction, which typically involves building directly around a specific player and their skill-set(s).

I don't have Giannis highly ranked due to his offense. In fact, his offense is feeble in the sense of its simplicity and he isn't going to be a great fit when added to certain rosters, certainly compared to Durant.

That, to me, doesn't make Giannis a worse player than Durant though. Giannis' defense and rim pressure will always be a boon for his impact regardless the roster construction or who his teammates are and his defense is near GOAT level.

Yep, being able to do more things well will tend to improve portability. But I think we should also acknowledge that some skills just don’t step on the toes of similarly-skilled players as much as other skills do. You mention that “Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets” and I think that’s right. But that doesn’t mean that the diminishing returns are the same for each particular skill set. I’ve always found it interesting that people will say that certain players didn’t fit well because they have similar skill sets, but then turn around and say that Steph and Klay were a great fit together. Both things may well be true, but there’s kind of an important insight to get from that IMO—which is that the diminishing returns on some skill sets are substantially different than for others, so some skill sets are much easier to fit with. It’s an insight that I think is pretty important to understanding the great fit of the 2017 Warriors. And it also means that someone can be great at fewer things but still be more “portable” because the skill sets they do have are easier to fit with.

[falcolombardi]

I spent an entire post explaining why it isn't just talent.

Did you read my post? I talked about how fit and structure were important and unique compared to other modern super teams.

But, to circle back since you and Doctor MJ seem to keep harping on talent, the 2017 Warriors were the most talented team ever in my eyes. That doesn't take away my main point though about modern-day super teams and how fit and structure become more important as talent increases.

Klay was 3rd Team All-NBA in 2016. Andre Iguodala was the 5th best player.

Yes, I did read both your posts, and your posts (particularly your first one) seemed to largely be suggesting that the Warriors had more depth of talent than the teams you were using as your examples (Heat, Celtics, and Nets), in large part because these other teams had to “strip[] part of their core” to get the super team. Indeed, your argument was originally that “The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.” I interpreted that as an argument about talent. That’s why I brought up the existence of many other extremely talented teams throughout NBA history for which that was not the case and who nevertheless were not as good as the 2017 Warriors. I realize it may have been a bit confusing since my post was responding to something you’d mostly talked about in a prior embedded post in the exchange, rather than your last post.

But yes, you did end the second post by talking about how “the Warriors . . . added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need.” That seems to me like it’s basically agreeing with what DocMJ was saying. Or at least it’s agreeing with what I’m saying—which is that it seems obvious to me that the Durant Warriors had superior fit than other hyper talented teams in history. So yeah, I have no real issue with that part.

To me, though, the fact that that team fit together better than other extremely talented teams is a huge credit to the stars on that team. As evidenced from the fact that many other hyper talented teams in NBA history didn’t fit together as well, it is really not easy for such talented rosters to fit together as well as the 2017 Warriors did. This is a feather in the cap of all involved IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re wanting to acknowledge that they had superior fit but then simultaneously say that the difference here isn’t “because of Durant . . . nor is it because of Curry or Kerr’s system.” And I just don’t think it’s plausible to acknowledge that a team fit uniquely well together compared to other hyper talented rosters and then not give any credit for that to the team’s best players (or even the system the team plays in). Intuitively, that just seems like an incorrect conclusion to me.

It's possible the Warriors are the most talented team ever and had the best nucleus for any superteam (Curry/Draymond/Klay being a super team) to be in position to seamless add one of the best scorers ever.

These can both be true.

What happens when teams continue to add talent is there becomes more of a focus on fit, structure and a chess master (coach) ability to utilize all the pieces to their maximum value. Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets. This is why someone who can do more on the basketball-court is going to be more portable, and a person who can do less typically will be less portable than someone who can do more things, since it is more likely someone who can do less things will have overlap than someone who can do more things.

Where this concept of portability sort of falls by the wayside is when we are comparing "How does an MVP do when added to a 73-win team?" As part of an argument for why one player is better than another. As if this is more important than any realistic roster construction, which typically involves building directly around a specific player and their skill-set(s).

I don't have Giannis highly ranked due to his offense. In fact, his offense is feeble in the sense of its simplicity and he isn't going to be a great fit when added to certain rosters, certainly compared to Durant.

That, to me, doesn't make Giannis a worse player than Durant though. Giannis' defense and rim pressure will always be a boon for his impact regardless the roster construction or who his teammates are and his defense is near GOAT level.

This is some very common logic when people discuss all time starting 5's and kind of go "well i already have shaq, jordan, magic and hakeem in my team so i guess curry goes ahead of lebron cause portability"

Which makes sense in that specific context of superstacked teams as a fun exercise but is not how actual nba basketball rosters go like

[falcolombardi]

Yes, I did read both your posts, and your posts (particularly your first one) seemed to largely be suggesting that the Warriors had more depth of talent than the teams you were using as your examples (Heat, Celtics, and Nets), in large part because these other teams had to “strip[] part of their core” to get the super team. Indeed, your argument was originally that “The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.” I interpreted that as an argument about talent. That’s why I brought up the existence of many other extremely talented teams throughout NBA history for which that was not the case and who nevertheless were not as good as the 2017 Warriors. I realize it may have been a bit confusing since my post was responding to something you’d mostly talked about in a prior embedded post in the exchange, rather than your last post.

But yes, you did end the second post by talking about how “the Warriors . . . added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need.” That seems to me like it’s basically agreeing with what DocMJ was saying. Or at least it’s agreeing with what I’m saying—which is that it seems obvious to me that the Durant Warriors had superior fit than other hyper talented teams in history. So yeah, I have no real issue with that part.

To me, though, the fact that that team fit together better than other extremely talented teams is a huge credit to the stars on that team. As evidenced from the fact that many other hyper talented teams in NBA history didn’t fit together as well, it is really not easy for such talented rosters to fit together as well as the 2017 Warriors did. This is a feather in the cap of all involved IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re wanting to acknowledge that they had superior fit but then simultaneously say that the difference here isn’t “because of Durant . . . nor is it because of Curry or Kerr’s system.” And I just don’t think it’s plausible to acknowledge that a team fit uniquely well together compared to other hyper talented rosters and then not give any credit for that to the team’s best players (or even the system the team plays in). Intuitively, that just seems like an incorrect conclusion to me.

It's possible the Warriors are the most talented team ever and had the best nucleus for any superteam (Curry/Draymond/Klay being a super team) to be in position to seamless add one of the best scorers ever.

These can both be true.

What happens when teams continue to add talent is there becomes more of a focus on fit, structure and a chess master (coach) ability to utilize all the pieces to their maximum value. Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets. This is why someone who can do more on the basketball-court is going to be more portable, and a person who can do less typically will be less portable than someone who can do more things, since it is more likely someone who can do less things will have overlap than someone who can do more things.

Where this concept of portability sort of falls by the wayside is when we are comparing "How does an MVP do when added to a 73-win team?" As part of an argument for why one player is better than another. As if this is more important than any realistic roster construction, which typically involves building directly around a specific player and their skill-set(s).

I don't have Giannis highly ranked due to his offense. In fact, his offense is feeble in the sense of its simplicity and he isn't going to be a great fit when added to certain rosters, certainly compared to Durant.

That, to me, doesn't make Giannis a worse player than Durant though. Giannis' defense and rim pressure will always be a boon for his impact regardless the roster construction or who his teammates are and his defense is near GOAT level.

Yep, being able to do more things well will tend to improve portability. But I think we should also acknowledge that some skills just don’t step on the toes of similarly-skilled players as much as other skills do. You mention that “Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets” and I think that’s right. But that doesn’t mean that the diminishing returns are the same for each particular skill set. I’ve always found it interesting that people will say that certain players didn’t fit well because they have similar skill sets, but then turn around and say that Steph and Klay were a great fit together. Both things may well be true, but there’s kind of an important insight to get from that IMO—which is that the diminishing returns on some skill sets are substantially different than for others, so some skill sets are much easier to fit with. It’s an insight that I think is pretty important to understanding the great fit of the 2017 Warriors. And it also means that someone can be great at fewer things but still be more “portable” because the skill sets they do have are easier to fit with.

And didnt we see those durant diminishing returns in 2019 and 2018 ? Other than 2017 which was a dominant team all year long, thd other 2 years of dursnt in warriors didnt produce demonstrably better teams than pre durant version of those teams

The 2018 version went 2-3 vs rockets before paul injury and 2019 was paedestrian in regulsr season and seemed to play the rockets better without durant

[ReggiesKnicks]

Yes, I did read both your posts, and your posts (particularly your first one) seemed to largely be suggesting that the Warriors had more depth of talent than the teams you were using as your examples (Heat, Celtics, and Nets), in large part because these other teams had to “strip[] part of their core” to get the super team. Indeed, your argument was originally that “The Warriors were the best ever because they had underpaid stars and were able to keep their nucleus of 5 players together and then add a Top 5 player in the NBA at the height of his powers.” I interpreted that as an argument about talent. That’s why I brought up the existence of many other extremely talented teams throughout NBA history for which that was not the case and who nevertheless were not as good as the 2017 Warriors. I realize it may have been a bit confusing since my post was responding to something you’d mostly talked about in a prior embedded post in the exchange, rather than your last post.

But yes, you did end the second post by talking about how “the Warriors . . . added a player whose skill-set fit into their system and filled a need.” That seems to me like it’s basically agreeing with what DocMJ was saying. Or at least it’s agreeing with what I’m saying—which is that it seems obvious to me that the Durant Warriors had superior fit than other hyper talented teams in history. So yeah, I have no real issue with that part.

To me, though, the fact that that team fit together better than other extremely talented teams is a huge credit to the stars on that team. As evidenced from the fact that many other hyper talented teams in NBA history didn’t fit together as well, it is really not easy for such talented rosters to fit together as well as the 2017 Warriors did. This is a feather in the cap of all involved IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re wanting to acknowledge that they had superior fit but then simultaneously say that the difference here isn’t “because of Durant . . . nor is it because of Curry or Kerr’s system.” And I just don’t think it’s plausible to acknowledge that a team fit uniquely well together compared to other hyper talented rosters and then not give any credit for that to the team’s best players (or even the system the team plays in). Intuitively, that just seems like an incorrect conclusion to me.

It's possible the Warriors are the most talented team ever and had the best nucleus for any superteam (Curry/Draymond/Klay being a super team) to be in position to seamless add one of the best scorers ever.

These can both be true.

What happens when teams continue to add talent is there becomes more of a focus on fit, structure and a chess master (coach) ability to utilize all the pieces to their maximum value. Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets. This is why someone who can do more on the basketball-court is going to be more portable, and a person who can do less typically will be less portable than someone who can do more things, since it is more likely someone who can do less things will have overlap than someone who can do more things.

Where this concept of portability sort of falls by the wayside is when we are comparing "How does an MVP do when added to a 73-win team?" As part of an argument for why one player is better than another. As if this is more important than any realistic roster construction, which typically involves building directly around a specific player and their skill-set(s).

I don't have Giannis highly ranked due to his offense. In fact, his offense is feeble in the sense of its simplicity and he isn't going to be a great fit when added to certain rosters, certainly compared to Durant.

That, to me, doesn't make Giannis a worse player than Durant though. Giannis' defense and rim pressure will always be a boon for his impact regardless the roster construction or who his teammates are and his defense is near GOAT level.

Yep, being able to do more things well will tend to improve portability. But I think we should also acknowledge that some skills just don’t step on the toes of similarly-skilled players as much as other skills do. You mention that “Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets” and I think that’s right. But that doesn’t mean that the diminishing returns are the same for each particular skill set. I’ve always found it interesting that people will say that certain players didn’t fit well because they have similar skill sets, but then turn around and say that Steph and Klay were a great fit together. Both things may well be true, but there’s kind of an important insight to get from that IMO—which is that the diminishing returns on some skill sets are substantially different than for others, so some skill sets are much easier to fit with. It’s an insight that I think is pretty important to understanding the great fit of the 2017 Warriors.

Steph and Klay have very different skill-sets, especially early in their careers.

Klay could be a POA defender and switch 1-3 with ease and even against smaller 4's or more limited offense guys like P.J. Tucker/Trevor Ariza (Not the Blake Griffin's of the world). Klay couldn't handle or dribble well and while a good cutter, wasn't traveling 100's of feet in every offensive possession like Curry would do. Meanwhile, Curry was one of the best ball-hanlders for his size at 6' 3" we have ever seen, could break a defense down and either take a step-back or pull-up 3 or get to the rim and finish at an incredible rate for someone his size with finesse off the backboard or a floater. His handle allowed him to get to his mid-range shot in traffic or out of the Pick-and-Roll, step-back or get space beyond the arc or get to the rim.

They had an overlap of a skill-set, shooting in general, but for the most part Klay and Curry were more different than similar in terms of skill-set and that bled into the vastly different roles they played.

We have seen both Giannis and Durant lead teams to the NBA Finals and play high-level basketball with high-level teammates. There is enough there to differentiate the two of them and draw a conclusion between the two rather than focusing on who would have been better on the 2017-2019 Warriors.

[Djoker]

Ya that's called garbage time. One would hope it cancels out over larger samples i.e. there's gonna be some games where the Thunder benchwarmers do horrible in garbage time.

Like I said it's a small sample for SGA so yea... I wouldn't put AS MUCH stock in it as if he had 10 years/150 games worth of playoff data. At that stage, this poor level of data would be disqualifying. At 33 games, it's not but it's still worrying. Where I have a problem is when people completely excuse or pretend it doesn't exist. A small sample of a poor signal is still a poor signal. You can choose to largely ignore it and just use his regular season numbers to build the bulk of his case. And that's probably fine but it's just not my approach. I see a player's playoff level as their real level. I can cut him a bit of slack between a small sample, poor shooting variance etc. but not that much. If the sample is small, I'll still give precedence to other players who proved it over a larger sample. SGA still has room to improve (or perhaps worsen) his case. Then again, 33 games isn't even that small of a sample. T-Mac's case is holding on by an even smaller playoff sample. It's tough but at some point we take what we can get.

I don't think this is really about people acting like this data doesn't exist so much as it feels this is the main thing you are using which is also in a very small sample. So all I'm doing is pointing out the flaw in this one data set which is also why I don't like when people read too much into just one statistic. So it's just not nearly as relevant as you are trying to make it out to be imo. Why don't we look at rs on/off while we are doing this as well and it shouldn't just be about Shai v Kobe either since there are 5-6 other guys getting on ballots now.

Well yea I'm mainly using a smallish sample of playoff data to assess his playoff level... but that's all I have.

Totally agree that nobody should ever look at one metric to make valuations. And honestly, like Ben does in his series, I like ranges.

[lessthanjake]

It's possible the Warriors are the most talented team ever and had the best nucleus for any superteam (Curry/Draymond/Klay being a super team) to be in position to seamless add one of the best scorers ever.

These can both be true.

What happens when teams continue to add talent is there becomes more of a focus on fit, structure and a chess master (coach) ability to utilize all the pieces to their maximum value. Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets. This is why someone who can do more on the basketball-court is going to be more portable, and a person who can do less typically will be less portable than someone who can do more things, since it is more likely someone who can do less things will have overlap than someone who can do more things.

Where this concept of portability sort of falls by the wayside is when we are comparing "How does an MVP do when added to a 73-win team?" As part of an argument for why one player is better than another. As if this is more important than any realistic roster construction, which typically involves building directly around a specific player and their skill-set(s).

I don't have Giannis highly ranked due to his offense. In fact, his offense is feeble in the sense of its simplicity and he isn't going to be a great fit when added to certain rosters, certainly compared to Durant.

That, to me, doesn't make Giannis a worse player than Durant though. Giannis' defense and rim pressure will always be a boon for his impact regardless the roster construction or who his teammates are and his defense is near GOAT level.

Yep, being able to do more things well will tend to improve portability. But I think we should also acknowledge that some skills just don’t step on the toes of similarly-skilled players as much as other skills do. You mention that “Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets” and I think that’s right. But that doesn’t mean that the diminishing returns are the same for each particular skill set. I’ve always found it interesting that people will say that certain players didn’t fit well because they have similar skill sets, but then turn around and say that Steph and Klay were a great fit together. Both things may well be true, but there’s kind of an important insight to get from that IMO—which is that the diminishing returns on some skill sets are substantially different than for others, so some skill sets are much easier to fit with. It’s an insight that I think is pretty important to understanding the great fit of the 2017 Warriors.

Steph and Klay have very different skill-sets, especially early in their careers.

Klay could be a POA defender and switch 1-3 with ease and even against smaller 4's or more limited offense guys like P.J. Tucker/Trevor Ariza (Not the Blake Griffin's of the world). Klay couldn't handle or dribble well and while a good cutter, wasn't traveling 100's of feet in every offensive possession like Curry would do. Meanwhile, Curry was one of the best ball-hanlders for his size at 6' 3" we have ever seen, could break a defense down and either take a step-back or pull-up 3 or get to the rim and finish at an incredible rate for someone his size with finesse off the backboard or a floater. His handle allowed him to get to his mid-range shot in traffic or out of the Pick-and-Roll, step-back or get space beyond the arc or get to the rim.

They had an overlap of skill-set, shooting in general, but for the most part Klay and Curry were more different than similar in terms of skill-set and that bled into the vastly different roles they played.

We have seen both Giannis and Durant lead teams to the NBA Finals and play high-level basketball with high-level teammates. There is enough there to differentiate the two of them and draw a conclusion between the two rather than focusing on who would have been better on the 2017-2019 Warriors.

I think if we want to drill into that level of granularity then we could always say someone’s skill set is different, because players are not carbon copies of each other. We could certainly make a lot of distinctions between, for example, LeBron and Wade in terms of defense, exactly how they get to the rim, etc. But the fact that, at a basic level, what they most wanted to do on offense was similar made it not a particularly great fit (though obviously good enough that they won two titles together). There’s a general consensus in the basketball world about that. Meanwhile, even though Steph is undoubtedly more dynamic, what Steph and Klay both most want to do on offense is absolutely very similar. Yet, they fit well. It’s not all that hard to understand why this is, given that multiple people can be off the ball getting set up for shots at the same time (and, indeed, even work off each other while doing it), while only one person can have the ball at once. Seems obvious that the former would have less diminishing returns. I could use other examples too, including, for instance, the fact that twin towers setups on defense (such as Duncan + Robinson) have often fit well together. Again, it’s not hard to see how this might be, because two people can actually defend the rim at once.

Overall, this is a pretty important insight IMO. And it’s an intuitive one too, since there’s no reason why the diminishing returns you talked about must be the same across all skill sets. Indeed, we would surely expect that they wouldn’t be. Which means that portability would be a function both of how many things a player is great at *and* how big the diminishing returns are on those things.

Again, I think this is very important to understanding the 2017 Warriors fitting so well together that they ended up being the GOAT team. Some of it is actually about diversity of skill set. For instance, the fact that both Steph and Durant were dangerous with the ball definitely made it harder to defend the other one off the ball (and vice versa). But the fact that off-ball shooting doesn’t really seem to have much diminishing returns to it is a crucial aspect of the story here.

Of course, Steph is already voted in, so there’s no point in going down a rabbit hole about him specifically. But it applies to Durant too, to at least some degree.

It's possible the Warriors are the most talented team ever and had the best nucleus for any superteam (Curry/Draymond/Klay being a super team) to be in position to seamless add one of the best scorers ever.

These can both be true.

What happens when teams continue to add talent is there becomes more of a focus on fit, structure and a chess master (coach) ability to utilize all the pieces to their maximum value. Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets. This is why someone who can do more on the basketball-court is going to be more portable, and a person who can do less typically will be less portable than someone who can do more things, since it is more likely someone who can do less things will have overlap than someone who can do more things.

Where this concept of portability sort of falls by the wayside is when we are comparing "How does an MVP do when added to a 73-win team?" As part of an argument for why one player is better than another. As if this is more important than any realistic roster construction, which typically involves building directly around a specific player and their skill-set(s).

I don't have Giannis highly ranked due to his offense. In fact, his offense is feeble in the sense of its simplicity and he isn't going to be a great fit when added to certain rosters, certainly compared to Durant.

That, to me, doesn't make Giannis a worse player than Durant though. Giannis' defense and rim pressure will always be a boon for his impact regardless the roster construction or who his teammates are and his defense is near GOAT level.

Yep, being able to do more things well will tend to improve portability. But I think we should also acknowledge that some skills just don’t step on the toes of similarly-skilled players as much as other skills do. You mention that “Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets” and I think that’s right. But that doesn’t mean that the diminishing returns are the same for each particular skill set. I’ve always found it interesting that people will say that certain players didn’t fit well because they have similar skill sets, but then turn around and say that Steph and Klay were a great fit together. Both things may well be true, but there’s kind of an important insight to get from that IMO—which is that the diminishing returns on some skill sets are substantially different than for others, so some skill sets are much easier to fit with. It’s an insight that I think is pretty important to understanding the great fit of the 2017 Warriors. And it also means that someone can be great at fewer things but still be more “portable” because the skill sets they do have are easier to fit with.

And didnt we see those durant diminishing returns in 2019 and 2018 ? Other than 2017 which was a dominant team all year long, thd other 2 years of dursnt in warriors didnt produce demonstrably better teams than pre durant version of those teams

The 2018 version went 2-3 vs rockets before paul injury and 2019 was paedestrian in regulsr season and seemed to play the rockets better without durant

I really wouldn’t say that the 2018 and 2019 Warriors were pedestrian in the regular season, rather than just that their best player missed a lot of time. The Warriors were 93-27 (a 64-win pace) with a +9.27 net rating in games Steph played. They were better in 2017, but those numbers in games Steph played are actually still historically good. And the fact that that happened while the team had real outside-the-court chemistry issues (not to mention that teams that win titles do tend to coast a bit in the regular season) is pretty remarkable and a real testament to the on-court fit IMO. And also, the 2017 year happened, so ignoring it would just be cherry picking away the most positive data point.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Tangential to this discussion - I expect to be strongly considering Draymond next thread. Probably more impressed with his ‘16 than any season from KD.

Overall never overly impressed with the Warriors depth from Klay on down. Certainly not bad, but doesn’t stand out above other title contending teams from the last ~20 years. Mostly a marketing ploy ‘Strength In Numbers/Splash Bros’ imo.

Yeah I don't think you will ever find anyone arguing the 2017 Warriors had a great bench

It was their top-end talent which carrier the weight of the "talent" on the roster. Compare their 3rd/4th best players, Draymond/Klay (who was an AS and All-NBA 3rd team in 2016) to the contemporary title teams.

2011 Mavericks: Jason Terry/Shawn Marion
2012 Heat: Shane Battier/Mario Chalmers
2013 Heat: Ray Allen/Shane Battier/Mario Chalmers
2014 Spurs: Danny Green/Manu Ginobili (whoever you don't have 3rd)
2015 Warriors: Andre Iguodala/Andrew Bogut (Could these guys be better than Klay and really Klay is 4th or 5th?)
2016 Cavs: J.R. Smith
2019 Raptors: Pascal Siakam/Marc Gasol (Whoever you have 3rd/4th)
2020 Lakers: Kentavious Caldwell-Pope/Dwight Howard/Javale McGee/Rajon Rondo/Danny Green/Alex Caruso (Who is 3rd here and who is 4th? )
2021 Bucks: Brook Lopez
2022 Warriors: Klay Thompson
2023 Nuggets: Michael Porter Jr/Kentavious Caldwell-Pope/Bruce Brown
2024 Celtics: Jrue Holiday/Al Horford/Kristaps Porzingis

Ultimately they had three players in the midst of their primes who are going to Finish 4th, Top 15 and Top 20 in this project. That's incredibly unique and I don't know if we will get 3 players in their primes on the same team finishing Top 20 in this project in the next 25-year block.

[ReggiesKnicks]

I think if we want to drill into that level of granularity then we could always say someone’s skill set is different, because players are not carbon copies of each other. We could certainly make a lot of distinctions between, for example, LeBron and Wade in terms of defense, exactly how they get to the rim, etc. But the fact that, at a basic level, what they most wanted to do on offense was similar made it not a particularly great fit (though obviously good enough that they won two titles together). There’s a general consensus in the basketball world about that. Meanwhile, even though Steph is undoubtedly more dynamic, what Steph and Klay both most want to do on offense is absolutely very similar. Yet, they fit well. It’s not all that hard to understand why this is, given that multiple people can be off the ball getting set up for shots at the same time (and, indeed, even work off each other while doing it), while only one person can have the ball at once. Seems obvious that the former would have less diminishing returns. I could use other examples too, including, for instance, the fact that twin towers setups on defense (such as Duncan + Robinson) have often fit well together. Again, it’s not hard to see how this might be, because two people can actually defend the rim at once.

I disagree Curry and Klay had a lot of overlap. They had a specific skill-set which overlapped but overall are very different players. Klay and Curry combined to plug a ton of holes but they really had little to no overlap outside of shooting off the catch.

Overall, this is a pretty important insight IMO. And it’s an intuitive one too, since there’s no reason why the diminishing returns you talked about must be the same across all skill sets. Indeed, we would surely expect that they wouldn’t be. Which means that portability would be a function both of how many things a player is great at *and* how big the diminishing returns are on those things.

Again, Curry is elite and/or good at a ton of things Klay simply isn't. This means nothing since Curry and Klay have significantly different roles and provide significantly different skill-sets to a team. Add in the fact that Klay could switch 1-3 and not "be left out to dry" against most wings and larger guards in the NBA, that is another aspect where they didn't overlap.

[lessthanjake]

I think if we want to drill into that level of granularity then we could always say someone’s skill set is different, because players are not carbon copies of each other. We could certainly make a lot of distinctions between, for example, LeBron and Wade in terms of defense, exactly how they get to the rim, etc. But the fact that, at a basic level, what they most wanted to do on offense was similar made it not a particularly great fit (though obviously good enough that they won two titles together). There’s a general consensus in the basketball world about that. Meanwhile, even though Steph is undoubtedly more dynamic, what Steph and Klay both most want to do on offense is absolutely very similar. Yet, they fit well. It’s not all that hard to understand why this is, given that multiple people can be off the ball getting set up for shots at the same time (and, indeed, even work off each other while doing it), while only one person can have the ball at once. Seems obvious that the former would have less diminishing returns. I could use other examples too, including, for instance, the fact that twin towers setups on defense (such as Duncan + Robinson) have often fit well together. Again, it’s not hard to see how this might be, because two people can actually defend the rim at once.

I disagree Curry and Klay had a lot of overlap. They had a specific skill-set which overlapped but overall are very different players. Klay and Curry combined to plug a ton of holes but they really had little to no overlap outside of shooting off the catch.

Overall, this is a pretty important insight IMO. And it’s an intuitive one too, since there’s no reason why the diminishing returns you talked about must be the same across all skill sets. Indeed, we would surely expect that they wouldn’t be. Which means that portability would be a function both of how many things a player is great at *and* how big the diminishing returns are on those things.

Again, Curry is elite and/or good at a ton of things Klay simply isn't. This means nothing since Curry and Klay have significantly different roles and provide significantly different skill-sets to a team. Add in the fact that Klay could switch 1-3 and not "be left out to dry" against most wings and larger guards in the NBA, that is another aspect where they didn't overlap.

Yeah, I definitely think that saying Steph Curry and Klay Thompson “really had little to no overlap outside of shooting off the catch” is identifying an absolutely enormous caveat that undermines the point you’re trying to make. The fact is that both of their offensive games are very focused on them being amongst the best players ever at “shooting off the catch.” It is the best skill both of them have, and the team’s game plan was in large part centered around that. And there did not seem to really be much diminishing returns on that major skill-set overlap. That is indicative of the fact that it is an example of a skill set that does not have the same diminishing returns as other skill sets do. Which makes it a more portable skill.

And, to clarify, I want to just ask a specific question to you: Do you agree that not all skill sets have the same diminishing returns when multiple players on the same team possess those skill sets? If you agree with that premise, then I’m not sure that a discussion of Steph Curry’s and Klay Thompson’s specific skill sets matters much for purposes of this thread, since Steph is already voted in and Klay Thompson will not be voted in at any point in this project. If you agree with the premise, then you agree with me on the general point I made and we are just quibbling over the specifics of a largely-irrelevant example I gave. If you *don’t* think that different skill sets have different diminishing returns, then I think it would be worth you trying to explain how or why that would be the case. Because I really feel like it should be obvious that some skill sets stack on each other more easily than others, such that I can’t really understand anyone concluding otherwise.

Ultimately they had three players in the midst of their primes who are going to Finish 4th, Top 15 and Top 20 in this project. That's incredibly unique and I don't know if we will get 3 players in their primes on the same team finishing Top 20 in this project in the next 25-year block.

I suspect there’s a good chance that at least one team will have that in the next 25-year block. For instance, I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if Moses Malone, Julius Erving, and Bobby Jones all finish Top 20 in the next 25-year block. And the Sixers had all three of them in their prime, along with a multi-time all-star (Maurice Cheeks). I also would expect that Wilt, West, and Baylor will all end up in the Top 20 in the 25-year block after that, and they all played together in their prime. There’s probably another example or two if I thought more about it.

[Jaivl]

Yep, being able to do more things well will tend to improve portability. But I think we should also acknowledge that some skills just don’t step on the toes of similarly-skilled players as much as other skills do. You mention that “Different skill-sets have varying diminishing returns when combined with other similar skill-sets” and I think that’s right. But that doesn’t mean that the diminishing returns are the same for each particular skill set. I’ve always found it interesting that people will say that certain players didn’t fit well because they have similar skill sets, but then turn around and say that Steph and Klay were a great fit together. Both things may well be true, but there’s kind of an important insight to get from that IMO—which is that the diminishing returns on some skill sets are substantially different than for others, so some skill sets are much easier to fit with. It’s an insight that I think is pretty important to understanding the great fit of the 2017 Warriors. And it also means that someone can be great at fewer things but still be more “portable” because the skill sets they do have are easier to fit with.

And didnt we see those durant diminishing returns in 2019 and 2018 ? Other than 2017 which was a dominant team all year long, thd other 2 years of dursnt in warriors didnt produce demonstrably better teams than pre durant version of those teams

The 2018 version went 2-3 vs rockets before paul injury and 2019 was paedestrian in regulsr season and seemed to play the rockets better without durant

I really wouldn’t say that the 2018 and 2019 Warriors were pedestrian in the regular season, rather than just that their best player missed a lot of time. The Warriors were 93-27 (a 64-win pace) with a +9.27 net rating in games Steph played. They were better in 2017, but those numbers in games Steph played are actually still historically good. And the fact that that happened while the team had real outside-the-court chemistry issues (not to mention that teams that win titles do tend to coast a bit in the regular season) is pretty remarkable and a real testament to the on-court fit IMO. And also, the 2017 year happened, so ignoring it would just be cherry picking away the most positive data point.

If that's historically good, then I don't why we're having this discussion in the first place...

For example, the 2019+2020 Bucks were 107-28 (63-win pace) with a +9.4 net rating in games Giannis played (RS+PO). 35-win pace in the games he didn't. That's pre-peak Giannis, what a similarly injured but worse supporting cast than Durant's. Swap Brook Lopez for a top 20 peak of the decade and I think he'd be fine.

West, and Baylor will all end up in the Top 20 in the 25-year block after that, and they all played together in their prime.

They sure didn't.

[lessthanjake]

And didnt we see those durant diminishing returns in 2019 and 2018 ? Other than 2017 which was a dominant team all year long, thd other 2 years of dursnt in warriors didnt produce demonstrably better teams than pre durant version of those teams

The 2018 version went 2-3 vs rockets before paul injury and 2019 was paedestrian in regulsr season and seemed to play the rockets better without durant

I really wouldn’t say that the 2018 and 2019 Warriors were pedestrian in the regular season, rather than just that their best player missed a lot of time. The Warriors were 93-27 (a 64-win pace) with a +9.27 net rating in games Steph played. They were better in 2017, but those numbers in games Steph played are actually still historically good. And the fact that that happened while the team had real outside-the-court chemistry issues (not to mention that teams that win titles do tend to coast a bit in the regular season) is pretty remarkable and a real testament to the on-court fit IMO. And also, the 2017 year happened, so ignoring it would just be cherry picking away the most positive data point.

If that's historically good, then I don't why we're having this discussion in the first place...

For example, the 2019+2020 Bucks were 107-28 (63-win pace) with a +9.4 net rating in games Giannis played (RS+PO). 35-win pace in the games he didn't. That's pre-peak Giannis, what a similarly injured but worse supporting cast than Durant's. Swap Brook Lopez for a top 20 peak of the decade and I think he'd be fine.

Those 2019+2020 Bucks teams didn’t win a title though, like the 2018 Warriors did (or even make the Finals like the 2019 Warriors did). Those two Bucks years actually were amongst the best ever two-year regular season runs. They just were very disappointing in the playoffs, so we don’t think of them as a historically good team. Not exactly a good analogy to justify the 2018+2019 Warriors not being a historically good team.

West, and Baylor will all end up in the Top 20 in the 25-year block after that, and they all played together in their prime.

They sure didn't.

Which one wasn’t in their prime in 1969? They were all nearing the end of their prime, but all three of them either finished top 5 in MVP voting that year or finished top 3 in MVP voting in a subsequent year (not to mention that Wilt won MVP the year before and Baylor had been 3rd).

[ReggiesKnicks]

I suspect there’s a good chance that at least one team will have that in the next 25-year block. For instance, I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if Moses Malone, Julius Erving, and Bobby Jones all finish Top 20 in the next 25-year block. And the Sixers had all three of them in their prime, along with a multi-time all-star (Maurice Cheeks). I also would expect that Wilt, West, and Baylor will all end up in the Top 20 in the 25-year block after that, and they all played together in their prime. There’s probably another example or two if I thought more about it.

I'm not sure 1983 is Jones' prime, but perhaps it could be considered the tail-end! Bird-McHale-Johnson may also sneak in.

I expect multiple trios in the first 25-year block, which is why I didn't mention this would be the only one I can foresee or predict for the entirety of the project.

For example, the 2019+2020 Bucks were 107-28 (63-win pace) with a +9.4 net rating in games Giannis played (RS+PO). 35-win pace in the games he didn't. That's pre-peak Giannis, what a similarly injured but worse supporting cast than Durant's. Swap Brook Lopez for a top 20 peak of the decade, and I think he'd be fine.

I think 2019 and 2020 Giannis is very much "Peak" Giannis, unless you think there was a noticeable difference between 2020 and 2021 Giannis.

[Doctor MJ]

That is like saying portability is how well you slot in the curry warriors specifically and not how well you fit ín all sort of contexts, which incidentally, is how often it feels ben thinks subconsciously or otherwise about portability or ceiling raising, where everythingh seems to be judged based on how well it resembles or fits around curry/kerrball

Giannis may be a worse fit around draymond/curry but he would be a better fit with his driving and defense on other kind of rosters

He provides other kind of off ball value (defense, fast break) compared to durant shooting and can also elevate teams to all time status even if you assume (debatably) he couldnt elevate the...already all time great warriors to all time greater by replacing harrison barnes

I mean, you’re responding to me as if I didn’t talk about defense as the place to make an argument for Giannis. I literally pointed to the path to use to rebut me, but instead you’re looking to rebut me for not talking about defense while throwing up a bunch of abstract labels and throwing Ben under the bus as if he’s somehow less thorough than people here.

Re: Giannis good for driving. Yup, that’s what he does, and while doing so he makes other interior players redundant and changes your scheme not to depend on high BBIQ, which makes your playoff offense more predictable and something less than optimally effective.

Might there be some new scheme that someone comes up with that is better than all that came before? Sure. Who would come up with that scheme? Presumably Kerr, who we’d be placing faith in to innovate after specifically acquiring talent that doesn’t allow his team to thrive in the only scheme he’s ever coached with. That or we fire him and bring in…who? I’d expect no one’s looking to advocate for any of Gianni’s’ actual coaches, so we’re talking about unknown innovations from unknown coaches here and just assuming it will happen. I’m cautious.

I think there are major ceiling concerns with Giannis-ball, and the fact that he’s never figured out to play any other way despite their being ample reason for him to do so makes me think that elite playoff offense and Giannis aren’t really things we should associate together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Answering per paragraph here

1- i didnt say you didnt talk about defense, i mention that defense or fast break play are other sort of "portable" non ball dominant value not usually thought about in such terms (which we sometimes limit to only spacing or shooting when we talk about "portability" and from portability into "ceiling raising")

This is somethingh i insist on because basketball communities often divides players rather broadly into "ceiling raisers" and "floor raisers" almost completely based on their ability to space the floor/shot

Me criticizing ben for -in my opinion- being too biased towards the ceiling raiser/floor spacer group and towards systems and players like curry and golden state is not me "throwing him under the bus" anymore that you would be throwing me under the bus or i would be throwing you by criticizing each other posts or opinions, if criticizing perceived basketball biases or blindspots is not allowed what are we even doing here?

2- the idea that a driving game is "lower IQ" is a rather heavy statement to make just like that, it also includes the likes of magic (running heavy) lebron (drive heavy) or nash (dribbling heavy) play styles all od which were driving based

And id it was the i guess "higher IQ" less driving play style of the durant/curry warriors the only one to produce great offense it would be a valid point that it is a superior play style...but is not, lebron clevelans offenses are still the highest offensive playoffa ratings of the modern era, plenty of the top offenses of evwry era from nash suns to magic lakers were drive/run based

Lebron teams with kyrie had better ortg than curry/durant teams, and curry without kd teams were far from outlier playoffs offenses

And as you mentioned in your post, we are not comparing durant amd kd as offensive players alone either

3- Your third paragraph falls on the same thingh i just mentioned, you are thinking of slotting giannis in the warriors and using that hipothetically worse version than the kd one to bring giannis down. Why not compare how 2021 bucks would work with durant in giannis place too?

Why only use a comparision where durant played in team more talented than any giannis ever did as evidence of superior ceiling raising instead of a fairer comparision in talent terms like okc durant vs bucks giannis?

Is valid to believe giannis is a less scalable player but it would be a lopsided battle to use durant results in a much more talented team (a team thst literally was 4 points away of a back to back ring with a 70 win average season without him) to giannis results also winning a less dominant ring in a less talented team as evidence for it

Like you can say we have evidence of how good the 2016 warrios became with kd and you dont think adding giannis may guarantee the same improvement, but absence of evidence is not evidence of abscense (as giannis never joined or had a roster like that either)

1 - fair enough

2 - I didn't say that players who drive are lower BBIQ, I said building around Giannis in this way was, because he's not there for his passing ability, he's there so he doesn't have to learn how to play off-ball and can just act as a battering ram all game long.

Re: LeBron great offense. Yes, and LeBron has a high BBIQ.

3- Why not ask how 2021 Bucks would do? Because the 2017 Warriors represent basketball's apex and the 2021 Bucks represent the weakest champion we've had in the past decade who probably never win a chip if not for all the injury weirdness surrounding the pandemic. I think people need to ask themselves how they'd see Giannis if his team had never won a chip, because that could have happened so easily. Like, those champion Bucks probably lose in the 2nd round if not for some extremely lucky breaks, and after that they played a weak ECF team they were able to beat without Giannis, and then played a Suns team that would have lost in the 1st round had the Lakers been healthy.

Re: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. True, but it's up to us how we try to fill that gap.

I believe that to make a team as good as the GOAT Warriors you probably need a lead offensive decision maker who excels at making decisions, and while they had that in reality, it disappears as soon as they realize that there's no place for Dray in a Giannis offense.

We can also ask about whether a Durant-Middleton-Holiday team could have won a title in the weakest possible year, and if the answer is "No", then we grapple with that...but I think they could have.

[eminence]

I think I’d be quite surprised if Bobby or Dennis made the top 25 of the next group.

[70sFan]

7. 2021/22 Giannis Antetokumpo (HM: 2020/21, 2018/19)

Giannis is very tough and I have some problems with his ranking. All of his seasons are very incomplete for different reasons.

2018/19 is probably the most well rounded in terms of RS+PS combo, but he's realistically the weakest offensive version of Giannis considered here. He also failed in the playoffs, I understand that the loss wasn't only on him because the Bucks shot horribly, but Giannis still played poorly in the last 4 games of the WCF. The Raptors defense was amazing, so there is no shame in that, but I think the series showed Giannis his limitations at that time.

2019/20 is probably his best RS, but the playoffs in the bubble was a total disaster, I just can't put him anywhere near top 10 with that.

2020/21 is the default pick, but I don't love it because of two reasons:

1. His RS is relatively disappointing. It's probably the weakest RS out of the 2019-22 + 2025 years.
2. His postseason isn't that strong outside the finals. The first round was a total domination of course, so I don't even look at his raw boxscore numbers, but the next two rounds are a little bit disappointing. The second round look especially concerning - the Nets team was a corpse of what they wanted to be in the season with Kyrie and Harden exchanging injuries. Yet, the series was actually very close and I don't find beating past-peak Durant (whose peak wouldn't touch my top 10) with roleplayers that impressive. His raw numbers are solid, but remember that he didn't face a good defensive team and he had quite a few rough moments, he posted an AST/TOV ratio below 1 and he shot FTs absolutely horribly. This series should have never been this close. The ECF isn't bad when he plays... but he missed 2.5 games which could decide for everything had the Bucks faced a reasonable ECF-level opponent.

2024/25 is possibly the best offensive version of Giannis, but it's also the weakest defensive version and Giannis needs two-way impact to compete here. Even 2025 version isn't top 15 offensive player here after all.

I decided to go with 2021/22, because I remember being quite impressed with him against the Celtics in the playoffs (I watched the series quite closely). He wasn't efficient but he did a remarkable job carrying the Bucks without his second scoring option.

As I said, Giannis is problematic, because his offense is heavily overrated by the raw boxscore numbers. People often compare him to Shaq, but I view them as completely different tier offensive engines and I think all the data and signal we can collect agree with me. Still, I said this before - Giannis has very high low-end estimation. You can't argue he's below all-defense level at his best and he's without any questions a solid offensive player. If you use a low-end estimation of the next group I consider (mostly guards + Kawhi), he's very hard to put them below. Some people also can suggest that his high-end evaluation is extremely high - after all he did remarkable things in the 2021 Finals. I can see him above KG only if you are significantly higher on his offense, but I think I have seen enough Bucks struggles to conclude that it's unrealistic to put him that high. His scalability is very poor in my evaluation, I think the Giannis-Lillard experiment showed all I feared about before it happened. Giannis is the exemplification of what James haters thought James was in his early career - ball-dominant, fairly one-dimensional, slow on adjustments, requiring spacing and very little off-ball game. Giannis simply had a very rigid offensive game that I don't think translates to top tier offensive results in the postseason. It's not like he didn't have anyone to work with.

Keep in mind that I have him extremely high because I think his superpowers are truly super and he's an excellent defender who managed to make everything work with solid casts. I truly believe that his defense, when locked in, is only short to the best defenders of this century. He's an amazing paint protector and very versatile help defender. I don't think his defensive BBIQ was ever on the level of guys like Duncan or Garnett, but his motor and athleticism made him incredibly effective, especially on recovery.

8. 2008/09 Dwyane Wade (HM: 2009/10, 2005/06)

Wade is a great answer if you want to have a good postseason player that can carry your team, but I struggle with him for one reason. I don't like how he synergies with the other stars on the floor. His pairing with James worked, but it didn't make wonders and even though he and Shaq did reasonably well, I always thought he doesn't do nearly as well next to Shaq as Kobe did. I think it's due to his offensive limitations as a jumpshooter and off-ball threat. If we compare 2005 Heat and 2004 Lakers ON/OFF breakdown, it supports my idea (why these two years? It's simple - Shaq was close to the same player until 2005 PS injury):

2004 LAL with Kobe and Shaq: +10.6 Net Rtg
2004 LAL with Kobe and without Shaq: -3.8 Net Rtg
2004 LAL without Kobe and with Shaq: +3.7 Net Rtg
2004 LAL without Kobe and Shaq: -3.2 Net Rtg

2005 MIA with Wade and Shaq: +7.8 Net Rtg
2005 MIA with Wade and without Shaq: +4.6 Net Rtg
2005 MIA without Wade and with Shaq: +14.4 Net Rtg
2005 MIA without Wade and Shaq: -3.3 Net Rtg

It supports my idea that Wade is a better floor raiser than Kobe, but doesn't synergises with the talent as well as Bryant.

So why I decided to go with Wade? Because he's more reliable than Kobe and Shai in my opinion. His slashing game is a bigger cheat-code than anything the other two did. He's probably the best defender of the three (?) and taking all that into account, I just went with him. 2009 over 2006 because I think he was a more complete player at this point and I see no reason to doubt he wouldn't do as well as the younger version with solid team around him. My choice was solidified after listening to Ben's podcast when they mentioned how much Wade improved defensively.

9. 2016/17 Kawhi Leonard (HM: 2018/19 Kawhi Leonard, 2015/16 Kawhi Leonard)

I struggle with Kawhi probably the most out of the players worth consideration at this point. From a skillset standpoint, I view his peak extremely high. He's one of the most reliable scorers ever and despite all the data showing mixed picture, I am 100% believer on Kawhi defense... as long as he cares to play defense. He's one of the strongest players ever at his position (maybe the only SF that could bang with prime LBJ physically), he had remarkably efficient handles, he's one of the best midrange scorers ever and even his 3P shot was absolutely elite. There are some weaknesses like his passing limitations or lack of quick first step, but he managed to work around these weaknesses and they didn't bother him at all.

Kawhi has also been remarkably good postseason performer and it's such a shame that he didn't end his 2017 run healthy (even though I'd bet on the Spurs losing at most in 5 games against the Warriors).

I wanted to push him even higher, but a lot of excellent arguments provided in this thread (relatively underwhelming ON/OFF numbers, lack of influence on his teammates performance etc.) made me realize that even 9th spot can overrate him a little bit. I also didn't have enough time to rewatch some 2017 Spurs games recently, but even though I remember his defense taking a dip from the season before, his actual defensive abilities in the postseason were still there before all the injuries. That's also why I just can't consider anything post 2017, he just wasn't the same defensively. To beat the great PGs and SGs here, Kawhi needs a substantial defensive edge and I am not sure to what degree he still possessed that in Toronto.

10. 2024/25 Shai Gilgeous-Alexander

I will be short here - I couldn't decide between him and Kobe next, but I just went with someone who had significantly better RS because Kobe doesn't have any advantage that is anywhere near as robust as that. I also have doubts if Kobe's skillset is truly that much more impressive and scalable, considering that Shai didn't really play with top tier offensive talent last season (especially in the playoffs).

It's not worth that much, but I also think that Shai is quite clearly better defensively than late 2000s Kobe.

I also considered Chris Paul, but his PS injuries gave me a pause. I also thought about Nash, but his defense is very problematic.

[70sFan]

Man, with all this talk about stacking up talent and raising the ceiling of the top tier teams, I can't wait to see everyone voting for Moses Malone inside top 10 in the next era. It would be a pretty obvious choice, right...?

West, and Baylor will all end up in the Top 20 in the 25-year block after that, and they all played together in their prime.

They sure didn't.

Which one wasn’t in their prime in 1969? They were all nearing the end of their prime, but all three of them either finished top 5 in MVP voting that year or finished top 3 in MVP voting in a subsequent year (not to mention that Wilt won MVP the year before and Baylor had been 3rd).

I don't think you can make any credible case that Baylor was in his prime in 1969. He wasn't close to his best after 1965 injury, had a little nice comeback season in 1968 in West's absence, but then showed absolutely nothing in 1969 suggesting he was truly a top 5 player.

Wilt's production decline is mostly because of off-court issues and adjustment problems, but Baylor wasn't a top 5 player since 1964.

[iggymcfrack]

You really wouldn't consider a Curry + Klay + Iggy + Giannis + Green team in contention for the best in history? Really?

Yeah, this seems wild to me. The Warriors were already being talked about as possibly the best team of all-time before KD even joined. Remember when they won the title and then started the next season 24-0? You could have added Al Horford to the Warriors the summer of 2016 and they probably become the best team of all-time. They were an incredibly loaded team and KD's iso-ball wasn't exactly a hand in glove fit.

Adding Horford doesn’t force you to scrap Kerr’s offense. Horford’s intelligence and shooting would be a boon to the offense, and he would also help their defense.

Re: KD iso-ball. Eh, KD has never been an iso guy as I see him. He’s a scorer first and foremost, but he’s not someone you look clear out for and let him cook like Giannis. Yeah he drives when the opportunity opens up enough, but he’s mostly looking to just rise up and shoot.

Meanwhile, the threat of KD in the half court had everything to do with why the Warriors were so bullet proof in the playoffs in a way they weren’t the prior year. If the defense wanted to sell out completely to stop Kerr’s motion offense, KD was perfectly suited to take advantage as a more traditional volume scoring mid range guy.

Finally I’ll just say:

Many super-teams have tried to combine star talents to make the greatest team in history, but only one did. I’m quite hesitant to assume that the guy they added which helped them achieve this can be replaced and improved by either

A) another star talent who is a worse fit

B) a role player who can’t be your go-to scorer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The prior year, Curry was banged up the entire playoffs and struggled against the Cavs’ physical defense. If he was at 100%, people probably do argue the 2016 Warriors as the greatest team of all team even with Harrison Barnes in the KD role.

In 2017, there was one team that could actually compete with the Warriors and they were up 25 points on them in Game 1 when Kawhi got hurt. How much of the Warriors looking more bulletproof in the playoffs the next seasons was due to Zaza taking out their only competition? Are we sure it’s because of KD who they went 16-4 without in the regular season and 2-0 without in the playoffs with a margin of victory of +17.5 per game? KD who in the playoffs where he’s supposed to be more important had an on/off of +6 while Steph was +21 and Draymond was +19?

In 2018, they certainly didn’t look bulletproof. They were down 3-2 in the conference finals when they again benefited from their toughest competition suffering a key injury. If Chris Paul could have held out and won one more game the ‘18 Warriors are remembered as weaker than the ‘15 or ‘16 teams.

In 2019, the Warriors start out 6-4 in the playoffs against relatively weak competition before KD suffers an injury. Without his shooting to make them bulletproof the Warriors proceed to peel off 6 wins in a row before reaching the Finals where they find that for the first time since 2016, their toughest competition is healthy and the Raptors proceed to win a competitive series in 6. The Raptors were an incredible team at 100% and I think it’s a mistake to assume the Warriors would have won the series with KD playing.

Over the course of KD’s entire tenure in Golden State, in the regular season the Warriors went 27-4 (.871) when Steph played with KD and 131-37 (.780) when they played together. In the playoffs, when KD played, they went 2-3 against elite competition (2018 Rockets with Paul) and 35-7 against more pedestrian competition. When KD was injured, the Warriors went 2-4 against elite competition (2019 Raptors) and 7-0 against more pedestrian competition.

I’m just super not sold on KD’s impact as a ceiling raiser. It seems like he did a very poor job of making the Warriors better relative to his talent level and standing in the league. I’ve often used the analogy in the past that KD made the Warriors the best team of all-time the way Rodman made the Bulls the best team of all-time, but the difference is I’m much, much more confident in Rodman’s impact. I can’t imagine we’re going to be discussing 1996 Rodman as one of the top 10 peaks potentially from 1976-2000. Imagine Robert Covington in KD’s place from 2017-2019. Do the Warriors do better or worse?

Like if your statement is just “well KD managed to perform the Harrison Barnes role adequately on the Warriors and Giannis might have done even worse”, that’s a statement I guess, but it’s more a reason to not vote for either player than it is any kind of credit to KD.